Okay. Well, everybody seems very excited. Ashley, are we ready to uh >> We are. Thank you, chair. All right. Thank you. I'll call this meeting to order. The first order of business, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you very much. If I could please get a roll call. >> Alternate Commissioner Wong. >> Alternate Commissioner Lion. >> Commissioner D. Gravina >> here. >> Commissioner Gage in the back. Uh Commissioner Davis >> here. Commissioner Simon >> here. >> Commissioner Anderson >> here. >> Vice Chair Fay >> here. >> And Chairman Munt >> here. >> Uh we have a quorum. >> Thank you. All right. We'll move into discussion and approval of the agenda which we did not have a study session today. So we did not have any discussion of it yet. So it's all very fresh for us. So let's take a look and uh if anyone has anything. Currently we have the consent agenda consisting of item four S2503 Willowbrook and it's a request to continue. Oh, so do I need to yank that off to request that or am I able to do the continuence? Okay, so that can stay. Um, and then we have number five, GP2503, Harvest Grove, Z2503, Harvest Grove, and number six, GP2502, Harvest Grove Neighborhood Commercial, and Z2508 Harvest Grove Neighborhood Commercial. Um, anyone have any reason? Well, I know there's comments in the back, so we can't move those to consent. So, um, we'll leave it as is. So, I guess I will entertain a motion if anybody has one. Chairman Munt, I move to approve the agenda as written. >> Motion by the vice chair. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 6. Okay, moving right along. Communications. Communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. The commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to state law, action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism, or scheduling that matter for further consideration. I can see Ashley's bringing some cards and >> public. >> Oh, okay. and we do have some citizen input. Okay. So, first up, I would like to call Rob Gurian. He wishes to speak during public comments. So, please come up, sir, and uh come to the podium there. And there's a little red button with a I guess like a voice guy on it. Hit that and then three minutes. >> Thank you. Uh members of the commission and town planning staff, my name is Rob Gaderian. Uh I am a resident of Gilbert. I live in 331 North Riata Street. I've been here before the last couple meetings and I'm here again uh to raise concerns about an item that's not on the agenda that I feel should be on the agenda and that's the development of 33 North. Uh this is at Lindsay and Elliot. This is a small infill uh subdivision. I think I've sent you an email. Hopefully you got that last week and that was distributed to you with again my many concerns about how this is going forward and how this is being processed with the developer Woodside Homes. Today about an hour ago I got the results of a a information request from the town of Gilbert that I filed about a month over a month ago requesting all the email communications between Woodside and the town of Gilbert. And I was extremely dismayed to find significant factual misrepresentations and out-and-out lies from Rob Flintton in emails uh directed to town planning staff and to you the commission. I will provide an email and I will highlight these for you this week. Uh I have also let you know that their surveyor EPS group is now under investigation by the Arizona State Board of Public Registration, the guys that licensed the surveyors. Um because their survey initially was fraudulent. It claimed our walls as 50/50 shared pro uh property. I came to you three years ago, let you know that was not true. I came to you in April and let you know that was not true. Uh and I feel like I've been disregarded by the commission and by the planning staff. And this this development keeps going forward. I was told by planning staff that no building permits would be issued. Yet you gave them a permit to build a boundary wall. They built it over the boundary line. You gave them a permit to do grading. They push dirt over the grad over the property line up against our fences which are not rated as retaining walls. Uh so I'm just waiting when they're going to build a house and they're going to go forward with this. I have been in contact with town planning staff. They are somewhat helpful in communicating to me what the plans are, but I've only had a chance to go through one of about 250 emails from Woodside Homes. And to find that one email February 24th from Rob Flintton full of material misrepresentations makes me wonder how many other times do developers come to you misrepresent the facts and you guys don't fact check them at all. I feel like I have put hundreds of hours into this just trying to defend my property. Thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, research fees, survey fees, and we, my neighbors and I have been correct every time. Yet, I feel like I'm fighting the town planning commission, town planning staff, and Woodside Homes. So, I am a little critical of you. I have asked you, and I'm going to ask you again, please rescend the approval that you granted in June of 2022 for this development. Their latest bid is to modify the open space plan, which means they no longer have a drainage plan. They don't have a grading plan. Their lot fit analysis doesn't work. It's a doover. Besides that, they had to refile a plat in July that still has significant survey issues. If no, if no action is taken and they are found to be in violation of Arizona State Boundary Survey minimum standards, you're not going to have any surveys for this development. Send this thing back to the beginning. No offense against town planning commission or town planning staff, but subdivisions like this aren't meant to have every single point redone by a single individual town planning staff member. You were given a false, fraudulent survey in June of 2022, and you approved. You didn't know it was fraudulent back then, but you do now. I've given you ample evidence of that. So, do the right thing and please put an agenda item on next month's meeting. Revoke this. Start from scratch. get a good code compliant solution. These guys are trying to build 12-inch wide double walls. They're trying to amend open space without anything and it's enough is enough. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Karen Pierce, um wishes to speak during the public comments. Please come up and same thing, state your name and then three minutes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> No, he left. It's red, so you're good. You can pull it towards you so that it there. Yeah. >> Okay. My name is Karen Pierce. I have three daughters and two of them attend Perry High School. Sometimes my daughter rides her bike to school. Often I see the high school cross country team runners running along Val Vista and Queen Creek Road by the school. For the safety of the kids at Perry High School, I ask that the zoning not be changed from how it is now. I believe that it would be more dangerous for the students to have more traffic right next to their school. I think it is irresponsible to think about increasing the number of people and traffic that would result from these pieces of land being reszoned to allow a greater number of people to occupy the space in between the street from a huge high school. There are a lot of kids that go to Perry High School. I actually called today and there's 2,300 kids that go to Perry High. Um there's a lot of kids that live close by who have to walk and ride their bikes because they won't be bust because they live within a certain distance of the school. Um for the safety of the kids, I ask that the resoning not be changed. I also think it makes sense to match how big the lot sizes are on the west side of Al Vista Road and to keep the lot sizes the same on both sides of the street. I absolutely am against the resoning of these two partial parcels of land. I don't want there to be double the amount of people across the street compared to how many people I have in my neighborhood right now. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else that had any comment on items not on the agenda that they wished to speak on? Wish it. Sir, if you could grab a a yellow card. Well, you can do it after. Oh, did >> I filled out a yellow card? >> Well, and that's on the item actually. And I was gonna say you'll have a chance to talk when we get into item number four. So that was um and and actually miss I think you might have meant to talk on item four but that's okay. That's my fault. Um uh but nonetheless when we get to that item I'll bring that public comment. So uh with that then uh we will move to the next section which is the report from the council leazison on current events. And I know that councilman Lions had told me earlier he won't be here this evening. Um, so we will just go past that and into the public hearing consent calendar. All items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar. The commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing, no person requests the item to be removed from the consent calendar. If such a request is made, the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action. Other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion. Currently, this consent calendar is item 4 S2503 Willowbrook. I do not have any comment cards from anyone in here that wish to speak, but I want to at least survey the crowd that if anyone is here to speak on this and wants it removed. Okay. So then in that case uh and of course this is a request to continue to November 5th, 2025. Um, and so that will be reflected in the vote for consent and I will entertain a motion. >> Chairman Munt, I move to approve the consent agenda as written. >> Thank you. We have a motion by the vice chair. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. >> That's what I want. That was the one that I wanted to speak about. Is that coming up later? >> Okay. Please cancel that vote. All right, I'm going to go back then. I completely blew that. I even looked at the number four and I said it and then I went right through that. This almost my bad. Okay, so with that then we're going to have to remove this from the consent calendar. We can then vote on it, but we will allow the public comment. Um, so consent calendar canceled. Now, Elena, from a legal vantage point, what do I need to do because I just called a vote? She's like, I don't even know what to do with this guy. >> Um, Mr. Chair, who uh initially made that motion? >> Vice Chair. >> Uh, vice chair, if you can withdraw your motion. Uh, and um, chair, if you can proceed from that. I I think that'll be sufficient. >> Okay. I uh move to resend my previous movement. >> Okay. Movement >> resend. >> A motion to rescend my motion. >> All right. So, that motion's rescended. >> Well, if it's by motion, it'll need to be seconded, but you can uh request to withdraw your motion as well. >> I I uh I'd like to withdraw my motion. >> We have a request for withdrawal. Is there a second withdrawal? Second. Yeah. Okay. to vote on or can we just can I just withdraw it? >> Should we vote on the withdrawal? Oh my god. >> Let's go ahead and vote on the withdrawal. >> Please please vote on the withdrawal. >> Essentially unvoting. >> Yeah. Undo. >> Well, we're voting yes to withdraw. >> Yes is to withdraw. >> Yes is yes withdrawal. Yes. Okay, the motion to withdraw is gone. Okay, so since we have an item that is we have someone wishing to speak, we are going to take item four off of the consent leaving the consent void. Therefore, moving on to the public hearing non-consent. Uh non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by a separate motion during the public hearings. Anyone wishing to comment in support of or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so. If you wish to comment on a public hearing item, please fill out the comment card indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard. Once the hearing is closed, there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the commission. So with that, we will open up item number four, S2503 Willowbrook. And because it is being continued, we won't have presentations, but we do have public comment. And I would like to ask Mr. Rob Van Van Bieber, uh, he wishes to speak. Please come up, state your name, and then three minutes, sir. >> Thank you. Um, I'm Rod Van Beber and I live in the Marathon Ranch development just contiguous to the proposed uh, Willoughbrook and um, we came to the town council meeting a couple weeks ago and they uh, have instructed the traffic people to come up with some different ideas about how we may calm traffic or deal with traffic absent a traffic light or include in a traffic light there. And what I the reason I came and wanted to address the commission and I thank you for this opportunity is because I read a report in one of the newspapers or articles or something that indicated that you Mr. Munt and you Mr. Fay had kind of during the approval process before kind of indicated that the traffic wasn't a big deal that you know a lot of residents just kind of you know you never get a proposal that doesn't involve somebody claiming about you know more traffic and that kind of stuff and so I understand that you must get a lot of uh things like that that you have to deal with. But I wanted to bring to your attention that ABC15 did some digging on this whole development and they went to the Gilbert police and I just wanted to go on record is saying that I would like you to revisit this whole traffic thing and uh the Gil according to the Gilbert police they've written over 300 citations on that stretch of Rigs Road this year so far by the end of August over 300 uh citations. And I just wanted to ask you to consider that when you consider uh whether or not the people of Marathon Ranch and surrounding communities are being uh you know real about what the traffic issues are. As I told the town council, Riggs Road really should be called Riggs Highway. And there's very few businesses along Riggs. Everybody uses that section of Rigs to go someplace going from Queen Creek and Santan Valley to Chandler and back and forth. uh the traffic at rush hour in the morning around Dobson High School. Dobson uh Basha, thank you. Basha High School, the traffic gridlocks now on routes. Come out there and look at the traffic at 7:15 in the morning and and it gridlocks all the way back past 154th almost all the way back to 156. And uh so we do have some traffic issues there. And I just want to go on record and say that uh you know I know you get a lot of people that claim a lot of problems with traffic, but we really do have issues with traffic there. And I don't know, you know, I think the solution is a traffic light. Maybe the solution is getting rid of the median in the middle of the road and letting us have a left-hand turn merge area that we can pull out when one side's clear and wait for the other side to be clear. Maybe that would be uh a way to do it. But with over 300 citations issued by the Gilbert Police Department, it is an issue and I thank you for your attention. >> All right. Thank you, sir. And once again, my apologies for my absent-mindedness. Um, okay. So, then with that, we will do a vote on this and I'm hoping that part of the reason that it's continued is to look into the um issues that were spoken about. But I will entertain a motion to approve the request to continue to November 5th. >> Jar, can I ask a question before we do that? So the lady that was up earlier, she was here to speak on item four. Is that correct? >> Item five. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Um, chairman, I'd make a motion to approve item four to be continued until November. We have a motion for >> even though it's not on consent. I think I that's on right. Right. Okay. >> Sir, if we can have a date certain November 5th. Yeah. >> November 5th. >> Okay. We have a motion from the vice chair. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right. Commissioner Diggervina coming through. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. The item will be continued to November 5th, 2025. Okay. Now, on to the next item, GP. Item five GP25-03 Harvest Grove. Uh, and Z2503 Harvest Grove. And we will bring up Keith. Chair Mont, members of the planning commission, good evening. So, my item that is before you tonight, I have two items. This uh the first one here which I know will take a bulk of the time is for the Harvest Grove development as you you already stated the case numbers. Um the site is located at the souththeast corner of Germaine Road and Val Vista Drive and you can see it there highlighted um on in the exhibit that's in front of you. Um the project site is about 311 acres approximately and it excludes that little tiny piece out in the in the corner the far bottom lefthand corner which is my next project on the agenda tonight. So just want to give you some context. This is in the south of the Gilbert Mercy Hospital uh in that whole corridor right there uh close to loop 202. Request before you tonight is for a minor general plan amendment on 179 approximate acres of that larger 311 acre property and then a PD reszone on the whole entire uh development. So, um, before I start and getting into the meat and potatoes here tonight, I just wanted to show you kind of a little overview here, kind of a t a, um, outline of of what we're going to go over, go over the general plan and reszone request slides. Then we'll go over some open space, uh, the open space plan. Uh, traffic and circulation will be next, and then the phasing of the development. then the the deviations that the applicant is proposing and then public participation and then I don't have it on here but I'm going to go over some revised conditions with you that I actually handed out to you before the meeting. Okay, so the general plan and the reszone. So the first request by the applicant is to change the existing general plan uh designation on about 179 acres um of the 311 acre site. You can see on the screen in front of you that the existing uh general plan designation um of residential 2 to 3 and a half is over the entire property right now. And the graphic to the right shows the areas that will be changed. there is that yellow color kind of in the middle. Um those areas will not be changed. So that's why only 179 acres approximately are being changed. And you can see all the different color patterns of the areas that will be changed. So of that area that will be changed there's 35 I'm just going to do approximate numbers here. 3 approximate 35 acres of regional commercial will be will be added is proposed about 43 acres of 3 and a half to five dwelling units per acre about 38 acres of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre about 35 acres of 8 to 14 about 17 acres of 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre and about 9 and a half acres of the higher density category between 25 and 50 dwelling units per acre. So obviously as you can see the property includes a mix a good mixture of regional commercial um and two multi- uh three multifamily uh designations um town homes and alley loaded product and all these things are proposed and you can see that there's a blue line on the screen in front of you on that graphic on the right. Everything to the north of that line is in the Santan character area. Everything to the oh sorry excuse me is outside of the Santan character area I stand corrected everything below that line the bottom 75% is in the Santan character area. So I just wanted to uh to bring that up to you. So the next slide is existing and proposed zoning. So um the zoning is being changed on the whole entire property. Currently today there is about 242 acres of single family 35 and about and these are all approximate numbers 68 acres of SF-15. Those will be changed to the numbers that you see on the screen. I I don't think I'm going to go over all those numbers this time, but you can see that there's a good mixture of regional of of different zoning districts. regional commercial. You have uh that's in the top half that's outside the Santan character area and you have also a multifamily medium apartments uh zoning outside of the Santan character area to the north and then multifamily high which um a portion of it's inside the character area and a portion of it's out goes kind of through the middle of it or to the through the top half and then you have MFL you have some SFA single family attached you have single family detached single single family 6, which are 6,000 ft² minimum lots, and then single family 8, which is 8,000 ft² minimum lots. So, a good mixture of zoning spread throughout the whole entire project. Okay, this slide shows the color version of the development plan. There is a black and white version of the development plan in your packet as well. This one shows uh better detail. Um, this illustrates the overall design of the site. So, the site, as I stated already, covers about 311 acres and will include about 1739 dwelling units. Of th, excuse me, of those dwelling units, about 1,3 of them are single family homes, which are located mainly in the Santan character area, south of that blue line, and it extends all the way down to Queen Creek Road. Lot sizes range from 1,650 square ft up to 10,800 square ft. The plan also proposes um a 720 726 multif family units. So about 500 units of that 726 are located in the MF in the MFM zoning district which is about 18.8 8 dwelling units per acre and also within the MFH or multif multifamily high zoning district which is about 28.3 dwelling units per acre and both of those developments for the well half of the MFH and and all of the MFM are in are outside of the Santan character area and they're at the north end of the development. So um the MFL piece in the bottom leftand corner is 230 units and that is about 8.42 42 dwelling units per acre approximately and that is at the south end as I stated. So a design for the multifamily low piece in the southwest southwest corner of the development uh will come before staff later for review. We don't have timing on that but that they don't we don't have specific design detail for that. And the overall density of the development is about 5.59 dwelling units per acre. Site access will be provided by five major entrances. One off Germaine Road and three off of Val Vista Drive and one off of Queen Creek Road. Hopefully you can see those pretty well on this plan. There'll be some other plans later that might show them better. Each entrance ties into a into um into a collector street. the one that goes from there's one central spine collector that's a mile long that carries will carry a majority of the traffic and feeds residents into their sub neighborhoods and and and as subsequentially onto their local streets that feed their houses. Um secondary deadend spurs at the north and south ends on the eastern boundary which is called what we call Coronado Street feeds there's two entrances off of there. I wish I had a I don't know if I have a good laser pointer for you here. So, there's an entrance here off of Coronado and then there's another entrance down here and Coronado dead ends at this point. Sorry, my hand's pretty shaky and then and then it ends up over like right up in here some over in here somewhere. So, there's this whole middle gap that is not is the applicant is not proposing to go through. And this is for secondary access to uh a few of these homes, the lots over in here to get to their to get to their homes. Next, I would like to highlight a few um of staff's concerns. Please note that um many of our concerns and reasons for for the re recommendations of denial that you see in your staff report project um deal with uh safety and traffic related concerns. Because of that, here in just a few minutes after I speak, I will turn the time over to our town engineer, Susanna Strubel. She'll come up and and go over some of those traffic and safety concerns. But prior to her coming up, I just wanted to address um a few or share with you a few concerns from a planning perspective. The first concern I want to bring up is I would um is to the vision and character of the of the development with respect to the Santan character area that's in our general plan. The Santan character area which was created in the year 2000. It was created to capture the unique qualities of the south portion of Gilbert which historically prior to development consisted of agricultural land. the south the um Santan character area encompasses about 10,311 acres which is about 16 square miles which is part of about which is uh part of the 72 square mile planning area uh of the whole town of Gilbert and it was created as a tool to recognize the importance and maintain some of the rural agricultural heritage of South Gilbert. The people of the Santan character area and town staff envisioned the area as a combination of rural and suburban neighborhoods and that that that enjoy the natural environment including wildlife and smallcale agricultural activities. Emphasis should be placed on outdoor living and the ability to live and play in a secured safe environment. The area was programmed around low and medium density residential that should blend with with the existing farming and agriculture that was there at the time and there's still a little bit of it left and trails and open space and commercial uses to make up the whole entire Santan character area. So given that said, um staff does not believe that what is proposed by the applicant for the development as a whole complies with the vision of the Santan character area. The Santan character area section of the general plan indicates that master plan communities are generally characterized by smaller lots ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 square ft with an average density of 2 to three and a half dwelling units per acre. This density is intended to blend across the character area, allowing for some variation, including pockets of development that may fall above or below that average range. While the proposed development does fall within a pocket or a proposed pocket above the range previously mentioned of of that um above that uh density range, staff's primary concern lies in the portion of lots that deviate from the established character. Of the 1,3 single family lots that are proposed, approximately 483 lots are under 6,000 square ft. below that range. In addition, the inclusion that includes the addition of 146 multifamily low uh units that are in that apartment complex at the southwest corner of the development. This further amplifies the deviation from that from that range that I just mentioned. The high concentration of sub6,000 square foot lots is inconsistent with the vision of the Santan character area as outlined in the general plan and raises concerns about compatibility with the intended character of the area. Staff concerns with safety and livability stem from a key consistency with the established vision of the Santang character area. The pro proposed development includes 125 alley loaded homes and town homes that front and you can see it on your site plan in front of you or the development plan that front that onem long collector street that bisects the development right through the middle. These homes are located approximately 10 ft from the sidewalk and approximately 22 feet from parked vehicles. conditions that do not reflect the prevailing character of the Santan character area and not and are not found really anywhere in the Santan character area where you have designated parallel parking spaces. We would also point out that there are approximately 3,000 vehicle trips anticipated along the proposed collector. These alley loaded homes are facing this proposed collector and do um do not include backyards and leave only front yards that are not inviting or usable with the number of anticipated trips. This configuration is not found in any other south uh neighborhood in the Santan character area and introduces a distinctly urban more urbanized form along the most visible cor corridor of the site. staff believes that this design approaches design approach is incompatible with the Santan character area's intended scale, rhythm, and residential identity and may undermine the long-term livability and cohesion of the area. Another concern is the applicant is requesting alternative roadway crosssections which staff believes is con is compromised with designated on street parallel parking spaces and bike lanes on the outside next to the travel lanes which could result in conflicts between cars and bicycles. Again, a condition that does not exist anywhere else in the Santan character area in that exact configuration. Lastly, the elimination of the required Coronado Road, which is on that far eastern boundary, and Partridge Drive, which is that red line that's on the screen in front of you, which are required per our transportation master plan and in the general plan circulation plan. So, it is so to be honest, it is very rare. It's been rare. It's rare to have a development that does not align with the plan collector. In those instances, the applicant and the town have worked together to address safety and traffic concerns. To date, our safety concerns have not been mitigated and the collector has not been moved. While we're excited for the development of this property, our primary concern as we review any new project is safety and livability of the communities within our town. You may hear tonight that some of these staff's concerns are a matter of preference. And while we appreciate the design goals of the applicant, what is not a matter of preference is ensuring safety, appropriate ingress and egress, maintaining adequate emergency response. Those are not a matter of preference. They are a matter of safety and livability. So I I failed to supply in all these slides. these numbers. I appreciate it. But here's all the numbers. I I I apologize. Excuse me. Here's all the numbers of the um of all the unit counts. Um so you have all these single family, 13, 726 multif family, and then and then here's all the other acreages, which I've kind of already gone over some of these acreages. Um so we won't we won't uh go over those again. But the next section, and there's the concerns. I apologize. I failed um to to show all these concerns on the screen so you guys could actually see them but I know I talked about them and went over them. Um so now we will transition to the open space slide. So as far as the open space is concerned um there's about 69 uh acres of open space within the whole entire development. Um 29% of that is common open space. I know it's hard to see on the plan here where that's located. 4.2 4.2 acres is in that central park in the middle there. Um there's about 5 acres of pocket parks if you add them all up around the whole development. And there's about four and a 4.6 acres of trails and you can see it. I don't have it on this plan, but there's a trails master plan in your packet that would show the locations of all the trails and so forth. So that amount of open space 2 point 29.1% does exceed the minimum that is required by town by the town in our design guidelines which is 10%. So as far as some concerns um with fee open space there are several locations within the single family parcels that lack conveniently located active open space amenities which which impacts livability. In our design guidelines, this is is this is directly from the design guidelines. It states design active open space in a manner which is easily accessible to local residents. ACT accessible means 1 16th of a mile or 880 ft by walking or biking. So there I don't have the ones marked but I can't remember the exact number. I think there's about 15 or so um uh lots that and we're going through the preliminary plat review right now so we'll hone in on that more but there's approximately that number of lots that do not meet this standard and there is a condition of approval um in your packet that addresses this situation. So the next section in the plan in the presentation tonight is traffic and circulation. Um, so as I stated before, um, we have our town engineer here, uh, Susanna Strubel, and she is going to take over this part of the presentation and share staff's their concerns with the traffic and the circulation and the safety element of the of the development. >> Thank you, Keith. And, um, thank you, chairman and commissioners. I am Susanna Stubble, your town engineer. So, um I know that traffic and circulation continues to be a challenge. In fact, we've heard a couple of those those issues this evening um before we got here also. Um so, I want to basically just refresh kind of how we set up our our transportation network. move through through how this complies or does not comply to what we are hoping to um receive based off of the documents that have been adopted with the with our master plan, our transportation master plan and our general plan and then go over some of the variances that they have asked for as we move through that circulation um piece of this of this proposal. So, in looking at our adopted transportation master plan and what you will see whenever you look at that master plan or you look at the general plan, there's often roadways that are in different colors as you see on this map. And this is a cutout of our transportation master plan and and general plan that with an expectation of functional class functional sorry classification uh of roadways and functional classification of roadways. I'm having a hard time with that tonight. I apologize. is set up to allow you to move from accessible spots such as your residential housing and move you all the way through into a very highly mo mobile environment which is considered an arterial. There's a gap between your local roadways and your arterial that is called a collector. So it will basically gather those items from your residentials, move into those collectors, moving away from accessibility and more into mobility to get you to our system. So with that um our transportation master plan and our um um general plan are both identifying that there should be two collector roadways in this area that is to be serving the area between Germaine and Queen Creek and Val Vista and Greenfield. So on the ha east on the west half of that what is a section area is where this development um is being placed that is really on the um which is where the development is. East of here you have some soccer fields some more residential. You also have our um green field water reclamation facility that we share with Mesa and Queen Creek. We have our south area service center where our public works is housed. Um, we have a cemetery down there as well off of Queen Creek. And we also have um a future plan to update our our police department's substation down in that area. A collector roadway along that north south alignment as well as on the east west that would go from what is considered Partridge, which is about halfway between Queen Creek and Germaine, would go over to a roadway that's a collector roadway called Coronado. We've had a lot of dialogue with the consultant at this point in time on what their intent is to supply us not only just their development but also provide as required um our ability to have access to that collector network. Um to date we have not resolved um some of those issues. But I will tell you basically what we're looking at is to try to figure out a way um to continue to have the accessibility we need that will provide us with that emergency response provide us with not only a corridor that allows for some mobility of vehicles in the overall area which as you know north of here we have the Santan core area where which is a high economic value we have Perry High School also on the south side and so it's a balance and circulation is based off of how do we balance all of this to allow that we don't put too much um constraints on any area um in this area. So um this is what you were looking at from our general plan and master plan. It is set up to help us move people from that accessible network all the way up through our mobile app network into our materials and the collectors are those systems that do that. So their proposed development right now is not placing the collector roadway as it says in the general plan and master plan along the roadway that is like midpoint between what I would say the residential zoning here and then that is that is more public zoning. That is Coronado road and our expectation is that should be a collector roadway with an 80oot rideway. As I think Keith mentioned, at this point in time, um the collector roadway that they are proposing um brings us past um the residential area known as Blandford down there from the north to the south off of Germaine down south and ends um within their subdivision. It ends at that point in time. And then we also have on the south side moving up on um on Coronado that would basically just bring us in um generally along the south side of where the cemetery is and potentially touching the point of the north of the Greenfield water reclamation facility. What they have done is taken a collector system that helps to serve their neighborhood and we have worked very diligently with them and they have have adapted some of their plans to basically provide safety along the corridors that they would prefer to serve as a collector within this area. We're requesting that that that you know that that works. It doesn't meet necessarily our expectations of that. they have some changes with that with with um how it is serving and how it can function as a collector and it basically does not provide us with the flexibility to have a collector along other parts of that of that section. So we are trying to preserve that that ability with with this request of which they to date have not had ability to do that. I think as Keith mentioned, um that orange line that you see there is going to handle somewhere around 3,000 cars a day. The 125 lots that he talked about are facing on that on that corridor. That's in a peak hour. That means it's your high ends of of time frame. You have 300 cars going in front of or through that area in front of those houses where there is on street parking. So, we've worked with them as much as we can to basically address some of the the safety issues that would work for what I would consider a local collector hybrid on this, but we have not to date basically been able to gain um that collector roadway along the east border of their property that helps us with other areas that need to have some flexibility and mobility. Uh is it moving? There we go. So they're doing some of this through what we call a technical variance process. And so during the planning process and the planning process, um there is an opportunity for them to deviate from our technical standards as it relates to design standards. In our ordinances, it does basically say that that I as a town engineer is your person who basically gets to approve those technical variances. as I evaluate those technical variances and they have asked for several of them still beyond what you see here tonight. Um I have to look at that from a perspective that's outlined and I've listed those on here. There are six of them and it really is. Is it a matter of self-imposed hardship? Is a green field site a site that hasn't been developed here a hardship? A lot of times we take technical variances when we're in a situation where a lot of development has happened in the past and we just, you know, can't can't do things when it it it it already has some development around it keeping it from being able to accommodate the things. Number two, does the strict application of code requirement place an undue burden on the property? You know, I think collector status and our transportation system is necessary to get people around and to get emergency response in and out of there. And so we're we're trying to basically really state I don't think there's an undue burden here. I think there are ways to basically work through that and and support a collector system that can also not only serve for this division or this subdivision of development but also be able to serve other other places that would touch that collector along Coronado. Does the strict application of the design requirement have an unreasonable adverse impact on property owners ability to reasonably use their property? I think they can still use their property and it would also open up the opportunity for others to use it as well. So these are the things that I will be looking at as they provide me those variances. A lot of them are really set up to say there is just no way you can get your standards in there and it's not necessarily a preference of how they want to put their development together. So the requested technical variances right now that we have not resolved in 100% are provided approval on is the cross-section with the on street parking. Our collector roadways are not to have collector or to have parking on them. It does create some mobility issues. It also creates some additional safety issues. The design speed here, they are asking for a lower design speed and we are working towards allowing that design speed to be approved um at a 30 m versus a 35 mph speed limit. Um there is an increase in the rideaway width. That increase in the rideway width goes from an 80, which is standard, up to over 93 feet, which means as a private roadway or as a public roadway, excuse me, that means we have more than our normal um roadway to maintain and operate. Um we also have um some some areas as well that on the residential street that they're asking for variances on how much spacing we should be putting between those access points. The bicycle lanes are having some variance onto them too because they aren't consistently lining the G collector roadway. And then there's one big one that really is is probably not 100% related to the transportation, but RWCD does have an easement along there within within the where the partridge collector road is, which is that midsection that goes e east west that goes from um Val Vista over to Coronado. They have a rightaway there now with a canal system and they are proposing to reroute that. Um our concern at this point in time with that is what are the prior rights for that? They are proposing to put it into one of the local roadways which means if that pipe were somewhere in the future have to fail then we have another maintenance issue that we have to take care of on our roadway system. So those are the requests that there that we are evaluating at this point in time and have not approved them at this time. So, our concern again is really how can we save that mo can we protect our mobility, our response times um while basically keeping our our roadways um flexible so that we have ability to move our traffic the way that we need to move our traffic. So, I'm going turn this back to Keith at this point in time. >> Can I can I ask you a question on on one of the things she said real quick? The the RWCD easement right now just does that run through the property? Yes, it runs east west on the property kind of midsection between Queen Creek and Germaine. >> So, it's just there on its own in the middle. >> There there is a canal there right now. >> Okay. >> Because this is farming country or farming area right now and that's what it's serving basically. So, >> perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. So, moving on to the FA Thank you, Susanna. Um, moving on to the phasing. So, here's the phasing plan that has been uh provided to us. So, you I know it's kind of hard to see. It's a little small, but you can see how the phasing starts at the north top end of the development. Um, goes from north all the way to the south. You see phases 1 A, 1 B, 1 C up at the top, including you have some of the roadway improvements, the the center collector. You've got some of the apartment, the apartment complex up to the north and the commercial. And they're just going to build it from north all the way to south all the way down to Queen Creek. So, I just wanted to show you this phasing plan so you can get an idea of of what's going to be in what phase. And each phase will include the appropriate level of of streets and road connections and so forth that will be able to serve each phase and for residents and customers for the commercial to get to where they need to be. So, and emergency services of course. So, next is uh street cross-sections. So, from the creeks, here's here's uh I decided to just place a lot of these street cross-sections in here. I know that they are in your packet. Um this one is the major collector that's going down through the middle Rome Street. It's the only thoroughare uh in the development that stretches throughout the from from beginning to from bottom to top. It stretches one mile. And like I stated before, a large majority of the traffic in the development will be using this. And this is the residents. A lot of the residents only access to their sub neighborhoods is through this collector right down the center. And you can see that this collector, I know it's hard to see these things, but you can see the one on the left is probably your best view. You could see the homes in relation to it on the right side. Those are actually the town homes. The like uh this is like a fiveplex. Um, and you can see the sidewalks, the entrances out to from the buildings to the sidewalks, the parking that's going to parallel parking that's on the street. And then this doesn't have the bike lanes, but we are requiring and having a condition have a condition of approval in your report to add the bike lanes on each side of the collector street. And this one has a raised median as well in the middle. And you can see all the trees. Here is an 88 foot major collector with the raised median. And then I have a little graphic down at the bottom that shows you where that's at. So this is also a portion of the Rome Street um as well or the major collector. And you can see there's a bike lane on one side but not on the other. On the left hand side you can see some those alley loaded product homes. Um and you can see kind of that relationship between the homes and the street and the on on the on-site parking as well on on the on street parking, excuse me. Um Rome Street again. And this is kind of this little piece kind of at the north where you can kind of see this transition of the bike lane. It goes through this little island. Um again bike lanes on the right hand side, no bike hand bike lanes on the left. And then you can see that relationship with those those alley loaded products there on the left hand side. And this also has kind of a traffic calming uh feature where they're kind of they have an two islands that come that kind of pinch the tra the traffic down to this point and c I think it's about I think it I can't remember it's about 25 30 ft wide I believe in that section just enough to get two cars by and so the applicant is providing that as a as a traffic calming measure. um Kingbird, which is the collector on the northand side, south of that multifamily high piece. And this also has um some homes facing Kingbird. Uh and then you can see that there's no bike lanes on either side of the road, which we are requiring that they put in. Here is the major collector in purple there on that that little key map. That's Partridge Drive. They do have the bike lanes on either side. So this is this is more of a standard standard collector street. It's it's closer to that. Um Coronado Road um that's on that those you can see in the pink there shows bike lanes on either side and and of course um no homes uh bordering Coronado except for backyards. Uh next is P A deviations. The applicant is proposing um several PAD deviations. I have them highlighted on the screen for you in this red color. So for the regional commercial zoning district, they have a few uh setback deviations adjacent to the commercial to to the residential to the south which is that multif family high piece. Um from 75 down to 68 feet and then they have one from 40 feet which 75 is required on a on a setback there on the on the rear setback. and town staff is acceptable. We we've agreed to these deviations due to the fact that it will allow a greater level of integration between the multifamily high development and the commercial to the north. And that's what those deviations are centered on. The multifamily high again there's there's one deviation for the landscape percentage from 45 down to 27%. for the MFM piece on the north boundary of the MFM parcel. Uh separating the MFM and those single family attached homes, they're requesting a deviation from 30 ft down to 18 ft and a view fence which will help integrate the two developments and make it feel safer. Um town staff has been has been agreeable to that that deviation. Um single family attached. So in this slide's a little bit different. You have the red one which is their proposed deviation from the standard and then there's blue. There's something highlighted in blue. The red the blue is a standard that they're going above and beyond with. In this case there is no minimum lot width or depth and they're proposing one. And then for maximum height they're proposing actually to go under or have shorter buildings than the max height allows. So that's just wanted to explain that. But this district and the SFA, they're proposing 1,600 uh minimum lot area, which which town staff is opposed to um single family. And the reason we're opposed to that is because um and I'll go back to it to show it to you again. And there's a few other um homes sizes that don't of the minimum lot area that don't have that they're not meeting that minimum lot area that's required per code. Um and town staff, we are opposed to that because we don't believe that it provides any greater benefit to the community to reduce the lot size. Um kind of it doesn't provide any further integration like you would see between the multifamily and the regional commercial. Um they're just reducing the lot sizes. And um we we also believe that with a green field development that has plenty of land area, they should be able to meet our minimum lot sizes. So on this one as well, um SFD, they have some of the same type of deviations in a setback deviation that we do support that. Um single family six, a few deviations from setbacks and of course they're going above and beyond lot sizes in these areas, which we appreciate. And then maximum lot coverage. There's one lot that size that is a very popular home they would like to construct where they uh want they need 52% lot coverage for a single family home and we're agreeable to that. Um SF8 another setback deviation we're agreeable to that deviation as well. So as far as public participation is concerned the applicant held one neighborhood meeting in February. It was kind of an open house style type neighborhood meeting where six residents uh attended. Um town staff has received two emails from from residents that are opposed to the project and one phone call from a from another resident that that was opposed and expressed uh a lot of concerns with the development similar to what you're hearing from us. Um town staff also received a letter from the Gilmore project developer. that that corner that commercial corner at the north sorry the the northwest corner of of Germaine and Val Vista they expressed concerns that the proposed northern portion of the development which is the regional commercial portion of the development and the multifamily high parcels do not reflect the area's established vision. They urge a distinctive mixeduse design in the commercial ver with high quality architecture and pedestrianoriented placemaking rather than a conventional traditional shopping center that they feel seems somewhat disconnected. Uh also the last uh uh comments and concerns that we've received from are from the management of the Gilbert soccer fields to the to the east. Um we have met with them many times to discuss their concerns. Um they have a lot of concerns with two-story homes and homes in general being placed right up along the border or close to the border on the other side of a street in porch in from their soccer fields. and they believe that the lighting will impact the homes and that such a large development will have have huge impacts on their on their operations and that they'll be getting a lot of complaints because of all the homes that are backing onto these soccer fields which have already been existing for many many years. Um, so at the end of my presentation here, staff obviously we recommend denial of the project of the of the the reszone and the general plan amendment. But prior to um opening up for questions and so forth, um we have a bunch of conditions of approval or some conditions of approval that we are proposing to uh after meeting with the applicant that we're proposing to revise. So, in order for them to be on the record, I have to review them with you. I know we have it. You have a packet in front of you that I placed on your on your uh the table in front of you that shows these conditions. So, condition number one, um I don't know if you've had a chance to read through all these. I can do I have to read the whole condition, Elena, or just the portions that are changing? uh just the portions that are changing for today. >> So this one deals with dedications to Gilbert to for for roadways for Val Vista and Germaine and Queen Creek. Um after talking with the applicant, we decided to change the effective date to be prior to uh or when the first final plat is recorded. Um that is a much more reasonable um date within which they can comply with dedicating rightaway. Number two would be the same same thing prior to the or or by the time the first final plat is recorded. Much easier for them to accomplish. Um and then number three is not changed. Number four, we decided to delete um amending the collector road modifications in the general plan. That's that's basically what the applicant is requesting is to amend that map in the general plan. Number four um is deals with construction of off-site improvements to to those roadways that I already mentioned. Um and this one says uh it's based on the phasing plan. So they're going to construct improvements based on the phasing plan that's in your pack in your packet. Number five, no changes. Number six, uh this is a condition that was added to for a traffic signal shall be constructed at Rome Street and Germaine Road. These improvements are required to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final approval of any unit or building constructed on the property. If the traffic signal is designed and constructed by the developer, Gilbert shall enter into a reimbursement agreement in a form approved by the town attorney to reimburse the developer for the design and construction costs incurred by the developer. Also, number seven is a new condition as well. This um reads and I have to read this. Developers shall design and construct at developers expense a traffic signal modification at Kbiscane Drive/ Queen Creek Road and Coronado/ Queen Creek Road. Uh these improvements are required to be completed in connection with the development of the adjacent parcels per the approved phasing plan. Uh number eight um deals with an a maintenance agreement. um a maintenance agreement that is approved by the town attorney for not maintain not a maintenance agreement. This is an agreement for uh 50% of the design and cost of construction of a traffic signal at Mercy and Rome Street. Sorry, the maintenance agreement is another condition. Um and this is prior to the first certificate of occupancy and the rest of that is just we decided is not applicable. Number nine is unchanged. Number 10 talks about the construction of improvements to Parters Drive, Coron Coronard Road and 156th Street. And we added that those uh portions to that to that condition. What was condition number nine? Uh numbers 11, 12, and 13. Well, 13 is being changed to add the words to the north. 14 is unchanged. 15 is unchanged. 16 is unchanged. 17. Um, we struck the, now this one does have to do deal with the maintenance development agreement for maintenance of the green bike lanes. We struck out the within 30 days because that is not feasible or possible. And we added at the end that it that this needs to be uh that the homeowners association can be assigned the the management of this maintenance agreement. Uh number 18, the there's a well site on the property next to the MFH to the to the west of it. And this um corrects the dimensions, the minimum dimensions that are required for the well site. So it would be 185 ft versus 200 ft and 465 ft versus 480 ft. Numbers 19 and 20 are unchanged or 21 and 22 are unchanged. um the deviations tables uh we added we missed a line for the rear non-residential setback uh and then for both of those uh for the regional commercial development so it's 20 and 10 for both of those um misspelled a word in the depth um that's the rest of it's unchanged except for number 26 which was number 25 which the the original condition talked about perimeter landscaping needed to be installed during FA first phase. Um we met with the applicant and decided that that would be in connection with a with a given parcel's development per the improved phasing plan. It wasn't fair to require them to landscape along street roadway frontages in future phases where they don't have water lines and so forth and it would have been very cost prohibitive for them. So we modified that condition as such. Um before I turn it over to questions, I wanted to mention that these conditions of approval are in event are are only in effect if you as a planning commission decide to forward a a favorable recommendation to the town council. If you uphold our recommendation for denial, they would not they would not be applicable. So I just wanted to mention that. Um, so that concludes our presentation and uh we are open for any questions that you may have. The applicant is also here today, Mr. Brennan Ray, and I'm sure he has a a nice presentation for you tonight. So that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Keith. Well, we'll start with some questions. And I can see Commissioner Simon has been chomping at the bit. >> Choing at the bit. Um, Keith, I've got two questions. Number one, has the applicant agreed to these conditions that you just set forth? Chair Mont, uh, Commissioner Simon, they have agreed to some of them. Okay? >> They will be discussing with you in their presentation the ones that they do not agree with. But, um, a lot of the lang all the language that you see that I showed you, they agree with all these track changes, but there are some conditions that they do not agree with that they will want to go over uh, with you as a commission. >> Okay. And can you remind me what the boundaries of the Santang character area are? >> Yeah. Uh, Chair Munt, uh, Commissioner Simon on this exhibit in front of you. Um, you see the Do you mean just in this development or the whole town? >> The entire >> Okay. So, I have I have a slide for that. My back pocket slide way in the back here. Here it is. Okay. So, this is the Santan character area boundaries. This is the map that's in our general plan. And it's the blue down there. You can see the site, our site or the project site is this that big old that piece of farmland that's all the way up at the north. So you can see how this extends way far south all the way down to past well it looks like it goes down to Rigs Road all the way out east all the way to Power Road and of course it the the boundary varies on the west side pretty quite a bit. Uh, in lie of making this longer, could you go back and read your definition of what the Santan character area is? I guess not in lie of that would be incorrect right? >> Because I want to make this longer. >> No, make this longer. >> Not because I want to. >> I just want to understand my my question, Keith, is you you had mentioned um and I think there was uh you know, minor agrarian and uh some fall small farming and some different things like that. >> I can if you can read it to just refresh my memory please. >> Chairman Commissioner Simon I'd be glad to. So I'll just read a portion of this. It says Santan character area which was created in the year 2000 to capture the unique qualities of the south portion of Gilbert which historically prior to development consisted of farming agricultural land. My type is actually smaller than I hoped it would be. I apologize being old. The South Santan character area encompasses 10,311 acres or 16 thou 16 square miles is part of the town's 72 square mile planning area was primarily created as a tool to recognize the importance maintain some of the rural heritage of South Gilbert. The people of the Santan character area and town staff envisioned the area, and this is the meat right here, as a combination of rural and suburban neighborhoods that enjoy the natural environment, including wildlife and smallcale agriculture activities. Emphasis should be placed on outdoor living, enjoyment, and the ability to live and play in a secure and safe environment. Low and medium density residential developments should blend with farming, trails, open space, and commercial uses to make to make up the character of the Santang character area. >> Thank you. >> I clipped that straight out of the uh general plan. >> Okay. Thank you. It's all I have for now. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Uh Commissioner Degravina, please. >> Yeah, Keith, thank you. That was a long presentation. The last thing you said before you turned it over to us is that if we agree with your denial, it does go in front of the town council or it doesn't. >> Um, Chair Mont, uh, Commissioner Diggervina, if you agree with the denial, it's if you're forwarding a recommendation for denial to the council. So, it would still go in front of the council, but as a recommendation from you as a commission denial. Does that make sense? But yes, it would still go before the planning the the council as a denial recommendation. >> So they're going to get it either way. >> Uh Chair Munt, Commissioner Dearina, they're going to they're going to get it either way. Yes, they're going to has to go before him either way. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Vice Chair, would you like to uh >> I I do have one specific question before we hear um Mr. Ray. uh to your conditions, which I I appreciate if we recommend no, don't don't apply, but within your conditions, uh number 17, that's the maintenance of the bike lanes. Those are within the public right away, aren't they? And in fact, they actually move further and closer to the sidewalk at different points. If I'm not mistaken, you >> you had a rendering there that showed it. Okay. But >> um chair uh Mont Commissioner Fay which which portion so 17 is >> yeah I'm talking about the >> so which bike the >> well any of them but really the bike lanes on the uh what is it Rome is that the the that kind of middle spine >> correct >> that's within the public rightway inside of the the sidewalks and in fact some places it moves inside of the parking and then back out to the out doesn't it move back kind of back and forth at some points >> um chairmont commissioner Fay. Yes, they are in the ride ofway. Um, as far as moving back and forth, yes, there are there is a portion. I don't know if I have that exhibit uh where it does move where it kind of transitions. I'm sure the applicant probably has a diagram on that. >> Well, right here, actually, you show it kind of cuts through one of the calming. >> Yes, it cuts through one of the calming islands, if you will. It >> it seems to me it's a to to turn over turning. There's a lot of things we turn over and I would say turf onto HOAs to manage. Um, but this is actually managing and maintaining something that is within the city's public right away. Um, this to this this to me is more than just even median landscaping sometimes is problematic. And this to me is an order of magnitude more problematic to have an HOA. I I I don't know that this is a altogether great idea to have HOAs man maintaining part of your pavement. >> Okay, >> that was my only specific thought for Keith. Very well. Would anybody else like some questions for Keith before we invite the applicant to present? Okay. I didn't know if Commissioner Simon wanted us to read some pros or something, but uh with that we will uh bring up uh Mr. Ray and we can see the applicant. Thank you, sir. >> I think it has to be this one. >> Good evening, chair, members of the commission. Brennan Ray, 2325 East Camelback Road. Here on behalf of the applicant, Lenar Holmes. I have with me tonight seated here on the front row um the division president Allan Jones. I have Todd Sorl and Heather Chadwick uh with LAR. I have a bunch of other people that if it becomes uh necessary for me to call them up, I will absolutely call them up, including our planner, engineer, and traffic engineer to talk about things tonight. But we're certainly very excited to talk about Harvest Grove. I know we've been sitting here a while and I will try to be brief but I think um with the type of this with what this development is a highquality mixeduse highly integrated development uh on one of the last large parcels within the town. Uh it certainly deserves a little bit additional and deeper discussion as we talk about it tonight. We know that this development is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and the Santan character area plan. Harvest Grove builds upon the decades of quality master plan communities that already exist in the town, creating a a place that future residents uh and users uh will be proud to call home. We certainly have worked with staff uh more so than any other development that I've ever worked on in my uh career, my 20 year career. Um we've met with them close to 25 times over the past eight months. And that doesn't include the countless phone conversations uh and email exchanges that we've had relative to this because we recognize the importance of this again as one of the last two parcels. Uh and I think that we believe that that some um but maybe not all the differences that remain are really kind of what makes a community great for the future users and residents. What is not in question and um I don't think was intended or intimated in staff discussion that we somehow want to compromise on safety. Um that is not up for debate. Uh, LAR in its 71-year history of building over a million homes has not compromised on safety. They certainly have not done it in the time that I've represented them, uh, which spanned my entire career. So, let's just dispense with that that safety is at the paramount of what LAR is doing as well. And so, um, we do request your recommendation for approval with some additional modifications that Keith indicated to some of the stipulations that we work through. So um work. So, I think it's always important to understand contextually what the site is. And I'm going to talk I know we've got two items, items five and six tonight, but I'm going to talk about the entire 320 acres rather than 311 and then we come back and talk about the 12 acres at the southwest portion of this development, which is the northeast corner of Val Vista and Queen Creek. So when we look at it, one of the thing that kind of jumps out is it's in a unique location and that it's transitioning from the very intense um uses that have exist along the 202 with the commercial, with the medical, with everything that goes along the intensity of of there. And then we start to transition uh to the Santan character area. And we are at the very north point of that Santan character area. And so when LAR first take took a look at this site, it it they felt that it presented an opportunity for them to create a development that takes uh into consideration kind of the unique location of it. Um mixed between high intense development traffic and the Santan character area. So what is Harvest Grove? I don't want this to be lost on what it is. We are creating a neighborhood solution. There are a number of things that we are adding that do not exist today with this site including 45 acres of commercial. We are adding over a thousand for sale uh single family detached and attached homes. Um we are uh have uh almost 70 acres of open space and then we start to get into the financial things which not necessarily within the purview of the commission but I think it's important to note the benefits that this will bring to the town including the 44 million in impact fees and another 2.7 million in annual sales tax and tax revenue between the commercial and residential properties. And then you can see there the estimated annual spending within a five mile radius. So there are a lot of good things that we are adding that don't exist today and I think that is important to consider. So when we talk about the Santan character area um I I would agree Keith read the statement beautifully. I won't disagree with what he said. For 26 years, the Santan character area has done exactly what it's intended to do. Make it a special place. When you look, however, at this site, it is kind of unique because um we don't have any farms around us. There is no existing agricultural uses other than the ones that are on the property today around us. This is an infield development that as I've indicated is is a transition piece between the intensity and what the Santan character area is that we look at it. Going a little bit deeper into the Santan character area plan. There's a dozen goals and policies that we are satisfying with this development and I'll only touch on a few of them and you can see them there. Um we are providing a green belt buffer that includes multi-use trails. It says to promote the collector system, which is exactly what we are doing. Encourage subdivision design to optimize open space areas for community gatherings. Promote the inclusion of neighborhood commercial to provide convenient services to residents. And I think one other that I'll touch on is to promote infill development that reflects sensitivity to the area. And so we believe that we are satisfying all of these. And as we go through the proposal, I believe that you will see exactly what we are doing. Diving a little bit deeper into the Santan character area plan, there is specific development criteria. Um there are six um there's a total of seven. and one of them doesn't apply, but there are six that if you look at it are certainly consistent with with what Keith said the intent of the plan was, but these are consistent with the goals and policies that we've identified of open space, open space, theming, buffering, and trail systems. And as we go through tonight, you will see that we are satisfying every single one of these. In fact, as we dive a little bit deeper and look at it, these are representative examples. The first two deal with um open space as a focal point. And as in your packet, we've got over a 4 acre park that sits in the dead center, the heart of the development. All trails will lead to Rome. All trails throughout this development lead to this central 4acre park. Additionally, we have another 5 acres of pocket parks that spread throughout the development. We are not requesting a deviation from the quarter mile or the eighth mile uh location from it. And so we are satisfying that in terms of buffers along Arterials along Val Vista Drive, we have a minimum 80 foot landscape setback. So we're satisfying those two design criteria. When we talk about open space, I'm glad Keith highlighted it. Um because we're providing again 70 acres of open space, which is almost three times more than what the plan calls um that it be required. move, please. Thank you. Number four, um this deals with rural theming, and this is only a a few of the multitude of things that we're doing to meet and exceed this requirement uh in terms of the planting, in terms of the design of the of the fencing, the walls, the open space areas, and how we do that. And this is the last one which is quite possibly one of the most significant as you look at it in that per the Santan character area we're required to provide we'll call it 7700 linear feet of trails which is 1.47 miles. What we have provided and what is shown in this plan is on the trails is double that 2.76 miles. And if you take into account not only these but sidewalks and paths and trails and everything that we do, there is a staggering 23 miles of places that people can go and move within this development. So now let's talk about Rome um which is the collector through the development and um with respect to staff uh you would think from their kind of presentation in the discussion that the idea of a collector road running through a development is something that's new to the town. Um, in fact, it's something that there are a number of well-known and desirable communities that have them that have parking on a collector street as well. And so, as we talk about it, and you've heard staff's concerns with the homes fronting onto it about livability and safety, um, you know, they went on to say in their staff report that this design compromises safety, streetscapes, quality, and established vision, uh, of the Santan area. And as you will see, we don't believe uh that to be true. So where are collector roads in the town that have parking on them? Agritopia, Higgley Park. Again, all of these communities have homes fronting onto them as well. Lionsgate, Collector Street, homes fronting onto them. Kulie Station, similar condition. And then obviously what is quite possibly the crown jewel of the of the town Morrison Ranch. There are a number of of collector streets that run through that. So as we dive deeper into the design of Rome Street, you'll see that we believe that safety and quality is has not been compromised. Um Lunar and consult and their consultants have very intentional in the design of it and we've worked with staff closely. Uh I know that uh Miss Strubel talked about that the technical variances. We've worked closely to ensure that none of the technical variances we ask for compromise safety when we're talking about sight visibility, arcs, curved tangents, all the math terms that I forgot when I was in high school taking calculus and stuff like that. But we've been very intentional as we've done it. And let's going deeper into it. You can see that in a couple locations on this we are providing traffic calming in the form of speed tables and you can see those there. The other thing that Keith brought up in in his report deals with uh what what are referred to as chicanees which is where there is the narrowing of the crosssection um to provide for uh people to pay attention. and having driven through Morrison Ranch quite a few times when you've got a landscape median in the middle that also helps solve it down. So environmentally the things that we're providing help to solve it. So as we go a little bit deeper um and we talk about Rome you can see this Keith touched on this but livability I do want to correct one thing that Keith said that uh he was mistaken on. Um these this area which is north these are the town homes. They're not 10 ft away. They're 15 feet from the property line. When you take into account the back of curb, you can see there that we're 28 feet away um from the back of curb as we look at it. So, there is separation separation that you would see in a traditional single family community. These just happen to be town homes. Um, if we as we move on into the main part of Rome, again, talking about safety, and I won't run through it. You guys can see it. Keith talked about it. But again, I want to I want to correct something that was said relative to these are the alley homes that are on the east side, excuse me, west side of Rome. And that they are not set back 10 feet from the property line. They're set back 15 feet. And from the curb, we have 27 feet of separation. Um, in all of these instances when we look at it, um, all of these the town homes and the alleys that we have also have 20 foot driveways in the rear, uh, which is something that you don't see on a lot of attached product, the SFA and the SFD. So, and we've talked about the bike lanes, and I've got to admit I'm a little confused because on one hand, I hear the concern about the bike lane and what we're supposed to do with it. And at the same time, I hear, you know, that there is a stipulation for us to put the bike lanes in. We think the bike lanes are good. We're okay putting them in. Um, I'm not sure how how that works out, but maybe I may I may be missing something. And so, then as we go through the rest of it, again, I won't do it. So, um, let's talk about the parking on Rome because I I I want you to know that we have tried to listen to staff and we have made changes. This was our parking plan and I'm showing two different things. The one on the left was the parking plan that we made in our original submitt back in January of this year. And this happens to be the north section, but overall in the original submitt when we first made it, we were proposing a total of 342 parking spaces along Rome. And you can see them indicated on your picture on your left. The current plan, we have a total of 74. And you can see that we have drastically reduced that trying to be responsive because again safety is not compromisable from LAR's standpoint as well. On the south half is probably where the greatest change took place. Again on the left you can see the parking that we were planning originally on Rome Street and now we've got it limited to a few areas in front of the t in front of the alley loads. Again, those are overall numbers. That reduction is a reduction of 250 um parking spaces. So, again, we are considering um the comments that we have heard as we've gone through the point. So, let's get into Coronado. Um that is something that we have have talked about and and I won't reiterate what's in staff's report nor what Mr. Trul said or Keith said, but I think it's important to look at at it again contextually. Context matters of what we're talking about because one of the things that they're concerned about deals with future access east of the site. Um that the need for Coronado goes in deals with access east of the site. Um there's concerns about its proximity to Perry High School that um if we don't put Coronado in, uh there might be encouragement of cut through traffic through our development and that the east side would help that. And then as you heard with with staff, there's a concern about two entrances on the east side and that sometimes uh limits access options for people. So let's dive a little bit deeper into that. This is what Coronado is today. Um, it provides no access to the Blandford development. The only access that Coronado Road today provides, as you see on there, the first thing that you come to as you head south is the town's well site. This vehicle is used for town um employees to be able to access that well site that exists today. A little bit south of there, kind of halfway down, you see an access point that is an emergency access only for the Blandford community. Um Blandford takes its access from Germaine on the north and Greenfield on the east. So this collector road that is in the town's um master transportation plan doesn't collect anything from what exists today. The very south, I've simply highlighted it. That's an irrigation. That's a drainage channel that goes down there. So, Coronado exists today. Let's take advantage of it in our most populated area of this community uh outside the Santan character area. You can see in green the access points, right? And it and it makes sense high a more populated area to have additional access points. You see the access points to Rome. Uh, and then you also see the access points to Coronado as well. And look, Coronado's in today. It makes sense for us to take advantage of it up there. But as you'll see, we kind of don't agree a little bit further. But so that's on the north. So let's talk about the south. Um, the south, as staff indicated, you've got the police substation and you've got the cemetery. Um, and we understand that there is a future expansion that's planned for the substation and that there is a desire to connect to Coronado. Um, we understand that at some point Mesa might expand their wastewater treatment plant and so there might be a need for access additional access to that because I believe they get their access off of Greenfield. What is what is um what will not happen is access to the soccer fields. And as I sat with um Miss Strub and Kyle Marrison talking about those soccer fields, they told me that there never would be access to those soccer fields, not the existing ones, nor the future expansion south of that. So there is no access planned for those soccer fields. So when we look and talk about a collector road, it's going to collect traffic from generally both sides. Sometimes it takes it from other areas. We agree with what staff said, but there is no development. Even the future on the east side of the Coronado alignment is not going to be of such an intense development that merits or warrants Coronado going in. But but let's talk about the south. So, as you look at it, um, and I don't know if this was before you when we came to study session, but we put Coronado in on the south because we listened to the town and what they said that, hey, look, the substation, they're going to want future access to be able to get over. We agree. Absolutely. So, let's provide that access up to where that point is. And if there's a need to access the soccer fields as they expand, again, we've been told that access will never come to Coronado. It can come through the south part as we've proposed it and along the future alignment which roughly is the arrowhead trail. If you were to look at a larger building, you can see the access points again in a in a more populated part of our development. We've provided an additional access point to Coronado and you can see the internal access points that occur as well. So, let's talk about Perry High School and the concern about traffic. um our traffic engineer, Civte, went out and actually um got counts, traffic counts to understand what's going on with Perry High School. How is it going to impact our development? And what is clear is that the access point that is the most heavily used um is 156 Coronado. And so what you've got is 308 vehicles coming in the morning or excuse me 308 trips in the morning and you have 293 leaving in the in the afternoon when school lets out. So when we look at it and talk about Coronado um and it move please. Thank you. as we look at it coming through Coronado going in with that amount of traffic coming from Perry High School is going to become everybody's new favorite drag strip. Um and it's going to become a raceway as people move up and down it. And again, um, what we are proposing when you start to look at it and the roadway system that we are providing with Rome and what we're doing is similar to what's been done for decades in the town. As we look at it, we are consistent in how we have laid this out with other developments in the town. You start to look across the street at the villages at Valve Vistram and Spectrum Estates, you can see their collector road network in gray and you can see that they have three points in and out of the site. On the screen on the right, that's Power Ranch, one of the great master plan community. And you can see the collector roadway running through that. when we talk about it and again you've already seen these there's already collectors with homes fronting that have existed in the town and what we've done with the design of of Rome in the cross section is to improve on what's already been done to make it better that's why we are providing some parking um having had friends that live in Morrison Ranch and driving through there you get a vehicle or vehicles start stacking up in front of those homes um road feels a lot narrower uh as you drive through Morrison Ranch and other communities. And so we wanted to ensure that access would um move as it's intended to on a collector road, which is why we've placed again um some parking spaces throughout the development. And even if we go look closer, Leighton Lakes and Kulie station, you can see the access points there because one of the comments was staff was concerned about livability and people driving to their homes and being able to get back to them. Yet what Lenar proposing is is the same as other communities that have been highly successful, highly desired and sought of. So getting down to it, really the question that we've got to ask ourselves when we talk about Rome and Coronado is which is a better functioning collector road, Rome or Coronado? Obviously, you've heard from staff and they believe that Coronado is going to improve the circulation and reduce congestion in the area. However, if we look at the data and really dive into it, we don't believe that that concern is realized. And this is a snapshot and if I need to get uh Sean Mesner with Civetech up here to be able to explain it, but we went and looked at it and and Rome is more efficient in reducing traffic volume on Val Vista and Germaine. And that's what all of those little red dots mean. Those are changes in the level of service where the level of service has gotten worse, which means that delay times have increased. When we look at it as well, um, in terms of queuing storage, again, Rome is more efficient in reducing queuage storage on Valvesta and Queen Creek. And we've had a discussion before about a lot of the technicality of of traffic reports and studies and stuff like that. So I wanted to boil it down into terms that aren't technical that we could understand it that on why Rome street is better functioning collector road uh than Coronado. Drivers are all about convenience. We all know that they always want to take kind of the shorter path to where they live, work and shop. And as as our team studied it, the traffic data shows that the highest traffic movement is north along Val Vista and west. be it along Queen Creek, Germaine or the Loop 202. And so what ends up happening is Rome becomes a better and more convenient access for people traveling to and from where they do everything. Um Coronado is even though it's not that much further, uh when you're talking about drivers and traffic, it's it's a little bit farther away, very few people are going to want to drive east just to head west. Um because again the data shows that it um the highest traffic movement is Val Vista and the East West roads and Coronado at the end of the day while it may be technically designed to be a collector road it doesn't function as a collector road because it's not collecting traffic from both sides. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, it's going to become nothing more than a that will become the cutthrough that's going to be preferred everyone's everyone's drag strip in Rome. As we look at it, we believe it has greater safety benefits. Again, I don't want it to be left there be any doubt that safety is not at our the forefront of what how we look at it. And so, we've got narrow narrower travel lanes, a curve linear design, traffic calming, and again a neighborhood um kind of friendly physical environment. So, I can go into a lot more detail if we need to. I've pretty gone pretty deep again because I think this is the type of development with one of the last large pieces that we need to. So, let's touch base on the stipulations. Um, and I know Ashley's got a handout of these uh should you choose to recommend um approval, but we do request modifications in the event you recommend approval to a couple of the conditions. The first one deals with Coronado and 156th. What we would request is that Coronado and 156 be put in as is shown on the development plan. So that would be the north portion that exists today, us completing the half street and then the south portion as well up to what we understand is going to be the future uh connection point to the police substation. So that's why we've said that it be um dedication occur in the location shown on the development plan. Um the the next one is a complete deletion of Partridge Drive. Um as staff indicated on the transportation master plan, um Partridge Drive is planned to go through. There's there's there's not a need for Partridge to go through and so we would request that deletion in its entirety. The last one, and I and I apologize, I don't remember what number it is. Um but this one deals and it kind of goes to what M. Strual was talking about relative to the technical variance um that we request this modification. Um and it is simple that if we do deviate from it, staff would like us to put it in a private road. And really what that does is that puts an an unnecessary and undue burden on the future residents of this community. Again, collector streets are nothing new to the town, nothing new to develop uh to development. Um, and as with other communities with collector streets running through them, I can run through the list again if you'd like, but those are public streets running through them and they allow for parking. What we have done design-wise is tried to do it. So, wrapping up, um, kind of where I started, um, LAR has been in the business since 1954, over 70 years, built over 1 million homes. They have worked hard to become one of the country's top builders. Um, and Harvest Grove is going to be no exception to the high quality communities that they've built in Arizona and in the town as well. And we've certainly worked hard to balance staff comments with what we believe it takes to be a a great community. Um, you know, we're adding things to the site that hadn't been there before. I mentioned the 45 acres of commercial, the impact fees, and the annual tax tax revenue that occurs. And so with that, we would request your recommendation for approval with respect to uh the stipulations that staff passed out uh further modified by what we just passed out. Now chair, if I may, there was one question that was asked that Commissioner Fay asked and then I will and then I will I will wrap up. Commissioner Fay, the intent of the stipulate through the chair, Commissioner Fay, it's our understanding from speaking with staff that the intent of that condition relative to the bike lanes was not to maintain per se the physical surface and below. It really was intentioned on maintaining the green painting along it. Um, that's that was the intent of it. And if I've misspoke, I'll let staff correct me. But I believe that's that what that was what we discussed was that the HOA would be responsible for going out there and painting it green if it ever wore down. I'm done. Let's not tell tales out of school here, sir. He might not be done. Uh all right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Ray. Um, does anyone have any questions that they wanted to ask currently? Yeah, Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, Mr. Ray, they um we talked about for the um Mr. Dubble talked about the 93 foot right away for the collector. That's additional maintenance for the town to take on that additional additional pavement with. I saw on the plans you have brought in like you know, brought in that landscaping. I'm assuming the development is responsible for all the landscape maintenance in the right of way. Can you confirm that? >> Yeah, through the chair, Commissioner Davis. Um I I know in other communities where I work, I see stipulations to that effect that the HOA is responsible for maintaining the landscape areas within the public rideway. And I will look to the town. And I believe that the way that is handled uh is through a dedication that occurs on the plat. I see Ashley shaking her head that there will be a condition on the plat dedication or some annotation that will say that the HOA is responsible or is responsible for maintaining the landscaping within the public rights of way. So that would be internally externally along Val Vista and Maine and Queen Creek as well. >> I could see where that's a concern as far as additional pavement maintenance is expensive and for the town to take that on. I guess I'd be curious what that offset is to areas that they won't have to maintain where the pavement width get narrower. But >> yeah, and through the chair, Commissioner Davis, as as I think I've had lots of discussions, including one a few hours ago with with um Ashley, um that particular issue of the maintenance of it and the the the our belief that it shouldn't be a private track, but it should be a public street. We're going to continue to work with staff to try to see if we can't understand that. Um I know we're looking at quantifying what the additional pavement is and and what that would be above and beyond the regular requirements. So, that is something that I will say I don't know that I've got a solution yet. I don't know that staff's got a solution yet, but that is something that we are continuing to to work on and discuss among other things. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Simon, please. >> Yeah, Mr. Ray, um, is it my understanding that you are in agreement with all of the stipulations presented by staff in addition to the three that you presented? Uh through the chair, Commissioner Simon, we are in agreement with the stipulation staff presented provided those modifications >> modifications >> take place to the to the three steps. >> Understood. Thank you, >> Vice Chair. Again, I don't mean to home too much. Really, we've got to talk about the bigger project is the bigger bigger issue, but I am looking at one of the stipulations. It's number 15, which is the one you didn't have the number for. Um on your all cross sections are required to meet town standards. Any proposed deviations must be in blue or air quotes placed in a private road track and approved in accordance with blah blah blah blah blah the condition. Um, I mean that sounds to me like essentially that if you're going to vary the the standard cross-section, you're going to own it. And I it sounds to me like that the city engineer, town engineer is not going to approve the variance regardless of what we do if you're not owning it. But on the other hand, I'm also loathed to have private roads running through public rightway or publicly open this way to have private road tracks at the hands of the HOA that are not within a gated community. Seems like a I don't know. It seems like there's a there's a lot to be done on this one. SE 17 I'm not even all that together all altogether comfortable with the idea of the HOA painting in public right away. But but it you're right it is much better. 17 is much better now that you explain it makes a lot more sense and it probably is within the palatable or at least hold my nose range. But 15 is actually worse now that I'm kind of grappling with it. >> Yeah. And through the chair, Vice Chair Fay, uh, and and I I think I'm not going to misrepresent conversations that I've had with Miss Strubal and others in the engineering team with respect to these technical variances. That's it's it's highly unusual. Um again it speaks to the uniqueness of this development that at this point of the of the process that we would talk about technical variances. Um those are typically happen as you're going through the platting process. Um but again recognizing everything that we've talked about tonight. Um staff wanted um us to to kind of start that process which we have done uh and we've worked with them. That's why, as I said, um there are still some things that we're working on from a technical standpoint that I don't know would per se fall within the purview of what we're talking about tonight. It does to the extent of the stipulation in question. Um but that process has yet to conclude. Um, I know that we've got another submitt in we're waiting to get some comments on, but I know as we've talked about those and talked about really what I call the the safety aspect of Rome, right? The site visibility, triangles, arcs, tur curves, radius, all of the things that I know that you are familiar with. Um, we don't believe um, and I'll look to my engineer. I don't believe any of the variances that we're requesting uh go to the the safety issue. It there still is the overall question about the cross-section. Um but as far as from a safety standpoint, I don't believe that there's any outstanding. And if I'm wrong I >> Well, I don't I I'm pretty I don't think any of our regardless of what we put in in a in a stipulation, I don't think any of our authority intrudes on the city engineers. I think this is her this is her purview regardless of whether we put it in a stipulation or not and and I do agree with the the staff idea of yeah stipulations can go kind of anywhere but push them way up front if they're big and fundamental to the uh structure of the project. Yeah. Yeah. Push them where they belong most of the time. But sometimes if they're so big they change >> everything in the decisions we would make. push them up front sometimes and I'm I'm okay with that part. >> Yeah. And through the chair, vice chair, I think that's why as you look at that stipulation that you're you're talking about and our proposed change to it, again, what what we are proposing um from a cross-section standpoint, yes, it doesn't meet the town standards. Um I could go through and show you comparison between the town like Keith did. What we what we believe that it does it improves on on those standards for this type of a of a setting and location because of all the things that we are providing learning from some of the challenges that have occurred in other communities where there they may have been designed to the town's cross-section and yet you have some of those conflicts. Uh, and I think if if we look at it, the real kind of crux of the deviation from the town standard really focuses on the on street, which is why I took the time to say we've really reduced it and we've tried to be responsible yet we still see a need for it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, any other questions? M Comm Commissioner Dger. >> Mr. way. I'm still kind of wrestling with not completing Coronado Street. I'm in that area quite a bit and I went by it since I knew it was coming up today, this weekend. And Coronado to the north completed to that barrier in that big pile of dirt. Is it going to go any further than that? Um through the chair, Commissioner De Graina. Let me go back to if this will move faster. I got to point it at it, I guess. Um let's this is probably the best one. So under under our proposal again because there's no need for the soccer fields to access Coronado um under our proposal it would um Coronado on the north side would would terminate where it does today. >> Okay. >> And that you know as I mentioned we're taking advantage of it. It's there. Why not? Uh, and we will complete the west half of that. >> Uhhuh. And on the south side, it says 156th Street. If it was to go all the way through, it's going to be named Coronado from Germaine down to Creek. >> I through the chair, Commissioner De Graina, I defer to the town on what they name their streets, but I think it's 156 South that then converts to Coronado, >> but it's it's in the same line. And you also mentioned that you discussed uh that street going through or the soccer fields having access at some point in time. Now the soccer field to the north is being utilized. The soccer field to the south isn't developed yet. Some point in time that could possibly change and then we want access all the way through. And and you also said that with that street being completed that it doesn't alleviate some of the traffic concerns. I'm, like I said, on those streets constantly, and I can't imagine how having that street completed, uh, with 100 or 1,739 new units, it wouldn't make it a little easier traffic-wise in that whole area. >> Yeah. Through the chair, Commissioner Degravina. Um, if I can the Let me let me kind of walk through what I what I was kind of explaining. So, the soccer fields today, uh, they're right there. You can see that they've got parking there and then what ends up happening is there's usually overflow parking. I've been out here for fields and stuff like that. So, in the event that these south soccer fields develop, and we understand that there are are plans, expansion plans for it to develop to the south. Um, yes. Um, I'll tell you, I I don't know from a driving standpoint if they're going to modify it because I think only town vehicles can access through here. But what it does with the expansion and what we are proposing down here of putting Coronado into here and then again you see this arrowhead alignment off the side. That's our understanding as to where that expansion is going to connect. So with this road here and this road here, it would potentially provide access to the future soccer expansion here. But again, unless I'm mistaken what I've heard from staff, there's an existing fence that exists up here today. And I think that fence is intended to continue. So there won't be direct access from Coronado to those fields. >> Yeah. Fences fences can't be removed. I mean, if there was some need to complete that >> well through the chair, Commissioner Dravina, I specifically raised that question uh to town staff and they said, "No, there's no plans." >> Current plans. >> Current plans. >> But I did raise that question. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Very well. Okay, >> Commissioner Simon, >> just really quick, Mr. Ray, you do have access points off of 156 and Coronado currently correct? uh currently in the proposed plan. >> Yeah, under the proposed plan, we've got again if you look at it, you know, kind of the heart of the development, the single family. There is not access to it, but uh on the on the this is on the south side. You can see underneath the 111 there's a little green arrow east west. We are providing a connection point there. Uh and then on the north side, um there's two access points. one from the multifamily medium to Coronado and then one um from the town homes and um those 45 foot wide lots as well. There's an access for people to go there which again kind of makes sense. Those are the more populated areas. Let's provide them an additional access point which is what we've done. >> Right. >> Thank you. All right. Very good. Uh, without any more questions then, did anyone have questions they wanted to raise back to the staff at all? >> Well, actually, I've got it's kind of Sorry, Bren. It's It's kind of between the two of staff. And could you go back to that diagram? The one that I had qu I talked to Dawn about this. The one that shows the uh travel impacts or the level of service changes. It's got the red or the balls on it. Either one of them. The good or the bad one out there. I think there seems to be an underlying assumption that's different from staff and and the developer. I think the assumption is if Coronado goes in, Rome doesn't go in. I think there seems to be kind of a staff perception that we want to that we need to have Coronado, but we're keeping Rome. Is that is that a fair kind of difference in the perception right now? uh through the chair, vice chair. I'll certainly let staff provide a response if if I do an inadequate job. I I don't think it's a question of either or. I don't think it's a question of Coronado or Rome. Um because Rome Street will go in. I think the question is which is the more efficient collector? And for purposes of the study, we presume that Coronado was a collector road and that it was in. And that's how we were able to come up with these calculations. Well, for this study, according to Dawn, you were able you you when you did it with Coronado there, she took Rome out >> from being a collector. >> Yeah. So, Ro Rome as a physical street still exists. It's just not a It's just not a collector street. >> Okay. >> It would be a local >> that just narrower or what does that mean? through the chair, vice chair. Um, I I don't know that that necessarily means that it would be narrower um in terms of a in terms of a cross-section because there is a look and a feel that we are trying to get as we design it. While the the pavement and the cross-section is what it is as we've designed it with the 14 foot center median landscaping and all of that stuff, our intent would not be to reduce that uh that feel because we want it to have neighborhood friendly feel as you go through it. >> Okay, that's not consistent with my conversation with her. >> So, chair, vice chair, let me ask Sean Messner to come up. Sean is with with Civ. uh and he can better explain to alleviate the confusion relative to this particular exhibit. >> Thank you chair, vice chair Sean Mesner with CIT. Um Mr. Fay, I believe when you talked with Don, you specifically with this diagram we looked at was if Rome is in and Coronado is not there. So you your statement originally was correct about or not having both. What we were showing is when Coronado is is in, there's worse level of service at the study intersections if Rome is in. >> Okay. So, we're back to my original question that I brought that that got me to dawn in the first place. If Rome is still there and you complete Coronado, it causes lower levels of service all over the place. That just is very not intuitive. I I don't see how that could occur. >> Um, that's correct. If you have another street, right, you're going to have better distribution. What our analysis was was just one or the other. It wasn't with both. >> So, it was back to one or the other. >> That's correct. >> That was for analysis purposes. >> Right. >> Um, >> and it was for that for for >> It's not part of the plan though, Brendan. That's the key piece. But for analysis purposes, it was done, >> right? Yeah. Through through the chair, Commissioner Fay, that is correct. >> Okay. >> This is why I have guys like that. I'm a traffic engineer because I drive a car, but I don't do it all the time. >> I I had an engineering class where the professor began by walking in and saying, "We make simplifying assumptions." And and he walked in and said, "Okay, let's assume the ocean is a 1 foot cube of fresh water." And then he proceeded to start. I'm like, begins with an assumption like that. But you have to make assumptions for for uh simplicity or analysis. the assumptions that were made for calculation purposes and the plans you're talking about are not the same. Correct. And that caused the confusion in my mind. I'm sorry to go off in that rabbit hole. >> No, I actually appreciate that too because as a as a as a fellow engineer, the logic of the idea that you add another collector and it miraculously creates problems is uh was fantastical for me too. Um, all right. Anything else that uh we would like? We can always be in Mr. Ray back up. I know that he would be happy to, but for now we can allow him a slight reprieve. Um, and then from public comment, I know that Miss Pierce spoke earlier, um, uh, which was actually related, I think, to this item, but is there anyone else here? I know a number of people have come in that wish to speak either in favor or against this item. Jar, can I ask a question on that? Since she did speak during the communication from citizens, does she need to come back up? So, she's on record for this case. >> We can I mean, I >> there's nothing that prevents her. >> Okay. Yeah. Because now what she's saying, I didn't know what the hell she was talking about when she first came up. And now that we actually have the case up, what she, you know, I I I think I kind of want her to come back up and just refresh our memories as to her her concerns. >> Well put, sir. which of course I was going to ask anyway. Um, but that's okay. And then in the back, if you wanted to speak, if you could just fill out a comment card, which are these yellow cards right over there at that table. Um, and then just bring it up over here to the the staff or they can come and get it and then we'll get you up in minutes. So, Miss Pierce, would you be so kind as to come up and reiterate or else augment what you said and do three minutes again just so that we know that it's on uh this case >> to read what I wrote again. Absolutely. and state your name again so that we know it's still you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> My name is Karen Pierce. I live um in a house right my backyard faces Val Vista. So I'm in between Partridge and well I'm south of Partridge. Um I have three daughters. My two older daughters attend Perry High School. Sometimes my oldest or my middle daughter rides her bike to school. Um and they often um well I and they often see high schoolers um on the cross country team running along Val Vista and Queen Creek Road in the morning. And they address they also brought up concerns about safety about more people being in that area than should be um do would compromise the safety of the cross country team runners. Um I don't think the zoning should be changed from how it is now. Um, I believe it would be more dangerous for students to have more traffic right next to their school with the proposed commercial development and changing the single family plan to more multif family. I think it's irresponsible to think about increasing the number of people and the traffic that would result from these pieces of land being reszoned to allow a greater number of people to occupy this space across the street from a huge high school. There are a lot of kids that go to Perry High School, 2,300. Um, if you live within like a one mile radius of Perry High, you're not allowed to be bust there. So, you have to walk or ride a bike or be driven. Um, so there are a lot of kids that ride their bike and walk to school um along the busy streets. They're they're they're busy right now. Um, so it's scary to think about them getting even busier. So, for the safety of the students, I ask that the zoning not be changed from how it is now. I also think it makes sense to match how big the lot sizes are on the west side of Al Vista Road and keep the lot sizes the same on both sides of B Vista. I'm absolutely against the resoning of these two parcels of land. I don't want there to be double the amount of people across the street compared to how many people I have in my neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Okay, we have uh Clarice Mason is opposed to the item and wish to speak. Uh comments are problems with traffic and congestion and the amount of people. So, please come up and then just state your name and you know your place of residence and then uh three minutes please. >> I just wanted to speak quickly. I'm Clarice Min. I am uh at Villages of Val Vista. So, I access Val Vista from the Kingbird uh Kingbird uh entry point on the map. So, my concern I don't know all the stuff is way too technical for me, but I didn't see a light or how that particular entrance or exit would be handled. Um I'm not really understanding as a resident does the collector item of Rome collect all the people away from Val Vista because 1,700 units brings more people more congestion to Val Vista and us exit. Yes, we have a collector road but for me it's easier to access Valve Vesta Val Vista versus the collector road inside of my neighborhood. So that brings more people to to Val Vista than than there is now. But I think we're only talking about Perry High School. You also have Campo Verie High School on Germaine as well and Val Vista. So that's an additional amount of students in addition to Perry that you have to worry about in the neighborhood that nobody's really talking about. I think it's more so people are mentioning collector roads, but you have way more people in this area with these two high schools. That should be a concern. Also, as a resident, I don't know if this is the place for it. You have 1,700 additional units coming to the area. Does that affect the student teacher per capita? Is there more students that have to enter these high schools versus now? Is the student is the school are the schools growing? Are we getting new elementary schools, new high schools in the area? Cuz 1,700 homes, people have kids. You got to do the math. 1,700 homes. Let's estimate three people per home. Five people per home. That's a lot more kids. A lot more people in that area. And you guys are building the was it the Gilmore Builtmore? I'm not sure what it's called on the other end of the corner where you're bringing more apartments and a Safeway and restaurants. So, you're bringing more people to that area with that new development on the opposite end of corn of the corner. So I think I vote I would ask that you guys take a better look at how you handle the traffic and the amount of people that you are bringing to that area. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. So with that then um we can take it back up here and then are there things that you want anyone would like to discuss with staff andor the developer at all um prior to closing the public comment and bringing it back to the dis commissioner Davis >> I just want to confirm and I believe it is part of the process school districts are notified I'm asking staff correct that they would weigh in on how these impact I know this has been vacant property. It's been anticipated it would be developed as something I just wanted to verify acknowledge get some acknowledgement that the schools have weighed in chairman and commission member that is correct we do notify the schools. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else? All right. Well, then I will close the public comment portion and bring it to the dis for discussion or motions. Anybody want to kick off some discussion as it relates to this item? Well, I will throw out a few conversational pieces just as a good radio person, but um I I look at Traffic issues of course are a major thorn for anyone that lives here. Um, you know, one point of clarification that I just wanted to at least give a consolation prize to the developer is that even without doing any forms of changing of the plans, there would still be thousands of people that they are within their right to develop the single family homes that would go here. And so the question of the uh traffic it is going to be an issue and that that then is going to compound itself down into departmentally different areas to where transportation engineering the roadways the lighting and things of that that are not within the purview of what we would do here on the planning commission. So, I just wanted to point um point that out that it devoid of this development there is still um within the rights with no variances at all thousands of people that could come and and live here. So, I regardless of the presentation and everything that we have uh there would be additional people. And now I want to just also call out maybe a second consolation prize that lost in a lot of I all these documents as it relates to the stipulations. But I I do want to say that we we we do a lot of projects here in the town that are vilified for downzoning. downzoning being going into multifamily trading in the commercial and I just want to at least put a feather into the cap that there are multiple commercial pieces being put here that is a dire need along with you know all of the other uh impact fees and other things that come with development for the infrastructure that exists that the town needs to administer current and future citizens. And so because we put beatings upon developers for taking commercial away, I wanted to at least recognize that uh when you add some that that should be something to be considered in my opinion, but that's Commissioner Simon, >> I don't mean to cut you off. I let you go. >> I was trying to just fill the airwaves, honestly. >> Um I I have a couple couple things I'd like to to throw out. F first and foremost, I'll say I I don't know that I have an issue with this with this development. Um, with regards to Coronado, you can take Coronado and and if you look at in essence 156, Coronado, whatever you want to call it, all the way up to the 60, it doesn't go through on any development that I'm aware of. Um, there's no straight north south connector outside of the main thoroughares. We have Greenfield, Val Vista Higgley um, Lindsay to an extent, record stops at baseline. So, I understand what you're saying. I understand where we're going with this whole collector thing. I think that that that the terminology collector, my mind actually gets lost. I'm not a traffic engineer, so I I like Mr. Ray, uh, drive my car, and that's the most traffic engineering I have in my quiver. So um but with regards to the development couple of things that I do really like on this number one um commissioner you uh chairman you had mentioned this that uh we are we are actually zoning upzoning what I'll consider upzoning to some commercial in this. I'd like to see some regional commercial in that in the in those two corners just because I think that there's some opportunity to to make some statement pieces there. I do like that we have um what I would consider a newer project or a product coming into town, which is going to be those town homes for sale. Um we need entry level in this community. Uh we have apartments that cost way too much to rent. We have houses and if we keep uh two to three and a half uh houses per acre, we're looking at $750 to a million dollar houses going in and and we need entry level product. So, um, as much as yes, traffic is going to be an issue no matter what goes into this development, um, we have very little space left and I think that this is a unique way of using that space and making buffer between the commercial that's on the north side of that with the development to the south. Um I asked the question earlier with regards to the character area um and the boundaries literally because looking at the remainder of it other than county islands and some of the other acreage parcels that were already there any development that's gone in this area in the last 15 to 20 years has been smaller lot sizes um and and houses packed in. So, I don't know that we can really use something that was written 20 years ago and stand fast on it with with regards to whatever else has been built in there. Um, I do understand and commiserate with those that live close to schools. I have three schools that surround me. I can't get out of the neighborhood without driving past one. And there are times during the day because we do not have busing within a mile of of any one of those three schools that it will take me 20 minutes to get from my house to a light which is less than half a mile away. So I do commiserate with you. I don't know that that's going to be solved with anything that we have to say um this evening. I like the bike lanes the way that they are. I think that when we saw this previously um there were bike lanes on both sides of Rome and staff had mentioned they didn't like the bike lanes um on the inside uh or maybe it was outside. We had we had sidewalk parking and then bike lane staff didn't like that. So I think that that was removed if I remember correctly. So, um I you know I I I think that that that collector the way Rome is is positioned. I think with the tables, I think with the um the the reduced in width in a couple of spots, I think that will slow things down. And I think with the access points that are already on Coronado and 156, you're going to get traffic that pushes out that direction anyways. And I don't think you're going to see as much congestion run through the middle of that as as maybe it seems. So, but again, not a traffic engineer. I'm just going based on the the crystal ball I stare at every night. So, it's all I've got. >> Thanks very much, Commissioner Simon. Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I think I disagree on some of those on the major point regarding the general plan. I guess I'm bringing this back up to that level since that's our first request in front of us. And you know, with the Santan character area and an update in 2000, I feel like that's not that old. And I a property of this size, I feel like was considered when that was um when that map was looked at to determine that area. That boundary could have been adjusted. Um when you have 300 or so acres, I think um it was intentional to include it in that area. I don't agree that the point was that there's existing farms in the area. I think it was a more of a nod to what used to be there. So, it's a more of a nod to the history of the area to try to keep that those larger lots. Um, and then I don't agree that it's in build development with a property this size. Um, I think, you know, I'm I'm supportive of bringing in some multif family. I agree we need more of the smaller lot development in Gilbert. Um but I do think this was looked at and considered by the neighborhood and I think we should recognize that that it wasn't that long ago and um recognize that maybe some of the areas further south in this development could be brought to closer conformance with that um 2.3. So, um, as far as the plan itself goes, I've, um, kind of generally been less concerned with the houses facing the street, I am concerned that the towns would be taking on additional pavement with to maintain that. I think that that's a cost concern long term. That's really expensive. Um, 3,000 cars a day is a lot. Um, so I guess some of those concerns that Keith raised about safety, um, it does make me question it a little more than what I had previously thought, um, hearing those numbers. Um, but I do appreciate that the applicant has brought in some mitigation for that and brought in some landscaping. I do think that will help. Um, and then I would hope that there'd be some sort of fencing. as I recall, there was some sort of fencing in front of those units, like low walls that protected kids that might be playing in that front yard area. So, um I guess that's where I stand on um my biggest hangup is the general plan. So, >> thank you, Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Darina. >> Yeah, I was looking over my notes here and uh I just saw this and this is for for Mr. Ray. You said you reduced parking from 342 on the street to I think it was to 74 and that created a better safety issue. How does that make a better safety issue and you have less parking and it starts to fill up and they have to drive around and drive around and drive around because a lot of these developments parking is always an issue. So you're going from 342 existing that were existing and you're reducing that to 74. That seems like quite a reduction. I was just going to say, Commissioner, we had closed the public comment, so it's just for us to discuss. Oh, >> we can't go back to Mr. No, >> I mean, I guess we possibly could, but the technically um Well, I guess I don't know. Elena, am I allowed to have him ask a question back to the >> um You are able to invite him back for very specific questions. >> Okay, Mr. Ray, if you were so kind uh to entertain that. I apologize. Um, Commissioner De Graina, I I want to make sure I understand your question. I was listening to it, but I want to make sure I understand your question. Um, and so I I think what you your your comment was that that the reduction in parking >> Well, I I don't want to >> I'll repeat it. Thank you. >> You said you went from 342, I think it was, to 74 and it made it safer. >> I'm just wrestling with how reduction in parking, especially with that many units being in play and the number of cars most likely increasing. Sometimes these parking spots get filled and to find when you're driving around and driving around and driving around and all these developments are are sort of underparked as as time goes on. So it was just more of a again one of those curiosity things. It's how does it increase the safety factor there? >> Yeah. So through the chair, Commissioner Degravina, as we've worked through things with staff, one of the things that we've heard is the concern initially was the amount of of parallel parking spaces that we were providing on the street because the staff indicated they believed that having those parallel parking spaces was in conflict with um making Rome safe. And so in response to the comment that we'd heard from staff, we reduced the number of parking spaces. That's what's on the screen before you is that overall reduction based on their concern. And so when you look at it and you look at those particular units, you can see as well um and if I need to get deeper into the parking plan, I can. But you can see kind of ghosted out where we do have parking within the local street system. That's those light blue spaces. And then you see on further down kind of some red. So there still is parking within the local streets. Um because of the nature of these and that they front, we did want to provide some opportunities for guests or, you know, maybe Amazon drivers to be able to park in front. But and I again, as I said and indicated, and if I need to go to it, I can. All of these these particular units here that are in question, the town homes uh and the um alley loads, they do all have 20 foot driveways so that guests are able to park on the 20ft driveways as well and still access the unit. So we are providing a lot of parking uh as we look at it. Uh, in fact, as you look at it, when we just get right down to it, in terms of required parking for this entire community versus proposed parking, um, we have a total what is required is 2,689 parking spaces. That's per the codes per the town's code for all the single family uh, attached and detached homes. And what we are um providing overall um is 4,416 spaces. So we've got plenty of parking throughout the entire community. Part of it as we looked at it with Rome again was because of of the desire to to improve upon what we had seen in other communities uh that have a collector street system that don't provide for parallel parking. We thought it made sense in those in those streets that have the parallel that that don't have the parallel parking. They all have homes that front on the street and so people will pull right up, stop in the collector street, get out of their car and access the homes whether they are kids, residents, visitors. We were trying to improve upon that. And again, I can go through all the examples if you want, but that's why we are providing some spaces. But to address the concern that staff raised with us, we reduce the number of parking parallel parking on the collector street. But overall throughout the entire development, uh even if you take out the kind of on street parking, uh you know, we're 2,000 cars. We have 2,000 extra spaces than is required for this development. Thank you. That That's a great explanation. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for re-entering the realm, Mr. Ray. >> Okay, continue discussion, Commissioner Anderson. Uh, thank you for everything. Um, I I support the project. I mean, I think I I like the fact that it's providing a good amount of um residential uh options to live in this community. I like that you guys are introducing a regional commercial and a um I think at the other zone, the other commercial down on the south side. Um I think this the overall the whole site is thoughtfully laid out. There's a ton of green space here for the residents to use. And I I I understand that staff is recommending denial, but with the revised stipulations or conditions, I mean, both the applicant and staff are just pretty much in the middle just needing to to meet there. And with the applicant is only requesting, you know, modifications to only three of the conditions. And I kind of have an agreement with those um with those with that request. Um, I think it's a it's a good project and uh I would I would support recommending approval to council for both the GP and Z on this one. Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else have any other comments or discussion items they'd like to go over? Okay. Yeah, I I'm still not um I'm not that In fact, most of it I'm not opposed to. I don't I think it I when when this left last time after a study session, I said there's there's a lot of there's there's a lot of loose pieces. I feel like all of those loose pieces are still loose. Um and this is what I'd hoped we wouldn't be be dealing with, although the the stipulations do kind of tighten all of them. um most of them and I'm okay with it but I I'm I'm still kind of tied up about the stipulation modifications from uh Mr. Ray's side. The first one which is number two essentially is that that they will dedicate but not dedicate the part of Coronado and I think the city is asking for the dedication of the Coronado right away if I read this correctly and the applicant is saying we'll dedicate the part that we're going to use and we're not going to dedicate the part that's in the middle altogether is how I read that and I I think that the purpose of Number two is a concession that the city's going to come in and build the road at some point if it needs it. And if we take the stipulation modification of the applicant, then the city can't do that. And it kind of defeats number two alto together. Um I mean, they're going to have to dedicate the north and the south quarter regardless because it's for access and and frankly it's at least partially already there. Um, so I'm not I'm not sure that that's that's okay. Number three is the dedication of Partridge Drive rightway. Um, I'm not sure how much of it could be dedicated given the current plan. U I think the Partridge Drive rightway partly goes through houses, doesn't it? U so I'm not sure that number three without the stipulation modification is possible. Well, actually, stipulation modification is just to get rid of it. So, that's um I'm not I'm not sure that stipulation number three is possible. It looks like it goes through some houses. So, but the the also the the one that kind of I get hung up on the most is number 15 and it's the final one about the deviations must be in a private road track or not. Um, I think the obvious answer is because I think this ties to one of the variances that the city engineer has to agree to. Um, I I mean I I think that regardless of whether we approve this or not, there's an agreement that has to be reached between the parties that that I'm not I'm not really sure how to approach item 15. Um, you know, and vice chair, the way I when I look at number 15 and I think about the striking of placed in a private road track, I don't I don't quite see what that does. If if you don't have an agreement on it between the engineering um it it doesn't seem to me like you could do anything with or without that statement in there. Like I don't I don't see what taking the private part out would allow it to happen. >> It it presumably I mean Larara is not going to own this road for it's going to turf it onto the HOA is what I assume is and it's a private road open to the public. It's public rightway but owned by the HOA. Essentially HOA land with a right ofway easement on it. Yeah, I'm not I'm still not quite I mean I can get there legally. I just can't get there practically. I think I So I'm I'm kind of delving into the stipulations at this point and I um I find number one problemat sorry number two's stipulation modification problematic. not as necessarily concerned about number three, but I'm I'm like some more I need if if I'm expected to vote on it. I I think there's more detail needed. I don't I don't see this one penciling out yet. And I I don't see the number 15 penciling out right now. I I don't know how to get there. Sorry, this the presentations don't quite connect the dots yet for me. >> No, thank you. I know. Well, then if anyone has anything that may be a motion one way or the other, um, do we need clarification on motioning as it relates to the multiple packets of stipulations that exist? I mean, I guess my question and this would be uh >> a motion I think is going to have to we could have a motion to approve or deny. We could do a motion to approve with well and it doesn't have to be all right. It it could there's a this is going to get ugly, but it this could be an allocart type situation. And I I know some of the parties are probably cringing like, "Oh, no. Don't don't go off the rails here." But uh I mean I think it's up to us. >> Mr. Chair, if I may offer a suggestion, uh if the commission goes by way of approval, uh I I would start off approval with the conditions as read by Keith and then make the exception make any exceptions from there because what Keith read into was also grammatically and technically correct. Um, so I'd want to establish that as the baseline and then either move to uh further amended either if any exceptions to that um as presented by Mr. Ray. >> Okay. I guess my two cents on that is if we're going to get into the stipulations, the staff and applicant have already agreed to all 26 of these stipulations except for three. Let's not wedge ourselves in between this. I mean, we're making this way too complicated now. >> Well, if we get Yeah, if we get into it, I think we we are. So, I I'm Yeah, I'm with you. I chairman I would like to make a motion to I'm going to go maybe controversial here to approve item sorry I've lost track now it's been so long approve item number five with the stipulations that were read by staff 1 through 26 uh with the modifications that staff head and none of the stipulation modifications that the applicant is proposing. >> Vice Chair Fay, not to complicate things, but we actually need to do a motion for the general plan separate from the zoning. >> So, GP2, >> so the general plan GP2503 would not have any conditions associated with it. And then their second um motion after there's a vote on that would be 253. and that would contain the conditions. >> Son of a >> Oh, that's okay. That's all been strick stricken from the record. >> Sorry, my microphone's on. Um, okay. So, what I I I'm going to make a motion to approve item GP2503 as written and then wait a minute and make a motion. Okay. Uh, so I would like to make a motion to approve item GP2503, request for a minor general plan amend for the re reszone. Um, as written. >> Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Anderson. Any discussion? Not seeing any. Please cast your vote. motion carries 51. Okay. Okay. Now I would make a mo I make a motion to approve item Z. Z is in Zulu 25 TAC 03. the request for the actual reszone now with the stipulations that were negotiated and read by staff into the record 1 through 26 1 through 26 and not with the applicants modifications. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I guess for me I I don't think item three is required. I'm kind of agreement with the staff on that one. I don't think Partridge Drive needs to connect all the way to Coronado. you know, it's coming off a pelvis and connecting to whatever that middle road collector is. So, uh, for me, I that's that's the hold up for me on this one. Is there, and I guess this goes to the question of Elena, if if we were to start with the baseline and then we wanted like would that be another motion or do we do it within this motion is the question. >> Uh, you could establish the baseline. Uh and then when that uh it's a little bit it's been a little while since I've done that. So uh establish the baseline uh move that second that approve that. Um move to further amend um the amendment or the conditions with whatever you agree to the stipulations modifications and then we would move to approve GP03 uh with the amended conditions um as discussed. Right. But I I want to point out I I did what I did deliberately. >> I I think what what needs to probably happen is my motion probably dies for lack of a second >> and a subsequent motion would have to be made that more fits what people are thinking. >> Yeah. I think that's the proper way of doing it. >> Yeah. Well, and and I think that the I just the the legal issue of how we go about motioning it, I think, is what Elena is talking about, but I understand. Yeah. Okay. >> I I I think if I remember right from experience, if there's not a second, the chair has the right to call for a new motion because the first one just dies. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, is there a second? No, there's not. dead. Sorry, vice chair. All right. Do we have any other motions? I'll go ahead and make the motion. um recommend a town council approval of Z2503 with the conditions read by staff as um during their presentation with the three additional stipulation modifications to two three and 15 uh as presented by the applicant. Okay, we now have a motion. And do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a second from Commissioner Simon. Any discussion now as it relates to these stipulations? Okay. Please cast your vote. motion carries 42. Okay, now moving on to item number six. Can I make a recommendation that we take a little break? We've been going for like two well almost two hours now and uh I'm sure some people need to use the restroom like me. Yes. Let's take a a recess for five minutes then. That's fine. Okay, I just wanted to if everyone has a moment, please start making your way back so we can uh get the meeting back online. All right. Thank you for everyone who's taken the time to stay here late into the evening, ever so late. And moving us directly on to item number six, GP2502, Harvest Grove Neighborhood Commercial, and Z2508 Harvest Grove Neighborhood Commercial. And we'll bring up the great Keith Newman, uh, Chairmont, members of the commission. Um, this next project, um, this one won't take as long, I promise. Much simpler, is for, uh, Harvest Grobe neighborhood commercial. Oh, and I need my clicker. I think I've left it over here. Okay. So, this next project um is that uh commercial piece that's cut out of the larger Harvest Grove uh project. This is 12 about 12.05 acres gross acreage located at that northeast corner of Val Vista and Queen Creek Drive of Queen Creek Road, excuse me. Um and you can see that on the screen in front of you. The request before you is for a proposed general plan amendment from residential two to three and a half dwelling units per acre to neighborhood commercial and then the proposed reszoning from single family 35 to neighborhood commercial. Um here is the general plan exhibit that shows that I know it's black and white. I didn't have a color one uh for for this one. Um, so I've already explained what the what the general plan uh designation is. Um, a two neighborhood commercial from residential 2 to three and a half. Um, so pretty simple for the site. Um, the next one is the zoning exhibit zoning it to neighborhood commercial. There is no development plan for this because the applicant has uh doesn't first of all they don't have tenants. they do not know um who those tenants will be and they didn't feel comfortable coming up with a conceptual design in order to create a development plan and zone it p a they don't know what the needs are for the users and think and setbacks and all those things so they chose to develop to zone it to a a neighborhood commercial with a conventional as a conventional zone change so this will be straight neighborhood commercial zoning no P A no DV deviations just uh all standards will be per the land development code and we do not know as far as the timing as for when a development will occur on this piece of land. Um but when it does they will be required to come to us for a design review application wherein we will review all the site design and and and uh building designs and street frontage designs and so forth. Um so uh as far as public participation is concerned this was part of that neighborhood meeting that took place in February of uh 2025. Um, like I stated, six surrounding residents. Um, uh, the guil these these next two bullets don't don't really apply. I should have deleted those. I apologize. But, um, I don't believe any of the residents expressed any concerns with that neighborhood commercial piece. I believe that they were in support of that. So, as a result uh of what I've just said and the fact that they're zoning it conventional and it and it's a commercial corner, something that the town is highly desire uh highly desires at this corner. Um town staff is uh recommending approval of the general plan amendment to change it to neighborhood commercial. And we also are recommending approval of the zone change to neighborhood commercial, creating another commercial corner, especially right across the street from one to the west and one to the south. So we feel this is an appropriate request tonight and we would ask that you approve this request and forward that along to the town council. Um there are a few conditions in the staff report, pretty standard boilerplate type of conditions. So that concludes my presentation and if you have any questions for me, I would love to answer them. The applicant is also here. I, as you know, he's he's been here for a while tonight. So, uh, if you have questions for him, he can answer those, too. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you kindly, Keith. Anyone have any questions that they'd like to forward to Keith related to this project? Okay, not seeing any. Uh, I'd like to ask the applicant if he would like to indulge us with any additional presenting. >> Brennan Ray 2325 East Camelback here on behalf of the applicant Lar Homes. We agree with staff. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, with that then I will open and see if anyone in the public wish to speak on this one. I do not have any cards and I don't see anyone. So with that then um anyone have any other questions that they wanted to profer towards staff or the applicant? All right then I will close the public comment bring it to the dis for discussion and or a motion. Chairman, I make a motion to approve GP2502. >> Motion to approve GP2502. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. >> I did. Thank you. Can I push the redeem button? It's on. Motion carries. And uh chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve item Z as in Zulu 25 TAC08, the Harvest Grove neighborhood commercial request to reszone. >> Motion to approve Z2508 from the vice chair. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Simon comes through with the second. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 6. Thank you all very much. Moving on through the agenda here, we find our way into 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 on only administrative items. Persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a public comment card form indicating the item number on which you wish to address. The commission may or may not accept public comment. I scanning the crowd of participants here this evening. I do not see anyone and I do not have any cards for the administrative items. So we have item seven, planning commission minutes. Consider the approval of the minutes of the study session and regular meeting August 6th, 2025. Anyone have anything they want to discuss or make a motion? >> I'll move to approve the minutes from the August 6th, 2025 meeting. We have a motion from Commissioner Davis for approval of the minutes. >> I'll second it. >> Second from Commissioner Dearina. Thank you all. Please cast your vote. Minutes carry 6. Well done. Communications. We do not have an executive session report from the chairman and members of the commission on current events. Who's got something? Anybody? >> Kind of one. One of the public speakers, Mr. Gderian, said something about emailing us. Was that in a packet or did it go to our city emails because I haven't I don't even know where I would begin to try to log into my city email. >> I think we can we can I can check with Ashley. We can do that offline. >> Yeah. >> Outside of the >> I hope that's still not a >> curious expectation. Yeah, we'll get you set up with it. Don't worry, vice chair. Um, okay. Then we'll move to item number nine, the report from the planning services manager on current events, Miss Ashley. >> Uh, thank you, chairman. No big updates tonight um other than a congratulations to Jenna Lions and R uh Raymond Hang for being uh reappointed as our alternates at the town council meeting last night. >> Wow. Well done. All right, let's give it up. >> Yeah, it's the gift that keeps on giving. I I would I don't I think that's the first step. Usually there's always enough wonkiness that you don't get reappointed. So that's actually a job. >> Yeah. >> And somehow all of you stay. You know, usually strike that from the record. All right. Moving right along then. We now have a thing called adjournment. Do we want a motion or you want me just to call it here? >> Make a motion tojourn. >> Second. We have a motion from Commissioner Simon. Vice Chair with the second for an adjournment. Please cast your vote. Keep everything legal above board. Look at that. Everyone voted in quick succession for adjournment. Thank you all very much. Appreciate your time. >> Look, it's a short agenda. I'm like, "Oh, okay.