One, two, three, four.

We can get everybody to uh be seated.

We'll get started in the study session.

Okay, I'll call to order the study session for November eighteenth, twenty twenty-five.

We'll start with a roll call.

Mayor Scott Anderson.

Vice Mayor Bobby Buckley.

Here, Councilmember Chuck von Giovanni.

I am here.

Councilmember Kenny Bucklin.

Here.

Councilmember Young Kaprowski.

Here.

Councilmember Monty Lyons.

I am here.

And Councilmember Jim Torgeson.

Thank you.

We have one item of presentation on the land development code text amendment related to Z twenty five ten to modify existing development standards within the Heritage Village Center zoning district.

Who's going to be doing this one?

Kristen?

You're going to do this one.

All right.

Good evening, Council.

Kristen Devine.

Thank you for having me this evening.

The project that I'd like to discuss with you tonight for a study session is for a possible text amendment to the LDC for the Heritage Village Center for some development standards within that zoning district.

The general request is to allow an increased height within the district.

A little bit of background as to why we're bringing this forward to you.

The concept of increased height within the district has gone to a handful of council retreats for the heritage district.

The first of which was in August of 2023.

At that time, an Urban 3 presentation was provided, and that highlighted the economic impacts of varying types of development.

So staff at that time was asked to kind of look into this, how that might impact the heritage district.

So in April of 2025, we we brought some follow-up information to the council at that retreat, where we provided a presentation that showed vis uh visual representation of what increased height could actually look like within the district.

Um at that time we were asked to keep moving forward, reach out to additional stakeholders and get some some further information.

So that's where we're at today is providing you some additional information.

And with that, I will hand um off the next two slides to Mike with our economic development team.

Thank you, Kristen.

Good evening, Mayor Anderson, Vice Mayor Buckley, and fellow council members.

So in 2023, Urban 3 completed a comprehensive economic analysis of Gilbert with emphasis on employment corridors, including the Heritage District.

Their findings underscore a critical point.

As Gilbert approaches build-out, Gilbert must be strategic with its remaining land.

That means encouraging gentle density and a mix of uses, especially in areas like the Heritage District to ensure the tax base can support both current services and future growth.

This slide highlights Urban 3's findings regarding taxable value by acre in Gilbert in the graphic on the upper right and sales privilege revenue by acre and value per acre by building type in the lower left image.

The brown bar represents value per acre by building type, and that blue bar represents the sales privilege by acre.

When considering current conditions in the heritage district, Gilbert falls mostly within the low and medium density commercial and mixed use categories.

This 2025 text amendment modifies the 2005 policy from 55 feet to 75 feet, which is an increase by 25% in 20 years.

This increase in height creates opportunities for more medium and high density mixed use developments illustrated in the lower middle and right boxes to maximize both sales privilege revenue by acre and value per acre by building type.

The analysis showed that mixed use developments such as the Collab and Building 313 in the Heritage District are among the most fiscally productive in Gilbert.

These buildings maximize value per acre by stacking stories and integrating residential, commercial, and office uses.

So this slide, uh it's important to note that while Gilbert is primarily a residential community, its operations are largely funded through sales privilege taxes, in part because the town does not have a primary property tax in place.

That makes it essential to increase the productivity of its commercial and industrial focused areas, especially as the town reaches full build-out.

So this 25% increase in height in 20 years, like those proposed in this text amendment can have a meaningful impact on long-term financial fiscal sustainability, allowing Gilbert to maintain the high quality of life for residents and businesses alike.

And I will hand it back to Kristen.

Thank you.

So in addition to all of the economic impacts, um, another driving factor for why we are requesting this is from our redevelopment plan, where in it we call out the desire for an 18-hour downtown, somewhere where our residents within the downtown can live, work, and play all within a general area uh the same general area.

Um, in an area like the Heritage District, the parcels are much they're they're very small, they're narrow.

Um, it makes sense to have a mixed use development as vertical as opposed to somewhere like Cooley Station, where you would have a horizontal style mixed use where you have the space to build outwards instead of upwards.

So to summarize what it is that we're requesting.

On the left are our current standards on the right is what we're proposing.

Currently, we have a maximum height requirement in the HBC district of 55 feet and four stories, the lesser of the two.

Stepbacks are required adjacent to single family residential.

Those stepbacks are required above two stories.

There aren't any sort of mechanisms for bonus heights or anything like that.

If you wanted increased height, now you would need to go through a rezoning process through the council to get that increased height.

So what we're requesting is a maximum height for the entirety of the HVC zoning district, not all of the heritage district, just HVC of 75 feet.

We would eliminate the story requirement.

Stepbacks would be required still adjacent to single family residential, but we would also require them along Gilbert Road.

We would implement those stepbacks along Gilbert Road starting at 55 feet, and we would keep the two-story requirement adjacent to single family residential.

The stepback requirement as it exists now, adjacent to single family is one foot per foot, and we would like to just mimic that with the requirement adjacent to Gilbert Road as well.

We are also asking for a bonus incentive structure for parcels that are located off of Gilbert Road, so they wouldn't touch Gilbert Road.

Where if they implemented a certain number of bonus items that I'll touch on in a moment, they could potentially go to 90 feet in height instead of 75.

So to provide some visualization on what that actually means for the district, I have this map here.

The purple are all parcels that touch Gilbert Road.

These parcels would only be eligible to go to 75 feet.

We did put in a caveat in the ordinance draft that you will see when this comes to public hearing.

For smaller parcels, like up on the north side, there's like a flag lot style parcel, only about this much of it touches Gilbert Road.

For parcels such as that, we would provide the option for the planning manager to give some give the determination to allow them to use the 90 feet because they're not buildable at the build to line.

So even though it touches Gilbert Road, you can't actually build to it like a parcel that does touch Gilbert Road would be able to.

So the red are all parcels that do not touch Gilbert Road, and those would be eligible to go to 90 feet in height if they incorporated one of these bonus elements.

So we separated this out into two categories.

We have a choose one category, which are more substantial items, or you have a choose to category, which are kind of smaller items, and we would request that you use two of those.

The choose one category is if you incorporated underground parking, if you incorporated 10% of public parking in excess of what you're required to park on site already, or if you constructed your entire building of non-combustible building materials, you would be eligible to go to that increase of height to 90 feet.

Or instead of that, you could choose two options from the circle on the right, where you provide 10% of open space and landscaping in the heritage district.

We don't have a requirement for open space and landscaping, so that's why we included this as an option.

A certain percentage of art depending on your construction costs.

If you incorporate public amenities like rideshare spaces, maybe EV charging stations, something along those lines.

Or if you incorporated stepbacks or sustainability measures.

So why did we choose 75 feet?

We took into context the current development, what exists, what's been approved.

We also researched 18 different communities to see how they approach their height.

And we reached out to a handful of developers and architects to pick their brains about development trends that they're seeing in the industry.

This is highlighting our current development here.

We currently have eight structures that are approved that exceed the 55 foot required height today.

These buildings include a handful from the Heritage Park development.

You have the university building and the collab.

You also have a few structures that exceed even 75 feet in height that include the Hernway parking garage, a couple more Heritage North developments, and obviously the water tower as the tallest structure that we have.

These heights were all achieved through a rezoning or PAD process approved through the council.

So just to highlight two buildings that exist today that do exceed that 55 feet in height, we have the collab, which is four stories tall and it's 64 feet.

We also have the university building, also four stories, and it's 68 feet eight inches.

So these are two great examples of why we are requesting the increase in height, because they are four stories, and our code does allow a four-story building.

Although if it exceeds 55 feet, it needs to go through a rezoning in order to build, even though in theory we do want you to build a four-story building.

So in addition to looking at our current development, we also went on a walking tour of the district.

We know that increased height always brings up the topic of the water tower, and we wanted to provide some representation of what that might look like for a pedestrian scale.

So we took a handful of pictures of where you can see the water tower from today.

You can see that it does peak up from the top of certain buildings now.

We took two of those examples and we overlaid what a height increase could look like on a specific building that exists.

So this is Gilbert and Vaughn, the southeast corner.

The picture on the left is showing an existing building, it's about one story.

If you were to build that building to 55 feet, allowed by right today, the view of the water tower, although you can see it now, it would then be blocked.

So for context, we also included an image on the right of what that might look like at 75 feet.

And then just a secondary example of that, this time using a two-story building versus a one-story building.

But again, just highlighting that if you were to build to 55 feet allowed by right today, that same view of the water tower would be blocked again.

Alright, so moving on from our current development, we um did a comparative analysis from 18 different communities.

This is just highlighting a few of those communities that we took into consideration.

This is showing what the heights are for those communities.

You'll see that a lot of these are a range of heights, it's not just one stationary height.

Um, this is due largely to their proximity to like transit or how close they are to the center of their business district, things like that.

Um the yellow line highlights 55 feet, what we allow by right today.

The green line highlights 75 feet, which is what we're requesting.

Um you can see that about five of these do have heights that are um in excess of 75 feet.

And I just wanted to provide some examples of those communities for you.

So this is Cherry Creek, Colorado, where they allow three to 12 stories in height for a maximum height of 45 to 150 feet.

This is the south end of Charlotte, North Carolina.

They allow 50 feet to 130 feet in height, but they also incorporate the bonus structure, which um we are requesting as well, where they allow a maximum height of 75 feet to 300 feet.

300 feet is a little crazy, we're not trying to get that high, but we did take their structure into consideration when um drafting our bonus ordinance.

And then the last example I have is from Asheville, North Carolina.

They have a minimum height requirement of 24 feet, similar to our district now, where we have a minimum height of two stories, and a maximum height of 75 feet to 265 feet.

So the third step in our research was that we did reach out to a handful of developers and architects to get their feedback on development trends that they're seeing currently.

Um the main takeaways that we took are that over time building heights have increased largely to accommodate um higher floor to ceiling heights.

Um, this is due to the specific uses that we're seeing, um, which can range from class A style offices, um large-scale office complexes are not in demand anymore.

But we have heard that little boutique-style offices with amenities similar to hotels and apartment complexes, things like that, um, those are in demand.

So this is highlighting the feedback for each use type that we received from those developers and architects.

For floor to ceiling heights for commercial, um, they're seeing an average of 16 to 22 feet.

Office, 12 to 16 feet, residential 10 to 13 feet for an ideal building height of 75 feet.

Once you get over 75 feet, you start kind of creeping into that high-rise building code, which is a lot more of a substantial um building request than it would be under 75 feet.

So we took those numbers and we built a concept development.

Um, this is highlighting three floors of office.

In no way do we anticipate that every building is gonna come in with this much office space.

It's purely just for visualization.

Um but if you took a four-story development, ground floor commercial at 20 feet, you put three floors of office above at 16 feet each, that brings this building to 68 feet.

It's only four stories.

Our code does allow four stories right now, but because it exceeds 55 feet, they would have to go through the entire rezoning process instead of just going through a design review, um, which is a little bit extra time.

Um so just some terminology before I move on to the next couple of slides.

Uh, a setback is how far a building is from the property line, and a stepback is how far a building needs to be pushed back once it reaches a certain height.

Um, these are two different visualizations of what a stepback could look like.

Um, you have your really drastic staircase method on the bottom, which you don't see very often, and then you have a more um design mindful option on the top.

All right, so these are two real world examples of those terms.

Optima and Scottsdale is a great example of what a stepback could look like for a design.

And then you have epicenter on the bottom, which is just showing how far a building is set back from the property line.

All right, so these next couple of slides are just going to be some renderings of what a development could look like.

We wanted to show you what it could look like at 55 feet allowed today, and what it could look like if we increased the height.

So this top image here is a 55-foot building, three stories, 52,800 square feet of parking, 9,000 square foot ground floor commercial, and 43,000 square foot of office and amenities.

The image on the bottom is that building increased to 72 feet and five stories with 72,600 square feet of office and amenities.

And what that development could look like in a larger context.

And then the second example we have, we wanted to showcase one of the bonus eligible parcels.

The top option is 55 feet.

It's a four-story building on Vaughn and Oak.

The parking is 82,000 square feet.

It has ground floor commercial at 18,600 square feet, 225,000 square feet of residential.

If you took that building and you increased it by three stories, you would be at seven stories, 92 feet tall.

That extra two feet is allowed for height encroachments for parapets per code.

The parking would increase to 128,000.

The ground floor commercial would remain the same at 18,600.

And the residential would increase to 335,000.

Both of these options, we did incorporate a row of townhomes as well down the smaller stretch of oak.

And the top image here is showing that development in a larger context at 55 feet, the bottom in a larger context at 92 feet.

All right, so this is kind of where we're at in the process.

It's currently gone through an RDC and a planning commission study session.

We did take this to the Chamber of Commerce.

It's also gone through recommendation public hearings with both the redevelopment commission and the planning commission.

And now we are at study session before you.

The next and final step will be a public hearing with you.

So just a little bit of feedback on those steps and how the request was perceived.

For the redevelopment commission was the first step we took.

The commissioners were generally supportive of the increase in height.

We did receive a question on have we considered the distance from Gilbert Road for bonus eligibility versus property lines touching Gilbert Road.

That's where that caveat comes into the ordinance that I kind of touched on a little earlier, where the planning manager can make a determination on whether it's eligible.

How will increased height impact older buildings structurally?

How will parking be managed?

There were three residents that wanted to provide feedback, largely in opposition to this request.

Their feedback was that the height change should be managed through the redevelopment plan and that we should leave the 200 to 300 block of Gilbert Road as is and not include it as part of this request.

The planning commission study session feedback was largely concerned with parking.

A lot of questions were why is this request really necessary?

They wanted to know the feedback from the redevelopment commission, and if there were any specific users driving the request.

Again, keep 55 feet on Gilbert Road, allow taller buildings elsewhere, and concerns with parking.

So since there has been a lot of concerns with parking, I just wanted to touch on parking for a moment.

Our parking process is not going to change.

How we handle parking in the heritage district now, you need to be a non-residential use.

You need to be within 1,000 feet of parking, your parcel does.

And the parking is only available as we have the inventory for it.

So again, that parking process is not going to change.

If a development comes in and they need to off-site their parking for any reason, if we don't have that parking available and they can't accommodate their parking on site, they can't have the increase in height.

So from there we did take it to recommendation hearings.

The first with the redevelopment commission.

The feedback there was that it could possibly be beneficial to increase that bonus height to 110 feet or 120 feet versus 90 feet, just to kind of offset the increase in construction costs that you'll run into once you reach that high-rise building code.

It could be done through maybe a third-tier option, maybe a choose one and a choose two instead of one or the other.

Or it could be discussed later during the renewal of the redevelopment plan in 2028.

We did have two residents again speaking opposition at that time.

But the redevelopment commission did recommend approval four to zero.

From there, we took it to planning commission public hearing.

The feedback was largely the same as study session.

There were two nay votes, but ultimately it was recommended approval five to two.

Those two nay votes, uh, we're really just concerned that the height increase just isn't necessary.

So again, just to summarize what it is that we're requesting is an increase of height within the HVC zoning district.

Again, just HVC, not the entirety of the heritage district.

And why is this necessary?

It creates a more streamlined and quicker process for applicants that are coming in, um, largely applicants like the co lab and the university building that are four stories.

We're just trying to make the process a little more streamlined for them and bring the code into better alignment with those developments.

Um it does have positive economic impacts and it meets current development trends that we're seeing.

And I am available for your questions.

Thank you for listening to me talk for so long.

Thank you.

Questions, uh comments.

Councilmember Kaprowski.

Thank you, Mayor.

Kristen, when you showed the graphic that had the two circles and then options on the left or on the right.

The you you can pick one item from the left, and those were really, really, really good items, but they are also very expensive items.

And on the right, it's only choose two, and these seem like you could really get away with not spending a lot from a from a development or not getting what you expect from that.

So could we make this right-hand side more of a choose three, or is there like a minimum standard for what those would be?

Um sure.

So council member Kaprowski and Mayor Anderson, um, we could change it to choose three if that's what the council decides.

Um we do have specific criteria that we have currently assigned to these.

Um open space and landscaping is 10 percent.

Art is a certain percentage ranging from a half percent to one percent, depending on your construction costs.

Um public amenities is rideshare spaces, EV spaces, or um at the discretion of the planning team when applications come in.

Uh stepbacks are kind of just divine design based.

That one doesn't have specific standards to it.

And sustainability needs to be lead certified eligible.

Okay.

Um yeah, I feel like even with those, I would be more comfortable with uh choose three on the right, just because the ones on the left, I would I'd want to encourage those more because there's such a high value to that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council member Bongi Vone.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um this might be a you question or it might be your Chris question.

Can we is this an all or nothing proposal, or can we say um any building that's in front of the um the water tower cannot be 75 feet?

Can we limit that?

Is that possible?

Uh yeah, so Mayor Anderson, Councilmember Bongiovanni, um it is not set in stone right now.

That's why we're at a study session.

I understand that, but I'm saying can we can we make this change and have a zone where we will not allow 75 feet?

Uh if we went that route, I would probably do a distance radius, like anything within X amount of feet from the water tower isn't eligible for an increase in height or even parcels that are adjacent to the water tower property, something along those lines.

I don't think we want to be known as a council that buried the water towel.

Cool.

Thank you.

Councilmember Torgeson.

I'm just curious, a few slides before this.

You had a uh about income, you know, revenues.

Right there.

Um as I'm looking at that, I see a sales tax revenue attached to high density housing.

How is that?

Can you please repeat that question?

I'm having a hard time hearing you, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

On the top row, residential, low, medium, and high density.

I see zero for basically sales tax on two of them on high density.

I see 18,000.

How does that play out?

Sure.

So I'm gonna ask Mike if he can please come up and answer that question.

Uh council member Torgson.

So when you're talking about the the just the coloration, so the the brown bar represents the sales, the I'm sorry, the I'm just make sure I'm speaking right here.

So the brown bar is the value parakre by building type in the blue bar is the sales sales tax revenue estimates for both of them.

So when you're looking at the housing components, uh for this purpose of this study, it says zero on there, but you know, people spend money and we collect sales tax off of those like online purchase and other things, but for the way this analysis was done, if that's what you're trying to say, why is it zero?

Am I or am I not listening?

Basically, yeah, I'm trying to understand why low and medium is zero and high density is eighteen thousand.

Yeah, I think it it's relating back to to that aspect of the the occupants and how they're looking at the they're not capturing that online, I believe, sales tax collection components of a single family resident in this analysis.

Um when you kind of look at the you and this kind of when you're looking at this chart as you get down towards the towards the bottom numbers, the the medium higher density, which we're kind of trying to lean toward within the heritage district, and and uh with the fact that um sales tax is such a large uh you know funding source for our for our general fund, um that's where you can really see those those numbers come up significantly from that sales tax perspective.

Yeah.

But medium densities up to 25 units an acre and high densities up to 50.

I don't know how we have something that shows zero when it should be half that.

Hi, my name is Sarah Radbray, I'm the tax compliance manager.

So to answer part of your question, the way that this analysis was done was they took all of the classifications and the possibilities and mixed them into one.

So the number that's behind that partially represents residential rental, which is no longer accessible, right?

But also part of it represents commercial and represents the area in which they live.

So it for example, if you did like a mixed piece, the commercial rental is still taxable.

So while residential went away, short term did not, and commercial did not.

So it represents a mix of those three.

But even though it's under residential, it's it is partially residential, which is why it was not counted in the first two.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Kristen.

Look forward to seeing it come back.

With that, I'll adjourn the study session and we'll reconvene in uh regular session here in just a couple minutes.