Okay, everyone. Thanks for coming. Welcome to town of Gilbert. And uh we will call to order well I guess prior to calling to order the work session we have an item for the oath of office to be read for our two alternates Jenna Lion and Raymond Hang. And Jenna is currently not here but we are going to have Raymond sworn in to start from our council member Monty Lions. turn. Simated. We will. How about that? Thank you very much, sir. I'll give Raymond a minute to get to his seat. Uh and then just as a note the items as they are numbered we are going to adjust slightly and go from number two to number four and then have a presentation on what would be three five and six since they are all in one presentation. Um but we will separately be taking comment. Um it won't affect that but just know that it'll go 2 4 3 56. Okay. So to start, we will start then with calling to order of course the work session officially and item number two Z25-12LDC text amendment international headquarters and Miss Nicole Russell. >> Thank you chair members of the commission Nicole Russell senior planner. Oh, this evening I will be uh requesting the initiation and opening um for public comment Z2512, the LDC text amendment for international headquarters. The state passed earlier this year a um bill 1543 for ancillary uses to international headquarters campus. So it requires a municipality with a population between 200,000 and 500,000 to allow hotel use and multif family residential housing as incill ancillary uses in the light industrial zoning district as long as it's qualifying as an international headquarter campus. And based on this approval of the SB4543, staff is looking to do a text amendment to make sure we're in compliance with state law. And this evening, we're looking to conduct a citizen review meeting, initiate the and initiate the LDC text amendment, and the effect of the amendment will be to make conforming changes with Senate Bill 1543 as previously stated. the next steps. Uh if the commission does open the public hearing and initiate the text amendment, staff will work to draft language to update the sections of the code from the legal ad. And we will come back to the planning commission with our additions to the code and then it would go to town council for final action and approval. Okay. I can't advance the slide. I apologize. >> Oh, I Okay, >> there we go. So, again, the same slide for the requested input. Um, I am available for any questions should you have any? And that really concludes my presentation. >> Very good. All right. Thank you, Nicole. Does anyone have any questions as it relates to the international headquarters? >> Nothing. Okay. And as for the initiation of this text amendment, does anyone have any thing they would like to discuss about it? >> Okay. Is is this a voting motion? >> It is not, but um if you could ask is anyone here to speak on >> Okay. >> comment. >> Thank you. Always good to have reminders. So I uh does is anyone here wishing to speak on this item number two the Z25-12 LDC text amendment? I don't have any comment cards and I don't see anyone. So no and then I would >> I would just direct if All right. And nobody has any issues with this if we were to initiate. All right then initiate approved. >> Engage. engaged. Yes. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Nicole. All right. Moving now past number three, on to number four. Z25-10 LDC text amendment HVC development standards and Miss Kristen Divine. All right. Good evening, commission. Uh the case I have for study session for you tonight is uh for a text amendment to the HVC zoning district. Uh it was initiated in August. Um I know there was a bit of back and forth about that initiation. So I appreciate the opportunity to come and provide additional information through the study session. Uh just to refresh everyone, uh the request that we have before you is to increase height within the HBC zoning district. This is not the entirety of the heritage district. It is only the HVC zoning. A little bit of background to how we got here. There have been a handful of council retreats over the last couple of years. The first of which was in August of 2023 where an urban 3 presentation was provided. Uh this presentation highlighted the different economic impacts of varying types of developments. And we were directed at that point to kind of look into what that could mean for the heritage district and what increased height may look like. So in 2025, staff presented some visual representation of what increased height could look like. We also provided some um comparative analysis with different communities and we were asked to keep going look at different stakeholders um and see what sort of additional information could be provided on the topic. Uh and from here I'm going to ask if Michael can please speak to our economic development slides. Thank you. >> Good evening, chair, vice chair, and fellow commissioners. Uh my name is Mike Martell. I'm the redevelopment program manager for the office of economic development. It's a pleasure to touch on these slides here for you. So, as as stated in 2023, Urban 3 completed a comprehensive economic analysis of Gilbert with a focus on the heritage district. Um their findings underscore a critical point. As Gilbert approaches buildout, we must be strategic with our remaining land. That means encouraging gentle density and a mix of uses, especially in areas like the heritage district to ensure our tax base can support both current services and future growth. That analysis uh showed that compact mixeduse developments such as the collab and building 303 which when you're looking up on the screen are kind of those tall buildings up there on the left um visually those points uh are among the most fiscally productive in Gilbert. These buildings maximize value per acre by stacking stories and integrating residential, commercial, and office uh uses. This kind of development significantly boosts our tax revenue without requiring new taxes. It's also important to note that while Gilbert is primarily a residential community, our operations are largely funded through sales tax. That makes it essential to increase the product productivity of our commercial and industry focused areas. Uh as Urban 3 likes to put it, you know, stacking stories mean stacking dollars. Even modest increases in height and density like those proposed in this text amendment can have a meaningful impact on our long-term fiscal sustainability allowing us to maintain the high quality of life our residents expect. So this is again just some more visualization with kind of the height showing that productivity and you can see a pretty strong focus even though the heritage district is you know roughly.3 square miles it uh contributes a you know a relatively large percentage of that value through these illustrations here and I will be sticking around for the end for additional questions. >> Thank you. So, in addition to that urban 3 presentation, another driving factor for why we're requesting this increase in height is from a redevelopment plan where in it it calls for the desire for an 18-hour downtown within the district, somewhere where our residents can live, work, and play all within the same general area. In an area like the Heritage District, the parcels are much smaller. You can't achieve a horizontal mixeduse like somewhere in Kulie Station or somewhere like that. Um, so in order to achieve this, it really makes sense that the only way to do so is to build upwards. So to summarize what our current standards are versus what we're proposing, our current standards are a maximum height of 55 ft or four stories, whichever is the lesser of the two, we require stepbacks adjacent to single family residential. Those stepbacks are required above two stories. There aren't any options for like bonus incentives or anything like that. If they want increased height, they need to go through a P A, a resoning, um, or sometimes administrative relief. What we're proposing is a maximum height of 75 ft for the entirety of the HBC zoning district. We would keep the step back requirement adjacent to single family residential, but we would also implement a step back requirement for parcels along Gilbert Road so that once you hit 55 ft, you then need to step back one foot per foot until you reach that 75 ft if you choose to build to that height. We would also keep the twotory step back requirement when adjacent to single family. We are also exploring the option of bonus heights for parcels located off of Gilbert Road where you could be eligible to go up to 90 ft if you incorporate um a certain number of items from a list that I will touch on in a couple of slides. And just to kind of visualize what that means for the district, I put together this map to show which parcels would be eligible for 75 ft and which ones could in theory be eligible for 90 ft. So the purple is going to highlight the 75 ft. Uh the red parcels are the ones that could be bonus height eligible. You'll see a large chunk of them are on the north side of the district. And why we chose 75 ft. We took into context our current development. What already exists, what's been approved, uh what's about to be developed. We also researched 18 different communities to compare how they approach height, what sort of heights they use in their downtown districts. And we reached out to six different developers and architects to pick their brains about development trends that they're seeing in the industry. So with our current development, there are currently eight structures that are approved that exceed the height requirement of 55 ft that we have in place today. The bottom four are all within the 75 ft range that we are requesting. The top four um do exceed even that. These were all achieved through um a pad and um I know at least one of them was done through administrative relief. A big chunk of these are from the heritage park development that's going to be upcoming. You also have the university building, the collab, the Hearnway parking garage, and of course the water tower at 125 ft. So these are those bonus items that I was touching on a couple of slides ago. Um, this is still a little bit of work in progress and we very much value any feedback that you have on this slide especially. Um, so we have this separated into two different categories. We have a choose one category and a choose two category where the choose one are more substantial items. If you pick one item from this category, then that gains you the ability to um build up to the 90 ft. This category includes underground parking. It includes a 10% excess of public parking in addition to what they're required to have on site. It also includes um the entirety of the building being developed with non-combustible construction type. Or they could choose two items from the circle on the right, which is a 10% application of open space and landscaping. In the heritage district, we don't require open space. So, we see this as a benefit. Um, art, we are still working through the specifics on how we're calculating that art and what would constitute that to be eligible for this. Uh, public amenities like ride share spaces, maybe electric vehicle charging stations, um, things of that nature. Stepbacks to, um, help design so you're not building straight up to 90 ft. And also sustainability measures. And then these are two examples of existing buildings in the district that do exceed the 55 ft in height. So you have the Collab building which is on the top. This is a 64 foot tall building. It is only four stories. The university building also only four stories and is nearly 75 ft tall. Our code does allow four stories today, but because these buildings exceed the 55 ft in height, they needed to have their height approved through a PD. So, we also went on a walking tour of the district in addition to all of the research that we've done. Um, this is largely due to the the concept of the water tower always being a point of conversation when it comes to increased height in the district. Uh, the question always comes up, where are we trying to preserve this view from though? Are we trying to preserve from a pedestrian scale or vehicular scale outside the district? Um, so for the purposes of this presentation, we went on a walking tour for the pedestrian perspective. I included six pictures here of um different vantage points that we took throughout the district where you can see the water tower peeking out from a handful of the buildings. If you took some of those examples though and you you took an existing development, this is Gilbert and Von the southeast corner. If this building were to come in and redevelop and build to the 55 ft that's allowable today by right, that view of the water tower would then be blocked. I also included an example on the right of what that could look like at 75 ft. And just a secondary example of how if a building that existed today were to come in and redevelop to their allowable by right height of 55 ft. This time a two-story building for example um again that view of the water tower would be blocked. So these are just some of the communities that we chose to include in our comparative analysis. We chose them largely due to their proximity to the Phoenix area. Some of them are identified benchmark communities and a large chunk of them are just general communities of interest. This is a summary of the heights that those different communities use. The yellow bar is going to illustrate 55 ft and the green bar illustrates 75 ft, which is what we're proposing. Um, a lot of these communities use a range of heights, which is why you see a larger chunk of the blue, not just one stationary height. This is due to their proximity to like transit or the center of the business district, things like that. Um, at least five of them on this screen do meet or exceed the 75 ft that we're looking for. The next couple of slides are just examples of some of those communities. This is Cherry Creek, Colorado. They allow um 3 to 12 stories for a maximum height of 45 to 150 ft. And the next example is the south end of Charlotte, North Carolina. They allow 50 ft to 130 ft. And they also incorporate the bonus structure that we are looking to implement where they allow 75 ft to 300 ft. Uh 300 feet is a little crazy. We're not trying to get that high, but we are using their bonus structure kind of as an example. And the last example we have is Asheville, North Carolina. They have a minimum height requirement of 24 feet. Similar to our district, you have to have a minimum of two stories and a maximum height of 75 ft to 265 ft. So from there, we reached out to a couple of developers and architects um just to see what they're seeing in the industry. Some main takeaways we took away from those conversations are that over time uh floor to floor heights have increased with building heights. This is largely due to the types of uses that we're seeing in the industry at the moment. Um, some popular uses are experience-based uses. It's more luxury style um, first floor uses as well as boutique style class A offices where they're looking for more of that hotel amenity style feel instead of large scale office complexes. This slide is just summarizing what those floor heights were that we heard on average. Um, so for commercial we heard an average of 16 to 22 feet. Office 12 to 16 ft. residential 10 to 13 feet uh for an ideal building height of 75 feet. Once you get over 75 feet, you kind of start encroaching into that high-rise building code, which um is a little more of a substantial cost for developers or anyone building. So, we took those heights and we built a concept development. This is a four-story development. Four stories in theory would be permitted within the district today. Um this building we used ground flooror commercial at 20 ft and we put three floors of office above it at 16 ft. That brings this total building height to 68 feet, which does not include the parapet, which could even be an additional five feet. So, with our code today, even though this is four stories, this would not be permitted and would have to go through an additional review and be approved through a PD. Um, so just to summarize some terminology, setbacks versus stepbacks. You're pretty familiar with that, but setbacks are the distance from a property line. Stepbacks is how far a building needs to be pushed back once it reaches a certain height. Uh the images on the right are just different examples of how a step back could be implemented. Uh the top image is from Cherry Creek, which is one of our comparative communities that we used. Just another example of that. And then some real world examples from um the Phoenix area. We used Optima, which is in Scottsdale. We thought this would be a good example of what a stepback could look like if they were to incorporate that into our bonus structure. This is kind of the intention of why we included stepbacks in that list. Um, and then Epicenter is just a great example of how far um, what a setback could look like. And these last couple of slides I have are just concept renderings. So, we wanted to illustrate what a development could look like at what it's allowed by right today versus what we are proposing. So, this is the chamber site. Uh, it's purely conceptual. No intention of the chamber site going anywhere. We just needed a site to play with. Uh, so the concept building we have is 55 ft on the top. It's a three-story building with 52,800 ft of parking. It's got ground flooror commercial at about 9,000 ft with 43,000 ft of office and amenities. If you took that development and you increased it to 72 feet in height, that would then increase the height to five stories. It would have still 52,800 ft of parking, still 9,000 ft of ground flooror commercial, but you would add two additional floors of office and amenity space above that to be 72,600 ft². And these are just different vantage points of that concept development. It's a good example of what a step back could look like. And then in a larger context of the district. And the last example we have for you is for a parcel located off of Gilbert Road where you could be eligible to go to that 90 ft by incorporating the bonus items. Um so the top example is 55 ft. It's a four-story building. It's got 82,000 ft of parking, 18,600 ft of ground floor commercial with 225,000 ft of residential and a row of town homes along Oak. Um, so the image on the bottom is going to be if you increased that building to 92 ft. It would then be seven stories. Parking would increase to 128,000 ft. Commercial would still be 18,600 because it is ground floor. And then your residential would increase to 335,000 ft while still incorporating those town homes along Oak. Uh for this example, we did ask for the bonus concepts to be incorporated into this to make sure that it was actually feasible to do. Um and this particular development utilized a three-story parking structure with underground parking as well as 25% of open space and then just that development in a larger context. And the next steps we have for this um it has already gone to the redevelopment commission study session um this past month on September 17th. Um it's currently before you for study session. From here we'll take it to the Chamber of Commerce for their feedback. Um and if we continue to move forward, it'll go to RDC public hearing for their recommendation. It'll come back to you for your recommendation. We'll then take it to town council for study session and then town council for a final decision. And to summarize some of that redevelopment commission study session feedback we heard um from the commissioners. Most of them were generally supportive of the increase in height. Um there were a couple of questions that they asked that we are working through. Um have we considered distance from Gilbert Road for bonus height eligibility versus property lines touching Gilbert Road. There's a couple of like wonky parcels on the north side of Gilbert where it's more of a flag lot. And currently they would not be eligible for the bonus height. So, we're working through if there's any way to let them be eligible, I guess. Um, we were also asked how increased height could impact older buildings structurally, um, and how parking will be managed. Just to kind of touch on the parking, parking will be managed the same way it is now. If it's a commercial entity, you would be eligible for an AUP for as long as parking lasts in the district. Um, for residential, they are required to self-p park. Resident feedback. We had three residents that came to speak during public comment. Um, some comments from them were that the height change should be managed through the redevelopment plan. Um, and that the 200 to 300 block of Gilbert Road should not be part of this increase to preserve the existing development in the area. And then just to summarize again, what we're requesting is an increase height in the HBC zoning district. And I am available for your questions. >> Thank you very much, Kristen. Does anyone have any questions they'd like to address with staff? >> Commissioner Simon. >> Yeah. Um, thank you for the presentation. With regards to the parking, I know that you said that it's going to be handled the same way that parking is currently handled if it's residential to be required to have on-site. If it's commercial, it's offsite. Already struggling with parking in the district. Mhm. >> Seems to me that in the event that for some reason you did decide to move forward with increasing the height, that's going to dramatically increase the occupancy, whether commercial or residential, probably both. And I can't see getting away without forcing below ground parking. I mean, there's just not enough space. Even if even if you went taller on the current structures, I just can't imagine that there's space to to house even if you just did the 200 and 300 block at seven stories >> office and residential or whatever. I just I mean I'm not an engineer by any stretch, but that just seems like you're there's just no way that that could happen. and and so you're going to get maybe one building at seven stories >> and then there's not going to be any more parking. >> So, Chairman, Commissioner Simon, I mean, commercial parking being offsite in the district right now has always just been luxury is probably not the right word, but as as we have the capacity to accommodate it. We can, but it's never been a guarantee that you can have off-site parking. Um it's kind of why we incorporated the underground parking and the excess public parking into the bonus structure to encourage people to try to self park their sites through whatever mechanisms. Um even examples like South Anchor came through and was approved recently. They originally were not proposing underground parking and were able to make it work so that they now were able to self park their site instead of requesting a parking reduction. Um, so parking is a mechanism that we are working through as a separate matter, if that makes sense. Um, we're working through how to long-term provide parking for the district. >> Okay. I just I I have some pretty serious or significant issues with that. I just feel like you're going to be pushing a lot of stress off on residents in and around the district that are already experiencing a lot of issue. Um the second thing that I have I just I'm I'm really struggling to see a need to go to this height. Um and I'm assuming I can say that in this situation or in this session, but I I I feel like I mean obviously we've had height. We've had a couple of projects come to us that I think could look good. we we weren't able to make um concessions for those which I guess under this they wouldn't have even needed to come to us because it would have worked. Um I I just I me personally I'm really struggling with going to this height in the district. So >> thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Anybody else have any comments or questions? Okay. Uh, I will once again ask if there is anyone here seeking to speak. Uh, this is item number four. If you wish to speak, there's a yellow comment card in the back. If you could fill one out. >> This is a study session. >> I know, but that the question from uh, Commissioner Anderson was that it's a study session, but here in this because of the format, they allow for comment. All right. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Mr. Chair, just a clarification. It's technically a work session. Um, and we had to pose it that way because of the LDC text amendments which allow for citizen review. And once we open it up there, >> we could make a distinction. >> Right. Understood. within the work session. Um, a comment is allowed. >> Okay. And then so please go ahead and just state your name and then after be sure to fill one out or I'm sorry you did, she has it. My bad. Go ahead. >> Okay. Councilman Lions, Chairman Munt, and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Mary Ellen Frescus, a 30-year resident of Gilbert and I last appeared at your August 6 meeting and I also attended the redevelopment commission meet study session on this topic. Since then, you received a more robust and comprehensive staff report. Um, it was implied that u this text amendment is in response to customer needs, citizen expectations or recent legislation. Um, also private development demands and they st they site eight structures exceeding the current permissible 55 ft. And as an aside, the redevelopment commission focused on parking as an issue should the text amendment go forward. So taller, denser development needs more parking. Obviously, uh the eight examples of the structures in the staff report, um two of them haven't been built. Um one of them is actually a parking structure, which wouldn't increase revenue at all because our current parking is shared parking and it's free. The other one is 125 ft water tower, which to me is just a structure, not a building. Nobody eats up there. There's no office building up there. Uh, so the two of the university building and the collab, one at 64 feet, one at 68 ft. Um, and I'm sure that we can get another consultant that will come in and tell us that the way to solve our parking problems is to go underground. But I believe that there is yet another problem that arises if we have one consultant tell us that we need taller, denser building and another one that tells us how to solve our parking and that's brand identity. I think the central business corps which I I call it the business core, the two and 300 blocks of Gilbert Road have that brand identity. I'm referring to the small town feel, the pedestrian experience, the more intimate feel, the historic uh approach, the picturesque views of the water tower. This is our downtown. I consider you, the planning commissioners and the redevelopment commissioners, to be the stewards of our town, and my expectation is that you will honor that role and that you will protect Gilbert. But I do think that there are two or maybe possible more solutions to this. One of the redevelopment commissioners mentioned that the redevelopment plan will be updated in the next couple of years and this would be the time to address this in a holistic manner. And number two, if you do recommend changes to the building code, the text changes that are done I hope are done with a proper nuance. So the right to 55 is maintained in the central core and a 75 to 90 foot buildings will be allowed off Gilbert only. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. And I have another card. Sir, are you here to speak on item four as well? >> Yes. >> Okay. Alan Fitzgerald wishes to speak as well. Please come up uh and state your name. Three uh minutes, sir. There should be a button at the bait. Yeah, >> there we go. That's tricky. Uh I'm Alan Fitzgerald. I've been a resident in Gilbert for about 40 years and I'm a property owner in the Heritage District and I appreciate the time that the commissioners and the chair are taking to discuss this issue. It's a issue that's come up here at least once before and then in the redevelopment commission. the time and the process for a general plan and a redevelopment plan are already identified. We we know what that process looks like. It's a robust process. I'd like to see all the information that has been uh put together from the staff, brought to the stakeholders that are going to be building the redevelopment plan for the next 10 years. That's the time in which we address that uh the concerns and the process to get uh taller buildings, more density in the downtown. Uh I do have some preference that the 200 300 block of Gilbert Road uh retain its ambiance. Uh whether there's larger buildings going in there, there one already planned to the 55t height. Um that development should continue in that corridor. Uh there have been new buildings built there that are one-story. I've often been an advocate of two to threetory buildings down there. So it's just that reasonable height for the ambiance that already exists in the downtown. The design of the south anchor for parking I thought was particularly elegant. I like what what's going on there. Perhaps that translates to other parts of the heritage district. I would really want to emphasize this robust process of creating the general plan and the redevelopment plan uh should be allowed to take its course. And yeah, it's a year or so away before that gets started and maybe two years before we actually have a new plan. And all of the work that's been done already for this text amendment should be included and discussed and present in that redevelopment commission. I'm sorry. In that redevelopment uh guidelines that will be developed again. I I'd like to stay with where we are and let the process run. Um thank you. >> Thank you very much sir. >> I'll push the button off. >> Oh yes. Thank you. Uh it just to be understanding is it sir that you came in. Were you here? No, not you. I meant the new gentleman that had come in. Were you here to speak on uh this item? Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be sure. Okay. Then I don't see anyone else that wish to speak on this item. Um, so I'll come up here again for any uh other discussion of, you know, both what we heard from the citizens as well as from the staff and whether or not um we would want to engage in the LDC text amendment process with this item 4. I do have a quick question for Kirsten if you don't mind. the um it's something that someone said triggered something in the the we're not relying on that parking study from 2020 or 2019 are we as part of this >> um parking is not included in the the research this is just the for the height development standards I know parking within the district is a completely separate larger topic that other people are handling while considering that this is potentially going through um but I not part of those discussions. But >> I think what Yan's Commissioner Simon's point is that this obviously impacts parking. So parking is going to drive a fair part of this, isn't it? >> I don't know, Mike. Is there anything that economic development can >> uh chair, vice chair, commissioners? Um so yeah, as as Kristen stated, we are um simultaneously looking at parking holistically in the heritage district and many different avenues and kind of having them on um you know, separate but kind of parallel paths as we are focusing on both of those. So yeah, as you referenced the um the Walker parking master plan from 2018, there was an update to that in 2024. um that provides some of the data in terms of you know knowing our traffic counts and other things but we are working um collaboratively through many departments the manager's office um to look at and this kind of did come out of those council retreats parking and heights both topics from those to um engage and explore um solutions and opportunities to make sure that we are factoring that into these conversations as well but kind of parallel paths >> fair enough that's the one I couldn't remember the name of but um >> yep I haven't reviewed the 20 24 update, but the 2018 one. >> Yes. >> I've been pretty clear in my opinions on on what nonsense that report was. If I if if we rely if we if we essentially get good data, start from scratch, but good for you guys. It's we we'll see what this comes up. But when you guys come back, if there's a reliance on that old one, um it's going to be pretty tough to swallow. So, make sure make sure you start don't don't rely on that old one. Okay. >> Yeah, understood. we'll we'll we'll have that in consideration, but we'll also be looking at various other data sources and and uh opportunities off of that, too. So, thank you, >> Commissioner Fay. If I if I may, um we'll we'll go back and take a look, but um Walker also did a parking study for planning um in an effort to update our planning um the land development code and our parking calculations. Is that the parking study you're referring to? It it gets confusing when we've used the same consultant for multiple. >> No, I I it was the um the the downtown heritage district parking study, I think it was 2018. >> Okay. >> That uh economic development has been relying on for some time. >> Okay. We did one shortly thereafter and so I wanted to make sure I was clear on which one. >> If it's the same consultant, I'm sure they're using the same data which means it's the same garbage in garbage out. But >> I don't know. Just it if it's the same guy, I'm going to look at it pretty skeptically. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other comments? Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I have a question for staff. Um for those projects that haven't been built yet? Um, do they does it essentially does do they bank their parking with what um they would be using up in the downtown or is it first come first serve like the next project that gets or is there reserved parking based on what's already previously approved for those? >> Sure. So, uh, Chairman, Commissioner Davis, um, it is dependent on the AUP process. So, it is a completely separate application from the design review that would come through. So, just because the design review has been approved does not mean that they are guaranteed that off-site parking. they then need to apply for the AUP. Um, from there, once their AUP is approved, even if they aren't developed, um, that parking is allotted for them. It goes into a spreadsheet that we keep track of where parking is allocated, how many parking spaces are left. Um, but once that AUP is approved, that's when technically that number of spaces is reserved. Okay. Burden really falls to the developer to figure out their allotted parking. And if they can't show that they have it, they don't have a development. Yes. To move forward. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dervino, >> um, excuse me. I don't remember which packet I read it in, but the justification for going higher was to increase sales tax dollars. Have they done a study on the amount that that would increase by? And is it just that amount? Is it enough to justify that height increase? >> This is outside my area. Please hold. Thank you, >> chair, vice chair, commissioners. Um, yes. So, part of the urban 3 analysis, they do um do calculations based off of that increased height and what the um valuations would be um not only by acre but also by the sales tax generation revenue. So there are um uh more specifics when they're looking at like the collab for example or building 313 as they were looking at the town and kind of putting together that um graphic that kind of showed the elevated spikes that was illustrating kind of a higher value per acre. So um that um that is factored in. There are actual um you know details and figures that that kind of went into that analysis to um kind of show the numbers. I guess that >> I guess my question is the increase in sales tax. Does it justify that height? I mean, what is the percentage increase that town is going to see by those heights being increased? So, they that's information we could certainly share. there's um additional details in terms of the the the calculations that they provide and probably the the the ratios in the analysis, but they'll be factoring in variables in terms of the type of building um you know the lease rates for it, the you know the number of bodies, you know, or people that would potentially be occupying those spaces. So there's a um I would say kind of proprietary proprietary algorithm in terms of how they um crunch those numbers to showcase that um you know the 55 feet to the 75 ft and kind of as some of those exhibits uh illustrated as you put that additional square footage in depending on the type of you know is it residential, is it office, is it commercial? um different factors that would adjust probably the um the sales tax collection and then obviously the the value by acre based off of the the property tax side of it. >> So those numbers are still kind of being crunch is kind of what you're saying. >> Um there are numbers that exist. Um so I would say that um that's something that could be shared from a more granular perspective. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Anything else from others? Okay. I don't have um I I I don't have anything major but I think that there is uh enough queries here to say that there needs to be a very clear and concise u understanding of the imp the reason for necessitating it on the road. the height increases on a metric basis and as well as the process in and of itself. Um, so you know, my perspective is I think this is something that'll >> we even have public comment online. Love it. >> Um, you know, and I agree with the vice chair on on the parking and I think that it's something that there is a massive issue here with the revenue generation and I think that's something we need to do. we need to make changes about and I recognize that this is an effort towards that and I just want to be sure that uh as it does happen that we do it in the um appropriate manner that is the best for Gilbert. So um I I have no problem with initiating it. I'll ask anyone else up here. Commissioner Simon, >> I just I just have a question. Um the master plan is required every 10 years to be reviewed. Is that correct? >> Redevelopment plan. Yes. the redevelopment plan. And so the last one was 2018, >> so we should be coming up on basically getting that started anytime. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I just I just feel like I I just feel like this is a rush. I don't I don't I just don't like this at all. I feel I I agree with the residents that this I mean we're we're we we have a charm in Gilbert and understand that there's a tax base and a tax revenue and there's things that we need to be able to uh continue to support from an infrastructure perspective. I just feel like we're going to lose our identity and I I I I would I would be against it but I don't know if that even matters in this situation. I guess what I'm saying is I feel like we should wait until the RDC or the redevelopment plan gets re-evaluated, do a complete uh community engagement, see what is called for and go from there. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Touch on that one for a minute. Chairman, Commissioner Simon. Um we did confer with our legal team just to make sure that this was the appropriate path forward and that we should not be waiting for the redevelopment plan. It's it's an option. Yes. But we are able to also proceed this way if that's the way that >> So I guess I guess then the question would be if we did proceed that way um obviously then it then it comes back for for a true study session. Correct. Not just >> this is the study session. This was initiated in August. >> Okay. So I mean before the train gets to full steam which then we have no control over stopping it. >> Where are we going from here? Help me understand the process. And I saw I remember the slide, but >> but I feel like in in all too many times, you know, we get moving so quickly that then all of a sudden we've got this situation where there's nothing anybody can do to to to put the brakes, right, or to pump the brakes. And so I guess I guess that's my concern. If if if the redevelopment plan or is not the right time to do it and this is the right way to do it, I it just I don't know that feels backwards to me because >> both the right way. There's not the redevelopment plan is the only way I guess was what I was trying to say. Apologize. I don't mean to interrupt you. >> Yeah, I feel No, that's and that's fine. I feel like I feel like if we go the other direction, it gives a community more voice with something that was there probably going to be much more important to people than putting houses in South Gilbert, right? I mean, when when we go through reszoning and different things like that, yeah, there nobody wants development. Everybody's thought that their house was the last one that was going to be built on the street, right? So, we have to go through that. But when we're talking categorically changing what brings people to the town of Gilbert, I just have major concern with that. So I would I would I guess I I and I'm not trying to kick the kick the can. I'm not trying to kick it down the road. I just feel like that's something that we should have a lot more engagement on. So, >> thank you very much, Commissioner. Commissioner Dearina, you got some more you'd like to add, please? >> Well, I just want to emphasize just because it's already been said about parking. I felt maybe we didn't need to bring it up again, but I also have as a commissioner, I have the same concerns about parking. So, I don't know others might have the same thing, too. So, it's it's always been an issue and I think it's even a bigger issue downtown. So, I just want to emphasize that I also have issues with parking, even though it's already been brought up. So with the parking, I mean, once the So the town has x amount of parking. Once that parking is gone, it is on the developers to provide their own parking. So it's it's not like we're going to build a development and then they're not going to be able to meet their parking and then we're just going to build it anyway. Like if if our parking is gone, let's say that moment comes, those developments would need to meet parking requirements to provide parking for their development. just to elaborate a little bit on the parking. >> That makes sense. Thank you. >> Yeah. And if I'm not mistaken, and I think this goes to what Commissioner Simon was speaking of as the locomotive uh getting taken off this this what we are doing here is hearing this. It is then going to go back to the redevelopment commission for a meeting. I if you could bring that up just because I want to make sure that I'm clear on this as well. because I believe it then comes back here from there for us to have an actual agenda item on the regular meeting. Correct. >> Yeah. So, um it went to initiation with you in August. That was just the very vague summary that um we had provided for the citizen input and initiation. Um from there, we did take it to redevelopment commission study session since they oversee the district for design reviews. That was in September. So that was a study session discussion just like we're having here today. Um we are now at the planning commission study session. From here we're going to take it to chamber of commerce um just to give them the same presentation get their feedback on how they feel about this proposal. There it goes to redevelopment commission public hearing similar to a resoning because this is technically a resoning where they would provide a recommendation to you would come back to you for an agenda item through public hearing where you would provide a recommendation to council and then it goes to council for study session like tonight and then their final determination. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. So, in other words, number five, the I don't know if I'm color blind, but purple, uh, yes, >> Barney, you know, grimace there is going to be coming back here where we would actually vote on whether or not that we would approve this. Okay. Yeah. I mean, you know, and I think there's been a lot of talk and I remember years ago we had a there's that whole development that was going to be built and then COVID came and that that poor dilapidated Burger King, God rest its soul. Um but uh you know so from my perspective I I believe that you know as you were stating that there are differing processes with which things can happen and that what we're doing here is just opening it up to another process but that when it comes time for a public hearing on this that we will be able to get some greater information as it relates to the issues that have been brought up related to parking and other stuff and uh you know and I so from my perspective I'll look forward to that. Is this something that we need to initiate or is this one where we're just hearing this as a study, not an LDC text amendment? >> It is just a study session item, chair, um because we did the initiation in August. So, this is a discussion. It's back if you just like parking. We have concerns with parking. You want additional information on that. So, that's what I'm here to gather is what what questions you have, what concerns you have, so that when I do bring it back for public hearing, if it gets to that point, I can provide you that information. >> Okay. Yeah. And then, you know, the one other thing that I would um like information on, and I know that the that Mary Ellen brought it up, was the idea stepping back these additional heights. I'd like some clarity on and some clear and concise data related to the economics of why we would need to do this directly along the corridor versus having any alternatives as to how we could increase the density and the dollars per acre in the area. So, >> Commissioner Simon, go ahead. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Just one more thing I would like to see. Um, and maybe economic development can bring this. A lot of times these are initiated by a developer that comes in and wants to build something a little bit bigger, a little bit taller. So, I would like to know what the demand is, not just the tax implications, but is there a demand for this type of product? And if there is, what does that look like? >> Sure. So, Chairman, Commissioner Simon, I can definitely have them look into any conversations that they've had. I know in the handful of meetings that we've been discussing it, there's not a specific user in mind that's requesting this increase in height. It really just came from council workshops in that urban 3 presentation. And more to align what our current code permits with the fourtory requirement, four stories today is becoming less possible to develop with the floor heights that the different users are requesting. So, we're just trying to bring that in line a little bit better where the 75 ft is realistically with those floor heights only adding another story, maybe two, but you could have people come in with the smaller floor heights and get additional stories. >> Okay. Yeah, Commissioner Anderson, go ahead. >> I just have a quick question. Um, at the RDC study session, what was how was how did that go? What's their take on this? >> Yeah. Um, it went pretty well. Chair Munt, Commissioner Anderson, um they were generally supportive of it. There was a lot of conversation about parking just like this evening. Um there was some concern with the the older block, oh sorry, the older block of Gilbert Road with the the older buildings, how a taller development like that would be built next to those older buildings like the farmhouse. Um and that's something that would be reviewed through building permits to make sure that everything is structurally sound, but that was one of their concerns. Um the redevelopment plan did come up as well, which is when we checked with our legal team to see if this was the appropriate path forward. Um but overall they were generally supportive of it while considering parking. >> All right. Well, very good. Thank you very much, Kristen. Appreciate the information and uh and we look forward to seeing you at the hearing during purple number five. Okay. Now, we'll be backpedaling our way directly into item number three. And this presentation, if I'm not mistaken, is going to cover item 3, five, six, and seven. No, 356. That's right. So, three is Z2515 LDC text amendment objective standards text amendment. Item five is Z2517 LDC text amendment text amendment initiation and citizen review. And item number six is Z2516 LDC text amendment, text amendment initiation and citizen review. And we will hear well it's it's listed as three in different people. So I guess that Veronica's doing it. Okay. >> Thank you, chairman. Yes, that is correct. I will be um presenting this initiation request on behalf of all three of those items. Um thank you for uh for having us this evening. Um as you had mentioned um we will be um talking about initiating three potential text amendments um related to administrative review and approval. So in the last uh legislative session the legislature did approve um or pass bill HB 2447. Um what this bill does, it requires all cities and towns to authorize staff to approve review and approve um certain items. Those items being preliminary plat uh design review based on objective standards and to allow at risk um uh at risk submittals for on-site preliminary grading and drainage work. And these all have an effective date of January 1st, 2006. So, prior to this uh last legislative session, um administrative review of those items was something um that was already in statute. Um however, it was um kind of at the discretion of the uh municipalities. You'll notice here um in that first line where it says may and that's been struck, it now says shall. So to be able to do these items administratively is now a requirement. Uh so we will be amending our LDC to coincide with these changes. Um over the next few weeks, staff will be looking at our LDC um to see specifically where those changes need to take place. Um our next steps do include coming back to this commission for a recommendation. We will then go to the town council for a study session and eventually to town council for their ultimate um uh action on the item. Um if you initiate tonight, again, our request is that we initiate the text amendment um separately for each of the three items and to also conduct a citizen review. And that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you very much, Veronica. Anybody have any questions? Man, that was very short. I clumped three things and the paragraphs in the docket are so big and it that three names it threw me off a little bit. It's okay though. I'm back. Um, and I know we have a gentleman that wishes to speak on this. So, unless if anybody has any questions, otherwise we can have him come up. Okay. Uh we have uh Ron Gdderian and >> M Mr. Chair if um perhaps we can get some clarification. >> Wait a minute. It's item five you want to speak on and we're on three >> and five and seven, but we need to go and initiate three and then go. Okay, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. I jumped the gun. It it seems as though these agendas are a test and I fail miserably continuously. But that's okay because like Thomas and Edison said that uh that's just finding ways things don't work. So all right. So as it relates to item number three, are there any comments that >> Okay. Were you abstaining or you just need to >> Okay. Oh no. >> So he's going to comment on three. >> No, the the gentleman has a comment on number five. So since we're doing three first, we'll have to say whether we initiate item three and then we would go to five and then we would have a comment. So >> yeah and just a clarification if we can um open it three for citizen review initiate move to five citizen review initiate if if if you're so inclined and then it' be six not seven >> yes I'm I'm definitely inclined. All right. So, just to be clear then to make sure is there anyone here that wish to speak on item number three before I breeze through that and get blindsided again. Okay. So, as it relates to number three, commissioners, is there anything you'd like to discuss about the objective standards text amendment? Is everyone in favor? Does anyone have any issues with initiating said item three? All right. Well, then I will say yes. Initiate item number three. Okay. Moving forward to item number five. Definitely not item number four cuz we did that before three and now we're on five. And we will go into the citizen review. And now we will have Mr. Rob Guderion come up who is opposed to the item and wishes to speak. Thank you, sir. Apologies for the strange delay. >> Yeah, no worries. Thank you uh um chair, vice chair, commissioners, town council representative, and town planning staff. My name is Rob Gaderian. Um thank you for the opportunity to speak here uh tonight. I have been a Gilbert resident for 30 years. I've been here many months in the past to talk about a specific item that's not on the agenda. And honestly, I was looking forward to taking a month off and not pestering you this month. Uh, until I read the text of HB 2447 specifically as it relates to item number five and item number six, which I probably should have put on my comment card. Um, I'm not I am opposed to it. I'm not sure what that means because the the House bill is actually passed and it looks like it will be implemented. So, I'm not sure what choice you have in this, but I will give you my experience and my input, specifically as it relates to my little uh dispute that I've had with an unscrupulous surveyor and a complicit developer. I've been grateful to have access to the planning commission to air my grievances and to work with town planning staff on this. My big concern with this is that the town uh let me preface this by saying um I have been working fairly regularly with Salis Santo, Ashley and Veronica on the town planning commission over the last eight months on this and they've been fantastic to work with. Uh my concern is that as a regular uh member of the the resident of the town, member of the public, the town planning staff does not have any type of process to engage the public. If we take away public comment, public uh dissemination of information and approve all these preliminary plats and design plans administratively, uh it cuts the public out. In my specific case, very small, very low impact, um we would not have even known what was happening until literally they were bulldozing dirt against our walls that they are trying to steal from us. Um, and so my recommendation would be if we have to implement these changes to conform to state law, there needs to be some sort of process in place with town planning staff whereby the public can see what's happening where they can interact with the town planning staff and provide some sort of feedback on these things. Uh, I am fairly comfortable pestering commissions. I've done it with the Gilbert school board, town council, uh, public records request. Not all the town residents are able to do that on their own. There isn't a user-friendly process with the town planning staff. I called during the month of March. Every phone number I could find on the town planning staff, including the development manager, left voicemails. It took over three weeks for someone to get back to me to talk about this issue that I've been back and forth with you guys over the last eight months. So, um I I guess I'm not opposed to it because the law is the law. What I am saying is cutting out public comment and public uh review and public communication is a step backwards. It's enabling developers to bully residents to be honest. And I know a lot of the public input that you get is hey we don't like this. We hate the traffic. There's nothing you can do. Developers do have rights to build their property. But there are legitimate cases like mine where the public does need to have advanced visibility, does need to have some input into the process and does need a course of action. I'll be honest, the most frightening part of the whole process over the last eight months for me was when in April you guys approved on a six to1 vote um the plan review for their house plans and when I called S de Santo from the town planning staff he said yeah we'll just work this out administratively my heart sank because what that meant was the public was cut out of this the developer has unlimited access to the town planning staff any anything could go from my perspective I had no recourse, no actions, no town policies, no laws, no nothing on my side. So, if you have to implement this because that's how the state legislature got bamboozled into passing this, um, great. I would suggest that please put some processes in place on the town planning staff side to interact with the public, make this information available to them before it just gets rubber stamped. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, sir. All right. Um, now as it would relate to item five, does anyone have comments or discussions or questions for staff >> in relation to the presentation or the comment from Mr. Gerian? >> Mr. Simon, >> I'll step up. I've got a question for staff with regards to um what the resident brought forward. Um, this says that it allow for the preliminary plot or plat without public hearing, but we would ultimately have to the planning commission ultimately it would have to come back to the planning commission for review and public input. Correct. >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but um, no, an administrative Mr. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Simon, um an administrative um process would be at a staff level. Now, what we will be looking at as a part of the text amendment for that particular item is what might look like. Um but in terms of having the um planning commission prove it um that is what is being taken out by that one word change from May to shall >> Mr. chair. Um, Commissioner Simon, probably the best example that we could, uh, turn to is the text amendment that we've done previously for the administrative approval for final plat. Uh, this body approved that text amendment. I believe it was a year ago where we established the scope of which final plat could be approved by administrative uh staff at the same time preserving an appeal process uh where someone with standing could appeal the decision made by administrative staff and in that final plat case not all final plat um can be approved administratively. Uh in that case we we said up to 300 lots. Um so that's what we're examining or reviewing uh preliminary plat is what that scope would look like. >> So so what you're saying is there could be way to in this review to figure out if if there's a way to create language that requires certain latitude >> some latitude um in terms of preserving um the authority so to speak. >> Exactly. It would al also complying with state law. >> No, understood. Understood. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think from my perspective that the uh from a platting um if in the fact and I'm I'm going to use the words of Miss Gderian because I don't want to get any liability here, but if you have an unscrupulous um individuals doing something, I I don't believe that the planning commission would have any ability, you know, if a surveyor put something in and it wasn't, you know, it's signed sealed. this is a you know a state uh verified surveyor. It's not the question here is not about whether or not that we would catch this. It's whether or not the public has the ability to effectively point out and attempt to rectify problems that may arise. And I will just say that I echo his concerns that even if th this process will get approved and it is a state law and then a developer starts to build right away, an individual such as Mr. Gideerian could go, "Oh, well, wait a minute. This is wrong." But by the time you get to it, foundations are laid in this. And I think we as a um organization and a staff in the town of Gilbert need to be cognizant and aware of the power that an individual would have as compared to a developer that's talking about the timelines and the money being spent and all of that that would possibly shout down an individual that has very legitimate claims. and we should be sure that we have a mechanism and the integrity in place to be able to handle that is is my um my hope. So, um just something to think about from my perspective as well. Anyone else have any other vice chair? Yes, please. Uh I expressed some opinions previously with staff that are collaterally related to what Mr. Gadarian said, really more related to council than the public, but the public's equally applicable. But I I mean I think the legislation's passed. This one's getting shoved down our throats whether we like it or not. So I mean and I I I don't understand Well, I do understand Elena's point. I don't know how we do it and still comply with the state law. But to the extent we can, great. Let's let's run like the wind. But I I I don't know that that's going to work. I I think that this is a little bit like arguing against the law of gravity. It you know, if you're about to fall, gravity might seem like an awful thing, but regard it is what it is. Regardless of whether you like it or not, I I think we're I think that this cake is baked on on us for by the legislature. >> Right. Yeah. And and that was why I wanted to at least echo the concerns because um it does it does concern me and I think that the public input is important and it's a necessary process in the civic discourse. So, okay. Anyone else have anything else they wanted to add? All right. Well, then I will begrudgingly uh initiate item 5, Z2517 LDC text amendment, and we will move forward into the beautiful item number six, Z2516 LDC text amendment, which I believe carries the same um concerns for all of us. Um, but is there anything else anybody wanted to add as it related to item six? All right. Very well. Then initiate that as well. And uh, >> sir, if we can open it that up for citizen review. >> Oh, is is there anyone else here that wanted to speak on item number six? And I will just note that in uh, item five that Mr. Gadderian mentioned that six was also a concern of his in his speech. So I have that noted. Not seeing anyone. I will move it back up here. Look around to see if anybody has any information they wanted to add. Not seeing any. Uh bombs away. Uh initiate number six LDC text amendment. Thank you very much. Okay. Now on to the solitary other item here on the study session. Z2511 LDC text amendment middle housing and Miss Ashley take it away. Thank you chairman. Um just to keep you fully on your toes, this one is not an initiation tonight. So, this is similar to Kristen's uh where we are just seeking um feed feedback. Um if you have any questions, we plan to bring this back to uh commission in November for uh recommendation. So, this is Z2511. It's a text amendment related to middle housing. Uh this text amendment you initiated in August of this year, very similar to Kristen's. Um and this one is the result of House Bill 2721, which was adopted in 2024. Um back in that time we adopted a central business district in 2024 in compliance with this uh legislation. Uh but it had a second component to it that by January of 2026 the municipality needed to authorize by ordinance regulations that would allow for the development of middle housing which is defined as a duplex, triplex, forplex and town homes um on lot zone for single family within one mile of the central business district which in the town of Gilbert is the heritage district. um as well as on 20% of any new development that's 10 contiguous acres or more. Uh that's throughout the town, not specific to the central business district. So that could be any any new development of 10 acres or more. Uh that includes single family housing. Uh if we don't adopt these regulations by January 1st of 2026, uh middle housing will be allowed on all lots zoned for single family use without limitation. And so, um, as I mentioned, you'll see this back before you in November, and then it'll go to council, uh, once we have a recommendation from planning commission in anticipation of getting this adopted prior to January 1st. Uh, the House bill has a number of items that municipalities may not do as it relates to um the ordinance that we have to adopt. We cannot restrict middle housing types to less than two floors. We can't restrict the floor area ratio. Uh we can't set restrictions that are more restrictive than those of a single family home in the same zoning district. Uh we can't require an owner uh to occupy any structure on lot on the lot. Um and we can't require it to comply with commercial building codes or contain a fire sprinkler. Um I know at initiation that was a question that came up and so that's something that our building department will uh have to address through um their their building code and their review process. We're not specifically writing anything into our code related to that. Um, and then additionally, we can't require more than one parking space per unit. Um, so I'm just going to quickly walk I know this is a lot of text on your slides that wasn't included as part of your staff report. Um, so I'll just kind of quickly walk through this. Um, what we're looking at doing is amending section 2.0 terms. Um, and what we want to do is we want to add a definition for middle housing and then have a subset of definitions underneath that. So that uh duplex, forplex, town homes, and triplexes. Uh these definitions come from the state statute and they would apply specifically to middle housing. Um because these definitions are a a little bit unique. Um I think when we think of a duplex, for example, we typically think of um one building that contains two two dwelling units. Um in this case, the state defined a duplex as being attached or detached. Um, and so we want to make sure that where we're allowing duplexes related to middle housing, um, we're kind of framing it that that detached duplexes are allowed in areas of middle housing, not broadly across the town because we otherwise defined uh, duplexes differently. Um, we're also amending table 3.1.2. This is our use regulations. And so what we would do here is we would add a category for middle housing. um and then uh provide additional um additional standards where they would go and find the specific regulations related to middle housing. So it would be permitted on all single family lots but then again subject to the section that it's that it refers you to here in the very far right hand column. Uh and so that brings us to this section. We would add section 5.1.18 to our supplemental use regulations. And this would outline um specifically what uh would be the uh development standards and review processes for middle housing. Um a couple of things that were not included in the legislation that we wanted to ensure that our code offered some clarification to. Um and so you know seeking seeking feedback on these items. Um the legislation requires that we allow it on single family zoned properties within one mile of the central business district. it was not clear or it it gave some latitude on whether or not you would allow that within your central business district as well. And so staff's version of this does propose that we would allow middle housing within the central business district. Um it also did not clarify whether or not parcels within that onem buffer area needed to be wholly or partially within the central business or within the buffer area to qualify. And so we've added a provision that the um the lot would need to be entirely within the buffer area to qualify for a middle housing um just to make sure that we're uniformly AC applying this. Um and then there are the provision as well that would allow it on any new development greater than 10 contiguous acres. Uh and then we would limit that to no more than 20% of the total net area as well as no more than 20% of lots within the development. Uh and then again we would add in uh development standards. So this is in compliance with um all of those provisions that I said we could not um regulate. So uh they would have to comply with the same setbacks and development standards of those single family lots. And then in terms of the application process, again, this is in compliance with the language from the the legislature um in that it uh will not be a process more ownorous than a typical single family development. Um we might see some tweaks to this language as it goes through the rest of our internal review process, but um essentially this is uh the proposed um text of that section of code. And then lastly, I had mentioned that we're not allowed to require more than one parking spaces per unit. And so in our parking table, we would also propose to amend um the table 5.3.6B to add middle housing as a use classification. Um and then specify that our parking requirement is one space per unit. Uh typical multif family, we do require more than that. And so we felt the need to add this to comply. Uh as I mentioned, we do plan to bring this back to planning commission at your next meeting in November for consideration. Um, and then following that, we would take it to council. Happy to answer any questions you have. Um, but I'd also appreciate any feedback you might have related to this this text amendment. >> Lovely. Thank you, Ashley. Does anyone have any general feedback that she'd like to share at this time? I'll just say that when we keep saying middle housing, I get like the ominous voice of like a Tolkenesque like we're talking about the hobbits down in middle housing. Anyway, that but I I do also want to comment on the fact that it's very interesting to call a duplex that's separated. Um that I like that. And I I just want to point out the irony that it wasn't that long ago that we had to go through an amendment to accessory dwelling structures where we had I believe it was a rule you could have the roof line carried over and there was some very artistic utilizations of roofs that would go from a house and just like a 2x4 would have roof tiles on it and then they would have another one that now this will allow that and I'll just want and I Just wonder if they'll keep that little roof. But that's my comment on it. Anyone else? Okay. Hopefully my nonsense feedback gave you enough of what you needed, Ashley. >> It did. Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Well, with that we get to move right along into the efficient use of time in number eight and a discussion of the regular meeting agenda. And I don't know if Commissioner Davis is No, I I I saw her come in. I was just going to say if she wanted to come up for wanted or two await the >> actually can I ask a question on this? Would it make sense to go back to item one so Jenna could get sworn in for the public hearing or do you want to do that during >> I was going to do it after this discussion and then Yeah. Yes sir. So on the regular meeting as it currently stands, we have the consent agenda has one item, item S2506, Melrose Park preliminary plaque. Is there anybody that wants that removed from consent? And then is there anyone here who wish to speak on item number 12? Yes, sir. Okay. >> Well, here >> Oh, okay. Yes, sir. So, I believe then that without public comment, um, and when you say answer any questions, you're the developer or >> engineer. >> Okay. Engineer. Yes, sir. Okay. So, I was just looking for more public comment if it needed to be removed. So, not seeing any. I think um the agenda could remain as is. Anyone else have anything else? Because we don't have any other items. Okay. discussion. As my father used to say, end of discussion. Okay. Then I'd like to uh in invite General Lions and uh Council Member Monty Lions to who aren't related. It's Lion and Lions. I pluralize both. You know, like I said, they're doing things. I feel like it's a test on me, but to go back to swear her in uh because she was unable to be here tomorrow morning. So, thank you. Yeah, I just want to go the mic. We can't hear online. >> All right. All right. Very good. Um, I want you to repeat after me, please. Okay. I state your name. >> I, Jenna Lion. >> Do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona >> and the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona >> and the ordinances of the town of Gilbert, Maricopa County, Arizona >> and the laws and ordinances of the town of Gilbert and Maricopa, Arizona. that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. >> That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. >> and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic. >> and and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic. >> And that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of a planning commission member. >> And that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of planning commission. in Gilbert, Arizona. >> in Gilbert, Arizona. >> According to the best of my ability, so help me God. >> According to the best of my ability, so help me God. >> Congratulations. Very good. I need you to sign this. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, very good. Uh that then will adjourn the work session. Given the short meeting, do we want a fivem minute break or do we want to just carry on? >> Okay, look at that. >> Trot out the cake. >> Yeah, the cake, right? All right, then we are going to move on. So, let me turn my mic off. That's the end. Okay, welcome. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting and the first item will be the pledge of allegiance. Please join with me. Okay, thank you very much. Could we get a roll call, Ashley? Alternate Commissioner Wong. >> I'm here. >> Alternate Commissioner Lion. >> Commissioner Deg Gravina >> here. >> Commissioner Gage. >> Commissioner Davis. >> Commissioner Simon >> here. >> Commissioner Anderson >> here. >> Vice Chair Fay >> present. >> And Commissioner Munt >> here. >> Uh Chairman, we have a quorum. >> Wonderful. Okay, we'll move on to item number nine now. The approval of the agenda that we just discussed way back in the end of the uh study session. So, I will entertain a motion. >> Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as written. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. We have a motion for approval. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded from the vice chair. If you could cast your vote when you have a moment for the approval of the agenda as written. I'll just note we don't have our screen on that tells us what our vote is. I think it says it on here too though, but no, it sure doesn't. Oh, yes it does. Motion carries six zero. Isn't there seven of us? >> I don't think you voted. me. Okay. Now, now I'm really gonna say that that is I'm gonna vocally say yes. I clicked yes and it went off the vote screen here. Even >> Hello, Kettle. May I introduce you to the >> This is amazing. This is Ashton Kutcher is going to come running out and uh get me, but that's fine. Motion carries 70 because I did vote yes. Very good. Okay. Woo. Communications. Let's uh move into item 10, communication for citizens. And uh currently we don't have any cards from citizens that wish to speak on items not on the agenda. And I don't see anyone in the vast arena out here that is speaking. So we will move past that. On to item number 11, report from council leazison on current events. And uh council member line, >> I don't have anything at this time. >> Thank you very much, sir. Okay, we'll move into the public hearing consent. All items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar. The commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing, no person requests the item to be removed from the consent calendar. If any request is made, the commission shall then withdraw the item for public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action. Other items may be added to the agenda or the consent agenda and approved under a single motion. We only have the one item so that is not pertinent. The one item on the consent agenda here is item 12, S2506 Melrose Park preliminary plat. And do I have a motion on the consent? >> Yes, chairman. I'd make a motion to approve the consent agenda as written. >> Thank you, Vice Chairman. We have a motion for approval. Do I have a second? >> I second it. Commissioner Wong with the second. Please cast your vote. Okay. There it is. Motion carries. 70. Okay. Moving on to the administrative items. Administrative items are for the commission discussion and action. It is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input request on any administrative item. Persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete the public comment card indicating the number on which do you wish to speak and address. The commission may or may not accept public comment. There is no public comment currently for this and the only item on is item 13, the planning commission meeting minutes from September 10th, 2025. Did anyone have any amendments or any changes that they saw needed or required for those minutes? Otherwise, we could have a motion. M >> chairman, I'd move to approve the minutes as written. >> We have a motion from the vice chair to approve the planning commission minutes from September 10th, 2025 as written. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second from Commissioner De Garina. Please cast your vote and the motion carries 70 minutes approved. Okay. There is no executive session in the beginning of the communication section. We will go directly into item 14. Report from the chairman and members of the commission on current events. Who's got something? Okay. I don't even have anything. >> I don't know if it's a current event, but uh Lisa says hi from Grand from the Cayman Islands where she is tonight, not at the meeting. >> Wow. Must be nice. Uh I am here which is really good too guys. Trust me. Um, well, thank you. And we will move then to item 15 and the report from the planning services manager on current events Ashley. >> Just a thank you to the planning commission. It's National Community Planning Month in October. So, thank you all for your service. >> You're welcome. Okay. Well, with that then uh >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? Second from the vice chair. Please cast your vote. I don't know if it'll count, but yoink. Seven to nothing. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. And uh meeting adjourned. I