Planning Commission Rejects Residences at the Reserve Rezone Despite Staff Approval; Gilbert's Commercial Preservation Doctrine Defeats Infill Housing in 3–4 Vote

All All right, I'd like to call to order the study session. Uh, first item on the agenda S25-07 Harvest Grove Preliminary Plat, and the one and only Keith Newman. Chairmont, members of the commission, good evening. So, as you mentioned, my case tonight is for the Harvest Grove uh prelim preliminary plat. See if I can get this thing to work. Nope. There we go. Okay. So, as you all know, you've seen this project quite a bit lately.

Um, [clears throat] this project is located at the southwest corner, excuse me, southeast corner of Val Vista and Germaine. And as you can see highlighted on the screen in front of you, um, it's not highlighting the whole 311 acres. It's only highlighting the portion that is being subdivided, which is the single family residential portion of the development. So, which is approximately 260 something acres.

Um so preliminary plat and open space plan for that whole single family portion approximately 910 lots. Oops, wrong typo. Excuse me. It's about 264 acres, not 27 acres. I copied that from another presentation. I apologize. So as far as the plat is concerned itself, I wanted to show you this slide to kind of show you a comparison of [snorts] the preliminary plat that is proposed and the um development plan that was approved by the town council. So you can see the differences between the two.

Now both of them they're very very similar to each other. [clears throat] Like I said before, the commercial piece in the far leftand corner, top northeast, west corner of the site, which is the far fries marketplace and the shops and pads has gone through the DR process still kind of uh pending final approval. Um, then you have a well site. And then parcel uh looks like parcel three way up in the corner, the far uh [snorts] north uh west corner is zoned SFA.

That is not part of the current preliminary plat. That will come in later for platting. Those are a town home design that they haven't finalized yet. So that will come in at another time. So the rest of the development except for that parcel way in the south um west corner which is a neighborhood commercial corner that is uh currently going through the resoning and general plan amendment process.

Besides those three pieces or four pieces if you count the well site, you have a 264 acre subdivision with 910 single family lots, 13 total uh parcels. Um, and the density of just those areas is about 2.93 dwelling units per acre. And you have RC's well RC it's that's going to come in later but so the main zoning districts are SFA SFD and SF6 and SF8 zoning.

So [clears throat] if you add up the density of the entire development, you can see on the right hand side, this was the plan that approved by council. The entire development Harvest Grove was 311 acres. And you guys have seen this in some shape or form. And and eventually it'll have,00 homes once the parcel along Germaine Road that's SFA that's blank right now. When they come up with a design for that, which they're working on, then the whole thing will have,00 homes.

But for now, this plat today that we're showing you will be only 910 lots. And the overall density of Harvest Grove 311 acre project will be about 3 and a half dwelling units per acre. And then that 27 acre commercial piece and then eventually the neighborhood commercial. So I know that's a mouthful of information. Um the whole project itself, as as you guys are well aware, has a lot of entry points. You've got Offter Germaine Road.

You have that main spine road that runs down through the middle of the development that curves. You have Coronado Road on the far um west side that connects Germaine and Queen Creek roads and provides additional secondary access into the development. You have three entrances off of um Val Vista and one off of Queen Creek Road. So, we have a mix of single family residential uses. There's no more multif family in this development that was pulled out and taken out by the developer.

So, we have a a a single family residential development with two commercial corners. But like I've stated several times, the applicant today is only bringing this forward as a study session item to get your comments and your feedback on the design of the neighborhood that was already preliminarily approved or conceptually approved by the council through the development plan.

Um, per a recent text amendment uh to the land development code um has allowed preliminary plats that are greater than 20 acres And this is kind of explained in your staff report. That text amendment allows plats that are greater than 20 acres to come to a study session for comments and feedback. And then after that feedback and those things get addressed and so forth, we're allowed to approve that administratively. So after tonight, you will not see this again.

We will approve it administratively. So this is kind of the gist of the neighborhood. some of the following slides. I wanted to show you the conceptual landscape plan. [snorts] Very conceptual. We have black and white plans um that are more detailed, but this just shows where the locations of all the open spaces are. And I have an open space plan, too. So, we have about 18.7% open space. I'll go ahead and show you that plan.

So you can see in these darker green colors, lime green type colors, you'll see um all of the open space and you have the central central park in the middle and then a lot of these darker green ones like a lime green like a darker lime green are the like pocket parks like secondary parks. So in all I think there's a little over 50 acres or so of open space. I don't remember off the top of my head but it's close. So there's about 18.7% open space within the entire development.

[snorts] um one of the parks. Here's the central park. Just wanted to show this to you. There's a nice there's a um a kind of a little clubhouse in the center. It looks kind of like a barn. I'll show you the design in just a second. You've got a tot. You have some orchards kind of to the north. There's like an like an orchard with trees and look there's kind of some citrus trees in there too to kind of mimic kind of a more agrarian citrusy type feel.

Um there's some pickle ball courts you can see over on the far uh east side of the park [snorts] and a pool. But all the plantings are very linear in this whole entire development at the intersections on along the street frontages and some of the major open spaces as you can kind of see on the north side of the park. Everything is very linear to kind of mimic or represent um Gilbert's aggra um agricultural um history.

And some a lot of the plant most of the plant materials will also be made up of of plant materials that fit that agricultural uh theming. Um here's the clubhouse. Kind of looks like a little barn. Um I don't have a perspective view for you to show you it the building in more dimension so you can see um the shadow lines and see the movement and the wall planes and so forth. Um but um you can see this has kind of an agrarian feel to it.

and we'll finalize that as we as we move forward in the preliminary plat and and once it gets to the building reviews and so forth circulation and amenities. Um I don't know how well you can see this but there's some really good circulation in this development from a pedestrian standpoint and of course vehicular but this one shows the pedestrian circulation in in relationship to the amenities. All these little lines represent sidewalks. So you can see the the uh the red lines are the trails.

So whether they're concrete or they're DG trails, they they're linear. They go right up through the middle of the development in most spots and right through the park. They kind of connect from park to park to park to provide that high level of circulation from a pedestrian standpoint. So phasing the development will be built in three phases going from north to south.

The commercial um some not the not the one on the top right not the the SFA piece but that will be in phase one two but like kind of like a later phase of phase one like phase 1B or so. Um but you have all the way down to that red line will be phase one. in the middle of the project will be phase two and then the bottom half of the project on the far south end will be phase three.

So they expect to open the first phase in around 2027 and then full buildout they're hoping to complete that by 2032. So these are just estimates at this time but I just wanted to kind of give you an idea for how that phasing could play out. So, as far as public notice and participation, um the proposed project, um doesn't require public notice because it's just for a study session. Um so, um red node recommended motion. We're just requesting input.

Now, one last thing that my brain I didn't think of earlier when I was on the previous slide, I I apologize was um the design of the only thing that has changed and I apologize for bringing this up at the very end. It just popped into my brain. I didn't say it earlier and I apologize. The only thing that has changed from the development plan that was approved by council and the development and the plat you're seeing now is the parcel south of the Fry grocery store.

Those homes there was about 50 61 SFD homes approved in that version and this has about 51 I think about 10 less and that and they're about oriented about the same. It's just the streets had to be widened a little bit to create better circulation and so they had to reduce the number of units. So this that's really the only difference. The rest of the development plan is should match pretty much exactly. So I apologize for for uh uh interjecting on that late.

I should have done it earlier but it popped into my brain at the end. I apologize. Keith, where is that where are the 10 lost? So right where the fries grocery store is. That go back parcel two area. Yeah. It's hard to see, but see where the the commercial corner is and you have the large Fries grocery store right that parcel in the yellow right there next to the well site. Okay, I see it.

Okay, slight slight changes in the in the the the widths of the streets and so they had to kind of shift the homes over. So, that's really the only change from the development plan approved by council. So, just wanted to bring that up. So, other than that, that's all I have for you. Um, if you have any questions for me, I'm I'm open for questions. So, thank you. Very well. Thank you. [clears throat and cough] Excuse me, Keith. Uh, does anyone have any questions or comments for Keith?

Let's go back to that. Keith has thoroughly wowed everyone to such a degree that the questions remain unable to be ascertained. That's okay. Questions, comments, chair? Not so much more comments. I mean, [clears throat] I think once council has spoken to us, that's marching orders. That's sacrient. And the only thing that I'm interested in is um is changes.

And the only change we have is a slight reduction, not in the I mean the parcel sizes are the same, but the slight reduction in the number of houses in that one parcel. Um to me, that's that's what we're looking for is almost meaningless changes or changes that don't in any way impact the public negatively. Otherwise, this is a if there was such a thing as a consent in study session, that would this would be this would be there to me to me. Great feedback. Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone else? Mr.

Negina, Keith, thanks for the presentation. It was pretty thorough. Um, the first time I saw this, I was concerned about the multifamily and it's nice to know that that's been taken out. Also, there's a a lot of different sized homes for I guess different income levels. And I think we're going to continue and finish the street from Coronado down to 156. That's all going to be done and phased in during the different phasing. Perfect.

All the concerns I had from the first time I saw it taken care of. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Very well. Well, I won't belabor it any, Keith. I think uh you have enough comments, but I think that this uh fits very well with what the council had approved and uh I think it's a great job. So, thank you, sir. All right. Thank you very much. Moving right along to the item number two DR26-30 cold storage distribution warehouse. And we will bring up Mr. Salto.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh, the study session item we'll be taking a look at is DR26-30, cold storage distribution warehouse. [clears throat] The subject site outlined in blue is approximately 4.96 acres and is within a larger 10.76 acre uh master site plan which is the Horizon Engineering Industrial Park P A.

Uh the subject site is zoned general industrial and is completely surrounded by or not completely I apologize has general industrial uh zoning categories directly to the north and directly to the south. uh both of which those parcels are within the same master site plan as the proposed project. To the west we have some additional uh general industrial zoning districts and then to the east we have a light industrial uh employment complex.

Uh, one thing also I just wanted to add about the site is that the structure that is currently within the parcel uh did used to belong to Phoenix newspaper um which the site is now currently vacant. So the applicant is requesting to um demo the current structure and rebuild a warehouse that fits their operational needs. Taking a look at the site plan, I did have to uh reorient it just a bit for it to fit on the slide. Uh so north will be to the west here.

Um but the proposed application does provide this new 58,000 square foot warehouse centrally um on site. It follows the same design and orientation of that original approval for the master site plan. So we're comfortable with the placement and the size. Um additionally just to the west there, there are 10 off-street loading bays for the operations of the warehouse.

Um there'll be, I believe, seven dry, three uh cold because this is going to be for um food and beverage distribution throughout the valley and to um surrounding states as well. So the structure is ultimately a um a large refrigerator to to make sure that everything on site is kept fresh for their for their delivery. Um, with these 10 loading spaces, there'll also be a screen wall along the north side of the building so that public visibility um, will not see right into those loading bays.

Um, for circulation, it's going to remain the same. There are those two access points off of Baseline Road that run along the east and west sides of the property and then the two east west internal drive aisles will uh, remain as well for the entirety of the site circulation.

Uh there is also an existing parking field to the south which is on the parcel of the um proposed structure and with the proposed um square footage it would need 65 spaces total and with the existing parking there is 85 spaces on site. Uh there are just a couple little things that we have to clean up during the the review. There are some pullthrough parking spaces. uh we are missing just a couple uh landscape species along some of those along the eastern uh property line.

Uh but other than that, much of the site is going to follow in the um original master site plan design. Uh looking at the landscape plan, uh the trees and plant selections are consistent to what else is provided in the master site plan. Uh some of these trees include mulga, bubba desert willow, and thornless Argentine mosquite. And some of those shrubs are yellow bells, pink oleander, and lin legacy sage.

Uh the e the landscaping has been evenly distributed along the east and west property lines. We do have some foundational landscaping uh around the building and any area within the parking field where landscaping will be damaged. Uh they're going to try their best to keep um the existing landscaping in place, but will replace them if there is uh damage during the construction of the site. Uh taking a look at the elevations.

Uh the proposed warehouse has a maximum height of 44 feet but maintains a primary roof line of 35 ft. Uh the structure incorporates predominantly flat roof roof line design um with a continuous parapit to screen all the roof mounted u mechanical equipment. uh between the first review and the second review, the applicant has worked with us to help tie in some of these colors you see on the screen uh with the existing structures within the master site plan.

Uh we went from just a traditional white warehouse. So now we have some some movement with the change in those those colors. Um again like I had mentioned earlier the structure is constructed of uh insulated steel paneling to help with the insulation and um just overall uh I'm sorry. Um but essentially it is this insulated steel to help keep all of the um food beverages on site fresh for wherever they're going to be delivered to.

So it is a bit unique in regards to design than what we would typically see for a commercial or an employment structure. And here just having a better uh image for that those proposed colors and materials on site. And we're here today just to gather some uh initial feedback from the planning commission uh mostly geared towards those elevations. And then again the applicant is requesting uh CD submitt at risk and that's the main reason we're bringing this for you all tonight.

I'm happy to answer any questions, uh, take any feedback and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, S. Anybody want to kick off with some questions or feedback for S? Commissioner Simon. S, thank you for the presentation. Um, question [clears throat] that I have, uh, access to the site, does that come off of baseline road? Uh, Commissioner Simon, yes, it does. So, there'll be two access points off of Baseline Road. So, they have easement to get to that site? They do. Yes. Okay.

and then the parcel behind it. Mhm. [clears throat] From from what you have in this in the plan, it doesn't appear that they've taken into consideration um access to that back parcel. Okay. So, so with that back parcel now becoming in essence closed in, I don't I don't see that they've taken into consideration access there. Commissioner Simon, there is an ingress egress easement that goes to those uh two parcels back there. So, it's already recorded on the existing plat. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Um, the the other thing that I have with this, and this is really just kind of to throw it out so staff takes it into consideration as we're looking at this northwest corridor, but with regards to the requirement of as much vegetation as we're requiring for a site like this. I just feel like it doesn't necessarily make sense for all the island vegetation and everything else that's there. So, that's just my opinion.

I think that these types of sites are not built to look beautiful, but we can make them look nice. So, my opinion, two cents. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. I think that's a lot of people say about me. Not beautiful, but nice. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. Anyone else have anything to add? Commissioner Anderson. Uh, S, thank you for the presentation. Uh what's your personal opinion on the building elevations?

Uh Commissioner Anderson, personally I think um they could use a little bit of work. We did send back uh second review comments um this morning and I think from our perspective or my perspective, I think there could be a little bit more movement in the uh roof line variation. And just another piece is just creating more of a sense of arrival to the main entrance of the structure.

Uh just looking at the scale, uh the square footage and the size, it does look like that main entrance can get lost in there. So maybe introducing some kind of accent color or a different material could help open up that uh that visibility. But those are just uh my thoughts, Commissioner Anderson. Yeah, and I agree with everything that you just said, too. I mean, the building's very underwhelming right now.

Um I'd highly recommend that the applicant come up with a you know, some sort of design that addresses all those concerns, and I support everything that you just said. So, um, strongly recommend that the applicant takes another look at the design of the elevations. That's my only comment. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Okay, Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, S. Um, I agree with Commissioner Anderson that the elevations are lacking um I think significantly.

I think that, you know, we have this sets a precedent just because the building's not totally visible. I understand that they don't need to have, you know, four-sided, you know, fabulous elevations, but particularly that northeast corner I went by there, it is visible, the building that's there currently, portions of it, um, from Street View also. Um, but this building is being pulled even further to the east, so even more of it going to be.

And that's the side of the building that has the um, electrical room and the SCES. And it feels like the office is tucked down on the south side. It almost seems like they should flip the building to put the office on that northeast corner and then you could dress that up. There's some elements on the project to the north.

I understand that they've got a particular system for their walls, keep everything cold, but they could apply some things on the outside that there's some nice elements with that royal blue and some gray and stuff to the north with some stucco elements that could even be added to enhance that. Um, and again, the roof height variation. I just I think they could do more on that northeast corner um of the building to address it up.

I don't really see a need to do anything around the other sides of it, but I think that they could make some effort there. Um particularly if it in the office also, I mean, I think that there should be some sort of defined entry so somebody can find it when they come to the site. Um and it's kind of just tucked in there on the south side. That whole piece looks like an addition. So anyway, those are my thoughts on it. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Okay. Anyone else? All right.

Well, I think uh I thought maybe it looked like a big ice cube and that that was what they were going for and that it was actually quite artistic. Um but I so I have a slightly differing opinion. And also I think that the being a colt storage it's uh the aesthetics of it is meant to have a lot of trucks that will be pulling in to take the many asundreies that they'll be delivering in and out and so it's formatted that way. But uh I also don't have any um problem with the design um as it stands.

So, uh, is for the CDs at risk? I think, you know, my perspective is that of what many others up here on the commission is that that's a risk and if they're willing to take it, that's, uh, their prerogative. And so, I would say that that, uh, I would approve for that to happen. That's fine. Great. All right. Thank you, S. All right. Thank you all. All right. With that, it brings us up to item number three, which is the discussion of regular meeting agenda.

And as we go into our regular meeting, see in our consent, we have two items. Items or one item with two pieces. The residence is at the reserve item seven. And then uh Oh, wait. I'm sorry that Yeah, that was it. There is no consent. That's the only non-conent item. So, unless anybody would have any reason to try to move that, which I think would be not happening. Um, therefore, I would imagine it'll be the same as it stays. All right. Well, very good.

Then because of our immense efficiency, we've gotten done at 5:34. So, we'll see everyone back here in uh approximately 25 minutes for the regular meeting. Thank you. All right. Hello everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Uh first order of business will be the pledge of allegiance. If you would please stand and join me. Thank you very much, Ashley. Could I get a roll call, please? Certainly.

Um, alternate commissioner Lion, Commissioner Deg Gravina here, Commissioner Gage here, Commissioner Davis here, Commissioner Simon here, Commissioner Anderson here, Vice Chair Fay here, and Chairman Munt here. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. All right, we'll go to item number four, which is the discussion and approval of the agenda. Don't believe that there's any discussion. So, I would just entertain a motion to have the agenda remain.

Chairman Munt, I move to approve the agenda as written. We have a motion from Vice Cherry. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. Please wait to cast your vote until the vote casting is castable. Is it open on your screen? It shows. It shows the yes no here. Okay, go ahead and vote again. Oh, there it goes. Yeah, that passes 6. 6. I guess we had one abstension. Somebody did not like the report, but that's okay.

Item number five, we'll move into communications. Communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. The commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to state law, action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism, or scheduling the matter for further consideration.

I have comment cards, but I believe they're all for item number seven on the agenda. This would be an area where you would speak on something that is not agendaized. So, just to confirm, is there anyone here that wishes to speak on any item not pertaining to something on the agenda? Okay. Very well. We'll move then to item number six, which is the report from the council leaison on current events and council member Lions. I don't have anything at this time. Chairman Munt, thank you sir.

All right. Then we will move into the public hearing consent which there is no items. Therefore, I will not belabor reading that paragraph and move directly to the public hearing. Non-consent and 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.

[clears throat] For those of you in attendance, the yellow cards many of you may have filled out, but if anyone does wish to speak, there are yellow cards in the back near where the paperwork uh near the entrance that you would fill out if you wish to speak yet and can get it to the staff and we will be sure to hear you.

[clears throat] With that, we'll move into item seven, the sole item on the agenda, which is GP2505, Residences at the Reserve, as well as Z2514, Residences at the Reserve, and bring up Miss Nicole Russell. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Mont, members of the commission, Nicole Russell, senior planner. Tonight I will be discussing GP2550 and Z2514 for the residences at the reserve.

The general plan the applicant is requesting a minor general plan amendment to change the land use classification from general office to residential 14 to 20 to 25 dwelling units per acre.

And they're also requesting a reszone from business park to multifamily medium with a planned area development to modify landscape setbacks, open space percentage, and reduced side and rear setbacks for a 4.9 acre parcel that is located to the south and east of Gilbert Road and Germaine Road and directly west of Mustang. In 2008, the 47 acre Let me breathe. Forgive me.

[snorts] In 2008, the 47 acre site was approved for a business park that included four parcels, three of which have been developed. Since the original proposal, no development has occurred or been requested on the 4.9 acre site. In the time since the original approval, two parcels to the east along the northern border with the residential to the south have come in for reszones as shown on this map. The first one was the curve at Gilbert, formerly known as live Gilbert.

It's an approximate 19 acre site to the east side of Mustang. This was approved for about 350 units in 2018. The second site was the town of Germaine, an approximate 14 and a half acre site between the curve of Gilbert and the canal. This was approved in 2021 for about 200 town homes.

Since the original approval of the 47 acre site, the applicant has indicated that the reserve at Santan has been unable to generate interest from employment users despite the success of some of the near bay general office and light industrial projects as seen on the map. The applicant believes that the multif family is a more compatible use and provides better buffer to the existing single family homes from the business park and employment uses along Germaine.

The site is constrained by a variety of factors that make development of general offices challen general office uses challenging. These constraints include the lack of visibility from Germaine Road, the proximity to single family uses to the south and the size of the parcel. Multif family could provide a buffer between the single family uses to the south and the employment more intensity uses to the north.

All of the developments along this corridor, which would be the the curve at Gilbert and the town of Germaine, have worked with the neighbors to the south to come to concessions with the proposed development. The larger buffer between the homes and the employment uses is done by way of increased landscaping as well as setbacks to help create not only a visual buffer between the single family and the employment uses, but also a sound buffer. The applicant has had two neighborhood meetings.

The first was held in February 13 of 2004. That was probably about 30 folks at that meeting. And some of the current concerns that were raised at this meeting were increased traffic, increased crime in the area, concerns over the project setbacks and proximity to the single family to the south, and privacy due to the building height. and on-site drainage.

The N the based on the comments from the first meeting, the applicant went through a redesign of the site and staff recommended that they had a second neighborhood meeting to let the neighbors know the changes that they had made. From the second meeting, there was approximately well second meeting was two parts. There was an in-person and there was also a virtual meeting. Um staff attended the in-person and not the virtual.

Um, some of the comments that came from that meeting uh from the neighbors were they were still concerned about increased crime and traffic with the development to the south and general opposition to the multifamily development. After working with the applicant for the past two and a half years, the applicant has worked diligently to tailor the design to address the neighbors concerns. There are still outstanding concerns from the neighbors which include traffic, crime, and home values.

These concerns are valid concerns and they are similar concerns that we hear on all new development here at the town. With Gilbert looking at buildout in less than a decade, staff has to evaluate the land we have left under more scrutiny, taking into account the patterns of development in the surrounding area and the suitability of the town's long-term vision. Staff has received two letters of opposition from the neighboring community.

One of the letters is comprised of three net three letters responding to the applicant's submitted application materials and staff review comments. These three letters, although anonymous, were submitted by the same individual. The second letter was from an attorney representing the Peterson Farms development to the south. staff has also received a letter from the city of Chandler encouraging the town of Gilbert to listen and include Chandler residents in the public engagement process.

Just for con comparison, here is the 2004 plan that went to the first neighborhood meeting and the 2005 plan. The applicant is requesting three deviations. The purpose and intent of a planned area development overlay zoning district is to provide a tool for developments to modify regulations and standards in order to achieve outstanding development that provides a unique product and benefit to the community through creative design.

As part of the P A request, the applicant is requesting the reduction of the side setback, which is the north side and the rear on the west side, the landscaping setbacks. In the next slide, I'll go into the part of the reasons why for that. They're also requesting the reduction in the rear setback from 20 feet to 15 feet adjacent to the non-residentidential on the west side and a reduction of the common open space percentage from 40% to 35%.

I've included the standard table that the commission is used to seeing showing that there is the LDC standards as well as those that are proposed as part of the P A deviations. For further explanation, because this was developed as a a business park, the north property line is part of a private drive. So, putting landscaping in that private drive is not feasible. So the AC applicant is asking for a reduction of the landscaping, but they will be providing the required landscaping.

It just won't be in the private drive. On the west side, again, you've got an access easement for the property to the west. So they're asking for a reduction in the setback so that they can have the buildings go at the edge of that drive aisle. They will be providing uh a small amount of landscaping on that side in order to at least beautify that for the property to the west. Here is the develop development plan.

Some of the changes that the applicant made in due to the comments received from the public. They made a U-shaped building. They've made it threestory. They've moved the carriage houses to the west side as well as the garages to the east side and put two rows of trees along the southern boundary from the single family residential.

In addition to that, they have also put clear story windows on the south side so that there wouldn't be any standard windows looking into the single family residential to the south. Forgive me, this is a lot to say. One of the main reasons for Gilbert's continued prosperity is due to the town's history of being a wellplanned community with high quality development.

As Gilbert's growth continues, we must effectively utilize our land supply and manage development patterns while maintaining our community character. The proposed development complies with community goals that encourage balanced land use framework coupled with diverse and highquality housing on infill properties. The project is located within the Gilbert and the 202 growth area.

This area is characterized by adequate infrastructure with multimmodal transportation options planned for a variety of land use types. These areas are focused on economic sustainability by a mixture of land use types and designation. A proposed multifamily development on the subject site would provide a more co cohesive residential component to the Gilbert and the 202 growth areas with the curve at Gilbert and the town homes adjacent to the canal to the east.

Staff can support the proposed deviations and the proposed general plan amendment and reszone because it meets the goals and policies detailed in the staff report in depth and on the current slide. Although the loss of business park zoning and land use is regrettable, the proposed use would help to maintain a high quality design expected in Gilbert to provide additional housing in the area near to commercial and retail uses.

staff finds that the proposed applications meet the findings in fact as findings of fact as required by the land development code and staff requests uh the town or the planning commission to provide a positive recommendation to the town council for GP2505 and C2514. The next steps in this process is this application will be heard by the town council at the first meeting in August.

And if the application is propo or is approved, there would be a design review that would come through public hearing and that's when staff would be able to address some of the comments from the study session from Commissioner Davis Davis. If there's any questions for me, I am available. This concludes my presentation and the applicant will be making a presentation after mine. Very well. Thank you, Nicole. Does anyone have any questions or comments for Nicole prior to the applicant presenting?

Vice Chair, if you would. Nicole, what changes have they made based on the feedback from the study session? The applicant, what changes have they made? I'm going to defer to the applicant on that. Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone else want Commissioner Davis? Um, thank you, Chair. Really quick, um, and maybe I just missed it, but I'm assuming economic development weighed in on this. And if staff's recommending approval, they didn't have big concerns with losing business park in this location.

Is do these all go through all of the departments for review? I assume they weigh in on the recommendations as well. Uh, Chairman and Commissioner Davis, that's correct. Um, we do review our applications um and they are routed through our economic development department and they didn't provide any comments on this one. Okay. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Nicole. If the applicant would like to come up to present then um we will move into that. All right, there we go. Good evening.

For your record, I'm Taylor Earl with Irwin Curley. Address is 3101 North Central Avenue. Uh grateful to be here. Appreciate uh the time. Appreciate staff uh both the recommendation and the presentation. So, we're here on behalf of the reserve at Sant. We are to be clear up front representing the common owner throughout the rest of the campus. So, this is not a scenario where we're representing a buyer coming in to specifically develop a certain parcel.

We are we are representing the developer of the uh the park, the campus. So the reserve at Santan really is since 2007 that this has been uh being developed and the the problem has been this piece here in the corner. Uh we're just approaching 20 years of not being able to get development on that piece. Um and so again this is the developer who is saying you know we are primarily an office developer would could develop that would develop it if we could. Um but they have not been able to do that.

Um and so what we're looking for is a way to finish out the campus with a viable development that will both complement the campus um and be a beautiful development on that particular parcel uh because of all the efforts that have been made. So not even one of their buildings on that is at 90% occupancy. When you look at developing a new building, you look at what's the 18month getting to over 90% occupancy within 18 months when you don't have any of your buildings over that.

um there there's just no there's no economic viability. They have struggled and struggled in order to be able to even get to these numbers being creative as they worked with lees um to try to bring in local credit instead of institutional credit. I mean they've really tried what they can um but have really hemorrhaged over the years in order to bring on office occupants.

Um and so there's just no economic viability to spend $20 million to then just sit on more vacant property um that they can't fill. And so again, this would if they could, they would. This has not come um over a couple of years of waiting. This after many years of attempting, having drawn CDs up for it at one point, um it it just doesn't have viability. Again, we were only here because of that fact.

Similar to what happened to the east, um this project was ultimately carved off of the portion, the non-residential portion east of us. Ultimately, that was 19 acres. A much bigger piece that was approved. About 43% of that campus was ultimately converted um because of the difficulty that they projected having onto that property at the time that they got a reszone. None of it was developed at all. Uh whereas we have on our side really only 11%.

So, it's just a small teeny portion of the of overall campus. Um the general plan that we are seeking would match exactly what is to the east of us. So it is already in that zone and this is what that looks like just for p uh actual perspective on the development itself. You have the light industrial to the north uh zoning and then you have the BP to MFM which is the same thing that we are seeking to go from BP to MFM on our site.

This was uh at the time that this was done in its minutes again this is what it looked like in 2020. There was no development on the property.

Um and what they what the quote here is from from Ed Bull stating hey look we've gone through we've talked this isn't just academic we've been trying and and are not able to do it um and [snorts] we're in a similar situation only in our case we've actually been been in it that's already been development we've it's been 2007 and so since that time we're still struggling and as I mentioned as Orset is primarily an office builder right so not a multif family developer coming and saying well the only thing viable is multif family because it's all we do this is Orset saying look we primary primarily do office and if we could we would um but need to do something different because it's simply not happening.

Um in terms of overall office demand there's been obviously a real struggle. This is from the first quarter of this year. So this is fresh data from Ker Matthysse Matthews and you can see the total vacancy rate um settling in those mid20s. So, it's a serious problem that you can see since COVID um that vacancy rate um has has continued to be a problem um and is leveling out to continue to have a glut in the market and so there's just no demand for us building more office to sit vacant.

Um from Axios Phoenix um one of the questions is hey in terms of the pandemic and its effect is that something that we'll return from will people all go back to the office and the answer is no. So the pandemic seems to have permanently changed the way Mary Americans work. Companies don't need as much space. Now what's interesting is the businesses that have returned are those looking for luxury headquarters like maybe on a lake or some of those.

So there are some of those types of but none in that sort of u you know middle locations um and even some of the the low tiers being just purchased and scraped. Um so what's happening is that the tier that we're at is really is driving up the vacancy rate. So we're in the worst position. In fact, Phoenix recorded zero square feet of new office constructed deliveries in the first quarter of 2026. Um, and it's that second paragraph. Hybrid work continues to disrupt traditional office user demand.

The shift from traditional office layout to more collaborative and open space has reduced overall footprint. So, the way in which office is being used is also reducing demand. And then finally, here is an academic study that was done and just recently finished in March of 2026 in which they use billions of geoloccation pings. And the goal here was to identify when are people going into the office that they do have.

Um and what they found is that it that there because of where these dur pings were and where people were that there is a durable structural change rather than a temporary disruption in the way office is being used. So even after a partial recovery in 2023, office attendance remains well below its prepandemic level. The emergence of a coordinated midweek focus schedule indicates that firms and employees are converging on stable hybrid routines. And so we did see a little bit.

You can see here in this chart, this is uh from again May of 2026. You can see start of pre- pandemic. You can see that red line going where I up top where you know we're using our office space. We're in there and then everybody goes home and then it starts to slowly come and you probably knew this from your own uh employment situation or from friends where hey they're starting to send us back to the office.

Um but eventually that sort of has now leveled off to the point where those who are coming back have come back. there's a permanent hybrid scenario that is again affecting office demand. Now, in terms of what's in the area, you can see here that we are well supplied with shopping, business, industrial. Um, this is an area that has qu ample amount of commercial.

And in the general plan, it says encourage highquality housing in suitable areas that can accommodate a variety of lifestyles, households, ages, market preference, and income. So, as you have all of this employment that that is there um with industrial and whatnot, uh things that couldn't fit on this property, we're able to provide housing um in into that areas, which is exactly what the general plan discusses.

Here's another way to sort of look at that combined over 900 acres of commercial office and industrial. And we're just looking at a a small piece that's off of the arterial. It's hidden back in the camp part of the campus, which has made it really uh extra difficult. So now we are right here on the edge of Gilbert. Um and not only is the the sort of typical office, there's other BP uses also wouldn't work. Things like light industrial. It's such a small site.

You wouldn't be able to design a building that could have truck traffic coming in and turning around having crosstock facilities. Plus again, now you're up against residential anyway.

You have lack of arterial frontage which makes it very difficult for you to have uh you know things like a restaurant whereas no one's going to be putting up a restaurant investment in a property that's buried off the arterial off of a collector road and again you have an existing campus so you always have to be mindful about what you're putting into that campus as well to make sure everything stays viable.

So in terms of timeline of events, so we really did our site plan design work really back in 2023 prior to even meeting with the neighborhood the first time. Uh we did a lot of design work on our end. Effectively, we negotiated against ourselves trying to uh figure out a way we can make this small parcel work and be accommodating to the neighbors before we ever had the conversation. Of course, I'll get into all the changes we made after that, but there was quite a bit of work done.

We had um our first neighborhood meeting in February of 2024, so over uh two years ago, approaching two and a half years ago. Uh we had initial preapp in that same month. And then we had follow-up communications with our outreach team with the neighbors both in the neighborhood meeting and subsequent to that.

And then we went through an extensive redesign of our project in response to that to the point where then it was over a year later where we came back and had a second pre-application meeting with the town. They recommended said, "Look, you've changed your project so much that the preapp you had is not going to be effective. You should really come back and get additional comments." Um, and so we did and then had our second neighborhood meeting in August of that of last year.

Um, we actually filed our applications for the first time in August of last year. And then ultimately here we are. So from the beginning to end, you have effectively two years since our first neighbor uh neighborhood meeting. Uh over two years, almost two and a half, and even longer from the time we've been planning it. So, this has not been something we've done overnight that we've done it very carefully and made sure that we did the best way we could. So, this is the uh initial proposal.

I'll note a couple of things that we did to try and uh you know mitigate the impact. We took the four-story building that we had proposed. We stuck it in the back away from the neighborhood. The the goal would be to have any four-story views would be eclipsed by the thirdstory building that was south of it. U put the amenities in the middle. Uh we also had some parking structures the guard garage buildings on the south side. Our objective there was to use basically structured blocking of views.

Um you'll find the later the neighbors said uh yeah but we still don't want it there. So we ended up moving those. But again this is was thoughtfully designed from the beginning. Um this was the prior design of the south elevation and we went through and did a drone study again trying to take a drone to where somebody would be standing if they were on that third story.

um looking to the south and um what we did is we put a pole out there to say this is where the garage would be the red line, this is where landscaping would be at certain heights. Um and so you can even see where that tree is there in the middle. Um not a terribly mature tree, but a normalsized tree that's grown and has some maturity. Um even that you can see how that's providing a really good e uh blocking. And so we said we're going to put a row of trees on our side um in order to block that.

So, we went through this exercise to really show that we had been thoughtful and had looked through those views. That being said, the neighbors had major concerns and so we heard those concerns and went back to the drawing board and did the design that staff showed you. I will walk you through uh those changes that we made um kind of one by one so you can see it. So, a we deleted the fourth story alto together um and went down to three stories.

Now, that meant uh bringing down the sort of headroom of the project if you will. Then we created the U-shape. So it what that did is it minimized the amount of southacing building facade within 100 ft. So you can see the red lines comparison. How much building is at that near setback line. Under the original design, you can see the long red line. And then as we broke it up into that U, you can see that there's very little of the building that is actually at that near setback line.

So the U shape was a creative way to to minimize what we were seeing on that side. Then in addition to that, we took all those second and third story windows that were south facing and we made them all clear story windows, meaning they're above the ey line. They're the types of windows that let light into a room, but they aren't the ones that you would stand and look out of. So in terms of views and privacy, we stuck those windows high um so that you wouldn't have the same impact.

There'd be no sort of south facing normal windows on those ends. And you can see that being done here. So on the left is the original and on the right is the upgrade where we took those and again made them into those clear story windows on those the ends of the U. And then also we eliminated the balconies. So previous there had been south facing balconies and we eliminated those south facing balconies off that.

Uh so then to get to the point where where the first time you get to a normal sort of second or third story window you're now at about 240 ft. So a massive setback distance and we're pushing it very far away from that southern property line. Uh we took the unit countdown. So from 134 to 121 about a 10% reduction. So you think about a normal multif family project that you often will see maybe 350 units. You're talking about you know somewhere in that 30 to 33 unit range reduction.

So it's pretty significant percentage reduction. Um there was also concern about us having we were seeking multif family high. So we eventually we changed our zoning district to come down to multif family medium matching the zoning district that was granted to the east of us. The again as I mentioned they were concerned about the garages. Uh I think they understood the intent but didn't want them to have be that close. So we ended up relocating those over to the east side of the project.

Um there was also concern about us having our entrance off of Mustang to the east. So, we relocated our main entrance and put it onto the north so that it would be accessed off of that sort of internal drive. So, kind of re-shifted and reoriented the project so that we wouldn't be feeding off of Mustang because that's that's the road that goes down south to uh to their subdivision.

We also then as part of that relocated the clubhouse, put it internal to the building so that it was all sort of in that main entrance area. Um agreed also to make that an emergency access only. Obviously, that's subject to town approval, which will come through design stage, but we said, "Yeah, we can we're happy to block that off, make it emergency access only." So, really, all of that access then comes up through the main entrance to the north.

Uh we had a building on the side, a carriage building that was in the southeast corner. That property owner that was south of us didn't want to see that there. So, we end up just eliminating that building and effectively just having it be that small parking building. Uh and then with those buildings that we did have on the west, the carriage buildings, those all got moved further north. Um we had the landscape set back on the side. We already had a row of trees.

Uh we doubled the landscape setback on the southern property line. Uh and then we also added a second row of trees. So you stagger them so that in where you have a sort of gap in between the growth canopy, you stick another tree right there. And so that double canopy um is a really effective way to to provide additional privacy to the neighbors and a visual buffer. Um and so again, this is what that looks like right now on the south property line.

So we would be not relying upon the landscaping that's already there uh within the the backyards, but supplementing that in a way that effectively we're not relying on it at all. But it is helpful to know that there is uh mature landscaping there as well. Uh we also then enhanced the outdoor space. So by turning the building in the way that we have, you now have a highly usable space which will have a lot of eyes on it at night.

You know, sometimes you'll have a dog park that's tucked off in the corner of a parking lot where some people don't feel safe at night going. You have it all right here in the middle making it highly usable, having a nice community impact by having everybody right in that spot with people looking down into that courtyard. And it's surrounded with three sides and then there's a wall on the south. So alto together these are all the things.

So extensive redesign again all being carefully done in a way to be mindful of the the impact and to try to mitigate it as much as possible. So in terms of overall design um I want to show you kind of what the campus looks like today so you can see the compatibility with the design aesthetic. It wants to have its own character but also be compatible with the campus because the idea is that we're putting this into a single campus.

Uh this is what the building elevations look like the from the looking at the northeast corner of the building. So there's good movement, good height. I know we'll get into design in the next stage, but been a lot of thoughtfulness put in so far. This is as you enter into that spot on the north side.

Um this is again one of the carriage unit buildings that you saw on the west side of the property where you would have um units above private garage spaces that people could rent as part of their lease. And then these are those garage units that I mentioned on the east side. So ultimately the idea here is to have a mixeduse campus. So we would have office, residential, retail, there's a press coffee in that building on the northeast portion of the campus.

And you know, you know, bringing mixed use is part of the general plan. It's what we want to see. Um, here we we are by adding in that final component, we are bringing a mixeduse campus and we think it'll work really well together. So, here's the general plan quote. Promote mixeduse development within appropriate land use classifications. So, let me talk a little bit about the uh the deviations and explain um kind of where they stand from.

So, the first one here is for structures under 13 feet along Mustang Drive. So at from 30 feet to 25 feet. So as I mentioned earlier, we relocated those private garages. We also have a canopy on that side. So onto that eastern property line. Now it's important to to note a couple of things. So uh we're just asking for 25 ft for just those types of structures, not for the regular structure, which would be over 90 ft away.

So for context, if you look at the campus as it exists today, that building that's up off of Germaine is already at a 15 foot setback to Mustang and it's at three stories. So in context, we're doing 25 ft for 13T. So there's already a a building right up against Mustang at three stories which is in full compliance with BP. And then also right across the street, again for context, at about 30 feet, you have the full two-story building.

So again, our building is pushed back over 90 feet and we're just having these small little uh buildings which will actually screen the activity happening within the park from the from Mustang. Also, this is another important context point. So under current zoning, this is what's allowed.

So, if you look at the setback that's on Mustang Drive, you can see that we are permitted under BP zoning to have a 20 foot setback for the entire height of the building, which because of the height overlay is allowed to be 90 ft at that location. So, we could have a 20 foot setback today for a full height building. We're asking for 25 feet for a lower height 13 foot building. So from context of what's permitted today, I think it's pretty minor.

All all things considered, our request is for 25 feet for the maximum 13 feet. So also here from a rear building setback. So on the west side, u we would note that again this is a campus as I've continually said similar to the campus that's east of us. And so you can see that there's no intervening property lines within that particular campus. Ours is a little unique because because of for financing purposes that ultimately is what created this sort of property line on ours.

But it's a little odd that you'd even have an intervening property line, right? For a campus, they're not perimeter conditions. Those setbacks are looking for perimeter conditions. Ours is really an internal condition and it's an imaginary line that is there for really technical reasons because of financing purposes. But we want the campus to flow together just like the campus east of us is.

Um, and so you're not you don't want to be putting up perimeter conditions every time you into a new building. That doesn't create a unified campus. And so, and the other thing to keep in mind is that on the other side you altogether you have 58 ft. So again, the rear building setback is designed to be 20 and if you had 20 on the other side, you'd only be at 40.

So we're looking at the deviation in the context of well if it's a slight reduction to of five feet but we have all this space to the building that's west so there is no you know canyoning effect because we have all this space that's us asking for a minor deviation in the context of a it's a campus there shouldn't be a perimeter condition and b we already have a building on the the closest building is quite a bit away.

Um staff mentioned this, Nicole mentioned this, but it's really important to keep in mind that the landscape setbacks that are requiring us effectively, they would require us to landscape the drive aisles, which obviously we can't do. So look at the one on the north. We would have to be putting landscaping in the drive aisle because that's where the property line is. So we have to deviate that to zero because otherwise, you know, we can't meet it. We could never meet it.

We can't put anything in those easement areas that are providing access to the rest of the campus. Um, and the same thing on the west. You you simply can't landscape. So, it's a technical thing that we have property lines that are going to the middle of the drive aisle where there's a a shared access easement. And again, sort of what that looks like. You imagine you can't really you can't put landscape in the middle of that. It's needed for the drive aisle.

Now, with a common open space, we are asking for a minor reduction from 40% to 35%. And let me explain this a little bit. So what that calculation is looking at is of the area that you are allowed to build on. So this percentage is not done off of gross square footage. It's done off of net square footage. In other words, net is what you're able to build here. What's really outlined in yellow is what we're able to build. But our property line goes to the middle.

And yet those are access aisle easements, street easements, access ees. We can't build in that area. So those would for all intents and purposes be like the gross square footage where you're not able to build into that zone. So when you look at actual buildable square footage on our property, the effective net area is 177 and the open space is 71. And when you run that math, our open space is 40%.

So effectively when you eliminate what we can't put landscape on and you actually come up with the net number that eliminates the easements just like you would in the gross calculation gross to net we end up with over 40%. Um additionally I think it's really important that common open space can be counted in a lot of different ways. So there's quantity but there's also quality. And I think we here have a high degree of usable open space.

We have no concern that the residents of our project will feel like, oh, there's a deficiency in open space because of the way that we have designed it. So, we have that consolidated highly usable open space in the middle. It's secured by the building and the wall. Um, and ultimately, again, part of this is the combination we made to the neighborhood in which we removed the fourth story.

So, effectively, we took out the headroom and are just needing a little bit more elbow room to make the project continue to work. And one of the things that we heard too in the neighborhood meeting is that they didn't want to have our parking. They were concerned about parking. Um we don't have any parking deviation. Even though we have a big parking field uh that would probably could be under a shared use model where residents park at night and the office parks during the day.

We did not seek any type of parking deviation. So, we think those are super important things that a little bit of relief uh internal which would be true to really to our residents uh we don't think it'll be negatively felt uh in any way. Some of the policies that the general plan speaks to and and and Nicole mentioned some of these but we think we hit these highquality housing uh we do need a diversity of housing stock um and um promoting mixed use. We have good open space.

We're doing a land use framework for a livable community. And then the second from the bottom, you know, contextsensitive infill development. Infill is always going to be a little challenging. We know that. Um, but we've spent a lot of time making this as appropriate as we can given that the site can already have height. It can already have um, again, it can already have 90 feet uh, on this property, but we've done what we can to make it as good as possible.

Um, and again, this is where that could be located. The 200 feet setback. You can have 90 feet and six stories on this property today under existing zoning. Um there was a question about trips that came up and so we ran a comparison to what you know an office on this particular parcel would be and then ran that against our 121 unit multif family. Um and you can see there on that top area the total daily trips we are less than what would be on the property today under existing zoning.

We're less on the AM peak. We're less on the PM peak. So, in terms of the traffic concerns, we understand any development will bring some trips, but we're less than what is permitted on the property today. Ultimately, we have this unfinished campus which is harming office leasing. So, we have existing offices. We want to be able to lease those. Well, we want to finish out the campus with a beautiful development. Oret is going to remain involved in this campus.

And so, it's in their best interest to do something well because they have to continue to lease out the rest of the office. They're not just going to develop and leave. this is something they're holding on to and they're going to lease out the office and so it's in their best interest to do a good quality development. And when we have this open vacant piece of land, it always continues to have that office feeling unfinished. And so we're asking for relief to be able to get this done.

Ultimately, um, as I mentioned at the outset, we have a property that we have tried desperately to do under existing zoning. We're here today because it doesn't work. We're not projecting that. It is fact. It is reality. and we have done what we think is a beautiful development that will help the rest of the office lease up so that we don't sit on vacancies. And with that, happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you very much.

Who would like to start with any questions for the applicant, Commissioner Anderson? Uh thank you for that presentation. Just quick question for you. Is there a user a multif family user in place for this? So when uh the owner landowner now if they get their zoning everything they're able to sell the land right away and it gets developed or it's just just going to sit around for a while for a multif family user to come along and get onto the site. Yeah, great question.

I appreciate the clarification. So the intent would be that we would develop it. So, as I mentioned before, they are primarily an office developer, but they have done multif family and their intention is that they would be the developer that they would hold it. They would bring on a management company, of course, but the intention is that this would continue to be their campus. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Um I I have one question on the the trip counts.

Did you take into account the vacancies that we talked about earlier when you said the trips or are you assuming that those trips would be a fully stocked office? cor for just this parcel. I appreciate. Yeah. So, so we said, okay, if this were on this parcel, what size office, you know, conservatively could we be fit on here? So, 67,000 square feet. Correct. Do we assume that it would be occupied and that that would be the trip count comparison?

But if we assume that it's not occupied because we said earlier that 50% that would Sure. Yeah. So, if we said, look, if we built an office that didn't get occupied, sure, the trips would be a lot less. But again, that goes to why we wouldn't build something that we couldn't lease up. Understood. And then one other thing, when when you say you can't landscape the drive aisles. Yeah.

Do you mean you physically are disallowed from utilizing land to put in landscaping or that what you're putting in does not allow you the space with which to do that? Because I'm It's the first one. Okay. Yeah, it's the first one. So that that that that drive those are access easements that all the properties have a legal right to have. So again there's as I mentioned different financial structures. So that's how you have to access the properties. Staff wouldn't let us do it anyway.

They'd say how are you getting to your buildings? You can't you can't just take out your drive aisles. Right. Okay. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, we'll we'll let you go and I'll do the public comment and then allow you to come back after. Thank you, sir. Okay, we have some comment cards from individuals wishing to speak. Uh, and these are not in any order, so don't feel bad if you're not early in the case. But, uh, we'll start with, uh, Enrique Lanes.

He, uh, is opposed to the item and wishes to speak. Please come up. Uh, and you can utilize this uh, microphone there. There's a button at the base of it that you'll hit and it'll turn red, which means it's on. And then you have three minutes, sir. Thank you. It's like right at the base has like a little There you go. Yep, that's the one. Thanks. So, my name is Enrique Giannis and I reside at Peterson Farms. That's Chandler, right adjacent to the proposed property resoning.

Um, I'm going to read one of the arguments and then I'm going to put in my three cents worth and hopefully I can do that within uh three minutes I guess. Is that what I have aotted? That was a question. Just so you're aware, we you just have the three minutes which it is correct but then we don't actually have any uh okay back and forth but go ahead. Okay. So argument number one, protecting commercial land in Gilbert's long-term economic future.

The town of Gilbert has repeatedly emphasize the importance of preserving commercial land for future economic development rather than converting it to residential use. In June 2025, the town rejected a general plan amendment and resoning request for the Gabriella Point commercial center that would have allowed a 329 unit apartment complex.

During that deliberation, senior planner Keith Newman warned that converting commercial land to residential use could hinder Gilbert's long-term economic sustainability, stating, "Once lost to residential development, this commercial land cannot be reclaimed. Economic development deputy director Jennifer noted that Gilbert's commercial land inventory had already shrunk to just 9.5% of the town's total land area.

Mayor Scott Anderson echoed these concerns, stating that Gilbert should not be closer to 10% commercial land and that we're going in the wrong direction. He further cautioned that if the town continues carving up commercial land for residential uses, it will not be available when Gilbert needs it most. We are going to need this land for commercial. We are starting if we start covering it up now, it won't be available when we need it.

These same concerns were raised up again during the Allura Sun Santen project August 2025. Although the project was ultimately approved, town planning manager Ashley McDonald continued to recommend denial, stating that with Gilbert approaching complete buildout, every effort should be made to retain commercially zoned land whenever possible.

Similarly, similarly during the Harvest Grove deliberations in April 2026, council member Ben Giovanni, I hope I pronounced it right, opposed residential development on one of Gilbert's last major remaining parcels, arguing that housing was not the highest and best long-term use of the property and warning that additional residential units would create a permanent financial burden on the town while generating less tax revenue. venue than commercial development.

The same principles apply apply here. Preserving commercial land creates jobs, generates sales tax revenue, and helps attract businesses to Gilbert. By contrast, multifamily developments increase demands on public services, create additional traffic congestion, and do little to support the town's long-term physical fiscal sustainability.

Gilbert's own statements and actions demonstrate consistent recognition that commercial land is becoming increasingly scarce and should be preserved whenever possible. [bell] My three minutes are up. Was that what the Yeah, that's what that was. But go ahead and finish just my three cents worth. You know, bottom line is that we're all going to be hurting as far as property values. I don't care how you shuffle it, it's gonna it's going to suck as far as homeowners are concerned.

And then it is and statistics prove that it doesn't increase the crime rate. And then the other one, yeah, the traffic flow is going to be negatively affect things. You know, I don't care what how you shuffle it. Those are statistics.

And you know and and uh I remember the developer uh a couple of meetings ago he said well you still have because we're uh concerned with um the privacy and I and I said you know people have kids that are in the swimming pools and now you got all these all these residences looking down on on your privacy and he said well with a office building you're going to have the same thing and I told him yeah but those people go home you're if you got residential units you know you got 24/7.

So anyway, those are my concerns. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. Next up, we have Marcus Cabrera. He's opposed to the item and wishes to speak. And his comments are, "Vote no on the reszone, please." Smiley face. I thought maybe politeness if it doesn't help me, it sure certainly won't hurt. Okay. I'm assuming my time starts right when I start speaking. Is that right, Mr. Mr. Chair? Okay, I'm going to assume that's yes. So, uh well, thank you for hearing um us Chandler residents.

Uh um that was where the argument one ended. Um so, uh I appreciate that. So, uh first thing I want to say on behalf of all of my fellow neighbors here is um we can provide you a copy of this at the end, but we're reading through our arguments. wherever our time stops um someone else is is picking up the baton to do that um and continue um using our voice to communicate to you why this is such an important project for all of us.

Um I realize that this is a project that none of us are going to go home to and when our spouse asks us how how tonight went you know we give them the full briefing on uh you know how how riveting this type of uh this action item is. Um, and so, uh, I just appreciate, um, you taking the time to hear us, uh, and that this is an important thing for us, just even in the mechanics of us presenting to you. Um, that we know that you will hear us. Um, your sign, your seal says we the people.

You've heard from the developer already. You are now hearing from we the people about why this this seemingly tiny plot of land um, matters so much. And I know that's why you all um, ran and were elected and chose to represent people. And um like my first neighbor said um we're not even from your town. We are we are strangers in a foreign land as it were and uh just across the street. Um but it's it's an opportunity to represent even those who um who are truly your neighbors.

We are from the neighboring city. Um and as Nicole said um even our city council had had written you a letter. Um and so it's been number one an inspiring thing for for number for us to be here presenting to you but also um to get our own city. be so involved in this relationship with you. Um so after everything we say, we have quite a few arguments.

Um I hope that this is something that can bring us closer together and really um do something that that we the people are really passionate about and protecting our area, protecting our our our homes, our forever homes. Um something that you'll you'll notice is we're not against um developing on that land.

It's just develop what was originally promised and what we all decided um when we bought our houses what that would be um and we we would cooperate with Gilbert and we support you and um and uh but to have the rug pulled out from underneath us, you know, is not the welcome mat that um we know Gilbert has already extended to us because we live so close to you at the border, but also what us Chandler residents um want to do for you.

Um, so again, it's been inspiring to have our own city council um write to you and and communicate with you. Um, so I'm going to get to a little bit of this, but I just I appreciate you um hearing on behalf of all of us. And uh when my little bell goes, you'll hear from whoever picks up from there. So this is argument number two. The property remains viable for commercial development. The developer repeatedly argues that this property has no viable use other than multifamily housing.

[bell] I have one sentence if you bear with me. And that buildings do not on the arterial roadway are destined to remain vacant. However, the surrounding area demonstrates otherwise. And I will leave you with that cliffhanger for our next neighbor. Thank you. Thank you, Marcus. Okay, next up, Connor Langan. And he item wishes to speak. Comments are no on the reszone. All right. Well, I'll just get to it. Uh, picking up where Marcus left off here.

Nearby business parks have continued to be developed and leased successfully. Parcel 304-56-933A to the northeast was developed and filled with tenants while multiple business parks along Germaine Road have continued attract attracting businesses and investment. Commercial development has occurred continuously in the area during the same period that the that the developer claims his property has struggled to attract tenants.

This raises legitimate questions regarding the developer's leasing strategy as occupancy levels are often a reflection of management and business decisions rather than the market demand alone. The fact that [clears throat] nearby business properties continue to attract tenants strongly suggests that this site remains suitable for office and employment uses and is not a result of location.

Furthermore, occupancy data shows that tenency has improved significant significantly from the first neighborhood meeting and immediately following the second neighborhood meeting. In fact, the data shows that the buildings are in a prime commercial area. During the first neighborhood meeting, the developer reported that the north building was 68% occupied. The middle building was entirely vacant and the south building was only 24% occupied.

After the second neighborhood meeting, the significant leasing activity became evident. Occupancy in increased to an approximately 78% in the north building, 37% in the middle building, and 71% in the south building. Despite these improvements, the developer continued to characterize the campus as a largely vacant in town submissions. The site also benefits from excellent transportation access.

Mustang drives drive provides direct connections to Germaine Road and Gilbert Road with convenient access to loop 202 via both Gilbert and Lindsay roads. Such connectivity makes the parcel attractive for office, business, park, and employment generating uses. Furthermore, alternative use exists beyond apartments. Even if traditional office uses are not the developer's preferred option, many alternative commercial and employment generating uses remain available.

During neighborhood discussions, we suggested an assisted living or senior care facility similar to DR16-53. Eternal Spring of Gilbert development. Such projects provide employment opportunities, generate economic activity, require less parking, produce less traffic, and are generally more compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Eternal Spring successfully demonstrates that residential style development and coexists with nearby homes while still maintaining commercial zoning and employment benefits. Just one last sentence. The existence of such alternatives directly contradicts the claim that multifamily parts are the only feasible use of the property. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Next up, Rose Crutcher has opposed to the item and I assume wishes to speak. So, please come up.

Thank you very much for hearing us tonight. Um, I wanted to make a comment on what the developer indicated that he had 177,851 square feet that he could actually develop. That's just about 4.08 acres. So, four acres. And I know a lot of people in Gilbert who have a 4 acre parcel with one house, not an apartment building that will house 250 people. So please look at it from that perspective. Our next argument is that additional apartments are not needed to support office leasing.

The developer claims that the availability of nearby housing continues to be essential to sustaining the town's employment goals. However, the surrounding area already contains a substantial amount of multifamily housing. Directly across the street are the curve apartments with 356 units and Town Germaine with 209 units. Within approximately 2 miles, Rivulon has added 352 units and the Gilmore is constructing approximately 300 units.

Together, these developments provide more than 1,200 apartment units within a short distance of this property. Given this existing housing inventory, it is difficult to understand how adding another 121 apartment units on only 4.9 acres would materially improve office leasing performance. The area already provides a significant live work environment for employees. If nearby housing truly drives office occupancy, then the existing apartment supply should already be supporting that objective.

This developer's argument therefore lacks a clear connection between the proposed apartments and any demonstrated improvement in office leasing demand. Moreover, as noted previously in the town of Gilbert, the percentage of land designated for commercial use has shrunk to just 9.9% and efforts must be made to retain and not eliminate as much commercially zoned land as possible. I am not a resident of Gilbert. To my great surprise, when I bought my house last year, I thought I was in Gilbert.

Turns out I was in Chandler. Um, and I shop all of the shops in Gilbert. I appreciate your time and thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, we have Ryan Boyer, opposed to the item and wishes to speak. Please come up in three minutes, sir. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, I'll uh read argument four and maybe get into five and then like Enrique throw in my uh two cents. Uh, and I'm not sure it's worth three.

Argument four, the proposed housing does not reflect highquality familyoriented development. The development characterizes the project as providing diverse highquality housing options. However, the site plan appears more consistent with a student housing or dormatory style development than a family oriented residential community. Of theund of the proposed 121 units, 93 are one-bedroom units representing nearly 80% of the project.

The average one-bedroom unit appears to be approximately 600 square f feet, which is comparable in size to many studio apartments. These compact units are likely are unlikely to attract long-term family residents and instead suggest a transient tenant base. The proposed housing product therefore does not appear consistent with the character of the surrounding single family neighborhoods or the devel developers characterization of the project as highquality residential development.

Argument number five, uh the 2018 resoning does not justify this new reszone request. The developer frequently points to a 2018 resoning approval on adjacent property as justification for the current request. However, Gilbert approved that resoning project because it was consistent with the voterapproved 2012 general plan which designated to the area of south for multif family residential development at a density of 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre and to the north for light industrial uses.

Nearly 10 years later, the circumstances are fundamentally different. The existence of a prior approval does not create an automatic entitlement for future resoning requests, particularly when current planning policies emphasize perverting remaining pre preserving remaining commercial land. Um, I'll throw in uh my opinion.

Uh, one of the questions that I asked my realtor uh when I first looked at purchasing the home uh was what is behind uh the home and that played a major factor um into deciding to purchase the home. Um and if ID had known that it was going to change, then that could have potentially changed my uh my decision to to purchase it back when I did. Uh that's it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next we have Leah Burns wishes to speak and is opposed to the item. Hello.

Thank you so much for letting me speak. Um during my educational career, I was allowed the amazing opportunity to be able to work um in a setting with sexual offenders who have recently been able to get out of jail and were now on parole or probation and were receiving court-ordered mandated um therapy.

um while working with them that I realized that they could live in apartments and all that and that's fine and everything, but I would like to make notice of the fact that it was mentioned that there will still be windows in the south side of the apartment buildings.

Um, while although they will not be where you can look out of them and see everything, I would like to mention that you can always just in this modern day and age use any recording device such as a phone or anything like that to put it up there and have it recording for as long as you would like at any point in time. I'm actually um living in the house that would be right behind the apartments.

So, I may be a little bit biased, but I do have um cousins that come over that are underage, and I would love for them to be able to swim in their pool without me, my family, or my cousins being afraid of that. Um or of being watched or recorded without their consent and anything like that, especially during such activities. Um, I'd like to also notice that the east side will still have windows which will face the other houses in the other neighborhood.

Um, which also have children in them and pools where they constantly swim and you can hear them. Um, so I would believe that that would be an issue. I have in these last couple years with the new apartments have also noticed that traffic is more of an issue. um and other things. Among those, I will start with argument six. Thank you so much for letting me put in my two cents. Um the proposed PDA requests excessive deviations from existing standards.

Developer states that they want to encourage outdoor living, but they can't even meet the open space requirement of 40%. The proposal also seeks to minimize or eliminate setbacks by characterizing certain property boundaries as merely technical or imaginary. This is a wild and brazen regard for the rule of law and an insult to the town of Gilbert. The developer the developer is all but admitting to you that your own rules are an inconvenience to them and that those rules should be ignored.

Furthermore, property lines are legal boundaries that exist for important planning, safety, and compatibility reasons. Allowing developers to disregard property lines wherever convenient could create a troubling precedent for future projects. Setback requirements exist to protect privacy, reduce conflicts between use uses, and maintain appropriate separation between buildings.

Without adequate setbacks, the proposing carriage homes would sit immediately adjacent to commercial drive aisles, which I would also be able to hear. Anyways, thank you so much for your guys' time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, next we have I think it's Murtha ears is opposed to the item and wishes to speak. I hope I didn't completely butcher that, but it's my writing. [laughter] You should please state your name and then three minutes, please. Thank you.

Uh, thank you so much for taking the time to meeting with us. And I'm going to read a little bit of this argument seven, but I would like to say that I've been in Peter Farm for 23 years. Me and my husband work very hard to put the money together for the down payment for our forever home. And we were the first house at Peterson Farms. We lived there for eight months, the only house. Then my neighbor Dave came along and we raised our kids together.

Our house will and my neighbor Tony's house are going to be probably the most impacted with this development because we have pools and we have kids. And I don't know if anyone that is here would like to have people seeing you while you are in the swimming pool. Also, since the apartment unit were built, there has been not only an increase in traffic, but now I know what street car racing means. And and I leave it almost every weekend.

and I want my kids to be able to say I'm going to my home and I'm going to be safe. Right now we have 1,200 apartments. I don't know what is the occupancy of those uh apartments right now. I would like to know what that is and uh I took some notes uh what they said that these are just apartments and that they're just houses. Maybe for them it's just houses, but for us, for the people that live there, it's everything.

They're they're going to push us to sell our house to lose money on on the properties and we're going to have to move out. And and I've been a very good purchaser for this Gilbert community. Target, Walmart, uh, HomeGoods, you know, my money is there every single day. So, I really want you to consider that for them is a business opportunity. For us is our home is where we raise our kids, where we build, we have built lifetimes friendships. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Okay, next up we have John Parkinson opposed to the item and wishes to speak. And just reminder, if you could even though I say your name possibly not 100% correct, just state your name and then do your three minutes, please. Thank you. Sure. John Parkinson. Argument seven, the developer has wildly misrepresented privacy impacts. The developer has presented photographs suggesting that existing homeowners already enjoy substantial privacy because of mature landscaping.

This portrayal is misleading and does not accurately represent existing conditions. Photographs presented during earlier neighborhood meetings showed much different reality. If approved, the proposed three-story buildings would create direct views into neighborhood neighboring patios, backyards, pools, living rooms, and bedrooms. Residents would experience a significant loss of privacy that cannot realistically be mitigated by existing landscaping.

The contrast between the developer selected imagery and the actual site conditions raises concerns about the accuracy of information once again being presented by the developer. And argument eight, property owners relied on existing zoning protections. We thank Gilbert for hearing from us, Chandler residents. Your decision is impacting real people with real lives, children, and love for our shared border. With that, we leave you with a personal plea.

Homeowners have made substantial financial investments based on the existing zoning and development expectations surrounding their neighborhoods. We purchased homes with the understanding that adjacent property was designated for business park and office uses, not three-story apartment buildings. Had the current proposal existed at the time of purchase, many homeowners would not have bought their homes or would have valued them differently.

It is not an act of neighborliness to require neighboring property owners to absorb the consequences of a speculative investment that did not produce the returns the developer anticipated and would be a stain on the reputation of this council to vote as a supermajority in favor of this project. The requested resoning would impose lasting impacts on neighboring homeowners including reduced privacy, increased traffic, additional noise, and potential impacts on property values.

More than 100 neighboring residents and property owners have signed petition petitions opposing this proposal, attracting the attention of your neighboring city council, the town of town of Chandler. We recall to your attention that you received their letter last year. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the town council deny the general plan amendment uh being discussed. Um I have nothing to add to that. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Okay, next up we have Alex Shelton opposed to the item and wishes to speak and thank you for your time. Um, I guess I've run out of things to say, but I'll have to make it up as I go. Uh, no. My question is, uh, I've become aware that the property that's to the west of the area we're talking about that faces Gilbert is being considered for development for residents is, and I know you can't answer that question, but that's what I've become aware of.

If we couple that with this property, these are two properties that are going to be reszoned or requested to be reszoned from commercial light industry or whatever that is to residents. Again, the number of square footage or acreage of property for uh uh business is going to be going down. So, you couple those two together, that becomes an issue. Aside from everything else you've heard from my neighbors today, uh the second item I have is water runoff.

This is a it's either a 4.9 acre or a 4.48 acre. Depends on how you do the math. It looks like it's a 4.48 acre according to Maricopa County Assessor's Office. So assuming that's the net. Where does the water drain off from this development? It's going to be all asphalt and roofing. There is no provision for detention that I can see on anything that they've provided to the residents. So, is it going to run onto our property? We have a small detention right there in the corner of our property.

That's going to be an issue for us or it's going to run onto the street. Um the dumpsters, there's going to be a dumpster from about the commissioner's chair to my back wall. There'll be one over here and there'll be one over there that are probably going to be emptied on a daily basis, usually early in the morning. There's already a dumpster that's just on the other side for the for the business that's only dumped maybe once a week, twice a week, whatever that that dump is.

It's going to create noise. It's going to create rats. There's already roof rats in the area because they love all the the uh uh the vegetables, the the grapes that or the grapes, excuse me, the uh the oranges and fruit that falls off the trees. I've know I know neighbors that have cut all their fruit trees down to help mitigate the rat population and the rat infestation.

Um, but I believe with this property being requested for reszoning and the other property that faces Gilbert that is again just north of our development is going to create a just an untenable basis for us to continue to to you know support that. So I I I raised an opposition to this development and any future development in this area. Thank you. Thank you sir. All right, with that, that's the number of cards I had.

Was there anyone else that still wished to speak that did not fill out a card that would like to fill one out and speak? All right. Very good. Well, thank you very much. Then um I'd like to give the applicant a moment if he'd like to come up and uh discuss anything or have any kinds of uh answers for the questions that the citizens have brought up for us today. Thank you. And if I can ask for staff's help in pulling up the presentation.

Um I don't know if there's a way to put it where I left it at the end. Is that possible? Ah, perfect. That'll make things easier. Thank you. I'll answer the question that came up at the end regarding drainage because that's that's a definitely an important question. So, um, our intention here is to have underground retention. Um, so that would be in the dry vials or in a shared retention with the rest of the campus. So, yeah, certainly we're not permitted to send water onto their property.

Um that's um absolutely sure. It's Does this automatically shut off? Red. Okay. Turned it on. Got it. Thank you very much. So, um there was a reference made to Gabriella point. So, I just want to make sure that it's clear just how distinguishable that is from our situation. So in that case that was a reszone from regional commercial. So that's a very different context than business park where you actually have sales tax dollars occurring um within uh shopping and and things of that nature.

So that's not what we are. We are from business park which is completely different than a regional commercial shopping center. That was also a reszone to multifamily high which is also different than us. We're doing multifamily medium. Um they also were at 329 units uh which is almost um not quite triple what ours is but significantly higher than what we're proposing. Also was opposed by town staff. Uh we have staff support um and also that was 10.53 gross acres. Um and ours is at 4.9.

So significantly different in terms of size. You can even just see the location Higgley and Warner off of the 202 which I um in any event these are very very different types projects.

Um also Orura Santan was mentioned um that's Val Vista and POS also that was also from regional commercial which again is very different in terms of sales tax dollars um than business park which is what we are that's 357 uh so again about triple what we are um requesting also staff opposition we have staff support that one was at 14 acres uh we are again at 4.0 right now. So these are very distinguishable projects completely different from what we are proposing.

Also there was a sort of suggestion that hey you should look at senior housing. I would sort of just make clear that um that's also permitted within multif family medium. So nothing we're doing here tonight has any bearing on that. Um if that's ultimately what was decided to be pursued this would take the same zoning district. So um so the sort of what I'm hearing is that that would be okay. Well, it's under the same zoning district, but not under BP, nor under some of the other commercial.

Um, also with regard to housing, I want to just mention that, um, this is recent data here. So, Arizona faced an immediate housing shortfall of 55,000 units in 2025, um, up 5.1% from 2024. Is declining vacancy rates, coincident with slowing home construction, signals persistent supply constraints. It would take over 119 years to close the gap at current permitting rates.

What that assumes is that the continual people coming here and our current permitting rate, meaning that it's not going to catch up unless we increase um the supply because the reality is people continue to come to the state. We haven't somehow leveled off and therefore we have the the people coming that are already here. They're already here, more are coming. In fact, the Arizona Commerce Authority noted that this was the population growth from July to July of 24 to 25.

uh Maricopa County was getting 61,000 people in that time, which equates to 5,000 new people per month and 170 new people per day. Um the reality is that as economic development departments in these cities have done a even better and better job and the state and GPAC and all those have brought more and more employers. Um Arizona is seen as a place where you can set up tech hubs and other places.

So we are bringing on massive employment which is continuing to bring people here which is a good thing. Um but we have to have places for people to live and so there'll continue to be increased demand and so we have to make sure that supply keeps up with that. Um Gilbert here you sort of see population also talks about the marking housing deficit of 2708.

Um the permit cycle is at 10 1043 meaning that at that same rates of permitting rates versus the the rate at which people are coming here it will never close that gap because you'll continue to have an increased need.

Um I I'd like to bring up Danny Court here to talk a little bit about Danny uh produced an economic study for Elliot Pollican from Elliot Pollican Company for um this development and so I'll give Danny a couple minutes here who will be better equipped and better able to walk you through this uh study. Good evening. Danny Court. I'm the principal at L Pollin Company. Um we were just asked to do some economic and fiscal impact modeling for the proposed apartment development.

Um the vacant property right now produces about $1646 and that's in uh the secondary property tax that Gilbert assesses. Um with the proposed 121 unit multif family development, the projection is that uh Gilbert tax revenue will increase to approximately $109,200 per year. The school district also would be a a a recipient of of increased property tax revenue. So currently just under $9,000 um from the from the vacant property uh goes to the the school district and that would increase to 75,500.

Um currently obviously it's a vacant property so there is no resident spending that's occurring. Um those new residents at the proposed apartment building um modeling their disposable income would spend about $3.8 million per year um in in the local area. So, um, when you look at that across, um, this is just the the the table across, you know, we've got property an increase in property tax, um, going from $1,600 to 13,800.

That's just Town of Gilbert, um, alone property tax, uh, the school district increasing to 75,500. um local sales tax would be 30,400 utility taxes and then also state shared revenue which is a substantial portion of Gilbert general fund revenue um that with the new residents would produce $51,800 per year. also some secondary impacts from the employment that's generated.

Um small amount of employment generated within the property itself, but uh resident spending generates uh new employment by their spending. And those employees would generate about $10,800 per year in in local in local tax. So that gets you to that grand total of 109,200 75,500 for the school district um for a total of 184,700. On the economic side and talking about jobs, obviously right now a vacant property not producing any jobs after the proposed development would be 48 new jobs.

That is mostly from new resident spending supporting all the different areas that we spend our money. um retail, restaurants, health care, um all the all the areas that we we spend our money and and support jobs in in the in the process. Um again, wages, these these residents um would would have Oh, no, sorry. This is the those jobs, those 48 new jobs, um would receive about 2.3 million in wages. And the total economic output or economic activity would be $6.3 million per year.

Um, so this is this is the breakout between operations and resident spending. Um, so you'll have on-site management, um, suppliers to to support the operations of the building and the landscaping and and services like that of of the five jobs. Resident spending would support an additional 43 jobs. So that gets you to the 48 jobs, the 2.3 million in wages, and 6.3 million in economic activity. Thank you, Danny.

Um, a comment was made about sort of, hey, is this uh, you know, student housing or what does that look like? The So, if you look at this is a student housing structure guide by property build. If you look at what is typical of a student housing, you're seeing in the three-bedroom, fourbedroom is where you're going to see it predominantly. That is the type of mixture that you see either fourbedroom, four bath or fourbedroom, two bath.

Um it's really quite insignificant at the bedroom, one studio and onebedroom level is really not very significant on student housing. Um if you look over on our sort of you go down a little bit there and the 93 one-bedroom units, the 28 two-bedroom units uh for a total of 149 bedrooms and 121 units. So our ratio is about 1.23 bedrooms per unit.

Um, but if you look down to the quotation there from real page, across the nation, the average student housing unit built since 2008 houses 2.9 beds, equating to about 100 units, 300 beds per property. On average, however, those figures vary by region. In the western, like Utah, for example, it's much higher than that. So, what's actually being seen here in the onebedroom count is more for young professionals, which is what we see would be a predominant use, particularly in this area.

Um, I would also note that PA AD zoning is what the neighbors have as well, which again, PA ADS are used routinely. Um, they're used even in the the subdivision that the neighbors are speaking from. And the whole idea of a PAD is to provide design flexibility. So, as you work with neighbors, as you work with staff, um, you can come up with a custom um, deviations, minor deviations in order to bring together a creative and a good project that is sight specific.

No zoning ordinance can possibly see every single context and every single property and that's why the P8 is such a valuable instrument because it takes into account actual sight specific design um and what's being done on the property. Um also there's sort of talk uh again we have done this elaborate um changing of the building in a very creative way to put a lot of privacy.

So we have absolutely considered the privacy factor um and have done that specifically in order to protect the privacy of the neighbors. We haven't just said well you know there's height allowed so we won't even try. Um we have noted that there is height allowed on the property today but notwithstanding that we've been very extensive in our design in order to accommodate where we pos where we could.

[clears throat] So, with that, um, again, happy to answer, uh, any questions, um, of the various things that came up or tried to address those, but if there's additional things that the commission would like for us to address, we're we're happy to do that. There's additional questions on leasing efforts, uh, Scott Foyer is here from Orset Properties.

The CEO is happy to address all the efforts that have been made um, and all the challenges with the office market, both locally um, and beyond that, but also hyper local to the property itself. With that, happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? I just have one myself. What is the units DU per acre that you're proposing here? Is it 24.9? I will get you that. It's a great question. Get you the exact figure.

I'm going to phone a friend to our architect. Do you have that figure in front of you? 24.6. Okay. From the voice in the pass. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. I have a question for Nicole. Yeah, if Nicole, if you could come up, please. Thank you. Hey, Nicole. Hello. Um, question for you. Two questions actually. First, um, one of the residents brought it up and it was a question that I had, uh, written down.

The vacant land to the west, what is that currently zoned for? Do we know, Chair Munt, Commissioner Simon? I would have to defer with somebody with a computer in front of them. I'm not working on that project. Okay. Just just curious what that is. Can Ashley uh Chairman and Commissioner Simon, the um up against Gilbert Road, it's zoned general commercial. Okay. And then currently with the business park zoning, my understanding is is the by right is six stories. Is that correct?

Chairman com uh Commissioner Simon I believe that is correct and it can go higher. It's I think it's about 4.2 miles west of the vertical overlay district that would allow for even higher. Okay. Thank you. That's all questions that I have. And if I have if I might have a followup statement. Um the applicant had mentioned that the emergency access could be a long Mustang. Um for a point of clarification, the traffic uh impact analysis was approved with that being a full access.

Um that is something that is uh staff will review as part of the design review process as well as the grading and drainage. That was something that brought was brought up by the neighbors. Did you have any further questions for me?

I just have one and it might be one that you can't quite answer in the sense but you know given that we have uh the number of units that appears to be very close to at the absolute top of what the designation would be for what we're asking for here which I believe it's because it's 14 to 25 and we're at 24.6 let's call it but and then we're asking for additional deviations. Do you know how many units you could fit on the site if we didn't do deviations?

Chairman Munt, I would have to defer to the applicant for that. Math is not my strong suit for things that are not already figured out in my staff. There's no planner rules of thumb then. Okay. No, that would be an engineer trait. All right. Very good. I just was trying to do that in my own head. I am an engineer, but I couldn't I didn't get that math either, else I would have deduced it. So, all right. Any other questions for Nicole or I will close the public comment. We can bring it up here.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Then close the public part. Bring it up here to the dis for discussion and motions. Chair. Yes sir. I will just make a comment. Number one, I appreciate all the residents for coming out and sharing your um input. It is very important to us to take that into consideration. Um, I appreciate the uh presentations. They're very thorough um presentations this evening. So, I appreciate those.

Um, I am a strong advocate for retaining as much commercial zoning or business zoning as we possibly can in the town of Gilbert. And so, this this particular what I'm going to call an infill project is extremely difficult. I'm sitting on the fence and I could go either way on it. Uh, I think coming in this evening I knew I was going to go one direction and right now I'm very much questioning which direction I'm going to go.

Um, I think that the applicant has done a tremendous job in trying to make this project fit into a spot that ultimately had they come with anything else I would have been a hard pass on it. So, um, I commend the applicant for coming in with what they came in with. I think that the um the concerns brought up by the citizens with regards to um increased crime rate, increased traffic, uh you know, those are those are, you know, boogeymen in the corner that we could talk about all day.

Anything that anytime there's new development, there's going to be increased traffic and we hear that all the time. Not to belittle it, but unfortunately that's going to happen. um increased crime, rats, vagrant, that sort of thing. It's hard to know. That's crystal ball stuff. We we we have to work off of um factual information that we have in in front of us.

Property values um we've seen property values continue to rise even even through uh development that's happened within the town of Gilbert. property uh continues to become uh higher and higher and I would say in some situations out of reach of most people. So I don't know that that's necessarily one of my concerns.

I would say [snorts] from a perspective of the visibility into the backyards um from a threetory I think the applicant has done an extremely good job of taking into consideration that and doing what they can to shield it. So again, I'm I'm still kind of waffling in my head.

I could make very good arguments on both sides of this, but I want to say that I appreciate um all of the residents who came out and shared their opinions this evening, and I appreciate the applicant for very thorough presentation. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Commissioner Gage, thank you, Chair. Um I again also want to thank the the neighbors for coming out. I really liked that you had one concise statement that you all kind of read from that was helpful for us.

But looking at this from a land use point of view, I think this use is great because it's such a small site. Um the visibility from the street does make a huge difference in how these kinds of developments lease up. Um and I think that the deviations that they're requesting make sense for what the use is. So, I'm I'm more um leaning towards yes on this.

And I do appreciate the applicant coming in with a redesigned site that really did speak to a lot of the neighbors concerns and having that second neighborhood meeting. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Gage. Vice Chair, did you uh I saw you reaching slightly? Sure. I don't I don't Sorry. I know I can be kind of outgoing and take over discussion sometimes. Um I came in and I I'm remain unchanged that this is a uh pass for me. I'm not opposed to the use, but um I am opposed to the deviations.

It's not uncommon for there to be uh different easements or things that that you can't build in. And I don't I don't see that as as that big of a limitation. In fact, it's much more common in some in Arizona. Most of the time the right of way is owned not only an easement but it's owned by the jurisdiction. I work for ADOT. It's we we own a lot of it.

Uh in other states it's actually much more common for the underlying land to be in fee owned by the adjacent property and the easement solely to be owned by the um by the jurisdiction. So that that to me is I I don't see that as the limitation. It's it's being presented as. I think this is too much being packed onto too small of a site. And that was my impression coming in. It has not changed. So for me, this is going to be a pass on this one. Thank you, vice chair. Yeah.

And and and I'll just echo that that I think, you know, one of the things notes that I had taken was that the reduced setbacks are really being used to re to increase density um and more of a yield maximization. And I'm absolutely not against the use, but I do I do find it a a bit to where you get put in a hard position where multifamily gets vilified to a certain degree.

And I feel as though there's many times when I want to fight to say no, there's there's a very strong use here and I get put in a very difficult position when something comes in that is at the absolute top of the range for which the density would require and then begins to ask for a significant amount of deviations.

And I find uh also given the site constraints that normally p a deviations would be given for on a virtually unconstrained site at the back of a parcel that is being projected as we are the owner of the entire thing and can do things that that also doesn't really uh fly for me that there there are not top environmental impacts or easements or topographic issues or anything. It's a flat site that's sitting there internal to a project.

So, um I I I just want to point out that I personally am not opposed whatsoever to finding ways that multif family. What I am opposed to is yield maximization being purported as constraints on a site. Anyone else have anything they'd like to add? Since we're all Commissioner Davina, please. I was going to say most of my concerns have have been already stated. I was concerned about the deviations, too, especially because they're trying to do something different.

Then they're asking for additional uh I call them variances because I'm an old guy. Uh but the other thing to the residents, I I commend you for coming in here. You're very polite, very professional. Uh it was interesting to interesting to listen to your comments. From my experience in real estate, your property values aren't going to go down. Now, they still might have access to looking into your backyards, but your property values are going to be stable.

So, that's all I had to say or have to say. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Anderson, uh, yeah, I'd like to echo what all the commissioners said to our Chandler residents. I know it was um very great to have you here and participate in what's happening tonight. Um, for me, I'm just a big proponent of land owners being able to do what they want to do with their land that they own. And my understanding is if the zoning case continues on and they get the multif family, they're not selling the dirt.

They're keeping it and developing it themselves. Uh, which I think um is a huge plus for me regarding their comments on all the requested deviations. The deviations in my mind looking at their site plan where they're located makes sense. They're deviations to make the project work. I don't think they're requesting deviations to squeeze more units onto the site.

If you remember from their first go around, they had a lot more units on site that now they're small less units on site now that they were requesting. I don't think the deviations requesting are are contributing to that. Um I [clears throat] mean for example the the dev landscape deviation regarding on the north side at the paved access road. I mean it's an existing road. It's not a it's not a right away. So they have to measure that landscape from the property line.

The property line is in the middle of the access road. You can't landscape in the in the access road. So deviations like that make sense to me and the ones along Mustang. So, I understand the concern about the deviations that they're requesting. I don't think there's a lot of them and I don't think they're impacting the site in a negative way. Um, I think they improve the site actually. So, that is kind of my two cents. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Davis, please.

I don't want to be left out. So, um I agree with um Commissioner Anderson on the deviations. I think that the deviations they're requesting have a limited impact on the neighbors to the on the south side. It actually allows some of that additional that additional row of trees. They moved some of those um buildings to uh move them away from them. um the fact that economic development didn't weigh in against the change from the business park.

I guess I put a lot of stock into that because I know they look at those things very carefully and that staff weighs those things very carefully. So I do trust that they you know their full analysis plus what I've looked at um myself. Um I don't I do understand a lot of the concerns with the neighborhood. I agree with my fellow commissioners that a lot of those things may not actually come to fruition as far as property values and those things.

Um it is change and you don't know exactly what it's going to be and we can't predict that but um ultimately I don't think it's going to um be as negative an impact as what is believed but um I'm leaning towards supporting the project. Um, it will still go on to city council for final decision though. All right. Thank you very much. Jake, can I ask a question of staff? Just to piggy back on her last comment. So, what happens after tonight? What council hearing will this go on to?

Will this go on to July's council hearing? August. Uh, Chairman and Commissioner Anderson, this would go to um an August agenda. uh council doesn't have any meetings in July. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, very good then. Uh if nobody else has any discussion, then you know if there are motions that somebody would look to be made, please do so. I will go ahead and try a motion and see what happens.

Uh, I'm going to move to recommend to town council approval of GP2505, a minor general plan amendment. We have a motion for approval from Commissioner Anderson. And are we doing these separately? I correct the GP and then the Z GP first. Okay. And this is for the GP2505. Do I have a second? I'll second. Commissioner Davis with the second. Any discussion? All right, please cast your vote. Motion fails. Uh 3 yay, four no. And we still continue on the zoning vote. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

So, since I did the GPO, continue on. Uh, for the reason set forth in the staff report, I move to recommend approval to the town council for Z2414 as requested subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. We have a motion. Commissioner Anderson Z2514. Do I have a second? I'll second. But I think we do have a question as to whether or not the zoning can be approved if the general plan I guess for council they would be ultimately making that decision.

The zoning would need to be in conformance with the general plan. Right. But we're only making recommendations tonight. Right. Right. That's why I and the second was made. So this would be falling into the discussion part.

So um so so the motion is in favor commissioner Davis second then the question then is in essence does this matter since if it didn't pass but because we're making recommendations I think it's okay but the clarification is that you can't have the zoning that doesn't conform with the GP that's correct so we have a motion and a second then some discussion is there any further discussion all right barring that then please cast your vote Motion fails. 34. Thank you very much. Okay.

And also I'd like to say once again, thank you to the Chandler residents for coming out and uh I like to think of us all as citizens. So it's not uh to me you can come back anytime. I'd love to hear from you. Thank you. All right. 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 to any administrative items.

Persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to address. The commission may or may not accept public comment. Only item in our administrative items is the planning commission meeting minutes. We are considering the approval of the minutes from the study session regular meeting from May 6, 2026. Does anyone have any discussion or discrepancies as it relates to that?

I I noticed that my comment about it being freezing cold up here didn't make it into the minutes. So, I'd like to make sure that that makes it into the minutes for this meeting. It is freezing cold up here. That will go later on in the meeting. Commissioner Gage, thank you. Um, as for now, um, related to the minutes, does anyone have any reasons that we should not approve these minutes? And if not, we can make a motion. I that's my comment. I'll move to approve minutes from May 6th.

Commissioner Simon helping me to keep things on track. Approving the meeting minutes and a second from the vice chair. If you would cast your vote. Motion carries 61. One to center does not like a meeting minutes. All right. Communications. We don't have an executive session. So, we will now move to report from the chairman and members of the commission on current events as item nine. And that will give Commissioner Gage the opportunity to speak about the temperature. It's very cold up here.

If there is something we could do about that, that would be great. That is a current event. I actually think it's perfect temperature. Maybe we should get Commissioner Gage a space heater for her feet. I I was also going to say that uh I actually feel really really temperately controlled right now. I'm freezing and I'm from [laughter] Massachusetts. Let Let me add to that. It gets colder as the night goes on every meeting and maybe it's just down towards this end.

That's why I wear a long sleeve shirt and a t-shirt underneath just to keep warm. I'm wearing my winter clothes right now. I just like to point out possibly that the town could find some knitted sweaters or things for the commissioners that get colder, but other than that, current events wise, it's getting very hot out, which might be why it seems cold. So, um, summer's coming. everybody uh hopefully have some fun activities to do and uh vacations and uh you know, thanks again.

But anyone else have any current events they want to share? Okay, very good. Then we'll go to item 10 and do Ashley for the report from the planning service manager on current events. Thank you, chairman. Um no updates from me. Just thank you once again for your service tonight. All right. I'd like to give a resounding your welcome and uh then we can move to adjourn. Does any do we need a motion? So moved. So moved.

We have motion from Commissioner Simon, a second from the vice chair to adjourn said meeting. If you would cast your vote, please. Commissioner Gage did finally vote. Priority for me is to motion carry 70. Thank you all very much. Enjoy your evening. Yes. I just want to say I actually have a little Thank you. I actually have a little I just can't admit it. It's the Wisconsin person. I can't say that.