[Music] what e e okay I'd like to uh call the study session to order here for today and our first item on the agenda is item number one dr23 d88 fast market and I believe Ashley is coming up take it away thank you chairman and commission uh nice to be in front of you tonight it's been a while since I've presented uh Dr 2388 is for the fast Market Gas Station it's located at the southeast corner of Queen Creek and Valvista this is the Spectrum care um area so there's a congregate living facility as along with some um shops along both the Queen Creek and Valvista Street Frontage um although this aerial shows vacant um land to the east of the subject site uh the McDonald's is um either under construction or complete I'm I'm not quite sure um but it it definitely looks like it's very close uh so the site plan it's on a total of 2.94 Acres it's Z it's zoned shopping center it's part of that Spectrum care PAD as I mentioned um that included a master site plan um it's uh also important to note that this site did receive a previous approval for a gas station and convenience store in this location it's since expired um in a new user is coming forward so this site plan is pretty consistent with what was previously approved I think it was back in uh 2019 um but what they're proposing is a 5600 Square ft fast Market um convenience store located at the South End of the site along with 14 fuel pumps um closer to the Queen Creek Frontage um they are meeting the requirements for stacking for that fuel station um one thing to note in my staff report in the table I had indicated that they need 57 parking spaces however because this property is zoned shopping center they actually utilize a different ratio since shopping center shares um parking across a full site and so they park at a different ratio so they only need 53 parking spaces staff is providing the applicant as part of our second review comment some direction um to perhaps consider uh removal of some of the parking spaces on the south side of that fast Market um building uh one because they're accessed off of the primary Drive um and there could be a lot of conflicts uh with those parking spaces there they're not required um and not by a primary entrance to the building so I don't think that they would be utilized um that heavily so uh that's one of our recommendations as as it moves forward the other thing I want to point out with the site plan is there are two existing access points one off of alvista and one off of Queen Creek so those already exist today and those would be the ones utilized by this uh development in terms of landscaping the right Way Landscaping has already been installed as part of that Master site plan uh so this applicant would be installing um additional Landscaping along those street frontages but within the property lines that's consistent with the existing Street Frontage Landscaping that does exist within the right of way in this area the street themed tree is SED AAA Chinese pistach and Evergreen Elm and so the applicant is proposing to continue those um Street theme trees um for consistency this also matches uh with the rest of the center uh what staff is seeking some primary feedback on tonight is the elevations of the building um they are proposing a a mixture of niiha turf block and fiber cement paneling that make up the bulk of the building materials um the front elevation includes some large storefronts and staff does believe that the front elevation um provides you know pretty good visual interest with the movement both hor ially and vertically uh the canopies the large storefront windows however uh staff would like commission feedback on those rear and side elevations we are suggesting that the applicant um vary those wall planes either in height or horizontally or introduce some additional materials to create some visual interest the rear elevation does back up to the primary drive into the center and so that uh kind of Center the gray the gray portion um that you can see will be highly visible to the site uh the other thing that I wanted to get commissioned feedback on tonight relative to the elevations is uh the context of the surrounding development many of the existing buildings on site use a uh stone veneer and so uh staff would like commission's feedback if you thought that that would add some visual interest um as well as continuity with the rest of the site so these are some examples the McDonald's um as I mentioned is right next door uh the Black Rock and the car wash are both along Valvista Road um you can even see their screen walls include uh Columns of of uh Stone they've also provided um elevations of their fuel canopy which does not include very much articulation they are painted to match the building um but they don't have any um additional materials uh they're just concrete pillars and so we would also suggest that the applicant make some improvements to those perhaps the introduction of um the stone on those columns so tonight I am uh seeking commission feedback on the building fuel canopy elevations uh this project because of the size of the parcel um if the applicant were to address all of Staff comments and all of uh commission comments we do have the option to approve this administratively so I would ask the commission's feedback as well if you would like to see this um in front of you again for hearing um based on on the uh suggestions for modifications that you may have so with that I I appreciate some feedback and happy to answer any questions you may have lovely thank you Ashley does anybody have any comments or questions for Ashley commissioner Gage thank you um I would like to see some of those stone accents I thought the the um gas pump area looked kind of plain and something maybe could be done there or on the building just to tie it all together nice anyone else commissioner Davis I see that red light all right thank you chair um Ashley I agree with you on the parking um as far as the elevations Go I mean I like the kind of modern approach I don't know how well the stone works with all of that um so I think if you did introduce Stone you'd have to be careful as to how you did it cuz I think that could take away from that kind of cool modern design but I do agree something should happen on that rear elevation and even that um side that's going to face onto valisa seems pretty plain I don't know if there's like a a wall plane change I don't think so so even some volume change or something could really help that um but I do agree with that I could see easily where Stone could be introduced in the canopy but then if it's not interest introduced into the building that might look a little odd so I don't know you can look at that and see if it works cuz I do like the idea of the consistency but I also like the kind of coolness of that front of the building and I don't know how it integrates into that so maybe there's a way to work with the materials they have to create some of that visual interest and wrap it around the building um but I would also trust staff to work through some of those details so I'll see what the other Commissioners have to say but I think that covered all of the things that you had brought up so thank you commissioner Davis you're welcome okay anybody else Vice chairman biani please take it away thanks chair so Ashley we had talked about the uh the parking spaces if those were lost would that most likely get replaced with more Landscaping if they took that it was that on the south side of the project to me that's what would make the most sense um obviously we will work with the applicant um uh on on what he would propose in that location yeah I would agree on that as well um I think overall uh I think it's a good use of glass along the front I think commissioner Davis brings up a an interesting point on the cultured stone along the facade um but definitely the rear and the side elevation seem pretty sparse so we'd like to I'd like to see something to kind of accent that or bump that up a little bit um yeah I I'm curious on the cultured stone what that looks like once you start looking at it but I will defer to our more design related professionals up here uh as far as the CDs at risk I think if you get the first and the second review comments addressed um I'd be okay with that but as far as bringing it back to commission I think it's kind of up to you guys what you think if you if there's enough here that staff's raising that you'd maybe want to take a look at it or possibly move it to consent but I don't know it sounds like there's still some work to be done here thanks thank you Vice chairman anybody else well yes commissioner Anderson Ashley thank you for the presentation um regarding the stone comment so if my U tablet is kind of slow bogging down right now but if you go to the canopy I read a leader note that there's Grace on the base um elevation 2 down the bottom left hand corner I can't read it up here but if I remember right it said that there's Stone along the base is that correct and if so does that meet the requirement that you were looking for uh chairman and commissioner Anderson um as I reviewed these plans I didn't um I don't recall seeing that note I'll take a closer look but the Curious Thing is there Stone on the building there is not okay so the note the way it reads if I'm just going on by memory now I can't get it up on my tablet and I can't read it off the screen but it says the stones to match the building yeah I do think I I think I do see that it says Stone yeah so but you're right there is none on the building okay so if they're Stone on the columns I guess that meets at the at the gas pumps that probably meets the requirement that you're looking for that correct well so there is no requirement that they include Stone um I was seeking commission feedback if you thought that it would benefit the project to incorporate it since a large majority of the buildings um I actually I believe all of them have it let me rephrase my statement if there's still in on the columns it um meets your suggestion of adding Stone to that or like your I think it could your request yeah I think it could yeah okay so I guess we're just down to if we put Stone on the building okay so uh personally I kind of agree with some of the other Commissioners I I don't I I I think the building's articulated enough I'm not sure the stone would really be needed to enhance it any further so I'd be fine with the way it looks now um and it looks like we do have some Stone on the uh gas canopy which would kind of help it tie into the surrounding area so I'm I'm kind of fine with how both structures are designed right now and articulated with materials and color thank you thank you thank you commissioner Anderson commissioner Simon please go so um I I would agree the only thing that I'm going to note is the rear elevation although I do find it quite flat um and could use some work it's going to have have what appears to me to be some Landscaping behind there which is going to break that up so I don't think you're going to see just a big flat gray wall so I don't know that I would have much of an issue as long as that Landscaping does go in the way that that it's rendered here um if if that Landscaping is not going to go in and this is just a rendering to get it pushed through then I would have issue with it so just wanted to kind of state that other otherwise I would agree with commissioner Anderson with regards to the stone if they're putting it on the columns I don't see how it would integrate to to the overall aesthetic of the building at this point I just don't know how you'd integrate that so that's all I have thank you commissioner Simon commissioner D I think I I have really nothing else to add but I think that's bringing up the stone is interesting and something that should be looked at like it might not as enhance the overall building as much as they thought it would initially so I agree with the other commissioners thank you commissioner okay uh do you think you have all the input you need chairman I do thank you okay thank you alrighty moving on to number two we have the much anticipated z23 d10 LDC text Amendment Eva take it away good evening chairman and commission as I believe most of you remember about two years ago we did a refresh of our entire Land Development code after using this code for the two years we've discovered a couple of scriveners Errors minor discrepancies and just some topics that we think we'd like to look at again those are listed on this Slide the first is incidental dwelling units the second is initiation of amendments marijuana facilities and scrier errors we're here this evening to see if the commission will initiate a text Amendment and conduct the citizen review this evening so that staff can further explore these topics the first and main topic of the code Amendment would be accessory dwelling units or incidental dwelling units as I mentioned at the last meeting the demand for these has grown in 20121 we had six use permits for secondary dwellings in 20 23 we've had 20 so far and hundreds of accessory structures and the accessory structures are getting larger and more complex recently due to the housing shortage secondary dwelling units have been in the spotlight in Arizona and Nationwide and Phoenix and other municipalities have already updated their codes Phenix made the biggest change as they didn't allow accessory dwelling units and they now do allow them because they want to grow 50,000 units in the next seven years so they allow one accessory dwelling unit per single family lot it has to be subordinate to the main dwelling it can exceed 1,000 square ft if it's on a lot under 10,000 square ft and it can exceed 3,000 square ft if it's on a lot over 10,000 square ft maximum height of 15 ft and they do do something interesting they have the owner sign a restrictive covenant that they will live in one of the homes they can rent the others but they want to make sure that you don't end up with a property with two rental units on it Gilbert was ahead of the other municipalities on incidental dwelling units as for many years we've allowed both a secondary dwelling unit and a guest home on lots that are in the SF 6000 or higher zoning the guest homes cannot be rented but the secondary dwelling units can and we do have language that the incidental dwelling unit being a guest house or a secondary dwelling must be subordinate to the main home so why do we need revisions well one there are multiple terms we have accessory structures without living quarters incidental dwelling units with living quarters under incidental dwelling units we have guest quarters we have secondary dwelling units we use Adu in the code but we don't Define it and as I mentioned we have structures that are getting more more complex we've looked at three indoor basketball courts in the last two months we've had large hobby rooms pool houses and these structures are 2 to 3,000 square ft if not larger some are larger than the primary residence on the property we also state that they must be subordinate to the main residents but we don't Define this so staff would like to explore a looking at height restrictions or size restrictions or placements on the lot can they only be in the rear yard should they have different setbacks than they do today the second item to discuss is initiation of amendments currently Town Council can initiate an amendment to the Land Development code commission can do the same and owners to a certain degree the language shown here is that the owner can apply for an amendment to the zoning map or zoning ordinance governing their property so while we don't want them to apply for an amendment that would affect the entire town we want to make it clear they can apply to amendment that governs just their property of course if they do have a concern townwide they can go through Council commission or staff that would then go to commission to initiate any changes the third item for discussion is marijuana facilities Town currently has one dispensary and it is one of the highest grossing dispensaries in the state currently our hours are 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and looking at neighboring towns most have hours till 9 or 10: p.m. so staff would like to explore allowing later hours hoping that this could make our dispensary more competitive satisfy the increased demand as noted it is a high grossing facility and also generate additional sales tax revenue and the last item are scrier errors we've been using the refresh code for about two years and we've noticed that certain things just inadvertently dropped out for instance the first chart shows a landscape percentage and it's blank it doesn't mean we don't have one we know what it is because of the old code it just didn't make it into the refresh same thing on the next chart the setback for a front arterial again there is a landscape area requirement there it just didn't make it into the chart and there are others of these scattered throughout the code and we'd like to look at that and explore ways to fix that so staff's recommendation tonight is that the Planning Commission initiate the text Amendment to the zoning regulations and conduct the citizen review meeting specifically to address incidental dwelling units hours of operation for marijuana facilities initiations of amendments to the LDC and address scrier errors so that concludes my presentation unless there are any questions at this time okay thank you does anybody have any questions Vice chairman bian thank you chair so Eva I was just curious always when we talk about the accessory or the incidental dwelling units I'm just curious to see what we what you guys come up with and present because I'm always whenever we get this I'm always to be careful that we're not creating more issues than we think we're solving for so I'm curious to see what we come up with this on that um on the marijuana dispensary is this something that the town is requesting or is this something that the the owner the applicant has requested the increased hours um chairman Vice chair bian it was uh brought to our attention by a representative for the owner and when we looked at other codes we realized they were correct and we are in agreement that we should be more in line with the other towns and allow longer operating hours I I get it from a business standpoint I know when we originally were having this discussions they were talking about security and hours of operation and that's what it kept back to do so so would PD be involved in that would they be would they be asked their opinion on any of that um chair Vice chair we did reach out to the police department they have had no calls for service to this facility since it's been operable they even looked in the area at any crimes or calls for service and what there was was unrelated to the facility so they are in support of this okay thanks okay anybody else no well it seems as though you've thoroughly put the text amendments together um I think it's done well so from there do you need us to make the suggestion for initiating the amendment yes the commission would need to formally initiate it so staff can study it further and then bring our recommendations back for adoption is that something that we should then do a motion and a vote or do I authoritatively say this I am looking at our attorney you let's play it safe and have the motion in and vote I will put the motion back up okay with that being said and there's no further comment I'd like to open it up for a motion if there is one chair I'll make a motion to approve stack recommendations as in the staff report for the text amendment to initiate yeah to initiate the txt amendment okay commissioner Simon has a motion is there a second I'll second Vice chairman bian with the second I assume there's no discussion seeing none let's put up a vote and can you please do a roll call vote as I can't operate the oh that's right thank you chair okay uh commissioner Davis I vote Yes commissioner Simon yes commissioner and Anderson hi chairman me yes Vice chairman biani hi chairman D Rina yes chairman G commissioner Gage my apologies I got promoted yeah thank you um yes okay passes unanimous thank you thank you and thank you for the vote okay that's the most exciting study session we've had in a while we got to vote all right moving on to item number three z23 d06 and another fan favorite an LDC text Amendment with Ashley take it away thank you chairman and this is also a favorite topic parking uh Z 2306 is an LDC Amendment for a parking code update um commission may recall that this uh item was actually initiated in uh the summer of this year June or July um and we are here before you today with some text that we'd like some feedback on before we go through the effort of of writing um the the code language um so we're looking for you to provide us some feedback on the parking reduction tools that we're proposing um just a little bit of history for those that um are new to our commission the parking ordinance when we updated our code in 2021 um we left out the parking section of the code purposefully so that we could engage a consultant um to help us with this effort so the town initiated a contract with Walker consultants in 2022 to start that work and to provide us some recommendations on improvements to our code um in a a number of categories and so then in June of 23 commission initiated this text Amendment um part of the reason that we wanted to revisit the parking section of our code is that we know that our land is really valuable as we start to build out it's going to become more important that we get it right um we're getting a lot of complex projects that um are uh trying to develop on smaller sites our infill our infill proc parcels and so we really just want to take an opportunity to say are you know are we um appropriately parking our sites uh so what we sought from our consultant team was um to look at uh opportunities to simplify and modernize our code um those of you that were on our commission in 21 may recall that that was the purpose of the refresh was to modernize and simplify our code um and so this effort was to to also do that to this section of the code we also wanted to look at the opportunity to remove parking barriers so that we can continue to grow efficiently uh we wanted to create some parking um flexibility uh especially as there's new Innovative modes of travel um along with that is looking at effective tools to use to um be flexible with our code requirements and then how can we streamline the review process for parking so that we're not slowing down development uh area areas of interest um as we sought the study from Walker Consultants was uh to explore our parking ratios and our parking requirements uh we wanted to look at design standards for off street parking as well um do our standards currently meet um you know best practices uh we wanted to look at our opportunities for administrative relief um where our parking standards maybe don't make sense for a particular development uh we also asked the consultant to look at parking standards for new of Transportation electric vehicles ride share um those types of items and how they impact our parking um as well as uh just seeing could our parking ordinance um use some reorganization when we initiated this text Amendment we did hear some concerns from Planning Commission relative to some of the things that we were proposing and that came out of the initial Walker study and so we want to um still explore some of those but right now we know that our parking code limits uh the ability of development to modify parking calculations and so we want to move that that part of this forward as our initial phase in order to um allow development to continue moving forward so we're not um putting the rest uh off indefinitely but we're taking our we're taking our time to study parking ratios and some of these other items um and moving forward with uh some relief tools so one of the recommended actions from The Walker study was to create a parking reduction for our mixed use zoning districts that were adopted earlier this year um and adopt more extensive administrative parking reduction options and so that's what we're here um before you tonight asking for some feedback on existing Tools in our code are shared parking shared parking allows for a reduction of up to 50% of required parking um and it's based on um Peak demand so where one user on a site might have a different Peak demand than another user so that's an existing tool in our code the other two tools are very similar to one another they offer an opportunity for deferred parking and what deferred parking allows for is for an applicant to say that um our use doesn't generate this demand i c so I'm going to defer construction of all required parking until such time that maybe we we need that demand so it doesn't save a development in terms of land area because they still have to show us that they can meet the parking requirement it only defers installation of it um and so there's really limited scope on what somebody can apply for an actual reduction of parking uh and so what we wanted to do was um propose some changes to our administrative parking reduction section uh what we have here um is kind of abbreviated language to what's in your staff report but where a use has some unique parking demand we would propose that there are some options for them to reduce parking so reductions between 1 to 10% an applicant would have an opportunity to apply for administrative relief that's handled at an administrative level uh 1 to 10% is consistent with um how we apply administrative relief um in our code to other actions such as reducing setbacks um and so that percentage is consistent we would also then propose reductions above 10% and up to 25% through an administrative use permit um that requires a minor parking study currently for the reduction options that do exist in our code we process administrative use permits um for those and they include parking studies there's a little bit more of a notice requirement for those compared to administrative relief um where an applicant has to provide notice to Property Owners within 300 ft of their site and staff takes any feedback they receive into account for our decision um and then our final recommendation is reductions from 25% up to 50% could be approved through a conditional use permit um and that would include um a study as well we are um suggesting also modifications to our shared parking section that I already covered um and that would include a parking reduction for the Mixed use zoning districts that were previously adopted so only the text in capitals um would be what's added uh and then projects that have special circumstances would also qualify for reduction special circumstances um are things such as the nature of their business maybe they are um a medical use that uses large cat scan machines and so so a specific room that takes up a lot of square footage um really only has one or two people that occupy that space um and so we would also provide opportunity for those types of uses to seek a reduction um the process is very similar um to those that I covered um previously um and the really the only difference in this is that they would have to provide us additional documents that demonstrate the unique and special circumstances of their building that that limit occupancy essentially uh the new code language would also propose um requirements for the parking studies uh there were minor and minor and major parking studies uh the minor parking study um would include um the base parking ratio for each use mode split which is the percentage of people um that would be expected to drive there versus using some alternate means of transportation um they would uh provide us some information on the captive reduction of the use so um how many people are on the site for another use they work there but then they're also going to the restaurant and then um also the presence Factor so the percentage of daily trips during peak hour so they would provide us that information um for our evaluation a major parking study would include much of those same things um but it would also include a parking inventory and occupancy count for comparable um properties that have similar demand ratios so so that's the addition that would happen if an applicant was seeking the reduction of 25% up to 50% uh through a conditional use permit that would come to Planning Commission and then the code would also outline what the requirements are for those occupancy counts so um that it has to be uh three times on a weekend weekday those types of items uh one thing too that I wanted to point out there were some recommended action items from the code for the reorganization of it and so I I just wanted to point that out for the fact that when the ordinance does come before Planning Commission it may look like there's some more adjustments than there are if we if we're choosing to relocate sections and and consolidate um pieces so um what I've covered today is is kind of the bulk of the substantive changes but when it comes before you again you may see some different some different changes just based on shifting um for the recommendation report so our next steps we're continuing to review um this ordinance with the various departments within development services or within the town I'm sorry um we will continue to develop ordinance based on feedback that we hear from you tonight uh we plan to take this to the Chamber of Commerce for their feedback and input um and then hopefully um be back before you in December for the public hearing uh where you'll make a recommendation to Town Council as I mentioned when I when I started my presentation uh we will continue to work on parking um in general and future phases of this will include exploration of our parking ratios um standards for electrical vehicle charging spaces and then parking design standards that is my presentation I would um appreciate any feedback that you have or any questions you might have thank you very much Ashley does anybody have any questions or feedback commissioner Anderson Ashley thank you for the presentation uh question for you on the category of 25 to 50% reduction that that's a pretty substantial reduction what types of uses does staff Envision that would be acceptable for or they would support that that type of a reduction so um this is actually one of the primary reasons that staff wanted to bring this to you as a as a study session item it was a recommendation from the recommendation report to go 25 to 50% in this category um historically staff has not seen requests that High um but our code also currently in the shared parking allows up to 50% reductions and so um we wanted to get your feedback um because I I don't have an example for you of of somebody that's requested a reduction up to 50% okay I I think the the top that I'm thinking of um was in the teens okay because I could see like an industrial use coming before us requesting like you know some some percentage with that range but if a multif family became and requested that I just I don't see how that would be applicable at all and should be denied um because they just have such high really high demand for parking with those types of uses so I just if if we're going to allow or introduce that those types of high percentages into the code I think we just really really want to understand what types of uses or um applicants would be requesting that and make sure that we're really clear that it's a use that the staff would support So as not to waste time and money on the applicant side to chase something down that they just won't get in the first place um uh so that was kind of the only question or I guess curiosity I have regarding this this text Amendment thank you um chairman and and commissioner I I while you were um um sharing that I I did have another thought that um one of the things that we had talked about early on was there are some uses that have really small parking requirements for example a storage facility requires eight parking stalls and so if for some reason based on their model um you know they needed fewer than that their percentage incre or their percentage reduction is just naturally going to be higher because of how many spaces they require being fewer and so that was part of our dialogue um that I recalled as you kind of as you talked through that okay thank you anyone else Vice chairman bian thank you chair yeah I'm kind of in agreement with commissioner Anderson in the direction he was kind of going on those questions you provided kind of the the examples there um I definitely understand the request especially when we kind of get into shared parking um opportunities especially if they've got differing peak hours of operation but I guess one of the things when I look at what you've see on the screen there the question I've got is so with these reductions that we're potentially doing through use permits the one thing we'd always say about use permits is we had the ability to pull it back if it became a problem down the road I don't know how we do that with parking if you're granting deviations with parking through a use permit and it becomes a problem down the road how do we pull that use permit back so I think we we almost lose that in that o in this opportunity so that'd be one of my concerns kind of going there but like you had said you probably don't think you're going to see a lot of reduction requests from 25 to 50 and they'll probably be more in the teens range but that's my question going forward is through that use permit that's my concern is how do we pull that back once we've granted that thank you thank you Vice chairman very good point anyone else commission Davis I see your red sure um thank you chair um Ashley I appreciate all the flexibility that's been built in I'm I think with parking you can't ever completely you know guess what uses are going to come at us in the future so much has changed with technology and so on so um I appreciate the flexibility and the fact that staff can really evaluate these things and the detail that you put into the minor redu minor study versus the major study and providing that criteria so an applicant has an expectation and knows what they have to provide um as far as the 25% goes I guess I don't mind it being there as long as it's clear that it's going to be a higher standard to get something like that because as you said like a storage unit use is going to have that you know that threshold is going to be way different and again with different uses out there there's things that we haven't even anticipated that could come at us and that does build in that flexibility to look at it as long as it's really carefully evaluated so we don't get into any problems on that so that's all I had thank you commissioner thank you commissioner commissioner D Gina thank you chairman I my concern is like commissioner bianes is that uh down the road when the town is completely built out uh we' be able to pull some of these back because we you're going to have increase in electric vehicles we don't know what that's going to look like we're going to have increase in traffic and that kind of thing so if it doesn't work down the road what kind of requirements what can we do to to make it different so it does fit where we're at with the population flow and the traffic flow and that kind of thing yeah appreciate that feedback and that's something that we'll continue to to to dig into okay all right uh one one comment I would have on that is would it make sense to just say a reduction above 25% and not create the illusion that they have a chance to go to 50 but just saying if you're going to look or anything above you know what would be an administrative use to go to that I don't know I I think that part of my concern is that by putting the range at almost makes it seem as though oh I could grab 50% um and we all know that developers would never try to do anything like that but just to be safe I think it would be wise to look into that a bit um okay did you get everything that you needed from us then I did I appreciate your time tonight thank you chair and commission thank you Ashley okay that concludes the three items for this study session today Mr chair we still need the initiation for no we don't this one has already been initiated my apologies memory bad memory illegal okay okay uh we'll have the discussion of the regular meeting agenda and um I know currently we have two items Town storage at recer and 8 and Dr 2367 homood Suites on consent and then two others on non-consent we currently don't have any citizen input is anyone oh yes we do have somebody here which which project are you wanting to speak on Communications say Communications oh Communications from citizens not an actual project okay very good thank you okay um then with that looking at these does anyone have any reason that to pull either eight or nine off of consent or any issues with moving 10 and 11 to consent you got a win chicken dinner okay all right well with that then we will close the study session and adjourn and we will come back at 6: so we have about 13 minutes to stretch out and enjoy we'll see you all soon speak e e e e [Music] e e e okay it looks like it's six so if everybody can gear up for the meeting to begin um all right well I'm going to call the regular meeting to order here at 6 and our first order of business will be the Pledge of Allegiance please join okay thank you Eva could I get a roll call please alternate ett alternate the Gino present commissioner Simon here commissioner Gage here commissioner Fay commissioner Davis here commissioner Anderson here Vice chairman biani here chairman Mont here we have a quorum thank you moving right along we'll go into the approval of last month's agenda and I will entertain a motion if there is one or any discussion for this month's yeah chairman if you're ready for a motion um I would propose keeping the consent agenda as presented with the following changes adding item 10 uh Z 23-05 and items 11 dr22 d155 to the consent calendar as well okay thank you we have a motion from the vice chairman to move 10 and11 to the consent do I have a second I'll second okay we have a second from commissioner Davis is there any discussion very well please vote okay motion passes unanimously now we'll move on to Communications from citizens at this time members of the public May com comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the town but not on the agenda commission responses limited to responding to criticism asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that a matter be put on a future agenda we do have one comment card for Miss Doris Machado Liddell please come up and state your name and you'll have three minutes thank you you'll have to hit the button to make it go red there you go yeah good evening chair Planning Commission members my name is d mad Adell I'm a Gilbert resident I'm here to speak on the L z23 d10 LDC text Amendment it's not on the agenda however it does say it's a citizen review but I didn't hear any citizens and I didn't hear any reviews I just don't understand that portion of it I know it says initiation however this is an important text Amendment or whatever it's called because it does affect property rights people have property rights that have existed in Gilbert this is something regarding secondary dwellings a secondary dwelling has been allowed a guest dwelling not a dwelling guest quarters has been allowed there's been two reasons why you have a secondary dwelling a secondary dwelling is that you are able to have a stove and you are able to rent it in the code you do not have to live in your primary resident you can rent out both I have a secondary dwelling unit I paid impact fees I hope that everybody else will pay those impact fees if they consider having a guest quarters or a secondary dwelling unit I think that we have to look at that two years ago when they did go through the LDC they did have a transparent process the mayor had a subcommittee there were three council members and the Planning Commission I uh planning uh staff member I hope that this process is one that is transparent this will affect people's property rights not every property is the same you may have a small house on a property which would be fronting the road maybe it's 600 square ft if you limit something that is going to be smaller than your primary resident than you residents then you will be limiting the ability to build so I just say that and hope that and I wish that staff would be directed to have a transparent process one in which the citizens of Gilbert would be able to see what is going on because I don't know what to speak on at a citizen review if I don't know what they're changing so that's what I ask I think that um we need to look at it however it needs to be flexible and we need to look at uh Land Development fees CU that is key and so when we're doing this I just hope that it's a transparent process and I thank you for your time and hopefully we'll have the questions that I heard that were robust during the parking that that is the same things that is applied to accessory dwelling units or um secondary dwellings thank you okay thank you dores um and then I I would encourage the staff to possibly reach out or get a email from dorly so that she could be made a breast of the process as it goes to be sure the transparency is there I was assuming that was possibly commenting on criticism so from the legal Vantage Point okay all right that concludes the communications um I'd like to move on to the report from the council liaison on current events and uh go to council member Anderson thank you Mr chairman I apologize for my tardiness I it takes a while to get from the airport to hear during rush hour um first off I want to congratulate those of you that were sorn in by the mayor last month I missed that and but I do want to congratulate those of you that were sworn in and I really appreciate her filling in for me at that time couple of items uh one is our uh annual fall Retreat is being held this uh Monday and Tuesday the 6th and the 7th where we will be tackling issues that will be facing the town in the the future as we approach bill out uh there will be many Financial challenges not only because of inflation and and supply chain issues all sorts of items that we have to discuss so if you're interested in learning more about how we make sausage in Gilbert um come and attend with us U we'll be at the LI Southeast Regional Library all day Monday and Tuesday discussing various issues uh the other is you are aware that Gilbert days is coming up this month in November the um 7 17th and 18th the 18th is the day of the parade so I'd encourage you to to participate in those activities it's a lot of fun uh at that annual event thank you Mr chairman thank you council member Anderson okay moving on to the public hearing consent all items listed below are considered a 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 so with that I'll just look to the audience to confirm that there are no individuals seeking to speak on any of the agendized items okay seeing none then I will open it up for a motion on the consent and as an update the consent of course is 8 and n and also 10 z235 and 11 dr22 d155 chairman if you're ready for a motion um I would move to approve the consent C uh agenda uh as you had stated with item concluding items 8 9 10 and 11 this evening thank you Vice chairman do I have a second I'll second commissioner Simon with the second is there any discussion seeing none please cast your vote and unanimous moving on there is no non-consent items left therefore I will Breeze past that into administrative items and administrative items for the commission discussion and action is the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item we don't have anyone wishing to speak so I will move to number 12 and we will consider approval of the minutes of the study session and regular meeting of September 13th 2023 and October 4th 2023 does anybody have any comments on either of those or a motion CH I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as proposed okay commissioner Simon has moved to approve and are we able to do these both then at one time sure yes unless there are any corrections okay so the motion is to approve September 13th and October 4th 2023 do I have a second I'll second commissioner Gage with the second everybody please cast your vote once voting is open okay and it's unanimous on the minutes okay moving right along into Communications the executive session executive session we have none 13 report from the chairman and members of the commission on current events does anybody have any current events they'd like to share with us commissioner Anderson Uh current event uh Diamond Back zero Ranger zero uh uh bottom of fourth okay so it's clearly going a lot better than last night as I took my children trick-or-treating and watched the decimation as every house um okay with that then we'll move to Eva and see if the planning services manager has any current events of her own uh just very quickly if I could ask our legal counsil Elena to introduce her new employee oh goodness that uh I'll make this brief uh Mr chair chairman members of the Planning Commission just I want to welcome the newest addition to the town attorney's office uh his name is Cole Lions he uh it was a previous intern law intern with us in 2022 and uh needless to say he was completely impressive uh he comes to us by way of the Attorney General's office by way of ASU law so really appreciate him and thank you okay thank you and welcome aboard it's always best to have more attorneys okay well with that I believe we can conclude the meeting I do not have a gavel therefore I will just adjourn thank you all for coming