Gilbert Planning Commission Approves Data Center Framework and Harvest Grove Rezoning Amid Architectural and Regulatory Scrutiny

All right, on that note, uh let's call this uh study session to order. First order uh item on the agenda here is item Z2605 North Side P Amendment and Miss Kristen Divine. Thank you. All right. Good evening, commission. Uh the case I have for you for discussion tonight on study session is going to be for north side phase 3. It is for a PD amendment for the Crossroads Center planned area development near the Santan Regional Mall.

So it's going to be located on Santan Village Parkway between Ray Road and Williamsfield. Um it's just adjacent of Main Event and uh the Santan Mall area on the east side of Santan Village. You can see it here highlighted in green on the map. So, the input I'm looking for you uh for from you for tonight is going to be on the proposed PD amendment, including the deviations, which will include an increase in the density allowed on site as well as an increase in the height for the development.

And then any other general feedback that you'd like to provide is much appreciated. All right. So, just for some context as to where we're at, um the the surrounding zoning is all regional commercial with the exception of the 202 freeway to the east. It's zoned PFI. Again, you have Main Event to the north. You have um a hotel and a various commercial retail plaza to the west. And then you have an apartment complex and the Santan Regional Mall to the south.

This is the development plan that's being proposed. Um currently proposed are about 300 units on about 10.38 acres. It averages out to about 28.9 dwelling units per acre. and the zoning would remain regional commercial with a planned area development. Again, just amending that PAD to include the two deviation requests. And this is just a concept landscape plan kind of showing the connectivity between the proposed development and the commercial development that exists to the west.

Um, included in the proposed development is likely to be a cornhole lawn, a dog park, pools and spas, a yoga lawn and event lawn, an entry water feature matching the commercial feature to the west, and then also a perimeter fitness trail surrounding the development. And just to see kind of where we're at with this area here, this is a phasing plan. So, the blue is phase one. Again, that's a mixed retail area. It is existing today. Uh, phase two was the hotel. It also is existing.

Phase three is proposed to be this multif family development and then phase four in orange is a future commercial pad or to be determined when it does come in. All right. So the deviations that are being requested tonight are again an increase in height from 36 ft to 60 ft or four stories. Um with the P A multif family by right in this zoning district at 36 feet high. Um the applicant is requesting an increase to 60 ft. Uh the density allowed through the ordinance is 22 dwelling units per acre.

The applicant is requesting 34 dwelling units per acre. Um this is pretty consistent with a 2019 approval for that apartment complex just to the south. Um where they had requested a 55 ft height and also the same density 34 dwelling units per acre. Just as a [clears throat] note, u multif family is allowed by right within regional commercial in the crossroads crossroads center PA AD up to 20% of that development and we are still within that range.

Um one note that I would like to add on the development plan though is that we do have a few concerns with the proposed parking that we have provided to the applicant. Um they are proposing tandem parking spaces and we don't allow those tandem spaces as required parking spaces. They can have them but only in excess. So they will need to kind of reconfigure the site just a little bit to to fit in the extra parking spaces that they are below. All right.

And then here are just some concept renderings kind of showing the connectivity again between the multif family development and the existing commercial to the west. [clears throat] And then one more concept rendering here. All right. Okay. And then just a reminder, we are looking for feedback on those proposed deviations and any other general feedback that you'd like to provide. I'm available for your questions. All right. Thank you very much.

Does anybody like to start off with some feedback or questions for Kristen? Okay. Well, I guess then forever hold your Oh, Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair. Um, I was just curious. Um, it shows it looks like there is a water feature on the other side, but I don't know. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to removing water features on in today's world that maybe an art piece or something would be more appropriate, but I'm good either way, but just a suggestion moving forward. So, thank you. Okay.

Well, it sounds like it was thorough enough then uh that you've left us speechless. You guys are giving me a little bit of a complex up here. Yeah, you and me both. All right. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda, item number two DR25170 Black Rock Coffee Park View at Morrison Ranch. And we'll hear from Miss Nicole Russell. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Nicole Russell, senior planner.

The subject site is an approximate 78 acres and located at the southeast corner of Higgley Road and Bloomfield Parkway and a zoned shopping center with a planned area development overlay. The applicant is proposing a 735 foot drive-through coffee shop with an outdoor seating area and associated parking. The site is accessed both there's two entrances, one off of uh Bloomfield. There's also one off Higgley and one off of Warner to the south.

The master site plan for Park View at Morrison Ranch was approved in April of 2025. The master site plan approved three of the 11 pad sites along with the building elevations and floor plans. The remaining eight pad sites are required to go through the full design review process, including public hearing to obtain approval for the proposed uses and associated elevations and floor plans.

The overall center was approved with design criteria that included specific colors and materials to establish a cohesive design for the project. On the screen, you'll see that this is the master site plan that was approved with staff notes. Currently, we do have DR25170 for the black rock on the right hand side of your screen and we have two that are in process that are on the left hand side of the screen.

The key principle for a master site plan is establishing consistent design standards across the development. While the buildings are not required to match precisely, the intent is to ensure a cohesive and visual identity. The proposed materials and colors. Sorry, jumped ahead. Um, are [clears throat] presented as a baseline with the materials board serving as a general guide for the overall design theme.

Here is the proposed site plan showing the 735 square foot building with the drive-thru lane wrapping around the site with associated parking in the center of the site. [snorts] Here is the approved colors with DR2496, the original approval for the master site plan on your left with the proposed colors and materials on the right hand side with green boxes around the proposed expansion to the approved colors and materials.

The applicant requests the expansion of the approved colors and materials throughout the master site plan site, aiming to offer greater flexibility for future corporate branding and future uses on the site. The updated colors and materials board introduces one new color, two additional wall and roof metals, and four new materials. These additions would become available to the entire development moving forward if approved.

The applicant clarifies that the board does not prohibit the use of other complimentary colors or materials that fit under the broader aesthetic. The applicant indicates that the narrative that proposed colors and materials are not meant to be restrictive. According to the applicant's narrative, these enhancements are intended to promote flexibility. Staff has noted concerns regarding these proposed uh ideals.

So, here are some of the elevations that were previously approved as part of the master site plan. On the top, the shops building as well as the Mountainside Fitness. The Chipotle was administratively approved since it was shown on the master site plan and you can see the design of that building. Here are the elevations for the Black Rockck.

Staff has noted concerns regarding the architectural articulation and the proposed building elevations do not exhibit the same level of detail previously approved for other structures in the development. A more unified designo approach would enhance cohesion while staff supports the inclusion of additional colors and materials. staff is concerned that unrestricted brander user branding and architectural styles could undermine the cohesion of the design of the master site plan.

Just to reiterate, the goal of a master site plan is to establish the overall site design with respect to building placement, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscape design, preliminary grading and drainage, and other significant on-site and off-site improvements and design elements per the LDC.

Here are some of the renderings that are provided by the applicant and staff is looking for general feedback on the elevations as well as colors and materials and any other feedback you would like to provide. The application is currently in fifth review and will be comments will be issued with uh the planning commission's input to the applicant with this next review. And that really concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much, Nicole.

Anybody have any questions or comments? Uh, Commissioner Simon. Nicole, thank you for the presentation. I would I would um agree with staff. I think that both the north and the south um walls on this project are very bland and don't fit into what the character area is um that we're striving for. I also feel like um I think it's the west elevation and and that's going to be facing the residence or no that'll be facing Higgley. Correct. So the west. So um I just I I don't know.

I just feel like there can be more done to this to make it more interesting and fit in with the rest of the development. So in agreement with staff on that. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Commissioner Anderson. Uh thank you for that presentation. Um question I have why is it on fifth review? Is it because of this building in the design of it? It just um they can't come to um a consensus that you guys both agree on.

Chair Munt and Commissioner Anderson, staff has had several meetings with the applicant to try to um communicate that although a master site plan does not require buildings to be matchy matchy, um it does require them to look like they belong together and to use similar colors and materials. and staff. Um, we've brought this to the team and the team along with myself feel that this is not meeting the intent of the master site plan design standards. Okay. I I agree with you.

I know some of the buildings are kind of up vertical they are now and from the architecture that I remember and the materials and kind of color placements. I just I agree. I just I think what's design proposed would not fit in well with that area. So, um, hopefully they'll listen to you and come up with some sort of design that would fit into that area.

I mean, just even like looking at the little roof that's on top, like that little cap, it just looks like it was kind of an afterthought or it was a reaction to a comment that they just kind of plop that up there. Um, even usually 3D renderings kind of help sell the building a little bit more, but even the the 3D rendering that you presented is kind of underwhelming.

So, um, yeah, hopefully, uh, you know, the applicant will kind of, um, listen to you and staff and come up with a a lot better design that will fit into that area. Thank you. Thank you for your feedback, Commissioner. Uh, Davis, do you have something? Yeah, I do. Thank you. Um, I agree with my fellow commissioners here, Nicole, but, um, I feel pretty strongly that, um, this building I don't I don't really understand how they got here.

When I look at other Black Rockcks, I don't know that I've ever not liked a Black Rock building. They're generally pretty nice. They usually have they're kind of modern and they have some cool windows. They have some cool forms to them. Typically, you see the volumes being I get that they're modular, but usually there's like a a taller volume and then the the rectangle pushed together in some way. It makes it a little more interesting. Um they use a lot of brick typically.

Um, the way these materials are applied, I I'm just not seeing where it's enhancing it. The roof is unusual. The height of the building seems unnecessary. Um, it feels like they could break that up. I know it's a small building, but I think it needs to go a lot further. I don't like to see transitions of materials midwall when there's not really a plane change. Um, there's a lot of that going on, too, or right at the corner and it's not turning the corner. I think they should look at that.

Um, they should look at some of their other buildings around the valley and take the lead from some of those. I think they've got some good ones out there. I just think for this corner and that and for Gilbert, I just don't think it's an acceptable building. So, in that's my position on it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone on the right side? No. Okay. Well, hopefully that gives you what you need there, Nicole. Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate you. Always a pleasure.

Okay, then moving on to item three, LDC text amendment. And uh bring Kristen Divine back. All right. Good evening again. Um, so the case I have for you tonight is going to be for a text amendment. Um, this one's kind of a two-parter, so I'm going to give a full presentation. Um, we haven't initiated this yet. So, the beginning of our conversation will be asking if you would like to initiate it.

If you do decide to initiate it, um, then the next part of the conversation can be like the study session discussion. Um, but just for kind of consistency and everything, I'd like to just give one presentation with all the information if that's okay up front. Yes, please do. All right. So, this text amendment is going to be for unmanned aircraft and commercial drone delivery systems. Um, again, we are requesting input um on the text amendment itself.

But first, we would like to conduct a citizen review meeting and initiate that text amendment. if you do decide to move forward with that, um we would like to discuss the proposed text amendment. Um so why is this needed? Um this is a result of House Bill 2875. It takes effect in September. Um what that House bill does is limit municipal regulation on unmanned aircraft and their associated systems. Um within the bill, we're given guidelines on what we can and cannot regulate.

Um, so kind of a summary of what we are able to regulate are unmanned public unmanned aircraft owned by the town, takeoff and landing of model aircraft in a town-owned park or preserve, takeoff, docking, landing of commercial drone delivery in residential areas or within 150 ft of a residential area, which is where we're focusing our text amendment largely on, and commercial drone delivery on town property.

And I would like to touch on although it's not required per this house bill to adopt any sort of regulations, we're just trying to be proactive in it by establishing clear guidelines, we have had interested parties already that are um talking about putting docking stations and whatnot within the town. So, we're just trying to get those guidelines out there as as soon as possible so there's clear outlines.

Um this here is just an example before we even get into like the terminology and everything so you know um what we're talking about a drone dropbox. Um, these are features that would be at like drive-through restaurants that are partnered with the commercial drone delivery systems. Uh, the employees would come out, they would load the food into this box. The drone then goes into the box and picks up the food and then leaves again.

Um, this is a drone docking station, which is a larger structure that houses many of the drones that come to charge while they're not out delivering. [clears throat] All right. And then what we're proposing is to amend um a few sections of the code. The first being terms. So we would like to add definitions for unmanned aircraft, commercial drone model aircraft, public unmanned aircraft, unmanned aircraft system, commercial drone delivery system, drone docking station, and drone dropbox.

The definitions that we are um using are consistent with those adopted as part of House Bill 2875. We'd also like to amend the use regulations table to allow um docking stations as a permitted use in all non-residential zoning districts. With that though, we are requesting to add two limitations to the use regulations table.

Um the first one being that drone docking stations and drone dropboxes within two and a half miles of an airport shall [clears throat] provide proof of consultation with the airport as established in House Bill 2875 as part of the application package. And the second is that drone docking stations shall not be located within 150 ft of residential zoning districts consistent with the regulation limitations that are established in the House bill.

We would also like to amend the t uh use regulations table by adding that drone dropboxes are a permitted use in all non-residential zoning districts as long as they are not within 50 ft of residential, which is consistent with our LDC section 3.4.5 4.5 um explaining that commercial activity within 50 ft of residential all needs to be indoors. Um this applies to like drive-throughs and stuff as well. We don't allow drive-throughs within 50 ft of residential.

So, we're trying to keep those guidelines consistent. And then the last uh proposal that we have is to add a section to the code, section 5.11 for unmanned aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and commercial drone delivery systems. This is really just to outline those requirements that I mentioned before and um just make any technical and conforming changes that are require um needed. [clears throat] And then this is just a list of the terms that we are adding.

Um we are amending one term as well which is structure. I've included that one at the top. Um it's largely the same. The only thing we've added is specifying that a drone docking station and a drone dropbox is considered a structure. And this is just summarizing what you'll find in section 5.11.

Um, so in residential zoning districts and non-residential districts within 150 ft of residential, commercial drones are prohibited from landing anywhere in a residential zoning district or within 150 ft unless within an approved dropbox or for a delivery. Uh, drone docking stations, the larger structures, shall not be located in residential zoning districts or within 150 ft of a residential zoning district.

And then drone drop boxes shall not be located in residential zoning districts or within 50 ft of any property zoned residential. And then for non-residential zoning districts um except as otherwise stated within the land development code um and the commercial drone delivery systems may operate in any non-residential zoning district.

Um and then within 2.5 miles of an airport, we do just need proof of consultation with that airport that they're okay with the structures being located within their vicinity. All right. All right. And with that, um, the first step is to, um, initiate the text amendment and conduct a citizen review meeting. Um, and if we move past that, then I would like to discuss your thoughts on the text amendment. Okay. Thank you very much.

Anybody want to start off or is this were you saying that we need to do something before we can discuss it? I don't are there questions before initiating or do we how does Yeah, we better check with legal here. Yeah, it it's really at your discretion if you'd like to ask your questions um now before initiating. You can or you can save them. All right. Well, then without addressing her, does anyone have any discussion of whether we should initiate or discuss Commissioner Simon?

So I just quick question. So any drone operation now is required to be certified by the FAA um whether commercial or private. How is this going to work in conjunction with what the FAA does? And by us requiring them to prove that they're working with the airport. I mean, it kind of seems like we're just doubling up to double up because they're going to have to in order to be able to carry a license. Yeah.

So, Chairman, Commissioner Simon, um, we just included it because it was part of the regulations that were in that house bill that they allowed the municipalities to kind of put that into their stipulations. So, we just kind of pulled it from that language as well. Um, they are regulated, like you said, by the FAA. So, we we don't really have any enforcement capabilities for the drones themselves.

What we're looking at more is the structures and we just want to ensure that they have done their due diligence and that the structures associated with those drones are in an appropriate location. Okay. Thank you, vice chair. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Um, as I I' I've kind of mentioned before that that the law doesn't say we need to do this. The law says there's a bunch of things we can't do, which is very typical. It means the industry got to the legislature.

Um, but I don't really see a problem. I I don't know. I'm wondering if this this looks to me like regulations or a solution looking for a problem more than a problem that needs to be solved. I'm I'm I don't know. I'm not as sure that that any of this really matters. I don't know that we have a problem. We can always do this later if we start to have a problem. And I'm less concerned about the the airport and the drones. That that's it's not our airport. That's an FAA problem.

They can solve as far as I'm concerned. That's a go ahead and solve that yourselves. I don't know that we need to intervene to to solve that problem and I'm not sure that the rest of it necessarily is a problem that we necessarily need to jump in to regulate in a free society. So I'm I don't know. I'm I'm not convinced that there's a need for this at all. Sure. So chairman commissioner f if I may. Um the driving factor more for this than anything else are these structures themselves.

They're very large. There's really no screening that you can have on them. So, we were trying to just make it very clear in our land development code by matching what we are able to regulate through the state that they can't be within 150 ft of residential because we don't want these located right up on somebody's backyard. We want to distance them as much as we're able to.

Even now, if they came in for one of these, wouldn't they need I don't know [clears throat] what a sub or what would they need to come in now if we don't amend the the land development code? They But before the bill passed, they weren't allowed here. Okay. Now the bill's passed. They are allowed and yeah, they're allowed by right in all commercial districts, non-residential zoning districts when it takes effect in September. I'm sorry. Allowed with no restriction. I'm sorry.

Allowed with no restriction. I might phone a friend. If we don't adopt regulations, Elena, can they come in unrestricted or do they? because the House bill explains what we can regulate, but it's not necessarily saying that those structures have to follow those guidelines. Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, members of the commission, I I don't have the bill in front of me, but if memory serves me correctly, it's allowing us to regulate within the residential district.

Um but without those regulations um there is a very big question about whether or not they they have a by right um in all districts. So I think that's what we are attempting to get ahead of is that we are um under the authority of the state statute now we are um establishing land use um regulations within the residential as is permitted under this bill. I'd have to pull up the bill. Thank you. Yeah, I I guess I'm I'm still confused.

So, if we don't initiate this, there's a possibility these are allowed by right in residential zoning or they're allowed by right in any commercial zoning. The bill specifies that they're allowed by right in any non-residential zoning district, but that could mean that they could be 5t from a property line with residential on the other side. Okay. I I guess I guess I'm with Commissioner Fay on this.

I'm I'm just really struggling on overregulation and I understand where we're trying to go with it. I get it. But thinking at it from a development perspective, if I'm putting this on commercial property, I'm going to want barriers around it. It's going to be, you know, in a in a space that these can come and go freely. So, it's not going to be up against residential. It's not going to be up against trees or power lines. it's going to be in an area that it can get a clear run in and out of this.

Um, and I understand what what staff is attempting to do. I just I'm I'm really struggling with the practicality of [snorts] the application of what is happening because if if let's say let's say a commercial developer comes and says, "Hey, we're going to lease just like a a cell tower. We're going to lease part of our land to one of these charging stations." the staff, planning commission and council has the ability to regulate at this level where they can put that on that piece of property.

So, I just don't know if going deeper and adding this in to the extent that it's looking at is is a necessary step and I don't know if there's going to be unintended consequences that overrestrict something in the future that then we have to go back and fix then. So, I don't know. I mean, it's I I guess maybe to approve a study session on it or approve that I could see that, but I just am I'm I'm not necessarily seeing how us putting more restriction on what is already there would make sense.

So, Chairmont, Commissioner Simon, there there aren't really any restrictions that are there currently. Like this is just establishing setbacks almost like it has to be 150 ft from a residential district just like a a wireless tower would be. They have specified setbacks. I guess a difference would be the process. This would not come to you.

It would well depending on where it's located, it would come through um as an administrative design review because we would need to see the site plan for it to ensure that it's meeting, you know, parking counts still for the plaza that it's going in or whatever. Um but we're we're kind of just trying to keep it along those same lines as a wireless tower. Like we want a certain distance from residential.

It's it's a very large structure and we're just trying to protect the residential homes by not allowing it right up on residential. So, can you remind me because I have a very short-term memory what it is that staff is asking for right now. Um, so we would like to initiate the text amendment, conduct the citizen review if anyone is here to speak on it, and just discuss the topic. Uh, it'll come back for a public hearing recommendation at a later date. Okay.

And and do we have the ability to change any of the language in what you have currently? Yes, absolutely. So, uh, Chair M, Commissioner Simon, what's been presented to you tonight is a draft. Um, it's it's a work in progress. So, because this kind of does serve as the study session, we're open to all of your suggestions that you have. We'll try to incorporate those within the bill or bill text amendment and bring that back to you for a formal recommendation. Thank you, Commissioner Davis.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I guess I come at it from a different perspective in that I think it's important to protect our residential districts. We have, you know, guidelines for cell towers. These are going to be more obtrusive than those. I think residents are going to be unhappy if these go near them, especially they could live near a commercial center or a non-residential zoning all over town and this could go in and I imagine they're not super quiet.

Um so I think setting a minimum distance from residential is important. Is the 150 feet how did that you come to that dimension? Sure. So chairman commissioner Davis 150 ft is the maximum that we can regulate per the the regulation of the house bill. I wondered that. Okay. I think it's important to protect our residential district. So I think at a minimum we need to try to institute that requirement. So that's my position. Thank you. Commissioner Hong.

Uh I'm with uh Commissioner Commissioner Davis. Um I seen this thing and if Gilbert if there's no application currently going through Gilbert it will be because I know several cities already receive application for those sign. Some of those are in a very busy commercial uh retail center that close to residential.

So at least have the study sessions and get the input from resident and see you know from their perspective because this thing is huge and I've seen it and um the noise it could be an issue.

So I I you know I like to listen to you know what the resident you know have to say and you know put some sort of uh because like you say right now there's nothing there's no regulations yet and by right they can come in just go through you know the normal process to apply for um you know the the permit to build this thing. So, I'd like to, you know, at least look into that, put some sort of a guard wheel in there to protect us. So, thank you, Chair M, Commissioner Wang.

Um, and then just to touch on that, we have received a pre-application. It was back in March. It was for a property on Gilbert and Baseline. It's approximately about 140 ft away from residential. Um, so they are coming. If they're not here yet, they they are. We're just trying to be proactive by putting these guidelines in place ahead of time. Uh, Commissioner Anderson. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I kind of agree with Commissioner Davis as well.

I think that this stuff is coming and let's just get prepared for it. Let's put some some sort of language in our LDC that um, [clears throat] you know, protects the residential areas from these from these things. Essentially, all you're really doing is saying this is where you can put them. Once they're up in the air, then the FFA regulations kind of take over from there.

Um, you know, it's it's the cool and kind of scary thing is like the technology that's out there today is just so advanced and it's quickly advancing and this stuff is just going to be part of our daily lives. I mean, we got little red robots running around delivering our lunches now. I keep ordering Door Dash hoping to get one of these guys, but I keep getting a person coming to my office with my lunch just because I want this little little red robot to come to my office.

So, I think it's, you know, once these things are flying around, you know, we're going to be hopping on Amazon wanting to get delivered by one of these things because it's just cool. So, um, yeah, I I And then can you just just kind of explain the whole process again just to make sure that we're all understanding. So, we do we open it up to the public, see if anybody's here, then we initiate it.

You go do your research, you come back, do another presentation, then is it a study session, and then come back for a vote, and then it goes on to council. So there's going to be there's layers of stuff that we're going to do to make sure that we kind of get this right in the LDC. Sure. So Chairman, Commissioner Anderson, um we are kind of doing this one a little quicker. We're trying to do this one a little quicker than traditional text amendments that you would see.

So typically we would bring it back or we would bring it to you originally for an initiation and citizen review. Um from there we would do additional research. We would bring it back at a separate hearing for a study session and then the following month or however we would come back for a public hearing recommendation.

Um, in the case of tonight, because the bill does take effect in September, we're trying to get this to council within September as well, so that the the timelines kind of line up. So, tonight is going to serve as the citizen review and initiation um and the study session essentially.

So, whatever feedback you have, please please give it to me so that I can try to incorporate it into the the language, draft language that you've received and bring that revised version back to you for a public hearing. All right. Thank you for that.

And then um just I do have a question that if you could do include with your research when you're figuring all that stuff out, are these things going to be a are they going to be flying crossing town lines and city lines or like say if there's a station that's in Gilbert, they're just staying within our town and they're not going to like Mesa, Tempe or you know Wood Chandler or whatever. It's just are they just kind of located within town? That's just a curious question. Sure.

So Chairman, Commissioner Anderson, I don't have a for sure answer for you. Um, I would imagine that they're crossing town lines just because we do have so many municipalities in the general vicinity. I don't imagine that because it's in Gilbert, they're only going to deliver in Gilbert, but I can try to find out for you. Okay. Anyone else have any discussion questions about Skynet? My husband said the same thing. Yeah.

I mean, I I I think that like right now what [clears throat] we're talking about is where these things can emanate from, but in no way are we going to stop them from just buzzing everywhere around us at any given moment. So, it's I mean, it's kind of like, yeah, that's cute. We're going to not let you build here. We need 150 ft. They're like, cool. We'll build on the dump and then send a thousand everywhere. Black out the sky. But anyway, that's probably a little too too dystopian.

I don't want to go that far. Yeah. Um All right. So, without further ado, then I guess we can Can you put back up what are Do I have to say like certain words or just Yes, please initiate those things. Do we need a vote? No vote is necessary. It's um there's discretion. How about that? All right. [clears throat] Well, judging by everything I've heard, I'm going to allow it. Let's conduct a citizen review meeting and initiate a text amendment. Awesome. Thank you, chairman.

And if you you all do think of any other feedback or any other revisions that you'd like included in the draft, please feel free to reach out to me so I can get that get that down. Very good. Thank you, Chairman Munt. As part of the initiation, can you open it to the public in case anybody is here uh for the citizen input? I was just about to do that. Very good.

Um, as we've opened up to the public, is there anyone here that would like to speak on uh the review as it relates to the delivery drone text amendment? All right. Don't see any. Very well. Then I will close that public. Okay. Moving on then to item number five. Well, let's uh have a discussion of the regular meeting agenda. Sure, everyone's had time to thoroughly review their packets and uh come with anything.

Currently, we have on the consent agenda items 9 and 10 an LDC text amendment and then the Harvest Grove neighborhood commercial which consists of a GP and a Z and then a non-consent there is no items. Does anyone have any thing they'd like to discuss about uh the two items that are currently on the consent agenda? Chairman Munt, um we need to add a condition to uh the Harvest Grove neighborhood commercial GP20 uh Z2606. Um so staff would request that that be moved to uh non-consent, please.

Awesome. 50% has to move off then. Actually, that's more. So, both of those I guess. Are you saying we would separate the Z or just take item 10 and move it? You can just take item 10. Okay. All right then. We're going to take item 10 and put it on to the old uh non-conent. Anyone else have anything else they'd like to uh Very well then that'll conclude that discussion. All right. Well, with that we can adjourn our study session and see everyone back in uh 14 minutes for the regular meeting.

Thank you very much. It was so great. What's happening? It's not All right, we are now at 602. So I will call the regular meeting to order. First order of business will be waiting for our planning service manager to get back to her chair because I prematurely called the meeting. I should have given a look. I'm sorry. Uh we will do the uh pledge of allegiance. Please join me. Could I please have a roll call? Uh, Commissioner Wong, I'm here. Commissioner Lion. Commissioner uh, Gage, here.

Commissioner Davis, here. Commissioner Simon here. Commissioner Anderson here. Vice Chair Fay present and Commissioner Mut here and Commissioner D. Grabina. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. Okay. Discussion and approval of the agenda as we've discussed in our study session. We are going to take item 10 and move it to the non-consent as per the request from staff. If I could have a motion reflecting that, please.

Chair, I will make a motion to approve the uh agenda, moving item 10 to the non-consent and keeping the remainder the same. Thank you very much, Commissioner Simon. Do I have a second? I will second that. Second from the vice chair. Please cast your vote. It's a yes. No. Motion carries. Okay. Communications. Item seven, communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission.

The commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to state law, action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism, or scheduling that matter for further consideration. I don't have any comment cards reflecting anyone wishing to speak on items not on the agenda. I will ask, is there anyone here who did wish to speak on anything not on the agenda? Very well.

Moving on to item number eight, report from council leaison [laughter] on current events and uh council member lines. Nothing in particular, but just want to remind everybody that school has started and there's children in the streets and parents picking up kids. So be mindful of your surroundings and watch that and wish them a happy return to the classroom. Thank you very much, Councilman. My kids have been in school for like two weeks. It's It's amazing.

I didn't I used to not go back till September. So I don't know. That's when the hay got put in those. That's right. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. Then moving on to I think Yeah. All right. To the 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 such a request is made, the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action. Other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion. As discussed, we have item number nine alone here now on the consent, the SZ2601 LDC text amendment. Mr. Chairman, my apologies if I may.

Um, it's my understanding that uh Sal or staff does have an update for item number nine and under the rules you uh you can withdraw that item from Oh, yes. You know what? S did tell me that too. Oh, look at that. O, do we need to amend start over? No, I'm just going to disallow any voting on this and uh we'll have pull it off consent, too. Yeah, let's let's let's just redo the motion. Um I'm going to as chair uh ask for a motion.

Uh move to remove item nine from the current consent agenda, which means there is no longer any consent. So amending our original so discussion of [clears throat] the agenda. We are going to now have a motion by the vice chair to take item nine to join item 10 on the non-consent. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Simon. If you would please cast your vote once again on this. [cough and clears throat] Motion carries 70. Okay.

I wouldn't have had to read that paragraph on the consent, but everybody likes my oration anyway. Moving on now to the non-consent. Non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by a separate motion. During the public hearings, anyone wishing to comment in support or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so.

If you wish to comment on a public hearing item, you must fill out a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard. Once the hearing is closed, there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the commission. Okay. Starting then, we will go to item number nine, Z2601 LDC text amendment, and invite S to discuss the thing he did tell me about. [clears throat] Uh, good evening, commissioners. Sal Des Santo, Planner 2.

Uh, and I appreciate you pulling this item off the uh, consent agenda. I know we have some members of the community here that wanted to to hear the item, so appreciate that. All right. As I mentioned, the item we're taking a look at tonight is Z26-1, an LDC text amendment related to data centers.

[clears throat] uh looking at this as a whole, I know we've had some several opportunities to run through this information at study sessions um at the initiation, but this would be our final uh planning commission hearing before a recommendation to the town council. Um so looking at this as a whole, uh the planning staff is looking to amend the LDC for the data center users.

Uh specifically looking at division two terms, section three bay zoning districts and use regulations, section 3.7 employment districts, section 5.0 additional use and site regulations, and section 5.10 uh data centers, which would be that new section um in in our code. Um the reason for this LDC text amendment is for a few different reasons. Uh the first being is recognizing modern infrastructure needs. Um, data centers are becoming essential components of today's digital economy.

Um, supporting everything from local business operations to online services. Uh, we also want to ensure we're balancing innovation with community protection. Um, while this new infrastructure is important for our digital era, it can also introduce unique impacts such as noise, scale, utility demand, visual character um that require thoughtful examination. Uh, third, we want to proactively establish clear standards.

Um updating the LDC now ensures we have clear predictable standards in place before any significant development moves forward within the town. Um also ensuring compatibility with surrounding neighbors. Um the goal is to create standards that allow data centers to operate effectively while protecting nearby residents and maintaining community quality of life. And the last bit is also creating predictability for applicants and the public.

Uh clear regulations help developers understand requirements upfront and give neighbors confidence that impacts are being responsibly managed. Uh currently in our code we have data center u used only twice. First being the definition of the data center and the use table in section 3.1 where we currently permit data centers in the business park zoning district and the light industrial zoning district.

Uh from the last time we spoke at that study session we actually had an opportunity to dig deeper into the um definition for data centers. Um, we did leave our current data center definition the same, untouched, but we did want to introduce a data center accessory definition just because it is quite difficult to encapsulate u the different sizes and uniquenesses of these data centers into just one specific um category as a take- all beall.

So, this new accessory data center uh definition reads as a data processing and storage facility that is incidental and [clears throat] subordinate to a principal non-data center use located on the same site.

It is permitted only when it occupies no more than 10% of the primary building square footage, serves solely the operational needs of the on-site user, does not provide data storage or processing services to third parties, and is incorporated within the principal structure rather than house in a separate standalone building on the parcel. Um some of the areas we've identified for this update um is of course the permitted uses.

Um as I mentioned currently data centers are only permitted in BP and LI but with this update we want to ensure that the primary data centers are located only in the light industrial and general industrial zoning districts um as they seem to align with you know these larger employment warehouse style developments.

Um, as for the accessory uses or accessory data centers, uh, anything that falls below that 10% threshold of the, um, square footage of the building does not need to come in for any planning application. They're okay to proceed, um, as is with as is with their tenant improvements.

Um, if they do incorporate a accessory data center on site that surpasses that 10%, uh, we would request that that application come in for a special use permit review just to ensure that this equipment infrastructure is properly spaced to surrounding properties. There's no issues related to noise, size, odor, um, you know, some of these these issues and concerns that are related to data centers as a whole.

Um, another thing related to uses is we want to incorporate some language um that modifications, deviations or alternative development standards for data centers will not be permitted through our planned area development process. Um, I touched on it a bit as well, but we also want to ensure that our special use permit application um is the one pursued rather than our conditional use application or conditional use permit application that is currently permitted in code.

So accessory data centers surpassing 10% and primary data centers would require that special use permit application. Um looking at setbacks uh we know this was a a big topic of discussion when looking at um some of these existing data centers within um uh within the vicinity. Um so our first setback is related to properties that are not surrounded by residential.

Um and that is that all building structures, mechanical equipment, uh including electrical transformers, battery cabinets, generators, cooling units, substations, etc. must be set back at minimum 400 ft from property lines. Um if they are adjacent to residential properties, we do want to jump that set back up to 650 ft. Um we also have proximity to electrical infrastructure.

Uh I know we've had this language in this um in this report for quite some time and that was just as we were starting to understand how power is relayed to these data centers. Um going to neighboring communities, we do do know that one specifically has 16 to 19 data centers and every single one of them does have an on-site substation.

So, we want to ensure that with this language, we're playing into the Arizona Corporation Committee to ensure they're providing sufficient grid um reliability and safe service to the community members. [clears throat] Uh looking at design, uh we want to ensure that all mechanical and util utility equipment um are fully screened by a building that is visually and architecturally integrated with the site and surrounding development.

um also providing an alternative um that they may use a decorative screen wall as long as it meets or exceeds the height of the equipment and it is also architecturally treated. Uh we're also incorporating some language that architectural detailing shall be provided on all visible facades from public rightaways and publicly accessible areas. Um, we want to ensure that each main entrance provides um, unique features that differentiate it from the rest of the building.

And we also want to ensure that these data centers are complying with our employment design guidelines. Um, just because these buildings can be quite large without a lot of architectural um, involvement. We want to do our part as the town to ensure that there's still that architectural presence on site. Another area we looked at is building height.

Uh these data centers can range in various sizes you know from 15,000 square feet or below to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of square feet um with varying heights as well.

So, we determined that 55 ft um would be a comfortable height from the town's perspective as that is our max height in the light industrial zoning district and would also provide some um or pull back some of that intensity that these data centers can bring when they start to surpass um um you know 50 60 100 feet that we have seen in person. Um the next area we've looked at is parking. Uh we've landed on a ratio of one space per 6,000 square feet.

Um, this was a difficult one to to really locate just because data centers are unique in the sense that they're very large, but they don't house uh very many employees. Um, maybe two to five at any given time. So, considering the size and the employees, finding that comfortable uh middle ground for parking, uh, us as staff landed on 6,000 square feet. Um, landscaping requirements is our next section we took a look at.

Um we want to ensure that a minimum landscape setback of 35 ft is provided along all street frontages. Uh we want a minimum of 100 foot landscape setback provided on side and rear property lines not adjacent to residential. Uh when the property is adjacent to residential, we would like to bump that landscape setback up to 200 ft.

Uh and one thing that has been added since our previous discussion at study session um is if there are issues related to plantings due to um easements or SRP regulations with the um substations on site and some of this infrastructure that is um ran. We want to make sure that anything that can't be planted in those required landscaped areas are provided elsewhere on site to ensure the quantities are met. Um next is sound mitigation.

We've learned that these data centers can produce um um some sound issues to surrounding property owners or um commercial industries, whatever may be neighboring. So, we want a uh yearly sound study demonstrating compliance with applicable noise standards and identifying required mitigation measures.

Uh looking at lighting, uh data centers shall use full cutoff downward directed fixtures and light trespass caps at residential property lines and upward facing and unshielded lighting methods would not be permitted for these uses.

Um, looking at water, uh, planning staff has had an opportunity to work with our water resources department and after working with them, it does seem that we do have some policies in place that do help the town from heavy uh, water user users such as data center uh, data centers and we do have the sustainable water allocation policy and the water resource management strategy report.

Um some additional standards that we did want to add with this update was also to not provide portable water for data center uses for its cooling systems, humidity control and other simil similar operational needs. And we also wanted to prohibit the use of openloop evaporative cooling systems as these can be very wasteful to water um typically needing five cycles and many times just getting rid of that water after one or two. So, not the best um water mitigation plan.

Um as for fire and safety, uh we want to make sure that there are fire inspections um that [clears throat] are conducted annually through the town. Uh we also want to ensure that there are clear and descriptive door signage um provided at all applicable locations for safe circulation and personnel uh and especially to support emergency responses. That was one of the um the big kickers when we went on these these tours is these buildings can be massive, endless hallways, um highly secured.

So when there is a situation that does require emergency uh response, it can be quite difficult to to navigate the site. Uh next, we also want to take a look at battery decommissioning procedures in transportation plans for damaged and endof life batteries. And then the last piece here is that fire department smoke control panels requirements shall be established at each facility's fire command center.

Uh the fire command center shall be an independent dedicated physical room designed, constructed, and equipped in accordance with applicable IFC and IBC standards. Uh, and much of this information did come from our working with our fire department, with our building uh, department, and working with some other um, municipalities to help establish standards that they've they've they've learned from.

Uh, another thing that we didn't go over in the last hearing, but I wanted to bring it to your attention is just neighborhood noticing. Um, typically in our code for neighborhood notice, it is 300 ft to surrounding property owners and 1,000 ft for all HOAs. Um we did want to bump that buffer to 800 ft for property owners. Uh and that's for a couple of reasons. Um the first being that this isn't something that's completely out of left field from the town.

In our I believe it's the Santan character area. We do have a 660 foot um property owner notification buffer and that's because those are uh larger properties. So we want to encapsulate as many neighbors as we can in this situation. And if we're going to be locating data centers within LI and GI, there aren't too many residential properties within those areas to begin with.

So, we want to increase that buffer just to ensure that if any neighbors are in the area, they are getting properly um notified.

And for next steps for this LDC text amendment um would be a council study or a town council study session uh which we are aiming to bring um on the 11th of August and then following that study session we are aiming to bring it to council for a form uh final determination the September 1st town council hearing and at this time that's all we have for you and staff is requesting a recommendation of approval to the town council for the LDC text amendment related to data centers and I'm happy to answer any questions or field any comments you may have.

Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, S. Anyone have any questions or comments for S? Commissioner Anderson. Uh thank you for the presentation. Question for you regarding the water uh section that you just had up. So it looks like it's been kind of um addressed uh from what was previously presented you know regarding portable water that essentially they can't tap the portable [clears throat] lines for any cooling systems.

Uh when you first presented this to us I had asked you a question is uh do they have the opportunity or um to tap uh the reclaimed water lines? How do we address that? Um, Chairman, Commissioner Anderson, um, after speaking with our water uh, department, it does seem that they would be able to utilize reclaimed water. Um, we I believe we do have someone from water here um, to add a little bit more detail, but I believe they would be able to use reclaimed as a as a water option. Okay. Yeah.

And that the way the [clears throat] reason why I asked that is like is that give them an opportunity to bypass the whole connecting to the portable water for cooling? So they just tap into the reclaimed water and that gives them more opportunities around the tac. So yeah, I'm interested to hear more. Good evening. I'm Lauren Hixson. I'm the water resources manager. So um data centers would be allowed to request reclaimed water service.

Um they wouldn't be able to require to request portable water service obviously per that prohibition. um but they still would be subject to the water allocation policy because that does include non-errigation uses of reclaimed water. So that would protect our um portfolio because they still would have some limits on the quantity of water that they are allowed to use in total. And so that reclaimed water is a whole part of our um water resources portfolio management, right?

We recharge what's not directly used for landscapes or potentially a data center. Um can you repeat your question that you were saying at the end specifically about um how this impacts use or exactly where you were going with that? Uh yeah so essentially was that it was just to see so if a data center came was proposing a facility within the town um was this was them connecting to portable water kind of a bypass this section of the zoning code? It sounds like it kind of is.

So they can tap the reclaimed water lines for their cooling needs. So if they do that, and I understand that, you know, there's a sustainable water uh policy that they still have to adhere to, does that put any stress on the reclaimed water uh resources that we have? If they were able to tap into those sources, yes, they are using our resources, the town's resources. It's just on a different system. So, um they may have to build additional infrastructure to ensure they receive that supply.

Um but it's um not impacting the water that is consumed within residents homes um should we need to put in restrictions on the portable supply due to shortages etc. So it it protects the portable system by making them be on the reclaim system or requiring them to um figure out another solution for their water supply that's not dependent on our critical water infrastructure to provide um critical drinking water and business operations for other other users in the system. Okay.

So is it fair to to say that within your department you have measures in place where if an applicant comes before into the town they want to tap the reclaimed water lines they have you have a pro a pro uh something in a process in place for that that we don't need to include it into this LDC text amendment. Correct. We currently we have a reclaim water application process and we would add that um data centers to that process but it wouldn't need to be reflected in this policy. No. Okay.

We have those processes. Okay. Thank you for your time. Yeah. Thank you. Excellent. Very well. Anyone else? S made us listen to this so we should probably grill him a little bit. Right. Vice Chair, Chairman Munt, I'd like to move to approve item nine as written or with the addition that what SL explained to us. All right, we have a motion from the vice chair for approval. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second from Commissioner Davis. Any further discussion? No. All right.

Cast your votes, please. Motion carries 70. Moving on to our other added item here, item 10, GP2604, Harvest Grove Neighborhood Commercial, and Z2606, Harvest Grove Neighborhood Commercial, and the one and only Keith Newman. Excuse me, chair. I need to recuse myself. [clears throat] We have a recusal. Thank you. [snorts] Commissioner Gage will recuse herself. Chairman, members of the commission, good evening. Um, this case before you tie for Harvest Grove Neighborhood Commercial.

Now, I know you guys have seen this before. It's the exact same request that came before you in last year sometime. I I can't remember the exact date. I believe it was I forgot to put in the table. I believe it was like September or so of last year um that came before you and then this case was subsequently taken to council in January 20th of the earlier this year which at that time the application was withdrawn. So the applicant has now decided to move forward.

they had to submit a brand new application to go back through the process uh to uh receive approval or to receive your consideration or your vote, your recommendation tonight for this reszone. Now, I've pulled this off of consent to add a condition that is not in your packet. If you would like, I can do a full presentation on this or I can just skip to the very end and show you the added condition. What is your preference? Thank you very much, Mr. Newman.

For me, I'm fine with skipping to the end. Does anyone want to hear and run the full gamut with Keith? All right, Keith, you can go right to the uh end of it. Thank you. Okay, so the added condition is letter B. Currently in your staff report, if you look at the very end, it has a condition um B right now that talks about dedication of Queen Creek Road. shall extend 65 ft from the monument line.

We're moving condition B to condition C and we're adding a new condition B that says the dedication of Al Vista Drive shall extend 70 ft from the monument line. The only reason we're adding this is because we didn't add it originally in the ordinance that that um was going that was up for consideration in January by the town council. Somehow it it was um an oversight and it didn't get put in. But we wanted to make sure that was in there, that condition, and that was an engineering requirement.

So that is all we're doing. We're just adding this condition B so that it can be considered by town council. And that is it. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions on that and why that's uh necessary or needed, Tom Condit, our uh engineer, is here and he can answer that question. But otherwise, that's it. I'm I'm I'm done. That was very brief. Okay.

Not used to that type of brevity with Keith Newman, but anyone have any questions or do any other engineers up here want to have Tom Condet come up and discuss? Okay. Very good. Thank you, Keith. Yep. All right, then. Uh, any other questions for Keith or No. All right. And I'll just see. I don't have any comment cards, but I just want to check. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Scanning the crowd, the multitudes of people, nobody seems interested.

So, Munt, I'd like to move to approve item 10, GP26 TAC 04 and associated Zulu 26 TAC 06. We have a motion for approval of the items from the vice chair. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second from Commissioner Hong. Any discussion? Please cast your vote. Motion carries 6 with the abstension. Well, not abstension rather, the removal of I don't know why I can't think that word now. Okay. Recusal. There it was. Thank you. Yeah, I had every other word except that one. Great.

All right, administrative items. We have one uh administrative item and that is item number 11, the planning commission minutes. Consider the approval of the minutes of the study session and regular meeting of July 8th, of which I of course was not here. So I know I was missed dearly and I'm sure it was not as exciting. It was chaos without you. Yeah, I'm sure it was tough to carry on. Proud of you guys.

But uh if anyone has anything they would like amended on that, otherwise I uh entertain a motion. Chairman Munt, I move to approve the planning commission minutes that I've already signed anyway um of the regular meeting from July 8th, 2026. Very well, Vice Chair with a motion of approval of the minutes. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second from Commissioner Davis. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Moving on. There is no executive session yet.

Uh item 12, report from the chairman, members of commission on current events. Does anybody have any current events they would like to discuss with the public at large? Vice Chair, is that hot mic on for discussion or he's out? Okay. Well, I don't even have anything either. It's just very hot out there. And as uh you know we've heard school has started so be beware and give uh give some time to the kids getting into school.

And then we'll move to item 13 report from the planning services manager on current events. Ashley, do you have anything? Nothing for me either tonight. Thank you. I think Keith with his brevity has made everybody feel the need to be very brief. All right. Well then with that I guess motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn from commission and second from the vice chair. Please cast your vote in accordance with your feelings on whether or not to adjourn this meeting and motion carry 70.

Thank you all very much and we will see you next month. Meeting adjourned.