myself Eva are we ready do you think okay all right thank you um we'll go ahead and call to order our study session first item on the agenda is dr2367 Homewood Suites and Sal you're up all right good evening chair and Commissioners how you doing tonight the first item we have for you tonight is Dr 23-67 Homewood Suites the subject site is approximately 2.7 acres and located within an existing Master site plan in zone business park at the southeast corner of Val Vista and Mercy Road the subject site is adjacent to existing medical office to the east vacant BP zoning District to the South and future commercial uses to the West the site is located within the Val Vista Medical growth area and vertical development overlay District area 5. the subject site is located within the northeasternmost parcel within the Mercy Center Master site plan in the proposed subject site will provide access to the neighboring shops to the West in the future pad located to the South three Acts three access points will also be provided on the site to allow for circulation amongst all the neighboring parcels as previously mentioned the subject site is 2.7 Acres within an existing Master site plan the applicant has proposed a five-story 130 guest room Hotel under the Homewood Suites brand which is approximately 94 474 square feet the building is centrally located with parking areas surrounding the hotel designed to maximize parking access to the building the site design follows the original plans portrayed on the approved development plan for the Mercy Center pad due to the building's height and location but refinements have been made to circulation in building footprint the parking spaces north of the structure will now show a north-south orientation due to the new parking layout to drive Isles north of the hotel will be developed in an East-West orientation all other dry vials and parking areas remain in substantial conformance with the previously approved development plan for the business park zoning District a site is required to have 15 net landscaping and with the proposed landscape plan the applicant is showing 23 percent of the site to be landscaped Landscaping will be evenly distributed along all property lines within parking areas and around the foundation of the building the proposed landscape species are consistent with the neighboring developments to the north and east as well the proposed material palette provided is compiled of ephis Stucco masonry block composite wood slats in the proposed color palette is consistent with developments already existing within the Mercy Medical growth area by utilizing the desert tones shown on the screen here the elevations for the Homewood Suites relies primarily on a stucco finish wall system with accent materials such as ifus thin brick and composite wood slats the color palette proposed relies heavily on the desert themed tones which are complementary to the neighboring structures within the Val Vista Medical growth area the thin brick material will be used as an accent material throughout the base of the building while the wood posit will be placed on the corners of the structure the accents are heavily concentrated around public-facing areas of the hotel including the patio and entry Porter kosher which creates a clear sign of entry for the hotel users here we have another look at the elevations on the South and West sides which will face Val Vista Drive in the future path to the South here you can see the utilization of massing elements such as recessed walls color change from material change and varying roof lines to help reduce the scale of the building while also complementing the growth area and here we just have some renderings just giving a better perspective of some of those architectural features found on the hotel and with that staff is just seeking General feedback for the proposed Hotel here as it is you know a pretty large structure in one of our growth areas we just wanted to ensure commission had their eyes on it before we move forward all right I think so thank you anybody have any comments or questions for Sal who would like to start commissioner Davis oh no that's good thank you hi Sal um mine's really quick on the the louvered vents for the hotel especially where you've got the ws-1 that the the siding material can you make sure that that those vents are painted out to match the wall color it looked like maybe they're not on that part portion of it and I think we don't want those to stand out and that's all I had it's a nice project awesome thank you so much commissioner Davis all right thank you Christian Bianchi thank you chairman so Sal just a really quick question on the height so the 70 foot height is that covered under the vertical development overlay in this area design review that's what I thought okay and then the other one is did staff have any concerns with the 300 foot uh front setback I mean was there any preference to kind of move it closer to Mercy Road or does it kind of serve with the drainage and the setback from the height better to be served further setback I guess is my question yeah uh commissioner Bianchi uh chair Simon uh staff really hasn't had any major concerns regarding that 300 foot uh setback uh the previously approved development plan does show the previous medical office in the roughly the same general area on site closer to that southern boundary so when we came in with the uh the hotel we tried to keep a lot of these circulation patterns that are consistent with the previous development to try and keep some of that substantial conformance okay yeah I didn't have any problems with I was just curious if it came up in discussions but I think other than that I think it's a good mix of colors and textures and like you had pointed out I like the variation along the roof line so thank you so thank you all right thank you anybody else no commissioner Blazer no I just want to make sure you get on the record tonight thank you I think it's a great project looks good thank you all right thank you commissioner Commission thank you chairman I just want to say I agree with commissioner Blazer all right um thank you Sal I don't have any issues with this at all I I think it looks like a great project so so much appreciate it all thank you thank you maybe we should ask a few more questions uh with that let's go ahead and discuss our regular meeting agenda um tonight we have on the consent agenda we've got uh Dr 22-129 District at Coulee station Dr 23-37 Aldi Gilbert multi-family Dr 23-16 Whataburger s2302 Emerald Acres br23-32 Elliott Commerce Park and S 21-02 happy Road Estates is for any reason any of those need to come off of consent all right not seeing any we'll we'll maintain those I would like to throw it out to the commission to move z2303 Gilbert Santan onto consent and consider up 22-39 the self storage facility in dr-22-104 self storage facility to consent unless there's any objections to that or we have any Community here would like to speak on that I would concur with that chairman all right so we'll go ahead and move item where am I will move item number six wait sorry I got Pages all over here Pages number 12 13 and 14 will move to the consent and then on the non leaving on the non-consent we'll have item 15 and 16. uh 15 is Dr 23-143 minute Express Car Wash and uh D oh excuse me 14 along with that Dr 22-104 self storage facility and then so 15 and then 16 Dr 23-26 Baseline commercial and then uh 17 and 18 which are GP 2211 belostora Astoria and then Z 2210 Bella Astoria so we'll have all those on the non-consent for that we'll go ahead and break six o'clock we'll come back for our regular meeting we'll adjourn foreign foreign all right Eva are we ready um as soon as Ashley returns to the monitor we can begin we always waiting on Ashley I will tell you what foreign we can begin Veronica will take over oh awesome okay um so we will go ahead and call our regular meeting uh to order and the first item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance so if you would all rise if able all right can I get a roll call please commissioner Gage present commissioner Davis here commissioner Faye president commissioner Blazer here commissioner Bianchi here Vice chairman Munn here chairman Simon here we have a quorum thank you all right um with that we'll move into the approval of the agenda and since we went on break we discussed moving item 12 to the consent agenda but we do have a couple of community members who would like to speak on that so we'll keep that on non-consent so I will look to Chairman if I may we also have somebody that arrived that would like to hear item 11. item 11. okay so we'll move item 11 down to non-consent so we will have uh item six seven eight nine 10 13 and 14 on consent items 11 12 15 16 17 and 18 on non-consent and chairman I just received a last minute request item six to non-consent as well okay item six we will move to non-consent so on the consent I have 7 8 9 10. 13 and 14 and non-consent I have 6 11 12. 15 16 17 and 18. yes thank you anybody else all right I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda I'd like to ask for clarification do I have to read all of those again the actual case numbers to make my motion no I believe it is in the record I think we're good thank you I will move that we accept the agenda as thusly spoken all right I have a motion to approve by the Vice chair to have a second I'll second I have a second by commissioner Gage please cast your vote aye oh buttons please all right motion carry 7-0 with that we will move into our agenda so the sorry I'm looking all over here from God consent okay so we're going to move into the um Communications from citizens at this time members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the town but not on the agenda the commission response is limited to responding to criticism asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that a matter be put on a future agenda item do we have any Communications from citizens at this time not hearing any we will move on to the report from Council uh commission councilman Anderson I don't have anything in particular Mr chairman unless you want to do the presentation now or later um for commissioner hold that for later okay if you're okay with that yep all right perfect all right we will move on to public hearing all items listed below or considered public hearing consent calendar the commission made by a single motion approve any number of these items we're after opening the public hearing no person requests the item be removed from the consent calendar if such a request is made the commission shell then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate motion or action other items in the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda items number 7 8 9 10 13 and 14. chairman I'd like to move to approve the consent agenda consisting of item 789 10 13 and 14 please thank you have a motion by the Vice chair to have a second second I have a second by commissioner Faye please cast your vote and that motion carries 7-0 we will move on to our non-consent public non-consent agenda items non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by separate motion during the public hearings anyone wishing to comment in support of or an opposition of 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 the member of the commission we'll go to item number six Keith we've got Dr 22-129 District at Coulee station you are up sir chair Simon members of the commission good evening so this project before you tonight the district at Coulee station I had asked that this one be polled from the consent agenda so that I could inform you of a few Corrections that needed to be made to the staff report otherwise I'm prepared to give a full presentation if you want it but um if not I can just show you those Corrections minor corrections to the staff report but it's up to you however you want me to approach it unless anybody wants a full presentation I'm okay with the Amendments Now Keith we were prepared to leave this on consent before you pull up so I think I think so okay so I will just show you the the corrections then if that's okay yes please okay so um it's at the very back so the corrections that were needed to to the staff report is very simple very simple one of them is to like these are very minor you're probably going to laugh um so the first one is the word November we wanted to strike that from the condition it was September 13th which is today's date and then the last one was modifying the table the site development regulations table the height of the buildings is actually 46 feet instead of 44. we had just we had just um measured mismeasured and we just wanted to make sure that that was in the table instead of 44 feet so that is basically it I told you they were simple and you'd probably laugh so I just wanted to make you aware of these modified uh items in the staff report all right thank you Keith anybody have questions or comments for Keith on this yeah commission I'd just like to point out Keith that you are correct that is very funny [Laughter] so Keith I've I've been in roughly this position before and if you bring it up and nobody cares you seem like a drama queen if you if you don't bring it up and someone cares you seem dishonest so I've taken I'd rather be considered melodramatic than dishonest so I would have cut it I do agree with commissioner Montes can you hear the the grinding that's my eyes rolling yes again but but I I would have done it the same way you did all right sounds great thank you thank you and I'm assuming with those comments we don't need to hear from the applicant no and do we have any public that wish to speak on this all right so I'll go ahead and close the public hearing thank you Keith you're welcome to public hearing bring it back up to the dice and we are open for discussion and or a motion if there is one chairman not seeing any discussion I would like to move that we approve item Dr 22-129 District at Coulee station I have a motion by the Vice chair do I have a second I'll second it I have a second by commissioner Blazer please cast your vote and that motion carries 6-0 thank you Keith for bringing that to our attention 7-0 what did I say I can't count that's okay I was looking at the number six when I read seven so all right we'll move to item number 11. uh s21-02 Happy Road Estates and Veronica good evening Mr chairman Commissioners Veronica Gonzalez principal planner here to present the preliminary plot request for happy Road Estates case number s21-02 the property is located south of the southeast corner of Higley Road and San Tan Boulevard and it is currently zoned single family 15 or sf-15 the properties adjacent to the site are either vacant or have existing single-family homes on them and are also zoned sf-15 the request before you tonight is approval of a preliminary plot and open space plan for a six lot subdivision to be known as happy Road Estates on approximately 3.87 Acres the pre-plat proposes to divide the property into six single-family Lots plus four tracks with an internal private Street Network the property is zoned sfsf 15 and all Lots meet the minimum requirements of that zoning District included with the preliminary plot request is the landscape and open space plan the plan includes centrally located retention Basin that doubles as an amenity area and included in the amenities is a horseshoe pit clustered seating and Landscaping the development includes an eight-foot themed wall to be constructed along the Higley Road Frontage this wall will be stucco finished block with brick veneer columns and then there will also be entry signage provided that incorporates the same materials as the theme wall with raised steel letters staff recommends approval of the findings of fat and of s21-02 happy Road Estates I'm subject to the conditions listed in staff report that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have all right thank you Veronica any uh questions or comments Veronica at this time no all right do we need to hear a presentation from the developer or does the developer have anything they'd like to add all right and I don't have any common cards for community members so with that we'll go ahead and close public hearing on this bring it up to the dice for uh any comments conversation or emotion if there is one Veronica dude why did we point I was just curious why it was pulling I thought maybe we had people we had a member of the public who wanted it pulled to be heard oh okay thanks okay well heard it was uh I'd like to move to approve item number s21-02 happy Road Estates all right I have a motion to approve by the Vice chair to have a second I'll second it I have a second by commission for laser please cast your vote and that motion carries 7-0 thank you thank you all right we will move on to item number 12 z23-03 Gilbert Santan um Nicole I think you're on this one thank you chair members of the commission Nicole Russell senior planner the application before you this evening is being reheard due to a property posting error this is z2303 for Gilbert Santan the vicinity map showing where the subject properties are located to the north of the subject property is an developed and undeveloped argue 43 County zoning to the east there is also ru-43 zoning as well as single family 35 developed single-family homes to the South there is residential which is a mixture of single family 15 and ru-43 and to the West there is single family 15 Gilbert zoning the request is to rezone approximately 30.6 Acres from single family 15 to single family 15 with a planned area development overlay zoning district for to modify the lot coverage setbacks and Building height here is the nice pretty picture of the final plat that was approved last month by the Town Council the pad overlay is for reduced Building height reduced front setback reduced side setbacks and increased lock coverage according to the applicant the proposed single story height limitation will present a development that provides a housing product that maintains unique features while also conforming with the general characteristics of the established in the Santan character area of Gilbert restricting homes to a single story with modified setbacks is a creative alternative to a zoning District that allows two-story homes as a matter of Rights the proposed modified front and side setbacks are requested to accommodate the single-story homes the reduced setbacks will in essence allow for more building options such as alternative home layouts which include a side entry garage and multi-generational units with larger building Footprints there will not be any change to the rear yard setbacks of 30 feet the increase in lot coverage would allow for a creative home footprint as previously mentioned which is comparable to the existing built environment while ensuring the overall building square footage is similar to the surrounding area here is the development plan showing what the lot Dimensions that are currently in place and what is proposed with a 10-foot side setback as well as a 15 to 20 25 foot front setback to accommodate the different uh designs in that subdivision the applicant had a neighborhood meeting in November which originally had proposed two-story homes and some of the comments from that meeting came with concerns about the two stories homes which the applicant changed the request and the placent of the secondary access gate on 172nd Street staff has received a petition of support from eight Property Owners along 170th Street staff requests which recommend approval to the Town Council for z2303 Gilbert Santan planned area development this concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions all right thank you Nicole anybody have any questions or comments for Nicole on this no no I just want to make sure that I understand correctly Nicole this this is a self-imposed single single story on on these all the properties cheers Simon yes that is correct okay all right um thank you Nicole I'd like to hear um anything from the developer if you have anything to add if you can push the button on there thank you it'll turn red when it's on right no ah there you go thank you I've done it once before you think I'd do it right this time I apologies for your record my name is Rhys Sanderson my address is 1744 South Val Vista number 217 and it's a pleasure to be with you again we were here last month there was all of our notice letters were correct there was just a small typo on the sign that read eight three instead of A2 and because of that we notif when we were alerted by a neighbor we then notified the staff and here we are again to rectify what was completely innocent and inadverted mistake there were no concerns at that time but I know that some of our neighbors are here to speak about this case so let me tell you what it is and what it's not this is as the chair phrased a self-imposed restriction of single story with an increase in law coverage so that we better fit in with a neighborhood around us and that was brought up during the preliminary plant phase where this commission some of you were there approved that back in 22. So with this project today as it sits there are a recorded final plot that was actually recorded today there are approved civil plans for this project including both entrances onto Santan and 172nd Street so the issue before you is not Gates it's not Transportation it's not streets it really is simply this is our do single-story homes fit better in this neighborhood or not I have a presentation with a lot of slides but let me just tell you that we did a survey of the square mile and of the 489 homes in the square mile 14 or two story that we found so 2.8 percent our neighbors that are most affected by this or what are directly to the west and every one of them has signed a petition of support you have those materials I'd like to reserve the rest of my time Mr chairman to answer any questions that may be brought up by any of our friends that are here this evening I appreciate that thank you thank you all right so I've got a couple comment cards here uh we will start with wadet Allen you wish to speak my name is Odette Allen and I appreciate you giving us this time to speak um I would you join me to give you my address as well yes please okay 3621 East Sunnydale Drive so the issue is is the gate that they are proposing on 172nd Street um I've lived there since 2009 and I can tell you that it's a safety concern because as of right now without the gate people are racing up and down that street like it's a race track and if that gate is put there as an entrance and exit gate there's just going to be more traffic coming in from an Highway and I know they're going to be expanding Hunt Highway so that's even going to be worse so my complaint is it's a safety issue as well as people coming in from San Tan Boulevard onto 174th and then they make a right onto Flintlock which will go straight into that gate so it we don't have street lights in our in breckenwood Estates so that's an issue when you come like if you come at night from you know Santan Boulevard and you're making a right you know you're make a right from 174th onto Flintlock it's very very dark in fact you have to make a very wide turn in case somebody's walking you know their dog or many times people are you know walking their chill you know they have their children in strollers or and you know wagons and it's it's just not it's not safe because there's going to be even more traffic coming in from San Tan Boulevard you know coming in from 174th right down Flintlock so I'm telling you from experience I've lived there since 2009 like I said there's already enough traffic and it's just going to get worse so I do worry about our children I worry about our pets and it that neighborhood is not made for that coming down Flintlock or 172nd so that's all I have to say thank you thank you um I have Blake Allen um and you wish to speak as well and go ahead and please state your name and your address as well uh Blake Allen 3621 East Sunnydale Drive Gilbert Arizona um also I'm obviously wadette's husband obviously I know we just the residents have gotten together we've had a couple of meetings with both Reese and the developer had about maybe 50 people show up but it seems like no one is listening to anybody that lives on 172nd Flintlock or Sunnydale which is the adjacent neighborhood copper Bend Community are you familiar with that that's at the other end of 170th Street that also was originally supposed to have an entrance or exit onto 172nd Street however 172nd Street is a one and a half Lane no sidewalk no street light country road that was annexed into the town of Gilbert the town of Gilbert has given it no consideration or money to make it more safe and so at that time residents got together and it was decided that the developer decided they would just make that a crash gate right you know what that is I learned what that is okay on into the development so that is all we're requesting for the Bella floor development other than that we love that it's one story homes we love that they're developing it it's going to look a whole lot better than the way it's looked so this is really kind of a not exactly a request but we've had the traffic department we have Clinton Emery over to our houses to look at everything it as a matter of fact he was out with one of my neighbors and I walk in the street he almost got ran over so there's some problems on that street and it will be a liability for the town of Gilbert so uh we have six school bus stops on that street a day and it is a dead end street by the way and our neighborhood is going to be smaller than Reese's neighborhood and there's going to be a lot more cars coming down our street making it even less safe if this is approved so we have no problem with the crash gate we have no problem with uh and perhaps an exit gate only but we would prefer if it was just a development with their General gate onto Santan road the main road and not on to a dead end one and a half Lane wide country road where we got kids riding their bicycles equestrians just had a horse running through there the other day and kids and parents parked in the middle of the street dropping off their kids for the bus stop so it if you went out there and took a look at that street you would say this street cannot handle any more traffic safely okay thank you all right thank you those are all the common cards I have from public unless there's any others out there actually I don't think we have any more um Mr Anderson you'd like to come back up thank you Mr chairman and thanks to wadette and Blake who I have met with several times have enjoyed our interactions um let me go back to the refrain that I started with or what this is and what it's not this is a project that has a reproved recorded final plaque it has approved civil plans so let me just play this out just so to be blunt but hopefully polite let's assume that you make a recommendation to the Council of no we think this is a bad idea and the council agrees with you and votes against this proposal there's still a recorded plot with approved civil plans that show a gate that gate was thoroughly reviewed and explored and analyzed by not only your town engineers and transportation but by ours Mr chairman I can go into a detailed traffic analysis as to why this is not an issue if you'd like to be educated about it but that's just not the issue that's in front of the commission this evening this project against is the posture of this project is that it's in in front of you requesting single story homes with an increased lot coverage the rest of it is done the the I guess if I were in a courtroom setting I would say that question has been asked and answered and resolved but I defer to you Mr chairman members of the commission if you'd like me to walk you through the traffic analysis right I'm okay with it yeah did anybody like to hear that can I ask you a question or two yeah yeah Mr if I understand correctly to the the gate or the the you've got the entrance on Santan up in the north yep and then you've got an entrance on Brigadier Flintlock kind of that alignment commissioner face it's at the flintlock alignment Flintlock alignment okay and there's a gate not a crash gate that's that's correct and that's and the the ask or what the the public are asking for is that it be turned into a crash gate that's right okay no oh and and if I here the increased traffic we're talking about is the increased traffic generated by the 40 odd Parcels right yes okay and and if you'd like I can give you the numbers in probably 30 seconds all right would you like them no I've already got them okay okay I'm gonna and Ashley this might be you but I'm gonna ask a question and just hang on for a second how come we're not having this development do a tap straight Improvement on 172nd I mean I can answer that if you'd like go ahead yeah so the the answer is we're doing half Street improvements on the southern half of 172nd on the northern half that property is still in the county and the council approved I believe on August 15th an off-site deferral agreement where we paid a cash in lieu payment for that northern half okay so you are essentially doing this a long answer to say yes okay that that answers all of my questions sir all right thank you uh anybody else no okay um I think my questions were answered I had the exact same question with regards to the the street development so um unless there's any other anything from staff Nicole you have anything else no all right we'll go ahead and close public hearing on this bring it back up to the dice for discussion um we already gave you your time to speak so I mean technically usually we don't go back and forth with public so we give you all right I'll give you a quick minute I don't want to set a precedence for this though and please state your name again um yes as far as his analysis goes Miss Allen I'm sorry please state your name oh we're dead Allen and my address is 3621 East Sunnydale Drive in Gilbert okay so I've heard a lot about analysis and this research and everything well this has to do with safety that's more important than numbers and all that other stuff okay it has to do with safety of our kids of our pets that's the most important thing okay so I'm gonna I'm gonna okay cut you off right there I apolog you said that already so I appreciate you coming out thank you voicing your concerns thank you all right we'll go ahead and close the public hearing bring it back up to the dice and I'll entertain any comments or conversation or emotion foreign I would just like possibly for a point of discussion for an advice here somebody to possibly explain to me what exactly a crash gate would do on this information yeah a crash gate doesn't open and close basically think of it as one that doesn't open and close it's basically there so a fire truck can Ram it but it means that people won't be using this as an entrance and exit most of the time that that would be the objection and and with that being said wouldn't it stand a reason that if you had that and people were not actually able to get in and out that you very well could create a backup much more often than if it actually opened to let people in I don't know I'm just to me it seems as though if you have a gate that doesn't open and somebody's pulling in and then having to back out because they can't actually get in that would create more of a danger but that's just my opinion so all right anybody else so yeah I know a couple I thought yeah usually we're trying to I imagine staff is is doing as part of the strong arm negotiation is trying to get developers to put in Gates and not put in Crash Gates so this one I think the developer is already doing a little bit more from a community-wide standpoint additionally I cut Mr Anderson off but the traffic generated by 40 households is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 trips a day I mean in the realm of adts I would imagine Gilbert Road is somewhere in the neighborhood of 26 000 adts a day this is a drop in the bucket and most of it I imagine is coming out their main gate so in terms of numbers this is we are not talking about a lot in the way of traffic here so when I didn't mean to cut you off but the numbers are going to be for 40 houses is going to be very small so all right anybody has any comments yeah um thank you chair um I just want to Echo what commissioner face had in experience 42 Lots isn't going to generate a lot of traffic people don't come and go all at the same time so there's not going to be a rush of that just practically I think they'll really use the northern entrance versus that other one they you know once in a while those people that live in the Southeast portion of the neighborhood might use it but I generally don't think it's going to have the impact that you might think it will have so I think it will be fairly benign and blend in right I I would I would tend to agree I mean I I think that from uh from a traffic perspective I definitely understand um where Miss Allen is coming from with regards to safety I I definitely want to give that Credence and I agree with you that there's always increased traffic increased opportunity for incidents to happen the developer is developing the south portion of 172nd Street the town it sounds like has a plan for the north section of 172nd Street in the event that it's either annexed the um I think it's the east side of that property or eventual conversation with Maricopa County to increase it it does look like there is um some other development with regards to a walkway or pathway there so I as much as I understand where Community is coming from I think that with regards to this particular development I just don't see there being that much additional traffic um so I I mean I I don't have an issue with this at all so unless there's any other further discussion I would go ahead and entertain a motion either direction uh yeah commissioner Gage thank you chair so I just want to make sure that I'm understanding we're having this whole conversation because there was one letter wrong on the site posting we approved this last month that's correct no it's not one number it was pulled last month okay thank you anybody else Vice chair thank you chairman um with that all being said I'd like to make a motion to approve item number z23-03 Gilbert Santan all right I have a motion to approve by the Vice chair do I have a second all second the second by commissioner Gage please cast your vote I think we need to recast it closed too early go ahead and recast please and that motion carries 7-0 thank you for coming out all right we'll move on to item 15. Dr 23-41 the three-minute Express Car Wash are we looking at these two separate because I think it's one case no 15 and 16 my off I'm probably off 15. sorry yeah it's just the design review yeah all right uh good evening everyone chair and commission the project I have for you tonight is a design review for the three minute Express Car Wash the project is located at the southwest corner of Gilbert and Guadalupe roads you can see it outlined here in red the existing drive-through on the site will be demolished and the car wash will be built in its place the site is Zone shopping center and is part of a master site plan it will consist of a 4 310 square foot automated car wash structure with 17 covered vacuum base the drive-through entry is at the West boundary of the site and includes three pay stations each pay station includes roughly five stacking spaces the car wash structure is entered from the East and includes an exit like a bailout exit prior to entering the car wash building once Vehicles exit the car wash they can choose to either access the vacuum Bays to the right or they can just leave the site altogether yesterday it was brought to my attention that all of the parking spaces seen on the site plan are vacuum spaces and there are no designated employee parking spaces that are being shown historically we've not allowed the vacuum base to count towards the required two parking spaces for automated car washes so with that staff would like to add a condition for the applicant to revise the site plan and convert two vacuum Bays into employee parking spaces by removing the vacuums prior to permitting the applicant sent me this proposed site plan this morning showing two parking spaces outlined in green that they would like to convert to the employee spaces they're proposing to leave the spaces covered but will remove the vacuums and put up signage specifying that this is staff parking only the Landscaping along Gilbert Road is being extended in depth to 25 feet to meet current Land Development code standards the existing screen wall on the site will be relocated beyond the 25 foot setback so it's not in the landscape setback the applicant is proposing to keep many of the existing trees and will also be adding additional Landscaping including olive trees elm trees Mexican bird of paradise Oleander Lantana and a few other species right here are the elevations the building varies in height from 17 feet at the lower parapet to about 32 foot 3 inches to the top of the tower it consists primarily of neutral colored stucco with stone accents around the base and also has column elements on the longest elevations the tower includes a diamond score pattern to provide some visual interest and there are also a number of dark Brands dark bronze metal canopies along the elevations as well the colors and materials are compatible with all of the other buildings in the center right here is the floor plan there is public restroom staff restroom two offices the car wash tunnel and an equipment room all right and then this here as mentioned earlier is the condition that we would like to add tonight um that condition reads prior to approval of any construction permits applicants shall revise site plan to convert two vacuum Bays into two employee parking spaces by removing the vacuums and with that staffer commands approval of Dr 2341 the three-minute Express Car Wash subject to the conditions mentioned available for any questions if you have them right yep commissioner Gage thank you chair is it possible to have those two play parking spaces next to each other instead of on opposite sides and opposite ends doesn't it make sense that they would be together so chair Simon commissioner Gage that's definitely something we can explore this is just I mentioned it to them yesterday that we needed the two required spaces and this is what they came back with as their proposal so if you would like them relocated we can explore that and maybe just approve it administratively okay I think it just makes more sense to have them together especially if you're going to put signage up it's kind of confusing but okay that's fine thank you any other questions comments no um and this isn't to be anti uh ports commissioner Gage but I would almost argue that because the one on the top right is a singular one that in fact putting that that completely alone would erase any confusion and then putting it on the far side so I I understand what I would just wanted to point out that I actually think it makes sense thank you I did think of that but then it it was weird where you would put a vacuum in that single space anyways right so I don't know what I'm fine either way he makes a fair point so right any other questions or comments um not seeing any with the applicant like to come up is there anything that African like to add are we good there we go uh my name is James Dam the architect I just I would answer any questions you might have I would just say regarding the parking it could be almost any place but when we talked this morning I looked at it the single off there in the Northeast is like an expensive way to run vacuum lines too it just it didn't make sense so and it's only there because we needed the parking and we had to line driveways to the north so either way all right fair enough any questions for the applicant commissioner not exactly a question but I would take a you've heard two people talk about where the parking should be I'll take a third position that uh I don't think we should care it's your business put them wherever you want to as long as there's two great all right anybody else commission Bianchi thank you chairman my general curiosity whenever I see these car washes is and I kind of post it to staff but it's probably more appropriate for you when you're laying these out why do we have the noisy I would assume the noisiest end is where the dryers and the blowers are as they come out why do we orientate it oh how come we're not orientating that back towards Gilbert Road in traffic and we're orientated that noisy side to the adjacent uses and the residential over there it's kind of the ugly end towards the street so in this depending on the site and a lot in this case we don't really have residential areas next to it yeah but a lot of times I'll have residences next or close by and I'm being more you know concerned about them than I am whatever but in this case it was more or less it's it's facing the road it would be sort of the ugly end and so it's an Aesthetics issue yeah I know and some of them I know they've they extend the the building out a little bit and kind of damper the noise with the walls or put retaining walls in but that's always curious when I look at these site layouts so okay so it's from an aesthetic point do we know to roughly what that noise level is at that exit point I don't think it's probably going to be an impact to any of the adjacent users but that's always a consideration when I see car washes going in yeah I mean the noisiest and is is that west end of this building but it dissipates fairly quickly as you get into the parking lot and that was the other thing is that mostly it's just parking there so you know it'll probably the westmost buildings it'll it'll be insignificant really now if you're parked on that east end of that parking lot from where I guess Albertsons was at one time it was just it'll be it'll be noisy yeah I I know it's Zone commercial but one of the things we tried to do is to uh turn the exit North onto the site with the idea that we could do a sound control while there but there were some comments that we received from planning and um it just it didn't work out okay so okay thank you anybody else no all right thank you I don't have any uh comment cards from community members so we will close the public hearing at this time bring it back up to the dice for discussion or emotion seeing no discussion chairman I would move that we approve item Dr 23-41 three-minute Express Car Wash contingent upon the stipulations discussed and Credence given to my opinion of the okay that part we can strike I'm kidding all right we have a motion to approve by the Vice chair including the uh Amendment and I'm sorry my mind just went blank on the words I have motion approved I'll second that I have a second by uh commissioner Blazer please cast your vote and that motion carries 7-0 all right moving on uh item 16 we've got Dr 23-26 Baseline commercial and Sal you are up all right hello again chairman and Commissioners the project will be taking a look at next is Dr 23-26 Baseline commercial the subject site outlined in blue is an approximately 2.8 acre parcel located within the overall 11.82 acre Joe Porter planned area development which is located at the southwest corner of Lindsay in Baseline roads the parcel is owned General commercial with the planned area development and all proposed uses are permitted within the GC zoning district and meet the intention of the Joe Porter pad the proposed Master site plan provides three paths for commercial use including a drive-through restaurant a Express Oil Change facility and one proposed retail building along the west property line all proposed buildings are designed in the north-south orientation focusing The prominent elevations towards Baseline Road access to the site is provided from two access points off of Baseline Road one access point is already constructed in the northeast corner of the site and one access point is proposed to be centralized on site roughly 207 feet away from the existing access point the existing access point in the northwest corner of the site will still be maintained as it is utilized for a sore lift station access only parking on site will be located along both North and South property lines as well as centralized parking near all proposed pad sites as for screening and eight foot perimeter split face CMU wall will be utilized along the southern property line to mitigate any potential visibilities into the neighboring neighboring residential uses during last month's study session Planning Commission provided a few site plan comments the first comment that was provided was the potential relocation of the access point along Baseline Road the provided access point has been approved by city of Mesa as the Baseline Road is within their jurisdiction the plan for that access point was to have it centrally located on site as well as providing alignment with the existing commercial on the north side of Baseline Road the other comment provided by Planning Commission was the potential shift in the Interior Drive aisle to mitigate any potential circulation issues planning staff and the applicant looked at other options but ultimately determined that the current location was best suited given the city of mesa's approval of Baseline access and site spacing as for processing a future Amendment will need to be submitted to town staff for review as we are working through some distancing issues with the oil facility roll-up doors in the neighboring residential to the South an updated condition will be presented to you all tonight reflecting this as for landscaping the site provides 35 landscape coverage which exceeds the minimum requirement of 15 in the zoning District the landscape plan proposes a varied plant pallet of drug tolerant trees and shrubs and one thing to mention um if you remember from our previous discussion along the western property line there is an existing SRP easement which does eliminate the side building setback but all landscape quantities will be met along that western boundary as we move on to elevations and colors and materials we have pad a here which is the proposed Express Oil Change facility that will be roughly 22 feet tall with flat roof lines and massing elements accent through variations of multiple colors and materials the main exterior wall material will be constructed of split face CMU in the gray color in the color palette is to be neutral gray with accent colors such as Walnut in real red the roll-up doors will be utilized on both the North and South elevations the northern roll-up doors provide transparency and will be accented with an aluminum system colored dark bronze and the roll-up doors located on the south are proposed to be solid which were specifically chosen by the applicant to mitigate any visual impacts to the neighboring residential and just to note that all mechanical equipment and Associated roof mounted equipment will be screened from public View as we move on to pad B which is our Andes Frozen Custard here the overall height is roughly 25 9 25 feet 9 inches to the tallest point and roughly 12 feet 8 inches to the top of the roof line the building utilizes the brand Standard Building design as seen throughout other Andy's Frozen custards in the valley including a small primary structure that is rectangular rectangular in shape and constructed of Acme Brick and acne Stone the Acme Brick will be colored russet and the Acme Stone will be unfinished utilizing the Block's natural color the large canopy and Architectural blade featured on the north side of the structure will feature accent colors such as bright white and real red and will be constructed of ephes and steel with aluminum accents and for the final pad on site is a proposed personal service use that is approximately 22 feet tall to the top of the parapit and also oriented in that north-south orientation the retail structure utilizes the modern architecture and shares many of the architectural features that are shown on pad a the main exterior wall material will be constructured of split face CMU with accent walls that are to be colored Colonnade gray and constructed of synthetic stucco and responding to some study session comments left math last month those accent walls or pilasters will in fact be bumped out 12 inches just to add some more visual interest along those longer facades regarding photometrics there are two lighting types proposed on site we have parking lot pole mounted lighting as well as building mounted lighting the parking lot lightings will be mounted at 25 feet in height and wall mounted lights will be proposed at 14 feet in height as previously mentioned staff has been working with the applicant to resolve the distancing between the oil facility roll-up doors and the neighboring residential so we're presenting this updated condition to the planet commission tonight which reads prior to the submittal of construction drawings for pad a the applicant shell cement revised plans that demonstrates compliance with the LDC section 5.2.11.8.3 should the applicant submit for and receive approval for administrative relief related to the service base roll-up door setback adjacent to residential the revised plan shall comply with that approval and with that staff's recommendation is to approve Dr 23-26 Baseline commercial subject to conditions of the staff report and as well to the condition presented to you all tonight and with that I can answer any questions you may have thank you so what is the um distance that we're working on right now and what's being I mean are they adjusting the buildings chair Simon they are so currently the issue is the roll-up doors are roughly 163 feet away from the residential uh it was a misinterpreted misinterpretation of code on my part it needs to be roughly or 200 feet away minimum and with that potential administrative relief it would be in that 180 foot range so they would just shift the building all the way on the East property line just a bit to the north okay all right thank you Sal thank you um anything the applicant would like to add at this point or foreign members of the Planning Commission just briefly I wanted to thank staff for their work on this case we've done maybe five revisions comets submittals and just wanted to let this Planning Commission know that we are in full agreement with the stipulation the one that was just prevented presented to you tonight we are working on that pad a and just moving it up a little as Sal mentioned we can do that through administrative relief something that was not caught in our initial rounds of reviews and comments but we're happy to work with staff on and happy to answer any questions but just wanted to from the applicant's perspective let you know we're comfortable with that modification and we'll be working on that pad a all right thank you all right any questions or comments for staff or the applicant no none all right thank you very much and I don't have any um Community comment cards so unless there's anybody here that like to speak we'll go ahead and close public hearing we'll bring it up to the dice for discussion and or a motion uh Vice chair thank you chairman I I just wanted to point out that I and this is nothing against the plan it's more something of a note that I noticed that Andy's custard seems to be attracted to qts and it's like when uh WinCo finds her way across street from Costco and I didn't I wouldn't have expected the custard gasoline mix but uh I just wanted to point that out to everybody that's interesting I'll have to start paying attention to that thank you anybody else and some of this might Tom some sorry some of this might might come hitting at you I'm the um or city traffic I had concerns about that entrance and I don't well no I'm just not willing to abdicate if if it's that's what Mesa wants because um I think it's wrong there's a lot of times when we would stipulate a in fact it's one of the stipulations you should put in as a city engineer real early in the process where an entrance is because it ends up being a fixed point for civil design later and it's real common to want to Force those entrances and exits to align with other alignments which is what I was told is is the and it makes sense uh make it line up with the north side on the other hand there's also times to do it the opposite and force them to not line up and I think this is one of the not lineups you're talking about creating when you when you make the entrances on both sides of the road line up you create kind of an ad hoc intersection which for flow often is is desirable but when you're talking about a major arterial like this it's not desirable there will be people who will try despite the painting or the uh the arrows on the exits to the north and presumably on this one too there will be people who try to shoot the straight through um in most contexts we would probably make this a write-in right out but uh we don't the applicant probably doesn't want that I I think this almost would justify a warrant study if it's built as is and it will never pass a warrant study without a signal I can just look at it and tell that so I think um Mesa made a mistake and and in dictating that this is where you could offset the the problem is the median or the dedicated lefts and how are they going to align that but that's what traffic engineers get paid the big bucks to figure out I think we're making a mistake by leaving that the justification that was used from staff to why we aren't re I I raise most of the issue and why we should look at moving that entrance around and the justification why we can't move it around actually makes me want to move it more not less um so my original problem was if Andy's backs up it has the potential to back up out onto the street and baseline's one of the places we really can't have that it's going to be a big backup it's got a big it's got to back quite a way so it wasn't a huge concern but the idea of having it line up with the Walmart to the north um actually to me is more problematic so I I don't think that that's okay and and I think it dictates or it demands further negotiation with the adjacent City all right thank you anybody else no grab a motion if there's no other comment or discussion all right chairman I'd like to move then that we approve item Dr 23-26 Baseline commercial with the stipulations as stated in the report all right I have a motion to approve by the Vice chair do I have a second I'll second that commission Blazer all right go ahead and cast your vote and that motion carries 6-1 with commissioner Faye a descending boat all right thank you and with that we'll move on to item 17 and 18 GP 22-11 belastoria and the z22-10 ballastoria and Keith as I say they saved the best for last right if you want to say that um good evening chair Simon members of the commission um my last case before you tonight as you stated is Bell Astoria a general plan and a rezone the site as you can see on the map in front of you is located at the northwest corner of Power Road and Williams Field Road this is located in the Gateway character area right on the right there on the edges of it right on the edge of the Town boundary in that area and very close right across the the street from the entrance to the ASU Polytechnic campus and the in the Gateway Airport there is Fincher Farms neighborhood to the note to the to the west of this project site which is an original part of the Coulee station planned area development you have UND Aerospace also to the West which are dorms for students that are attending a flight school type program at on the ASU ASU East Campus to the South you have a vacant parcel within Coulee station that obviously is not yet developed and then to the north you have some existing storage facility and some I believe there's some medical offices and so forth to the other businesses to the north so the site is vacant and there's a concurrent annexation application that's in process that will be going before the Council on the same agenda as this project the annexation will be heard first and when it goes when it goes to council and then obviously these cases the general plan the rezone after that the request before you tonight is for a general plan Amendment or minor General plan Amendment on approximately 11 and a half acres the the change will be from General commercial to residential 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre and I'll show you here in a minute on the the general plan exhibit exactly what is going to be changed the also there is a proposed pad rezone with some deviations I'll go over those um and the the rezone will go from Maricopa County Rural 43 to approximately 30 Acres of town of Gilbert multi-family medium and it will to and also to 24 Acres of single family detached and 16 and a half acres of General commercial and about seven and a half acres or so these are rough numbers for SFA zoning so I will start on the general plan portion of it get into more specifics so as far as the general plan is concerned this is the existing General plan designations that are on the property as you can see a majority of it is residential 14 to 25 20 units per acre already today there is submit the existing General commercial at the northeast corner and then there's existing General commercial about 19 and a half night a little about a little over 19 Acres down there along the South Boundary all the way to Power Road what is being changed is out of this overall 73 acre master plan only about 11 and a half acres is actually being changed that General commercial piece in the northeast corner for about 4.16 Acres you can see highlighted in red is changing from General commercial to residential 14 and a half dwelling units per acre and then there's a few little small pieces you'll see the little tiny piece at the corner of Power Road that is a little sliver piece that it's about it's 0.13 acres is being changed it was never changed when the general plan designation was assigned on the site on the on the corner so we're including that then there's this little tiny sliver piece you can see kind of the north north of the existing commercial there's two little sliver pieces they're being changed and then there's a about seven acre piece that is commercial now and they're proposing to change it to residential 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre so that all equates to about 11.6 Acres and then here's the existing zoning exhibit that shows the zoning on the side is is right now is County zoning um and then that little there's a little sliver there's a little piece right there the MFM that's existing zoning that's an existing compartment complex this is that has been there forever so that's obviously not part of the project as far as the proposed zoning is concerned this this exhibit shows that um you'll see some MFM zoning along Power Road along that northeast corner about 13 and a half acres of of MFM zoning um you'll see the commercial Down on the Corner is about 15 and a half acres of General commercial another multi-family piece a little over 15 acres and then you have the single family component of the development which consists of eight and a half acres of of SFA now this is like gross acreage when I told you the numbers earlier that was net and then you have sfd you have about 23 and a half acres of sfd I will go ahead and show you the development plan that will kind of break down what the development's going to look like what the design is going to look like on each one of these Parcels um in the the single family portion you can see the sfd the smaller type of lots um foreign I can tell you the size of those um those lots are about most of them those ones I believe those are about 40 or so feet wide I mean I mean there's a graphic that I have that shows them they're a little bit smaller um the um attached product and then you have a little bit bigger Lots they're about 40 47 feet 47 feet wide with floor plans that range in about 1300 square feet to 2500 square feet and I'll go over the deviations that are associated with these uh single family lots in just a minute and in the middle of that you'll see a park you I think you may have seen a graphic in your in your staff report that showed a little bit um more of a colorful type design that kind of laid out the the Open Spaces and a little bit better but you have a pocket park there big Park open Central open space and then there's another one kind of towards maybe the with the on the southern boundary kind of towards the entrance of the commercial um the overall master plan is about 73.5 Acres so you have parcel b is another multi-family piece so the multi-family uh that each one of those are about 15 Acres a piece or so so you have parcel a and parcel sorry parcel B and partial C or multi-family a total of about 30 Acres 29 Acres of multi-family and 628 units so they're about a little over 300 units a piece each one of those multi-family sites the single family is about 32 total Acres with 238 lots and then on the corner you have the 16 approximate 16 acre commercial piece now that's gross acreage it's about 13 and a half acres or so when you break it down into net acreage so that commercial piece um has um about a hundred thousand square feet of of a single family retail and Commercial for smaller retail users like specialty grocery stores or Grocers um shops and other restaurant type pads you can see there's a lot of little pads that are surrounded that are along the perimeter and kind of on that west side of the development including a little Main Street type retail portion of the development that has angled parking and a lot of walkability between the pads and patios and open space kind of towards the the west side I'll show you a rendering in a minute that kind of can show those areas and those open spaces and more walkable pedestrian friendly areas in just a few moments but if you'll notice the um the commercial on that West half of the commercial parcel is the buildings are fairly close to the apartment buildings which that has been designed on purpose to provide a more of a mixed type of environment a horizontal integration type of element so that it seems more walkable and there's more um um integration between the two uses so it doesn't seem so closed off and you can see and I'll show you in a rendering in a minute how that kind of would look like conceptually there is a lot of integration between the the multi-family um to the West with the single family I'll also show you another graphic in a minute that will show the street of Haskell Street how it continues from Coulee station into the project and it has parallel park like parallel parking on either side of the road with the buildings super close to the street and the single-family units also close to the street to create a more pedestrian Urban type environment and that theme kind of continues throughout the whole master plan with buildings closer to the streets the the multi-family close to the street with no parking in between the buildings and the roadway and also the commercial buildings the pad buildings are right up against the street again to create that more urbanized pedestrian friendly streetscape that you see that is prevalent in Coulee station further to the West we wanted to create that same development pattern on this project along the perimeters along the street frontages to kind of carry that that same theme and that same Gateway character area type feel on this on this project as well and when we're talking about Gateway character area we'll get more into those details when these projects come in for each individual design review case we'll be able to make sure that they're meeting design standards and so forth that are typical in the Gateway character area but for now you can just see it in the the where the footprints are located in the general form and design of building placement so as far as this here's the site renderings I wanted to show you so this is a view looking at the intersection of the commercial corner at Power in Williams Field and this building here is a retail building I don't know exactly how large it is yet since they haven't come in for design review but at the corner they have a lot of lush Landscaping it's about 20 feet wide this this graphic doesn't really do do it justice but it's about 20 feet wide and there'll be an outdoor Plaza in this area as well in between the two buildings to create that pedestrian friendly walkable environment that I'm talking about you can see how the buildings are close to the street there's sidewalk connections from buildings to Street frontages and then you can see the apartment complex to the North and then a little bit of the I believe that's going to be some type of anchor or a grocery type store the one the building to the far back um here is a view looking at the little Main Street portion of the commercial development you can see the buildings are fairly close together single story they look like some of them might look like two-story buildings um I don't we don't have a final design obviously on those buildings yet but this graphic I wanted to show you so you can see the relationship between the Main Street and the grocery store and very walkable there's a kind of a pedestrian Plaza in between a little good integration there and then also I wanted to really show you the integration between the apartment complex to the west and the Main Street um during the design review stage we're going to nail this down but we wanted to create this very pedestrian friendly environment where there's a lot of integration where the apartment users or residents can come right out their front entrance goes straight across the sidewalk across a plaza type area and go straight to a restaurant that is right next door that they can just walk to so we think the integration between apartment the apartment complex in the in the commercial is is uh is very good in this situation and then you can also see the street presence of the build the commercial building along Williams Field Road very close to the street entrances from the building out to the street the street Frontage and nope no parking not a lot of parking right along Williams Field Road or any other Street Frontage so you can see that overall theme that we're trying to create here with this develop that the applicant is trying to create with this development here is the view along um that you can see this is Haskell Street that street that you can see on the left that'll actually join up with Haskell Street that goes into the Coulee station North of that UND Aerospace building but you can see the design theme that is created along Haskell we don't have all the details you can't see the parallel parking and things like that it just was just a conceptual drawing to give you an idea of what it could look like with the building super close to the street and that environment that we're Urban that pedestrian friendly environment we're trying that's trying we're trying to create and kind of maintain and continue from Coulee station into this project so as far as the deviations are concerned the applicant when we came before you at the study session there were approximately 19 deviations Town staff had a lot of concern with that and we have worked with the applicant to reduce the deviations from 19 down to six so the the deviations now are proposed there's three commercial deviations which include the front setback along Power Road from 25 feet down to 20 feet which we think is appropriate that creates that Urban streetscape feel like you see in other areas of Coulee station um and the same thing with the front landscape set back down from 20 25 to 20 feet along Power Road which still provides enough room to plant trees and shrubs um the arterial to arterial intersection landscape setback if we go back a few drawings you can see that corner is still going to have plenty of landscaping it will be 20 feet wide but it will there's also a lot of Separation distance in between that building at the corner that kind of wraps the corner and you'll have a big PL like a plaza along that corner so you're still going to have that kind of effect of what that intersection landscape 20 that 50 by 250 landscape setback would have it's just that it'll be a little bit more spread out and you'll have a pedestrian Plaza with some hardscaping and things instead of just Landscaping so it'll be a little bit more usable which is something that we've done in throughout Coulee station you won't see that massive swath of 50 by 250 Landscaping at any intersection and in the Gateway character area or Coulee station in this in this specific area maybe not in others um the next set of deviations is um for the single family oop my text came off the screen a little bit the single family detached so there's only two deviations in that zoning District um lot lot area going from 3000 to 2800 which was pretty which is pretty minor not very significant which we support um and then maximum lot coverage on two to three story Lots um they're just exceeding it by two percent which we didn't feel was was very significant either and we support that the single family attached deviations there's only one so it's separation between buildings from 15 feet to 10 feet um that concludes the deviation portion so I I've kind of um finished with kind of the meat of the the presentation um so let's see last thing I was going to bring up something else I think I already I already touched on it so I'm just going to move forward move forward um that is basically the the conclusion of the the main part of the presentation but I just wanted to mention really quick that public participation for this project there were neighborhood meeting a neighborhood meeting held held in over a year ago and only two surrounding Property Owners attended they had General feedback on potential grocery store and and um foreign of the project site but just for your information since the notices were sent and in the last year and a half we haven't heard from any any surrounding Property Owners not even one phone call um so ending my presentation staff recommends that you forward a favorable recommendation for the general plan Amendment for Bella Storia to the Town Council and also we recommend that you forward a favorable recommendation for the pad rezone to the council as well but I also before I open it up for questions I just wanted to mention there is a modified condition that I wanted to bring to your attention and see if I have the exhibit nearby there is a up in the top left hand corner where delatorre Boulevard kind of uh um curves then ends and goes off and then it kind of connects to an existing intersection right there the town staff has been working with the applicant on that geometry for that intersection and um we would kind of like to be able to finish working on that it's uh and we have this can as we move forward to the pre-plat stage so we have this condition that will allow the applicant a little bit of flexibility that's kind of a conceptual design of that intersection right now we're still kind of working on it and that's something that we would like to finish up the design of that as we get into the pre-plat stage which is kind of like the design review for a single family development so we wanted to kind of give a little bit of wiggle room for Town staff and applicants so that they can meet Town standards during the preliminary Platt stage of the of the review of the project and if you have any more questions on that we have traffic engineering here who can answer questions on that but we wanted to add that can kind of modify that condition to provide that flexibility for the further design of that intersection as we move forward um that concludes my presentation if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them so thank you very much all right thank you Keith uh open it up for questions for Keith yeah Mr Bianchi thank you chairman um so Keith we I think you were just starting to touch upon it so I know we're not at the Plaid stage yet but are we we're looking at this to be public or private streets internal there um chair Simon commissioner Bianchi inside that single family portion it's my understanding that those streets will all be private streets okay okay so as we so parking enforcement everything would be handled by an HOA um and I know that'll all come at pla the Platinum time but that's my curiosity there is when we start introducing this many uh lots and so forth with the circulation and then the enforcement and then we had also talked about in space so they're somehow getting especially in the the SF product they're somehow getting to 16 I kind of look at the SF zoning and I wonder how they're getting there are they using that area on the west side of delatorre as open space which is or retention as it seems to be really packed in there um chair Simon commissioner Bianchi they're proposing about 16 I think I think it says what 16.9 percent open space I don't see it on this little uh site data table but yes they they are using that some of that area to the west of delatory Boulevard is kind of a little open space area I'm not exactly sure what that area is going to be yet probably some type of retention with a bunch of Trees and Landscaping I'm not exactly sure yet and then there are some some other retention Basin there but the main amenity is that 1.3 acre area in the middle and then you see there's another little Park kind of South southeast of that or sorry I think that that bay that Basin there that someone just kindly uh is moving the arrow on and then I believe there's another little open space in between some Lots over there as well that there there could be some opportunities for a park space there as well and that's something that we'll finalize during the pre-plat stage as you as you have stated but they have 16.9 percent open space which is 6.9 percent more than is required by code so bye-bye the design standards and so when we talk about the 50-foot local Street wit is that expanded is that more than what a typical Town Street would be or is that typical length with parking on both sides um chair Simon commissioner Bianchi I believe that's that's pretty typical um I I we have our traffic engineer here who can answer that question probably a lot better than me I don't have memorized what the local Street widths are I I thought they were typically 40 so it could be a little bit more Clint because of what are they counting that towards their their right their parking totals chair Commissioners um until 50 is our right away that is our standard width and the street width would be 32 feet which allows parking on both sides uh we did we have a new standard and stipulation it's not really traffic related but it's more Environmental Services um with the fixed back homes like or Buster homes um when they bring out all the garbage truck part um cans to the street that doesn't allow until when that their garbage day services there's so many garbage cans there's no there was no parking so uh we it's in our standard and we iterate it in the in the OR zoning ordinance as well that that will have to be signed no parking um and going forward that would be part even though trash day is just one day would restrict it seven days a week it's just because of the confusion yeah because we are trying to implement in other places where we're just doing it because it's existing we're doing it just once a day and it's causing confusion so but the town can't enforce that if it's HOA controlled is that correct well this this is going to be right away here pardon me so these is going to be right away in here okay yeah I don't want to get too far in the weeds they're showing right away here so the 50 feet so right away so that's going to be town right away there okay in this subdivision but I know Haskell is a private street so chair Simon commissioner Bianca I guess I was wrong then I misspoke earlier I apologize I guess the streets will be public right-of-way instead of uh private but but Haskell for sure is private correct Clint yes okay so correction okay thank you questions for Keith at this point um Keith just a real quick question of clarification this has a uh plenary development so we're in essence locking them into where these buildings are being plotted at this point even though we're not considering that um chair Simon uh that that's correct will require that uh when they come forward for their design review cases and for plotting that the design be in substantial performance with this development plan so in essence yes to a certain extent we are locking them in and if they want to make major changes they'll have to come back through the process and do a pad Amendment and come back through you and the council but they their design will have to be placement of buildings lots and so forth will have to be in substantial conformance with the development plan okay and then do we know with regards to integration of the existing apartment complex that is there is there any integration with regards to that are they going to wall that often pretend like it doesn't exist chair Simon um there there is my understanding is there will be a perimeter wall there actually I believe there is today if I'm if I'm not mistaken around that apartment complex and the applicant doesn't propose to change that situation by providing any openings or any further integration it'll just be walled off okay is my understanding um I think I have another question um actually I've got a couple questions first one with regards to the home plat that's here obviously this is just a conceptual design do we know if these are going to be for sale or for lease product do you have any idea at this point um chair Simon I I don't I don't know the answer to that question I I can defer that I think the applicant can answer yes that's correct um and then with regards to the the notice being posted a year and a half ago do we need to repost that or we do we need to have a new is there anything that needs to happen because it's been so long Church time can you repeat that sorry so with regards to I think you said it was January of 22 that there was a post that went out or that we had a community meeting or a post that went out I saw that someplace in your in your um presentation do we need to bring that up to more more recent um chair Simon members of the commission that was just a neighborhood meeting that they were required to have and they they met the requirement to hold a neighborhood meeting so we didn't do another one no we don't have to do another one but but the applicant has sent out notices to all surrounding Property Owners with within the required distances and also posted the signs on the site but no they're not required to have a second neighborhood meeting okay and due to the due to the the fact that only two people showed up to the meeting we didn't feel that it was necessary to require or to require them to have another one okay perfect any other questions for Keith no all right I'll go ahead and ask the applicant if you'd like to come up and give a presentation or if you want a divert uh wait I don't have any Community comment cards so I don't think anybody's gonna say anything so I'll leave it up to you and Mr Pugh if you could hit the little red button that's not a red button but turn on your mic there is that any better good thank you good evening Mr chairman members of the commission pleasure to be with you this evening on behalf of the property owner represented this evening by Francesca mascarello who is the managing partner of the LLC that owns this property just a very brief history it All Began in 1966 when Mary and Cosmo de bella purchased and developed Cosmo's Italian restaurant right on the corner of power and Williams Field it was a Mainstay for all of us in the valley at the time I hate to think of how much pizza has been sold out of there so from that beginning Cosmo de bella assembled the land that you see here tonight in this plan I call it 80 acres it's 78 and change it was a major undertaking and here we are now with his granddaughter and Grandson who are the managers of the entity now that will run this property and be the lead party in the development of it so the question tonight is here we are with a general plan and a Gateway character area that was overlaid on this property more than two decades ago it'd be fun to say it was at the turn of the century right when this all happened so in this acreage 50 plus acres of this 80 Acre Site 55 56 has been designated for MFM development for all these years multi-family medium-high 14 to 20 some units per acre so I just want you to know as we just briefly get started here tonight and we're not going to take much of your time the key thing that I'd like you to think about for a minute if we developed this acreage tonight as it is in today's General plan we could bring forward 1456 residential dwelling units that would fit within the current General plan designation instead we've modified the plan and worked extensively with the staff thanks to the staff it's been a long process they've been very patient with us to incorporate the Gateway character areas but as a result of that we then took the Northwest portion of this property I'll show you that in a minute and made it single family SFA and sfd so that portion of the property is about seven units to the acre the other two corners that are multi-family are higher of course so our challenge was how do we get to that 14 units per acre at the bare minimum lowest density possible and that's why we hear tonight with 862 units we are roughly 600 dwelling units less tonight in this plan than could be developed under today's current General plan so with that in mind let's take another quick look and we're right at 14. 14.3 14.4 units per acre so very very low end the other thing that might be on some of your minds is we've read the staff report we agree with the stipulations and we agree with this final stipulation that was added this evening we need to work on that intersection and we will work with the staff on that some of you as you looked and listened to Mr Newman's presentation which by the way thanks again to him and all the staff for what they've worked on on this case you might be asking yourself well what about details like fire Lanes trash collection parking traffic so just so you know all of those issues we have talked with met with and consulted with every possible Department within the town to design those areas so they'll be appropriately connected and done right and ultimately at the preliminary Platt stage Commissioners you will have a chance to see all of those details because they're hard to see now in a in a project this size so those are just you know some ideas to start moving forward on let's just gently clarify neighborhood meeting and community outreach Mr chairman you raised that question and so we have had two neighborhood meetings the first neighborhood meeting was admittedly some time ago right it was in January of 2022 two neighbors attended we doubled the notification area so we went out of our way on this case to notify more people than would normally be necessary then as this case worked its way through the process of Staff review we got closer and closer to the prospect of tonight a public hearing we thought to ourselves let's reach out again so we conducted a second neighborhood meeting and that was in March the end of March so you know not too long ago and at that meeting we had four individuals attend and they were all positive about the project and again we doubled the notice area for that meeting so please consider that as you think about the Outreach and what we've done here in this case Mr Newman covered the deviations it's we've gone from 19 to six and frankly the reason there's single family deviations was to try to get a few more Lots in there so we could get our density to 14 on the overall project otherwise we wouldn't meet the general plan category you got to be 14 to 20 something so that's a partial reason for some of those deviations that few landscape deviations that occur in the commercial part of the project why does that happen well it's real simple you have the Gateway character area that wants to move the buildings to the street Frontage right the commercial buildings and we've done that but you have the standard town code Provisions that don't anticipate that so for that reason we have several a few landscape deviations on the commercial side and again Mr Newman mentioned those to you and identify that for you so that's the reason for the why of that we have all the open space required and as we've talked about we are as low as you can get on density on this project if it went any lower you'd have to amend the general plan and create all new residential categories okay okay we we agree with all the steps and the recommendation we've talked about the dibella family here we have the plan Mr Newman highlighted all this keep in mind the land on the south side of Williams Field Road there while it is vacant it is planned for and designated for general office and shopping center um and so this gives you the context that Mr Newman went through he went through our requests for the minor General plan Amendment and the zoning so here's really what's happening and and Mr Newman indicated this so this is the general plan as it exists today so if you look in the upper right hand corner where it says GC 14.58 that's a little left over General commercial parcel that's only 200 feet wide 200 feet of Frontage on power with southbound traffic coming very fast and 900 feet of length so it's really not suitable for General commercial development and it fits nicely into the MFM multi-family category so that's one amendment that we're talking about and I'll click on now and it'll show you what happens to the R14 to 25. you'll see there we tighten that up just a little bit we bring that to 32 acres in that upper left hand corner that's the northwest corner of the project that will be the single family elements why because it adjoins single family on the west side of what we call Somerton but is now known as De la Torre and that we thought those would be compatible there now what happens down on um Williams Field to the commercial you'll notice that that's been uh changed a bit so we have 22 Acres of GC there why is that line between the GC and the multi-family on parcel B there's a real good reason if you remember the perspective that Mr Newman showed you there's a there's a traffic signal at that very point where the GC and the r 14 to 25 meet on Williams Field Road that's the logical place to put the boundary between the multi-family and the commercial because then we can enter there and then go to the right or east into the commercial and left into the multi-family rather than separating those projects with a major traffic intersection um the other question someone raised a minute ago I think it's highlighted here very well look at if you look at parcel C in the upper left hand corner that's kind of the irregular shape piece why because it has to gerrymander itself around the existing multi-family parcel that's been there on Power Road for some years and the answer to the question is yes we do intend to have a wall there and separate this project and its design elements from that particular project so this is a summary that shows you the why of the general plan Amendment it's more suitable it's more compatible and frankly the amount of commercial is just right it's in more of a square shape not quite so rectangular and we believe it can be marketed built developed and it can work at that size much bigger we think it would be a problem here's the zoning case and this this is really clear to show how the zoning blends with what's going on in the neighborhood so if you look at the left hand side of the screen that's the existing zoning on the property it's it's all Agricultural and use generally speaking and has County zoning on it so look to the right now and you'll see the area highlighted in Black look at the sfd and SFA please and the upper left hand corner of the site that blends perfectly with the single family d That's to the west of it or to the left as you look at it the multi-family M on Williams Field Road continues the multi-family M that's along Williams Field Road and is consistent with what's been in place since the year 2000. and the multi-family M up in the upper right hand corner same thing there that's been designated for multi-family all these years except for that little narrow piece that I explained to you about just a minute ago that frankly a pretty much undevelopable for commercial purposes so those are the zoning requests that follow along and dovetail with the general plan Amendment so the site's also subject to the vertical development overlay District that's why the multi-family buildings are four-story in height because this area was anticipated to have that and when you see the site plan here notice the red arrows on the lower left hand corner why are they there that's the 200 foot separation requirement from any property that has zoning that is single family and so because the property on that South West corner of Williams Field and Somerton and we call it now today that it's all single family so you've got to go from the middle of the road and go 200 feet to comply with the vertical overlay District that's why that building is designed the way it is and it's on an angle there it's pushed out to the street as far as it can be and still comply with the requirements same thing on the piece up on Haskell that's why it's like that these are just some examples of the nature of homes and the single family area that could be built and then the commercial development you've seen these here's that intersection and lighted signalization that you see on the left lower left hand area that demarcates the area between the multi-family and the commercial um Mr chairman member of the board you've been very patient through all this be happy to answer questions we believe we're bringing a case to you tonight that combines the Gateway character area with the general plan reduces the density as much as possible without changing the general plan categories and has now been integrated and designed according to the Gateway character area so we agree with the staff's recommendation we urge your recommendation for approval and hopefully we've answered your questions about deviations and other things but whatever questions you might have Mr chairman we'd be happy to take them all right thank you questions or comments for the applicant nobody yeah fisherman I'd be remiss not to at least comment when one of my favorite orators Mr Ralph Pew comes up and speaks um I just wanted to say that he has a way of making me feel as though we're getting one hell of a deal with this so thank you for that I I actually enjoy I think this is a good project and I think the corner desperately needs it to be completed and I think they've done a good job and staff has uh beaten them thoroughly into submission I believe so I think it looks pretty good well done thank you all right thank you anybody else yeah all right okay oh oh wait yeah commissioner Bianchi so Mr puke so can you can confirm what we what we had asked Keith on that the the area to De la Torre is that what you're considering open space because frankly I kind of look at this and I get a little claustrophobic when I look at this the SF product and I want to be very careful here that we're not creating more problems than we're solving because what I heard tonight is if we're locking in design to this site plan that gives me pause because the last thing I want to do is see this as a preliminary plot and we're trying to negotiate this at once a preliminary Platinum title zoning entitlements have been given yep uh Mr chairman Mr Bianchi that's a very good question and the well we're going to call it De la Torre for the moment okay going north from Haskell has a bend in it like that for the reason that we thought we needed to line up the street with the street north of it at as much as close to a 90 degree and a 180 straight line right that's what we were planning that's why there's that little area there that does serve as both open space and retention at just recently within the last day or so it has come to our attention that the transportation department is not completely satisfied with how those two roads connect and consequently we've asked for an engineer's variance because this is a problem we did not create we're trying to connect to roads that already exist in existing neighborhoods in approved plans so the status of tonight is that request for an engineer's variance to allow this road to connect the way it does has been denied consequently as key as Mr Newman mentioned we're going to abide by that last stipulation he made and work with the staff to see if there's some design solution to that location and based on the outcome of that we will know better how this road will align so yes this is a preliminary development plan the plant will look very similar substantially conform to this but that Far Western end that northwest corner that's still under design as of today yeah I'm not sure how you made the densities work but you somehow did because even I was looking at this going how can that only be seven dwelling units per acre and how can that only be 14 because my My worry is when we're putting these 234 Lots on there and then we're getting you know reduced lot sizes and reduced side yards and reduced setbacks and reduced perimeter landscape areas and increased lot coverage you know I'm just kind of like okay well we could get a little more open space so it's not that closed in but that's what I worry about is if you we does it does not sound like we have much room to play with in the density aspect we could go to a you could go to five to eight dwelling units per unit you know because I think that's under the SF uh DNA because I think that the neighborhood just to the Northwest has that but that's where I'm having a hard time on the the zoning side of that for me personally so Mr chairman can I answer can I answer that um so Mr Bianchi and members of the Commission that the issue here is to stay within the Gateway character area which once properly designed density and consequently neither we nor the staff felt that it would be appropriate to request an amendment to the existing residential component we just tried to design a plan that would get the very lowest density possible and comply so that's why you see this single family area at seven units to the acre and frankly it's very consistent with Fincher farms and the other project forget the name of it just immediately to the West it's that's all they all are right in that same ballpark so and and the deviations 200 square feet Less in a lot size helped us pick up a few lots that help the density we were in a huge density Open Space Landscape calculation mess for a while until we got that figured out yeah okay yeah yeah I'm more I'm more apt to give you more density on the the multi-family if I can get more a better product in here but that's not before us today but that's my curiosity thank you thank you Mr Bianchi all right thank you anybody else no yes thank you thank you thank you all right we'll go ahead and uh I don't have any public comment cards so we'll go ahead and close the public uh hearing on this and bring it up to the dice for discussion and or a motion maybe I like to start I'll just throw out that I I actually agree with uh commissioner Bianchi on this that the density and I'm in my head I guess maybe the conversation is which side do we air on right do we air on more open space and and push that density to where it's like okay yeah maybe we're a little bit low but we've got the open space or do we go the other direction so that would be my concern on this um looking at the lot sizes is concerning that's not before us tonight I mean we'll we'll look at that down the road but I would I would concur with commissioner Bianchi that that's where my struggle is with this otherwise I I think the plan looks great I think the the site plan that's been presented before us if we can substantially conform to that um I would be all for it and I think it's a needed development in this area so any other comments yeah this is my misunderstanding I usually have a pretty aren't you allowed to go lower in density within is and still be compliant I thought so maybe we should go to staff on that I thought we could go lower on the density or are we stock so do you have to rezone to have less density anybody staff doesn't want to answer Mr Pugh do you know the answer to that hit your button thank you sir Mr chairman I'll take a stab at that it's not the the zoning that is the issue it's the general plan category so the general plan category is residential 14 I believe to 25. so we were working on this project and hovering around 13 units to the acre and we needed to get it up a little bit to get to 14 because you in the zoning world I believe you're right if you have acre lots or you have R16 you could build the acre lot size if you wanted to in theory but not the general plan doesn't work that way that's my understanding is it I think it's the same question doesn't the general plan work the same way you can do lower density um chair Simon commissioner Faye um I mean that's why we we designate the densities as they are so that developers will stay within those ranges um if if you wanted if if we wanted a developer to go to lower density if they had that ability then you might as you General plan it to a lower density so you would have to do a general plan amendment to go to lower density I've never heard of that before I don't I could I've never I've never seen that but it's just that that's the way it works I mean I don't know how else to answer that question but we we usually have density ranges that fit the amount of density that is in the general plan for that specific site it was I don't know how else to answer a question that's true of zoning too though we've got right target that I I think you're allowed to go to a lower use a lower or I don't know what it's called there's a term for a higher use or a lower use which includes when you're in residential that includes lower density I don't think you're forced to pack more in because you're in that category that would make sense to me I don't know how to answer your question I typically we don't do that we're looking back on top and go ahead but yeah chairman and commission um so when we're rezoning a project um if a general plan category has a specific density range one of the things that we're we're looking at is that the zoning that the applicant is requesting is consistent with our general plan designation so if they're looking to rezone a property to something that's lower than our general plan we would find it not in conformance with what our general plan anticipated conversely if an applicant has zoning that already exists that's a lower density than what our general plan would anticipate or or expect the applicant can build to that existing zoning District if they have existing zoning or no no if they if they want to come in and build at 14 and they're zoned it or master plan is something higher do they need to amend the master plan or rezone it down Zone it meaning the general plan either way if if I want to come in and I want to build acre lots do I have to either rezone or amend the plan to to go down to it I never heard that before but that's counterintuitive so it became talking about a rezoning application so if somebody had SF sf15 and they wanted to just develop acre lots and everything met the standards of sf15 they were just choosing to subdivide larger they're not requesting a zone change and so therefore we we wouldn't say you have to come in and amend the general plan this I I might be missing the question no that that's so they wouldn't have to they can go lower density they can um as long as they're not requesting a zone change along with it that's when we get into the conversation of compliance with the with the general plan yeah because you could still do SFA and sfd there yeah and it could be at a close to a 14 density or it could be to a five to eight like yeah it's it's that's in the general plan too that's why some of this didn't make sense that was my curiosity was I just don't want to be careful like we said if we're locking in this site plan uh that was my concern is you know we can I don't want to have to have to deal with parking and all the circulatory elements in the open space once they've already got the entitlements if they're kind of locked in there and so that's where my kind of concern comes up so that's why I kind of said I don't want to have to negotiate this on the diets but I said I'd almost give you more multi-family units if it was a if it was a calculation if I think we get a better SF product with more open space something that's more activated to the community that can generate you know just more in space for the folks that are probably going to use it in there rather than just going to be hemmed in because I imagine there'll be a lot of students and share you know shared housing and things like that so but that's my that that's my concern but I think I understand why a developer wants more or wants to pack more in that that makes sense and and that's why they're usually butting right up against the limit or even up zoning or whatever the expression I'm mixing up the up and the down part but they're they're because that's more product they can sell that makes sense to me the idea that well we had to do it because the city is making us do it because we had to fit into this higher category doesn't make sense to me and and if if that's the case well let's relieve them of that responsibility let's let it be lower if I mean I don't think that that's seriously what we're talking about but I this is a whole different discussion I'm getting almost philosophical at this point well I I guess to try to more pointedly ask this question Keith if they were to have brought this up here and it was 13 units per acre would we be hearing it right now and would that be considered within substantial Conformity to the general plan like we're asking for variances because we need to get to that I want to make sure I understand was it impossible for them to bring forth something that would have been 13 units per acre I don't I don't I'm chair Simon commissioner I don't believe so I don't think we would have I mean I don't think we would have permitted it we want it to match what the general plan the crystal ball for the town for that area um it has uh has it has been approved for that site okay very good that really does if they'd come forward with 12 or 13 which wouldn't have required any of these variants or almost any of these variances or maybe none of them staff would have prevented it these are very hard questions I I don't know I I all I know is that we asked them to hit 14. um they're within it and there's something in the Gen in the the zoning code that says with fear within X number of feet or I can't remember what it says from from property The Zone residential uh you a single family residential in the Gateway character area you have to have a certain density okay so uh so we really did say you even not quite maybe legal I'm not saying it's illegal but we staff said you have to get to 14 or above which is why they had to shoehorn all this in essentially that is correct but if but if you take a look at it and I I don't know if this will open up a can of worms but I don't know if I'm even gonna if this is even it's opening okay but if you look at the density of this area it's very comparable to everything else in this area to the north and to the West there is a lot of development that this is compatible with in Fincher farms in um old portions of Coulee station to the north and to the West there's product much denser than this there's a lot of product that's very very similar than this the density range of this product is actually much lower than a lot of the density that you can see further north and west so I think they're actually fairly compliant with what's in the area in Coulee station um so um that is one of the reasons why we supported it as well I mean if this was surrounded by single-family homes that were six seven eight nine thousand acre lots and that we may not have supported it but since this this there's already this density and more to the north and Western Coulee station that has been approved 15 to 20 years ago and you can drive through all those neighborhoods and see all of these these Motor Court Home Products and all of these types of attached and detached products they're they're all over the place in this area so we felt that what they're proposing is fairly compatible I and and I don't think Keith that we are arguing against that I think I think we're all in agreement that this product or or the way it's been presented with regards to the pad we're in agreement agreeance with I think where we're where we're struggling where at least I'm struggling and I feel like commissioner Bianchi and commissioner Faye are in the same line with me on this is that if we did 14 dwelling units per acre on the multi-family four-story apartment complexes great if we needed to go to 13 dwelling units per acre on the single family detached in order to get additional Green Space that's I would be okay with that and I guess where the question lies and maybe we need to throw it back to staff and and when we get to the point of actually having this conversation of what the actual plinary development is or when when the plot comes to us and we take a look at it the plat map we actually get an answer that hey can we go to 13 units or can we go to 12 units and not have an issue with them needing to come back and rezone so I don't I don't think we're arguing against that that it definitely fits in this area and that it's there I think it's just a matter of looking at it and saying I mean we all know what we end up hearing there's no place to park we don't have driveways the trash pickup all of those things come up and it becomes kind of disheveled in these areas where we have very tight density so maybe it's a matter of of we take a look at that as we go through this process and when that plant comes back to us and we really look at it deep can we make a variance for the applicant on this to drop it down if truly it's look we're just squeezing this in to get us to 14. okay well let's go 13 or 12. whatever that is if we can and chair and I'd be more than happy to look into that as we're moving forward um and I hope that this doesn't muddy the waters but a rather uh maybe clarifies the point but uh the direction that staff is is is applying is is a statutory Direction um so according to statute a rezoning ordinance conforms with the land use the element of the general plan if it proposes land uses densities or intensities within the range of identified densities intensities and identified uses of the land use element of the general plan so what you're doing what we're doing here is we're honoring what was voted upon by by the the voters of Gilbert in identifying that these are the densities that we're identifying as appropriate for this area um so but more than happy to kind of delve into that this is my five-minute legal research uh yeah I'd love to see that I mean I I definitely can can understand and appreciate that when we get to the upper end of it but when we look at the lower end and it's really and and I don't know if this is the right way to say it but but giving a better quality of life with regards to that specific area because we're going lower density I would just like to know what that looks like when we get there because I don't know and obviously I think we're none of us really know at this point so if that's fair um chair Simon real quick yes I just wanted to know that that I know you're concerned with the lack the amount of open space that they're proposing and that you want it to feel more open and and not as dense but if you look at it they're providing 16.9 open space which is way more than the 10 percent that is required for a single family development of of the slot sizes that you're proposed that they're proposing so I just wanted to throw that out there that they have way more open space than than a lot of the developments in the surrounding area that are of this same product type so I just I just wanted to let you know that thank you and just just throw that out there as a note even though it may not look like it it's it's well above what our minimum code what our minimum standards require thank you yeah foreign by the residents yeah they're just thrown in the corners to get to that 16 whereas you could probably have a nice amenity that doesn't break it up because the other thing I look at is you know we've got rows of 18 19 20 rows of housing without any breaks and if we've done that elsewhere in the town great um but I mean if you're up there of 20 without a break or anything like that or if we have consistent hey yes we've done 30 plus acres of continuous contiguous SFA and sfd this is pretty common then I'm okay with that but I that seems like a lot for sfas sfd to be contiguous like that with that many homes placed without without a break that's my curiosity that's it that's my concern yeah commissioner Davis thank you chair um I think part of the open space areas are kind of spread out a larger Central one maybe I feel like the northeast corner is kind of where it's lacking but I do think the people down at the South will utilize personal be a little bit for some of that open space my question is if you're realigning De la Torre is it possible we could lose some of that 16.9 percent as in that change Jesus Simon um commissioner Davis I do we don't know we don't know yet exactly what the intersection configuration once it's redesigned is going to look like um we won't know that until we get to the preliminary plot stage um there's a there's always a chance I guess you could lose some of it but even even that open space we don't know what it's going to look like yet that color graphic may show that it's just a retention Basin but during the preliminary plot stage we could easily program some type of open space amenity in there as well it's usable it's not just a passive area so that's that those details are going to be hammered out during the preliminary plot stage and those are just unknowns at this time I don't know that that's that's really true we're talking about the alignment of delatorre right so delatory may based on traffic engineering getting into things and their preferences and stuff it may realign but actually one of my concerns getting to I think the same thing is we the open space is tucked into some corners and the most problematic is that orphan parcel particularly not partial but that peace on the far west side and particularly because you said it might become you kind of had there's some as long as it stays open space okay if it becomes something Less open and oh it's 16 anyway we can you know we can consume half of it and have 12 and we're fine so one I was going to be saying before that I think it needs to to make sure it's stipulated and it's included in a hard manner as open space but realistically if De la Torre moves around that actually probably helps that pushes more of the open space onto the west side or the east side of the road's not going to get wider it's just going to move around does that make sense yeah so the whether the open space now is on the east side of the road or the west side of the road it's still the same number of square feet the traffic engineering has something to solve like you got work to do well I guess you both have work to negotiate but I assume that that it's what we're talking about is not something like dilatory moving you know way over and I assume we're basically talking about whether it goes straight north south whether it does the skew that it's on something in the middle if that's the case it really doesn't it doesn't change the square footage it's just which side of the road it's on am I mistaken on that uh chair Simon commissioner Faye you you that could be right that could be true we don't we just don't know what that design is going to look like we honestly don't know if it if the design of that intersection is going to be more significant or substantial of adjacent roadways are going to be realigned things like that we we just don't know yet we don't know all those details but it could fluctuate it could go it could go down I wouldn't imagine it would go up right but depending on the design that the engineers and their team our engineers and their Engineers come up with it could fluctuate a little bit we it's just an unknown right now we don't know we could agree if it's going to move in such a way that it significantly impacts the houses and the density it'll probably have to come back won't it um not necessarily we if it it just depends it depends on the lot count it depends and if it does decrease the amount of open space significantly then we might deem it to not be in substantial conformance with what you're looking at today and what the council is is going to consider for approval so we just we just don't know yet it could come back something we'll have to take as as it comes and as they as the design is being flushed out but we believe that condition is flexible where we can um have some wiggle room to be able to design something that will meet Town standards and that will will work for both parties we it's like I said well we can Hammer those details out at the pre-plat we just don't know all those details and information so he's tap dancing hard all right commissure Gage so Keith if this road moves and it impacts the number of homes and it drops down below the 14 units to the acre required by the general plan are they going to be forced to come back for a general plan Amendment um chair Simon commissioner Gage I would say yes so it was it just that seems like a big deal to not know on their end at this point right it was there no work done initially to kind of figure out the location of that road I know like the angles have to kind of line up and the one coming down is crooked so I I just I'm trying to understand how much it's going to move and then what are going to be the snowball effects of of that shift in the road so they can have some sort of understanding what their future path is no like no one likes to be surprised with a general plan amendment when they're this far in the process or Simon commissioner Gage I understand but but as I've said I it's all very fluid it's a conceptual design of that intersection we don't we don't know what the final design is going to be so we don't know if that's going to change the impact Lots at this point hopefully we can come up with a design that won't impact the Lots and so they can keep that same density and that's going to be our goal to keep it in substantial conformance the last thing we want is to to require the developer to come back through another General plan Amendment so we're going to work hard to make sure that it keeps the same density um I just kind of throw this out there this has been a really good conversation I feel like maybe we are a little bit ahead of ourselves with regards to getting into the Weeds on the plat um and and the overall design kind of thinking this through we're looking at General plan Amendment and we're looking for the zoning with regards to the area and and I think again I think this conversation has been great and I think it's flushed out some things that definitely need to be looked into and have conversations with the applicant as well as brought back to us with regards to this is how we would move forward because not only would it be for this particular project but projects going forward as we start looking at very limited space left in Gilbert so um with that I want to throw it out anybody else have any discussion with regards to the general plan or the zoning Amendment with the pad on this or do we have a motion um actually I should probably close the public hearing and reopen the public hearing and close the public hearing because we did go back to Keith and whatnot so we kind of went out of line there but no I'm chairman so I'm fine with the general plan request and largely I'm fine with the rezoning request it just comes back to the SF product and with the deviations and if we don't Grant the deviations what does this project look like if you did it under straight SFA and sfd Zoning can they still pull it off because my worry is once we get to pre-plat and once we've locked in the densities and the site plan we may not have much flexibility when it comes to the plot we may just be as presented so that's my con that's my main concern but as far as the general plan request I get it I'm fine with keeping the density at 14 to what is it 23 or 25 and largely with the zoning it just comes down to that SF A and D and as a commissioner we okay granting granting the deviations to to so in essence we meet that density because I'm more my PR I would rather get a good product and a good layout for that product I don't think this is what I'd prefer um but that's just kind of where I'm at I don't know if that's enough to vote against it but those are my current centers like I said this is something to consider as we move forward with this so I'm just curious if other folks have considered those same concerns or if not I understand too yeah anybody else yeah that that kind of frames my uncomfortableness it actually twice now he's commissioner Bianchi's done partly it's the kind of claustrophobic claustrophobic feel and partly it's the there's a there's a fair amount up in the air still on this that feel like we're tying our hands but leaving a lot up in the air at the same time and just I don't know that it's wrong per se although our discussion with Keith about the road actually made me less comfortable not more comfortable but uh I don't know that it's wrong it's just there's there's a fair amount up in the air right now Jim and yeah Vice chair I would just add that uh you know I I do understand the the concerns and I have some of them myself but I feel like we're getting a bit into hyperbole of what if you know we could go so far as to what if a meteor hits it and then they can't develop it you know so but without going that far the way I look at it is um I believe the concerns that I would have are alleviated by the fact that staff's interpretation and the legal statute of the interpretation that we look at is what's being adhered to here do I particularly like 20 little houses stacked in a row in the variances no do other people that buy these things based upon purchase histories yeah I guess they do so I just wanted to voice that opinion that along with these concerns I think that there's just some of it that if it's unknown there's really nothing we can say and if it ends up being an unfortunate situation where a new application is needed then that there's really nothing we could do as a board today to alter that based upon what's actually in front of us thank you maybe this is kind of obvious based on what we're just none of this really for me none of my uncomfortable applies to parcel b c and d b c and d are fine it's just a that has given me the the Willies I would agree with that um I'm assuming we need if there's no more discussion we need a separate motion on each one of these is that correct if there's no more discussion I'll entertain motion otherwise we'll continue discussing well I was hoping that commissioner Blazer was going to do it on his farewell tour here but instead I shall be the one to do it I moved to approve GP 22-11 Bella Storia all right we have a motion to approve item 17 by the Vice chair to have a second I'll second it was second by commissioner Blazer please cast your vote all right that vote carries 7-0 I'll entertain a motion on the z22-110 chairman I would like to move to approve z22-10 Bell Astoria I have motion to approve by the Vice chair to have a second I'll second it commissioner Blazer seconds please cast your vote chairman um can you please note that it's with the modified condition yes uh Vice chair would you like to modify yeah I I apologize I thought that was implied but I'd like to amend my emotion to approve z22-10 bellostoria with the modified condition of the dilatory alignment and geometry as shown on the development plan for the project is conceptual modifications to the development plan may be required based on required revisions at delatory Boulevard and Shelby addressed during preliminary plant review for the project I can't even stand straight I have an emotion to approve by the Vice chair I'll second it second by commissioner blazen please cast your vote and that motion carry 7-0 thank you all yep thank you look forward to uh speaking again on that one yes all right um with that we're going to move on to administrative items administrative items are for the commission discussion and action it is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests and any administrative items persons wishing to speak administrative items should complete a public comment form indicating item number on which you wish to address commission may or may not accept public comment um I don't know that we have any public comment but uh councilman Anderson can we go to you on this at this time for your presentation should we invite the hundreds of citizens waiting in the okay hello I'm gonna hand these to you so you can give them to them I just wanted to express our appreciation you know our representative government relies heavily on volunteer involvement and through commissions like this and through other boards that's what really makes it work and you have been an example of that volunteering your time and your expertise to help make Gilbert a better place to live and we really appreciate that on behalf of the mayor and the council we want to congratulate you for the efforts you've made and for what you've done for our community and and make us feel like a big family so appreciate it thank you and we've got some things for you that we'd like to present we've got a plaque for you and I think there's a coin a Gilbert coin that's in that little box yeah yeah the box is nice thank you did you want to say anything to our vast audience thank you no I I love Gilbert and uh it's been a pleasure serving the people and um and contributing so thank you we'll miss your recusals yeah yeah that would be good for a picture [Applause] there are Kleenex in the back for anyone else who's emotional all right well I would just like to add um fisherblazer thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to serve with you we appreciate it but nice getting to know you and we wish you all the best and we'll see you around town I'm sure and probably presenting a case to us at some point thank you [Laughter] all right um so with that we have um in your packet was the 2024 Planning Commission meeting uh calendar and I would need a motion to approve that unless there's any discussion or anybody needs any of those dates moved because you are so very important I'm so very important that they move them after even if I approve it so I'd like to move to approve the 2024 Planning Commission meetings as shown in the pad all right attached pack I have a motion approved by the Vice chair uh do I have a second right and that motion carries 7-0 and then we've got the meeting minutes from the July 12th um and August 2nd meeting if I think only saw the August minutes in there did I miss that I've got both are they both in there yeah okay yeah I skipped past it first if there's no discussion I would move for approval as presented all right I've got a motion for approval I'm like I'd like the second that I've got a second by commissioner mundt please cast your vote and chairman you were correct there was only one hard copy from the second so we'll bring you the other hard copy to sign next thank you and the vote it reveal I mean I would assume it passes at this point but and it carries 7-0 that was that was uh all right with that we move on to Executive session we do not have executive executive session tonight um report from the chairman or members of the commission anybody have anything they'd like to say commissioner Vice chairman thank you uh I just want to take a moment you know I don't like to speak that much but I do want to take an extra moment to thank commissioner Blazer I think that those of us who have served up into these types of boards in the capacity know that there's times when we are merely a pariah and at least developers when they catch the heat they get paid um we do it because we feel a civic duty and I think that that's something that is highly commendable no matter where why or how long you've done it and so uh I just want to voice on my own opinion thank you for being here and you've been a lot of fun even when I bust your chops for being recused all the time but you're a good dude thanks ma'am thank you all right thanks anybody else um I have one question and maybe this is for future agenda to discuss but with regards to Phoenix passing the the ability to build um Casitas and secondary homes in their backyards I know that there's been some discussion around that and maybe we could from a town perspective have conversation on where that is with our discussion with staff and I don't know how we do that but maybe that's something we could would you like us to place that on a future work session agenda I I think it would be worthwhile to have that conversation just to know where staff is on it and what the thought process is going forward we will do that thank you chair yep um and then give it to you thank you I yes I have to start by thanking commissioner Blazer and all of you for volunteering it's very appreciative and staff does enjoy working with all the commission I'd also like to note that Noah Noah Mund sorry Noah is still here Noah schumerth has left he has moved to Chicago to accompany his fiancee who is going to law school at University of Chicago so we'll be looking for another planner shortly Noah did fly back to Arizona to join us at the state planning conference last week he and Samantha Novotny did a wonderful session on our new mixed use ordinance was very well attended and actually ran over because people were so interested they asked many questions and the interest was perhaps heightened because right before that session at the awards luncheon the mixed use ordinance won the Award for best ordinance regulation legislation or adopted policy in the state and that was done in-house and spearheaded by Samantha and Noah and everybody here touched it in Subway so thank you I am really just I actually I've got some spies I knew that we were going to win that award and I was looking forward to busting Noah's chops uh pretty hard and now he's I don't think it's because of his fiance I think it's because he knew we were going to give him a hard time and he he probably got wind of it somehow and he's he rather quit the city than face us you you could maybe you can get his contact information to reach out reach out through Linkedin that's a that is a real bummer I'm sorry we're losing him or lost him or that's too bad I don't feel nearly as strongly about the rest of you we'll make sure I guess I also have to give kudos to our transportation planning team as at that same lunch in the Gilbert Transportation master plan won the award for the best master plan project study or Transportation plan in the state so [Applause] we're very proud of both of those Awards and I think we won more Awards than any other town or city in the state this year from APA right that's great awesome well thank you very much um the next meeting is sometime in the future October 4th I I didn't have my glass on then I couldn't find it right exactly all right well with that we will adjourn and we will see you all in October thank you