Regular Meeting - 6/24/2025 6:30:00 PM

signs and similar items into the council
chambers, but these items may not be
held above shoulder height or otherwise
obstruct the view or block the path of
members of the audience. Disruptions
impact the flow of discussion,
potentially intimidate others, and
detract from the purposes of the
meeting. Therefore, disruptive behavior,
including but not limited to cheering,
shouting, booing, or the use of
profanity is prohibited. Applause is
only permissible during the
presentations and proclamations portion
of the agenda. Threats directed toward
any individual or group are prohibited.
Speakers may not campaign or advocate
for or against candidates for office or
ballot issues or otherwise attempt to
influence the outcomes of elections. A
full list of meeting rules is displayed
at the entrance of the council chambers.
During the public hearing portion of the
agenda and during communications from
citizens, when your name is called,
please come forward to the podium. Then
state your name, your town of residence,
and begin speaking. Remarks shall be
limited to 3 minutes. Citizens who are
at the meeting and wish to donate their
time to a single speaker must fill out
an individual card and then combine
their speaker cards. In such an event,
one person from the group shall be
designated to present their remarks,
which shall be limited to 6 minutes. If
one speaker is speaking on behalf of
others who are present, the mayor or
vice mayor shall read into the record
the names of those whose time is
combined. No person other than the
individual speaking shall enter into the
discussion. Officials on the dis may not
respond to any questions or comments
during communications from citizens.
However, the council may ask questions
during public hearing items. All
comments and questions shall be directed
through the mayor or presiding officer.
Thank you again for attending a Gilbert
town meeting and for your participation
in local government.
[Music]
Good evening. I'll uh call to order the
regular
council meeting of June 24th, 2025.
We'll start with the invocation and
we'll ask Rajan Zed who will be offering
our invocation. Rajan and I had the
opportunity to visit for a few minutes
before the meeting. Had a very good uh
visit with one another and I'm thankful
that he's here.
Rajan is a president of the universal
society of Hinduism
who he goes around and does a lot of
invocations at different public
meetings.
I shall be reading from ancient Hindu
scriptures some as old as 1500 before
the common era in Sanskrit and then
interpret in English. Uh will you please
all rise? Mhm.
Oh,
we meditate on the transcendental glory
of the deity supreme who inside the
heart of the earth, inside the life of
the sky and inside the soul of the
heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate
our minds.
Lead us from the unreal to the real.
Lead us from darkness to light. Lead us
from death to immortality.
karma
loca
sashankraasi
strive constantly to serve the welfare
of the world. Devotion to selfless one
attains the supreme goal of life. Do
your work with the welfare of others
always in mind.
May we be protected together. May we be
nourished together. May we work together
with great vigor. May our study be
enlightening. May no obstacle arise
between us.
[Music]
united your resolve, united your hearts.
May your spirits be at one that you may
long together dwell in unity and
conquered. Om shanti shanti shanti.
Peace, peace, peace unto all. Om.
Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Kapowski will lead us in
the pledge. Please join me in the pledge
of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Thank you. Have a roll call. Mayor Scott
Anderson here. Vice Mayor Bobby Buckley
here. Council member Chuck Boniovani
here. Council member Kenny Buckland
here. Council member Young Kapowski
here. Council member Monty Lions here.
And council member Jim Torus here. A
quorum is present.
Thank you. We have no presentations of
proclamations tonight. Um so we'll go to
public hearings. Let me ask the council
if there are any that you would like to
um do on mass right now like to remove
from the count from public hearings to
have considered separately.
Number one,
let me ask a couple others. What about
uh number
uh
five and number eight?
The text amendment and a property
acquisition
and number nine is the budget for PIDs.
Are we checking are we giving
presentations and it looks like at this
point that we'll have re I've got cards
to speak on items two. I've got some
input on item three. Uh, and there's
interest, I think, by the council to
consider four, five, six, and seven.
Not not five.
What's your pleasure, council?
Presentations on all of those on all
these zoning cases on two
Two, three, four. The ones you named.
Yeah. Two, three, four, six, seven.
Those are our zoning cases.
Okay, I'm good with that.
If so, I'll open the public hearing on
items one
and five and eight
and nine. The council's okay with that.
close the public hearing and entertain a
motion
to approve items one, five,
eight, and nine. So moved.
Been moved by council member Bonjiovani.
Seconded by council member Toruson.
Please vote.
Motion carries 70. With that, we'll move
on to item number two, annexation A2501.
Conduct hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 5 acres
located west of Greenfield Road between
Queen Creek and Okato
staff presentation.
And I believe again this is just a
public hearing. There's no action
tonight needed.
Good evening, council. Kristen Divine,
senior planner. The case I have for
discussion tonight is for an annexation
request at Gilbert Chinese Church.
I want to take a moment before we start
just to highlight the annexation
process, what has been completed to
date, and what to expect in the future.
So far, a blank petition was filed on
June 3rd with the clerk's office. Uh the
applicant may obtain signatures from
vested property owners starting on July
4th, 30 days after the filing of the
blank petition. Uh the purpose of the
public hearing tonight is to receive
input from the community and the
council. Because this is an informative
hearing, no motion is being requested
tonight. A future council date will be
set where a motion is requested.
You can see the site here outlined in
blue. It's approximately a 5acre parcel
located in Maricopa County and zoned
RU43.
The parcel is located on the west side
of Greenfield Road between Queen Creek
and Oatio. The site is bordered by Town
of Gilbert zoning districts to the
south, east, and west. The site
currently operates as a place of
worship, which is a permitted use in the
comparable SFB3 Town of Gilbert zoning
district.
And the request for annexation is not
being accompanied by a resoning. It
would be converted to the most
comparable zoning district within the
town of Gilbert upon completion of the
annexation. As I just mentioned, that
zoning district would be single family
43. That use is a permitted use in that
zoning district.
And then again, we are here tonight to
gather information and input from the
community and the council regarding the
annexation proposal. No motion is being
requested tonight, but a separate
meeting will be scheduled within one
year will where that motion will be
requested.
And with that, I am available for any
questions that you have. Questions,
council?
Thank you, Kristen. I have three
requests to speak on this item. We'll
open the public hearing. Uh first
speaker is Bing Xiao.
Good evening,
honorable mayor and the council members.
My name is Ban Zhao and I've been a
Gilbert resident for 21 years.
When my wife, two children, and myself
moved to Gilbert from Chander in 2004,
Gilbert was a growing town with a
special charm.
farms lined its outskirts
and the many roads were punctuated by
stop sign.
I've been also an 11-year volunteer with
Gilbert Chinese Church since its early
planting and the fellowship stages.
I'm here tonight to express my strong
support
for the annexation request submitted by
Uber Chinese church.
Although our church is just half a mile
south of Uber police sentence station
have to rely on Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office which is located
about.5
miles away in Mesa.
This can lead to delayed emergency
responses.
In addition,
despite being adjacent to major sewer
line along Greenfield Road,
we have to use septic tanks
which limits our operational efficiency.
Annexation would integrate our church
into the exceptional Yubber municipal
framework,
granting us
access to local police protection and
modern sewer services.
This will ensure greater safety,
reliability,
and sustainability for our congregation
and the surrounding
community.
As a proud Gilbert resident for over two
decades,
I've witnessed
firsthand how Gilbert has grown into one
of America's premier communities.
Thanks to Gilbert's exceptional planning
and the dedicated implementation,
I'm confident that
your decision on this annexation
when you vote in the coming weeks
will reflect the same commitment
to this progress.
Just as stop signs have transformed into
traffic light safely guiding us forward
especially during Sunday mornings when I
rush to the church services.
I get lot of green lights
miraculously.
humbly urge you give us Gilbert Chinese
Church green light foration
uniting us with Gilbert's vibrant
future. Thanks for your time and
thoughtful consideration. Thank you.
Next is Jerry Sheay. Jerry, you have
three minutes.
Uh good evening, mayor and council
members. My name is Jerry Shay and I'm a
uh resident of Gilbert and I am also the
uh the mentoring pastor of Gilbert um
Chinese church located at 211012
South Greenfield Road. Um I'm here this
evening to provide some background on
our church and our request for any
exceptions. Uh, Gilbert Chinese Church
is a non-denominational
evangelical Christian church officially
uh established in 2020. But our
connection to the Tom of Gilbert um uh
began much earlier since 2014. We have
been serving Gilbert residents by
holding worship services and community
events um in local rented schools and
also uh rented church facilities. In
2020, uh, we purchased land here in
Gilbert and completed construction of
our permanent building in 2023.
So, I wanted to take this chance to
sincerely thank the Tom of Gilbert,
Gilbert staff for their support and
guidance uh throughout the planning and
also design, permitting and constructing
process. Even though our property is
just outside um boundaries, uh their
help made a lot of difference. We are
also very grateful uh to our neighbors
and nearby churches for their friendship
and support. Uh we strive to be good
neighbors. We um we are committed to
being respectful and also uh you know
responsive to those around us. So today
we are fully root uh rooted in the
community not only as a place of worship
but also as a place of service support
and connection for families and
individuals in Gilbert. We offer Sunday
worship services and also Sunday school
in both Chinese and English. So yes, we
welcome everyone in our community to
attend our services and our congregation
currently uh consists of about 160
adults and 60 youth and children. And as
you know our church is geographically
located within the town of Gilbert. Uh
but we fall under the jurisdiction of
Maricopa County. Uh we call it a county
island. So we are here to request an
exception because we truly want to be
part of the Tom that we have community
sorry that we have been already
considered home for quite a while. I
think it's over a decade um and we value
Gilbert's thoughtful planning and also
community services and vision. We look
forward to participating more fully in
Tom's future.
So, I just wanted to say thank you for
considering our annexation request and
for giving um the public opportunity to
speak uh their voices tonight. Thank you
so much. Thank you.
Next is Rebecca Yang.
All right. U Good evening, mayor and
council members. My name is Rebecca
Yang. I'm a resident of the town of
Gilbert. Uh thank you for the
opportunity to speak tonight. um in
support of the annexation request by
Gilbert Chinese Church. Um I'm an active
member of the church and I volunteer
with the youth program as well as
support various community events that
our church holds. I grew up in the
valley, moved to Gilbert about six years
ago where I became a member of the
church uh which welcomes both Chinese
speaking individuals as well as English
speaking individuals like myself. One of
our core values we emphasize at the
church and strive to impart to our youth
is the importance of giving back um and
serving the community. Uh that's key to
our mission and we view Gilbert as our
home. We already feel so connected to
the to the town and hope that we can
officially be a part of the town through
this annexation and continue to to serve
the community and the people there. Um,
in the next minute or so, I'd like to
share just a few examples of how we have
been actively engaging with the Gilbert
community efforts that we're continuing
to grow and expand in the coming years.
Um, every spring we host a Chinese uh,
New Year celebration that's open to the
public. This past year, we had over 300
attendees uh, come to our church for an
evening of music, dance, and food, and
cultural performances. It's a great way
for us to share our heritage as well as
to celebrate with the broader community.
Um, every summer we welcome the
community to our front lawn for a Fourth
of July fireworks viewing. Our location
offers a perfect view of the showing
from Gilbert Regional Park and we serve
ice cream and create a family-friendly
space for families um and kids to come
and enjoy and celebrate the holiday
together. In the fall, we host a harvest
festival where we invite uh family again
to come and enjoy a night filled with
games and fun and music. and it's a fa
safe and festive spa days to spend the
night.
Finally, in the winter, it is our trai
tradition to have our youth group um
visit different senior homes in the
Gilbert area where we spread holiday
cheer through musical performances.
As these examples show, we strive to
make our church a place where the
community can gather and celebrate and
build relationships together. We believe
in being good neighbors and we want to
continue building those bridges as part
of the town of Gilbert. Uh, thank you
very much for your time and your
consideration of our request.
Thank you, Rebecca.
That's all the comment cards I have on
that item. I'll close the public hearing
and give bring it back to the council.
As you all know, we won't be voting on
this tonight. We're just taking public
input.
Council member Vonvi. Thank you, Mayor.
I'll make a comment. Um, I live down the
street from the church and I've saw it
getting built and uh I drive by about
three times a day and one of these times
I'm not going to just drive by. I think
I'll stop in and say hi. Thank you,
Council Member Torus. I had just a
concern for you as I listened back and I
was thinking of some of the things you
said. Uh, you were getting response from
from the city of Mesa, but was that for
the sheriff's office there or for fire?
Because for some reason in my mind I
remember somebody said fire. Maybe I'm
wrong. Well, sheriff. Okay, sheriff. Cuz
I know you're covered with fire. That's
I was a little concerned that you'd said
that we get fire from the fire that I
know. I was as I was listen thinking
back I wanted to make sure that there
wasn't a mistake on that and
I might have to join Chuck one morning.
How's that?
Okay.
Thank you. Thank you all for being here
and supporting the annexation. We'll
look forward to seeing you again when we
actually take action on the annexation.
We'll move on to item number three,
general plan GP24-02,
zoning 20 Z2410 MOA Gabriella Point
and we'll conduct a hearing in
consideration of a resolution and adopt
the findings concerning a zoning case.
staff Keith.
Good evening, Mayor Anderson, members of
the council.
Um, as you stated, the project that I
have, one of the projects I have before
you tonight, I have a bunch of them are
is for the MOA Gabriella Point project.
Um,
which is, as you stated, is a general
plan amendment in a P8 reszone. The
project is located um south of the
southeast corner of Higgley and Warner
Roads within the northeast corner of the
gateway character area. More
specifically, it occupies about 14 12
acres of a larger 40 acre commercial
part parcel. And you can see the site
outlined in the screen in front of you.
And then it's it's um part of a larger
commercial parcel. Like I said that all
that land all the way to the north
corner of um um Warner and Higgley is
part of the Gabriella Point Commerce
Center. And also as part of the
Gabriella Point Commerce Center is all
of the land to the east and to the south
which is um also part of that and that
is zoned for business park uses. Um,
I'll show you on another map in a second
how that lays out,
but this is all part of a and then the
apartments. Um, there's an apartment
complex that's currently under
construction, which which is also part
of the PAD as well. So, so in all, it's
about approximately a little almost 60
acres in size.
So, the request before you tonight, as
I've briefly stated, is for a minor
general plan amendment on the 10 and a
half on 10 and a half acres, and I'll
show you where that is located. and then
a PAD reszone over the whole 15 acres.
The whole project is about 15 acres. So,
I'll break that down for you here. So,
the general plan amendment from regional
commercial to um residential 25 dwelling
units per acre is the request and that's
only taking place on the back 10 12
acres of the project site. the front
portion of the project which is about
four and a half acres is going to remain
regional commercial um from a land use
designation standpoint
from from a zoning perspective
um the whole site will be reszoned as a
PA a
4 and a half acres will be reszone is
proposing to reszone to from regional
commercial that currently has no PAD to
regional commercial with a P A and they
have some some devi ation requests.
That's why they're going to a P A in
this situation.
The back half of the property, the um 10
and a half acres will be reszoneed from
regional commercial to multifamily high
and and also with that P A designation.
So, as far as the development plan is
concerned, um we'll take a closer look
at this development. Um the as I' as
I've stated the front piece um will be
that regional commercial piece along
Higgy Higgley Road. This will feature a
three-story mixeduse building. Uh this
building is anticipated to include um
20,000 square ft of commercial space on
the ground floor with residential units
on the top two floors. Um, and then you
can see kind of on the site plan towards
the south is a sky bridge that will
connect the what we call a loft unit
building with retail on the ground floor
to the apartment building in yellow that
is to the right or to the east and east
in this situation
providing pedestrian access.
Um the rear portion of the project with
the yellow buildings uh which is the
multif family high part will include
four
uh four-story residential buildings,
nine um six actually six garage
buildings
uh and 329 total residential units for
the whole development. That includes
about 40ish 45 or so multifamily units
above the pink building on the along
Higgley Road. So the total development
will be about 329 residential units with
an average dense with a density range
the density of 27.8 dwelling units per
acre. Vehicle access as you can see on
the development plan will be off of the
main entrance off of Higgley Road and
then you'll have an entrance two
entrance to the commercial off of Alona
Drive to the south another entrance
further east than that that act you can
access the multif family off of Alona
Drive and then there's also an access
off of Martingale Road which is
constructed so is Alona off at the far
northeast corner of the property for the
to the multif family piece and then in
the future there will be a connection as
you can see in that northwest corner.
There will be a connection from the
commercial portion of the project to the
future commercial to the north. So, the
site has has quite a bit of access.
So, um
as far as changes, I know we presented
this to you in March on the March 25th a
few months ago and it was continued to
tonight's meeting. Um, here's some of
the some of the changes that the
applicant has made in uh from from then
until now include they've added about
5,000 square feet of commercial space on
the ground floor of that loft unit
building along Higgley. So, basically
what they did is they took that building
and they made theu existing suites
deeper. They kind of just stretched it
to the east a little bit making the
suites deeper. Um they've reduced unit
count the unit total unit count from 335
to 329 units.
They've reduced the density from 28
dwelling units to acre to about 27.8
and they've decreased
uh in in total open space from about 31%
to 28%.
Of total open space throughout the whole
project. So I'll go ahead and show you
that open space slide. Um total is about
28% like I just said throughout the
whole project combined combining the
multif family and the commercial space
on the front within the multifamily is
about 25 and a half% or so and where
which we're only about um
uh is required per the code. So they're
asking for a reduction on that portion.
And then the regional commercial
uh uh portion of the the development in
the front um
they're asking for 30 uh 4% open space
where 15%'s required. So a total of 28%
open space if you shmear it across the
whole property. So, I just wanted to go
ahead and show you a few site renderings
of what the buildings could look like.
We haven't started the design. Well, the
design review process is kind of on hold
pending uh the decision for this ca for
the this project tonight. Um but uh
here's some of the renderings of what it
could look like in the future as we move
forward. So, you can see the shops on
the ground floor and the residential
above. Um
so, I'll just blow through these.
There's that little bridge to the south
and you can kind of see the the the uh
land use transition or the um the
horizontal in or the integration between
uh the apartment the loft unit building
and the apartment building.
And so those are a couple of the
renderings I wanted to show you um as
far as as far as staff's concerns with
the project. Um
so as you know um from the previous
presentation, town staff is not in
support of the proposed minor general
plan amendment in PD reszone and would
like to highlight a few of these
concerns. The first involves the loss of
regional commercial zone land in the
Santan Freeway area Higgley Road
interchange area. According to the
general plan 2020, the site which is
located in the gateway character area is
intended for campus style office office
and light industrial uses and commercial
activities primarily commercial that
serve the surrounding neighborhoods and
communities and not more multif family
residential. We prefer that the site be
remain regional commercial zoning to
fulfill the vision that has been long
established for this portion of the
gateway character area. and established
in the current general plan and voted on
by the residents of the town.
As the town nears buildout, land use
changes from commercial to residential
must be carefully evaluated to ensure
responsible and sustainable growth. Um,
and so
industrial and office lands make up
about in this project area or in the
whole town, excuse me, make up about 17%
of the town's total land area and are
viable to sustaining a vi a viable tax
base, safeguarding local jobs and
supporting nearby services. Once lost to
regional to residential development,
this commercial land cannot be
reclaimed.
In the Gateway character area, which is
intended to integrate traditional
neighborhoods with commercial employment
and business park uses, adding high
density residential development on this
site would undermine the areas area's
character
and that long-term vision and
development framework that the town has
long established.
So that's that's a few of those
concerns.
Um, another concern is about the amount
of multif family in the immediate area.
There are two nearby multif family
developments. Tuscany at Gabriella Point
is one of them and that has 760
residential units and it's under
construction now as I'm sure you can see
it as you drive down Warner. And then
Morrison Ranch Apartments which has 231
kind of town home units. It's still zone
multif family and that's already under
construction. So this results in about
991 almost 1,000 residential units of
multifamily within a half a mile radius
of the subject site.
Adding further multif family units would
increase the total
um
to about 1300 units uh creating the
highest concentration of multifamily
units in the town outside of the Kulie
station village center area which has
was programmed and envisioned for more
density. This area has not been
programmed and envisioned for that level
of density. You can see on this little
map here in front of you, the little the
little beehive uh uh map that I've we've
created. The site is highlighted and you
can see how it's that dark red color.
About 900 units and with the 1300 units
like I said a minute ago would be very
close to Kulie station which is is
intended for that level of intensity or
density.
So that's one other reason town staff is
not supporting this uh project. And I I
can show you on the map here that a mult
that media multif family in the
immediate area. You can see north of
Warner Road that apartment complex for
Morrison Ranch Tuskany to the southeast
of it. It's basically two apartment
complexes in one. It's very large. And
then of course what the applicant is
proposing. So you can kind of see that
in a little more context. and the
density that would be in intensity would
be in this area from a from a multif
family standpoint.
So, as part of the um
town staff's anal um review of the
project, we reviewed a market study and
we made we've made four key observations
from that market study and com we've
given these comments to the applicant.
The first is that um RC the regional
commercial uh zoning flexibility. The
regional commercial district isn't just
about shops and restaurants. It actually
permits roughly that zoning district
actually permits roughly 95 distinct
uses from commercial services like dry
cleaners. These are just a few print
shops to lodging to educational
facilities and other community type
services and entertainment uses. These
uses were not evaluated in the applicant
study.
Before we consider changing zoning here,
we should explore whether one of these
untapped uses might better serve our
community um than a multifamily
apartment complex would.
Second, um office development. While the
updated market study concluded that
office space isn't viable on the site
today, which which town staff we
actually agree with that finding,
but not because RC is the wrong district
for office. Instead, it's because our
nearby business park zoning, which is
right next door to the east and to the
south, those those parcels are already
optimi are already optimized for office
and employment uses in a much more
appropriate spot for those uses.
Um, companies seeking larger footprints
and campus style settings will settings
will naturally gravitate to the BP
that's right next door and to the south
of this project versus going to the
regional commercial piece.
Third is the entertainment uses.
Contrary to the study's uh limited
feasibility conclusion, we believe this
location is prime for future indoor or
outdoor attractions from an from a um
entertainment uh use standpoint. It's
direct access from Loop 202 and
proximity to existing destination
venues. I can name some Top Golf um main
event and the future uh another future
mini golf type development position it
in well in a well place to capture
evening and weekend visitors at
Gilbert's entertainment as inter as
Gilbert Gilbert's entertainment um um
profile continues to rise.
Finally, housing. We recognize the
importance of expanding housing options,
but reszoning for highdensity multif
family right now, town staff feels is
premature.
Within a half mile of the site, like I
said stated a minute ago, nearly 1,000
units have already been approved and are
under construction. our comprehensive
housing. We are in the process of
undergoing a comprehensive housing study
with Elliot Pollock which will soon
provide us a clear picture of the
regional supply and the local demand for
housing. So at this time we feel
reszoning this site to multifamily is
very premature
until that study is completed and we
better understand it.
Um I'm getting close to being done.
Um on this uh slide you can see the
town's land use distribution
um that's pulled by our GIS team.
Residential zoning dominates at 70.86%
throughout the town of Gilbert. This is
our total acreage throughout the town
whereas commercial uses account for just
9.54%.
The remaining land is split among
office, industrial, public,
institutional parks and so forth and
open space. But none of these categories
come close to matching the scale of our
housing stock.
So this imbalance matters because
commercial land generates far more tax
revenue per acre than residential. We
know that um helping and it helps fund
essential services. But with with
commercial uses already under
reppresented townwide, converting more
of that land to housing would worsen our
budget gap and limit future business
growth.
So that's why one of the reasons why we
are recommending
um and not supporting this reszone
tonight so that you that we preserve our
remaining commercial acreage rather than
trade it in for a land use in
multifamily or residential in general
that we already have an abundance of
throughout the town.
So there's a few deviations the
applicants requesting. I'll just go over
these quickly. they have some rear some
setback deviations between the
commercial and the multif family. They
want to go to zero
for both for both those uh for that
those between the two uses. And then the
landscaping percentage is um of 34%.
This is in the RC portion.
And then for the multif family high, the
same deviation between those commercial
and residential buildings. And then and
then overall they want a 28% um
um percentage for the in the multif
family piece as well.
So, as far as public participation is
concerned, um they've had two
neighborhood meetings, one in August and
one in November. One surrounding
resident attended and expressed concerns
with the addition of more apartments and
expressed concerns about potential
traffic volumes and the conflicts mainly
with ALA um and impacts to the street
network. Um we've received um actually
today we received a sixth nearby
resident that has expressed concerns and
about the project and is concern and is
and they are opposed to the proposed uh
development. Um we've received seven
seven public comment surveys also that
are in opposition opposition excuse me
if I can talk of the request.
So, um, as you have seen before, staff's
recommendation is that you deny the MODA
Gabriella Point minor general plan
amendment and also for the reasons set
forth in the report, we recommend that
you also deny the the the reasonzoning
request.
So, if you choose to approve this
tonight, there are a lot of conditions
of approval that are in the staff report
or in the ordinance that we provided
you.
And one of those conditions approval we
need to modify. Um the the the landscape
percentages need to be modified in both
the RC zoning district in the PA AD in
the in the um RCP AAD portion and in the
MFA MFH PAD portion. Kind of lock those
in if you so if you so deem to approve
this tonight. And then the applicant
wanted to add if you decide to go down
that direction of approval. applicant um
has this condition that they wanted to
request that you add about um a
contribution of $200,000 toward
improvements to Higgley Road and Alona
intersection.
So with that, um I'm open for any
questions. I know that the applicant is
here, Mr. Brennan Ray is here, and I'm
sure he has a presentation that he would
like to share with you as well, but I'm
open for questions if if you have any uh
for staff. Thank you very much.
Questions for Keith. Council member
Lrowski.
Hey Keith, thank you for that
presentation. I have a question about
with this site being regional
commercial, what else could be built on
it. You mentioned some other uses, but I
wanted specifically to understand by
right what someone could come in and
develop on it that was more of like a
mixeduse product that would still add
residential
Mayor Anderson, um, Council Member
Kapowski. So, like I stated a minute
ago, there are quite a few uses that are
allowed on this site by right, 95 of
them to be exact. I have I have the
tables here in my presentation of back
pocket slides if you want to see them,
how many uses there are. But from a
mixeduse standpoint,
by right, they could develop loft units
on this whole property in the RC
district right now, which would mean
just like that building in the front,
they could have commercial on the ground
floor and every single building all the
way to the back and residential above
it. So that's from a mixeduse
standpoint, that's what they could do.
Thank you. I know that some areas of
town also have like um height bonus.
Does this property fall under that?
Um, Mayor Anderson, um, Council Member
um, Kapowski, um, can you repeat that
one more time? Sorry, excuse me. I know
that some areas of town have um,
exceptions where the buildings can be
built to a higher height level or more
stories. Does this piece fall within
that overlay? Mayor Anderson, um,
Council Member, um, Kapowski. So, you're
probably talking about what we would
call like the vert vertical development
overlay district. A portion of this
property, I believe, is in within that
vertical development overlay district.
Um, I don't have that map with me right
now. Um, I think a portion of it is in
that, especially the areas closer to the
freeway, but it's kind of a funky the
way it kind of curves and turns based on
previous development plans on the site.
So, I think a portion of it is, but I'm
not exactly 100% sure if this portion of
the property is within that vertical
development overlay district, which
would allow increased um building
heights. Thank you,
Council Member Bonioani. Thank you,
Mayor. Thanks, Keith. Um, so you're
saying by right
the developer could come back
and build multiple buildings with
mixeduse
um functions. Correct,
Mayor Anderson. Council member
Bonjiovani, that is correct. They could
build what we call, like I said, a loft
unit that has commercial on the ground
floor and residential on the top floors.
Yes, correct. Throughout this whole
property. throughout the whole property
and it would never come in front of us.
That is correct. Okay. Thank you.
Council member Torus, what would the
density of apartments be if they were
built loft style on 15 acres?
Mayor Anderson, Council Member Toruson
has a very good question.
Um, it couldn't um that I I don't know
if the town establishes a density for
that. Um, I couldn't tell you what the
density would be. I it would probably be
just as dense or denser than what what
than the 27.8 dwelling units breaker
that we have now. But I but to do I know
that 100% for sure. I don't know. I
haven't done the the math on that or or
even thought about figuring that out. So
at least at least this density I would
believe maybe higher. And what uses did
the uh the applicant present to you that
were felt were uh impossible to do
reasons not
I mean reason basically their requests
to reszone because X Y and Z were not
possible. Um, Mayor Anderson, um,
Council Member Tores, um,
well, from a youth standpoint, they
believe, like
you have heard in the past, that 40
acres of commercial is too much
commercial
and that cutting off this 15 acre parcel
um, and building it residential um,
is is appropriate.
They have not really they they've showed
us a little master plan in the market
study. It would show how the 30 acres to
the north would be built out. They
haven't really shared with us which
types of commercial uses that they could
put on this land or that they couldn't
or that they couldn't. Um I'm I'm sure
that they would have to they'd obviously
have to choose from our permitted uses
table. So that opens it up to 95
different uses.
They haven't showed us what it would
look like if it was commercial uh on a
site plan or or any type of design.
Hope that answers your question. It
does. Thank you. Yes,
Keith. Question about the you talked
about uh housing study. Is there and in
and tying that together with number of
units uh multif family units is there an
indication
that vacancy rates are going up and that
that's one caution about multif family
units in the town. Um Mayor Anderson,
members of the council, um I I have not
read that study. Um
I believe our economic development staff
might be able to provide more
information on the vacancy rates. We
have some me representatives here from
that department who could probably shed
some more light on that if you would
like that information.
I guess that's a little alarming to me
that we're now saying that it appears as
though multif family we may be and I
know a lot of the community feels this
way but I'm not sure that it's
correct is that we're oversaturated and
the vacancy rates are going up and I'm
not sure that's the case.
Do we have somebody from economic
development here?
They're here.
Here we go. Here comes Here comes Jen
Graves. Jen's here.
She's coming up. The other thing that
alarms me and I have period of time is
the you went over the the land use the
percentages and we're going down in
commercial and that concerns me um when
I see that that we're nine and a half
where we should be closer to 10 as a
more sustainable community.
Again, Mayor Mayor Anderson, I I think
Graves might be able to answer that
question too. She's she's our guru when
it comes to this kind of stuff or one of
them.
Mayor Anderson, thank you. Jennifer
Graves, deputy director for economic
development. Um, to address your
question about vacancy rates in multif
family. Um, don't have the current
statistic. The last time we looked
across the town, it was about 8%. Which
isn't necessarily um that much different
than, you know, what you're seeing
across the valley in terms of vacancy
rates. um we could certainly follow up
with additional information um on that.
Uh the study itself which is not
completed um we're still working on the
draft. So I want to be very clear about
that. Um we're waiting to get that from
the consultant to start working through
uh that language um and what their
findings are with them. Um however there
is a portion of that study. It's a study
and a needs assessment and it does do a
gap analysis looking at um Gilbert
specifically its position in the market
um and look at the different all
different kinds of housing types um at
different price points that may um be of
need in our community. So that's what
the study itself will do not just look
at multifamily but look at housing
across the board um and where Gilbert is
positioned in the market. And then I
apologize I didn't hear the second
question talking about the breakout he
showed us of the different land use
categories in the town and a healthy
community should have right around 70%
residential about 10% commercial 10%
industrial and others we're going the
wrong direction what he showed was 9 and
a half% that's the wrong way we should
be going on the commercial
agreed yes so commercial to your point
um Mayor Anderson
all account members is you said about 9
and a half% and then the combined rate
for the office and industrial land use
um is actually shrinking as well. So now
it's closer to 7 and a half%. Used to be
above 8%.
You J questions
was first council member and then thank
you mayor um Keith Pretend I'm a third
grader. I said pretend. Um,
this whole property, not just this one
here, but the attached property there to
the corner.
How many acres is all that? Again,
member Council Member Anderson. Um,
Mayor Anderson, Council Member
Bonjivani, it's about 40 acres. Okay.
What is comparable?
Whoops. what is comparable currently in
this in the uh in the town to that? What
development what commercial development
is comparable? So in my mind I can
figure
would that if we move that I mean would
that fit in this in this area?
Uh Mayor Anderson, Council Member Bon
Giovanni, very good question. Um, I
would I would consider some of the maybe
um
some of the areas in probably Santan
Village Marketplace.
Maybe that area could be equivalent in
size. I don't have the exact acreage of
that property, but I would say where the
Santan Marketplace area is, that could
be about the same size. And you can even
count maybe some of the living spaces
stuff across the street. Phone a friend.
Yes. Oh, yes. That was a good one. Thank
you, Kyle. and and the Gilmore project
that you saw come before you several
years ago, which is literally under
construction now, that is 40 acres.
Okay. Even though it's not built yet, I
know it's hard to envision. You probably
I don't know if you were on the council
when that came through, so I don't but
but it has a lot of commercial. Yeah, I
went to the groundbreaking. We're good.
Okay, good. You were there. I remember
seeing you there. All right. Yes. Thank
you, Member Buckland. Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you, Keith. So, I just want to I
want to make sure I understood clearly
because council member Kapowski asked a
question that just kind of um concerned
me. So, did I hear you correctly in that
if this council says no, developer can
come back without an ask, put
multifamily
on this property if it's above if it
looks like the front end, right? It's
above a business.
And if that's true,
because you had said the concern being
density, I have a concern for the
density um
especially in that in that area with all
the other apartments.
Is it possible though that they end up
or can by rights end up at the same
density by just doing it differently?
Um Mayor Anderson, um Council Member
Buckland, it is correct. They could
right in the RC zoning district build
loft units over the whole property with
commercial on the ground floor of each
building have to have ground floor
commercial on the on the entire ground
floor and they could have residential
units above and the density I like I
said I don't know exactly what it would
be I I imagine it could be comparable to
this 28 units per acre
staff be concerned
maybe but it's a permitted use by right
so and and it would not come back before
you. So, I don't not much that we could
really refute or or really um do about
it to be honest with you. So, yeah.
Yeah.
Uh Mayor Anderson, Council Member
Buckland, there is no density um cap in
the regional commercial zoning district.
Um and this is um to I'm sorry, you said
there is not there is not a cap in the
regional commercial zoning district. Um,
and to council member Kapowski's, this
is in the vertical development overlay
district. Maximum height is 75 feet. So
if you do ground four commercial, then
up to 75 ft you could uh do those loft
units above. How many you know how many
floors? Sorry. You have any idea how
many floors that would be? Five. Five.
Yeah, five or six. Okay. Thank you for
that clarification. Uh, second question.
At the last council meeting, I had
expressed uh that although I too do not
want to add more apartments to this
area, I drive through there every single
day and and traffic is terrible. A major
concern I have is the traffic. Um
Brennan Ray had some data, had got it to
you guys. Um, can you speak to that and
uh your ability to challenge that,
verify that, what that looks like in
terms of I think it was like what it's
zoned at was about 9,000 trips per day.
What um the applicants proposing would
be around 6,500 trips today. So like a
net 2500 less vehicle trips a day
through that area. What can you can you
please um give us your findings on that?
Yeah, Mayor Anderson, Council Member
Buckland, I I'll do my best. I know we
have some traffic engineers in the room
that probably can speak better to that
than I can, but here is the trip
generation data that we have that has
been provided to us by the applicant.
Um, multif family housing, it says here
about 2800
vehicle weekday total uh vehicle trips
um subtotal of about 3,100. And then of
course if this project was zoned, they
gave us a a um
an estimation of about how many how much
commercial space could fit potentially
on the site and it's about 109,000
square feet of commercial space and that
would generate about 5800 trips per day.
So obviously that's more than what this
project would generate if it based on
the proposal.
um uh those totals and and that that
data and information and how that was um
created or where they got that from. Um
I'd have to have our traffic engineering
team speak more to that, but the math
applicant gave us is is is correct. Um I
don't know if you want our traffic
engineering team to come forward and
explain a little bit more detail on
that, but that's the basic surface level
information that I understand. That's
anything above that's above my expertise
level. So, I appreciate you interpreting
that and all the hard work you put into
this. Traffic engineering has anything
of value to offer. This is a a really
critical decision. So, more information
is better. Um, Mayor Anderson, Council
Member Buckland, we have Clint Emery
here from our traffic team. He can uh
attempt to explain uh a lot of this
information much better than I can.
Okay. Good evening, mayor and council
members. So, uh, I the fir the top is
what they're building today. And so, um,
and then the bottom is, uh, where with
staff, they they came up with an
assumption what would be reasonable. And
so, they came up with the shopping plaza
and the supermarket below. And so, uh,
for traffic engineers, we care more
about the kind of the peak hours because
that's kind of worst case scenario for
us. And so you can kind of see um the
total 173 to
189 which um is pretty is pretty much um
it's a little bit higher with the
commercial um but pretty much the same.
And then the PM um you have 249 trips to
340 which there's a slight increase in
the PM. And then um throughout the day
you can see that there's quite a bit
more traffic from the commercial 5,000
compared to 2,800 or almost 6,000 I
guess to almost 2,800. So throughout the
day there's definitely going to be a lot
more trips. The peak hour like I said in
the PM it's it's you know there's
there's a little bit but AM there's no
difference really. So I don't know if
that answers your questions but
Council member Torus, just as was stated
in the last time we had this meeting,
basically what they're proposing as half
the traffic of a full commercial
development
about 47%.
If you're comparing just a entire day.
Yeah. 24 hours. Yes.
And the current zoning will allow them
to build a certain amount of loft units
with bottom level commercial which is
the goal is to have as much commercial
as possible. Correct? Right. And this is
this is for Tom Bolog here because I
already know some of these answers. I
want to know
in 2025
the retail absorption rate.
You guys have that or do or do we are we
phone in a friend on this?
I think I'm gonna phone in uh Jen
Graves.
Anderson, Council Member Torus. So, the
current retail absorption um for uh
2025. So, just keep in mind it's only
through the first quarter um is
163,000 square feet. Um
this was something that was noted
certainly in the market study and
looking at the trade area for Gil for
this site which is a five mile radius.
So that tally takes you outside of
Gilbert itself. Um if you just look at
Gilbert and you look at retail
absorption, you know, one of the things
that was noted is that absorption for
2024. So um was negative uh for a few
quarters. And that that's true, but that
was the first time absorption in Gilbert
had been negative since 2006 in terms of
retail. And current retail vacancy rate
in Gilbert alone um just Gilbert is uh
3%.
[Music]
Okay. And then uh as far as box
vacancies, things like that, what do we
have in Gilbert?
Uh Council Member Torus, Mayor Anderson,
Council Member Torres, right now in
terms of big box, so defined as 50,000
square feet or above. Uh in Gilbert
specifically,
there were three spaces um three
developments uh actually two within one
development. So technically two
developments um both along Baseline Road
that had uh 50,000 ft² or more
available. So only three um but in those
developments only one was contiguous
square footage. So while they may have
had 50,000 ft available, only one had a
single contiguous space of 50,000 or
above. I'm assuming everything else is
north of the 60 freeway. Correct.
If you wanted to go back and look at the
trade area, um a lot of the vacancy uh
in the in the five mile area certainly
um is within um the city of Mesa. Um
mostly along Baseline Road um and then
north into Mesa that five mile trade
area uh does encompass a Superstition
Springs Mall. So it goes even you know
north of the 60. All right. Thank you
very much, young lady. You're welcome.
Council member Bonjiovani. Thank you,
mayor. Um Keith, can you go back one
slide to show the project again?
Okay, so those two pink areas, you're
saying that's 20,000 square feet
of commercial. Mayor Anderson Anderson,
council member Boniovani. Yes, that
ground floor is 20,000 square feet. So
if they made five of those buildings,
it' be 100,000 square feet, which would
be closer to 109,000 square feet traffic
that we just saw. Are there any rules
about those um
commercial on the bottom has to be
filled?
Mayor Anderson, Council Member Bon Bon
Giovani, I'm not aware of any rules.
They could build five buildings, call
the bottom commercial, and never rent
out one.
Um, Council Member Bonjiovani. Um,
technically may maybe they could. I I
I've never heard of that before, but I
suppose it could sit vacant. Um, now
just want to reiterate that in the town
of Gilbert, a development like this,
this far back, this far, a deep
development like this, we've never seen
a developer in the regional commercial
zoning district have loft units on a
full development like this that far
deep, especially with commercial that
far back. So, we've never seen that
before. Um, that's not common at all. It
doesn't exist. So, we don't know if that
level a commercial on a loft unit that
far back would be viable or whether it
would work or not. Keith,
are we ready to go on and listen to the
applicant? Can we do that?
Thank you, Keith. I'll open the public
hearing and invite the applicant up.
Good evening, mayor, members of council.
Brendan Ray, 2325 East Camelback here on
behalf of Mil Creek Presidential.
Certainly grateful for the opportunity
to come back before you and report on
the homework we were given coming out of
the last meeting in in March. Uh and we
know that we were challenged to look at
a number of things, some of which staff
indicated uh in their presentation uh
and some of which I'll touch on tonight.
Um but we believe that when we look at
this proposed development in totality
uh in looking at it not only through the
lens with which you guys look at it, but
we believe that this request is the
highest and best use of this land and we
would certainly request your approval.
We talked the last meeting uh about the
focus really being on 10 acres. Uh and
let's kind of dive into that a little
bit. Um because unlike other cases that
have come before you, uh when we look at
this particular instance, a lot of cases
where we've talked about loss of
commercial land for residential uses. A
lot of those have been located along the
corner of arterial roads, sometimes at
the intersections of two arterial
streets. And so in this particular
instance, we do not have that before
you. We are located at the corner of
Alona and Martingale, which are two
collect primary entrance to the
development is off of Alona, a
collector. And so when you look at this,
it's a little bit unique. Now, I'd like
to touch on briefly on the by right
discussion that I just heard relative to
staff um and you this site is zoned RC
that does allow loft above as was
indicated. Um but uh council member
Boniovani asked could a developer come
in and leave it vacant. That certainly
is is uh something that happens. I I
haven't seen it in the town. Where I've
seen that happen is the city of Tempee
uh where groundf flooror commercial is
kind of the carrot to getting
residential development. And at least in
that municipality, they will knowingly
take a loss on that commercial portion
and never lease it out. Certainly,
that's not something that my client
would intend to do within the RC. What
it does allow with loft above is ground
floor commercial, but there is a
provision that does allow a leasing
office on the ground floor. And so, it
is conceivable that you could have
commercial on the ground floor of some
of the buildings, but not all of them.
And you would have a leasing office at
the ground floor of another one. Now,
with respect to what could be developed
in the density on this site, um
certainly you could develop something
comparable to what we're proposing
tonight in terms of density, in terms of
unit counts. But it is also conceivable
with the vertical overlay that is 75 ft,
five stories by right, that you could
get a scenario where you could have 500
plus apartments developed on this site
and still comply with the zoning and
still not come before you. That is a
possibility that exists. But I am not
here tonight to talk about possibilities
that could exist. What I'm here tonight
is to talk to you about the plan that is
before you. That again, as we look at it
and think about it, that this is a
better plan than certainly anything that
could be built by right on this site. So
again, just to reemphasize, we're
talking about 10 acres. And on this
exhibit, you can see where that emphasis
is because, as you've stated, by right,
we can build what's out along Higgley
with the ground floor retail and um the
loft above.
So, one of those homework items and and
staff
stole my thunder was that we were
challenged to increase the amount of
commercial to see if there was a way
that we could do that. And we've done
that. Um, there were four homework items
that we were asked to touch on. One
being the increase in commercial, and
we've been able to do that, increasing
it from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet.
As we move on, one of the things that I
I just want to touch on briefly is that
important to note is not one time as
we've talked about this development has
anyone questioned the highquality nature
of it. And I think that's important to
note. I don't want that to get lost in
the discussion of what it is that we are
doing. Um but certainly the quality of
this development is something that makes
sense. We continue to meet the mission
values uh the vision and values of the
town. I will not go into this. I did so
at the last meeting but wanted to
emphasize that we still are doing that
as we look at this.
One of the things that we heard um
coming out of this uh coming out of the
last hearing was neighborhood concerns.
The staff indicated we did have two
neighborhood meetings where one neighbor
showed up that had concerns about it and
their primary concerns were traffic and
uh apartments. Uh and we also did a
public records request because we'd
heard that you guys had received a fair
number of emails. And when we looked at
the emails that you had received that
was provided to us, it really came down
to about 17 people, 15 of which we could
find addresses for. And they are
illustrated on this map that is in front
of you. So when we look at it neighbor
concerns about traffic and about
apartments, um it is limited uh and you
can see on there uh the distances by
which some people are are having
expressing those concerns to you. As far
north as Guadalupe, as far west as
Lindsay, and as far south as Ray Road.
Um there are four people within Kulie
Station North that is the residential
development east of us that have
expressed concerns. Um, and so we've
done that. The traffic we talked about.
I won't go into it. These were slides
from the last hearing, but just to kind
of illustrate what that could be. Um, in
terms of impact on Higgley, um, Council
Member Toruson was correct in his math
based on the report that we had
provided, we are 47% less traffic than
if it were to develop as commercial. as
we look at it.
One of the things that we were also
asked to do was to show how this
development could fit in with this area.
And while I'm here on this slide, I'd
like to pause and talk about this area
because staff indicated that the vision
and area the vision and and plans for
this area that this development is not
in keeping with it. If you go back and
look at the town's documents, when the
loop 202 was being considered, there
were three primary areas where
commercial intense office types of
developments were going to occur. You
started at Gilbert Road, a border which
you share with Chandler, but there was a
big emphasis, a push for non-residential
development there. And then as we travel
east along the 202, we come to Santan
Village. um and that that development
and what it has which is a
it's not fair to say it's a power
center. There are portions of it that
you could say that would be comparable
in size to this site, but that has its
own thing. And then if you looked at the
planning documents, you continue the
next stop where there was going to be a
high intense of commercial and business
park uses was this intersection Higgley
and the 202. And then continuing on to
the east, the other section where you uh
where it was planned that there was
going to be a highintensity development
was Power Road and the 202 before you
get into Mesa. And so as you look and
consider it, Gilbert Road has built out
as it was intended. Santan Village has
developed largely how it was intended.
Power Road has developed how it was
intended, but this location is not. And
so the character and vision of this
development of what Higgley Road could
be changed and that changed when the
school came in on the west side of
Higgley. When that changed and then a
self-s storage facility was built by
Wright under the zoning that changed the
nature and character of this area.
Something that cannot be understated uh
when you look at and consider and look
at this. I appreciate that we talk about
the loss of commercial and that was
something that mayor you raised and
staff raised in there, but as you guys
look at it, you have the vision to see
far beyond what this zoning case is that
there might be other cases coming in
where property that is not designated
nor zoned for commercial might come in
with commercial development. And so that
is a plus that was not factored into the
equations and only you have the ability
to look through that from your policy
perspective um as you consider this site
and consider other things happening
within the town. But so as we look at
this site and in particular
um you know the question is and this
site's really about 46 acres. It's not
40 but you look and the question that
was asked to us again is 46 acres the
right amount of commercial. Um, and then
if if this is approved, how could the
balance two could be developed? One of
the homework items that I said we'd do
is that we were going to go talk to a
lot of people and we did. I have with me
Chris Schmidt from Phoenix Commercial
Adviserss. He's more than happy to come
up and and talk about the state of
things. We do have the uh updated rounds
report that talks about things and
addresses some of the comments about
retail vacancies within the town of
Gilbert, not including the city of Mesa.
And so as we look at this, we did go out
and and talk to real developers and this
was one of the things that we um
received back and I'll kind of sum it
up. In essence, this developer with 10
years of experience said that 40 acres
isn't feasible. The site of this size
kind of lends itself to a power center.
And certainly the lack of freeway
frontage and visibility limits its
viability especially when you consider
established power centers at Santan
Village and at power and ray. So the
question was asked what could it look
like.
So this is a sideby-side comparison of
this site with our proposal uh and power
and ray. Now, that site uh is comparable
in acreage and you can see on it the
list of uses. Now, that particular site
enjoys freeway frontage and that it
abuts the 202.
And so, you can see on that you've got
Target, Michaels, World Market, Ross,
PetSmart, Mega Furniture, and then a
bunch of of other stuff as well. That is
what a power center looks like. Um that
is something that we do not believe this
site is. We talked with another local
developer who has 25 plus years of
experience across the nation and this
was kind of his testimonial that
effectively says the full 40 acres is
likely more than what the market can
realistically support. Smaller footprint
is more in line with the current demand
and surrounding development and the
site's proximity to established retail
hubs is more practical. it is more
practical to have an integrated
commercial development rather than force
a large-scale retail plan that might not
be feasible.
So again, as you look at what this site
is, you know, we cannot ignore what the
surrounding area has developed,
especially along that loop 202 corridor
and the initial vision that was
established uh under the general plan
and um that has changed in this area
again. So, as we look at it, there are
some benefits and considerations. One of
the other homework items that we hear
about that you guys get asked is why are
there so many multifamily communities?
Staff indicated that that was one of
their concerns. And so, this is a good
slide that illustrates one reason why
there are so many development uh
multifamily rental communities. This was
taken from a 2024
uh study by Harvard who looked at
provided a housing report. And what you
see there is a comparison over the
course of the past uh 15 years uh the
number of households that rent. And what
you see as you start on the left and
they break it down into income brackets
in the 15,000 and less. What you see
there is over the course of the past 15
years there's been very minimal change
in the number of households. Same things
with 15 to 30,000, 30,000 to 44 where we
start to see a little bit of increases
between the uh income levels of 45 and
74,000.
But where there's the sign significant
and substantial jump occurs in 75,000 or
over. These are people that could afford
a home if they chose to. Even in the
tight situations that we find ourselves
today, there are their ability. But what
this represents is that people are
choosing to live in a rental community.
That corresponds with the quality of the
multif family developments that have
been built not only in the town but
elsewhere throughout the valley. You see
the increase in the amenities. You see
increase in the fit and finish to where
the walk up apartments that I lived in
when I was a college student, these are
now resorts um that have multiple
programming and offerings and amenities
as you look at it. And so we believe
that as we look at it, this is kind of
one of the reasons with respect to
vacancies within the area, a microcosm
within the trade area that this site
sits, there's um the multifamily
developments are at 94% occupancy.
Um so the vacancy rates have not gone
down. Vacancy rates uh continue to be
very minimal as you look at it. And so
there is a demand. Um we know that as
Jen indicated that Elliot Pollock is
preparing a report of housing study. I
also know that um there might only been
I believe two of you on the council at a
time. Um but I think that unless I'm
mistaken Elliot Pollock came and made a
presentation to you about housing. This
was at the time there was a housing
crisis. And so we know that there is a
gap for a variety of and for a variety
of housing choices including in the
multifamily category. The other thing as
we look at it from the rounds consulting
report um I know we talk about loss of
commercial loss of sales tax dollars but
what you've got today on a site that I
would submit is very challenging to
develop under its current entitlements.
You have zero consumer spending, zero
system development fees. zero fees and
in zero fees and permits. But when you
look at it and you look at our report,
you can see that these uh households for
this development are going to spend 12.4
million within a five mile radius.
People shop where they live. So this
isn't a a um loss of commercial. Rather,
it's a strengthening of the commercial
that exists in the area. We can talk
about how brick and mortar has continued
to slim up.
We look at the system development fees,
four million, five million in fees and
permits and everything. A key
consideration is 418 in annual tax
revenue from retail sales, commercial
leases and property taxes. And the other
thing that sometimes get lost in the
discussion is the online sales. Um
online sales coming out of this
development um are projected to be about
2.2 million in 2030. If you so choose to
approve this development tonight um we
estimate that this would be open and
people would be living it in maybe late
27 early 28. So in line with that and
you get a percentage of that um because
of the Supreme Court case you get a
percentage of that. So it's not a we're
losing this. Um there are still
benefits, financial and economic be
benefits to the town for approving this
development.
Keith mentioned the additional
stipulation that is something that is
not required of us. Um but we recognize
and have heard the concerns of people
relative to Higgley and Alona. Uh and we
are still stand by this offer to um
contribute that towards those uh
intersection improvements. So again, as
we look at this, we did our homework. We
did what we were asked to do. We
increased the commercial square footage.
We are um distinguishable from other
cases being located at the corner of two
arterials. We do have less traffic. It's
not the 75%, it's 47%. That is a typo on
my part. And then you can see some of
those economic um benefits and people
choose it. So, with that, mayor and
council, we would request your
recommendation for approval with the
additional stipulation. I'm happy to go
into as much detail as you need uh to
answer your questions to make sure you
all have the information to make your
decision tonight. Thank you.
Thank you. Questions for the applicant?
Council member Boniovani. Okay. Couple
questions. Um,
if approved, what would you build first
through the mayor? Council member Bon
Giovani. Um, I believe I know the answer
to this question, but let me confer with
my client really quick.
Mayor, Council Member Boniovani, it
would all be built at the same time.
Okay. the um 750
apartments that are being built to the
north.
Um
what's their current what's their
current vacancy rate? Uh through the
mayor, council member Bon Giovani, I
don't know if they are open for lease.
They are they are not open for 0%.
So, we have 750 apartments that are at
0%
right down the street from the proposed
apartment. Um,
you said that this is a difficult land
to develop.
Correct. Uh, through the mayor, council
member Boniovani, there are challenges
associated with these 10 acres. Okay. So
the day before your client called you
about this, was it still difficult to
develop through the mayor, council
member Bon Giovani? Yes, it would be
difficult to develop because as you look
at changing retail landscape, if you
look at and consider the way that online
sales have impacted bricks and mortar
buildings, if you look at the
consolidation, uh Arizona was once one
of the most competitive grocery markets
around. Uh and now we're down to
effectively
two. Yeah. Kroger. Uh and Kroger. Yeah.
Uh and so they recently announced they
were going to close 60 stores across the
station across the nation which will
inevitably affect this site. So if you
look at that, you look again at kind of
what how power centers have developed. I
don't recall the last power center that
was has been brought forward in any
jurisdiction and zoned uh recently. It
is of the size that we are proposing. So
yes, before my client called me, I would
say that these 10 acres and that the
entire 40 acres would be challenged
challenging to develop entirely with RC
uses even if you consider 95 uses that
Keith enumerated are that are in the
table. Okay. explain to me the uh 3.2
million online sales again.
So um if you if you look at it as best
um our economist Jim Rounds uh can
calculate using the numbers that he
uses, excuse me, he estimates that by
2030
um this development will be able to
generate 2.2 2 million uh in online
sales. You're talking the commercial
part or what are you talking about? Uh
so what I'm talking about through online
sales is um an ability for um someone to
purchase things online whether it's
through Amazon, Nike, whatever it is.
And the tax revenue goes at the point of
click when it happens. Okay. I hope you
explain that. Thank you. Council member
Torus.
Not that I really want to berate the
point with regional commercial uses, but
I think in discussing this, it's doing
everybody a disservice not to hear them.
Of course, loft units are permitted per
permitted in regional commercial uh in
incidental dwelling units, congregate
live living facilities, uh dormitories,
shelter cares, recovery residences,
senior housing. uh some probably less
desirable uses are in there. Also,
there's cultural institutions which are
not undesirable. I just happen to say
that. Daycare centers, uh residential
daycare, uh let's see, what do we have
here? uh large scale scale and small
scale scale public facilities,
educational facilities, colleges, uh
public or private uh specialized
instructional services, uh schools,
large and small scale, vocational
schools, uh hospitals, urgent cares,
medical offices and clinics, nursing
homes,
uh ambulance services, helipads,
helports, ride shares, none of which are
of great concern in that area. Same with
satellite dishes etc. But you start
going into also let's see uh commercial
spaces, automated banks, uh other
financial institutions, uh banquet
facilities such as let's say wedding
venues, that kind of thing.
uh maintenance services, business
services, breweries, micro breweries,
bars, nightclubs, restaurants,
restaurants, full service, restaurants,
limited service, food prep, uh funeral
and undertaking, uh home occupations,
maintenance and repair services, uh
non-chartered financial institutions,
storage facilities, which is next door,
standalone smoking lounges, piercing
students was probably something they
don't want. uh vehicle and I believe
that is no for vehicle sales, but yes,
for full service car washes, fueling
facilities. Uh I'm going to keep going
here because this is just an amazingly
wide range of things. Oh, motor vehicle
sales and leasing is is something that's
there. uh non-commercial vote uh
rentals, tent sales, uh vehicle services
uh for light vehicles, uh entertainment,
commercial, large scale, small scale, uh
indoor and outdoor commercial venues, uh
or entertainment venues. Uh
no equestrian there and no golf there,
it appears. Uh haunted houses, which I'm
sure is not a big deal. Uh shooting
ranges are permitted. Teen nightclubs
are per permitted. Government offices,
which wouldn't be the best thing to
prime change that to government offices,
uh offices, uh animal all sorts of
animal uses, vets, daycarees, etc.,
clinics, uh kennels,
building materials such as Home Depot,
Lowe's, that kind of situation. Uh
it's just there's pages more of it. What
I'm one thing I am upset about I get to
hear about like three uses. There are so
many more things here. Have we have we
given up and we're just okay there's
three uses four uses that we can't do
that bothers me that there just a
tendency to just just oh well there's a
couple we can't do. Uh are there uses
for that? Have we truly eliminated those
uses? And on the flip side of it is if
if they're allowed by right to basically
build 300 units uh five stories high
with one level of
uh
commercial
if they're if that's by right is that
the worst thing in the world? That's
almost the same thing that we're
approving except with less we're
approving with less commercial.
So, are we doing a disservice to people
by saying yes and getting rid of 80,000
square feet of commercial and allowing
the same number of apartments? So, I
just wanted to go through that because I
feel it's a great disservice to sit
there and say it doesn't have value as
commercial because I think it does. And
when we look at having such a low
vacancy rate, when we look at uh
absorption rates that are as high as
they are right now, uh I've noticed that
I'm tending to go out more and not using
online as much as I have. Online
experiences have not proven to be
perfect. Uh and it's sad to wait for
something and have to mail it back. And
sometimes it's just better to go and do
it. Uh I'm not convinced that it's going
to continue to shrink. And there's a lot
of things out there saying that it's not
shrinking. So I think all of us need to
consider how wide that use is before we
say yes or no and the impacts of saying
no because the impact may be almost the
same thing as saying yes.
Mayor, Council Member Toruson, I
certainly appreciate that when we look
at a list of 95 uses on a piece of paper
that we can identify that there are some
of those which we would say why not, why
not? But when considering the size of
this site, 46 acres, and you start to
look at some of those uses, unless you
want a hodgepodge of a pad here and a
pad there and a pad here and a pad
there, um that's not the way this site
will develop. to have a um you know a
large school, a small school, whatever,
just to pick on some of those. But
again, if we look at it, it's very easy
to run through a list and say, have we
vetted every single one of these uses?
And I'm certainly not going to stand
here and tell you that we have vetted
them. But as you look at that particular
use, it's very easy um at first glance
to say, "Hey, why not here?" But when we
look at this site and the totality of
it, 46 acres, are there enough uses even
that are by right that you could pull
together to create a power center or a
master commercial or a non-residential
development? I don't believe you can
when you look at that. And that's why
when you look at RC property and you
look how it has developed in the town
and the historical precedent that has
been set relative to the RC, you will
see that a fair number of those uses
that you've listed have not developed in
RC. Um because they are not viable. They
are not appropriate in a mixeduse
development even if it's a mixeduse
commercial development. with respect to
um you know online sales I certainly
respect and appreciate that you may have
had a bad experience but if you look at
what some of the experts say relative to
online sales that is today the online
sales make up 16% roughly of total
retail sales by volume that again by
2030 is projected to double to nearly
30%. So, while I respect that you
personally may not be one that's doing
it, the greater market shows us that
online sales are here to stay and that
they're going to continue to increase.
We're talking about 10 acres, not 46,
right? Through the mayor, council member
Torus. Yes, we are. Because I'm looking
at it as 40 as that 10 acres is
splitting that 46 acres into three
pieces. the north piece, the southeast
piece, and the 10 acres plus the five in
front.
That is correct. Through the mayor,
council member, and that's was one of
the reasons that we were asked to
provide this overall master plan to
show, hey, look, if if we do approve
this, how can this integrate? How can
this correlate? How can this be a
catalyst for the commercial development
that has not occurred on the property?
be it 10 acres, be it 20 acres, be it 40
acres. And that was the um thought
behind this plan that we prepared at
your all's request. We can see and show
that how this site does integrate that
there is um cross access that occurs how
a appropriate viable sustainable
commercial development can occur. with
respect to the 10 acres located at two
collectors. Um, sure we could we could
have a a lengthier debate than we've had
thus far relative to what could go
there, but I think again when you look
at it um and look at the regional
commercial zoning, there are a number of
factors that would be um
not really positive to developing this
with even half of those uses. Especially
if we look at it and the concern is
well, we're losing sales tax dollars.
some of those uses that you read
generate no sales tax for the town. And
so if we're looking under that lens of
sales tax dollars, well, let's go
through and cross off the list of 95
uses of which ones don't generate any
sales tax. And if that's the case, if
we're talking about a school or an
office building, then you have to look
at all right, what is that individual
attending that? Is an individual
attending a school or an office going to
generate more sales tax for an economy
than someone living on this site? As I
indicated at the last meeting and is
detailed in in our report, um someone
living in this site, one person is going
to generate $800
annually in sales tax. Um an office
worker is going to generate about half
of that when it comes to sales tax. the
same likely could be said, maybe even
less of someone who attends a school. So
again, I I respect that we're talking
about the uses in the RC. Um, but if you
start to really dive deep down into
them, we can start to winnow that list
down to effectively a handful of uses
that will accomplish what the town
desires of sales tax of a viable and
sustained sustainable development down
the road that someone's not going to be
coming back in. And we're talking about
vagrancy. We were talking about crime
because you know the building's
unoccupied and stuff like that.
It as you've shown there's to the north
you've come up with something shown us
what could be.
How many years before somebody's coming
back saying we need to do another pad
here with more multif family because
it's not viable. How many years? Yeah.
Through the mayor council member
Toruson. That's not a question I can
answer. What I can tell you is that for
Brennan Ray, and I've been doing this
for almost 20 years, my perspective, I
would hold on to that 26 acres of
regional commercial. Um, because as I
look at it, it's got, as we indic, as I
mentioned at the last hearing, I can't
explain why it hasn't developed because
one of the things that commercial
developers, and if I need to get Chris
up here, he can tell it. So, you're just
not believe in me. But one of the things
that's important to commercial
developments, visibility, visibility,
and traffic,
we have that in spades here. We've got
great visibility from Higgley, from
Warner. We do not have great visibility
from the 202. And so that focuses it
more to local than regional, kind of a
neighborhood commercial center. And so
traffic counts, you all have received
the emails, traffic is a problem on
Higgley. That's something that a
commercial person wants. Um, same thing
with Warner. If you look at the
demographics in the area, the average
household income of the homes that live
north of the people that live north of
this site, those demographics are going
to be off the chart because of those
communities and the good job that the
town has done and those developers did
in building those communities. And so
when you look at it, I believe that this
26 acres is viable as commercial. Um
you'd be hardressed to find me standing
before you uh asking for a change on
this 20 on the balance of this site
because of all the things that we talked
about.
Vice Mayor.
All right. I I actually have a question
if if if you don't mind for probably
Kyle or um Keith maybe
and it's probably a a a quick simple
question and I've definitely and I want
you to know I've taken all of this in
and listened and heard to all the
questions and answers and but what I
what I would like to ask planning and um
Kyle is how active have we ever actively
tried to promote this property for for a
commercial project or how active because
I I'm not sure we've even tried to
develop this property yet. Uh mayor
council me vice mayor Buckley I'm going
to ask Jen to help with that. uh the
econ the office of economic development
does a fantastic job in and helping um
bring uh new developments to town. So
she will know much more about that than
I would. Okay. Wonderful.
Uh Council Member Buckley. Um Mayor
Anderson. Um
yes, we have uh actively promoted this
site. So the job of the office of
economic development is to meet with
developers, endusers, site selectors,
brokers,
you name it, and promote the town of
Gilbert and different sites all across
the town based off of the needs of a
particular project and what can be
built. Um, so yes, we've absolutely
marketed this piece of property. One of
the things I think is important to note
is once we put someone in contact with a
land owner, a broker to talk about a
piece of property, largely staff is out
of that conversation. So I certainly
can't speak to where conversations have
gone on any piece of property in the
town. um once we present the opportunity
to an individual and they enter into
that conversation with the land owner,
there's many factors that may influence
someone's decision to choose a site.
Okay. Um well, and thank you. Thank you
for that. But I also want to ask how um
was it you know were you actively
talking to developers and people during
COVID years because you know COVID
really didn't end until probably 2024.
So we had four years of not having
activity. Interest rates were high and
developers weren't there, you know,
actively wanting to build on the
property either.
Mayor Anderson, Council Member Buckley.
Uh that is that is true. COVID was a
challenging time for new development and
going vertical. I would say um just from
our experience in terms of like
generation coming into the town. Um in
the 2020 that was declining. However,
coming out of 2020 into 2021, we
definitely saw a shift. Um we saw a lot
more employment uses coming to the
market. Um certainly you've seen it in
the marketplace where you have
industrial um coming out of the ground
in the east valley office has definitely
slowed down a bit um since then work
from home has certainly impacted that.
We're starting to see changes in the
market. Um what I would say is uh we
were also still um talking to retail
developers at that time um commercial
developers and the like. Um but it was
certainly a time of uh I guess longer
investigation and and to your point um
financial markets haven't fully
recovered yet. Um there are still some
constraints uh on the commercial lending
side. Um but that hasn't slowed down the
activity from at least our office. Um
and what I've seen across the valley in
terms of interest and development um but
the market is continuing to shift. Um
it's not unlike what we saw during the
Great Recession and then the community
came out of that. Um, so the market's
constantly moving and shifting. Um, so
right. So you would say that it's
shifting to better now or more or the
same. I I thought I got that it appears
to be shifting to more active
would be a better Vice Mayor Buckley.
Uh, Anderson, yes, we're starting to see
office pick up. We're starting to see uh
more retail projects. We certainly have
some larger announcements that have have
happened with Signature at Santan in the
Santan Village area. Um Gilbert is
continuously been a desirable place
develop. Um but in terms of h the exact
type of project, uh we're still seeing
some shift. Um we're getting a lot of
interest from retail users um uh for
certain parts of the community. We're
getting a lot of interest from
entertainment users um both indoor and
outdoor. getting a lot of uh having just
a lot of conversations around what's
available in Gilbert.
All right. Thank you. Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mayor.
This might be for anyone who knows the
answer. So, um do we know how many
households there are between let's say
three or five mile radius from this
area? Anyone have that information?
Mayor, Council Member Bonjiovani. Um I I
likely have that indication somewhere in
this report. Um, in terms of uh digging
for that at the tip of my tongue, though
I I I do not I do not have that
information. Not a problem. But we can
agree that this is a high net worth
area.
Mayor, council member Bonjiovani, I
believe that's an accurate statement.
Okay. So 15 minutes ago, you said the 40
acres wasn't viable.
You said location, location, location.
Now we've got location, location, and
high net worth. And three minutes ago,
you said 26 acres are viable. So what
makes 10 acres or 14 acres closer to the
highway now not valuable?
Viable?
through the mayor. Council member Von
Jovani, I want to make sure I understand
your question so I answer it
appropriate. Um, we've talked about 40,
we've talked about 26, we've talked
about 10. And I believe your question to
me is what makes me believe that the
commercial south of Alona is not viable?
No. No. My question is, first of all, we
we started the argument with none of it
was viable. Um that's why we want to put
residential there. Then it shifted to
um yeah this is a a high net worth area.
So it's it's
as you said the 26 acres north of the
site I believe 26 acres was was viable
you said. So, why would an area closer
to the highway
not be viable as much as the other area
with the demographics we just kind of
discussed? Yeah. Through the through the
mayor, council member Bon Giovani, I
believe. Let me try to answer your
question kind of using this aerial. So,
when we look at um successful commercial
developments, they have visibility.
We've we've established that. And as you
look as you come off the freeway, um,
one of the things that impacts, I'll
just talk about the commercial. There's
a portion, I think roughly eight acres
or so that's south of Alona that's
designated regional commercial. So as we
look at that, the viability is
immediately impacted. the excuse me, the
visibility is immediately impacted when
you come off the freeway because the
first thing you see if you're not
hitting a pileup of cars going into ALA
is you will see a multi-story self-s
storage facility.
The development of that by right
standalone not mixed use um impacts
kind of what goes on the other side of
that. Um, not to say that it can't. When
we look at the um, master plan that we
had pulled together, we had shown a
hotel down there permitted in RC. We
showed a couple of pads and maybe some
restaurants. So, that regional
commercial component of it kind of
standalone uses makes sense because of
where it is and what is adjacent to
that. when you get on the north side of
Alona, you look at it from 46 acres and
and that's kind of because that's what
the regional commercial zoning is is
today. And so when you look at it, we
still have some limited visibility when
you talk about the back portion of Alona
and Martingale. That's the 10 acres that
I keep talking about. We believe, and
that's why we're proposing the 20,000
square feet of commercial on the
frontage, that commercial is still
viable in that location. Um, and then as
you travel north, you get then it the
character of it changes from a freeway
interchange to now two major arterials
in Higgley and Warner. And when you get
to that type of an intersection, um,
that's a little bit different than power
in the 202 where you've got immediate
access from the freeway to that power
center. And so when you start to go
north and you start to recognize some of
the limitations, that's where, as I
stated, I believe the 26 acres, call it
whatever, is still viable because that
then picks up um the traffic, the
visibility, the exposure, the experience
of the intersection of Higgley and
Warner. Okay. Thank you,
Member Torres. Uh Mil Creek is the
primary developer of this, correct?
That is correct. Mil Mil Creek is a
residential developer generally.
Correct. Through the mayor, council
member. That is correct. Who would be
building the front five acres? Uh mayor,
council member Torus and Mil Creek would
be building that. Um they are under
construction right now. It's off the
edge of this map uh with the development
of ground floor retail and loft above
down at Higgley and Ray west of the
southwest corner. They are doing that.
um construction is construction. They
have a good uh leasing team and have
connections in the commercial um
brokerage world um that they are able to
confidently lease that space based on
the um response that they received at
their other development um from local
commercial businesses and some national
interest. They believe that there is
demand for that on this area. Again, in
a very limited footprint, there is that
demand, not at the bigger scale that
we've kind of been talking about
tonight. So, Mil Creek would build it.
Um, they're building it right now. Um,
and then they would have
Oh. Uh, then they would have a a
commercial, um, brokerage team do that.
This is Mark Sanford with Mil Creek. He
probably can correct me where I am
wrong. Mayor Anderson, council, members,
um, Oak Creek Residential is primarily a
residential development group, but when
appropriate, we do develop commercial
space along with those residential
communities as Brennan uh mentioned um
like we were doing at Higgley and Ray.
Um, we've also done that in other areas
of the Phoenix market as well. Um, as a
on a national basis, we developed over a
million square feet of commercial space
around the country and we have a
national practice group that only
focuses on retail within Mil Creek.
Question answered. Thank you, Council
Member Mivani. Thank you, Mayor. One
more question. I I might have asked um
you this before when we were in
meetings, but what's the average hold
time for Mil Creek? Average hold time?
Yeah. Uh I think I know the answer, but
let me confirm that.
Uh it varies by development, but 80% is
a 10year or longer hold. Okay. Thank
you.
Thank you. I uh have just a couple of
concerns or thoughts. Um
I was the one that originally asked for
that conceptual plan surrounding the
property. And the idea was not just to
get a concept but to get a commitment
that it would develop in some manner
like that. I know you how difficult that
is to get, but I still feel that's
important to have that commitment uh of
how that will develop. It's not to say
that it if it develops differently in
the RC with some other uses, it can't
come back and be reconsidered to move
buildings around or whatever, but I
needed a commitment which I didn't get.
The other is um you did supply me. I I
don't think the uh staff or the council
has seen the same plan you supplied me
with development as an RC district with
five stories above uh which we've
established is allowed in the RC in this
area. So that seems to be a viable plan
where you wouldn't have to even come
back for any reasoning and um kind of
surprises me that we don't take a run at
that instead.
So, those are my concerns about the
project. It just seems like we're we're
our our scope is is pretty narrowly
focused on on this plan and uh and we've
got some other alternatives.
Mayor, if I may, you are correct. By
right, what I shared with you was just
an example of what could develop. Um and
in terms of it, um Mil Creek authorized
me to to say that and there is that
possibility. It doesn't mean it's the
final determination. We talked about by
right we can get five stories. We could
get up to 500 units. There is no cap on
density. Um we believe and Mil Creek
believes as well that the site plan that
is before you uh is the is the better
plan um for the development of this
site. We certainly re recognize our
rights to develop it under the RC um but
still believe that this plan is better
not only for the site but for the
surrounding area in terms of the quality
of the architecture in terms of the
integration in terms of everything that
we've talked about layoutwise and
designwise believe that this is a far
superior plan to what could be built by
Wright.
Thank you. Council,
we beat this horse to death.
I'll close the public hearing at this
point and bring it back to the council
for discussion and or a motion.
Any discussion? No discussion.
We have someone council member Kapowski.
U I just want to summarize some of the
points that I heard in that discussion
that um I'll be basing my decision on
tonight. Um I'm glad that the applicant
came back with greater commercial
density.
Um
I'm I like that the project would be
built all at the same time.
The mention about the housing study
happening now. I don't think it's
necessarily fair to delay a current
development that's going through the
appropriate processes.
Um, but there's a lot of pros and cons
to this site. I think I share some
concerns, but also understand that this
could be a catalyst to that adjacent
commercial property. So, that's just
where where my head's at.
Thank you.
Others
thoughts,
council member Buckland. Thank you,
Mayor.
My head is in a similar place after
listening to all this. You know, I go
back. I don't want apartments, but they
can build them anyways.
At least this is a more control plan.
you know, when I considered and I liked
the idea of being able to fill those
bottom floors, but um in earlier
meetings, I had actually asked the
question, why not do that? Um
what I understood was because it's that
front level and the developers probably
not going to like this and I'm probably
I hope I don't offend you when I say the
Tyler model in Agritopia. Um that works,
that is thriving. But you see those
businesses, you park in front of them
and you see them. You don't see what's
behind. I worry that we're going to have
vacant buildings behind it. And I
definitely appreciate Brennan saying
they're I hope that's a commitment not
to just leave empty buildings like
they've done in Tempee. Um being a
former police commander, um emptiness
leads to crime. So don't want to see
that. I think
given all the back and forth, the
compromises that have been made here, um
I do believe the data that was said
about the online uh totally respect um
what you said, council member Torus and
understand the um bad experience having
worked for Amazon global security
operations. I know that it is trending
up. I believe Amazon is like between 9
and 11% year-over-year. Uh I think the
whole market is like 1.29 29 billion
expected in the US in online sales. So,
it's trending up. That will help. That's
only one piece of the puzzle. Um, I
think
I would like an even more ideal
situation. However,
we didn't get to control what went on
that prime frontage property. A school
went there, took prime real estate that
you can see on the freeway to lure
people in. and a school a school went
there and is bringing a lot of traffic.
Traffic that is very heavy, especially
two times a day backing up in the
intersection of Warner and uh Higgley.
Um although this will bring more
traffic, something's going to go in
there. I like the fact that it does have
less trips. I think it it soothes that a
little bit. Nothing's going to help, but
it soos that a little bit. So, I think
having said all of that and the risk,
maybe it's not this developer. someone
comes in and uh you know does go up five
floors and leaves vacant space playing a
game. I really hope we close that gap in
our
in our uh um planning zoning. So, uh I
do based on the totality of
circumstances and I have gone back and
forth back and forth because I don't
want apartments. I don't want more
apartments especially in that area. I do
think it's the best um use case
now based on all of those circumstances.
Who was first? Yeah, Council Member
Torres, just make clear, maybe we didn't
have a say on what happened there, but a
previous council did, and I think they
made a grand mistake of allowing that
school to annex and take 50 acres of
what under our general plan was freeway
frontage, and it has supplied an
incredible amount of traffic. And this I
will say that what is being proposed is
far less traffic than what it could be.
It is far less. The apartments do tend
to take about half of what commercial
takes. And uh that is something to
consider.
And I wasn't blaming you, sir. I uh I
thought that I thought that the
legislature doesn't even allow us to
control that. That's a school. So, not
even the prior council had to do with
that. If we hadn't annexed them.
Understood. Understood. Thank you,
Council Member Bonjivani. Thank you,
Mayor. Um, it's a tough decision to be
very honest with you because do I
believe this project is high quality?
Absolutely. Does it in my mind does it
fit the the area as far as um, you know,
quality? Absolutely. Um, what I'm
concerned about is
750 apartments across the street almost
or behind in the backyard that haven't
even opened up yet.
Um,
I I don't I don't believe I I I believe
there's there's there's definitely a a
some point there's a bubble. At some
point in time, we have tons of
apartments being built and some point in
time, people aren't going to be able to
afford those higher rents. And then what
happens is companies tend to sell those
uh projects to another let's say company
or private equity firm who has to go in
and lower rents until we get to a point
where you know we look like a couple of
cities that are around us. So I I am if
the if the 750 apartments weren't being
built right at the same time I' I'd
really look at this differently.
I'm I'm perplexed right now to be very
honest with you as far as pros and cons
of this. Um, if the state legislature
didn't take away our our rental tax, I'd
be more leaning over here, but we can't
control that right now.
Thank you.
Any comments? So, I have anyone like
make a motion or other comments?
Mayor Anderson, may I remind you just of
the public comment cards? Oh, yes. We
received 27, I think it is, email public
comment cards that were opposed. And I
think a lot of those are the same ones
that you showed on the map.
It's your pleasure.
Well, we'll see where this falls. Um,
I will move to approve
the general plan GP2402
and zoning Z24-10
MOA
point with the information that was
presented today including the $200,000
towards infrastructure improvements in
public rightway at the Higgley Alona
intersection or the Higgley Warner
intersection. section or along Elona or
Martindale.
Have a motion. Is there a second?
Second. I have a motion by council
member Kapowski, seconded by Council
Member Buckland. Please vote.
Motion fails.
Should we try another motion?
Mayor, does that just move forward as a
denial?
Do we have to take another vote, Chris?
Mayor Anderson, no. If if if it doesn't
pass, it's a denial. Takes no other
action, then it's denied. Okay.
Motion dies. uh fails two to five.
Thank you. That concludes item number
three.
We've been at this for a little bit. Do
you want to take a fivem minute break?
Yes. Okay.
It's my RC.
Check one, two.
Check. One, two.
Check. One, two, check. One, two, one,
two, three, four. One, two, three, four.
One, two. Check. One, two.
Check. One, two. Check. Check. One, two.
One, two, three, four.
Check. One, two. Check. One, two.
One, two.
One minute warning.
Okay, we'll come back uh to order.
Start with item number four, general
plan GP24-04
and zoning Z24-16
BC Park. Ashley
Thank you.
Thank you, mayor and council. Uh so this
request before you tonight is for GP24
2404
uh which is a request to amend the
general plan land use classification on
4 acres from general office to general
commercial. Uh accompanying that request
is Z2416
which proposes to reszone four acres
from business park to community
commercial. In addition, they would
amend the uh existing Gateway Point
Industrial P AD um and amend that
development plan to comply with uh or to
be consistent with their new request.
Okay. So, here's an aerial map of the
property. It's located on the west side
of Power Road, south of Galveastston.
Um, it is founded by Oakland Court to
the south and then directly um directly
to the north is Tulsa Court.
As I mentioned previously, the land use
classification on site is currently uh
general office which allows for that
business park use. And then
additionally, the zoning on site for the
entire parcel is business park. Uh this
property is uh entirely within the
Gateway Point Industrial P A.
The clicker is going real slow.
I fear I've pushed it too many times and
it's going to jump ahead like six
slides.
Okay. Um so with their proposal, the
applicant has submitted um general plan
and zoning exhibit. So on the top you
can see the general plan exhibit. So,
it's the front four acres that front uh
power road that would be um changed to
the commercial portion. Um and then the
um entire site would amend the
P A. Um this is the existing development
plan that exists on site. Uh it was
intended to be a larger kind of medical
campus type of um type of area and it's
just never developed in that fashion.
And so the applicant before us today is
seeking to reszone the front half for
commercial uses. Um they've got space
for I think three building pads with
associated parking and then the rear
would remain that business park um use.
I'm not quite sure what my next slide
is, but I believe it probably talks
about the planning commission
recommendation. So, um, with this
project, the planning commission did
recommend approval, um, on both the
general plan amendment and the resoning
request. Staff supports those
recommendations um, and would be happy
to answer any questions that you have.
Questions for Ashley. Council member
Torres, am I hearing these sweet words
of business park turning to commercial?
You are hearing the opposite. Oh yes,
you're right. I'm sorry. Yes, business
park to commercial. Dill my heart. Thank
you.
Other questions,
vice mayor.
Okay. So,
so this is we're going from business
park to commercial, which I agree with
Council Member Torus. That's sweet to
hear that. Um, this is community
commercial. Is that correct? That is
correct. Okay. So, what what can be put
there? Uh, great question, Mayor. Um,
and council member Buckley. Uh, what we
anticipate on this property is, uh,
possibly some restaurant uses and some
inline shops. So, it would allow for a
variety of retail, um, possibly some
office, uh, restaurant type uses. Um,
and that's what we anticipate we'll
we'll develop with this site. Okay. and
business part is we're looking at
offices, commercial buildings, things
like that. Yeah, some some kind of light
industrial flex flex space. Okay. All
right. That was a good answer. Thank
you.
Other questions?
Thank you, Ashley. Thank you. I'll open
the public hearing. Is the applicant is
there an applicant here who would like
to
summarize?
Thank you, Mayor Anderson. Thank you,
Mayor Anderson and me represent of the
council. Uh Greg Davis with I plan
Consulting representing the ownership.
Uh I don't have anything to summarize. I
think uh the proposal is pretty
straightforward. I will let you know
that we do have users for both the BP
and the commercial. So we're ready to go
as soon as we can. So I'd be glad to
answer any questions that you have
though for me. You sure you don't want
to do this over on Higgley Road?
Phase two. Phase two. Okay,
other questions,
Vice Mayor. Okay. So, do do you have a
business plan? I don't know. Perhaps I
missed seeing that. and
through the mayor, um, council member
Buckley. So, we we do have a development
plan that we showed on there. It's very
conceptual in nature. At the time we
submitted this, which was last fall, we
didn't know exactly what those users are
going to look like, but the BP user,
it's a flex industrial use, has
submitted their formal um site plan
package. So, that's in in in the works.
and we have two uh restaurant users uh
that are interested in signing uh an LOI
on the commercial portion once the
zoning is approved. So, we'll be
submitting site plans for all those.
Okay, great. Oh, well, I like that
there's some of both. I think that's
that's a great addition that you can add
to that. So, thank you. Well, we're
happy to provide it. Thank you.
Thank you, Greg. Thank you. close the
public hearing and bring it back to the
council for discussion and or a motion.
I'd like to make a motion to accept
item that was I
written for general plan GP 2404
uh 24-04 zoning Z24-16
BC Park A.
I'll second that.
The vice mayor already did third it.
Okay. It's been moved by council member
Torus, seconded by uh vice mayor. All
please vote.
Motion carries 70.
Thank you, Greg.
Moving on to item six,
zoning Z or zoning Z24-22,
Bellistoria P Amendment parcel B. Keith,
Mayor Anderson, members of the council,
um, good evening. Um,
Bellistoria Apartments part uh parcel B
PA P Amendment. I promise on this one
I'll I I will be piffy and I will not
bloate as much as I did on the last one.
So, I'll try to run through this one
fairly quickly.
Um, the site and as you know, we've
presented this one before you to you
before and it was obviously um
continued. Um so the site um is located
at Power and Williamsfield the northwest
corner and it's that um it's highlighted
site there in the yellow. This is part
of an overall master plan of about um 75
acres or so that has already been
approved and some of it's going to start
construction here in the near future. A
single family portion to the north. But
this is one of two multifamily pieces
that have been previously approved and
this one's going to be amended. Um so
obvious obviously as I've kind of stated
the amendment for the existing is to
amend the existing development plan on
parcel B of the existing P A to
accommodate a 326 unit apartment complex
and the proposed PAD amendment is also
to rec reconfigure the site the whole
development plan. So the general plan is
residential 14 to 25 dwelling units per
acre. they can have all the way up to
that 25 dwelling units per acre and
there are no restrictions on that um
beyond um within those parameters. Um
367 units like I stated the total is
about 23 acres of size that site that's
highlighted in red before you. Um here's
the overall um the existing overall
development plan that was approved. Um
like I said 73 acre master plan about 11
and a half million units per acre total.
Um, and you can see the piece in the far
bottom lefthand corner is the subject
site and how it how it's designed now.
Buildings fronting the street, a lot of
parking in the middle, even a
residential building along the north.
And there's about 628 units that have
been approved previously on this project
in the original PD. So, here is the
proposed development plan that shows the
changes that the applicant's proposing.
And you can see now the building
configuration is different. Um there is
um about it this kind of increases the
overall density of the project a little
bit to about 12.5 dwelling units per
acre and this is spread out over the
whole 75 acres. This is how we come
we've calculated the density. So still
the 12.5 dwelling units per acre is
within the allowable range approved
through the general plan which is which
is as as I stated before is that 14 to
25 dwelling units per acre. So, it still
falls well within that
um
in that range.
So, here's the development plan in more
detail. The net acreage is 13 um 367
units as I've stated, 23 and a half
units per acre, still within the range
of density that's allowed. And you can
see how there's there's nine buildings.
There's a twostory parking garage, 607
parking spaces, and the site is arranged
quite differently. In planning staff's
um opinion, it's a much better design
that was previously designed. You have
this large building in the front that
has a it's kind of a fourstory
building, four stories along
Williamsfield and then it kind of
graduates it that the it goes to three
stories towards the back. You have
really nice courtyards with open space
and amenities. So that building is
fronting the street u um right along the
roadway. Same thing with the next
building to the right, building two. And
that is a threestory building. And the
other building, the other buildings are
the other larger apartment building on
the west eastern boundary, excuse me, is
a three-story building. There's a
parking garage in the middle. And then
you have all of these um carriage type
unit. Well, they're not carriage units.
They're just um smaller buildings.
They're two stories
um right up along um that uh local
street to the north um adjacent to
single family on the north side of the
development. So so there's a good land
use transition. You don't have a large
three-story building looming over single
family residential to the north and a
lot of your parking is hidden by all of
the buildings. Instead of being wide
open where you can see the parking now
it's kind of being screened by all the
buildings. A large amount of open space
to the right. Oh, I should have shown
you this plan. I apologize. This is kind
of the the pretty picture. I forgot I
had this one in here. And now you can
see the open spaces and and see how
there's all that landscaping that m that
um open common open space on the whole
east side with grass lawns and pickle
ball courts. And it's kind of the
transition. They've created a little
pedestrian transition to the future
commercial to the east. And now you can
really see how those buildings kind of
screen or protect the parking from
public view. So a much better design and
staff's uh um uh opinion on this site.
And the reason we needed to bring this
back before you is because it wasn't
obviously in compliance with the
original development plan and the
changes were too substantial.
So
um public participation the applicant
held one neighborhood meeting in
November. No residents or surrounding
property owners attended. Um staff
recommends that you uh approve the the
PAD amendment tonight um as requested
subject to conditions. And I am open for
questions now if you have any. And I
believe the applicant uh Adam Ba is here
and he probably has a little maybe has a
little presentation and he can answer
some questions as well. Thank you very
much. Thank you Keith. Council, you have
questions of staff.
Who was first? Council member Vonivani.
Thank you, Mayor. Can you go back back
and forth between the two, the original
and then this one again? I didn't really
see a difference too much. Okay. A big
difference. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Council member Lions.
So, I was curious on the U public
meetings. Who chooses the dates for
those public meetings to be held? Uh,
Mayor Anderson, Council Member Lions.
the the applicant
um proposes a date to town staff. Uhhuh.
And we approve it. Is it on the previous
developer that was in here, they had a
public meeting notice in the same time
frame, which is a week before
Thanksgiving?
Um I'm curious, is that typical? I would
think that with that kind of time frame
around a holiday, it would not be a a
good time to do a public meeting. Do you
take anything like that into
consideration when we set these dates?
Mayor Anderson, Council Member Lions, we
don't see that very often, but we do try
to make sure that um as many people are
around as possible uh during
neighborhood meeting times so that
holidays don't conflict. And so we try
to make sure that we avoid those
situations at all cost possible. All
right. I I've seen two tonight. the one
previous and this one both had uh a
public meeting. One was this one's the
20th, the other one was the 21st. So,
gives me pause. So, I just wanted to
point that out. Thank you,
Council Member Torres. So, with this uh
PD change, there is no zoning change
involved. It is just the plan they
submitted and an update, a change, a
intensification of it. Mayor Anderson,
Council Member Torres, that is correct.
They're the zoning is staying
multifamily medium. All they're doing is
updating the design of the site, which
is no longer in substantial conformance
with the original design and increasing
the number of units by I can't remember
what the total number the difference is
like 68 or so.
That's it. Correct.
Um I think he kind of asked the same
question. I was going to ask this is an
already approved
complex. Correct. The the plan has
already been approved by I don't know
when, how long ago? Um, Mayor Anderson,
um, Vice Mayor Buckley, uh, yes, the
this plan that you see on the screen in
front of you was approved previously. I,
if I remember correctly, that was about
three to three years ago now. Um, but
yes, that plan was approved. Okay. So,
was that approval expired or how long is
that approval good for? Mayor Anderson,
uh, Vice Mayor Buckley, no, that
approval has not expired. There is no
expiration limit on a development plan.
Okay. So, what the request here today is
adding additional units. Um, Mayor
Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley, they're
requesting today is to modify that
original design that's on the screen,
changing the configurations of the
buildings, locations of buildings, and
parking, and adding a few more units.
Yes.
Okay. They're improving the design in
our opinion. Okay. So, it's not So, the
it's approved. They're just making
modifications to numerous different
things. Correct.
And are are there separate
uh ways to vote on this or is it a a
a full because I I'm not in favor of
adding more units to this. So if it is
is it going to be you know can we split
that vote or can we it has to be done in
the approval that you're requesting.
Mayor Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley.
If I understand the correct the question
correctly, it would have to be done to
um I don't think you can split the vote
in one vote. It'd have to be in one
vote. And you would be amen pro propo
proposing or approving to amend the
existing P A or the existing development
plan for the new design showing this
design if the clicker will work for me.
Okay. All right. There it is. Yeah, that
answers my questions. Thank you.
Perfect. Council member Lions. Thank
you, Mayor. Um, if I remember this one
correctly, when it came before us
before, the original uh was just a
concept, I think, is the way it was
presented to us. It wasn't necessarily
the final deal. And so, we're increasing
the number of units here by 20%. I think
I remember asking a question about the
traffic impact of adding 20% more units
to this. Was that something you all
looked at again, went back and visited
was the traffic and what was the impact
of that? Council member Lions, Mayor
Mayor Anderson, the original design
applicant can speak more to this as to
whether or not there was an original
developer as and as the apartment
developer on this site and to whether or
not that was a concept. I've always
understood that they had an original
apartment developer, but um the the
applicant would probably know no better
than I do on that question of it. But as
far as the traffic is concerned, yes,
it's something that that we would
evaluated
uh
and the traffic department has approved
a preliminary type of TIA and also we
have a design review uh case that's
going um that we have approved or we're
we're hoping to bring it to C planning
commission for approval in the near
future and there's a TIA with that one
that has a little more detail and they
have a our traffic team has approved
that TIA as well. If that answers your
question, it it kind of does. Um
a follow on on that. Why would this
particular design be better than the
other?
Um Mayor Anderson, Council Member Lions,
very good question. So, if we look at
the design and and I'm sure the
applicant will want to articulate on
this even more than me, but if you look
at the design, this has the buildings
along the street frontages. Um, I
believe they were four stories as well
with a big big sea of parking and
honestly not a lot of open space. It had
way less open space than what this
project is proposing. And this design is
a more traditional
garden style apartment complex. Whereas
the proposed design has um has some
parking, but it's screened by the
buildings. It's not as publicly visical
visible. It it has a parking garage. Um
it doesn't look as um
as um what's the word I'm looking for?
Um as cluttered from the street. Uh
there's a lot more open space and it's
just it's it's more visually appealing.
and also the and from the the two-story
buildings on the north to the single
family um development to the north as
well. They don't they're not looking out
their windows on their second stories
and looking at a four-story building.
They're looking at smaller two-story
building. So, the transition's better.
So, there's multiple reasons why it's a
better design. Even though yes, they are
increasing um some of the units. But I
will let the applicant, he can
articulate a little bit more than I can
probably on why it's a better design.
But that's from my perspective and
staff's perspectives why that's a better
design. Well, from the back to the
traffic thing for a moment, you have 20%
more units in this particular
development. You said you have some
preliminary
uh evaluations of that. What's the next
steps?
Um, Mayor Anderson, Council Member
Lions. Um,
I don't I don't honestly don't have a
lot of that data and information. So,
but the next step from here is
to submit the design review or not
submit, sorry, excuse me, get the design
review application approved and then of
course the building permits, right?
Yes. So, yes, good point. So, Clint
Eorry, our traffic um engineer, is here.
He can probably answer that other
question that you asked me better than I
can. All right.
I guess good evening again. Um,
mayor and council members, do you want
to go to the the overall site?
Yeah. So,
wrong way.
So this is um so when this first came in
they looked at the whole zoning together
and uh we actually did they did a master
traffic study and so it took in account
um what's the DR has already approved to
the north and also the apartments um
we as part of this submitt we we didn't
ask them to update the traffic study
just because the commercial like we
talked about previously generates a lot
more traffic. And so, um, as this site
continues to develop and these other
sites come in for DR, we can we can
continue to evaluate if if we need to
update the traffic study, but right now
um, as a whole, looking at this master
site traffic, it even though it it may
be a 20% on the multif family, overall
it's a very small amount of additional
traffic because we looked at
as this in an entirety, if that makes
sense. What I'm looking at here is the
uh egress and ingress into the into the
site and thinking about its close
proximity to Power Road in there making
a left coming out of the unit. Um how is
that how is that going to be managed? So
right now at Delator Boulevard um there
is a traffic signal there. Okay. today
and then because of the his power road
has just some unique challenges because
of access there's not a lot of lefts out
right and so um based on the density of
the commercial and all that that the
middle at the middle we are proposing a
traffic signals there well at a th00and
feet spacing while that's not ideal just
because of those constraints on power
road um that was kind of the only way we
could get the site to work to add
another traffic signal there So that's
it.
Right. Thank you. So as far as like
Delator and Williamsfield, there's still
a lot of capacity far as the traffic
signal goes and be able to handle that
to handle that traffic.
Right. Thank you,
Vice Mayor.
Okay. I was trying to make sense of
this. Can you can you go back to this
lower portion that's on Williamsfeld
Road here?
You showed that earlier to compare to
the
No, the other one that was in color. Oh,
yes. So, you showed that. Is this the Is
this on Williamsfield Road? Um, Mayor
Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley. Yes. Okay.
So, this is along Williamsfield Road.
Correct. This is the new one. And the
other one you showed and is and that's
what we're looking at tonight, right? I
just want to confirm that because you
know the the
other this one the one on top of that
is already there. It's existing, right?
Uh Mayor Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley,
so you're talking about the residential
to the north. Yes. Um that is approved.
It's not under construction yet, but
it's approved. It's single. Um that's
what I can't remember how many homes,
but 200 something. You're just showing
what's going to be next to it. That is
correct. I'm just showing you the
context of what will hopefully be
developed all the way around. Yes. Okay.
Okay. Um I just wasn't sure if it was
existing or if it's ongoing. So, uh the
other thing is what is the setback from
Williams Road because those look like
they're almost sitting on the sidewalk.
Mayor Anderson, um Vice Mayor Buckley,
if I remember correctly, the setback
along Williamsfield, it's kind of hard
to see. I think it's 25 if I remember
correctly. It's hard to see in this. I
believe it's 25 ft. It's either 25 or
30. One of the two. I can't read it.
Okay. Uh and I don't I don't Oh, yeah. I
can't read that either. It's at least
20. It's minimum 25. Okay. What What's
the normal How much of that would be
sidewalk?
Um approximately
four about five feet would be sidewalk.
Okay. You you'll that'll leave 20 feet
from the sidewalk to Williamsfield Road.
I think it's more um Mayor Anderson,
Vice Mayor uh Buckley. It's actually a
little bit more than that. There is a
there is an easement and like I believe
it's an RC WCD type easement that goes
along this whole frontage of
Williamsfield Road which kind of pushed
the building back a little bit. So, if I
remember correctly, there will be about
35 feet or so from the apartment
buildings to maybe where the sidewalk
would be if I remember correctly. So,
it's not like closer than it would be
because that easement's about 16 or so
feet wide. Okay. So, that kind of pushed
it back a little bit. Yeah, that's a
decent distance then from from the
actual road itself. Yeah. be I was just
thinking that you know if there's 10 or
15 15 feet between the sidewalk and
Williamsfield that that's pretty tight.
No, it's not that tight. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. That answers my question. Thank
you, Council Member Torus. Now, I just
wanted to point out that the apartment
uh unique trips tend to be around $15
unique trips per door approx give or
take depending on where it is and how
many how many bedrooms etc. But it tends
to be about 15 unique trips. So, if you
have 60 apartments, you're about 900
unique trips a day.
Thank you. I think we can get a lot of
answers from the applicant. Should we
invite him up?
I'll open the public hearing and invite
the applicant.
May council, this is Adam Bomb, behalf
the applicant. I was a C plus student,
so I actually had to Google the word
bloate, but I think I understand what it
is. and I don't think he's really good
at being ply thief after that
presentation, but you guys have a lot of
questions and I respect what he does.
Um, you have a big agenda. Fact, one of
your first items took a long time and so
I'm mindful that you've given me the
grace to come back and present this case
a second time where I think our first
time we didn't do a good job and I think
um our my associates confidence in the
case I've overshadowed what would have
been a good land use case. Your
generosity has given me the chance to
present this. So, I'd love to share a
little bit about what we're doing here.
And Council Member Buckley, I think I
can answer a lot of your questions and
hopefully change your mind before you um
hear the rest of this decision today.
I think this case makes good land use
sense, but there's some benefits for the
public that I think I need to do a
better job explaining for you guys to be
able to say yes. Council member Lions,
th this the neighborhood meeting for
this case was the week before
Thanksgiving and I remember it clearly
because it was the same day you guys had
the redevelopment commission. So I think
if the town holds their public hearings
on those nights um they also agree that
they can accept an applicant to do his
neighbor meetings and some of those same
um weeks as well. Uh as we look at this
case, one of the things that come to my
mind here is what's this case about? Um,
it's not a resoning. And if there was
any way to get this clicker to work, do
I can I just tell you to There we go.
It's not a resoning case and I'm not
changing the zoning either. I have a
feeling this is going to be a long night
with the way the the speed of this goes.
But what this is is a site plan
amendment. And as part of that site plan
amendment, and I want to be really clear
and more direct this time than I think
you saw from the p the past presenter,
um, but this is a a request to change
the site layout and also increase the
number of units. That increase is 63
units. But in addition to those 63
units, we're adding more open space.
We're adding new amenities. We're
creating and improving the walkability
from this project to the adjacent
commercial. We're adding a parking
garage that rarely you see, we are
reducing the building heights. And so
you, as much as this benefits me, part
of my presentation will focus on how
this benefits the town of Gilbert.
In any other jurisdiction, this site
plan amendment would have just been
handled at staff's level and wouldn't
normally require council action. In
fact, that was a question one of the
council members and I visited about in
advance is why is this coming back?
You're you're not changing zoning. not
asking for all the zoning density that
you could have. So why are we seeing
this? And I think Gilbert's unique in
that when you change your plans, you
need to come back through council, but
in any other city, it would just be
streamlined. But I think to staff's
credit, they recognize this plan is a
better version than what they saw
previously.
Let's uh cover a couple things real
quick. When this case was originally
zoned in 2022 2023, there was a master
developer. I think speaking to your
point counselor lines and sometimes
those master developers or land owners
who lay out a a plan, a concept, a
vision and then hope to attract the
people who want to come and buy the
different components of it, but it
wasn't driven by a specific user and
there was no multif family developer
attached with them. There's none in tow.
And so I think they did a good job
creating what was the best version that
they thought this property could yield.
But through this presentation, I'll
explain to you where some of those
weaknesses were by not having developer
tow and why we have to come back and
change it. And I think it was good as
far as where they placed their
buildings, how they had their access
going, but it was short-sighted in a few
things. And this plan, if you look at
the bonnet sheet, what did that plan
show? It showed four stories, 304 units,
all surface parked with some very
inconvenient amenities. And by
inconvenient, if you look in that red
box at the very like kind of a a green
square in the middle of that red box,
that's your amenity areas. But the
residents and the residential units
aren't around that area. And so
residents have to walk far across
parking lot to get to amend.
I imagine that while we're changing this
plan, it wouldn't surprise that any of
the other components start to come in
and change a little bit too because it
was never particularly driven by a
single user. But in this case, what we
are proposing is 367 units. This plan
does increase units and there's a reason
why. But as part of this plan, we're
reducing our heights down to twos and
threes and a little bit of fours whereas
and where they ignored the opportunity
to engage with the commercial to the
east. This plan actually opens up and
engages with it, creates open space,
puts outdoor plazas and scen areas
that's happening to the north and one
actually is better with regard to how it
supports the commercial to the east. If
I had to choose between these two plans,
it's evident that this plan is a far
better one. And the difference is this
plan's actually driven by a user
developer who will occupy it and hold it
for 10 plus years. Whereas the first
plan was a concept guess and a hope and
it allowed him to attract somebody like
my client who's here to refine it.
Some key considerations worth taking
into mind. I know that this council
takes a lot of pressure unfairly.
Whenever you bring a multif family case,
your emails light up, your names gets
tagged on Facebook. How dare you build
more multif family? And here I am asking
for a plan that brings more multif
family. But there are some things that I
think make this a little bit different
than other ones. For example, the case
before you on the agenda um earlier
tonight. One, we are already zoned
multif family. I'm not asking to change
the zoning. Two, we're less than what
the zoning can allow. So if a newspaper
is going to write article, this the
story should be developers building less
than what they're entitled for. Three,
we're in Kulie Station, the one area in
the town where you guys actually
encouraged and anticipated and expected
this type of density. Fourth, we're
close to ASU Polytech, which I think is
a an expanding university opportunity
that will likely meet need more housing
around there. The difference between us
and some of the other ones, like you
heard this morning, is there's zero
objections. And I don't think it's just
because we had our neighbor meeting a
week before Thanksgiving. Um, between
the multiple letters that were sent, not
just for the zoning case, but for the
designer review case, the letters that
were sent for the public hearings for
this case, the continuences for this
case, there's been so many opportunities
for public participation. But the
absence of it, I think, is a reflection
that this is an area where people expect
this type of density. And I know that
sometimes you face consistent pressure
to add more and more in other parts of
town. But if I could put put a question
to you differently, if there was one
spot where we should add a little bit
more units, it might be in the spot
where it's already planned, already
zone, where the roadway already is
designed for the capacity of it. In
fact, the roadway is designed for a
capacity far greater than what we're
proposing. And that's why some of the
reasons here make better sense than
other places that you might experience
across the town.
So why more units? I think that's
probably the crux of the question. If
you can build the first plan at 304, why
do you need 367?
The reality is the 304 plan was never
created by a multif family developer who
would actually execute and build it or
develop it. And no multif family
developer would create a plan that puts
its open space amenities away from its
residents. The worst thing that can
happen for you to not be successful on a
project like this is to create a a
poorly designed plan. Poorly designed
plans don't lease up quick. If they
don't lease out quick, then they're
longer to to stabilize. Turnover happens
more frequently. And the more rapid your
turnover exists, the quicker your
project uh goes into a deteriorated
um state. And so for this project to
succeed long term, it needed to do two
things. It needed to centralize its
amenities and it needed a parking
garage. The parking garage
um unfairly costs about 38 to $40,000 a
stall. And you guys know you've built
some in the downtown area. And so when
you consider the cost of parking stall
and the cost of more open space than
before and more landscaping, more trees
and shrubs to support that, those those
have um extra costs that are offset by
the extra units. And so that is one of
the reasons why. And so if you're going
to get this project to be built, you're
going to need to redesign other way
because no one's going to build what was
there before. It was a poorly designed
plan. But creating a better design plan
ensures the long-term success of this
project versus others. And so, as much
as I'd love to talk about the benefits
for our project, I think it's important
to highlight some of the benefits that
the town will experience. First of all,
residents living here will live in a
much better project than what they had
um previously approved. But two, I think
this creates a better design to support
the commercial next door. And I know
that we heard today that the commercial
vacancy is really low. But when you are
looking to open your own business as a
small business entrepreneur or your own
little retail brickandmortar shop, you
love nothing better than people both to
drive, walk and bike to your to the
facility. The fact that we can open up
our east side that previously was
completely ignored.
Now we open up and engage with it
actually gives confidence to somebody to
invest, open their own enterprise and
business in the retail next door. I
think it creates a better design for the
homes directly north of us on Haskell
Road. Two-story homes there deserve to
have a two-story home across the street
from them. Well, the prior plan was four
stories. And I so I think this is way
more contextsensitive for them. I think
Gilbert residents in the area benefit
from this because they see a lower
masked um height of a building. Wall
planes are broken up. So, as you're
driving down Williamsville Road, you
have a better user experience as opposed
to what was previously planned. I think
Gilbert benefits because it keeps multif
family where it belongs in an area where
it's already zoned as opposed to Higgley
Road and the 202 where there's it's it's
a square peg round hole. And I think in
this case, the private property rights
are a compelling reason. Um, the private
property rights in this case allow it to
398 units. And I think while we're more
than 304, we're asking 367. or not quite
to what you are entitled for on this
property today. It's a striking a little
bit of a balance in the creation of a
better plan. My clients able to attract
better tenants who want to stay longer
than just one-year leases.
It also gives them the ability to uh
provide parking amenities that weren't
there before. But those things come with
a little bit of cost. And I think the
trade-off is a better plan with a little
bit more units.
I know this is a an important slide, but
I was hit on a couple of things. When
you think about being an inclusive
community includes all types of housings
and this option here gives a little bit
more and there's a little bit of a
innovative risk that comes along with
this hoping and banking that the parking
garage is just enough of amenity to keep
people here more than just one or two
year leases. And so that's a risk we
take but one that we trust in
particularly when your days are more
than 110 degrees. And at the end of the
day, when you think of your last vision
about helping facilitate the success of
others, your approval of this plan helps
our client be able to succeed in a plan
that the prior one frankly um wasn't
unachievable. And in some I'll just wrap
it up with a couple of key points.
The ability for this project to see long
term requires a redesign regardless
because no one will rent here if they
have to go so far away for their amenity
spaces. But it creates a better living
environment for only the folks living
here, but the folks ly to north and the
single family homes. The commercial
businesses who will operate directly to
the east who would benefit from that
walkability. The folks driving down
Williamsville Road who can see reduced
building heights and and wall planes
broken up. The town residents who expect
multif family to be in areas where
multif family should be. It is
consistent through general plan. It's
recommended by staff and unanimous
approval by the planning commission. So,
long story short, had a very busy day.
Hey, I appreciate the time, the
consideration you've allowed to come
back and I hope I've been able to
explain more the reason why this plan is
changing the necessity of it and maybe
the the logic that we had to go through
to get to this. Happy to answer any
questions that you may have. Thank you.
Questions of the applicant.
Vice Mayor,
I I want to clarify something. Um,
so
in in the initially
you were saying there's 34 units that
are approved and you wanted to add 367,
but later you said there are there it's
it's approved for 398 units.
So is is that correct? And how can how
can we justify those numbers? Yes. It
may seem confusing because they're all
correct. They need an explanation. The
zoning allows 25 units an acre. Well,
where where did the where did the number
398 come from? When you zone a property,
you have a category that has ranges that
are allowed. This zoning category allows
you to go up to. Doesn't mean you have
to, but allows you to go up to. Okay.
Okay. So, that's if you wanted it. Yeah.
which is when when the cities plan their
streets and their layout and their
gridding, they always plan for what the
worst case scenario could be for maximum
density. So that's why like Kulie
station, the road work and
infrastructure in this area was planned
for a far greater density than what we
was previously proposed or what we're
proposing.
Okay. So your your justification then
for
um
for adding
the garage is to increase the number of
units to help No, I think it's the
opposite. The the just the number of
units helps offset the cost garage, the
relocation of the amenities in the extra
open space. You you can't add those
amenities without having some financial
mechanism to provide them. And so the
increase in units help a lot more. Yes.
No offense, and the train wreck we had a
couple of weeks ago. Um I I appreciate
you um looking out for
um how the residents of this apartment
complex benefit and how Gilbert as a
whole benefits. I I I like the um the
project a lot better now than I did a
couple of weeks ago. And I can see how
um you know getting that parking garage
in there reduces the uh the floors so
the houses in front don't have people
really looking over their yards or
whatever. So thank you for clarifying
all that. And council member, I'll just
say um admittedly I I've been doing this
for 18 years and sometimes you um
present a better explanation and I think
that was missing the first time.
Vice Mayor, this is one more question. I
want to I want to clarify and make sure
that this is not a resoning which which
you specified.
This is an amendment. So, we're just
amending this with the 20% extra. That's
correct. Units. Okay. Just clarify that.
Thank you. Thank you,
Adam. I have a question.
What do I say to the next developer that
comes along and says, "I can give you
better design if you give me density."
Great question. And I think that's fair.
Um, the first thing I'd ask is, do are
they already zone? Are they asking for
new zoning? I think that's an important
consideration. And for some reason,
density has become
an insult or a whipping boy. And I don't
think that it's fair to just immediately
lump into that category. I think you
have to look at the context of where
things are. If I was
right next to single family homes, I
probably have a very different reaction
and response to that as opposed to an
area like this station where the
greatest intensity is is in been
encouraged and anticipated by your town.
I think we're creating a better plan
because of it, not just for the
residents live here, but for Gilbert and
there's nobody objecting and there's no
negative impacts that are associated
with this as opposed to something else.
Mayor and mayor, I totally absolutely
respect and love that question.
You know, at some point, is it just a
game? I think I feel like the difference
here is
in I think it's the justification is in
parking structure, which we know from
having built them, they're incredibly
expensive. And so, um,
was the last month when we went through
this, I had actually made the nomination
to approve based on several things. One,
um, and this Kyle and Keith is not a
slight on you guys, but it is very
difficult to get was a case that they
said yes. The planning commission was
unanimous on it. And the reason I I
wanted to car school to keep their moods
better, not drive with rage on our roads
hot, but also because that parking
structure was encompassed and hidden
within. So you're not, you know, the
houses aren't seeing it. The other thing
we had, I I we talked briefly on, we
kind of breezed over was one of the
really big um impacts for me was
this new design fits the theme of
Gilbert better. And we had I had talked
about that um the original design had
apartments looking over into
future backyards of residential homes. I
don't ever want to live in a house and
back up to four stories, a four-story
apartment. I think that's total
disrespect to our residents. We risk um
depreciated value in their homes and I
think that would be a real negative for
our residents. So in the totality of
those circumstances, um I don't like the
additional apartments, but I did feel it
was justified based on the significant
expense
that went into the significant benefit
of a parking structure for our future
residents to keep them here. So um
my comments there.
Thank you. Other comments,
Council Member Lions. Yeah, I'd like to
make a couple comments here. Adam, I
really appreciate the fact that you
understood the the design and the roads
adjacent to the um development. I think
that that's important and speaks to your
due diligence and understanding where
you're building from me. So, I
appreciate that. Second thing I'd like
to note is that the location appreciate
that. Second thing I'd like to note is
that the location of this part of this
particular development, it it's already
been approved that we do it there and
the location that it's at is one where
this type of facility would be well
needed. Um I think you've improved the
livability of it. So I think that's what
staff was indicating that the design was
a lot better from a livability
perspective. And I do understand the uh
uh economics around the parking garage
and I was just concerned looking at 20%
more units how that would impact the
traffic flow around there. The other
thing that I think that is very good is
that the original design had all of
those fourstory buildings with space for
another fourstory maybe additionally
down the road. And uh in this one the
space is utilized I think very well in
the transition to the single family
which is something I think we need more
of in the community which is approved as
part of the overall development of this
makes that transition a lot nicer. Um
all those together I think one of the
things that you indicated is the
turnover in residents there and I think
that this reduces that turnover rate
which means you'll have a far more
stable community and less crime. Yeah.
from my perspective. Um, so overall, I
appreciate the uh um input that you've
done. You did a very good job of that.
And to Kenny's point, too, Council
Member uh Buckland's covered parking
would be coveted. So, my question is is
how are you going to keep the residents
from fighting over who gets to be
underneath the top deck? So, that's my
comments. Question. I don't know if
that's rhetorical or not, but I I don't
do the operations. I'd have to defer to
the client if that's a question you want
him to answer, but um I've known to park
in some reserve parking spaces from time
to time.
You want to answer that?
It was a joke. Thank you.
Thank you. I think that's all we have
for right now.
I do have one uh request to speak.
Justin show.
Justin, you have three minutes.
Uh, good evening, mayor and council
members. Uh, I attended virtually the
recent council meeting where the
developers representative presented the
PD append amendment.
These changes look to be a significant
design improvement, making the proposed
apartment complex a better neighbor to
the north and to the east. Uh, there
were some thoughtful questions about the
pro proposal from the council, including
questions about parking. I like to think
that the council represents me to
encourage developers to spend their own
capital making design improvements that
benefit the future tenants, the
surrounding community, uh, and all of us
Gilbert residents, even if their primary
motivation is their pocketbooks.
Um, as a future person to be driving
past the apartment complex, I think it
looks much better in the new design. As
maybe somebody whose children might live
in the apartment complex, I think it
looks like a much better place for them
to live. If I were to live in the
community to the north, I think it looks
like it would be a much better
discussion and or a motion. Council
member Torus,
five of us on this council approved the
annexation and P A of this uh October of
23.
And I don't want to false virtue signal
something of I'm for or against
something based purely on on the
ideology of it. According to the plan,
there's nobody's nobody's made any grand
uh nobody's nobody's made any grand uh
resonings. Uh what they're ask
resonings. Uh what they're asking for is
within the zoning that was supplied for
is within the zoning that was supplied.
Did we even consider
the density other than the fact we were
reszoning multif family median? I don't
think any one of us based our decision
on solely the unit number within
that that designation. We didn't say,
"Oh, well, I'm only going to approve to
21 apartments or I'm only going to
approve to 19." We approved a zoning and
a a plan
and a a plan. Not obviously a
placekeeper of a plan, but not a great
plan. And
we're not asking to reszone something.
We're asking to look at at a zoning that
we approved and an idea that we approved
and does it work better for us as a town
for the the neighborhood there next to
it, the people that will be living in
the single family homes north of it, the
businesses to the east of it, the school
to the east of it. uh
we don't get rental tax thanks to the
state, but uh there will be 60 more
units of people living there. We've
talked an awful lot about increasing
density in the appropriate areas. I
would suggest next to a university
that's probably fairly appropriate to
increase your density a little bit, but
we're not increasing it out of the
zoning category. It's still the same
zoning category.
So, I think each one of us that voted
for this has to decide if we're if we're
for it or against it and why. Are we
trying to uh be against it to just show
how tough we are on density or being for
it because we're trying to show how uh
gracious we're going to be with density.
And I would suggest the other four of us
that that voted on this unanimously give
that some thought before we can before
we give a final vote to this.
Council member Kabowski,
I just wanted to say that I agree with
the comments that were made by Council
Member Lions and Council Member Torus in
terms of um positive changes of this
plan. Particularly because this plan is
within the current zoning and this
location bridges Kulie Station and ASU
Poly Technic campus. It makes a lot of
sense. the amenities, adding the pool,
adding essentially a park um in the
area, I think is a much uh more positive
change than the previous layout. For
those reasons, I'm supporting this.
Would any of you like to make a motion?
I'll make a motion. Council member Capr
member.
Um, I guess I'll I'll make the motion to
approve um
the P Amendment.
Second that. And moved by council member
Kapowski, seconded by Council Member
Bonjiovani. Please vote.
Motion carries 70.
Thank you.
Our
next case is zoning Z2421 Tuscanany at
Gabriella Point P Amendment
Keith again.
Mayor Anderson, members of the council,
good evening. My final presentation
feels like I've been up here all night.
I'll try to be piffy on this one as
well.
Um, so the Oh, there's a clicker. I got
to grab it.
Sorry about that. So, the Tuscany
Gabriel Point um extended yards uh
project. Um
the site is located, as you can see on
the map in front of you, it's located at
the south um east corner of Warner and
Martingale roads. Uh surrounded by the
Gabriella Point Commerce Center. This is
actually um within that original P A as
well. Um the site is zoned um oops, hold
on, I'm jumping the gun. Um the request
before you tonight is for a um P
Amendment
to reduce common open space um that was
previously approved allowing extended
private yards for ground floor units
only on the west half of the
development. I'll go into that a little
bit more detail.
Oh, now I'm having clicker problems. Oh,
there we go.
So, um,
so this isn't the exact development plan
that's in your packet, but better shows
the location of the extended yards and
where they're located. It's all those
those ones in blue that they're that are
on the left side of your screen or on
the west side of the development. Um, so
the proposed site is is the west side.
It just is zoned MFM. the the west side
zone MFM and the east side of the
property zone MFL. So this is kind of
two apartment complexes in one. Um the
left side MFM is is 19 and a half acres.
There is 760 total residential units in
this development. Um
so
the site um the the site is governed by
govern I can't even speak is governed by
conditions and stipulations outlined in
the zoning ordinance approved as part of
the P A that was approved in November of
2022.
Please note that in October 20 to 24,
town staff approved similar yard
extensions on the eastern half of this
property in the MFL piece,
um, which reduced common open space down
to from 48% to 48 to 46%. The MFL piece
coincidentally had more open space than
the multif family medium piece on the
west side which this 40 reducing it down
to 46% on the MFL side. It's it was
still higher than the 45% minimum
required by code. The proposed PA AD
amendment on the MFM side on the west
side is requesting these uncovered
ground floor yard spaces.
Um
classified as private open space for all
ground flooror units. There's about 137
of them ground flooror units that are
proposing this. So per the plan in front
of you, the proposed extended yards are,
like I said, are in the blue. Um they'll
be surrounded by 4 foot tall view
fencing expanding these private patios
from about 3 feet to 7 about 3 to 7
feet. It it varies. Um so they're
they're expanding these patios into
areas that are currently common open
space accessible to all residents.
Come on clicker. Oh, I went too fast.
Um, so to visualize the changes, the top
graphic shows you kind of what it looks
like today. I know it's kind of small.
You probably can't see it very well, but
it shows this common open space area
with all these with trees and shrubs and
things like that all the way up to the
buildings. So, they're proposing to
reduce it to from 43% down to 40, which
is minimally required by code. The
bottom graphic shows the little fences,
so you can kind of see where they're
going to place those fences. They
originally didn't even put landscaping
that close to the building because they
kind of anticipated that they would do
this. So the landscaping is not exactly
reflective of of that bottom graphic. So
um
so this is just an artist representation
and does not show exactly what it's
going to look like in real life.
So that's kind of just a little brief
overview of the extended yards. So, to
show you what these yard spaces really
look like in real life,
um this is on the MFL piece and these
are already built. I had our code and
for our um building per building team go
out and take pictures of this. Some of
them are already constructed. They're
probably about ready to lease these
units. So you can see the the mesh wire
type four foot tall, three and a half to
four foot tall wall uh fences and the
little bit of space in between the
sidewalk and the and the fences to for
shrubs and things like that. And you can
see how it extends they extend out. They
they're not really attached to the
building. They look kind of like they
are, but they're not attached.
And then you can see this one shows kind
of the relationship between the parking
lot and the little extended yard areas
as well.
and here's another view. This is along
Warner Road. These are a little bit
bigger along Warner Road. Um,
and then another picture of what they
look like along Warner Road. And this is
in the MFL side. So, as you know from
reading the staff report, staff is not
recommending approval of this case as we
have several concerns uh with the
applicant's request. The first, as
stated earlier, is that the development
is governed by conditions and
stipulations from the original zoning
that required 43% open space.
And that additional 3% open space for
the MFM portion of the development was
proposed by the applicant
as a tradeoff for P A deviations that
were being approved that were being
proposed by the developer at that time.
and they approve they proposed a 3%
additional open space in order to go
taller to buildings up to four stories
in height on three or four buildings
along the western boundary of the site.
So now the applicant is coming back and
proposing to eliminate that 3%
uh to provide these extended yard
spaces. So that is why town staff is
concerned because they're proposing to
eliminate an original tradeoff for
additional building height. Um staff's
second concern
um is with the extended yards along
Warner Road and Martingale roads, 13 of
which encroach into the required 30-foot
building setbacks along the street
frontages. Um the LDC has no provisions
permitting open space or related fencing
within building setback areas.
Additionally, the reduction of building
setbacks along the north and east
boundaries has not uh been especially
included in this request.
Um the applicant so the applicant as a
result must reduce these size of these
yards to comply with the building
setback requirements. There is a
condition of approval in the ordinance
that would um require them, if you so
wish to approve this uh tonight, that
would require them to reduce the size of
those yard spaces along Warner and
Martingale roads so that they're not
encroaching into the building setbacks.
Um,
so while the definition for a building
in in the LDC states fencing, staff also
considers this fencing equivalent to
railings, which are fences surrounding a
secured private open space on the upper
deck. So typically we only allow walls
about 2 feet, maybe even 1 ft, like 10
in from the sidewalk. The applicant has
revised the sidewalk. The applicant has
revised all of the yard areas that all
of the yard areas that are closer than
three than three feet and made all of
them now 3 feet. So all the fences are
set back 3 ft which meets our code
requirement for separations a separation
of building from sidewalks and they are
able to plant a little bit more
landscaping and have a little bit more
lush landscaping provides a little bit
more separation from the sidewalks. So,
the applicant has done that and also
since that planning commission hearing,
the applicant has informed us um and
given us a better idea of what kind of
amenities are in this development and we
have found out that and I have a slide
in the very back. I can just show it to
you really quick. We have we found out
that the this development actually has
all these amenities. They have two club
houses. They have all these aerobics and
sauna rooms. They have two indoor
fitness centers, indoor raetball, indoor
pickle ball, indoor indoor uh basketball
courts. Um all these other amenities
that you two pools, they have outdoor
tennis courts, dog parks. They have
probably triple the amount of amenities
of a typical multi-family apartment
complex, which is something town staff
didn't have a great idea on before. We
didn't quite understand that. and the
applicant has helped us understand that
um prior to this uh between the planning
commission and this meeting. So, I just
wanted to bring that up that they have
way more amenities than town staff
originally understood or knew about. So,
with that, um given the planning
commission's recommendation, we we we
still are recommending denial on this
case.
Um, and if, like I stated a minute ago,
if you so wish to approve it tonight,
there are conditions or stipulations
that uh would still allow this project
to potentially move forward. Um, I if
you have any questions, I' I'd be happy
to answer them. And I know that the
applicant, um, Reese Anderson, is here
as well, and I'm sure he has a
presentation and that he can give and he
can also answer some questions as well.
So, thank you. Thank you, Keith. Council
member Boniovani. Thank you, Mayor.
We've been talking all night. Oh. So, if
my memory
comes back to me, this is like one of
the first things that several new
council members um voted on. Um but the
concept was they wanted the extra floor
without adding apartments. Eventually
have that wasn't communicated to us as
staff. And now we have a better
understanding of that they have way more
amenities than our typical that they
have way more amenities than are
typical. Okay. Thank you, Keith.
Okay. Thank you, Keith. So, member
Lions. Thank you, mayor. Um, I'm the
liazison for the planning commission, so
I listened to a lot of the conversation
that took place over this at the time.
And I think you did theation, Keith, if
I remember correctly. And I kind of took
from that conversation that your biggest
issue really had to do with here was a
you had a negotiation to allow for the
extra floors and here they came back and
asked for something else. Is that fair
to say? Correct. Okay. Um and you're
also telling me now that since that
meeting you've gotten more information
that kind of brings some clarity. I'm
going to call it bait and switch where
come get what you want and then come
back again on that. At the same time,
I've done a lot of large building
construction on the commercial side of
it of of building and you do your best
due diligence to get a plan done. And
then as you're executing it, sometimes
you look at it and go, maybe there's a
better way to do this. And when I looked
at this, the thing that came to mind,
the common areas, I really didn't see as
that common. In one of the pictures, if
you'll go back a little bit, there's one
of the bedroom window. Uh the fencing
around it's the other way, I think. Uh
keep going. One right there. If I found
a person standing in that common space
by that bedroom window and my kid was in
there, there'd be a bullet hole through
that window. So, I challenge the idea
that that's really a common space. So,
for me, in looking at this, you know, it
it makes sense. So, I agree with you
100% about the the bait and switch side
of this, but I do think that from um
aesthetic perspective and a usability
perspective and a whole lot of other
things, if I was going to rent one of
these units here, this would be what I
would want if that was available. So, um
I don't think it's an unreasonable
request given that I don't think the
applicant understood or maybe was aware
that this might be a better design at
the point that they initiated this. So,
I would be inclined to approve it for
that reason. Not to contradict what you
were saying before because I 100% agree
with you, but I do think that these if
done right and I understand you guys are
going to oversee that um I think would
be uh an improvement overall to the
design of it. So my input
Thank you, Keith. I don't think we have
any other questions. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Oh, vice mayor has a
question. Oh yeah. Can can you just
reiterate what
exactly why you were recommending
denial? Yeah. Um, Mayor Anderson, Vice
Mayor Buckley, the the the number one
reason why town staff has been
recommending denial is because
due to the the original P A that was
approved on that multif family medium
side, the west side where they proposed
43% of open common area open space as a
tradeoff for the to allow additional
building height on I believe two or
three different buildings going from
three stories which was which is the max
that's permitted in the multifamily
medium zoning district uh uh in a
conventional zoning district without a
PD and in order for them to go up to
four stories they proposed additional
open space so the fact that they have
now come back and taken that additional
3% open space away and saying
now we're going to fill it in private
open space versus common open space even
though it may not seem very usable,
it's still common open space. So that's
the number one reason why we're
concerned is that they're taking away
that additional 3%
that was an added benefit for the town
staff believed at the time it was an
added benefit. I hope that makes sense.
I hope that I hope that's is more clear.
But they were removing proposing to
eliminate a trade-off that they that was
originally approved to allow additional
building heights. That's the main reason
why town staff has been recommending
denial. Okay. Okay. And and thank you
for that. But I mean it helps to make
have clarity when it's all said together
and not in you know numerous
conversations
having you know maybe missing something
and thinking this would be safer this
would be a better fit especially because
of where this site is located.
So, um
I don't know. I this this is a tough one
to do because I want to respect staff
and all their work and what what you
guys have done. What are the what are
the the items that if we were to approve
this tonight that they are going to have
to
deal with because you mentioned there's
several stipulations that are that are
coming along with this. Mayor Anderson,
Vice Mayor Buckley, one of the items
would be well, they they already
addressed one of them by moving those
those um proposed fence yards 3 ft away
from the sidewalk. They've addressed
that. We eliminated that condition. I
think you saw probably saw it crossed
out in the ordinance. But the the main
thing is is that they would have to um
reduce the size of the yards along
Warner and Martingale that encroach into
the building setbacks. So they would
have to pull those fences in so that
they comply with the the um perimeter
building set back. That's what they
would have to to to do. Okay. So So have
have they indicated they will do that?
Uh, Mayor Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley,
we have had recent conversations with
them and I and they are open to to doing
that. They have the room. Those yards
are much bigger than the ones that are
in more interior to the to the units
that are like parking facing like the
parking lot. So, they have the room to
move them in. They'll they'll just have
to shrink them down some, but we believe
that they are uh they would agree to
that. Okay. Okay. Well, I'm I'm
pretty in favor of doing this if they
abide by the stipulations that that um
you know, planning and staff is is
recommending. So, I just wanted to
clarify that and and make sure and and
if Ree is here and he's going to speak,
we'll try to clarify that with him at
that time. Okay. Okay. Thank you,
Council Member Lions. Thank you, Mayor.
Just one other clarification, Keith. I
remember in the presentation uh that the
builder was saying that there are other
um similar type amenities and other
developments in this area. Is that
correct? Um Mayor Anderson, Council
Member Lions, that is correct. There are
a few other apartment complexes mainly
in Kulie Station that they showed some
examples of that do have pretty much
this exact situation with extended
yards. So, there are a couple of
apartment complexes that do have that.
Um, the applicant I think has some those
photos in his presentation, but yes, you
are correct. And from your opinion, the
ones that were done in the other areas,
are they done tastefully and they look
nice in that area or do they look odd
and out of place? Um, Mayor Anderson,
Council Member Lions, um,
I don't have really an opinion either
way to be honest with you. All right.
Um, I don't Do I do look ugly? I don't I
don't think so. Um, but they're all case
by case basis, right? So, I I don't
really have an opinion either way. I
guess what I I guess what I was driving
at is that this would not degrade from
the character of the area with this in
place. Mayor Anderson, Council Member
Lions, I I don't believe so. Okay. Very
good. Thank you.
Let's open the public hearing and invite
the applicant up.
Mayor Anderson, members of the council,
my name is Reese Anderson. Address for
your record is 1744 South Alison number
217. I'm sorry. I'm walking up here with
a slight limp this evening. Friday
morning I was doing yard work and
suddenly I discovered I'm getting old
and u I don't know what happened other
than just ages catching up to me. Um I
appreciate the questions from Council
Member Lions, Vice Mayor Buckley. I
think I can answer all of those and and
share some thoughts for us to help do. I
don't know how to bloate. I don't know
how to be piffy, but I'm going to try to
be really quick. Is that fair enough?
you've been here long and so as long as
the clicker works for us. So I should
say with with me this evening also is
Mike Cone. He's a representative of the
Frankle family trust who owns this site.
They also own the crossing site which
council member lines you asked about in
Culie Station. I'm going to show you a
picture of that in a second. And they
also own the track site which has
famously been called the home plate
piece parcel 4. And um you'll remember
some of you were on council when that
got approved. I think next month we'll
be filing the DRB case for the site plan
and elevation. So the Franco family owns
three major projects in your uh town.
They are longtime holders. I've worked
with them a long time and I'm pleased to
represent them. So let's not belabor
much of this. You you spoke at a long
time about Gabrielle this evening. We
don't need to go back any of those. So
we're just we're requesting an amendment
to the PA. I'm going to show you that
stipulation just a second. As Keith
said, we've accepted stipulation P,
which was the three-foot mark. That's
not an issue on on stipulation Q, which
is the setbacks along Warner and
Martingale. I get to that. I'll share
some more thoughts about it. But to your
point and your question, Vice Mayor,
we're going to defer to you. Whatever
you think is best on that issue of
Martingale and Warner, we defer to you.
Let me share a few thoughts when we get
to that point. Is that fair enough?
So, uh, Council Member Lions, you asked
about is there another example? And here
it is. This is crossings at Kulie
Station. It's on Warner, sorry,
Williamsville is what I meant to say and
Wade. And you can see there that the
landscaping has had a chance to grow up.
I think they look nice. They're
tastefully done. They haven't been there
haven't been any issues. These are very
popular units, in fact, at the
crossings.
There's another example.
Another
example. Again, these are just Google
Street View.
And if you need me to back up, I I can.
There's I wanted to share this slide
because this um I'm just going to be
bold if I could. Part of one of the
Gilbert's uh values.
There's been this underlying allegation
that we've pulled a bait and switch. And
I want to just walk through this
timeline because that was just not the
case. because I was here, I lived it.
And when the case went through
originally in November of 22, the idea
of these ground floor extended yards was
just not on the table. If it was, my
advice to Mike Cron and the rest of the
team would have been, let's get them on
there and put it on there now. Um, we
just did, it just wasn't in our minds.
So, to your uh example earlier, Council
Member Lines, this is really an
afterthought. And that happens all the
time in every remodel I do at my house,
right? I find a better way to do it. Um,
and that's really how this unfolded. And
and so that's why I gave you the precise
dates of when the zoning case was
approved, when the planning commission
approved the DRB, which was in March of
23. And it wasn't a year later that we
first met with Keith and then the other
staff to really talk about that's the
first time. I mean, it was a year
difference. If we were really doing a
bait and switch, I think you would have
had different facts and different
history that would have laid that out.
So, I just I leave that for you to make
a judgment and a call on it, but it
really wasn't the the issue. It it
happened after the fact.
Um, I know earlier you probably wish you
would have had this as the VDOD map for
this area and you can see that part of
the multifamily piece was in that
vertical development overlay district 4.
That's what really led to these
buildings in blue getting that
additional height because it was already
there. And yes,
part of that negotiation was additional
height and open space, not amenities,
but open space. And that's how that
stipulation of 43 came to be. I want I
want to make be clear because it wasn't
about additional amenities. It was about
the open space. And again, had we known
at the time that this would be a good
idea, we would have addressed it then,
but we didn't. Anyway, backing up. I'm
sorry. The yellow line there represents
where the vertical development overlay
falls on that site.
So, this is what the stipulation looks
like. The code requires 40 and we
promised that we would do 43. We've
never shied away from that. That was the
promise we made. What we stand before
you today humbly saying is we think we
have a good idea. We think it makes a
lot of sense and we think it improves
the livability for those units that can
benefit from these extended ground
flooror yards. So we humbly ask you just
to consider that proposal this evening
here. Here here's some of the data and I
just as I go through this you are going
to see this slide repeat itself as we go
through. But on the low side, the code
requires 45, 48 was provided. On the
medium side, which is what we're talking
about tonight, 40 is required, and 43
was provided. Keith showed this earlier,
but and Keith um let you knew, but I
want to reinforce that in October of 24,
that low side, that tan colored side,
that's already been approved. So those
those are going to be built, you know.
So, um, at the risk of sounding
arrogant, your decision tonight affects
only the west side or the medium side.
The low side is already approved and you
can see those pictures that are there.
So, once the once the low side
calculations were done in yellow, you
can see that the common open space
dropped to 46% on the low side. Again,
I'm going to I'm going to bring it all
back together at the end, but just keep
that in mind.
Uh Keith's pictures were taken just a
few days after mine and I should have
gone back and got new ones, but you can
see there that they had done more of the
landscaping, spread the rock, but this
is just a view of building 17. This is
right off the main entrance of Warner
Road where those those units are at.
Again, this is this is on the low side
and as as we worked with the staff after
the planning commission meeting, we've
agreed to move. So there is no more um
these fences that are that close to the
sidewalk. They're all three feet or more
back.
So if I if I said to well, let me say it
this way. If I'm in your shoes, I would
say, what are my guiding principles that
are going to guide me this evening?
Here's one that I would if I was in your
shoes, I would suggest a consistency. I
looked out at the section of the code
regarding landscaping and se subsection
F just says provide consistent landscape
requirements for similarly situated
project. So to me consistency between
the two halves of the project is an
important thing to consider.
And now I'm clicking and of course it's
paused.
Ah there we go. So, another another
question again building off of Council
Member Lion's question. Does it exist in
other areas of the town? The answer is
yes. It exists at the crossings, but the
concept already exists in your code. And
so, when you're in the Gilbert's
mixeduse districts, I highlighted in
yellow is the ability to count private
open space
as part of your total open space
calculation. So I just humbly submit
that to you to say this is not a request
that's completely out of left field.
So I also want to make sure that and I
think you were picking up on it that
there in these definitions of open space
there's common open space private open
space there's active open space and
passive open space and we are not
affecting any active open spaces
whatsoever.
So, with a lot of the cases you've heard
before us, let me tell you what this not
is. What this request is not. We are not
changing the site plan other than to add
these screening walls, the private
yards. We're not affecting any active
open space. We're not changing any
building elevations. We're not changing
the number of units. We're not changing
traffic or parking uh patterns. We're
not changing any of the infrastructure
requirements. And we're not eliminating
or changing any of the landscaping with
the zoning in 2022.
And this is this is the nine items that
we listed as amenities as part of that
zoning case. Then the DRB case happened.
And this is the total amount amenities.
And the slight correction of of staff
where Keith said we had two pools. We
actually have three. So this is a very
well amenized. This is a like a resort
with all the things here and a lot of
these amenities are indoors. Now, why is
that important? And that's because part
of the discussion and council member
Lions may remember this from the
planning commission meeting was well, we
w we would have asked for more amenities
as the tradeoff. And my point is that we
did that between the zoning and the DR
not only onefold, twofold, this is a
three-fold increase in the number and
quality of the amenities.
So, this is the this is the stipulation
which again the staff crossed off, but I
just wanted to let you know we've
complied with that. Our new development
plan has moved every one of them back.
Um, this is this is what the code says
about it. I won't belabor it because
it's just not an issue anymore. We've
complied with moving everything three
feet back from all the sidewalks. And I
should point out that where there were a
couple of those that we could not do
that, we just eliminated them. We just
made them disappear.
So I thought you might find these stats
just a little interesting. I count 138
total on this multifamily medium side.
18 of them were moved back. Some were
eliminated. Then I thought, well, how
many of them are about four feet? And I
counted three. How many of them are at
five feet? I counted three. That means
that all the rest of them, so 82% and
more are more than five feet back from a
sidewalk. So staff had a had a concern.
We addressed it, but it only applied to
a small percentage of what we're talking
about.
So Vice Mayor Buckley, you had a
question about the setbacks and Warner
Road, those type of things. Our thought
on that one and I'll show you why is in
your code
when you look at about look at the
section in multifamily it talks about
walls and fences and I highlighted it in
red it talks about there the maximum
height of a wall fence within the front
building setback.
So the code clearly allows you to have a
wall and a fence in the front building
setback.
And so and then when I go to the
definition of a building and I
highlighted in red the excluded from the
definition of building is a wall and
fence. So when I look at that together
to me the code is clear that you can't
have a wall and a fence. It it can't
exceed four feet right there on the
chart. You look go down the multif
family medium
but you can have it. Now, if the staff
if the staff say that, hey, this
section's ambiguous, then it's
wellestablished legal principle and your
your town attorney can can confirm this
that any ambiguity should be uh
construed in favor of the property
owner. That being said, if you council
members think it's just better, we'll
accept stipulation Q. We don't think it
applies. We think a clear reading of the
code supports us. We think if there's
ambiguity, it should be interpreted in
our favor. But if you collectively say,
you know what, uh, we just think it's
best that these front along Martinale
and Warner, again, it's a small
percentage of them, but if if you
collectively say, you know, that's just
best that we we meet those building
setbacks, we'll comply. That that answer
that question. Good.
Well, I was I was just sharing with you
um with the council here, but to Vice
Mayor Buckley's question, there's 13 of
them along Warner Road, nine would be
affected that we would modify. And along
Martingale, there's 24 total, but only
five would be affected. So again, small
percentage, but if you collectively said
we think it for the best, we'll accept
that. So you remember I said I was going
to come back to this slide with just a
little bit of data, and I'm getting
close to being done, which is remember I
start on the on the medium side. So
after if you if you were inclined to
approve the ground floor patios,
that common open space would drop to 40.
But please keep in mind that the total
amount of open space, right? because I'm
not eliminating open space. I may be
changing the character from common to
private, but I'm not changing total open
space. Still remains 43.
Over on the low side, we went to 46. And
when I blend it all together for this
the whole site, I'm at 43. So, I would
just kindly suggest that even we're
we've worked hard to not go below like
you get presented a lot of requests to
dip below the 40%. We've worked hard to
make sure that we're 40% or above on the
medium side. And in keeping with the
spirit of the original stipulation,
we've worked hard to stay at 43 on the
whole site.
So I've s I'm going to sum it up with
these guiding principles. Consistency.
Should both halves look the same, be
similar? The I think the answer is yes.
Are there other locations in the town
that have this and is it working well?
Yes. Does the concept appear in other
provisions of the the code? Yes. Has
there been an increase in amenities in
the zoning after the PD approval? Yes,
despite our uh respectful disagreement,
has the owner complied with the
three-foot foundation base request from
staff? Yes. Regarding the setbacks on
Warner and Martingale, while we think
those inter ambiguity should be
interpreted in favor of the owner, we're
willing to defer to whatever you decide.
And then while the percentage of common
open space has decreased, total open
spaces remain the same. I want that to
be clear and kind of uh be one of the
overarching themes is total open space
has remained the same and we've
maintained that 43% again it's spared
with that original stipulation.
So our request modify the stipulation to
allow 40% common open space. We've
accepted stipulation P which was about
the three-foot setback and then we defer
to you on stipulation Q which was really
dealing with the Marting Gale and
Warner.
I hope I probably went too long and I
apologize but that's I wanted to make
sure that we we gave everybody a fair
understanding what the request is. Thank
you. Any questions? Yeah, Council Member
Buck. Thank you, Mayor. Sir, so you had
said that uh G and given us like how it
happened that it just was an
afterthought. My question to you is I
thought that you built the one or you
were planning the one next to it that
was approved before this one with these
fence amenities and you've already built
another one. So how is that an
afterthought?
So Mayor Anderson, Council Member
Buckland, so I think you asked two
questions there. The first one was, and
let me take let me take them in probably
chronological order. Let me I'm not
being accusatory. I just I just I need
an understanding of how that happened. I
built others with that. Why would you
not plan that in this one knowing it's a
better I wish I wish I could explain
every mistake I made.
The truth is that the crossings project
over in Kulie station that as part of
it, but that the thought of having it
here never came across us. the design
team with Jose Pombo who's here this
evening myself it was just never part of
what our scope of work was to do. So now
as far as you were asking I think also
asking about the east half which is the
multif family low side and again that
that got approved in by staff in October
of 24 and remember we started the
conversation with staff in March of 24.
So the afterthought came to us we
started the conversations with staff
worked with them on the low side but we
knew we would have to come and apply for
a PD amendment here that's always been
known to us. We accepted it and that's
why we're here. But to answer your
question on we had it over at the the
crossing side. I mean it just never was
on our radar until we were done with
DRB.
That's just the honest answer. Thank
you. And what was the timing between
because you got the two side by side the
the medium and low. The low has it
correct? Ready? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. So So
which one came first? Well, I I wasn't
here for this then, so I just need some
history. Not a problem. So if I go if I
went back to that slide and um that take
me a bit longer. So quick for me just to
share the case was originally approved
in 22 for the whole site and then in 20
early 23 the DRB was approved for the
whole site. So there isn't one that came
first as far as like getting the
original approvals, but as far as
getting the ground floor extended patios
that happened again, our conversations
with staff started in March of 24 with
the administrative approval happening in
October of 24. So you designed the two
separately? No, they were all So when
you say when you designed, are you
referring to the project or just the
yards? The um the buildings with the one
with a fence, one without. So those
buildings were all designed at the same
time. Fences were afterthoughts for both
halves of the project. Both of them.
Yes. Oh, okay. That's what I was That's
what I was Yes. I thought you thought of
it in the one and you didn't on the
other, but you were doing this. No,
that's that's why in that that's why the
um the DRB for the whole project got
approved without any of the fences. And
that's when the conversation started
again in March of 24 for the whole
knowing that that one side had a
stipulation, right? We had to had to
kind of bifurcate those two processes,
but it was not not one not one, you
know, came before the other. Thank you
for that historical context. Y member
Bonjivani. Thank you, Mayor. Um Reese,
did you guys um I have a couple couple
of issues. want to ask a couple
questions. Do you guys consider stuckco
rather than just those wire fences?
Um, mayor Anderson, council, like a
solid wall along there. I think they've
always been planned as wire mesh and I
can certainly turn back to Mike Cone and
um,
and Jose Pombo is get their thoughts on
that. I think they've just always been
I've never asked that question to be
frank. Sure. It's just always the view
fence and I I was looking back at the
code where it talks about open and view.
So, it was meant to be more open. I
know. And I'm guessing that Jose would
give that answer of saying it was meant
to be that way. But do you think it
would look better that way? Well,
because when we spoke earlier, I had
concerns about safety. I had concerns
about kids. kids concerns about dogs and
kids running from their car going up to
the up to the f fence put their fingers
in, you know, and you said, "Hey, that's
between the apartment and the kind of
dog they can have." But I think that the
developer should have some
responsibility prior to that. And I
think we're setting ourselves up for for
a potential safety issue here. And I
remember quite clearly this was one of
the first cases that at least four of us
uh worked on or three of us I'm sorry uh
three of us worked on and we took a lot
of heat took a lot of heat from the
public for adding the extra floor even
though we didn't add apartments. You
know you guys came to us and said hey
we're going to add all these amenities
dog parks all that kind of stuff. And
you know, we negotiated that in good
faith. Um,
where the increased floors that we gave
you, where are they located? Are they
located in the areas where you want to
add these fences?
Uh, Anderson,
I'll let me back up quite a few number
of slides here, okay? And I'll try to
answer your questions in order. Maybe
maybe I'll try to go backwards if that's
all right.
one of the first slides. I think it it
is and I'm almost there. Here we go.
Okay. So,
you your your last question was where
are the three buildings with extra
floors located? The blue shows that,
right? Is that the area where you want
to add more fences? Um the answer is
yes. But could I expand on that? Sure.
The answer is so if you see here on this
slide, it's everything. It's the entire
project. So on the low side, those are
already approved. On the left side is
what we're here in front of you this
evening on every building that's there.
So it's not just those three. It's it's
all buildings. Okay. Does that answer
that? And then it does, but again,
that's something that we negotiated
earlier. Well, you you you absolutely
did and it and I I was living it. But I
I do take respectful disagreement with
you that I remember going through this.
You may have gotten some emails, but we
worked hard with the neighbors. When I
met with the neighborhood opposition
leaders, they were really pleased that
we screened it. I gave I gave them a
heads up. I don't remember neighborhood
opposition at the hearings. I'm not I'm
not arguing or neighbors arguing about
this. It was more the the negotiation
that we did with you guys, the hard work
that staff did with you guys in order to
approve an extra floor that we got heat
from. And now we want to go back and
change it. You know, I I I don't like
renegotiating with myself. It makes no
sense to me. I don't see a great
improvement here for
the residents per se to give to give
that back because reality is, you know,
you're going to charge more for those
units. I think they're um
they're not what we originally agreed
to. And I know you're not about to take
down that fourth that fourth floor. Um
you can't do that. You've already built
it. So, I I just um this this one's
probably a little bit more close to the
heart. This was one of the first cases
we had. We took a lot of heat
negotiating and I just have a hard time
um accepting that this is an
afterthought and it's nothing personal,
but to me I just don't like
renegotiating with myself and I don't
like the fact that a bunch of us here
voted for this
um and now we're trying to say we we're
we're going backwards and I'm having a
hard time with um supporting this at all
because of the safety issues and because
you've already gave us we've already
negotiated this. Anderson, Councilman
Bonet, if if I could just share a couple
thoughts. Um on the safety issue, would
it would it matter to you that the
required walls today are 4 feet? So like
if if if there wasn't this
uh extended ground floor patio wall, you
would already have a 4ft wall. So the
same issues of dogs jumping over etc.
those are there in existing no matter
what right because the height of the
wall is not changing right but the kids
can't put their fingers through it. No
and maybe this is for planning should
have figured this out before. Fair
enough. Depending on um and I would feel
the same if I felt that somebody was
trying to switch me. I I I so I respect
the have all I can do is share with you
that I was there. I lived it and I'm
promising and avowing to you that it was
not the case. Appreciate that. That
that's that's all I can do to try to
assuage that.
Vice Mayor.
Okay. So,
can you tell me again how many units
that you want the fence on? I think it
it's fairly small. Correct. Yeah. Mayor
Anderson, Vice Mayor, it's 138 of the
ground floor units within this side. Oh,
okay. That So, so it's there's a lot.
So, remember the entire project is just
under 40. There's 760 total units and
this has been zoned multif family for a
long time. Um, and so of the ground
floor units, not all of them, but a lot
of them have these proposed
and dependent upon, you know, what you
decide on Martingale and Warner Some of
them might even go away there, but for
now it's just 138 is what's proposed on
the development plan. Okay.
And um
is Keith still here by any chance?
I have a quick question for for Keith.
Can um let's see.
Um
I my my feeling is that
the open spa not the open space but um
the setbacks that you said that they
will need to do that they should do are
are are these to have does that have
anything to do with the fences that
they're requesting or is that something
totally separate or are the fencing
causing
encroaching on the setback.
Mayor Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley, yes,
the fences are encroaching into that
setback on Warner and Martingale Road.
Okay. I I wanted to confirm that because
I I I
you know, to for me to look at this and
approve this, I I really want to see the
setbacks where they need to be and So Q
I would I I'm would be adamant that you
take care of and move those back to
where so that they're not encroaching on
the setback.
We would respect that. Pardon me. We
would respect that, Madam Vice Mayor.
Okay. I mean that that's where I would
be on that. And um
Okay, then that I just wrote the same
thing twice. So I think that that
answers my question.
um
in in what I need. So you have 138 out
of I don't I don't remember what you
said the number of units were but uh
yeah so that's like about a fourth
or less. Yeah.
Okay. that answers the the questions I
had and um
you know we'll we'll have to see if it
comes up you know for a motion. I just
want to make sure that the setbacks are
are the queue is taken care of. Thank
you. Okay. Thank you.
We're about an hour plus into this
discussion. Can we wrap this up? Get to
a motion soon. Council member lines.
Thank you, mayor. Can you go back to the
picture that has the whole site layout
there? I just want some clarity on this.
It's my understanding as you're getting
back to that slide that the entire site,
both the east and the west side of the
development. Go back a little bit more.
None of them were originally designed
with any fencing around it. Is that
correct? That's Yeah, this one right
here. Well, go back one. There's a red
line in here, but uh there's Not a
problem. I'm almost there. All right.
Yeah, right here. So, everything that is
to the right of that, I guess red or or
pink line has already been approved uh
by the by our staff. Correct. That is
correct. But it was not originally in
the plan. Correct. If we don't approve
this, we're going to have half the
development with fencing and everything
to the left of this line would not have
any. Is that correct? That is correct.
Okay. And the reason you're having to
come back to this is because there were
changes that were agreed to originally
that uh would have to be addressed
because of this change that could not be
done just part of the regular process.
Is that right? That is absolutely
correct and we identified that from the
very beginning when our client said they
had this idea. So okay. So the whole all
the fencing for the whole site was an
afterthought that you guys came back and
said, "Hey, we think this is a better
deal. Half of it's already been approved
and half of it's already installed. And
if we don't approve this, we're going to
have half this development with fencing
and half without." Correct. Correct. All
right. Thank you,
Council Member Torus. First, I want to
apologize for having to step out for a
moment. Secondly, I'm going to give you
a hard time just to be have fun with
you. I want you to go by a dictionary
for bloate.
Thank you. Okay. I apologize. The
definition right standing there. But
thank you. That aside, I appreciate that
you this is where I This is a serious
point.
The only reason that I supported going
to fourstory was that extra open space
perceived. It wasn't extra private
space. It was for what the question was.
What do the people of Gilbert, not what
the people of this this development get,
what do the people of Gilbert get? And
it was 3%. Hey, it's something there's
more amenities. This is beautiful.
Whatever the all that's built, but now
let's take this back in my mind away
from the people of Gilbert, the visual
of it, whatever it is. That was the
trade-off in my mind when when I agreed
to this. And I'm not seeing it. I'm not
happy about it.
A deal's a deal to me. I mean, there are
always reasons to change things. I
understand. But that was that was
important to me that something that I
felt that the people of Gilbert got
something from. And now we're handing it
back.
That's just I'm saying that I'm not
saying it's on purpose on your part. I'm
not saying anything nefarious. I'm just
saying that is why I came to the table
and supported a fourth story. I I vice
Anderson, council member Torres, I
respect everything you're saying and I
appreciate you recognizing just that
we're being very candid about the
history here and I also respect where
you were coming from on you know was
this a bait and switch. I would just
please um ask you to consider that total
open space has not changed. If I was
adding another building, if I was
removing something, I hear you 100%.
You're absolutely right. I would be the
first to admit that. But I think it was
Council Member Lions who said earlier,
if someone's in this area next right
next to a unit like this, that's just an
area you shouldn't be in out of respect
for the people that live there. Right?
So, if someone was hanging out in that
area, would likely have management andor
the police called on you. So to me, I I
I agree with you on one point, but I
would just ask you to kindly consider
that we're not taking away any active
open space, not eliminating any
amenities, not adding units. We're
really just taking of the passive space,
technically reccharacterizing it from
common to private. I do respect
everything you said and I apologize
again for Biating.
Thank you, Ree. Thank you. I'm going to
close the public hearing, bring it back
to the council for a motion. One more
question.
You have one more question. Yeah, one
more question, Ree. It's short. Well,
actually I have the question I have is
for Keith and and and if you what I what
I want to verify because you know and
what we're seeing we're seeing open
space goes from 43 to 40
and uh Ree has stated that with what you
know the figures he's done and
everything that the open space the
overall open space will stay at 43. I
just want a confirmation from you that
that would be correct, Mayor Anderson.
Vice Mayor Buckley, I believe that is
correct. The overall open space for the
whole entire 40acre apartment complex
would be
whatever his his numbers are. I believe
that's correct. Okay. And he he says
they are 43. So he would st they would
stay within the realm of where they
should be um for open space. Mayor
Anderson, um Vice Mayor Buckley, that
that's a good that's a good question,
too, because there's two different
zoning districts. So it's hard to say
that there's an overall open space
percentage because MFL is 45% minimum of
open space and MFM is 40% minimum open
space. So, it's hard to sit here and say
that that overall 43% what would it
comply with? There's not one open space
percentage governs the whole entire
property. It's split. So, is 43% an
acceptable amount of open space? Um I
I mean it is that that's the question.
Um, and from a town staff staff's
perspective, we we uh that's one of the
reasons why we're opposed to it because
we don't like the decrease in the 43 and
and 40 and 3% on the MFM side. So with
that 3% you have like over 46% open
space as a shmear over the whole develop
over the whole 7 40 acre development.
Now you've dropped that down 3% as well.
Okay. So, is staff okay with that?
Aren't you saying staff is still not
okay with that open space? I would say
Mayor Mayor Anderson, Vice Mayor
Buckley, I would say um probably we're
probably not okay with the not okay with
the decrease in open space, common open
space.
Okay. Well, I I just wanted to to double
check on that. So the entire project,
but the the section that we're working
on is not it. Are you are you in
agreement with that or Yeah. Uh Mayor
Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley. So on the
low side, which is not an issue before
you this evening, that is 46% common
open space. It exceeds the code.
on this on this side here that from 2022
there was a stipulation that said 43 and
we're requesting to go to 40 with these
extended ground floor yards. I I was
just sharing that if you were to blend
it all and look at as a whole because
even though there's two zoning lines
here and you have to analyze them
separately, the total open space for the
entire project still meets 43. And I
share that humbly just to say that we're
still meeting the spirit of the rule.
Okay. All right. Thank you, Keith. Thank
you. You're welcome.
Truthfully, I don't know that this is
worth an hour and a half long
discussion, so please let's Okay, I'm
done. I'll entertain a motion.
I'll make a motion that we approve
the adoption of ordinance 2953 amending
ordinance 2839
with the stipulation that the setbacks
along Warner and um
morning Gale is that the yeah would be
uh brought within the uh typical
requirements for SE and stipulation Q is
that stipulation Q
A motion. Do I have a second?
Motion dies. For lack of a second, try
another motion.
And try another motion. That one died.
I'll make a motion to not approve zoning
Z24-21
and moved. Is there a second? I'll
second.
And moved by Council Member Torres,
seconded by Council Member Bonjiovani
that we um
so A yes would be to a a yes would be to
deny the the project, deny the uh the
request.
Please vote.
Motion carries 43.
Thank you.
We're on to the uh consent calendar.
Patrick D.
Vice Mayor, we'll turn this over to you.
I'm going to ask Patrick if he's going
to cover as many items tonight as I may
vice mayor. Thank you. As you this is
our last meeting of the fiscal year and
we have a large number of items on the
consent agenda tonight. um that is is um
typical and routine for the end of the
year with with final contracts put in
place. I would be happy to run through
the entire presentation. It's quite
lengthy or we could and we do make that
available if people would like to
produce that online. We'd be more than
happy to just answer any specific
questions on ones of interest.
I'd like to see that. Just if anybody
has any specific questions, let's ask
those now and then we can post
everything else online. I think that's
fine.
No questions.
Okay. What number?
Looks like council member
uh 21.
I have a question. Okay. So, Patrick, if
you could address number 21.
Uh, thank you. Uh, do we have a member?
Candace Quan, come on down.
Good evening. What's uh mayor and
council the exact question just a
context or clarification of of what this
entails? Is that correct? Yeah. And why?
And also why Canva over something like
Adobe or even Parel Draw? Yeah. Uh I
want to know why $300,000.
Say it again. Why $300,000? Yep. Great
question. Mayor and Council. Uh this is
uh for a three-year contract to not
exceed $300,000. Currently, we're on a
year-to-year contract. Um we are
reaching our max capacity of seats.
Before it was about $175 and we are
needing to get to 250. Um this is not uh
require us to spend the $300,000. it is
locking in actually a multi-disounted
rate. Um first year is a 250 seats, the
next year is 350 seats and then 450 if
we do get to that number. Um there are
other services that are provided from a
design standpoint. This is the one that
has been widely adopted
organizationalwide.
We do have other services that other
people can can utilize, but this is the
most preferred option. It's the most
accessible and userfriendly. Um and so
it has just been shown that uh it is a
preferred one. We had additionally or
initially 150 seats and over the past 3
months it has gone to 217 just because
it has been widely used across the
organization.
Okay. So it's 300,000 over three years.
That's correct. And it's we are not
required um yeartoear um if we do not
get to those seat numbers. We are just
paying for what we are utilizing.
Okay. So if we're using 250 right now,
so 250 is approximately 100,000. Uh 217
um and we are paying for year 1 I think
it's approximately
$52,000.
Um year two then that is at a 30%
discount. year will be a 15% discount
and then the third year would be full
price. So it is a discounts are are
start to decrease as we get to that full
number which is kind of counterintuitive
isn't it? I think the goal is is is a
multi-year contract to to set the count
um but to get the biggest discount at
the beginning. And do you believe this
program is
just it's more user user friendly for
for staff rather than something a more
standard program like Adobe? Uh Adobe is
great. Uh that is with designers and
creative uh artists that are very very
wellkilled in Adobe products. Canva is
the most accessible um when it comes to
an organization is quite lean in in
creative resources. And so those that
might not be the most creative but are
able to understand templates and do
still have the the ability and autonomy
to make updates. Um this is the most
appropriate for that that type of
organization. Okay. Satisfies me. I I
use CAM about five times a day. So do
you know what this comes down to per per
seat? I mean is it is it is it more than
I can go online and buy? It is less than
what you can go online economies of
scale basically. You have extra services
that an average user doesn't have.
Correct. Okay.
Is that my antiate button that you're
pressing? I think we all need to learn
the definition of bloate tonight.
Okay.
All right. Do we have any other
questions on any the items number
number We can vote on this on 21 with
the rest. Right. Yes. That was just
discussion. Okay. So, from items number
10, Bobby, I got a quick question. 10. I
I know I'm getting there. Items number
10 to 47. Do we have any other Yes. No
questions? Yes. Yes. Okay. At this
point, um, Vice Mayor, I have a
question. Number 22. Oh, okay. Oh, okay.
I'm sorry. Number 22. I thought you were
saying no. Patrick, is that um the
capital gu capital guard patrol here or
is that the the uh garage? Mayor,
council member Bjivani. So that would be
to continue the security services at the
two garage in the heritage district. We
do believe we have seen value from that.
Okay. Were we supposed to have a
presentation on that before we approved
additional extensions to that contract?
I'm trying to remember last time we
voted on this. Mayor, council member
Bonj. Let me clarify real quick. Mike,
am I in the two? Is that for the guards
here or at the garages?
Mayor and council member Bonjiovani, you
are correct. This is for the extension
of the current services uh for capital
guard at the two garages in the heritage
district. We do have a lot of data. I
get the last set with you. Um but we do
have all that data available. Um I could
pull it up really quick. Um we're
averaging for the first uh six months. I
think it was 9,000 contacts. Um, so
we've been tracking the number of
contacts they make each day, the number
of individuals they contact at each of
those contacts. Um, we've also been
tracking our calls for service and
reports written in the garages. We've
seen a large decrease in the number of
uh on view activity in the garage
because those into from our police
officers, but yet we've seen an increase
in on view activity outside of the
garages, the garages and maintaining uh
security there. So, it's been, in our
opinion, a positive ad to the security
of our um downtown. Okay. I mean, I'd
like to I know we at end of the fiscal
year, we have to, you know, go ahead and
vote on this improvement, but I'd like
to see stats uh in a open study session
at some point. Yeah, we can we can come
back to that and we can share it to you.
I can get you an update because this was
an important issue for for the town. I
just want to make sure we're performance
management is actually creating a dash
for us. It's all automated. Every week
it'll be updated automatically. Thank
you.
Mayor, do you have a question? Okay.
Anybody else have a question? Are we
good now? Okay. All right. So, um with
that
um
that covers items number 10 through 47.
And at this time, we're going to add to
the consent calendar items number 48 and
49.
And uh I'd like to
invite Council Member Lions and Council
Member Toreson. And this is for the
nominations for Veterans Advisory Board
and the Redevelopment Commission to um
give you the names of those that were
selected.
Vice Mayor Bugley. Thank you. I'd like
to make a motion to appoint Charles
Dyne, Les Presik, and Katie Ahmed to the
Veterans Advisory Board as regular
members with terms beginning June the
16th, 2025 and ending on June the 15th
of 2028.
Okay. And and I believe we've added
making the motion in with the overall
numbers. So, you're not really making a
motion, just giving the It's okay. Yeah.
Okay. And there uh added agenda number
49 will be to add Ryan Rab as the
redevelopment commission alter alternate
member with a term beginning June 24th,
2025 and ending October 31st, 2026.
Perfect. Excellent. All right. So, with
all of that being said and done,
um I may I move to approve the consent
agenda items number 10 through number
49.
Second. Okay, it's been seconded by
council memberski
and please vote.
Oops, that one didn't my screen didn't
show up, but I do see that it's been
approved. Okay, so it is the motion
carries 7 to zero.
And with that, I'm going to turn this
back over to
um Mayor Anderson for
find my sheet for the administrative
items. Yes, we have two administrative
items. First is consider adoption of
resolution number 4578 designating the
chief fiscal officer to submit the
fiscal year 25 2025
2026 expenditure limitation report to
the office of the Arizona auditor
general.
I'll move adoption of the resolution if
I can get a second. I second. Second.
Moved by the mayor, seconded by vice
mayor. We adopt resolution number 4578.
Please vote.
Motion carries 70.
Item number 51. Patrick. Um, this is a
presentation. Is this a long
presentation,
Mayor? It is not. It's going to be a
very brief presentation on the
development of the what's developing
near you uh functionality to our website
um that council asked staff to do a
while back. They've done an excellent
job with it. Thank you.
Are we Do you want me to do Not yet.
Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh Anthony
and I are are going to give a brief
presentation on the what's developing
nearby map and some exciting updates to
that map. Um we'll talk quickly about
the uh history of the map and what its
functionality is intended to be as long
along with uh new map goals, features
and functionality and then a
subscription tool. This map uh was
initially debuted in 2016 2017. We're
going on nearly 10 years of having this
map available and it's um gone through
some changes over those years. Um most
recently we have updated the map um
based on some functionality changes
through Ezri track the data usage of the
map and um it's been pretty consistent
um over the past couple of years with uh
about 85 views a day on the the latest
iteration of the map. Um you can see our
previous version uh the old web map had
about a hundred views a day but there's
just a couple of steps in there that can
be correlated to uh staff tested some
items or some um kind of highly uh
interesting projects. Heritage North for
example um where people are clicking on
there to find out what's going on. Uh so
initially when we launched this map, the
goal was really to foster um community
engagement, have some interactive
features so that uh as folks are driving
through the community and they see those
big yellow signs, they can hop on our
website and see what's developing um and
you know what's planned for that site.
Uh so over time, as I mentioned, we're
always looking at ways to update this
map, make it more user friendly for
folks. Uh and so we wanted to also
ensure that we are keeping up with the
latest technology which allows us to um
include a subscription feature which is
something that we're really excited
about. Uh we want to make sure that this
map seamlessly integrates with our other
systems and then provides really
userfriendly experience for our
residents as they um visit this page.
Uh so with the new map there are um a
different thing a couple different
things that we'll cover. Um one there is
a desktop view. There's a mobile view
and then the subscription option.
So if somebody were to visit the website
on their desktop computer, this is what
they would see. Um there's some tabs
that kind of identify the different
categories that development falls within
as as it goes through a town process. Uh
neighborhood meetings are required for
projects that require a resoning
application and those are the ones that
um you've seen a number of those this
evening. Um so those are highlighted
with that orange um pin. Projects that
have been submitted and are in review
with planning staff have a red pin. Once
they've gone through either planning
commission or town council, depending on
what the application is, they move over
to the blue colored pin. And then uh we
kind of hold them there while they go
through the permitting process. and then
once construction starts um it turns to
that gray pin so people can follow a
project all the way through. We also
have a mobile view um version of the
website so you can toggle between some
different views if you're looking at it
on your phone. Um initially you would
see a map, you can go to a list of
projects and then if you click on those
projects you would get specific
information related to that development.
Uh you get a case contact. So that would
be one of our staff members. Um, in this
example, we have got Keith's contact
information um for his project as well
as a brief description of what that
project is. If it's something that staff
has written a staff report for that goes
to either planning commission or town
council, we link that on this um as
well.
Related to the subscription tool, we've
talked a little bit internally about
what that would look like in terms of
notifications, not wanting to inundate
our subscribers with frequent emails.
Um, but we do want to make sure that
they get the information in a timely
manner. So, for neighborhood meetings,
for example, um those updates will be
pushed out to subscribers um upon
submittal of that to the map, uh those
meetings have a 10-day turnaround. So,
from the time that um the applicant
publishes notice that a neighborhood
meeting occurs, there's only 10 days.
So, we want to make sure that our
residents are getting those updates
quickly. for items that are going to
planning commission and design review
board. Um we'll kind of batch any
updates that get put on the map over the
week and then we'll get a they'll get a
comprehensive email at the end of the
week. Uh we've also talked about
implementing story maps for some of our
projects. So, there are a number of
projects that come through from time to
time that um have just some special
interest based on their size, based on
what they're proposing or just community
interest because it's it's something
like the Heritage Park in the in the
heritage district or um the Gilmore was
another project that that has kind of an
increased level of public interest. And
so, uh you'll see us start to implement
story maps for those types of projects
as well. Um, and then, uh, one of the
exciting things, this is going to be
live, um, very shortly, probably
tomorrow, folks should be able to
subscribe to this map. Uh, so with that,
I'm going to turn it over to Anthony,
and he will, uh, wrap up with a demo.
Good evening, Mayor, council members. My
name is Anthony MSAS, JS Supervisor. So,
uh, before we get started on this short
video presentation, I know it's late,
but this is going to be like a late
night transformer movie full of
excitement, explosions, and changing
technology right before your eyes. So,
let's go ahead and get started with that
video.
So, with this video, a new and
redesigned web page will provide a
gateway to the what's developing nearby
map. Uh when a user enters the map,
they'll be greeted with a splash screen
that'll show a project status legend and
disclaimer. Then a user can zoom in
anywhere to select an individual
project. And once that individual
project is selected, that left pane will
show pertinent information about that
development. Now, now here's where the
fun begins. Once the user scrolls to the
bottom of that description, they can
subscribe for updates on that particular
project just by clicking on the link
provided where they'll be presented with
an opportunity to input their email,
request updates, and then presented with
the screen that verifies that
subscription for them. When the user
scrolls to the top of those details,
they can subscribe to any project that
uh they're interested in uh provided by
the linked link. And as we see in our
video, uh, a separate map will display
that will allow users to select the
whole town, individual quadrants, or
individual square miles of the town.
Once se on once a selection has been
made, they can remove individual square
miles by just selecting them again. You
can also add additional square miles by
clicking on the desired location. After
the selection is completed, a user can
then enter their email address on the
bottom right, subscribe, and you have a
verification screen for you. Now, uh
after our user subscribed, they'll be
receiving an email that's like this
presentation thanking them for the
subscription and verifying again that
they've been subscribed. And
periodically, our subscribers will
receive emails that provide links to
updates on that project area that they
have been subscribed to. So, uh, I'm
sorry I forgot to, uh, include the
explosions, but thank you for your time
this evening, and we are excited for the
opportunity to provide this service to
our citizens. Thank you very much. Thank
you,
comments.
Let's move on to communications from
citizens.
All right. Uh so to begin communications
from for from citizens
I will read the rules of decorum
and
we value the participation of our
community members and robust exchange of
ideas. However, it's essential that this
discourse remains respectful and
constructive reflecting the
professionalism expected in such forums.
Misinformation and personal attacks
undermine the collected efforts and do
not contribute to the productive
dialogue necessary for our town's
progress. This is an opportunity for the
public to address the town council
directly impacting issues issues
impacting the town. Accordingly, the
town council will not allow for moments
of silence or the playing of music or
other recorded material which could
distract from meeting decorum or violate
copyrights. While we understand and
appreciate the passion our community
members bring to this session, we remind
everyone that clapping during the
meeting is not acceptable. the this
practice can disrupt the flow of
discussion, potentially intimidate
others, and detract from the respectful
atmosphere we strive to maintain.
Tonight, we'll invite you to come up to
the podium. When you come up to the
podium, please state your name and your
city of residence, and you will have
three minutes to directly address the
town council unless otherwise indicated.
If the current speaker will be using
three minutes of another person's time,
that person should state their name, the
city they reside in, and acknowledge
that they are donating their three
minutes to the current speaker. In
accordance with state law, we are unable
to provide responses to public comments
during this meeting. Please be assured
that your comments, your concerns, and
input are heard and valued.
And with that, we have two speakers
tonight. The first speaker is Jenny
Jones.
And And you will have three minutes,
Jenny.
Yeah. And the if you can turn the
microphone on, there's a little button
at the bottom.
Oh, very good. Okay. So, does it start
when I start talking? Yes, please. Uh,
so my name is Jenny Jones and I'm a
Gilbert resident. Last year, my family
and specifically my daughter became the
victim of a felony crime when a group of
boys set fire to our barn using illegal
mortars. This wasn't a prank or an
accident. It was premeditated and it
could have killed someone. That night,
we lost more than a building. We lost
our sense of safety and peace. What I
didn't expect was that the damage would
continue long after the fire. And not
just by the offenders, but by the system
itself. Some of the officers and
detectives on this case have gone above
and beyond. Their dedication to justice
and to Gilbert's safety has been clear,
and I'm truly grateful. I want that on
record. But there's been moments that
shook my trust. Last August, I called to
report a possible release condition
violation. I was clear that I was
reporting something that may have
happened earlier or could happen that
day based on a credible tip. I gave
time, location, and context, but the
officer told the juveniles and parents I
claimed it was happening in real time,
which I didn't. That misreporting led to
retaliation from the families of those
charged. From day one, I've done
everything right. I followed the law,
submitted formal requests, cited Arizona
Constitution, and every victim right
statute available. I've worked with this
department with patience and
professionalism, and have been met with
stonewall after stonewall. And I know
they know I've done the work. On two
separate occasions, one of the
detectives on our arson case asked if I
was looking for a job. I know it was
said jokingly, but it wasn't a throwaway
comment. It came after I submitted a
detailed spreadsheet spreadsheet
outlining the boy's involvement, their
connections, and prior incidents with
police report numbers. I put it together
with the days of the fire, and I know
they were impressed. The final report
confirmed that the information I
uncovered matched what their own
investigations found. So, when I'm
treating like I'm overstepping or making
noise, I don't forget that. I'm not
guessing. I'm not speculating. I'm
working with the facts. This department
verified. You don't get to acknowledge
my accuracy behind closed doors and then
publicly dismiss me when I continue
asking for truth. During the
investigation, a solicitation for
assault was uncovered on June 24th, just
a few days prior to the fire. Then on
July 2nd, there was more talk about
getting a girl. Nothing happened that
night, but the next night was July 3rd,
and when our family was targeted and our
barn burned to the ground. To this day,
I've not been told whether my daughter
was the intended target. I've asked over
and over again and was my daughter the
target of that violent solicitation. The
assistant police chief told me he needed
to check with legal before answering.
But instead of giving me a direct
response, he gave me a list of broad
general statutes, none of which override
victim rights under Arizona
Constitution. He didn't say any specific
law that prevents a victim from being
told if they were the intended target of
a violent crime. What he also didn't say
is that legal meant that Gilbert Town
attorney's office and the town attorney
is the uncle of one of the juveniles
that was involved with that group. and I
believe his name is in the report. After
our arson, he threatened witnesses and
it was reported that when and that was
reported then went on Tik Tok. This
nephew went on Tik Tok proudly called
himself a certified Gilbert goon and as
far as I know he was not charged and the
police have known about his family
connection since last year because I
told Soulberg directly. I'm not here to
get that boy in trouble. In fact, I've
heard that he's changed and I hope
that's true. But that's not acceptable.
Is that I didn't I tried to talk fast,
right? Your time's up. But that
Are you almost finished? Yes. Okay.
About 30 seconds. Sorry. I thought I
could talk faster.
So when the assistant chief said he
needed legal guidance before responding
to a victim, what he really meant was he
was seeking advice from the office of a
man whose nephew had a reason to be
protected. This is a conflict of
interest. It's a cover up and it's a
betrayal of public trust. This town
talks about values, about trust, about
protecting families. But when victims
ask hard questions, that trust
disappears. Everyone hides behind legal
processes, hoping I will get tired or
forget. I spoke here before. I was
polite and I was hopeful. But nothing's
changed. And now I see how it works. You
welcome new voices just enough to keep
them quiet. But I'll be clear, I'm not
here to be quiet. I'm here to say what a
lot of people know. Offenders are being
protected. Victims are being silenced.
And this town and my daughter deserve
better. And if no one on this council
has the courage to give answers, then I
want it on record that I think I'm going
to have to choose violent silence well
over your time. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Wow.
Thank you.
Okay.
Okay. Our next speaker is um
Bridget Vega and Alyssa Vega is giving
her time. Alyssa, are you here? Okay.
Can you can you stand up and state your
name and the city you live in?
Okay. Thank you. All right. Um Bridget,
you have six minutes to speak.
I stand before you today as a concerned
mother and a community advocate on
behalf of the families and the children
in Gilbert who feel feld felled by this
town's leadership and the police
department. You were entrusted to
protect this community, especially our
children. But when it mattered most, you
protected image and power instead. The
system heard the cries for help and it
turned and it turn was turned away. Your
leadership remained silent. Violence and
sexual abuse, including sextortion,
doesn't appear out of nowhere. It grows
in silence. It thrives in places where
leadership chooses to look the other
way.
While you looked away, suicide has been
committed on campus. Reckless and
violent acts have escalated. Substance
abuse referrals are rising. Guns have
been found on school campuses, forcing
schools to install metal detectors. What
are you guys waiting for to act? A mass
shooting. This isn't a failure. It's a
betrayal. And still, you continue to
deny records and withhold the truth from
the community. The refusal of Gilbert
Police Department to provide
transparency is not only dangerous, it's
beyond disturbing and it must be
publicly condemned. And now the
community knows what you guys continue
to try to ignore. We've seen brutal gang
beatings, assault after assault with
brass knuckles, a barn burnt to the
ground, a teen died from falling off the
parking garage in downtown, multiple
teens murdered, including last month, a
teen murdered after a double shooting in
which your police department was well
aware of the crimes that this group and
child was tied to. The continued
gaslighting and violence has inflicted a
lifetime impact on the victims, their
emotional well-being, and their mental
health, the ability to feel safe in our
own communities while affecting the
community at large. By the grace of God,
the children of the barnfire made it out
alive. Between the fireworks and mortar
sparked a fire that burned it down to
the ground. The use of the mortars in
this way is not just reckless, it's a
serious criminal act. That child was
also trespassed on the Gilbert water
plant as well, which is a felony charge,
which he pled down to a misdemeanor and
just got a workbook, which is beyond
disturbing in itself.
The group of the group of teens behind
it and only two boys placed on probation
and again given workbooks. But the truth
runs deeper than a single fire.
According to a nearly disclosed 400page
police report obtained by the Arizona
Republic, this group known as the
Morrison Ranch Martyrs was tied to
sexual harassment, bullying, AI
generated nudes of teens known as
extortion,
reckless driving, drug use, threats,
intimidation, acts of retaliation,
homemade explosives, trespassing,
criminal damage, fraudulent schemes like
credit card credit cards scheming, a
fear, a culture of fear and silence. And
the police knew record police reports
and records show that they were aware of
multiple incidents dating back to 2022.
Yet parents' warnings were dismissed.
Reports were buried. You failed to
intervene. You failed to protect. You
failed to lead. Even after the barn
fire, the police chief downplayed it
while withholding the very data that
could have been revealed to the
community and the truth. Families were
silenced. Witnesses were intimidated.
And the community still lives in fear as
many witnesses continue to stay silent
because of threats, retaliation,
power, and connections within this
council itself in fear of losing jobs.
Your leadership chose silence over
safety, power over protection,
reputation over responsibility.
You were supposed to amplify the voices
of the children who came forward, not
silence them, not sacrifice them for
optics, not bury the evidence to protect
a brand.
We demand transparency, accountability,
and action because our community and the
children deserve better. We will not
stay silent to the children. We hear
you. We see you. We stand by you and we
love you.
History will remember who stood with the
children and who stood with negligence.
What's done in the dark will come to
light and in the end, God prevails. I
also do want to add as we've seen the
most recent disclosed police report in
the media. I also want to refer back to
Connor Jarn's police report as well. And
it's really sad to see the similarities
of both of these groups of boys and
showing that these boys constantly
mocking Gilbert police saying not to
commit crimes in Chandler or Mesa to
come to Gilbert and just constantly
mocking the police. What I don't
understand is
how all of the connections and looking
at these police reports, the these boys
are bragging and telling and crying for
help. They are telling your police
departments literally in the Snapchat
records saying, "We want to go on a cop
killing spree. They're identifying
themselves as gangs." They are mocking
the police and literally telling you the
one of them even states over 30
assaults. The police are going to find
out our names. We're going to get
charged for over 30 assaults. It's all
in the Snapchat records and in all the
disclosed police reports. So, I don't
understand how our police chief
continues to say this isn't happening
here, that we don't have issues and we
continue to see the violence escalating.
the teens are not okay and the guns
around this community, including the boy
who was just killed recently that those
parties Gilbert has known about and have
been starting in Gilbert, escalating to
Chandler and Mesa. So, please do
something.
Okay, with that, that concludes the
communications from citizens. Back to
you, Mayor.
No.
Um, actually Patrick is going to have
the chief say something.
And I I would encourage you to continue
to work with the chief and he will have
some comments here in a moment. You can
see the future meetings that we have
coming up. Uh, communications from we'll
start from the town manager. Thank you,
Mayor, members of the council. So, if I
could ask police chiefs Mike Sber come
up and make a few comments in regards to
uh public safety and some of the
incidents that have been mentioned.
Good evening. Almost good morning
uh mayor, uh council, town manager, and
our community members. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide a brief update
regarding the concerns raised in
connection with the arson case from July
3rd, 2024.
What happened to the Jones family that
night was not, excuse me, was not only a
criminal act, it was a devastating and
traumatic event that no family in our
community should ever have to endure. In
response, our agency remains unwavering
in its commitment to justice. That means
fulfilling our legal duties, ensuring
accountability from defendants, and
standing firmly with victims,
excuse me, standing firmly with victims.
uh each step of the way, all while
operating with transparency and
integrity. On the night of the fire,
Gilbert PD acted swiftly and decisively,
arresting two juveniles on charges of
arson of an occupi occupied structure
and endangerment.
Their actions were both dangerous and
deeply disturbing, showing a blatant
disregard for the safety of others. We
continue to do everything in our power
to ensure that justice is served. We
understand that there is a desire for
the unre unredacted report. There are
several state and federal laws that
mandate our agency to redact certain
information before publicly releasing
reports.
This is critically important to preserve
the confidentiality of juveniles,
protect investigative integrity, and
allow for the fair administration of the
judicial process. Although we must
adhere to these laws, we recognize the
constraints can be frustrating for
victims and for the families. We we have
been communicating with the family and
recommended that they consult with their
attorneys for any legal guidance they
may need. The Gilbert Police Department
is committed to keeping the public
informed while meeting our legal
obligations to protect information
protected by law and preserve the
integrity of the justice system.
We understand how difficulty how
difficult this has been for the Jones
family and remain guided by compassion,
integrity, and unwavering pursuit of
justice. We are committed to providing
information that we can legally provide
to victims and to our community and
within these restrictions, we'll
continue to do so. If there are any
questions are there, if there are any
outstanding cases, we will provide what
information we can. We have been in
communication with several of the
occupants uh here tonight, the speakers
and several others in our community and
we'll continue to do so. And what
questions we can answer, we will. And in
regards to the overall uh statements as
far as our cases, we have made arrests
in all the cases where we could
establish probable cause. uh the
individual that was mentioned that was
killed recently was in Mesa and we had
actually made several arrests on the
individuals involved with that cases and
had several cases still pending on those
individuals and we'll continue to
investigate those others involved. Thank
you very much.
Thank you, Chief Patrick. Thank you,
Mayor. Um I will run through this pretty
quick tonight. I know we're all tired. I
want to real quick thank the team that
put together the what's developing
nearby app. They did a great job. They
did that all in house. I think going
forward, mayor, if it's okay with you
and the council, we'll do those
presentations at study sessions. It
seems like we'll get to the end of long
meetings and we really don't have time
to ask any questions or or appreciate
what's been done, but I wanted to
recognize them for that. So, jumping
into the update, July is National Parks
and Recreation Month, so we'll highlight
our parks and recreation department.
It's broken down into three main
divisions. The business division, the
parks, and the recreation. within each
business handles administrative and
performance, infrastructure and
beautifification and community
engagement and events. Parks has our
parks and splash pads, multi-use paths
and aquatic complexes. And then
recreation is where we'll find our park
rangers. Adaptive and inclusive
inclusion services, riparian preserve,
and our recreation centers, libraries
and sports complex. Starting with the
business division, I'm just going to
highlight a few of these, but you can
find these online. They've achieved a
95% customer service satis satisfaction.
We had over 100,000 attendees at our
town of uh operated events and they
secured over $150,000 in sponsorships to
help underwrite the cost of those
events. They ma manage our PKI districts
in town. They had over 5600 swim lesson
participants in um in 2024 and 21 thou
almost 22,000 public swim participants
in 2024. And then we also have several
public private partnerships with
Freestone Railroad, AI Ice, Gilbert AR
Archery, and the Rip City Batting Cages.
The parks division has just under 1300
in total park acreage across nine
district parks. And then you can see
them going down from there. Some of the
highlights over the last year, the water
tower plaza renovation, 2024 Tree City
USA designation, the new Cosmo Park
shade structure, and the 2024 fields of
excellence award winner by Pioneer
Athletic Park. Within the recreation
department, they handle all of our
recreation centers. Uh, Cactus Yards
also for five years in a row now has
been uh nominated by the or awarded by
the USSA USSA
outstanding park of the year and we now
have over 174 adaptive recreation
programs, classes and special events
that were offered in 20 uh 2024 as well
as a lot of great events, well attended
events through our park ranger program.
Um, we thank them for all the great work
moving into retirements and recognition.
and we just have one tonight. Fire
engineer Jonathan Rosco is retiring
after over 18 years of dedicated service
to the department. He's been an integral
part of our team demonstrating
unwavering commitment, bravery, and a
two passion for service. And we thank
him and wish him the best of luck in his
retirement. We also want to congratulate
our public works department which won
the 2025 trailblazer award uh for
innovator of the year which recognizes
innovation in water sector. And with
that, mayor, that's all I have tonight.
Thank you. Thank you. Council members,
you have reports. Council member
Bonvani. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, join us
for a fun-filled evening at Gilbert
Regional Park as we celebrate the 4th of
July on on Friday, July 4th, 2025 from
5:00 p. p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Experience
live performances, drone show, and a
fireworks show. General admission is
free for everyone. Upgrade to VIP for
exclusive perks. I'll see you there.
Council member Lions. Uh, yes. Real
quick, waiting for the slide to come up
here.
There we go. All right. Uh, just real
fast, the Veterans Advisory Board has
restocked the state 48 t-shirts. You can
use CO QR code there to get information
on it or go to the uh, uh, Gilberttown
store. Uh, they'll sell out pretty
quick, so I encourage you to go. In
addition to that, we are looking for
volunteers to help us with our different
pillars. Um, these are some of the
upcoming meeting dates. I would really
encourage you to come and help us out if
you get a chance. Thank you. Thank you.
Any other reports?
Thank you. I think I've got a couple of
slides in there, too. Um, just to
talk about the uh stock the classroom
teacher supply drive, which is July 14th
through August 21st. Seems so early to
be talking about this already. School's
starting, but teachers have many needs
in their classrooms. many uh all
different kinds of donations. So, please
check it out. Secondly, we will be
taking um applications for the mayor's
youth advisory committee. Uh apply by
July the 12th. It's a wonderful
opportunity for students to grow their
leadership skills, gain insider access
to local government, make a real impact
in the community. So, uh if you're
interested, uh please contact us. We'll
let you know more about that.
Thank you.
I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.
A motion to second. We are adjourned.