Gilbert · 2026-07-09 · case details pending

Good evening everybody. Um it is 501 502 now and I would like to call to order welcome everyone or welcome everyone to the uh July Town of Gilbert Planning Commission. Uh and this is the study session and I'd like to just plunge right into it. I am Vice Chair Fay. Chairman Munt could not be here this evening. So sorry you all get the uh the B team. Uh and with that um you guys all get the B team. Apologies. Brian, help me out here, man.

Um and so with that, uh I would start with item one, DR26 TAC 61 practice. Keith, take us away. It would help if I push the button here. Uh, chairman, vice chair Fay, um, members of the commission, good evening. My, uh, first case before you tonight for study session is for PRAIS. Uh, PRAIS um is located here. I thought there were labels on this plan, but I guess there's not. So, I will tell you the target development that's on Ray Road and Power is that building that's on the right.

This development is an industrial park behind it. So, you can see there's that road that goes north south is Blue J. The east west one's called Orchid. So this site is on three parcels within this existing uh uh industrial development zone light industrial. Um this project actually came uh before the commission um about in if I can in uh January of uh or July, excuse me, July of 2022 for approval.

Prais the same company uh uh had a DR case approved for very similar size building and parking uh area and that development that approval has since expired. So now they are rebooting this project and hence the reason why we are coming back before you tonight. the original building. I'm going to go to the So, we have a design review for 25,000 square about 25,000 square foot office manufacturing building on a little over four acres.

So, the original building, I don't have a site plan of the original building, but it's very very similar. This building is at the north end of the site. The original building was at the south end of the site. So, it's just basically flip-flopped. Um, there is a future expansion area to the south, whereas the old one had the future expansion area to the north. and very similar design. Uh parking along the perimeter uh building in the middle uh east to west. So very similar design.

The original PRAIS building had about uh 3,000 square ft more of building space and it had an even split of office and um and manufacturing space. This building is a little bit different. It has less office space. It has about 8,200 ft of office space and about 17,000 foot of manufacturing space. The total site, the site has 134 parking spaces. There are three site access locations, uh, two off of Blue J and and one off of Orchid.

[clears throat] Um as far as the landscape plan is concerned, there is about 46 and a half% of open space. Um and you can see where the landscaping is located along the perimeter of the site mainly and around the foundation of the building and in the and of course in the parking areas. Um that future development parcel to the south of the building. Eventually one day they'll build a building there and so your landscape percentages automatically will will go down some.

uh well we don't know what that total will be until they build build a building. So a lot of lot of good high quality landscaping uh for for an industrial site. Um the building elevations. So the building elevations are the building is mainly flat um simple uh flat square roof line design uh with um some hor some horizontal wall plane movement created by um parts of the front and rear walls and by the uh canopies on around the building. Um these are the south elevation and the north elevation.

The north elevation faces orchid. The south elevation f faces a future uh develop uh res uh uh parcels to the south that obviously we don't have any approvals for any proposals for so vacant land right now. The east elevation faces Blue J. And you can see on that far right hand side of the building is the main entrance to the building. And then the west elevation uh faces um uh there is a condominium or I don't know if it's condos or apartments.

I'm not quite sure, but it's a resident multif family residential development to the west. Um, so [clears throat] you can see this building is is basically gray color uh with with several different uh uh types of block, a little bit of metal at the top for the parapit walls. So basic pretty simple design. So just wanted to communicate that it's in your staff report.

There is a statement and we've and we've we've completed the first review of this project and we've expressed this concern to the applicant. We're we're a little uh we're still evaluating the bu the building design overall, but staff has um has some concerns regarding the the lack of roof line movement on this building. Uh limited wall plane movement and the need for some additional decorative uh type of materials and archite and architecture or articulation on on all four sides.

The previous building had um a lot of articulation. it was a pretty unique design whereas this seems to be more of a standard uh uh square uh flat roof type design. So we're asking them to take a look at that other building and see if they can implement or some of the design elements that that building had on it even though we know it's industrial um it's right next to resident single multif family residential so and very very visible. So we'll be asking for your feedback on that.

Um and that's it that's the presentation I have for you. Um, so we would like to get some input the site design which is pretty standard and basic and then and then also that building architecture and some of those concerns that I just brought up. So that's all I have for you. If you have any questions for me, I would love to entertain them and I'd love to hear your feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Keith. Members of the commission, does anyone have input? Yes. Thank you, chair.

Um Keith, on the I agree with staff's position on modifying the roof line a bit, creating a little more interest, creating that interest to the entry of the development. I did like their awning there.

One of the things I had a question on, it looks like, and I know it's a rendering, it's not necessarily the drawing of the building, but it they don't have the canopy on that, but they have this like cap on the on the masonry where the masonry type changes, and that's a nice detail that kind of creates makes that section look a little like there's kind of a wall plane change there, even though there's not. It kind of gives you that impression. I thought that was a nice detail.

So, you could maybe that as an option if they incorporated some areas like that around the building too just to kind of give the illusion that there's a wall plane change or more wall plane changes to like recess those sections or something would be neat. Um but I mean I think it's a good kind of base of a building but they could do a little bit more to make it a little more interesting. It is going to kind of stand out by itself for a while until some other things develop.

Um people running to the north and driving on Ray. So, and it is, you know, one of the is there any other buildings in this development yet? Um, Vice Chair, uh, Fay, Commissioner Davis, there is a storage facility to the north. Okay. Um, but that's it right now. I mean, it's going to kind of set a standard for what else we get there, I think. And with residential next door and that nice development to the east, I think it's important that it look good. So, those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Gage. Mr. Davis, anyone else? Mr. Chair, thank you. I just want to thank staff for the report and kind of echo the comments of Commissioner Davis. I think there could just be a little bit more interest in what you were saying as well, Keith. So, thank you. And if the applicant could just a little bit more into that, I think produce a nice product for the neighborhood and for the future developments that you're saying. Excellent. Thank you. All right, last call.

Okay, Keith, that's uh not a lot of feedback, but um it's not particularly controversial. Not a huge one either. So, I think you you've got some some insight here. Yeah, I think that's good. Thank you very much. Sounds like there's general concurrence with what staff already thinks. So, okay, cool. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Uh with that, we bring up item two, ST26, TAC01, Grand View at Somerset. S For the most part, tonight's going to be the cell show, I think.

Uh, good evening, commission. Uh, Sal Desanto, Planner 2. Uh, the next study session item we'll be taking a look at is ST26-01, Grand View at Somerset, which will be a standard plan set. Uh just to provide some initial context, uh the subject site outlined in blue is a 75 lot residential subdivision located south of the southeast corner of Greenfield and POS roads.

Uh the entire subdivision is zoned SF10 with a planned area development overlay and is directly adjacent to uh single family residential uh to the south, east, and west. Uh and just to the north beyond Grand View, there is a general commercial zone property. Uh additionally, there has been an approved final plat um that was approved back in August of 2025.

And uh with this application, David Weekly Homes is seeking to establish uh seven standard plans um and architectural design for the SF10 uh subdivision. Uh each lot will be at minimum 12,000 square feet and each plan shall be developed to meet all applicable um single family development standards.

[clears throat] For the presentation too, I have it set up where we have the elevations first for each um architectural style and then it's broken down into the individual uh standard plans themselves. Uh so the first elevation or architectural style that is propo proposed for the subdivision uh is going to be farmhouse. Uh the architectural style incorporates um farmhouse elements including flat concrete concrete roof tiles, board and batten siding and stone veneer uh placed at the base.

Uh shutters have also been proposed on a few different of the options here that play into the farmhouse aesthetic. Specifically on A721, we have those barn door uh looking shutters. Uh additionally, we'll see some dormers along the the roof lines. Uh and you can see the traditional farmhouse uh roof articulation as well with those steep gables. [clears throat] Again, we'll see some of the uh wood trim along the the roof line.

And again, you'll see that typical farmhouse look of a lighter wall plane with darker uh roof tiles. [clears throat] The second uh architectural style proposed is uh Spanish colonial uh which is offered in both singlestory and twotory configurations. Uh the style is helped defined by its S-shaped concrete roof tiles and low pitch gable roofs uh which help reinforce the traditional character of that Spanish architecture.

Uh Stucco serves as the primary wall finish complemented by stone accents placed along the building's base to help create a um grounding feature and a warm sense of arrival. Uh the design further incorporates arch windows and entryways and other smaller architectural elements such as iron work. Uh you can see that in the pictures of the roof line there. And then you'll also see a Juliet balcony on plan A724.

Uh the next architectural style is going to be that royal Mediterranean which draws [clears throat] its inspiration from the traditional European style homes utilizing natural materials and warm earth tones. Uh the style is proposed both in singlestory and twotory uh with some exposed rafter tails in certain situations as well playing into that uh Mediterranean architecture. Uh the roof line and the roof itself will utilize the Sshaped concrete tiles and will use a blend of earth style tones.

Uh the main walls surfaces will be constructed of stucco with some more of that stone veneer uh with a a larger block than what was seen on the other two styles to help tie into that u Mediterranean architectural style as well. Also for window treatments, um you'll see some some trellis style canopies as well as some other window treatments to help tie into the architectural style as a whole as well. [clears throat] The last architectural style proposed is going to be uh French country.

Uh it ties nicely into the architectural style by providing lighter wall planes with those darker um roof accents. It'll use flat concrete um tiles as well seen also on the farmhouse. And you can also see the traditional French country roof line with those really steep gables into a hip design roof. Uh here we're actually going to start moving into the individual plans them themselves.

I won't spend too too much time on these since we just went through the architectural styles, but I just wanted to showcase the seven different plans that are proposed with the package. So A721 is going to be a singlestory development with the maximum live livable square footage of 3,77 ft. Uh the A722 standard plan uh again will be a singlestory product and will be uh at max livable of 3,855 ft. Um, plan A723 will be a two-story design. Um, here showing the the Spanish colonial.

Uh, these these lots will have a maximum livable square footage of 4593 ft. Uh, A724, another two-story design uh, with a maxable maximum livable square footage of 4,000 uh, 9 or 829 square feet. Uh A725, another one-story design, but with a maximum square footage of 4,949 square feet. Uh A726, uh twotory uh product with a maximum livable square footage of 5,250 ft. And the last plan here, A727, and these have a maximum livable square footage of 5,485 ft.

As for colors and materials for the different architectural styles, uh each style will incorporate um specific doors, lights, and garage doors uh each unique to their architectural um elevation design. Um here you can see the different color palettes for each architectural uh package. Each um each elevation will have four uh color palettes at minimum for future homeowners to choose to their liking.

Um, you can see with the the farmhouse, we have the traditional light base with some of those darker accents. Um, here we can see the hardware for the Spanish colonial and there's specifics to the the lighting, the garage doors, and the main entry tying into the style nicely. Uh, again, here you can see the the four different color packages each tying into those earth tones, which is typical of Spanish style development. Uh, looking at the R Mediterranean, you can see the garage door there.

another arched entryway in a different in the um a difference in the coach light. Again, more or less those earth tones uh with those darker um architectural accents. And then last but not least, we have the French country. Again, you can see the differences in their proposed hardware uh as well as the difference in colors and materials for this architectural style. Um I know it's always helpful to have perspectives in there, especially with the standard plan.

So, wanted to breeze through these um for you guys so you can see some of that. um wall movement both on the front elevations and in the rear elevations. Uh another thing that staff did did like quite an a bit about these elevations is the introduction of lots of windows in the the rear elevation. It helps establish some nice natural light and with the perspectives you can see that the offsets don't make it seem like just a wall of windows which was an initial concern.

Um when we we looked at these plans uh but having the movement and the perspectives helps us um understand the placement of these windows. We have our typical plot plans as well. I just have the standard plan for each um the typical for each standard plan. Uh you can see an A721 here. We're meeting the applicable uh setbacks for the SF10 uh district for this specific site, which would be a 25 foot front setback, 30 foot rear setback, and then 10 ft uh for the side setbacks.

And again, I'll just pass through these. And at this time, uh, we are just requesting, um, general feedback from the planning commission in regards to the proposed, um, standard plan set. Uh, additionally, just wanted to add that once a standard plan application is heard at a study session, uh, staff does have the ability to approve this application administratively. And I'm happy to answer any questions or take any comments you all may have. Thank you.

Thank you, S, for a very, very thorough presentation. Members of the commission, does anyone have any I see Yan has a Commissioner Simon has s Thank you for your presentation. Um I just real quick I didn't see I see that they're obviously limiting it to seven style seven styles I guess if you will. Um and they've got lots limited to which um structures can fit on each lot, but I don't see that they're limiting the number of each building or type of house.

Is there a limitation to that or are they just letting it go to whatever they want? Uh, Chair Fay, Commissioner Simon, we do have standards in place uh to ensure that there isn't uh the same elevation style adjacent or across um that chosen style. So, I believe when it moves into the building stage, that'll be um looked at a little bit more in depth, but we do have that language that secures that no um similar elevations or styles will be adjacent or across from one another. Okay.

Um, I appreciate the fact that that they've stuck with a little bit, I'll call it, larger lot for the the type of home that's there. I do have I got a bit of a struggle with the the amount of windows on these properties. Um, living in a house that has a lot of windows, I can tell you that aesthetically it's charming. Practicalitywise, it's not great for the desert.

Um, so looking at the back of these houses, all I see is massive amounts of heat loss or cool loss or however you want to look at that. So, so that would just be my only issue with it. I mean, I think from an aesthetic perspective, yeah, it looks great. Practicalitywise, I look at it and I think, oh god, I wouldn't want to live in one of those homes. So, my personal opinion. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair.

Um, going to that window issue, um, for the lots that are like west facing backyards, would there be an opportunity for them to have an option to reduce some of that? Because I agree, having a house with a west facing backyard and a lot of windows, it's it's challenging um, in the summer. So, I didn't know if that, you know, for those lots if that could be something. I I like that they provided it.

I Aesthetically, I agree it's pleasing, but again, practically those people might not realize what they're getting. So, anyway, they'll have fun when they have to replace them in the future, too. So, so those are my comments. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Anybody else on this side? Gage, I'm also a hater of all the windows. Um, I don't know.

I guess maybe I like to live in a batcave or something, but I just think of the amount of money you'd spend to cover all of those windows in sunscreens. Um, and and I'm wondering where do you put furniture? Cuz there's no like wall space to put some furniture against. So I this would not be the product for me. Um, but I can see where people maybe in a cooler state would really love this. Thank you, Commissioner Gage. Commissioner L. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a question for staff.

I saw um something in there about a landscaping stipen. Can you explain that a little bit to me and who's going to enforce that? How much time do they have to to do it? Or could the owner just decide not to do it at all and they just have a dirt lot in their front yard? I'm sorry. Could you repeat that uh question, Commissioner uh line?

There's a landscaping stipend where instead of installing the the landscaping for the front yard, the homeowners are giving a stipen to do it, but it sounds like a little bit of a a headache for enforcement, not maybe that's a for the HOA that's set up, but just wanted to see if there was something why they decided to go that route. I don't know if I've ever seen a developer hand off the the landscaping duties. Does that make sense? It does. Uh thank you, Commissioner Lion.

Um I don't have a exact answer for you right now. Uh to your point, this isn't something that I've seen too too often as well, so I'll be more than happy to uh work with the applicant and get a definitive answer for you. Excellent. And I would like to add my name to the list of folks who are not a big fan of the the wall of windows. That would be pretty tough. And in the desert. So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? S.

Um, I I didn't review this as thoroughly because I I kind of am not very good at aesthetics, but uh I I missed the point about a landscaping statement and I I share that concern that ordinarily the developer puts it in. If if they do a land that's almost like a cash andlue type bond. It sounds like the problem is if they don't do it, it's going to put potentially the city in the or the town in the position of trying to enforce something that wasn't necessarily built in the first place.

I I I'm all in favor of homeowners having a lot more discretion than we often leave them in terms of landscaping and such. And even HOAs are probably too too But the idea of of kind of leaving it open-ended at the beginning seems a little um I mean maybe but I don't know make sure at a minimum code compliance is cool with that that decision by the the planning staff. Okay, you got it. Thank you, Commissioner F. Chair Fay. Thank you. All right. Uh with that, I think that item is complete.

Anyone else raising your hand? Okay, that brings us to item three. I think we got Keith coming back up again. Item three is uh three items starting with GP26 TAC 03. These are all the Hemingston assisted living cases. Uh, chair, I need to step off this one. Oh, okay. We have a conflict here. We still have a Vice Chair Fay, members of the commission. Um my second project before you tonight is for the Heming Hemingson Assisted Living um congregate care facility.

This project is located in K it's located in Kulie station. Um you can see on the screen in front of you, it's right there at Williamsfield and uh Summerton uh Boulevard. It is on parcel 7 within the Kulie Station planned area development. There are only three parcels or so remaining in Kulie Station that have not been approved for development and this is one of them. So, it's getting there.

Um, as far as the request before you tonight is, uh, a general plan amendment, um, P8 reszone and a design review for an 88 bed, um, uh, congregate care facility that has 53,613 square feet of building area on on a 5.8 gross acre site. So, what the applicant is the applicant is proposing those three requests. The first request is for the general plan amendment. The site today, as you can see on the exhibit in front of you, 5.8 acres.

The site is currently has a general plan designation of general office and they are proposing to change that to general commercial to accommodate this facility. uh that type of use is not uh uh that general office category does not permit the type of facility that they're that they're wanting to uh um develop. Uh next is the zoning. The zoning on the site is currently um general office as well as same as the general plan designation.

And in order to build a facility at the square footage they need to build it at um they are requesting shopping center zoning. So let's go ahead and look at the actual development and the design of the development. Um here is the conceptual design um showing you the development plan. Five like I said before 5.8 acres uh 53,000 square ft of building space.

There's five total buildings and you can see those buildings on the screen and it shows a building footprint a little bit showing where those interior um rooms are located. Um and and I even have a breakdown here for you of all five buildings and how many square footage they are square feet they are, excuse me. So they're anywhere between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet. Uh most of them are about 10,000 square feet.

Um, the site, like I said before, 88 beds total and there's 45 total parking spaces. The site has two access points. One, the main access point will be off of Williamsfield Road and uh customers or residents or employees will circulate around the site. The parking spaces are located along the perimeter of the site for the main for the most part. Uh there is a patient drop off location um on that north side of the site um which I'm assuming is where their main office is going to be located.

Um the secondary access point off of Summerton in that far southwest corner is also another access out to that existing uh road. Um, we don't anticipate anybody driving through the neighborhood and regardless this is a very low traffic generating use, so I don't think it would be an issue even if they did. But most people will come in off of Williamsfield Road and access the site off of Williamsfield, potentially exit off Summerton, and head back out to Williamsfield Road.

Um, the site or in the middle in between the buildings, there's about 20 ft of space in between all these buildings. Um, you have courtyards in the middle with there will be some amenities. I'm going to go ahead and show you the development plan. This may show or excuse me, the site plan which shows it in a little bit more detail.

I know it's I can't zoom in and show you all the detail, but there's courtyards in the middle that have shade canopies and some some some um amenities for the residents to use. Um, little little mini seating areas and and tables and some things like that. little little gathering spaces where they can go outside and enjoy themselves and lots of sidewalks where they can walk around. Um and patios, covered patios along the perimeter of the buildings in that interior space as well.

Um [cough and clears throat] so as far as the landscape plan, here's the the beautiful color version of the landscape plan. Your packet has a black and white version that shows shrubs. This just shows trees, but you can see how well the the the plan is landscaped. a lot of landscaping along the perimeter and of course like I said in that middle area where you can see uh a lot of trees and some there's some grass in that center area as well and the amenity areas in the middle.

Um the biggest thing I wanted to call to your attention is the landscape buffer along the southern boundary which which faces or adjoins uh single family residential. that area is going to be uh right now it has has one row of trees.

Um [clears throat] uh we may be uh I'm continuing to evaluate that and whether or not they need to add some additional trees along that southern boundary, maybe even two rows of trees to provide um a better screen from these residents that live live behind uh this development. Um so that's something we're going to take a look at. We're we're in first review right now, the design review case. So, that's something we're still evaluating.

Um, a lot of uh minimal parking areas, but they have landscaping in those areas as well. It's total of about 46.4% open space. Actually, that may be a typo. I think it I think it's more in the the range of 15% landscaping, excuse me. So, that's a typo. [clears throat] As far as the elevation design is concerned, um a mixture of flat roofing and gable roofing. Um [clears throat] very roof line variation is we consider this to be to be very good from that standpoint.

A lot of wall plane movement and variety in the wall plane um designs uh materials. You have you have like bat like kind of like wood siding and uh uh hardy plank type siding. There's uh station red brick. We got that fuego red brick on the buildings which is prominent in and in station. You've got some some some metal roofing type designs. You've got board and batten um some stucco. Uh some wood trim.

So [snorts] there's quite a bit of material variety, play in in the wall plane movements and in the roof line variety. Um so we feel that this building fits in really well with the design of the buildings that are already in Kulie station that have been constructed and established. So this is um uh you got the north and the east elevation here. This north one will face um Williamsfield [clears throat] Road.

The east will face to a vacant piece of property which is parcel 8i station to the east and then these ones are more southacing elevations as well. And then here's some west elevations. So as you can see a lot of wall plane movement. These we we feel that these are pretty high quality um uh elevations and all of the buildings are single story and the height will be about 25 ft um based on how we measure height. So I'm just going to go through these.

Here's building type two and again all single story. So as far as deviations are concerned and the main reason they're coming forward with the P A is they have a deviation for the the minimum building setbacks the at the rear along that residential boundary. The code the the shopping center code requires um 75 ft for a building setback they're requesting 67.

And the reason for this is and I know you're it has it in your narrative and so forth, but as this is a very um kind of a very it's not a very deep site. It's so it's it's kind of constricted a little bit as far as how many buildings they that they want to construct. Um and and we feel and they feel that this uh slight reduction is appropriate from a building setback standpoint. They're singlestory buildings. They're not two-story buildings.

there's still an ability to provide quite a bit of landscaping along the southern boundary. So, we feel that that that deviation um I don't believe we have too much of a problem with that. The second deviation is for um that landscape setback along the southern boundary. So, only decreasing it by five feet from 35 to 30 feet. And we we believe we can still fit all the trees that would otherwise be required still in that landscape setback.

And then there's a setback deviation for the drive aisle set back. Um I call it the throat depth of the entrance that's along that's along Williamsfield Road. So going from 60 down to 25. And as stated in your staff report, the reason for this deviation um is because they're providing a del lane along Williamsfield Road, which will slow speeds down quite a bit. The speed along Williamsfield Road is only 35 miles per hour.

So, they don't feel that they need that much uh distance from the drive aisle to the entrance of the site and it will help them uh fit those buildings on the site a lot better than if they had to provide that 60 ft. And so, the deviations are in red. There is one item site development standard that's in blue that I want to call your attention to.

It's not necessarily technically a deviation, but it's it's they're we're going to limit them to they they're the buildings are single story, so they're going above and beyond the code. And so we're like, hey, we're just going to lock them into this 25 ft building height. Um, and instead of them, they could go up to 35 ft, two stories, but they have agreed to do singlestory buildings at no taller than 25 ft. So that is basically the um the project and my presentation.

So the input that I would like to receive from you tonight as a commission is um what your thoughts are on the general plan amendment and the PD reszone and and of course those those three deviations and just any thought any um uh uh feedback you may have on the general design of the site and the buildings. That that's it. Thank you very much. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to uh to entertain those. Thank you. Thank you very much, Keith. All right.

Um sorry, it's not quite a uh any comments, Commissioner Simon. Keith, thank you for the presentation. Um with regards to the um general plan and zoning, I have no issue at all with that. Um, with regards to the deviations requested, the only one that gives me a little bit of cause for maybe pausing would be the red reduction in the um, entry way from 60 to 25 ft. Um, but because of where it's located, I don't think that that's really going to be an issue.

if it was more central of the property itself, I think that that could be a situation. But because of where it is and because of the way that the um the the drive bile actually continues on, if somebody for some reason can't slow enough in that del lane, I think that there's plenty of space for them to make that move. So, I don't I don't know that I have an issue with any of it. The building elevations are wonderful.

I think it fits in great with what's happening in Kulie Station and uh I don't have any issue with this at all. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner. Thank you, Keith. Uh, since Commission uh talked about the deviation of the dry aisle, I'm going to go a little bit deep for that. Um, I don't know why the dry aisle deviation is in the planning commission. It shouldn't be in the engineering uh department because that's a traffic safety.

And out of those three reason, number one, they say the traffic study shows that 90% less than traffic in a typical commercial. I'm not sure about that because it still have a lot of supporting staff and visitor for that. And in addition, so let's say a few years down the road, if they repurpose this thing and turn into something a little bit different, then those traffic still precise.

Uh the number two reason [clears throat] it talks about it's a 45 miles an hour uh at 35 miles an hour instead of 45. Actually it's not true. It's 45 uh east of Sumpton uh Boulevard. It's 35 when you go west but it's 30 uh it's 45 in front of uh this entrance. And the the deselling I measured it. It's about 200 feet including the taper and the storage. That's a very very short uh del lane.

Um and also if the traffic study is the uh shows the uh trip is correct, why should we even need a del lane? So the fact that they need a del lane that means you know there are some traffic. Um number three, what does it say? Del lane entrance and reduce the speed. Yeah, it is reduces the speed, but like I say, it's really short. So, I would uh I I would be cautious about the the the reductions of that dry uh the dry aisle.

Um and I don't see engineering in here today, but I I'll probably, you know, have them input as well. So, that's my comment. Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, Keith. Um Cher Fay, uh Commissioner Wang, appreciate your comments.

Um, I know traffic engineering is not here tonight to potentially answer your questions or provide more detailed information, but we will make sure that we have your uh uh your concerns and questions addressed uh when we in when we come back before you for a public hearing in the future. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any more, Commissioner Lions? Okay, mic. Okay. Um Keith, I had to one I it was I wasn't quite as deep a dive my mic's on. Oh, I'm sorry. Go.

No, go ahead, Commissioner G. Yeah, Commissioner Davis, sorry. Yes, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you, Keith. Um, related to um neighborhood outreach, do you know anything yet on how the neighbors to the south have received this? Have they had a neighborhood meeting? Hasn't there been any feedback to even know yet?

Um, Vice Chair, [clears throat] uh, Fay, Commissioner Davis, there was a neighborhood meeting that was held and I believe only two people showed up, two residents, and they just had general comments and questions. I don't believe they were too overly concerned. It's a pretty quiet use next to residential. Um, and it is a residential scale.

So, I guess initially I was hesitant with the third reduced setback adjacent to the residential, but the fact that we're getting all that single story, I think offsets that. And the fact that they're keeping it lower, I appreciate that. As far as the trees, um, in that landscape, it looks like you've got three houses there adjacent. I guess it's southern live oak, it looks like, is what they're proposing there. And those are really slow growing.

Maybe instead of more trees, they do a larger tree. um just you know as an option instead of packing them in there and have any not survive or do well or it just be a little too much. I don't know. So just something to consider. So that's all I had. Okay. Thank you. Yes, please go ahead. Thank you. Uh sorry about that. I I forget something I want to mention. I want to put it in the record.

the on the report it uh it cited that it's similar deviations is approved just west of it the Kool-Aid station and the Taco Bell the difference between this location and the Taco Bell is the Taco Bell is 35 miles an hour that's number one number two uh west of Taco Bell which is west of their delane it's not a signalized intersections this one is a signalized intersection. If ever there's a car backed up, there will be a risk for crashes.

So, that's uh I forgot to mention that before, but if you can relate back to traffic and let them, you know, take a look at this, that we appreciate. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else? Okay, Keith? I had uh two. One did relate to the width of the drive setback. Um not quite as much detail, but it was a little concerning to me. If traffic's okay with it, I'm fine with it.

Uh the other related to and maybe this is going to show my ignorance a little bit, but the zoning that we're changing to is shopping center. And I heard you say something that made it sound like was that zoning picked because it fits the overall I like the design. Was that zoning picked because it fits the setbacks the best? I would have guessed without going way into the details that this use would require some form of multifamily. I'm surprised that it's shopping center.

Uh, Vice Chair Fay, members of the commission. So, that zoning was picked largely because the amount of building square footage that they were proposing um was too high for the the originally they were proposing um neighborhood commercial, I believe, if I remember correctly. And that doesn't um or community commercial, one of the two. And that only allowed like 50,000 square ft of building space. And so, um, they are proposing over like about 54,000 square feet of space.

So, that in order to go over that, they needed to go, uh, graduate to the next zoning district up. And we weren't comfortable with deviations for for, uh, building square footage u allowances like like that versus setbacks or common deviations that we get all the time.

and the deviation requests for the setbacks, the landscape setback and the building setback are are minimal um versus them trying to deviate that um uh square footage limitation that's in the code and we didn't feel comfortable with that. If that makes sense. It it does, but it kind of Do we ever do we routinely do we ever do zoning based on dimensions that fit the best? I I kind of thought we went it with the appropriate use and then made the dimensions fit.

This looks like we're picking the one that the dimensions fit and just shoehorning in the use. Um, Chair Fay, members of the commission, it it it's it just depends on the project. Does this use will this use fit within a within a shopping center? I mean, within the definition of shopping center. Uh, Chair Fay, uh, members of the commission, yes, it's a it's in a permitted use. Okay. Okay. That that more gets to Yes, this is a permitted use within the shopping center zoning. Correct.

Okay, good enough, I guess. And we were comfortable we're com we are comfortable with the with the setback deviations that they're proposing. So versus allowing them to try and deviate from that minimum building square footage standard. Much more comfortable with that than than than the building square footage. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Keith. You've got some feedback from us. Yeah, I think that I I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you.

Okay, with that that is the extent of the uh public or the uh study session tonight. Someone's making noise. Did I forget? And oh no, I did forget. Uh S, we've got the land development code modification. There's one item number four uh Zulu 26 TAC01. Sorry to have neglected you, S. Not a problem. Hello again, commissioners. Uh the next study session item we'll be taking a look at [clears throat] is a LDC text amendment uh for related to data centers.

Um this LDC text amendment initially came to you all. I believe it was in January or February uh to begin the initiation for that text amendment. Uh we've had a few months to dive deeper into some of those um areas that we wanted to examine further since that last hearing. Um and we're here tonight to show you some of that preliminary information and where we're currently at with some of those uh data center related standards.

[clears throat] Uh as part of the LDC text amendment, this is our second hearing. So we are here for the study session. So staff is requesting uh feedback comments questions uh anything you all may have related to the uh text amendment. [clears throat] Um the areas that we're wishing to amend in the code is going to be uh division 2.0 terms, section 3.0 bay zoning districts and use regulations, section 3.7 employment districts, and section 5.0 uh additional use and site regulations.

Um, and this is essentially trying to uh establish new sections in our code to address uh data centers which we currently do not in our code. It's only mentioned I believe two or three times but is not tied to uh any kind of development standard. Um looking at this as a whole um and and why we're looking to amend the code for data centers actually splits into a few different categories here. Uh from staff's perspective, the first is recognizing uh modern infrastructure needs.

Um with data centers becoming essential components of today's digital economy, uh supporting everything from business operations and everyday online services, we need to make sure that the town is also staying up to date with those trends to establish clear development standards. Uh next we have balancing innovation with community protection.

Uh you know while this information or while this infrastructure is important um data centers also introduce unique uh impacts to surrounding neighbors uh regarding noise uh the scale of the developments the utility demands and the overall visual character um that data centers can can bring. Uh the next is proactively establish establishing clear standards. Uh this plays both to the community and to potential applicants for future development.

um by establishing those clear um development standards, there shouldn't be too much left to question. The next is just ensuring we're um compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Again, I touched on that earlier, but with the scale of which data centers can develop from either very small to um what are hypers scale um data centers ranging from hundreds and hundreds of thousands square feet. We want to ensure that all of our community members uh and and developments are properly protected.

And lastly is just creating predictable uh standards for applicants in the public. I know I touched on that in the beginning, but if we can get ahead of the game and establish some of these clear development standards, um our neighbors, our applicants will have a clear uh understanding uh for where the st where the town stands in data center development. [clears throat] As I mentioned, uh, data centers are only mentioned a couple of times in the code.

Uh, the first being, uh, the definition for for data center, which is up here on the screen for you. And the second is its relationship to our use regulations. Uh, currently data centers are only permitted in building or in the business park zoning category and the light industrial uh, zoning category. Uh, with this update, we are wishing to to change this. I'll show you that slide uh in just a moment.

But due to the the nature of these these developments, staff believes that it would be best to have these only in industrial zoning districts uh meaning LI and GI and completely removing it from the uh business park zoning designation as well. Uh the next change would also be related to those special use permits. All right. Um, in that original uh, initiation we had a few months back, we went over a few different areas that we wanted to uh, examine in a bit more detail.

So, I'll go ahead and run through um, a few of these slides just to show you where we're currently at with the um, with those standards related to data centers. Uh, I touched on the first one there and it's the permitted uses. Uh, currently data centers are permitted in the code in BP and LI uh, through a traditional use permit um, application.

Uh with this update, we are requesting to just allow data centers within LI and GI and also add an additional standard that modifications deviations and alternative development standards for data centers uh will not be permitted through a planned area development process. Uh which is something that would be unique to to our current code. Uh the second is also one I've touched on just a bit is just requiring special use permits for all data center related development.

And the next is going to be setbacks. Uh we've had some time to dig into some some local municipal codes, some national municipal codes, and we also had an opportunity to tour some some currently uh operating data centers and some that are uh under construction. So we had an in-person look at, you know, how much of an impact these structures can create uh to adjacent communities.

Um, so when we look at our setbacks, we want to make sure that building structures, mechanical equipment, transformers, battery cabinets, generators, cooling units, basically any piece associated with uh the data center operations, we want to make sure that those are at minimum 400 ft away from property lines. Um if the proposed property is surrounded by residential uh as identified in the general plan, we did want to increase the setback to roughly 650 ft.

Um when we originally talked um about this, I know we were discussing 200 to 300 ft. Um, but after seeing some of those built examples that have those 200 to 300 foot buffers, uh, they're not substantial enough in in staff's opinion to create an enjoyable residential community around it. The next piece we want to I' look into a bit more for from a planning perspective is how these data centers tie into electrical infrastructure.

Um, with data centers, they can only use energy that is available on the grid. And if there isn't any power available, they need to establish their own source. Um, one of the adjacent municipalities to to Gilbert currently has 16 to 19 data centers. Um, and each and every single one of them does have a substation on site as they weren't able to meet their their power demand.

Um, so that's just something we're looking at too with this one is to ensure um if there is appropriate power and if there isn't, how will these substations tie into the overall design? [clears throat] Uh, the next area we took a deeper dive into was design and screening requirements. Um, the first piece we added here is that all mechanical and utility equipment shall be fully screened by a building that is visually and architecturally integrated uh with the site and surrounding development.

Um, if this option isn't pursued, we do have an alternative, but it's essentially reading the same that all the equipment must be properly screened by a decorative screen wall. Um, additionally, we wanted to add in some more specific design guidelines or standards for data centers. uh because these can range in in various sizes, they can follow a typical warehouse development without much articulation, color um really lacking that that architectural presence for for a use.

So we wanted to ensure that each entrance to the data center um is identified with specific architectural uh elements. We also want to ensure that there is a proper use of windows uh just to create some some natural light and also tie into some of the concerns from fire and some of those health and safety departments as data centers can be quite difficult to navigate in um those heat of the moment situations.

[clears throat] Uh building height is also another thing we we took a look at in a bit more detail. Um in staff it's comfortable with a height of 55 ft. Um, we've seen, like I said, various various versions of the data centers and we think 55 ft is is a height that can accommodate the use without being too imposing on not only residential neighborhoods but any adjacent user. Um, another area that we've looked at is parking.

Uh, parking for data centers can be a bit tricky due to the square footage of the development and the limited amount of employees actually on site. Um, looking at what other municipalities have done locally, they tend to be at a one space to 6,000 square foot ratio or 1 to 10,000 square foot ratio and then adjust for how much extra square footage over a certain threshold. Um, so staff felt comfortable with that 6,000 square foot um, parking uh requirement.

Um again because of the the intense use that data centers uh are we wanted to ensure that there's also substantial landscaping in place to promote any kind of screening uh we possibly can. So we um implemented a 35 foot uh landscaping area along street frontages. We're looking at a 100 foot minimum landscape setback um to all of the rear and side property lines.

um if those side and rear property lines are adjacent to residential, we are looking at a 200 foot uh landscape setback just to create more of a buffer to those to those homes. U additionally in our code, we do have an opportunity to not install side and rear landscaping if they are enclosed or within a rear gated area.

uh looking at data centers, we want to make sure that that option um isn't available, whether it is enclosed, gated, we want to make sure that those those landscape buffers are properly in place. Um sound mitigation, also another area we've looked at that the town would like sound mitigation studies um provided with any application uh and also tossing around the idea of annual sound studies um for for any data center we may have in town. Um lighting is next.

Um, and this one was, uh, we worked with our PD, our fire to help establish some of those, um, life and safety standards and tie those all together. So, when it comes to lighting, we want to ensure that data centers utilize full cutoff downward directed fixtures and that light trespass caps do not spill onto the residential properties and the upward-facing or unshielded lighting methods would not be permitted for this use. All right.

[clears throat] Uh, another couple important areas to touch on um, especially related to utilities is water. [clears throat] We had an opportunity to work with our uh, water resources department and they did let us know that the current policies in place through the uh, sustainable water allocation policy and our water resource management strategy report. we do have the standards in place um to assist with the the data center development.

So what we have right now is sufficient enough um for for um water in our water uh resources department to feel comfortable with. Um some new standards we are looking into is to restrict uh evaporated of cooling systems which are those cooling towers and this was after a back and forth with water uh resources. Um and just this is from the fact that these can be very wasteful to to the town's water.

Um, typically with these cooling towers, uh, we would like to see them cycled through three or more times, but unfortunately most of the time they're cycled through once and be can become a, um, a big waste of of water. Um, the last piece of that too is that the town will not provide portable water to any data center development. Uh the last piece uh is related to fire and safety and this working with some of our um health and safety departments, fire PD.

Um and what we really looked into is that fire inspections um shall be conducted annually. Uh clear and descriptive door signage shall be provided with all applicable locations to ensure safe circulation. um as that was a big um issue from the fire side is it can be very difficult to maneuver through these through these um through these sites.

Uh the next is a plan related to end of life batteries ensuring there is a plan in place to remove said batteries and get them off of the site in a safe uh safe manner. And then lastly is just requiring um specific FCC locations um that are independent and dedicated for themselves only.

I know I ran through a lot of information uh there, but with all the standards in mind, our next steps um with this text amendment is following the study session, we'll get the information from you all and bring it back to a formal hearing um with the commission where a recommendation will then be made to council. uh we'll have another study session with town council and then following that study session we'll um we'll be seeking that formal approval from from the town council.

Um and as I mentioned earlier uh there no recommended motion at this time. Planning staff is just seeking some some feedback uh regarding the text amendment and I'm happy to answer any questions take any comments. Thank you. Thank you S.

My understanding is a good part of what's driving this is there isn't literally a state law driving it but it's the anticipation of a state law that's coming is is driving part of this trying to get this on the books right [clears throat] uh chair fay uh yes and no so we have heard some rubblings of some legislature at the state level that may impact local municipalities related to data centers but from a staff perspective we also understand that this is going to be um a use that is going to be coming more and more often in in the near future and we just want to ensure we have the proper policies and standards in place to protect our our community.

Okay. Uh members of the commission, Commissioner Anderson, S, thank you for that presentation. Kind of very informative of uh data centers considering how much of a hot topic that seems to be these days, not here but just across the country. Um, [clears throat] have you guys compared what you're proposing to surrounding areas and what their codes are currently written or how they're going to adopt them to data centers?

And if so, are we kind of in line with them or are we more restrictive or are we not as restrictive as surrounding communities? Uh, Chair Fay, Commissioner Anderson, uh, we've definitely taken a look at, um, all of the the local, uh, municipalities. We've looked into Mesa. We've looked into Chandler, Phoenix, uh even as far as Morirana just to see how these different um cities or towns are attacking the the data center um movement.

And ours, I will say after putting together is a bit more strict, but we were also trying to utilize some of those existing standards and morph it into what fits our community as a whole. So they may be a bit more restrictive, but they're now not completely outlandish to what's existing in the valley. Okay. Um I'm glad to see you guys hit the electrical and water um kind of requirements of these data centers. Again, those would seem to be hot topics, especially the water one.

Uh so the water one is written that they can't tap into potable water to help cool. Are they allowed to tap into reclaimed water for that purpose? Um, Chair Fay, Commissioner Anderson, I'll have to dig up a bit more information for you, but I believe so, but I'll I'll get some some more information related to that. Okay. But we just wanted to limit the portable aspect of it. And let's say if they are I mean the potable one water makes sense not allowing them to tap into that.

But at some point, they need to have some sort of water resource for their cooling. And if you're pretty much saying you can't do that and if you say you can't use reclaimed water then essentially what you're saying is you can't come to Gilbert at the end of the day because you know unless they come up with new technology to to cool the systems. So if let's just say for argu for the purpose of discussion they are allowed to tap into the reclaimed water.

Would it make sense to have um some language in that that says if you do tap into reclaim water, you have to um reclaim and recycle whatever water you take off of that system. So it becomes less of a draw that they're pulling from the overall system altogether. Uh Chair Anderson or Commissioner Anderson. Um yes, that's something we can definitely uh take a look at.

I'll work with our our water department u following this meeting and try and um get some more concrete standards related to the reclaim water. Okay. Thank you. That's all the only questions I had. You got it. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Simon. Yeah, thank you. Um S, thank you for the presentation. I just have one quick question. You've said that you have looked at what other municipalities are doing in the area and what they've done and we're a little bit more restrictive.

Have you gone to any of them and asked them, you know, hey, now that you've got 15 different data centers, what would you have done differently? Um, Commissioner Simon, um, after looking at at some of these different sites and speaking with some of these municipalities, uh, one of the areas identified was architecture.

just making sure that whatever is being proposed isn't a complete eyesore to the to neighboring communities because these these sites can range anywhere from 50,000 square feet to a million square feet and can have heights ranging from 50 feet to 120 ft.

Uh, one of the ones we did see was a I believe a 120 foot tall data center um exhausts almost lining, you know, the the rear of one of the um the main wall planes and then also um seeing how close some of these um substations are located to residential properties. Um, and that was something that I think was a big wakeup call for some of those those communities is seeing how massive these these structures really are. Um, outside of aesthetics, um, there can be noise issues.

Um, another reason for for the intense distancing, there can be this humming. There can be um just really different forms of of issues for for neighbors. There could be an odor issue. There could be, like I said, sound issues, visual issues. So, I think it's a a combination of a few things from from those local communities um that that they've learned from, and we're just trying to get on top of those so we're not learning those lessons later. Okay, Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair.

I have a few things to say. Um, I appreciate the um significant setbacks that you're you're listing. Um, I believe Mesa's recently gone updated their code to create larger setbacks based on the existing conditions out there. So, they are I believe other cities are going back and looking at these issues as well. Um, so I guess related to um, one question I have, how many do we have of these in Gilbert? I think I asked this last time, but I could only find one. Is that correct?

Uh, Commissioner Davis, that's the only one that that I know in Gilbert. I was curious, which is, I think, good that you're kind of ahead of the game on this because I know it is impacting a lot of communities in a negative way. Um, as far as the mechanical, I wanted to understand that part. It says all mechanical and utility equipment shall be fully screened by a building that is visually and architecturally integrated with the site and surrounding development.

So, they actually have to have a building separating it in in all cases is do you put it like centered around building or is there cases where it could be screen walls? That was the intent. uh Commissioner Davis is that you could go the route of screen walls as well. Okay. Um but they would be some pretty sufficient uh screen walls on site, but we wanted to provide at least an an option outside of just the building.

I could see a benefit where adjacent to residential that there is actually a building buffering between the two to mitigate some of those issues with noise and stuff. Um, so I could see where that could be beneficial adjacent to residential to have that significant like actually a building between them versus just screen walls. Um, regarding the substations, do we have any um have there been any discussions with how those are designed?

Are they going to be I mean is there a way because I know it's going to be SRP. Are they or APS depending I guess on where is there any communication happening about how much design work can go into how those screen walls are going to look and how they'll integrate and how I know some of this equipment can be huge. So, I guess I'm concerned that a substation I feel like 650 ft might still be kind of close to residential in those cases for a substation versus the equipment.

Anyway, um do you know anything on the design of those? Um, Commissioner Davis. So, in the past, um, we actually have worked on a substation related to um, it was called Corbell or Superstition Energy Storage where it was the Tesla, uh, battery packs to store power on and off peak hours and they did have an associated substation.

So while the infrastructure can can be quite daunting being quite tall for for uh an industrial development, we still tried to apply our employment design guidelines as best as we could. Uh meaning it still needed to meet base setbacks, needed to meet landscape setbacks. Um that walls needed to be proposed as best as they could to screen as much as the equipment as they could.

Um so in the realm of the substations, we're grabbing a few pieces of the code to try and um create the best screening possible. Okay. Um also related to the substations, I know often times there's road access that they need to get to these that limits any landscaping that can go in in those easements or, you know, and there's utility lines and such. So you're not actually able to have trees or things that are going to provide those aesthetic kind of bufferings of those areas.

So I guess that's where I would be more concerned that the design of the actual substation, okay, is increased if you're not going to be able to have any kind of landscape buffering in certain areas. I know that can get tricky. Um and or whether or not they'll allow shrubs and maybe no trees. Just things to consider there.

Um, the other question I had is with the 100 foot landscape setback, is there a minimum amount of landscaping they need in that 100 feet or is it just like a row of trees and then a few, you know, I just am curious about that. Uh, Commissioner Davis, that's something we're going to have to um take um a deeper look at. So, right now, we were just trying to uh feel out which which distancing felt appropriate for the use.

Um, we were thinking that it would follow the same plantings as our current code, but to your point, when you have that big of a setback, we're going to increase the quantity. So, when we bring this back to I'll make sure that we have more of a definitive answer related to the plantings themselves. I think that covers my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Anyone else? No. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just have a quick question.

Um if we're prohibiting the evaporative cooling as well as portable water, it kind of only leaves two options for the data centers, which would be um air cooling, which is pretty expensive. Um or they would have a closed loop system. You if you a few of them, you'll know that they have they have to send the water through liquid cooling method. um that kind of data center is running new chips that are powering AI and everything like that and they run really really hot.

So either way, I think we're trading water savings for increased power usage. So, it's just something to consider. Not necessarily for the amendment, but if we're prohibiting these other options, it's kind of pushing into this um this new area that would require a larger power demand. So, something we might want to check with the provider in the area and I don't know, make sure that still works for doesn't push any costs onto the, you know, the the residential or the users in the area as well.

So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lions. Gage. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, S. I think that's um that is feedback. Thank you. Okay. Now, I think we're done. Uh and it is time to discuss the um discuss the agenda that is coming up for the regular meeting. We have two items. I think theoretically both on consent. Um I want to talk about I've got a question about both of them. Item nine DR26-30 is on consent.

I know there were some members who had I did not, but I know there were some members who had uh comments or concerns about it when it came to study session. Does anyone want it pulled off consent? Okay, that's that's a Okay, so that doesn't need to. And then item 10 uh consisting of golf papa 26 t-04 and zulu 26 tac 06. My understanding is the continuation or the request to continue applies to both items. Is that is that correct? Correct. Okay.

Um so I think the what is on consent is the continuation. That is correct as well. Okay. I assume nobody wants that pulled or there's only one person who would do it for sarcasm reasons and yep she's not uh jumping. Yes. Commission chair. I thought historically we had to remove a continuence from consent and vote on that separately. Is that correct? We can't just do the consent as written. Sure. Quite honestly I've seen it done both ways.

Um, I'm I'm fine with it just staying on consent as long as we make a note in the record that it's for continuence. That seems easiest. Okay. So, with that, um, and unless the public has a a comment, if the public has a wants to get up and comment on a specific item, we'll we'll pull that off. Consent. Uh, then what we'll do is take five minutes. Right now, I have 617. We'll come back at 620. Let's give it 6:23. Thank you all. Testing one, two. All right. Give you hold it on. Testing one, two.

That better. That's better. Yeah. Got it. Ground control to Major Tomlin. hat and [clears throat] a scarf just to prove. Jenna, you almost ready? Are you guys? I'm going to start if you got Okay, it is 6:23. Let us begin uh the welcome everybody to the actual uh the actual meeting of the town of Gilbert July planning and zoning commission. Uh we begin call to order of the regular meeting and begin with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of to the stand with all.

Uh, thank you everybody. And now, can we have a roll call? Ashley. Uh, Commissioner Wong, I'm here. Commissioner Lion, present. Commissioner Gage, I'm also here. Commissioner Davis here. Commissioner Simon here. Commissioner Anderson here. And Vice Chair Fay here. Uh we do have a quorum. Thank you Ashley. Um let's discussion and approval of the agenda. Um I'm open to any suggestions or I don't have any comment cards at this point.

Uh the discussion we had during the informal discussion we had earlier was that there would be no changes, but if there's any changes, the last chance to pull something off consent, vice chair. Yes. Uh if there's no uh comment or changes needed, I would uh recommend approval of the agenda as written. I take that's a that's a motion to approve. Yes. Okay. Oh, second it. We have a motion and a second. And please cast your votes.

I I actually need Did we just vote not to change the agenda or did we just vote to approve the consent agenda? Approve the overall agenda. Approve the overall agenda. We still have to vote to approve the consent agenda. Okay, that's my thought. Uh leaving the agenda as is 70. Thank you very much everybody. And that brings us to communications from citizens. I don't believe we have any but thank you for coming. And with that uh report from council liaison and current events.

Just want to thank everybody who participated in the 4th of July celebration at the regional park. It was a good time had by all and we just encourage everybody with the heat that's coming up. be safe as we go through the summer and uh we thank all the citizens for the support and engagement in our community. Appreciate it. Thank you, council leazison. U what did what part did I forget? So, usually for communications from citizens, we usually kind of read through that whole paragraph. We do.

It kind of opens and closes it. Okay. If there's nobody here. So, yeah. Thank you. Well, there's um yeah, so I'm not sure your involvement everybody, but um at this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. The commission or 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 criticism, or scheduling the matter for further discussion. Uh, with that, does anyone have anything to to comment on? All right. Well, thank you. I'm sorry we drove off the uh one guy who was here. And then we move to the public hearing for consent. All items below are considered the public hearing consent calendar.

The commission board may in a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing, no person requests an item to be removed from the consent calendar. Such a request is made, the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and a separate action. Other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved at the single motion.

We have not added anything and I do not hear or see anybody wanting anything removed. With that, I will entertain a motion. Chair, just for clarification, we need um two separate motions on this because we have a continuence. We do. I thought she said I think she said we don't. Well, but I thought that was to move it to non-consent.

No, we just went Okay, I'll uh vice chair, I'll make a motion to approve item 9, DR26-30, cold storage distribution warehouse and GP2604 Harvest Grove, which is a continuence to August 5th, 2026. On the consent. So that is that to that's to approve all of items nine and 10 on the consent on the consent. including correct Z2606 Harvest Grove. Okay. So that that's to approve the consent agenda. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Um please cast your votes.

The consent agenda both item or all three items and both items all three matters are approved. 70. Uh there are no items on the public hearing which brings us to administrative items. Uh specifically the approval of the only item on the administrative besides communication is uh approval of the minutes to consider the approval of the minutes of the and study study session and regular meeting of June 3rd. Does anyone have any comments or concerns about the minutes as written? Okay.

Then I would entertain a motion. I'll move to approve the minutes from the June 3rd, 2026 meeting. Very good. We have a motion. Second. A motion and a second. Please cast your votes. And that one passes 70. Also, uh we don't have an executive session report from the chairman and members of the commission on any current events. Not me. Okay. Uh report from planning services manager Ashley. What's new? No big updates for me.

Um just thank you again for your dedication to the items on our agenda tonight. Thank you, Ashley. And with that, we reach adjourn. If there is a motion, I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. Got it. And please cast your vote. The motion to adjurnn is approved. 70. Thank you all. One thing, Commissioner Fay, I'm just wondering, did you guys conspire to push everything out until Commissioner Munt got back so you could get out of here early? Is that is that what went down?

That is that is exactly what we did. Yes. You have you have Have a great evening. Yeah. No. Well, when we first got the packets, I thought this is going to take a while. But