Council Study Session

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL, IN SPECIAL MEETING FOR A STUDY SESSION, OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024, AT 4:00 PM, MUNICIPAL BUILDING I, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Brigette Peterson, Vice Mayor Scott Anderson, Councilmembers Chuck Bongiovanni, Bobbi Buchli, Yung Koprowski, Kathy Tilque, and Jim Torgeson COUNCIL ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Patrick Banger, Town Attorney Chris Payne, Town Clerk Chaveli Herrera, Transportation Senior Transportation Planner Nathan Williams, Planning Manager Eva Cutro, and Intergovernmental Relations Director Rob Bohr CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Town Clerk Herrera confirmed a quorum was present. AGENDA ITEM 1. Presentation and discussion on Park and Ride Relocation Study. Senior Transportation Planner Williams explained that the presentation was the culmination of 18 months of work, that the study focused on the Park and Ride (PNR) Relocation, and that they anticipated an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) coming before Council in December 2024 for Design and Construction. Matthew Taunton HDR Engineering explained why the study was done in the first place, with the provided reasons being an anticipated redevelopment of the existing Gilbert PNR, with rapid development in the Heritage District, and that the goal of the study was to identify and evaluate potential sites for a new PNR facility in Gilbert. He provided a map of the current Heritage District Project schedule, with the current Gilbert PNR highlighted, and mentioned the upcoming Ash Street Re-Alignment as well. Taunton mentioned the history of the current Gilbert PNR, with it having opened in 2005, being served by Bus Route 531 (Mesa/Gilbert Express), it had 250 parking spaces, and that currently it saw 9.5% parking utilization daily and 8.6 average daily boardings. He laid out that if the existing Gilbert PNR location were to be closed, that the Route 531 terminus would be moved to the Sam’s Club on the Northeast corner of Gilbert Road and Houston Ave. He discussed the market analysis to identify the purpose in consideration of existing ridership using data from the US Census Bureau called Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), specifically the 2022 LEHD data between Gilbert and Downtown Phoenix, and also the home locations of Route 531 riders with an Origin and Destination (O&D) Study from Valley Metro using 2023 data. He provided a map of the LEHD and O&D analysis, showing the density of work trip origins to Downtown Phoenix originating within Gilbert, with the highest density being Southeast of Loop 202. Taunton then stated the Site Evaluation Process, beginning with Site Identification, which lead to a Level 1 of 8 sites, which then lead to a Level 2 of 4 sites, and then finally their Preferred Site. He said there was a Townwide search of vacant parcels with public/private ownership, or shared use, that they had to be a minimum of two acres in size, and that they needed close proximity to an arterial and freeway. From this process, they found 29 vacant parcels with private ownership, 8 with public ownership, and 4 with shared use ownership. Of these 41 total parcels, 8 moved on to Level 1 evaluation. They gave a map of the 8 Level 1 sites, and then listed the Evaluation Criteria of the Level 1 sites being Site Access, Land availability, Land ownership and cost, Surrounding zoning compatibility, Ridership, and Consistency with local/regional plans. He then listed the 4 sites that moved to Level 2, all of which are owned by the Town, as the existing Gilbert PNR, Freestone Park, Crossroads Park, and Cooley Station. He briefly mentioned the factors that went into the Level 2 evaluation and then gave arial photos of the 4 sites. Taunton said that the preferred site was the Cooley Station location. The reasons that he gave were best site access and flexibility for site layout, strongest land use and transportation integration, good current and future ridership potential (6,000 more Residential Unites near Cooley Station), ability to integrate with existing express bus service, and direct connection to Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus. He stated that the Cooley Station PNR would be served by extending Bus Route 542 from its current terminus at the Chandler PNR 9.1 miles to Cooley Station. Taunton gave two different cost options, with one being $3.7 million and allowing for 56 parking stalls, and the other being $5.1 million and it would have 103 stalls, Closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring ready, and shade canopies for approximately 45 of the vehicles. He stated that the operating cost would be $166,000 annually, that all costs would be funded through regional resources, and that they estimated it would average 31 daily boardings. He said there was community outreach via flyers to the surrounding area, including 4 apartment complexes and 23 businesses, and that general sentiment was positive with no questions or comments. He indicated that the next step would be for an IGA between the Town of Gilbert and Valley Metro Board. Councilmember Bongiovanni asked where the costs for the project would come from. Taunton responded that $2 million would come through essentially regional funding, with the remaining funds coming from the Town of Gilbert through their Bus Stop fund. Bongiovanni asked where the $166k a year would be funded from. Taunton stated that it was a bit of a grey area due to the upcoming election, but should Proposition 479 pass, it would come from there. Bongiovanni stated that the Town currently serviced nine people a day through this PNR, and was trying to get to 31 through a new PNR, and asked was there anything being done to try and have that number be higher, as his estimate had it being $636 dollars per person, per year, at 31 daily riders. Taunton stated that their data was based on 2023 numbers, and that while the numbers were improving, the day-to-day ridership flow was different than it was pre-COVID. Before the pandemic, the daily ridership was steady, but now he saw that it spiked midweek, but fell significantly on either Monday or Friday, thus lowering the overall number. Councilmember Koprowski asked in the higher cost figure with more amenities, if it would include a bathroom. Taunton replied that it could, but that would be determined by the Facility Needs Assessment that came once the Final Design process was underway. Koprowski asked if the Express Bus Service had on board Wi-Fi. Taunton said that some did, it depended on the fleet that was used. Koprowski asked if it would be funded through regional funds. Taunton replied that all express buses were funded regionally. Councilmember Tilque asked for clarification that the current express bus would continue to service from the Sam’s Club location, even when the current Gilbert PNR was closed. Taunton said that this was current, the current Route 531 service would remain, with the terminus being moved to the Sam’s Club location. Transportation Plan Manager Jason Hafner clarified that this project had no plans to use any local funds, and that all funds were currently planned to come regionally from the old Proposition 400. 2. Presentation and discussion on legislation related to House Bill 2297 Adaptive Reuse. Councilmember Torgeson arrived at 4:20 p.m. Planning Manager Cutro stated that House Bill 2297 (HB2297) was signed in April 2024, aimed at trying to alleviate some of the housing shortage, pertained to multi-family residential development and adaptive reuse, and that municipalities must comply by January 1st, 2025. She stated that the bill allowed multi-family development or adaptive reuse on up to 10% of existing, commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. She said that the building must be in disrepair or have 50% vacancy in the leasable square footage. Cutro stated that for Multi-Family Development, height and density for multi-family must equal highest allowable multi-family zoning within 1 mile, and that demolition of all or a portion of a building was allowed, and that must designate 10% of dwelling unity as low-income, moderate-income, or any combination for at least 20 years from initial occupation. Cutro stated that there were currently 854 existing commercial, office, and mixed-use buildings, and that 85 had to be determined eligible for adaptive reuse. She also stated that a municipality may exclude up to 10% of existing commercial, office, and mixed use areas from the provisions. She said that the next steps were for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Town Council of a text amendment on November 6th, and that on December 3, 2024 the Town Council would hear and take action on the proposed text amendment. Councilmember Koprowski asked if they had the list of buildings and/or areas they were going to deem not eligible-ready yet. Cutro indicated that they were considering them now, that they had to run the numbers to see what 10% were now, and that they were working with the team in Economic Development to come to a final determination. Koprowski asked if it would be ready before the Council had to vote in December 2024. Cutro responded yes, and that they were hoping to have it ready before the Commission voted in November. Vice Mayor Anderson asked if there was any definition, either in Code or in Statute, of what disrepair meant. Cutro indicated that there was not a specific definition of disrepair in either, but that they were looking at the codes of other municipalities to see what their definitions was. Councilmember Buchli asked if those new rules were due to HB2297 or if they were coming from the Town’s Planning and Economic Development. Cutro replied that they were directly from the House Bill, and that the League of Arizona Cities and Towns came with model language based on the House Bill, and thus suspected most every municipality would have almost the exact same language. Councilmember Bongiovanni asked if there were any estimation of how many of the 854 buildings meet either the disrepair or the 50% vacancy threshold. Cutro responded that they do not know. Bongiovanni asked if there was any financial benefit of owning a storage shed, knocking it down, and putting up an apartment complex in its place. Cutro stated she is not in that business, and thus could not say if there would be any financial benefit. Bongiovanni asked if there was any timeline as to how long a building needed to be in disrepair. Cutro stated that there was not; the verbiage simply states disrepair, it does not give any timeframe for how long it needed be in disrepair. Councilmember Tilque said that they were concerned that this bill was passed in an effort to have some affordable housing throughout the state, but she had not seen any accountability for the 10%. She was hoping it was not put on the backs of the municipalities. Planning Manager Cutro said this was one of the few that did have the 10% requirement, and that it did define what low-income and moderate-income was, but she was not sure who would track it. Mayor Peterson said she believed the municipality would need to track that, and it would be difficult to do. Councilmember Buchli asked about the definition of what low-income was, as low-income may mean something different to everyone. Cutro read the definition of low-income, which was person or persons whose household income did not exceed 80% of the area median income, and for moderate- income it was person or persons whose household income did not exceed 120% of the area median income, and that no more than 30% of their income could be spent on rent or mortgage. Mayor Peterson commented that the Town of Gilbert’s median income is $108,000. Intergovernmental Relations Director Bohr replied it was the regional median income, and that he believed the region in this case was the entirety of Maricopa County. Councilmember Bongiovanni asked would it require a zoning change or be automatic. Cutro stated that there was no hearing, those updates happened by right, and thus the Town may have to update their maps accordingly. 3. Presentation and discussion on legislation related to House Bill 2720 Accessory Dwelling Units. Planning Manager Cutro stated that House Bill 2720 (HB2720) focused on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to battle the housing shortage. She stated the differences of how the current Gilbert Codes handled ADUs, and the ways HB2720 would update them. Under HB2720, every single-family home was allowed one attached ADU and one detached ADU, and they may have an additional detached ADU as long as it was used for affordable housing. The Town was not allowed to restrict the ability to rent ADUs long-term, they may not require the ADU be used by a family member or by some other preexisting relationship, and that the homeowner may decide whether or not the ADU would have its own kitchen facilities. She stated that under HB2720 ADUs must be lower in square footage than the main home, and must abide by the same front setback as the main home, but the side and back setbacks may only be obligated to be five feet. She said that the Town was also prohibited from requiring the ADU from matching the exterior design of the main home, or from having additional parking as a result of the ADU. Additionally, she said that under HB2720 construction of an ADU was considered a permitted use, and thus the Town was prohibited from requiring an Administrative Use Permit. Cutro finally indicated that if the Town failed to adopt development regulations by January 1, 2025, all ADUs would be allowed on all lots or parcels zoned for residential use without limits. She listed some of the Code changes that they were proposing to change, which in addition to those listed earlier were that the ADU could not exceed the height limited by the base zoning district, and that ADUs meet the same design standards of all main homes. She gave a timeline of next steps, with the Planning Commission having a hearing on November 6th, and the Town Council having a Hearing on December 3, 2024. Councilmember Koprowski asked for a clarification that it was mentioned earlier that the Town was prohibited from limiting long-term rentals, but did it limit the ability to restrict short-term rentals? Intergovernmental Relations Director Bohr replied that they were not allowed to restrict short-term rentals as well. Koprowski noted that one of the ADUs may be attached and one may be detached, and asked if the updated defined these terms as well. Cutro responded that the Town already adopted a definition of attached and detached a little over a year ago. Councilmember Buchli stated that part of HB270 went to building on a Building Envelope, which in her experience, most people built to its fullest extent with the main home, and yet the statute went into not building within five feet of the property line setback. Cutro clarified that Building Envelope was used within this statute meant the part of the property within the property line setback. Buchli asked where they could build in the backyard. Cutro responded that they could build inside of a five foot setback of the back and side property lines of the back yard. Buchli asked if they could have additional garages in the ADU. Cutro replied that it was a concern, and they could build as many garages as they wanted on their property as long as it met Code. 4. Presentation and discussion on legislation related to Senate Bill 1162 Protest Procedures and Timeframes for Administrative Completeness Review and Final Decision on Residential Zoning Applications Plus. Planning Manager Cutro stated that with Senate Bill 1162 (SB1162), it required municipalities to comply with timeframes for review on all residential zoning applications. She said that after receiving an application accompanied by the required fee, a determination of Administrative Completeness must be made within 30 days. Cutro stated that the Town currently had an internal goal of 10 days, so that requirement was not a problem. She stated if the application was incomplete, the applicant must be provided with a written notice including a comprehensive list of specific deficiencies, and if required, a second Administrative Completeness review must be completed within 15 days. After determining that a residential zoning application was administratively complete, Town Council shall approve or deny the application within 180 days. She said that staff may grant a one-time extension of no more than 30 days for extenuating circumstances, or the applicant may request an unlimited number of 30 day extensions. Cutro went on to say while SB1162 was strictly related to residential zoning applications, they noticed the Code of all applications other than residential zoning left out Town Council as a final decision, and wanted to get that language updated as well. She said that SB1162 also updated the protest procedures, which with the updated language specified government owned property was excluded from the calculation if 20% or more of the property area filed a protest against a proposed amendment, and that it would require the passage of a three-fourths majority of the governing body. She stated SB1162 also added in language how the vote would be calculated in the event of a protest vote where one or more members of the Council had to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. Cutro stated the next steps would be a November 6th Planning Commission hearing, and a December 3, 2024 Town Council Hearing. Councilmember Tilque asked if a situation where neighbors were upset and it prolonged the process, the best practice would be for the applicant to ask for extensions instead of requiring it. Cutro responded that they would think so, they were reaching out to other towns to see what they would do, but ultimately an applicant likely would not want to go forward with their vote at the end of their 180 days if Council did not feel the situation with the neighbors had been sufficiently resolved. Cutro added that staff could do one 30 day extension and the applicant could do numerous extensions by 30 days. Mayor – leg enforced 180 days so public doesn’t have time to… Planning Manager Cutro acknowledged Intern Anna Cooper and Planner Erica Prater for their help with research and the presentation. – ADJOURN Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 4:58 p.m.  ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Brigette Peterson, Mayor Chaveli Herrera, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session of the Town Council of the Town of Gilbert held on the 22nd day of October, 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this __________ day of ______________, 2024. ___________________________________ Chaveli Herrera, Town Clerk Pfost