Redevelopment Commission

REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2020 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION PRESENT: TOWN OF GILBERT STAFF PRESENT: Peter Sciacca, Chair Daniel C. Henderson, CEcD Economic Development Director Tyler Hudgins, Vice Chair Amanda Elliott, Redevelopment Program Manager Boe Bigelow Amy Temes, Principal Planner Ryan Hamilton John Baird, Assistant Town Attorney COUNCIL PRESENT: GUESTS PRESENT: Kathy Tilque Tyler Jones Doralise Machado-Liddell Options are available for the public to attend and participate in the meeting either in person or through a virtual platform, telephone conference line, or by submitting comments via email or online public comment card as listed in the agenda. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sciacca called the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Commission to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Amanda Elliott called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS Chair Sciacca opened the floor to the public for any comments or communications on items not on the agenda. The Commission’s response is limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon, or asking that a matter be put on a future agenda. There were no communications from Citizens. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. Introduction of Council Liaison – Councilmember Kathy Tilque. Chair Sciacca congratulated new Councilmember Kathy Tilque. She has served as President and CEO of the Gilbert Chamber of Commerce for 24 years, retiring in June. She celebrated 32 years in the Chamber industry and is a graduate of Class 1 and a founding member of the Gilbert Leadership Program. She has served on a variety of committees in the Gilbert community over the years and has had the honor in participating in visioning, planning, and witnessing the results of all those efforts. She is a founding member of the East Valley Chambers of Commerce (EVCCA) which represents eight Chambers at the state legislature since 1998. She is also one of the founders of Positive Paths, a program that assists East Valley women by furthering their education and career paths with scholarships and mentoring opportunities. We are very thankful to have Councilmember Tilque aboard as Council Liaison between this Commission and the Council. Chair Sciacca and the Redevelopment Commission appreciate her service and look forward to working with her. 2. Outgoing Redevelopment Plan Commissioner – Tyler Jones. Chair Sciacca announced that outgoing Redevelopment Commissioner Tyler Jones will continue to serve the Town of Gilbert on the Planning Commission. Tyler served on the Redevelopment Commission from November 2017 to September 2020 and during that time he has provided significant perspective and guidance through the Heritage District projects, including the 2018 Heritage District Redevelopment Plan adoption, Culinary Dropout, Hale Theater, Aspire Heritage District, HD South renovation and expansion, the Hearn Way Parking Garage, and the Heritage District Design Guidelines. We appreciate his dedication to ensuring, through the adherence of our Redevelopment Plan and Design Guidelines, that Gilbert's Heritage District continues to be the symbolic heart of this community. Staff presented Tyler Jones with a plaque in appreciation of his service on the Redevelopment Commission and to the Town of Gilbert. Tyler Jones stated it has been a pleasure working with the Redevelopment Commission, town staff, and many of our residents. He has enjoyed these last three years serving on the Commission and appreciates all of the participation. He is excited to be part of the Planning Commission. He attended his first meeting as part of the Planning Commission a few weeks ago and noted that their agenda is multiple times what we typically discuss in the Redevelopment Commission. He looks forward to continuing to work closely with the Redevelopment Commission. 3. Minutes – Consider Approval of the regular meeting minutes of July 15, 2020. MOTION: Commissioner Bigelow moved to approve the Study Session and Regular meeting minutes of July 15, 2020, seconded by Commissioner Hudgins. The motion passed 4-0. STUDY SESSION 4. Z19-01 HERITAGE DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES: Citizen Review and initiation of amendment to the Town of Gilbert Land Development Code by amending Chapter I Zoning Regulations, Division 2 Land Use Designations, Article 2.4 Heritage Village Center Zoning District, Division 3 Overlay Zoning District, Article 3.4 Heritage District Overlay Zoning District, and Division 6 Use Definitions; amending Chapter II, Design Standards and Design Guidelines, Article 1.8 Heritage District Design Guidelines; and amending the Glossary of Terms related to development standards within the Heritage Village Center Zoning District. Chair Sciacca felt it would be helpful to hear from members of the public prior to the staff presentation, which will review the information presented at the most recent Stakeholder meeting. He will also offer an opportunity for public comment after the presentation as well. PUBLIC COMMENT Doralise Machado-Liddell, Gilbert resident, stated the Design Guidelines have been discussed throughout the 30- year Heritage District redevelopment history. Private property owners have been living with the threat of eminent domain, condemnation and uncertainty about their private property rights. The current Heritage District Design Guidelines state the use of the words “shall” and “must” have been purposely avoided within the specific guidelines and that it establishes Town of Gilbert suggested principles for designing quality downtown development. Town staff states the comparison of the 2010 to the 2020 Design Guidelines demonstrates very minor changes to the Lacy Tract requirements. She does not believe that making the Design Guidelines a mandatory legal requirement is a minor change. This change affects her private property rights. She did not purchase her property with mandatory design guidelines, with a government homeowner's association, or with the requirement that she submit her custom building plans to the Redevelopment Commission for approval. She asked if the Design Guidelines prohibited Air BNB or vacation rentals, how would the property owners react? Once the area is no longer under state redevelopment laws the Design Guidelines will still be in effect. Her private property rights are being treated differently based on her zip code. Such actions represent a discriminatory use of the Land Development Code and the Design Guidelines is the avenue in which that takes place. She asked the Redevelopment Commission to not recommend an ordinance that in any way violates the voter-approved 2006 Private Property Protection Act. She asked that the Design Guidelines remain just that, a suggestion. Regarding Veterans Park, the view depicted is not accurate. The Paseo does not line up and will cut through the Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 2 Park. Staff states that the height of public institution land by right is 55 feet, but staff fails to state that there is a 25- foot setback from the residential properties and that parking must be included in the development. The Town states that Page Park is within the neighborhood. What they fail to mention is that the Community Center and Heritage Center are housed in the park and that the children's play area is located behind a chain-link fence between those two centers. The only grass area is a water retention basin. Town staff fails to mention Vaughn Avenue Basin Park, which will be sold to a developer. This is also a park that is not included in the Design Guidelines. Our parks are based on square footage. If you live in a poverty area does that mean you are entitled to less square footage? Does that mean you are not entitled to open space? Replatting and placing a commercial building in a neighborhood park does not conform to the voter-approved General Plan, Redevelopment Plan, and the Parks Master Plan. She understands that a developer or the Town views a neighborhood park as a way to make money. The developer views the park land as green for money. She views park land as green for grass and open space that should be preserved for future generations, especially in a redevelopment area. INTRODUCTION OF HERITAGE DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Councilmember Tilque was very excited when the Mayor appointed her to this Commission as liaison, as she has spent the last 24 years talking about redevelopment. Very few people have the opportunity to be part of that process and being able to see the results. She has been involved with three General Plans, three Redevelopment Plans and the initiation and implementation of several Design Guidelines used for different categories of development in the Town. The reason we put guidelines into place is so that when an applicant comes forward they will understand what the desires of the community are for the property they want to develop. The guidelines allow them to make some decisions and save some money by not having to design things that don't match up with the direction of the Town, while at the same time allowing some flexibility for a developer to come in with a proposal that may not meet all of the guidelines but brings something of value to the Town. That allows the Commission and Town staff to make decisions about individual projects and determine if it meets the intent of the guidelines. It is important for the public to understand that piece of it. Guidelines can be changed. If the Design Guidelines are found to be too restrictive, it can go through the public process to change the guidelines to be more flexible or more restrictive depending on the needs. Councilmember Tilque appreciated the public feedback and noted that a lot of the public comments have been incorporated into the Design Guidelines. There is always the possibility of unintended consequences when something is first put on paper, and to have that level of detail and feedback is important. She takes that feedback seriously. Her own comments were a page and a half long. This particular project had more significant feedback from residents and businesses than any in the past. It is evident that the Town staff put in a lot of time and hard work. She felt staff went the extra mile and the Design Guidelines show that. Chair Sciacca appreciated hearing Councilmember Tilque's perspective. In his three years serving on the Redevelopment Commission, he has seen consideration to the letter of the law versus the intent of the law. He has seen how our staff works with developers when in the Guidelines the word "shall" is used repeatedly versus the word "should". There is every opportunity for someone to come forward and say they don’t want to do this and here is why. That is why we are serving on this Commission, to make sure that if someone brings a project that doesn’t fit certain parameters, we can look at the value and determine if it fits. He felt we use the word "should" in these Guidelines too much and maybe folks take advantage of that. There has been a lot of thought, time and effort put into this process. Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 3 STAFF PRESENTATION Amanda Elliott, Redevelopment Plan Program Manager, has been working alongside Amy Temes, our Principal Planner, who is also in attendance to address any questions. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to receive Redevelopment Commission input on items of conflict or in need of clarification. The goals of the Design Guidelines are to be comprehensive, to solve challenges that departments across the Town have faced, to be easy to navigate, use more imagery to demonstrate what we are trying to achieve, and to be future focused. In 2018, Town Council adopted a new Redevelopment Plan and we need the Design Guidelines to reflect the updates to that document. The Commission will be asked several questions through the Mentimeter polling software and those responses and additional feedback from the Commission will serve as direction for staff to finalize edits to the Heritage District Design Guidelines. The Commission received a draft of the Design Guidelines in July and provided input. The draft next went to the Technical Committee and Stakeholder Group in July for their feedback. It was then released for a public review and comment period of more than 30 days to gather their input. There was another meeting with the Stakeholder Group last week to seek clarification. For this process to be more transparent, we have created a landing page that explains the purpose of the Design Guidelines and includes a video presentation. Throughout the process, we have received 317 comments from the public, Stakeholder Committee and Council. A workbook was created with all of these comments and staff responses. We have accepted 89 edits to the Design Guidelines based on those 317 comments. We declined 162 items, although that included questions or comments that did not necessarily require a text edit. There were 23 items that were not applicable. We are bringing forth 31 items today for review and feedback. There were 12 staff discussion items that will be reviewed tonight as well. Tonight, staff is sharing the results of both the public input and Stakeholder Committee input. There are 16 Stakeholders on the committee and four were in attendance at the October 14 meeting. Those 4 Stakeholders provided 240 of the 317 comments. "Shall" - The term "shall" means that the intent of the design guidelines is required although there is flexibility in how to accomplish that intent. We need to have design guidelines that can ebb and flow and change. Town Guiding Documents - There was some confusion among those 317 comments about the Town's guiding documents and how they interrelate. Staff will create descriptions of those documents, the General Plan, Land Development Code, Engineering Standards, Redevelopment Plan, and Design Guidelines, and a flow chart will show how those documents interrelate. Architectural Terminology - There were questions on some of the architectural terminology. It was noted that those definitions are in the Land Development Code, although they will also be added to the Glossary for the Design Guidelines. Cross Section Dimensions - There were questions about the cross section dimensions. After review, staff felt that moving more towards components and zones as noted in the Redevelopment Plan and eliminating the dimensions from the cross section will make it a lot clearer. ITEMS FOR COMMISSION REVIEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Commissioner Bigelow recused himself from the discussion on this section as he owns property in this aspect. Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 4 The Commercial Heritage Village Center (HVC) zoning will be removed from the Lacy Tract map which runs along Gilbert Road on the easternmost border of the Lacy Tract and the northwest corner of Gilbert and Elliot Roads. The Greenhaw Place depicted on the map will be extended down to Elliot Road to incorporate the houses located there. Staff reviewed seven years of public comments received during the 2018 Redevelopment Plan process and used that as a starting point for updating the Design Guidelines. There were comments and concerns related to protecting the single-family neighborhoods, protecting the character, that the architecture should be reminiscent of older architecture, and that the architectural guidelines should have teeth. The challenge is finding the balance between protecting the neighborhoods and the architectural character in these single-family areas while ensuring that we are not infringing upon owners' property rights. A comparison was done between the 2010 and 2020 guidelines. There are certain areas that state approval should come from the Redevelopment Commission, such as decorative materials to be used for fences and walls. Other items are required such as front porches, courtyards or raised stoops, and the historical architecture vernacular from the early 1900s. For example, Bungalow, Farmhouse, Cottage, Territorial Ranch, Mission, Arts and Crafts style architecture would be permitted, although Contemporary or Modern architecture would not be permitted. We are looking to eliminate redundancies across all of these documents. Certain items, such as undergrounding of utilities, are already included in Building and Engineering standards and can be removed from the Design Guidelines. Architectural Character - Staff considered what architectural styles would align with the Lacy Tract, established in 1920, and Greenhaw Place. Modern, Contemporary, Stucco Modular, and Pre-fabricated can all be built in a beautiful way, although staff felt they do not fit the character we were being asked to retain. There are challenges with the small lots which average 6,000 SF and lot splits to 3,000 SF. Another challenge is the three stories which are allowed in these areas and how certain architectural styles will fit and look on those small lots. The guidelines were changed to say that Contemporary and Modern architecture would not be permitted and that gabled, hip or parapet roofs can be approved by the Redevelopment Commission because of the three stories that are already allowed. Single story homes are preferred given the architectural character we were asked to retain. Public Review Comments regarding single-family stated there were too many "as approved by RC" items as well as concerns that the guidelines create a homeowner association like environment or the threat of eminent domain or condemnation. Other comments stated there is no point in having design guidelines if they aren't followed, the design guidelines feel mandatory as opposed to incentive-based, and that the terms "shall" and "must" should be avoided so they are not mandatory. The poll questions asked of the Stakeholder Committee were reviewed along with their comments and staff perspectives. The Redevelopment Commission will be asked the same poll questions. Poll Question: Is there an architectural character for both Lacy Tract and Greenhaw Place that the Town should try to preserve through guidelines? Stakeholder Response: 3 Yes, 1 No.  The Guidelines should allow for a broad range of styles that are appropriate in scale to the size of the lot  The character is a reflection of the property owner  Smaller homes on smaller lots is what was established through the Lacy Tract COMMISSION RESPONSE: 3 Yes Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 5 Poll Question: Do the guidelines accurately represent the architectural styles that should be listed for Lacy Tract and Greenhaw Place? Stakeholder Response: 2 Yes, 1 No.  We can't have design guidelines and then put something in like apartments (District Lofts) which do not fit the historical character of Lacy Tract. If these can go in, why can't another property owner be able to do something similar?  Forcing something on property owners through a regulation is not the way to go. Staff Perspective: We are implementing the new design guidelines now and we can't be thinking about what happened in the past. This is what happens from the future forward. Commission Questions: Chair Sciacca asked how many styles were defined? He loves the modern style. He knows of a Bungalow that seems very modern and beautiful. If someone wanted to build a modern style or mobile home, could they bring that forward to the Commission for consideration and approval? Amanda advised that there are 7 architectural styles listed: Bungalow, Farmhouse, Cottage, Territorial Ranch, Mission, Arts and Crafts, and Mid-Century Modern. "Shall" means meeting the intent. If it can be proved that it meets the intent, there are opportunities for flexibility. COMMISSION RESPONSE: 3 Yes Poll Question: Should single-family residential neighborhood requirements be more relaxed to be more inspirational and use the term "encourage" instead of "shall"? Stakeholder Response: 3 Yes, 1 No.  The term encourage would be preferred as it makes it less prejudiced  A property owner may not want to give their ability to build over to the Redevelopment Commission because that is up to their perspective of what should or should not be there  Changing the guidelines is a violation of private property rights Staff Perspective: We have heard for years to protect these neighborhoods and we have also heard about retaining property rights. One person's idea of high quality is not necessarily the same as another's. If there are no parameters set for a style, we are left at the whims of those who are designing. We have seen in Lacy Tract and Greenhaw Place some really great design come forward. We have also had requests for modular or mobile homes. We need to find a balance. COMMISSION RESPONSE: 3 No. Poll Question: Should character related guidelines and material guidelines be listed as "shall" but allow for approval of alternatives by the Redevelopment Commission (RC)? Commission Questions: Chair Sciacca noted that materials change all the time. He wanted to make sure the language allowing for approval of alternatives was listed in the document. Amanda confirmed that the language will state, for example, "decorative materials as approved by Redevelopment Commission." COMMISSION RESPONSE: 3 Yes. Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 6 Commissioner Bigelow returned to the dais CONGREGATE - There were public comments asking why park spaces were included in the Design Guidelines. Staff spent considerable time looking at best practices across the US and tried to emulate those. The 2018 Redevelopment Plan calls for joyful public spaces. By showing public spaces in the document it ensures that the public comment received over that seven year period is not lost when the Town undergoes a capital improvement project, when writing a development agreement or when approving design aesthetics within a gathering space. It informs the multi-family and commercial development that may be adjacent to these open spaces how they should orient their development and interface with that space (360 degree architecture). Several areas were not included as part of the Design Guidelines due to their current or planned use. The 8-acre site on the southeast corner of Gilbert and Elliot Roads previously had a deed restriction, which has been lifted. Council has directed that staff not plan out this site at this point and it is not included in the 2018 Redevelopment Plan. The Boys & Girls Club facility located in the PF/I zoning was not included as it already has a use and the green space is utilized as stormwater detention for the Lacy Tract. We do not anticipate this use changing. The Vaughn Avenue Basin is listed as a neighborhood park, although it has no amenities. This was not included as it currently serves as stormwater detention and the Redevelopment Plan calls for that area to be built out with the Vaughn Ventilator in the future. Page Park is an area that could be considered, although it also has a water detention aspect and there is no planned development surrounding it. Staff felt Page Park could be included on the map but it does not necessarily need an axonometric. Poll Question: Should Page Park have a set of design standards and an axonometric like public spaces currently represented in the Design Guidelines? Stakeholder Response: 2 No.  Parks should not be in the Design Guidelines because architects and the Town already know how to design parks.  Parks and Recreation is in charge of parks and the General Plan includes park spaces. COMMISSION RESPONSE: 3 Yes, 1 No Commission Comment: Commissioner Hamilton voted no because he generally agreed with the two comments shown. PASEO - The Paseo is the north-south pedestrian and bike route from Juniper to the UPRR which would underground and lead into Veterans Park. The Paseo is divided into the north segment, the underpass, and the south segment. The CIP team will hire a consultant to work on the pre-design for the Paseo which will guide the architecture, list the main components, look at the engineering, and estimate costs. The 2018 Redevelopment Plan states that the Paseo is depicted as concepts and the engineering needs to be validated. The axonometric is meant as inspiration for components we would like to see such as specialty lighting and paving. Staff agrees with the public comment that the Lacy Tract area is not an urban cross section as shown. If the underpass connection to Lacy Tract is viable, the pre-design could create an axonometric. If the engineering and dollars don’t work out for an underpass, then there will be no need for an axonometric. Staff suggests noting that the axonometric is meant to be inspirational and that the Paseo varies with each segment. Poll Question: Should there be only one axonometric for the Paseo that notes it will vary by section and will need to refer to the Redevelopment Plan? Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 7  Stakeholder Response: 2 Yes, 1 No  It should remain as it is because it will change the vision of the Redevelopment Plan. COMMISSION RESPONSE: 4 Yes. VETERANS PARK - The public comments through the 2018 Redevelopment Plan process were to fix up and extend Veterans Park, add public restrooms, concerns of crime in the park, and that Gilbert Road south of the tracks is unpleasant and should be avoided as a walking route. There are two neighborhood parks in the Lacy Tract. The distance from the eastern end of Veterans Park to the west entrance of Page Park is 1252 linear feet or 480 steps. We wanted to make sure Lacy Tract still had all of the elements of a neighborhood park regardless if those were at Page Park or Veterans Park. A potential building is shown in the Design Guidelines on a portion of Veterans Park. Buildings are allowed by right in PF/I zoning up to 55 feet in height. While a building could allow for public restrooms, it is a typical standard that neighborhood parks do not have restrooms. There was concern expressed over the years about the safety of this area, especially with a neighborhood park abutting a busy road. A building would provide a buffer from Veterans Park to Gilbert Road. The Design Guidelines are meant to be inspirational and inventive as to what this area could evolve into. The public comments were to remove Veterans Park from the Design Guidelines, once the Paseo goes through there will be minimal usable space, and it is taking away a large portion of the park for a commercial building. Some asked that public restrooms not be installed, others liked the plans for the building showing a patio opening up to the park. Residents in the area stated they want more for the park, the triangular piece is just dirt and people hoped it would develop in a way that will cater to the neighborhood and residents. Staff felt Veterans Park needed to be a neighborhood community park and a multi-generational place where families can gather. Staff suggested adding comfortable seating, outdoor grills, preserving the existing mature trees, providing climate control measures, and restrooms. A one to two story structure would be preferred to fit that small area. The Paseo is planned as a 24-foot wide path. The Park consists of 0.978 acres that could be used for amenities and 0.675 acres that could accommodate a building and patio space that flows nicely with the overall park. In comparison, Water Tower Park is 0.616 acres. Poll Question: Should a building be shown as inspiration for the vacant dirt area adjacent to Gilbert Road in Veterans Park? Stakeholder Response: 2 No, 1 Yes  This does not conform with the General Plan or Redevelopment Plan and those processes had public involvement.  It would be productive to have inspirational ideas.  It connects the southern and northern parts of the district visually from Gilbert Road.  Businesses in the southern part feel disconnected and a building would bridge that connection and create a buffer to the neighborhood and the park. Staff Perspective: Showing a building does not change the General Plan or Redevelopment Plan intent but serves as inspiration. A non-public PF/I use would have to go through Council approval and a rezone. Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 8 Commission Questions: Chair Sciacca asked what could that building be as a park amenity if it did not go out for a commercial use? Could it be a recreation center, senior center, art center? Amy Temes, Principal Planner, advised that the American Legion was previously approved for a new lodge in this location, although that never came to fruition. It could be some kind of gathering facility for an organization or a recreation facility for the town. What can go there is limited under the PF/I and a rezone would be required in order to have a commercial restaurant, entertainment or hospitality use. Chair Sciacca felt if it went out for an RFP and was rezoned, issues such as trash and parking would be addressed at the time of the rezone. Amy Temes stated any project on the site would go through a Design Review process and come before the Redevelopment Commission for approval. The Design Review would address parking, trash, landscape, aesthetics, grading and drainage, colors and materials, etc. Chair Sciacca asked how long it had been an unused dirt triangle. Ms. Temes stated the fire station was taken down around 2006 and the American Legion request came in around 2009. COMMISSION RESPONSE: 4 Yes LEGACY PARK - This is located on the east side of Gilbert Road and Page Avenue behind the Allstate building. The public comments were to have more open space, a dog park, more family park area, and open spaces with grass, water, and coverage. There were questions as to why Legacy Park looks so different than Veterans Park. Veterans Park was viewed as a place where families can gather for activities, whereas Legacy Park is meant as more of an urban park area with a central signature feature and areas where people can relax. The Design Guidelines show a potential off-leash dog area on a small portion of the park. There is multi-family housing to the east of the park and staff felt with more density and more people, a nearby off-leash area for pets would make sense. One of the most requested park features is an area for dogs. The public comments questioned why Legacy included a dog park, stated that a single use should not dominate the open space, a dog park is for dogs, not people hanging out, and there were concerns about noise and odor. Poll Question: Would a small dog run be more agreeable if it was noted that it "shall" be adjacent to the residential zoning and not the commercial zoning? Stakeholder Response: 3 No.  The multi-family should be encouraged to have some type of dog enclosure on their development.  Is there another park space within the Heritage District that could accommodate a dog area?  The Park is meant as a more restful, relaxing setting and this active use will change that. COMMISSION RESPONSE: 4 No. Poll Question: Should the small dog run be removed from Legacy Park? Commission Questions: Commissioner Bigelow asked how many square feet would a small dog area be? He loves dogs and dog parks, but felt Legacy was such a small, quaint, urban park and questioned how much space there would be for dogs in that area since it is growing. Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 9 Amanda stated the actual size of the space has not yet been defined. Chair Sciacca asked if staff had looked at other parks as possible locations for smaller dog runs. He lives across from a very small park and dogs always have to be on a leash. It would be nice to have more off-leash areas. Amanda stated that would be a conversation that should include the Parks and Recreation Department before staff made any determinations on including small off-leash dog areas across the board in all of our parks. We would need input from Parks on operations, maintenance, and other items that would come into play. COMMISSION RESPONSE: 2 Yes, 2 No Amanda noted since the vote was split, there is an opportunity to explore this item further and talk with Parks and Recreation. Any specific direction will be included in the next draft and brought back to the Commission. Chair Sciacca felt Commissioner Bigelow made some good points about the size of the park. He noted there are companies that encourage bringing your dog to work, especially in Colorado. Maybe this is not the right fit here. Commissioner Bigelow suggested a drawing to represent what such a dog area would look like would help everyone see the direction we would be going and whether it would fit with what we are trying to achieve. Commissioner Hamilton had voted yes. There was some community disagreement and the Commission was split on the question. He did not feel that a dog park was an important enough component to be controversial. If there is disagreement, perhaps it should just be scrapped. Amanda appreciated all of the perspectives. She also liked an idea brought up at the Stakeholder meeting to encourage the multi-family to include outdoor space for pets. PLANT PALETTE - There is currently a plant palette in the 2010 Design Guidelines for new commercial, mixed- use, and multi-family projects. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) governs what type of plants can go in our right-of-ways. For arterial right-of-ways, the Town has a Street Tree Theme. The Design Guidelines Plant Palette is not part of the ADWR or the Street Tree Theme. There were public comments as to why the plants were restricted, it felt limiting, and since it is on commercial property it should be up to the developer to decide what types of plants they want to include. Staff agrees with the public comments and since there are already guidelines for our right-of-ways, staff recommends that the plant palette for commercial be removed from the Design Guidelines. Commission Questions: Vice Chair Hudgins asked for clarification if this would mean any commercial or multi-family development could choose any plants they want in the downtown? Amanda stated that is correct, they would be able to choose any plants they want on their site, except for in the right-of-way. Chair Sciacca asked if that would still come back to the Commission for overall approval? Amy Temes stated a commercial or multi-family project coming into downtown would provide a landscape plan as part of the packet to be considered by the Commission, unless it was small enough to not need a public hearing, in which case it would go through an administrative process for approval. The current Design Guidelines allow some Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 10 flexibility for accent plants. Joe's BBQ created a photo-op with specialty cactus outside of the palette, which was approved as an accent plant. Within the right-of-ways, the Pistache is the primary tree and consideration is needed for signs and spacing. The Street Tree Theme lists the Washingtonia Palm tree, although palms do not provide shade and that will be reconsidered during the LDC update. Language could also be added to the Design Guidelines to allow for flexibility to approve something outside of the norm. Chair Sciacca noted that historically we have approved palms in certain areas such as next to a pool where appropriate. Poll Question: Should the commercial and mixed-use plant palette be removed from the Design Guidelines? COMMISSION RESPONSE: 2 Yes, 2 No Commission Comments: Commissioner Bigelow had voted no. He is obsessed with trees and with downtown growing and becoming more concentrated, having non-intrusive or invasive trees or plants so close to property lines with sidewalks and plumbing should always be considered. We have spent so much money on upgrading the water lines. Since we are also talking about keeping the Cottage, Farmhouse, Mid-Century Modern and other architectural styles, the landscaping also affects the look. Those two should go hand in hand. Amanda clarified that the plant palette is not for single family, only for commercial, mixed-use and multi-family. Commissioner Bigelow still felt the plant guideline was a good idea and if someone wants something specific, they can present it for approval. Vice Chair Hudgins agreed with Commissioner Bigelow. The commercial aspect impacts the overall downtown and it is important to consider that. Chair Sciacca appreciated staff's comments about redundancies and felt there were some here. There is still the opportunity to work with a developer and this body and that is why he voted yes on this question. There is enough opportunity to push something in the right direction. Amanda and Amy will review this item further considering all of the Commission feedback. The direction is incredibly helpful to staff as we move forward. She appreciated all of the public comments and input received over the years. We are better because of the public comment and how involved individuals are in our downtown. She has been working with the Town for 8 years and was impressed with how passionate people are about Gilbert. STAFF NOTES Signage - After reviewing with Legal, staff recommends removing signage from the Design Guidelines in order to remove redundancies as it is located in the Land Development Code. Bicycle/Micromobility Circulation - There are ongoing staff discussions on this item. Ongoing CIP Projects - There are 9 Capital Improvement Projects that are currently ongoing in the Heritage District. Staff appreciates the public's patience as staff reviews all of the CIP documents and meets with the CIP team to ensure the information staff provides does not contradict anything in those projects. PF/I Zoning Clarification - Amy Temes clarified that what could be built in Veterans Park is limited based on what Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 11 the Town of Gilbert would seek through an RFP under what is permitted under PF/I. There are a number of uses under PF/I that are not appropriate at that location. She did not believe that Economic Development or the Town as a whole would support something like an automotive repair in such a location. The table in 2.9 lists the allowed uses, although some are not appropriate for that site. The Town would be looking for an organization such as the American Legion or an entertainment or recreation venue that would either have oversight by the Town or some type of public-private interaction. NEXT STEPS - Staff will work on incorporating all of the edits and feedback into the draft and will report back to the Redevelopment Commission and update the landing page on the website. The Commission appreciated all of the hard work in putting this together. Reconsidering the Design Guidelines is something that happens every 10 years. Chair Sciacca invited any further public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Doralise Machado-Liddell noted that every 10 years the Redevelopment Plan by law has to be approved by Council. She was told on numerous occasions by the Town Attorney that it is only a vision or guideline. What we are doing now on the Design Guidelines is totally different. You are developing a requirement, an ordinance that provides that it will be everlasting. She won't have this chance in 10 years to come back. Her property rights are now. She did not give them up when she purchased land. Throughout the years the rights of the property owners in Lacy Tract have been taken away. In 30 years, we have not had a design guideline that has been a requirement. This is something new that is being imposed on residential property owners. She takes that very seriously and she is very pro-property rights for everyone. She hoped the Commission would not want their property rights taken away. Regarding the Park, if it is rezoned to HVC that then reverts to shared parking and would not require parking as it does with private PF/I land. That is totally different. We talk about inspiration with regard to the Park, but we don’t talk about inspiration when it comes to the Design Guidelines for the residential homeowners. This is something totally different. She was inspired by the Design Guidelines. She did not need a regulatory authority to tell her to do the right thing. That is where we have government overreach. We also discussed restrooms. She heard that we don’t have restrooms in neighborhood parks. That is true. Nor do we have dog facilities in neighborhood parks. She is a proponent of restrooms and felt the Town must have restrooms. What we will see is that people who need to use a restroom will be going into all of the restaurants and then we will see signs stating the restrooms are for patrons only. Her concept would be to have restrooms for that purpose. It was never to have a commercial building to establish the justification for a restroom. COMMUNICATIONS 5. Report from the CHAIR on current or future events. There was no report. 6. Report from COUNCIL LIAISON on current or future events. There was no report. 7. Report from COMMISSIONERS on current or future events. Commissioner Hudgins was glad to have Councilmember Tilque as liaison to the Redevelopment Commission. She brings tremendous institutional knowledge when it comes to our downtown and has worked with a lot of business owners. He remembers her speaking at the first Redevelopment Commission meeting he attended before he joined the Commission. Commissioner Hudgins stated he has hit his four year cap on the Commission and this is the last time he will be up Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 12 on the dais. It has been a wonderful experience to be a part of all this. Most of his life has consisted between Ray and Juniper on Gilbert Road. To be part of the Commission that helped design the 10 year Redevelopment Plan has been a tremendous experience. Working with staff, Economic Development, and all of the Redevelopment Commissioners has been a pleasure. It has been an honor to serve with this group on the Redevelopment Commission. 8. Report from STAFF LIAISON on current or future events. There was no further report. ADJOURN Chair Sciacca adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. ___________________________________ Peter Sciacca, Chair Redevelopment Commission October 21, 2020 13