e e e e e e e okay everybody appears to be in place um uh we'll call the study session to order and our first item on the agenda is the swearing in of our new alternate Raymond hang if uh you could meet council member Anderson for your swearing in hello hello thank you for being here um please raise your right hand I state your name do solemnly swear swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the states State of Arizona theti State of Arizona and the ordinances of the town of Gilbert Maricopa County Arizona that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same I true fa and defend them against all enemies foreign and domestic and defend all enemies for and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge I will Faithfully impar the duties of the office of a town of Gilbert Planning Commission member office of Gilbert right in Gilbert Arizona according to the best of my ability Gilbert Arizona the best of my so help me God so help me God thank you thank you we need you to sign okay thank you mer very much welcome aboard Raymond it's great to have you all right now I will actually officially call to order the study session and our second second item on the agenda dr24 d79 up 24-44 and up 2445 popstroke and we will hear from Mr Keith Newman take it away Keith chairmont members of the commission good evening um as you mentioned my case tonight the for the steady session is for popstroke um the popstroke site is in a very familiar site that everybody knows about it's located off of um SanTan Village Parkway south of Ray Road on that east side of the road as you can see on the map and it's it's right there next to Top Golf and the main event so we're going to have this little golfing Family Fun area right here that's going to be um improved upon here with this project so as far as the request is concerned you mentioned it just a little bit already but this is for a design review um to develop a 64,66 ft mini golf facility um and it's an indoor facility um and then also another request is for a conditional use permit for a commercial indoor amusement use which is how it's classified in the in the code um and then also a conditional use permit to approve a parking demand study establish lishing parking standards for an indoor miniature golf facility for this type of for this use and I'll explain a little bit more about that in a second um as far as the site plan is concerned um you can see it on the screen in front of you there is um the site like I said is vacant right now little about 4.25 Acres or so it's Zone Regional commercial the site is located within the Gilbert cross Road Center planned area development which was established in like 1999 the site is actually governed by and you can you probably saw this in your staff report it's actually all zoning requirements are are per the uh pad that's in place and the unified Land Development code which was in place at that time the building consists of like I stated earlier a little about 64,000 ft building um that has and I know you saw it on the floor plan the floor plan's back here somewhere I can show you the floor plan really quick it's actually way in the back maybe we'll go there later but it has um it's all indoor and you know what what the heck I'll just show you the floor plan here we go it's it's all the way it's you have the 64,000 ft building and then you have the indoor miniature golf there's two courses so it's 36 holes of of of miniature golf all indoors in a single story building um there's two other popstroke locations in the valley one in Glendale and one in Scottsdale and they're both outdoor courses this will be pop stroke's first indoor course in Arizona I don't know if they're they have indoor courses elsewhere I believe they do especially in places like Minnesota um so and then this one also has about 10,000 squ ft of additional space uh where they have a bar a full service bar a kind of a dining area a little um and then also an indoor uh a covered like play facility for children all right let's go back um the site has hund actually I I think that's actually a excuse me that's a typo I think there's 164 parking spaces on the site the um landscape plan you can see the Landscaping all around the building um up against the foundation in the parking lot um there's a lot of trees and Landscaping in the parking lot now you'll notice this design has the landscape islands in the middle are a little bit different they're only like 5T wide or so four to 5T wide and they're they're oriented differently than the other landscape Islands this is something that was approved in the main for the main event parking lot as well they have the same design but in the old UL DC um parking spaces were allowed to be have 12 parking spaces in a row without a landscape Island so that's why you see more spaces in a row without the bigger landscape Islands but they were allowed to have these smaller landscape Islands too based on the old um based on the pad and the old ulc there's about 22% open space on the site or landscape area um the building elevations they're approximately 23 ft tall at the at the roof line they're obviously much taller than that to the top of the parapet walls gener generally a flat roofing design with um stucco and and comp composite metal panels and fiber cement panels and stone veneer and one of the reasons we're bringing this to you tonight before the study session is to ask for CDs at risk but also to maybe get your feedback on on the design of the building we're still working with the applicant on um meeting the design guidelines that are um a little bit different in the in the crossroads pad requires a lot of wall movement and things that our current code doesn't require today so they're still um striving to meet some of those design requirements but your input and feedback on the building would be would be appreciated as well so here's um the bottom one's the west elevation that will face SanTan Village Parkway South elevation will face the parking lot and you can see the blue area is is where the entrances are the main entrance to the building and then here's some of the other elevations facing north and Facing East and the next thing I wanted to talk about the last thing I wanted to talk about are the conditional use permits so as far as the conditional use permits are concerned um during initial research uh for the project we had to figure out how to classify this use um it's per like I stated before the the ulc um has a commercial Amusement indoor use but it does not specifically mention miniature golf but is defined as um which miniature golf is not Minature golf excuse me the indoor commercial Amusement use is defined as following um an establishment offering sports game playing or similar amusements to the public including but not limited to skating rinks bowling alleys Billiards pingpong mechanical or electronical games but not gambling or card playing within a full fully enclosed structure so miniature golf is not mentioned in that definition however it is included under the definition for Comm commercial Amusement outdoor that's obvious obviously um this will probably be the first indoor mini golf uh um facility anywhere in the whole in this whole city so obviously that wasn't contemplated at that time because indoor miniature golf isn't mentioned under either definition um staff has determined that um section 4.3.3 of the ulc um would allow flexibility for uses that are not listed from A parking standpoint so so the first cup is for just to allow the use of commercial indoor use for a miniature golf facility and the second one is for the parking so um the applicant provided us with a parking study demand study um through which it requires a cup approval allowing a customized parking standard based on comparable facilities so some compar comparable facilities used in the initial study include the popstroke in Glendale which has 25 on-site parking spaces and then there they also have next door I think it's a Dave and Busters with a much larger parking lot so and a much larger development so they're allowed to share parking with that parking lot and they don't really they don't have any parking problems according to the applicant and then the other project is um they haven't put it in the study yet but um next round of of review they we're hoping they do which um that's based on the the Scottdale popstroke the Scottsdale popstroke has 92 parking spaces and according to the applicant they don't have really any parking problems this site has 164 parking spaces which is well above what the other two pop Strokes in the valley have in addition the applicant has stated that um the average popstroke throughout the country I think there's 10 locations throughout the country um they usually have about anywhere between 110 to 150 parking spaces so this project is proposing 14 more spaces than the highest average amount of parking spaces at any pop stroke anywhere else in the nation so staff firmly believes that um the parking that they're proposing 164 spaces is is sufficient um so given all this information um one one interesting thing that I wanted to bring up before I end the presentation is the fact that if you look in today's development code we do have a classif classification for miniature golf at land use and the parking for miniature golf is one parking space per 150 square ft of of indoor entertainment Recreation space and two spaces per miniature golf hole and if you add all that up it's exactly what the applicant is proposing so they're actually proposing to meet our Land Development code even though they're subject to the Old Land Development code from 20 years ago so um staff staff is under the belief that uh the proposed parking will be more than adequate for the um proposed popstroke so given that um like I said it stated earlier the applicant is requesting to move forward with CDs at risk and if you have any other um comments or questions or concerns about any of the other site design elements or the building itself we'd love to hear those so that con concludes my presentation and if you have any questions I'm I'm happy to to answer them the applicants also here as well tonight so thank you thank you Keith anybody have any questions or comments for Keith mrina Keith good presentation and and a a good explanation on the parking because when I was reading through it before I got here it looks like they were basing their uh parking requirement the parking demand study on the 10,450 foot Clubhouse but there's also I guess a code in there too for which is uh excuse me one per 150 square ft of building and then two per each of the U the holes but then there's the other Cod which I thinking you're saying is the Old Co which is five spaces per 1,000 square ft yeah which and for the 6436 overall building that brings it well I think you said 314 but my calculation was 322 so with the studies of the other pop Strokes you guys feel comfortable with the 142 um chairm um commissioner deina yes we do we feel comfortable with what they're proposing and like you stated um the old code the ulc would require them to have like 314 parking spaces which is not feasible on the site that there's no way that it would fit they wouldn't even be able to do the project so 164 parking space we feel is is adequate and sufficient for the use it does make sense just because the building it's covering I guess the complete miniature golf area so obviously the structure is bigger but if that was an Open Door the club house would only be 10,450 square feet and that would bring it down to the 142 parking spots that you've got correct listed there okay that answers my question thank you thank you anyone else commissioner Davis thank you chair um Keith I was just curious um well first of all I agree completely on the parking I think your analysis is exactly correct um it makes perfect sense to me um so no issues with that um my question related to the lighting on the building um it looks like the only exterior lighting they're proposing besides fixtures is the LED lighting near the entrance but the other entertainment type uses out there with Top Golf and Main Event have done like a color wash on their buildings at night um I didn't know are they planning to do anything like that like behind the decorative metal screens or anything is there any kind of additional lighting that you've heard them talk about um chairmont uh commissioner Davis I I don't believe so I can find out I know there might be some uplighting a little bit on the west wall where the pop stroke logo is and they have like a little golf club that's kind of part of the logo but anywhere else on the building I don't believe there's any other too many other lighting fixtures that's something that I can research and find out and bring back to you uh when it comes back for um public hearing thanks I actually would support it I think that would be kind of a fun addition the building's not super Lively I think it would add something to it and it looks like that area by the entrance is probably a little photo up area so yeah anyway I was just curious about that cuz I think it's maybe is a missed opportunity to add some nighttime interest to the building so okay that's all good comment thank you thank you anyone else commissioner Simon please yeah I was just going to agree with commissioner uh Davis on that that I am a little bit underwhelmed by the building and feel like there can be from an entertainment perspective something that is more catchy um I I don't have a problem with the color so much I just feel like it feels very Warehouse to me and so if there was something that could just dress that up other than that I have no problem with uh the parking the the the site plan I I think it it's well laid out it's just the building is a little bit underwhelming for me so okay all right well you know I I would say that with that you know and then do we need to make from a CDs at risk I guess that we could get our suggestions to the applicant um I will just point out there is another indoor mini golf it's over by uh Cooper and Warner by the spaghetti bucket joint it's a glow-in-the-dark one taking my kids there but uh it's much smaller than this uh but anyway uh is that everything that you need then Keith um chair chairman members of the commission I I believe so I think that will cover it thank you for all your input and comments very well thank you Keith okay then we'll move right along into item number three is another triple which is GP 2405 Tustin Ranch minor GP z242 Tustin Ranch bad Amendment and s244 Tustin Ranch and Kristen thank you chair you know we're just trying to make our our presentations efficient by tripling them up like this we enjoy that thank you right good evening commission the cases I have for discussion tonight are going to be for a residential development called test and ranch the applications have currently gone through one review with the town the site is located at the southwest corner of Greenfield and posos Roads the applicant is proposing to amend their pad and also amend their General plan designation to better align with their existing zoning a pre-at application will be reviewed concurrently with the submitt as well and I'm bringing this case forward tonight to receive your input on the proposed request we're specifically looking for feedback on the prop proposed deviations but welcome any additional feedback that you'd like to provide the site is just under 40 acres and was annexed into the town in the year 2000 under the land use category of 1 to2 dwelling units per acre the property was also rezoned at that time from County r43 to r110 and r115 the land use and Zoning stayed in effect until 2008 when a town initiated General plan amendment was approved for 98 Acres amending the residential land use category of the site to Business Park and Community commercial from residential 1 to2 the general plan amendment was initiated due to the increased interest in development from the area after the Mercy Gilbert hospital and the Santan freeway had opened this change did require a majority of the 21 Property Owners at the time to be supportive of the amendment in order to go through the land use categories of Business Park and Community commercial stayed in effect until 2020 when the 2020 Gilbert General plan was adopted and then the plan updated the previous categories to General commercial and general office the current lus classification remains General commercial and general office as approved in 2020 the requested General plan Amendment will convert the site back to residential 1 to2 dwelling units per acre bringing the landu classification back into alignment with the zoning that has accompanied the site since 2000 the site was zoned sf15 and sf10 with a planned area develop development in the year 2000 and the applicant is requesting to amend that previously approved pad by bringing a previous 1.5 acre outlier parcel updating their development plan and requesting development standard deviations the 1.5 acre outlier parcel is currently zoned sf35 and one's incorporated into the site will be rezoned to sf10 the updated development plan still includes 76 slots but we have a proposed density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre instead of the 1.97 dwelling unit per acre as previously approved in 2000 the plan on the left of your screen is showing the original approval and the plan on the right is showing the updated proposal as proposed there is one primary entrance to the community from Greenfield Road the entrance will be gated and the streets within the community will be private at this time there are two emergency access points being proposed one off of Bonanza to the South and one off of posos to the north the plan includes roughly 18% of open space distributed between two large amenity areas and a handful of smaller retention areas throughout the development all right and with this pad Amendment the applicant is requesting deviations from the previous approval seen here on the screen outlined in red are the requested deviations for the sf10 zoning the applicant is requesting reduced front and rear setbacks the front setback was previously approved at a staggered 25 ft to 30 ft the LDC requires a 25ft front setback for this District the applicant is now proposing 15 fet for livable and 20 ft for garage the rear setback was previously approved at 30 ft consistent with the LDC the applicant is proposing to reduce this to 20 ft for the sf15 zoning District the applicant is proposing reduced setbacks and increased lot coverage the previously approved front setback was a staggered 30 ft to 35 ft in line with LDC requirements of 30 ft the applicant is proposing a 20-ft livable and 25- ft garage front setback the previous approval and LDC required 15t side setbacks and the applicant is proposing 10 ft the previous approval also required a 35t rear setback where the LDC only requires 30 ft however the applicant is proposing 25 ft in addition to setback deviations for sf15 the applicant is also proposing to increase the lot coverage percentage of sf15 from 35% to 40% also seen on this screen are items outlined in green uh these are items that are exceeding our requirements the minimum lot Dimensions being proposed for sf10 are 90 by 110 ft where the LDC only requires 85 ft by 110 ft the minimum Dimensions being proposed for sf-15 are 115 by 130 ft where the LDC only requires 110 by 120 ft in addition the open space recommendations for single family communities is 10% and the applicant is exceeding that by providing 18% the applicant has also expressed that the homes in the community will all be SLE story which is a driving factor in the deviation requests staff has encouraged the applicant to develop within the development standards for the zoning District but has requested additional documentation from the applicant as to why the deviations are necessary in addition to these requests the applicant would also like to pursue a potential modification to the LDC requirement of a 50t x 250t landscape area along the arterial intersection uh the deviation request would be to utilize the same square footage just in different dimensions and then this is just an image of the preliminary plat that is running concurrently with the zoning and general plan Amendment and with that I'm seeking your input again just on the proposed deviations and any other General feedback that you have on all of the information that I just gave you and I'm available for your questions okay thank you Kristen anybody want to start with some questions or comments Vice chairman Fay thank you thank you Christen um as far as the the the getting the land juice squared away the planed but that's that's all almost ought to be done administratively that's not controversial in my mind I do um well first of all the two-story the one versus two story everything I read in the item does not guarantee one story it it it all looks like they're proposing two story uh so chairm Vice chair Fay the in the amendment request along the southern and western border they are guaranteeing being single story the comment of the whole neighborhood being single story was brought up in an a meeting that we had within the last week so I I would have that formally included in the so in the next the next time this comes forward it will literally be obligating them to one story if if that's the path that they continue um that that said the just on the topic of the deviations I don't necessarily have a problem with that landscape U buffer zone that doesn't seem all that controversial to me but the number of deviations make it look like this is one of those trying to pack too much into too small a place or like we designed to figure out what's the maximum we possibly can sell and then ask for deviations rather than designing around what's required um it it starts to yeah the the red some of the red boxes particularly the the feet um it starts to look like too much packed in and and too crowded it's a gated community so they might get a little bit different it's kind of getting close to if it wasn't a gated community I'd be kind of saying this is too much much mhm um it it certainly gets much closer to the approvable line and having spillover effect on your neighbors than I I I'm comfortable with other than that the rest of it is is fairly straightforward to me thank you very much thank you Vice chairman anyone else oh commissioner Davis n thank you chair um Kristen I was kind of in the same boat where I was having concerns with the number of deviations they were asking um when you mentioned the single story I hadn't caught that and I that kind of pushed me towards supporting that because I understand that's going to get that's going to create a need for lesser setbacks and the greater lot coverage so I think that made me more comfortable so what we're getting in exchange for the pad if I'm understanding it are the larger Lots the single story and the increased open space uh yes chairman commissioner Davis that's that's correct because initially I was like 8% additional open space I feel like it could have been better than that but I I think with the single story Edition that justifies it a little bit more because I know that's a desired product out there and to live in a single story neighborhood is a desired thing um so I think based on that I'm comfortable with it thank you thank you commissioner Davis commissioner Anderson I saw you thank you uh thank you for the presentation I guess I mean just the deviations I I get the I get the reason for they're essentially what they're doing is just they want to grow the building as much as they can on the lots and the only concern I have with that is now you know I get that you know I understand they're increasing the lot size too but um when you're reducing the especially the front and rear setbacks by about 10 feet on each side I mean now we're just losing a lot of like backyard space for residents to look and and the exhibit in here where they're kind of sh those building outlines on each lot I mean there's not a whole lot of outdoor area for the residents and I just the only concern is is that going to be you know a pleasant space for the people that are owning these homes um so I my you know I I I guess I'd be okay with the front yard um setback um because you know it's just it's just the buildings will just be close to the street I guess um but I just have a concern on the rear yard setback that there you you're not going to have a whole lot of usable space back there it's just going to feel like a really narrow just kind of alley back there so uh other than that I you know uh no other comments you know thank you thank you thank you commissioner Anderson commissioner diina yeah I I don't want to yeah that was a good presentation I don't want to be redundant but I feel the same way and I think if four of us up have the same concern maybe it needs to be looked at maybe in a little bit more detail I feel they're kind of packing a little bit too much there too obviously the a variances the setbacks are being used because they're putting a larger footprint home there obviously developers like to increase the value of their their development I understand that fully but is it the right size house and one story is great because what people want they much ranch style but is that maybe too big maybe too compact for that and then you only have one entrance is that enough is that meat code for those 70 I think 76 homes for traffic if you're going to have a bigger house there you're going to have more cars more more more kids and that kind of thing so that' be my only concern okay so chairman commissioner diina uh it does meet the fire code currently just because there are two emergency access points in addition to the primary entrance um but modifications to those entrance points are part of ongoing conversations okay thank you and commissioner Gage thank you chair um I'm I'm very much in support of the modifying the dimensions at the um section because I think that's crazy to begin with um but the rest of it I just can't support um at this time thank you all right well is there anything else that you needed input on Kristen um I don't believe so it's only gone through one review so far so we will go over this feedback with the applicant and come before you again all right very good well thank you very much okay well that concludes the items and moves us into item number six which is the discussion of the regular meeting agenda and so on the consent we currently have two items one of which is tabled um the signature fence modification once again the the fence is not ready um and then the shops at posos and power was there anyone that had issues with that that they wanted to remove it not not to remove it but I I I suspect that takes two separate motions one to table and one to approve consent is that a fair or can we just approve tabling and so I think so we could pull the tabled one off okay well then we'll pull that yeah I guess we could do it either way see that's why I brought in the vice chair brought in the Heavies thank you sir okay then on to the other agenda um we have a withdrawn one for the Melrose pressional Park parking reduction but then we do have the site plan for it then a couple of everyone's favorite LDC text amendments and the signature at SanTan Village um were there any of those that anybody felt they wanted to try to move to consent chair unless anyone has a problem I would like to move number 17 there is a counterveiling because I know Keith doesn't want it or wants it move to consent which makes me want to leave it there but in the the interest of the meeting not being too long I I'd have no problem moving item 17 to consent okay anyone else have poems with that and really had their heart set on hearing Keith again no no okay and anyone in the crowd today that was here to speak on that okay not seeing any all right well and then it sounds like you know it'll be good to hear the text amendments because I know that deals with the state and the multif family so it'll be good to put that on the record so all right well with that then it sounds like we have a a good established game plan and it's 5:38 so we'll be back here in 20 minutes for the meeting thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay in the interest of time I am going to call the meeting to order and we will have our first item of business being the Pledge of Allegiance please stand and join me I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all thank you very much could we have a roll call Eva alternate hung alternate lion commissioner de gravina here commissioner Gage present commissioner Davis here commissioner Simon here commissioner Anderson yeah Vice chairman Fay here chairman Mt here we have a quarum thank you very much okay then we're going to move into the approval of the agenda and after much deliberation we are going to move everything off of the consent so the agenda will be items 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 and 17 all on the non-consent so we're leaving 17 on nonconsent not oh I'm sorry the number 10 will stay on consent since it'll be alone and we can then vote that it's it's kind of a mood point I guess but we can leave it there so we'll move 11 off and leave 10 on consent then um do we do a motion on that I forgot we okay isn't that now sir chair I'll move to approve your agenda thank you commission moving item 11 to the uh non-consent leaving item 10 on consent and the rest will stay on non consent very well thank you commissioner Simon do I have a second I'll seconded second by the Vice chair please cast your vote motion carries 70 okay now we'll go on to the communication ations Communications from citizens at this time members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the town the commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda therefore pursuant to state law action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further consideration so this would be if anyone is here to speak on items not on the agenda is there anyone I don't have any cards so I don't believe so but is there anyone here that wish to speak on something not on the agenda not seeing any we will move on to item number nine and the report from Council liaison on current events council member Anderson thank you Mr chairman the only thing I have is a reminder that Gilbert a is November 22nd and 23rd please uh feel free to to come down and take part of that very well thank you sir yes I think that'll be a great time oh well we can get into that during our comments okay he was asking if you'll still be our guy when the new election is uh out that's yet to be determined all right thank you sir okay now we'll move into the public hearing consent all items listed below are considered public hearing consent calendar the commission may by a single motion approve approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing no person requests the item to be removed from consent calendar if such a request is made the commission may 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 So currently the consent agenda is solely item number 10 up 2443 signature at SanTan Village fence modification and it is a motion that will be tbling this it item commissioner or chairman Mt I move to table item 11 item 10 up2 2443 okay we have a motion to approve the consent do we have a second I'll second all right we have commissioner Davis on the second please cast your vote motion carries 70 on to the public hearing 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 hearing anyone wishing to speak in support or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so if you do wish to comment on a public hearing item you must fill out a yellow comment card uh 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 being that we moved item number 11 we'll start with that Dr 24-12 shops at posos and power and Mr Keith Newman chair M members of the commission um my first uh item tonight on the um public hearing agenda is for uh the shops at Pacos and power shops at P Pacos and power is as you remember I brought it to you last month as a study session item this project is located at the southwest corner of power and posos Roads and you can see it highlighted on the screen there in front of you it's currently a vacant lot um and you can see on the site some of the site improvements around it have already been completed you can see there's sidewalks uh curb curb and sidewalks and then a few entrances already and then it's surrounded by a car wash to the South and then also to the South is also a an A Child Learning Preschool um the request before you tonight is for a design review um for the applicant to develop a a 6,500 foot commercial building on fa in a phase one pad this is a phase development it'll be two phases and then also establish a master site plan over a the larger port portion of the parcel which is 42 acres in total size so discussing the site plan with you before I get into this site plan and the details I wanted to mention that there was a typo in the staff report um I failed to update some of the items from the study session report the the the one thing I wanted to correct is the overall um um size of the uh square footage of all the buildings has been reduced from from 25,000 Square F feet to about 22,000 Square ft a little bit under that and the shop C building in the far southern boundary um that in the staff report it says that that building is um 10,400 sare ft the applicant has reduced that building to 7400 squ ft or 7500 ft excuse me to accommodate some additional parking spaces to the east of it so I just wanted to mention that before I go too much further and mention some of my type my um uh errors in the staff report so the side is a hole like I said is a part of a master site plan and it's 4 and A2 acres in size um 2,950 Square ft of building area and you have five separate buildings um use phase one is a 6500 ft building and you can see it in the top uh uh leand Corner that's the shops B building that is Phase One and as of right now that's there's a dentist that's going to go in there and then there's also a small Suite to the Far West Side Of The Bu excuse me east side of the building which we I don't believe there's a user for that yet the other the other buildings that are in the master site plan in phase two are shop C down at the bottom on the southern boundary you have pad a b and Pad c as well and you can see those on this on there as well on that site plan there is a total of 30 parking spaces is in phase one for the for that shops be building and then there will be approximately 118 parking spaces total for the entire master plan and I wanted to impress upon you that this master plan being in the shopping center zoning District um is uh they can have shared parking and they the parking ratio is one per 200 square fet one space per 200 sare ft so they meet based on the building Square footages they meet all the parking requirements for the whole ENT ire master plan and the dentist office or shops B meets its parking as well and so the access for the site is you can see there's two access points off of Power Road both curb cuts are existing the access the eastern most access is a temp right now the the curb is there the opening is there the driveway but it will be an emergency only access until Phase 2 is constructed and it will be a DG surface for for emergency purposes only and we'll have a gate that will be have a nox lock on it that will only be used in the event of an emergency and the third access is along Power Road and and it is an existing access point that's shared with the car wash um before I move on to the next slide I wanted to bring up the um just a few items of concern that were that were mentioned and commented on by the plan by you as planning Commissioners at the previous study session last month um one of the concerns being the pad C building at the corner um it was mentioned that um that site they wanted some Commissioners had commented that they wanted that site to be redesigned um to have a a different use on it and according to the applicant after that meeting we had a lot of discussions with the applicant several meetings and did we didn't mention this at the study session it just didn't didn't come up but there is an SRP easement that is 120 ft wide that takes up that whole corner and you can see on the screen in front of you in that tan color I'm outlining the easement 12T wide and according to the applicant the reason that they have designed a this it looks like a a vehicle services type shop like a lube shop um is because of that SRP easement they didn't have a lot of uh flexibility in the size of the building and the location of the building and they felt this was one of the only uses that that that is feasible on that portion of the property given the restrictions uh based on the SRP easement so under that easement they are they are only re requesting or proposing parking under the easement area now given that parking um the applicant will probably go into more detail on this but there is that when the easement was negotiated with SRP um the applicant who the attorney for the project Mr Paul Gilbert was the one who uh negotiated this easement and in the easement document it states that parking can be within the easement if SRP approves it the applicant is still in the process of trying to obtain that approval from SRP P we have a condition of approval in the staff report that addresses this design in conjunction with that easement um the condition states that phase two with the first the construction of the first building in phase two um and the Dr case that will be associated with any any of the buildings that's built in phase two they will not be able to receive approval of any part of phase 2 any design review case in phase pH 2 unless they have approve written approval or consent from SRP to park within that easement area so that is kind of uh uh the explanation of that SRP easement in a nutshell and as you will see on this landscape plan due to the fact that that area is within an SRP easement there are a lot of restrictions on plant materials and trees that can be placed at that corner there is a large power pole it's I wish I had a laser pointer I could show it to you but this there is a large power pole along that Northern boundary close to um posos road and it it's a very large power pole and there is a power pole setup area you can't have trees within a certain distance of the pole so that's why you don't see any trees near on that Northern portion of the the parking lot there along Pacos Road um and then there are less restrictions in areas where there is no pole and then they are only allowed to have certain types of trees that SRP approves but that whole SRP easement area must be maintained in a in an in an open state so that SRP can drive their large trucks and maintenance vehicles in that area to service the power lines um okay I can show you where that pole is now thank you so you can see my laser pointer that pole is right here my my hands are very shaky I get that from my mother I apologize so right here here is that power pole there aren't any other power poles they're further down the line and further up the line but these are 230 KV power lines they're actually the largest lines that you will see out in out in any given Community except right like right next to the power plant so they're very large lines and they were put in I believe they were put in finished in like April of this year I believe so that is the SRP easement situation so as far as U the rest of the Landscaping in the site the applicant will be installing and I I'll go back to the laser pointer for you they will be installing Landscaping along posos Road for phase one along the western boundary in phase one and and also all the way down to the southern boundary just trees in this Phase 2 area and that is to provide screening for the residents that live in these homes here so that they're that the trees can grow and that they can have a little bit of a buffer and and visual protection from from a potential building and then the rest of the Landscaping in phase two along power posos and power roads and along this southern boundary will be installed um when the first building comes or or the first um building permit uh comes forward to for approval um in in the future um the elevations um approximately 19 ft tall uh to the roof line of of the building uh the the building is it's a flat roof building a lot of um good materials there's smooth face stucko uh metal siding and also masonry veneer um and the colors are Earth Tone colors so it's a we uh worked with the applicant quite a bit on these elevations and and felt they did a good job on these elevations I'll just show you the other ones here the north elevations going to be where the main entrance is um as far as public participation is concerned um staff has not received any comments from surrounding Property Owners uh or residents regarding the request um so staff recommends that you approve this project tonight with fee subject to the conditions and also I just wanted to make note that uh I spoke with the applicant earlier today and there is a condition number five um we thought it was a applicant felt it was a little unclear and wanted to add the word in phase two at the end that the landscape within Phase 2 along posos and power roads be constructed um in phase two with the construction of the first building just clarify it just clean it up a little bit so that concludes my portion of the presentation the applicant is here tonight um and and they have a presentation I believe we have we have Paul Gilbert and we also have Randy Haslett um they have a presentation um so I'm done if if if you want want to allow them to present at this time that would be that would be fantastic or you can ask me questions first okay if nobody has anything right now we can just move or wait commissioner Anderson yeah I actually have a question that you'll probably be able to answer but I'd like to ask it before the applicant comes up because they might be able to clear some stuff up as well in the staff report can you go to um the the county map the aeriel yeah if it'll work okay here we go and then do you have that pointer yeah can I have that back please yeah thank you so during your I I well let me just start off I I support the project I think it's I I think it's fine I don't really have issues with it during your presentation I just there was a couple of things you said that just kind of throwing me off and like to some clarification so you said um on the site plan that there's a you know we got that SRP eement cutting cutting through the site here and you said that there's a big power pole approximately in that location right there I'm not seeing a power pole there I see a tree and then you if there was a big power pole there you would see some sort of Shadow line just like you do down here with these guys so I'm just a little we like some clarification if is is there really a big Power pull there yeah and the SRP easement looks like it's cutting through here and then it cruts across power and would continue on and cut through this building so is the SRP Eid an active EAS or have these guys uh abandoned the easement um I mean I like I said I support the project I'm fine with the layout and everything I just want some clarification about this easement and if there is in fact really a power pole at that location because the aerial is not showing it and the image that you have here is a look at like it looks like it's a 2023 image that you have there um chairmont commissioner Anderson very very good questions so the aerial somehow this aerial is is like you said it's 2023 the power lines and the poll were just installed earlier this year so that was in they were installed after this aerial photo was taken so if you drive out there you will see that huge pole and those those lines and if you and and the pole and the lines do follow the railroad tracks as they head south um Southeast along the southern side of the railroad tracks and they actually are north of that U-Haul facility right in that big space you can see that space they continue far to the southeast and then eventually they start curving back more to True East as it gets more towards like into the town of Queen Creek um so but but yes they do follow the railroad tracks and the pole is there and they were installed earlier this year so that's why you don't see them in the aerial okay thank you for clearing that up appreciate you're welcome okay and and sorry if I if I may mention real quick chairman I apologize yeah Paul Gilbert I think he has pictures in his presentation he'll show you those amazing power Poes but wait there's more okay well let's bring him up then thank you oh I'm sorry commissioner Simon I just a quick question are we approving the site plan for the entire site or we just looking at the uh a the the first phase um chair M commissioner Simon good question so it's kind of a two-fold impr uh uh approval you're approving the master site plan the 4 and a half Bakers and in the conceptual design in phase two and you're approving phase one which is the shops B uh design including the building elevations so it's kind of it's kind of a two-fold approval design review for phase one and master site plan for the whole entire development do is is that did I explain that right yep thank you okay okay now we can move on thank you very very much Keith and the applicant may approach and uh you hit the B button at the base of the microphone and you'll see it go red when it's live there got it thank you uh for your record my name is Paul Gilbert 701 North 44 Street in Phoenix I'm here representing the property owner and we also have with us Dr Dr Goodman would you please stand so they know who you are he doesn't look like it but he's a dentist and it's his uh facility that we're trying to get approved tonight Randy is also with here to help me uh in trying to be respectful of everyone's time uh okay good I was here for your prior meeting and I've also reviewed the minute uh maybe I'm being naive and a bit presumptuous but I don't think anybody had any problems with phase one that contains the dental office if that's the case and I'm asking that respectfully I plan on not saying anything about phase one but if you do have problems or want discussion on phase one then you get to hear from my colleague Randy tonight okay does anyone want to speak on commissioner Davis chair since I'm the one that pulled it I think I can speak for the fact that I don't have any concerns with phase one I don't want to delay that in any way but I do want to talk about the phase two and hard Corner in the SRP easement so okay and and I'd like to talk about the not installing the landscape associated with phase one until phase two and I don't know we can we can add that to later I don't know phase that counts okay okay we'll dispense with talking about phase one and go to the presentation where we'll focus on phase two thank you um here's the current aerial of our site at the southwest corner of posos and power uh as we will illustrate to you the specific intersection is heavily emphasized heavily encumbered by a multitude of easements and infrastructure that supports and justifies the location of the automotive use were proposing and it was the automotive uses uh that I felt you had some concerns about so we're going to address that in detail in this presentation next slide don't know that looks like this y sorry keep going good help's hard to find here let me see if I all right that's the one that's it okay yeah you got it thank you all right for context and I'm going to spend some time tonight on the context because I think it's very important and very really strongly vindicates the uses that we're proposing here so we're on right on the edge of Gilbert Gilbert controls everything west of Power Road whereas the city of Mesa and the town of Queen Creek control development east of Power Road next slide so here are some of the immediate adjacent uses first of all to our South and on this project is a superar Superstar Car Wash at the southeast corner you want to point that out with your I don't have oh the pointer I think that's a pointer they can see it okay they all right uh then there's an approved Platinum paint and body shop currently under construction at the northeast corner so you got a Superstar Car Wash you got the Platinum paint and body shop immediately across the street then you have a U-Haul storage facility at the southeast corner and at the northeast corner of the intersection it's entirely controlled by the flood control district of Maricopa County basically with the exception of the flood control district of Maricopa County all every one of these uses is an autoc Centric use so we're not introducing anything that isn't already there by way of generic uses next Slide the intersection also has some significant infrastructure running through it I'm going to basically go through this we have the Southern Pacific Railroad cutting diagonally through the middle of the intersection we have a major 230 ft KV SRP SRP excuse me a lot of pressure up here tonight Mr chairman sorry uh major 230 KV SRP high voltage line and that line in is in addition to the 69 KV Sr P transmission line that both run Parable to the railroad line so you've got and by the way I have been to the site commissioner Anderson and can vouch that that voltage line that pole is there in all its spectacular Glory it's a big one um then in fact the high voltage 230 foot or 230 30 KV voltage line actually cuts across the northeast corner of our property the presence of the railroad line also includes some significant rail crossings infrastructure across both streets so you have Gates and lights in connection with the railroad my bottom line what I'm trying to establish here is this is a very very intensive Corner uh and makes the development of the site very challenging so all this infrastructure has resulted in some significant easements across the intersection these e easements total 400 feet and he uh Randy's showing you where that 400 feet area is in width to accommodate the infrastructure that runs through this inter section this is inclusive of 120 ft wide um high voltage easement that consumes the Northeast portion of our site for the conveyance of the 230 kV line this entire 120t wide easement with the SRP has to be drivable for Salt River Project trucks I don't want to appear presumptuous but I actually handled the negotiation when we sold this to SRP I'm very familiar with the details of the easement I can talk about it in more detail later on but basically we have to preserve this for the SRP trucks and maintenance Vehicles basically we are restricted by this easement to only some minor landscaping and we are allowed parking now one of the stipulations tonight is we don't have sign off from the SRP unfortunately we didn't apparently we didn't get that submitted soon enough but it has been submitted and we're waiting for their reply but the reason we can agree to the stipulation that says we won't pull a permit on phase two is that the easement again which I negotiated specifically allows for landscaping minimum trees and trucks or parking but we have to have sign off from SRP as to the location of the parking and the Landscaping so we're allowed to have it but we need to get their approval so we've agreed to a stipulation that says we won't pull a permit on Faceook to until we have that from the Salt River Project we have met with the uh your city Ator Town attorney's office and also with your staff and they are in agreement with that stipulation we carefully met with them negotiated the wording so it has their approval um then uh so we are very limited into what we can put in this 20 foot wide easement basically the only viable use of this easement will be parking and Landscaping next slide now I want you to take a look at what this intersection looks like if you haven't had a chance to visit it it's quite a site uh here are some photos that exemplify what has been created at this intersection today so you can see the massive high voltage lines and the 100 plus foot pole running across our site you can also see how these high voltage lines and the Southern Pacific Railroad consume an enormous portion of the Northwest and Southeast corner of the intersection you can also see the Clutter of the railroad crossing the arms and the signs and so on all that is Illustrated and shown in the photos so uh and you can also see the adjacent developments that are similar all oriented for automobile uses so what we're proposing then is consistent with the uses that exist there now so now looking back to our master plan and how it fits with these existing encumbrances that affect the site hopefully I have demonstrated empirically that this is a very challenging site to develop so we have to set back any building near the hard corner back beyond the 120t wide high voltage easement we have done that because of this major limitation on the site the only use of the land is for parking and drive aises and Landscaping the proposed automative uses at this corner are also very compatible and highly compatible in relation to the immediately adjacent uses I repeat again Super Car Star Car Wash uh Platinum paint and body shop and the U-Haul storage facility next the final point that I want to make is that we have another limitation on this site which again adds to the problematic difficulties of making this site developable the uh hard Corner created by the high voltage easement is the existing curb cut along Power Road that also Services the Superstar Car Wash so there you see in red that's the entryway to the superar Star Wash and we have to extend this driveway from the curb cut across the site which is in combination with a restrictive high voltage easement creates a very awkward triangle area triangle area good thank you so there's only about 50 to 60 ft between the driveway and the southern corner of the easement where the loop shop is proposed we don't have much of an opportunity to put much else in that very little limited triangular space so we submit that given these encumbrances the only real viable design on this site and particularly this hard corner is what we are proposing before you tonight hopefully that will give you a better appreciation and an understanding of the challenges of the site and why we have the uses that we do in this location that concludes my final finally thank you for your patience Mr chairman I think I saw a yawn on some of your members up there it wasn't you of course that was clearly from allergies or something sir don't worry uh commissioner Davis did you want to address your concerns um Mr Gilbert uh the question one of the questions that I have is related to the Landscaping that is shown on the site plan on the east side and at the corner um Landscaping on the east side is in that easement what's the likelihood that those those trees are actually going to get approved by SRP I guess my experience with them is trees in those easements are a nogo so is there something in the agreement I know they still have final approval and that they can decide what they want but what's your comfort level that that would happen the agreement says we can have landscaping and we can have parking the only restriction is they get to approve its location right so we've submitted it to them and doesn't matter what we want to do we have to comport with what SRP requires and that's part of what we negotiated with them when we sold the easement to them so we feel pretty comfortable that we can come back with something very close to what you're seeing here because it specifically says we get part parking and Landscaping in the E they just get to approve the location okay in my experience Landscaping doesn't necessarily mean trees to SRP so I guess I don't know that I'm convinced that trees going I'm sorry we in that corner we don't have trees it only in the SRP easement we were not allowed to have any trees we can have shrubs but outside of the easement um let me see if I can show you on the site plan go ahead the landscape plan I've got shows trees on the east side yes on the triangle side we're we're going to put trees anywhere there's not an SRP easement we will put as many trees as we can yeah okay that doesn't match the landscape plan in my packet my packet shows there's trees on that east side and on the corner and I don't believe those trees will happen what key showed you earlier is not the latest and greatest okay so they we went back to SRP and relooked at their guidelines no trees in the EAS we will have trees on the corner where the curb cut is on both posos and Power Road and at the Hard corner there is like five or six trees on the new plan and keep or I could I could get that to you but those trees are all outside the Salt River Project he okay that sounds more likely um and then those ones on the hard corner of the site visibility triangles of all Transportation good with those trees has that been vetted out um not yet not yet but we we would obviously go through site planning uh through with staff and get those site triangles verified we know that's a requirement will comply with it yeah okay um I just wanted those clarifications I guess um I don't know if you want me to get into any of my thoughts on this yet or if you that's all I that's what I wanted to clarify from okay thank you good question from the applicant chair chairm um Keith please commissioner Davis if I may um the phe two area uh um on that far in that hard way up in that northeast corner where it does show a few trees and the in that 50 by 250 landscape setback um and and the area in the SRP easement those will come um back for final approval at some point during one of the probably the Dr cases right around in that on the corner somewhere right in that area at another time the landscape plan you see now is more of a just a conceptual type of landscape plan but we'll finalize that in future Dr cases the exact location of all the trees and everything we'll we'll finalize that at those times were there other mitigation efforts looked at when you're putting a building with bay doors right at that corner and all of that you know it's not even just parking it's like a large man area for maneuvering that's just without any kind of landscape buffer any kind of screen walls or anything to kind of buffer those bors from that intersection if that's the type of use that ends up at that corner um chair commissioner Davis I I I would defer to the applicant for for that question yeah bay doors and drive-throughs all require streen walls you're correct but because of the easement We cannot put any of those items in that area so there is no no way to mitigate the doors of the overhead and also the overhead doors on the lube most of the time would be open it seems like on a shop like that so that raises another question will there not then be screen walls to screen the parking along power or posos like there typically would be no we would only be able to provide um mature shrubs at the time at that time because that would be in the Salt River Project easement exactly say but this is the Salt River easement that you sold them right yes you sold them the thing that now prevents you in theory from developing part of this property well it's uh that canotes commissioner that we had a choice they filed a condemnation action so we didn't go out and solicit this we didn't want to sell it to them but they filed a condemnation action they had the right to condemn the property so basically yeah we sold it to them instead of going through the lawsuit but they filed the condemnation action so that's why we we we I hope you understand we didn't have a choice on that no I do but then that starts to look like a constructive condemnation of where you want to put the the lube shop I'm sorry enlighten me if you would sir on the point there I'm not following it if you condemn something that prevents you from using something else the the additional effect is called the constructive condemnation I may only be condemning one little piece but if it prevents you from getting access or or you using another piece that second piece is called a constructive condemnation they'd have to pay you fair market value both for the piece they literally condemn and for the piece that they effectively prevent you from using I think the term your reference in sance bandages and that is true okay fair enough in my we we it doesn't matter I I understand that what you're saying sorry that that suddenly the more we talked about the more it's gotten a little bit problematic I some of the the screen walls the the the the the normal Aesthetics we require are the easement is the thing that's preventing all of them and I don't know it's it's not as necessarily big a limitation as I I think it used to be when I was first reading this sorry if I'm interrupting your you're fine and I don't know if you want me to get into discussion with what some of my thoughts are on this yet or not chair I would love I'd love to hear them well we'll have to eventually bring it up here bring it up I mean if I feel like well do you want any more questions of the applicant prior to Me closing public comment is what I'm asking I don't think I have more questions I just want to let them know where I'm at on it but sounds like you might have some discussion with them then so okay if you want to just State what you have and then we can at least let them have a chance I where I'm at is it's a bad situation it's not a great um it's a very harsh corner it is an entry into our town um so it's unfortunate that it's we're welcomed with this easement and the train tracks and a lot of Automotive uses um I feel like we're making a bad situation worse and I feel like maybe this site just is a little too much on it maybe it's not appropriate to have that additional use at the corner and maybe pad B could be something a little bit bigger um and grow that instead of squeezing that extra pad in there in that little triangle it just feels like it's being forced and then you have this harsh situation at the intersection you are not going to get adequate Landscaping to screen it then you have this the parking no screen walls a sea of asphalt there and bay doors into a small building that I it just feels like I said like we're making a bad situation worse and that it's not appropriate coming you know at this corner is kind of where I'm landing on it so yeah I have but I do not have issues with shops spe and I I hate that they're tied together I wish that they were separated um because I don't have any issues with that I don't want to hold up the dentist I forget his name um but I do have concerns with that corner I just feel like it's poor site planning and it's we're wedging something in here that's not doing anything for our town it's not you know good site planning so that's where I'm at you can respond to that since I haven't closed it yes sir Mr chairman and commissioner Davis we we're struggling with developing this corner it's you've acknowledged it's a difficult corner to develop um and in order to make it work we've got to have certain uses on there and um I I I want to say this delicately but you were allowed these uses as a matter of right that's what it's owned for so we can have these uses you can control the Aesthetics and we're very open to that we if you have any suggestions on how we can do that we'll do that but as far as the uses go and I sound like a tough guy up here which is not my style uh we are allowed those use is I agree with you on that I I understand it's an allowable use I just feel like those bors and the and all of that asphalt is what I'm trying to mitigate so it's not necessarily the use it's this design of the building with those bors facing the intersection and I get these little buildings that's what they are is they bors and they're open all day and you see into them and it just feels like this is not the best spot for that use on this site plan I'm not opposed to it being on this site I just at that intersection I feel like you know could a landscape Island extend out there but then SRP is not going to allow any trees in it so then we just have this it just it feels forced and that's my struggle so I don't know that the rest of the commission feels that way that's just where I'm at so Randy can we do anything to put Landscaping there toate land owner and from Dr Goodman so I'm in a hard position this is the plan that the land owner would like to do and it is as used to for for this building uh we can try to come up with something if you're afraid of the Sea of asphalt we could possibly reduce the amount of asphalt and kind of maybe angle uh perhaps maybe this corner um some more U we can provide more Lush vegetation as much as we can on the hard corner to Shield the bay doors um to be honest I think think the bay doors these days are not really bad in isore they're they call them Jiffy Loop doors they've got frosted glass on them the um you know you guys are going to have a chance to look at the Dr for the design of that building um and to be honest the the isore of this of the whole thing is the the train tracks and the gates and the high voltage and this is an industrial area it just is and I'm sorry that it's not very aesthetically pleasing uh but you know this is the hand where we're dealt with with and you know doing the combination act we were trying to make the best out of the situation and not just have them take our land and say okay well can we at least do parking and we at least do you know whatever you know we'll try to make this site plant work the owner of this land has owned this plan for over 15 years and has yet to got Mr Goodman as the first tenant that he's got to start phasing this thing and I think that's what the city wants is this to be phased and develop and promote small businesses so um we can try to work with st on some other options here um but you know like I said I work for the the land owner and this is um this is a use that is actually you know it's good for everybody I mean it's so it's no different than the other autoc Centric uses that are already around we're right across the street from a superstar car wash right across the street we have a body shop and the U-Haul facility across the street and I don't know that I part of any of those reviews so I understand can I ask a question about the bors and maybe this I just don't have a ton of familiarity with whether or not those bay doors because I understand they are way nicer nowadays and we see I I get all of that are they open during the day in between is this I assume they're just open all day long while they're most shops I've been to yes doors are pretty much open they have evap cooling for the people in there and they don't open them and close them uh during transition at all so they're mostly open and I do appreciate the situation I just wanted to better understand it I still I do have concerns I do feel like we're making a bad situation worse um if there's things you can do with the building maybe the building Wings up a little more to screen it a little better from the street just those kind of things when you come in for design review I would like looked at or would any kind of temporary fencing poll you think be allowed with SRP something they can move or push over possibly I'll let you work out St and again this is just my I don't know that the rest of the Commissioners have these same concerns so yeah you know and actually in the interest of you know keeping things on track I think that I'll we'll we'll just let this come up for our discussion so that we don't I don't know if beat a dead horse is a term that's allowable in a public meeting but we don't do that um and so just with that though is is there any other questions that you'd want of Staff or the applicant okay commissioner deina I just got a couple quick ones obviously that's an aerial easement so there's parking below is there going to be parking restrictions so the SRP big trucks could get in there or is it completely open it there we are required to have Drive ISS for the SRP truck so there's limited there's restricted parking there yes and the second thing to maybe uh commissioner Davis's concern can you flip that building move it a little bit more forward and have entrance from the back so we don't see those bay doors unfortunately on the lube shop you need quite a bit of stacking if they do get busy um and that would push that North and and that wouldn't we'd actually have stacking into the drive a which would not be be good well either way they have to get in there so if you moved it more forward and so the entrance the entrance to the loop you would come in through say power you would do a urn and come in here and exit out this way obviously you know the site better than I do so I just thought on both sides okay that's just couple quick on okay and vice chair did you have I I think it's probably more for Keith but the uh the I don't know if it's a stipulation or an agreement that they wouldn't do the Landscaping until phase two so they wouldn't do The Phase One Landscaping with phase one is that what I is that what I understood I can answer that pardon me for being a b presumptious here commissioner no we'll do all the landscaping for phase one we're not asking for any postponement of that okay so you yeah that's usually get it sounds like we weren't getting paid up front so is that did I misunderstand that is it no NOP um uh chair Mt um um Vice chair Fay um Mr Gilbert's correct all the Landscaping in phase one will be installed with the construction of the Shop's B building okay okay I don't and the rest of it will be deferred till phase two Construction oh so we won't do the entire site phase we'll just do it by phase yeah we'll do it by phase I didn't even know you needed a stipulation for that okay my question very well any other questions yeah commissioner Anderson Just a comment I know so at the last hearing I think um it was kind of suggested or wanted that you know see if we could get shop C to get like swap those shop C with shop B and with pad B and Pad C so I mean just kind of visually you know looking at this guy I mean is there an opportunity where it just sits in here like that I mean it's good that you can use all this area for parking if this building was to shift in here and get right along that EAS mid line it looks like it might fit you might have to shave five fet or something off of it and they could park around that and you have a little you know say if you Corner this off you can have a little um seating area here depending on you know what moves into this into this building then looks like there's plenty of room where these guys could probably get reconfigured back in that corner is that is that anybody uh explored that idea currently p is a drive through building which is a high use and high visibility tenant that we'd like to keep on the hard Corner okay and shops B would probably be more likely a um maybe a mixed use building or perhaps offices which wouldn't need the visibility from the street okay so that that's why we've kind of kept our position our design way that okay good okay anyone else all right thank you gentlemen may I make just one other comment sure I know you've heard enough of me already thank you for your patience again Mr chairman but we're very willing to come back I know normally these are done at just the staff level but we're willing to come back on phase two uh and work with you on the design so we're very willing to do that very well yeah thank you sir that's that's something we can we'll we'll bring that up and discuss I appreciate all the uh input um and I don't believe we have any other um people that wishes to speak on this item is that anyone there want to okay well then I'll close the public comment thanks gentlemen and we'll bring it up to the dis for further discussion or a motion I feel like we've had some discussion um commissioner Gage thank you chair um I I just wanted to say that I I think this is a very ugly intersection um and I have some compassion for you regarding this SRP um easement because I've had them on my projects before and they make things really difficult um so I understand what you're working with and um I'm fine with what you're trying to do here I think something is better than nothing and really nothing that could do improve what this intersection look like anyways okay any other comments commissioner Simon um [Music] so I have no problems with shops B at all or that that area um I appreciate that we were able to go through the SRP um easement this time because I I did have issue with far off that corner all the buildings sat I felt like it was kind of a waste of space and now it makes a little bit more sense to me um I would agree with commissioner Gage that this is kind of an ugly corner with a lot of things happening and I feel for the applicant in this situation my one issue if I had one would be that shop see I just feel like with the development of shop shops B and not going into the rest of the development right away this could could sit empty for quite a while so we have kind of a scab um as it looks as far as as far as um the pad c i I mean I do struggle with that but I understand what you're saying I don't I don't know that there's any way of getting around it I'd like to see some way of manipulating maybe those two buildings into one um but from a use I I get that I mean I I don't have the issue with the use whatsoever it's just more how it's laid out but um I I don't know that I have an overall issue with this now that that I understand more about the SRP easement on this property so thank you commissioner Simon well I'll just put in my input um and that's honestly that I have absolutely zero problem with the pad c as it is not that I don't value everybody's position but the idea that at this intersection with million pound trains pouring through it at any given moment that someone's going to be like oh no there's a loop shop to me is um it's a little bit it's a little bit over the top for me to worry about um and I also defer to the fact that although there is an easement although it was sold we could discuss the merits of whether or not they could have pushed harder on a utility but when you have a utility easement running next to a railroad anyone here who's ever done development you don't have a lot of Wiggle room um you're kind of told here's what it is smile and head out the door so you know it as it stands you know and that was part of my reason that I thought it' be a good idea to bring it up I have because you know in these oil shops outside of somebody trying to sell you on an air filter that you don't need I don't think there's honestly that much noise especially compared to um trains pouring through so that's just my opinion and I just wanted to at least share that uh as we've had you know a lot of discussion on it so um anyone else or does anyone want to make a motion I'll go ahead and make the motion I motion that we approve Dr 24-12 all right we have a motion on the table from commissioner Anderson do we have a second I'll second I have a second from commissioner Gage any discussion prior to the vote no okay please cast your vote motion carries 61 okay thank you very much all right moving right along we will go to item number 12 that will likely be slightly faster given that it was withdrawn um is that something that I need to motion on Elena okay it's gone my apologies it's I believe it's gone yeah I I just you know it was one of those kind of clerical things I wasn't sure so okay on to number 13 then we are going to hear dr23 d155 Melrose professional Park and once again Keith Newman all right got to turn on the microphone that might help I'm chairm uh Comm uh members of the commission once again I'm back before you um this time with meel professional Park I'll try to make this one quick um do I have the right clicker don't know if I do hold on there's two of them excellent I'm good now um the meils professional Park project is um about 14 and a half acres in size and it is located south of the Gilbert Mercy Hospital at the southeast corner of Melrose Street and Rome Street and you can see it right there it's this nice uh I guess uh upside down l or seven if you want to call it shaped uh parcel uh the request before you Deniz for design review approval to develop a medical office park with about 114,000 squ ft of building space all single story Medical Office Buildings um as I stated 14 1 12 acres site the site is zoned to has two zoning designations kind of splits the property you have general office zoning and neighborhood office zoning um there as I stated 114,000 foot of of of uh Total Building space um 587 parking spaces the applicant does have a concurrent AUP in with us that we are almost done reviewing um that is requesting a 23% red uction in the required parking spaces um stall numbers um the site is accessed off of um Melrose Street and off of Coronado Street which ends up going from Rome all the way out to Germaine there are three access points one off of Coronado you can see it there on the site plan in front of you on that North it looks like it's north but it's actually the East Side um and then there's one off of Melrose and then there's also another access point off of Rome all the parking except for that one in the far nor uh kind of northeast corner is behind the buildings not right up on along the street Frontage of course the buildings have been placed along the street Frontage to make it more aesthetically pleasing as um the public drives down those two Street frontages um the actual uh parking for the site they were required to originally have 761 spaces and they are now proposing um 587 spaces which is a 23% reduction in parking and like I State and staff does support that and like I stated we are in the process of finalizing right now the AUP for that basically all we have to do is send out um a a a letter to Residents soliciting feedback and then we will be done with that there is a condition of approval in the staff report that this approval is subject to or contingent upon that letter being uh or that AUP case being finalized so I just wanted to mention that and bring that up but this is a like I said it's an odd-shaped parcel um and we uh feel the applicant has done a very good job designing this site given the limitations that are on the site and the and the obviously the odd shape um there is a a few residential developments surrounding this property and and and of course medical off a future medical to the north you have an apartment complex BB living to the South and South and West right and then of course on the east side you have some single family residential and we have heard from the single family residential to the east um and actually I think the gentleman was here I don't know if he's still here um and he he's in support of the project just had a few questions for us before the meeting which we were able to to get addressed um Landscaping on the site they have about 33% open space in all the parking areas along the southern Eastern borders and along the street frontages quite a bit of landscaping as a matter of fact as their retention is along the southern and and Western boundaries in between them and the existing multif family residential so quite a bit of landscaping there um the building elevations all like I said earlier all one-story buildings um these buildings are all flat roof buildings with parapet walls um they're they're approximately 22 feet to the or or so 19 to 20 ft or so to the roof line of the buildings but obviously a little over 24 about 24 ft to the top of the parit walls a lot of glass um Stu there's stucco and then there's also um different different um textures of Stucco some a few metal awnings and I'm just going to go through these elevations and then also some some kind of like Limestone as an alternative or a secondary material on the buildings as well they have two different color schemes for each building so this should be buildings um I think this is building type one the smaller buildings and then you have the larger buildings as well and they have some Stone on them too these larger buildings do and then um I think a little bit of limestone as well so so a lot of varying materials and and and then two different color schemes Grays and and some tan colors um as far as public participation is concerned staff has prior to the writing of the staff report staff had not received any comments from surrounding Property Owners regarding the request um just like I said earlier we just talked to the guy the one of the neighbors to the east right before the hearing he had no M no concerns just questions and um given all of that um staff recommends that you approve uh this design review case and the findings of fact subject to the conditions that are in that are in the staff report and um I'm open for any questions if you have any thank you very much thank you very much Keith all right anybody have any questions or comments I saw commissioner deina I was looking for like a head knot or something and you just kind of it's parking again yeah going through all the packets that we it was a good presentation Keith by the way going through all the information in the packets that we get am I a little bit confused were they asking for not a 23% reduction in parking but a 39% and you're working on that right now or is that something that's not going to be discussed or looked at um chair Mont um commissioner D graina so the parking reduction is for 23% they did submit later on in the process a 39% parking reduction but they have withdrawn that and you'll see that in the agenda we were going to bring that forward tonight but has been withdrawn and they are sticking with the 23% reduction which is an an administrative use permit does that answer your question yes and you feel comfortable with that reduction um chair M commissioner dearo we do we do feel comfortable with that uh reduction thank you all right anyone else commissioner Simon Keith thank you for the presentation can you just share some of the logic behind that reduction and why staff is comfortable with that just out of curiosity um chair chairm commissioner Simon very good question so as I stated that's part of the AUP process but from a from a the logic behind it in the applicant can go into more detail with that too Lindsay shuie is here from the from gamage and Burnham Law Firm but some of the the logic behind it is is um a lot of times these Medical Office Buildings have a lot of spaces unique spaces into the flooor plan where the public just doesn't go places like rooms like for like MRI machines and x-ray machines and there could be mechanical rooms and closets and things like that that you can subtract from from the footprint or or from the floor plan of of Any Given building that um would reduce um why why should we park those areas public doesn't go there um so our code allows us to reduce parking to accommodate those unique areas within a building um so we felt that was appropriate and also they provided us some comps of some medical developments in the area um there's one not a couple of them not too far away they provided us a comp of like the Ironwood Cancer Center and um a few to a medical office building across the street on the west side of Rome and another actually two on the west side of Rome where um the parking was approximately I I can't remember exactly what the numbers are um I we do have the traffic engineer I believe she's still here they could address that even more from the applicant side but I think they were about uh one space Oh I think it's one space per four th000 square feet or so I can't remember exactly what the number is but that was very comparable to these other Medical Office Buildings so when we were looking at the parking in the study um with very similar uses we felt that that was an appropriate number uh as far as parking spaces per per thousand square feet um similar to other medical offices and that that would work here on this site um so they provided us those comparable numbers um so those are kind of the two main um reasons why staff is supporting this and also um we have not find I mean in the future we're hoping to modify parking ratios and I know you guys have seen the Walker as a study that we had done I know it's not codified it's something my my apologies to interrupt um and my apologies Mr chair I just by way of reminder um this Dr case does not include in the agenda any discussion about parking um it looks like uh that that process will be through the administrative process so I just have to caution further discussion that's not currently on the agenda but is this not a designer view uh I'll I can look into that further I'm just basing it off of the language that's currently in the agenda okay I was under the assumption because it was a design review we're looking at the site so I I apologize if I took us the wrong way okay I guess I'm still not understanding that so so I I I kind of agree what he just said um so you're telling me in the agenda we need to list every single item that we were reviewing on a Dr and if it's not part of it we can't discuss it I mean to me parking is a design we just the previous case we discussed a lot about parking on that one was that on the agenda that we could talk about that or on that on that staff report again Mr chair there was an item uh item number 12 to specific specifically discuss parking reduction as it relates to this project and that was that was withdrawn uh because they are looking to pursue the administrative parking reduction process I believe what yeah what she's referring to is that the allotment of the reduction in parking is allowed by administrative Rie not by our board decision to that 23 well that was another confusion that I had too I didn't know if we even had the authority to deviate from Land Development code with a Dr case um so what you're saying is and I think he mentioned it earlier that there's a use permit application that has been submitted to address all these parking reductions okay chairman commissioner Anderson that's correct and we're almost done with it the the that application okay and it sounds like you guys are G to support it that's correct okay okay okay no more talking about parking now um any other questions for Keith not about parking all right I take it that the applicant looking at chomping at the bit to get up and speak please take it over uh chair Vice chair members of the commission Lindsay shuy for your record with the law firm of gamage and Burnham 40 North Central Phoenix Arizona 85004 um and I was raised in the school of Paul Gilbert for 10 years but I hope to use far less words and to have far less of a presentation I don't through my slides perfect thank you I didn't even prepare a presentation I had full confidence that Keith would do a would do a great one uh as far as your assistant Town attorney s attorneys generally stay together I would say on this one since there's a condition of approval that they have to approve the AUP uh that that there's some lenience on the parking for the site and the only thing I would say is we did we did do a parking study we do have a traffic engineer here Jamie blakeman um with Lok kaii who's amazing but 300 at Peak parking we're anticipating 300 cars so we actually really stand behind our cup request for 39% however in the interest of moving this thing along I mean if you have ever seen an irregular shaped lot I I've worked with a few of you for many years this is one of the most interesting sites that we've worked on um there were two neighbors outside chair uh as we said at the president of the HOA his name was Ry as well as Don and Lori who live in the the out parcel um they had questions about the application that's why I was standing outside during Mr Gilbert's presentation they were they wanted to ensure a single story they had questions about the um Landscaping open space and the lighting um so I believe you have a card Mr chair but I believe they have left us this evening so they were very happy they had their questions answered the public meeting process and the notification process served us all well in in able to communicate and answer questions so with that respectfully request approval very excited about this single story office use here there's been a number of proposed uses and I gosh I can't think of a better compatible neighbor as a buffer to the residential and a complement to the existing medical that's already there so thank you so much and stand for questions thank you anyone have any questions for the applicant well all right well thank you very much thank you and I'll just do one just as a to make sure Mr Don Hibert is not here anymore because I do have a comment card that I don't want to miss so I'm not seeing him um I do not have any other comment cards therefore I will close the public portion of the uh and we'll bring it up here so any discussion or a motion so I I just want to understand the procedure here we're we're approving the design review here and there's also a use permit that isn't approved yet but we've got verbal assurances we think it'll get approved is that is that my understanding correct my understanding of it is the the process of it is that if they don't get that administrative use approval they'll have to come back to us because the site plan will be based upon that and therefore our vote is saying sure you can do this and then if they don't get it we will have to come back and then we would likely have to talk about parking so is that is that true Keith I mean if if we were to approve it tonight are we approving it the way it's laid out regardless of the use permit um chairm commissioner Vice I I'm not used to you as the vice chair yet vice vice chair Fay I'll get there um yes you would be approving it tonight um and the the disapproval tonight would be contingent upon the approval of the AUP and if the AUP doesn't get approved then yes they're going to have to come back with something else with meeting parking I I don't know they'd have to come back to you it they wouldn't the approval would be null and void and they'd have to come back so whoever makes the motion technically can motion approval contingent upon blah blah blah and that could be the total motion that's yeah that that I was just writing that note down that's what I heard is we would be doing so in L of saying I just approve ch um chairman if I if I may interrupt there is a condition of approval already that states this so I don't think that you have to re you have to state that in your motion yeah I think that it's written into it but okay um well if that's the case uh chairman Mond I would move to approve item 13 Dr r 23-55 with the condition that is written in we have a motion for the approval do I have a second I'll second we have a second from commissioner Gage any discussion prior to vote not seeing any please cast your vote when ready motion carries 61 so just for my NE my no vote is it's not written in the recommended motion motion that isent upon that I'm reading the recommended motion and it doesn't make reference to that so that was the reason for my no vote well the mo the motion was specifically contingent on the that's if it's not there was that a defective motion it's number three I'm read all right so I'm just reading on page one where the recommended motion is and it's not listed there so I mean it it it's passed let's just move forward condition three okay it it's p the the case is pass let's just move forward okay moving right along we are now going to get into the more fun parts of the evening and go to item number 14 Z2 24-5 the LDC text Amendment Eva good evening chair and commission Eva just one second I was just going to ask um in the interest of if there's someone here on item number 17 should we do yes I think you should move me to the end okay very good yeah we we'll just no no no disrespect of course but uh we'll move on and first just because we love to hear from Keith let's jump down to number 17 s245 signature at SanTan Village and uh let Mr Keith Newman tell us a little bit about that thank you yes I'm sure you guys are tired of me by now I'm tired of me yeah I figured as much all right last one of the night um chairman um members of the commission my last presentation tonight is for Signature Santan uh Village preliminary plat I'll try to make this brief um you guys all know where the site is located over in Sant Village area north of williamsfield in Santan Village Parkway um we came before you in June to get approval of the design review case it's received that approval um now where we're coming back to for the preliminary plot for 11 Lots the site is a little over 30 acres in size for commercial development um on this property which is vacant Farmland at the current moment um I know you guys have seen this design before 11 total Lots it's the exact same design that came before you in June for approval for the design review case they haven't changed it um and um all the streets all the interior driveways Drive aisles entrances are all in the exact same spot um as we know this development is highlighted by Dick Sporting Goods and whole SP Whole Foods pad shop pad sites inline shops it's it's a a large commercial development um that we're very excited to um uh to get go get uh uh under construction they have CDs in the system already they're with our town the engineering and building department are processing those at the current moment they just want to subdivide the Lots so they can sell them to each individual tenant or or each individual user I don't know how many users they have as of right now or how many um contracts they have signed but I know that they have at least uh four or five of them they may have more but they're trying to obviously sell the rest of them so that's why they're coming before you tonight so these are sheets of the plat in more detail um which a lotting design you've already seen um Landscaping there's 23% I know you've already seen this Landscaping plan all the Landscaping in the parking lot along the perimeters I know you've reviewed and approved it's the same exact design that was approved before um public participation we haven't received received any comments from surrounding Property Owners regarding the request um staff recommends you that you uh approve this and the findings a fact um subject to any conditions and I'm open for any questions if you have any and also the owner of the property Tyler swer is here too and he can also answer um questions if you would like him to as well thank you very well thank you Keith anybody have any questions for Keith on this one commissioner Gage I don't have any questions but I'll make a motion if everybody else is cool with it wow second okay let's let's not get too two out of our britches here and go okay make you want to make the motion like and actually say the numbers please for our do we need to I'm sorry do we need to go through the process close the public hearing it up um okay well thank you Keith and the applicant then I don't think needs to speak I don't see anyone here uh in the public that uh is in the clamoring crowd right now that is seeking to speak on this so I will close the public comment bring it to the dis for discussion or a motion I make a motion to approve s 24- 05 signature at SanTan Village we have a motion from commissioner Gage do we have a second I'll second that motion Vice chairman comes in with a second any discussion not seeing any everyone please cast your vote when ready motion carries 70 thank you very much okay now without further Ado we will move on to z245 LDC text Amendment item number 14 and Miss Eva once again thank you thank you and good evening once again chair and Commissioners we've discussed this before at a work study session as you may be aware there's a large demand for guest homes accessory dwelling units and large accessory structures in the town and in surrounding municipalities House Bill 2720 was recently passed and it is to provide a path forward to for people to develop adus in furtherance of that goal I've put a short comparison together between the town's current Land Development code and the house bill currently the town of Gilbert allows accessory dwelling units guest homes and um secondary dwellings in single family zones from sf6 to SF 43 and we allow one guest home and one secondary dwelling unit house build 2720 is similar it expands the zones to all single family zones so we would now include single family attached and single family detached zones it allows one detached Adu and one attached Adu we current allow to it would still allow to but it would also allow to a third if you have a lot over an acre and if you're agreeable to making the third an affordable unit our LDC currently has guest homes that cannot be rented and secondary dwelling units that can be rented house bill 2720 um requires the town to allow advertisement of any Adu for long-term leasing you do not have to have a relationship with the owner and the r Center and it added language about short-term rentals that we cannot require the owner to reside on the property if they are to do a short-term rental if the Adu was built after the effective date of this amendment the effective date of this amendment was September 14th so if an Adu was built prior to that we can require that the owner reside on the property and we will require that if it's built after September 14th the owner can rent it out without having to reside on the property currently the LDC allows guest homes and secondary dwellings only secondary dwellings can have kitchens under the new house bill there's no distinction between a guest home or a secondary dwelling and it's up to the applicant whether or not they would like a k kitchen currently accessory um I'm sorry accessory dwelling units must be located within the building envelope unless they're over a detached garage this is one of the largest changes under house bill 2720 the accessory dwelling unit would still need to meet the front yard setback of the main structure but side and rear yards could only have a setback of a minimum of 5 ft is all we could impose currently if you have a large lot like an r43 the side and rear setbacks are 30 and 40 ft our current LDC says that incidental dwelling unit shall be subordinate to the primary dwelling that's similar in the house bill it says a single family home must be of Greater square footage but it then goes on to further defining saying an accessory dwelling unit can be 75% of the gross floor area of the main dwelling or a, Square ft whichever is less currently we have residents that wish to build accessory dwelling units larger than 1,000 square ft we want to permit this so we're putting in language that if you want an accessory dwelling unit over 1,000 square ft you go by the existing LDC process and standards so the house bill would apply to accessory dwelling units that are 1,000 square ft and less under the current code we require that the accessory dwelling unit match the architectural design of the main under the house bill we cannot do that it specifically says you cannot require that it match the main under the LDC we Curr currently require an on-site parking spot for the Adu again under the house bill we are are prohibited from requiring an on-site parking space for the Adu and for adus we currently require an administrative use permit which requires notification of the neighbors under the house bill they are permitted as of right and the planning staff just has a discretionary site plan review to make sure that it conforms to the zoning regulations I've just gone through and it states that if we fail to adopt these new regulations by January 1 then accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed Without Limits on any residential lot in the town to prevent that we have drafted some changes to the LDC the majority of those are on this slide we've changed incidental dwelling unit to accessory dwelling unit we're allowing them in all single family residential zones we're allowing one attached one detached and an additional third accessory dwelling unit if you're over an acre and you wish to make it affordable we're limiting the adus that are governed by these newe regulations to 75% of the gross FL floor area of the main or 1,000 square feet whichever is less they still have to meet the lock coverage of the zone but they only need to meet the front yard setback they can now have 5- foot front and rear setbacks but we are requiring a step back you can be 10t tall at the 5- foot setb and then for each foot above 10 foot you must step back an additional foot from the 5ft setback and while we can't require that the accessory dwelling unit match the architecture of the main we are putting in designed guidelines from the town subdivision design and development guidelines these are applied to all single family homes and have been in existence since I believe 1999 lastly just a reminder that we do want to allow accessory dwelling units over a th000 square feet in the town so if a resident wishes to build one over a th000 square feet they would use the town's existing administrative use permit process and the standards set in the code Next Step should this be approved or recommended for approval this evening it will go to a Town Council hearing on December 3rd which should meet our deadline of December 1st to have this in the LDC so I tried to go through that as quickly as possible as I believe you have heard this all before for me but if you have any questions I'm certainly available all right thank you very much Eva does anyone have any questions relating to this LDC Tech Amendment seems you've covered it quite thoroughly thank you very much um I will there's no one here that is here to speak on this so I will close the public comment then and bring it up for discussion or a motion chairman i' would like to make a motion to approve item 14 Z is in Zulu 24 Tac 05 for the Land Development code text Amendment we have a motion from the vice chair do I have a second I'll second that commissioner deina with a second and no discussion I assume so please cast your vote when ready motion carries 70 and now uh we will move on to item number 15 Z24 d09 another LDC text Amendment for adaptive reuse and uh Veronica Gonzalez good evening Mr chairman Commissioners um I'm here to talk about a proposed text Amendment for adaptive reuse um first a little bit of history um this bill was uh signed into law by the governor in April of 2024 pertaining to standards for multif family residential residential development and adaptive reuse um as you will recall August 7th of this year we conducted a citizen review and initiated the text Amendment then we had a study session with the Council on October 22nd and uh our required compliance date for this bill is January 1st 2025 so House Bill 2297 applies to all cities and towns with a population of 150,000 or more the bill allows multif family development or adaptive reuse on up to 10% of the town's existing commercial office and mixed use buildings without a use permit rezoning or really any kind of public hearing um eligible buildings must be in disrepair or have a 50% vacancy and they must be located on Parcels that are at least 1 acre in size but no larger than 20 acres parking requirements shall not exceed our current ratios and existing building Heights and setbacks shall be non-conforming for the proposed new use um applicants are also um allowed to demolish a portion of the building if the proposed adaptive reuse is for multif family development there are some additional um requirements that include um height in density shall not exceed that of the highest allowable multif family zoning within one mile of the building to be redeveloped if there is no multif family zoning within one mile the height and density of the closest multif Family zoning would apply there is a maximum height of five stories unless the site is within 100 ft of existing single family zoning where the max height would then be two stories all lower portion of the building may be demolished if it's for multif family development and at least 10% of the dwelling units must be designated as lwi income moderate income or a combination of the two for at least 20 years from initial occupation so as I noted earlier the town May designate 10% of its existing commercial office and mixed used buildings um that are eligible for the multif family development or adaptive reuse uh staff performed an analysis and we found that there are 854 existing um buildings uh commercial office and mixed use buildings um on Parcels that are at least one acre of size and no larger no larger than 20 which means there would be 85 buildings that could be eligible and this may be modified every 10 years and what we're looking at here is a depiction of where those 800 54 buildings are located in the town in addition to this though the the bill does allow the town to designate certain areas where those existing buildings would be excluded from the requirements um however the total number of buildings within those areas cannot exceed 10% of the total existing number of buildings so no more than 85 buildings with Within These um designated areas so in consultation with um our Economic Development Department we ID identified the following areas to um basically protect um from the requirements of this bill so one of those areas is the Heritage District um the next area would be the southeast corner of Val Vista and Baseline where the former fries shopping center is we also are designating the southeast section of Gilbert and Germain and finally uh we're looking at the area south of williamsfield road on the west side of the 202 so just basically south of the SanTan mall this is not to say that we don't support adaptive reuse in these areas but what we want to do is to be able to retain the ability to review those types of requests through our normal processes meaning public hearings if necessary um these areas that we would exempt from the requirements um could be modified every 10 years so I threw kind of a lot of 10% Provisions at you so I just want to provide some clarification so there are three 10% buckets we'll say um the first is um multi multif family development or adaptive reuse is allowed on up to 10% of all existing commercial office and mixed use buildings the second bucket is that the town May exclude certain areas but the number of buildings within those areas may not exceed 10% of the existing buildings and finally the third bucket is um if the Adaptive reuse is multif family at least 10% of those dwelling of those units must be designated as low moderate or combination of the two low moderate income or a combination of the two for at least 20 years so our next steps is uh we are going to council for their consideration of this text Amendment on December 3rd and as I'd mentioned before um the requirements must be effective by January 1st 2025 with that staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to recommend to the Town Council approval of this text Amendment pertaining to Adaptive reuse and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have thank you Veronica anyone have any questions related to this not seeing any uh I will then close the public hearing and bring it up for any discussion or a motion chair I'll make a motion make a motion to recommend approval of Z2 24-9 LDC text amendment I will second as motion we have a motion from commissioner Simon and a second from Vice chair Fay please cast your vote and motion carries 70 thank you Veronica thank you now we will move on to item number 16 another Z2 24-13 LDC text Amendment for zoning applications and bring Eva back hello again chair and commission as mentioned this is relating to time frames for review of residential zoning and the Senate adopted Senate Bill 1162 and it requires that municipalities comply with time frames for review of all residential zoning applications and I underlined residential it's not all of our application it is our multifam single family residential zoning applications the first time frame is the administrative completeness time frame so after staff receives an application accompanied by the fee staff must review it and make a determination as to whether or not is it is complete within 30 days this should not be an issue our current time frame is 15 days and we do it in month shorter time frame than that once we if we determine it's not complete we have to send a comprehensive list of items back to the applicant once we receive the resubmittal we then have 15 days to do the completeness review again that's not a concern then once it is deemed complete it gets resubmitted and staff then has 180 days from when it's resubmitted to when Town Council shall approve or deny the application that's a little trickier because we can only control the time that we have it in our hands but the way the bill is written it's 100 days from when they submit to when Town Council approves or denies it Town staff can do an extension of a one-time 30 days and the applicant can do numerous extensions 30 days a piece while reviewing the section on Final decisions we looked at what our current processes for nonresidential approvals and we realized there was an error in that section in the code for the deciding bodies we had everybody but the Town Council so I thought I should probably add the Town Council back in so that is what this slide shows also in Senate Bill 116 two there was clarification of the protest procedures protest procedures are if an application is filed and owners around the project are in opposition to it they can get together and if 20% or more get together to oppose it it can trigger a super majority vote the changes made to this are that that 20% excludes government-owned property and there's also clarification as to how the vote goes if a council member has a conflict of interest so we'll just be adding in the language in red next step for this tonight is the Planning Commission hearing should you recommend approval to council the council hearing is December 3rd and that should help us meet our deadline of January 1st to have the LDC revised and that concludes my presentation or unless there are any questions at this time very well any questions for Eva all righty then not seeing any I'll look to the crowd I don't see anyone waiting to speak on this item therefore I will close the public hearing and I will bring it back up to the Das for discussion or a motion I just want to say I'm so happy to see this limit on these review times because they go way way way too long um and so if no one else has any comments I'm ready to make an a motion on this all right I recommend um approval for Z2 24-13 the LDC text Amendment for the zoning applications we have a motion from commissioner Gage do I have a second I would second our motion Vice chairman Fay with the second not seeing any discussion please cast your vote and the motion carries 70 thank you all very much okay moving on now to administrative items administrative items are for the commission discussion and action and is at the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a public comment form indicating the number they wish to speak on and the commission may or may not accept said public comment item number 18 is 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes consider the approval or meetings not meeting minutes consider the approval of the 2025 calendar regular meetings what does everyone think about 2025 is meetings do we have a choice apparently we do we could not pass it and then I guess do it again next month Tu yeah that's right okay um chair if you need a motion I'll make a motion to approve the uh I believe we do sir yeah calendar okay we have a motion from commission assignment to approve the 2025 calendar I'll second it we have a second from commissioner deara please cast your vote when it's ready okay and just like that motion carries 70 okay now we'll move on to item number 19 which is the Planning Commission minutes let's consider the approval from the study session and regular meeting of October 2nd 2024 if everyone reviewed that does anyone have any amendments I do um I was absent at that meeting and it says I was present so if we could change that please okay anyone else not here I know Vice chairman Fay wasn't when he was put into the vice chairmanship which was fun for all I tried to stop them but I I remember that argument going about5 seconds yeah uh and so for this then would I make the motion to approve with that Amendment and then okay so we can then entertain a motion with the approval contingent upon changing that commissioner Gage was in fact not present I'll make a motion to approve the minutes with the uh change that commissioner Gage suggested commissioner D Vina with the motion do I have a second second second from commissioner Simon please cast your vote 61 one Defector Vice chairman Fay not in favor okay moving on to Communications executive session does not exist item number 20 then report from chairman and members of the commission on current events anybody have anything they would like to share well I will share that I was coaching Little League at the Gilbert American Little League and uh tonight was the last game for my sixes and sevens team and I told them because of my vice chairman being appointed In Absentia that I the coach was not going to be able to be there tonight so I just wanted to give a shout out to them um and to the uh parents that also helped but uh you know Paul I couldn't be there gentlemen but uh good game and it's it's his fault let the record reflect okay I'll share something yes yeah commissioner D yeah there's going to be a they call it the cool car show at the islands uh on Saturday November 9th and it's it's fun to attend oh nice so we'll have a car show I guess I I could bring my Hyundai people don't want to see that okay okay then we'll go on to the last item on the agenda last but not least item number 21 report from the planning services manager on current events Eva thank you chairman I would just like to welcome our newest commissioner commissioner hung and to congratulate Vice chair Fay on his vice chairmanship I'd also like to wish our veterans a happy Veterans Day yes I concur okay well that would be the end of it so I'll entertain a motion to adjourn because I of course am not a dictator well I will move to adjourn this meeting we have a motion to adjourn from commissioner Davis do I have a second second second from commissioner Simon please cast your vote motion carries 61 commissioner Gage not in favor she can stay the gavl has spoken thank you all okay Eva do I are you GNA like reprint it or should I cross out commissioner Gage on this