Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. My name is Eric Taly, vice chair. I would like to call this regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Uh would you please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for all. Thank you. Wood City Clerk Terresa Purrington, please call roll. Commissioner Munoz Morris here. Commissioner Flores here. Commissioner Kulie

here. Commissioner Khan here. Commissioner Jorgensson here. Vice Chair Tully here. Okay. At this time, we will hear any uh public comments for items not on tonight's agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and if action by the commission is necessary may uh may be scheduled for a future meeting. City clerk, do we have any public comment? No, we do not.

All right. Very good. Um consent uh we'll move on to consent. Consent calendar items consists of matters deemed routine and non-controversial by [snorts] staff and are typically acted upon with one vote. However, if a member of the commission wishes to pull an item uh for individual consideration, please say so now. [snorts] No. [sighs] All right. City clerk, do we have any comments on the consent items? No, we do not. All right. Well, before we vote, do any commissioners have any comments on consent? All right. Do I have a motion and a second to approve consent?

Move you to approve consent. I have a second. I'll second. All right, madame clerk, please call roll on the motion. Commissioner [snorts] Kulie, yes. Commissioner Munos Morris, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Vice Chair Tolley, yes. Motion passes.

Okay. Next, we have the consideration of the minutes from October 22nd, 2025. Uh oh, that's the consent agenda. I'm sorry. That's why it wasn't highlighted. I'm sorry. Uh okay, on to the public hearings. Uh [snorts] any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city of St. Louis Abyispo or [snorts] uh or prior to the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Uh please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Uh the first item uh the public hearing item before us is the review of a project designed for phase 4, the R3SP zone portion of the Avala Ranch development plan.

[snorts] Um, I would like to ask each each commissioner for their exparte disclosures of contact with anyone who has provided information to commissioners not on the record so that information may be used in part of their decision making process. Does [snorts] anyone have any exparte? Would uh contract planner uh John Rickenbach please present the report? Hi John. How are you? I'm doing fine. Good.

Thank you Mr. Vice Chair, everybody. [snorts] Today we're going to be going through the Aval Ranch project, the R3 component, and um give you an overview of the project uh and what uh the key conditions are that that we're looking at and then ultimately the applicant team uh is here with their own presentation. So, with that, I'll get right on to it. First, let's start with the recommendation here. Uh the recommendation for planning commissions to adopt the draft draft resolution approving the proposed site design and layout for the R3SP component of the Aval Ranch project to be developed within phase 4 of the Aval Ranch development plan including 194 units. Approval of a vesting tenative track map 3245. Approval of a sign exception to allow residential monument sign in the design style and location proposed. Incorporating the recommendations of the architectural review commission and incorporating modifications to conditions of approval as recommended by staff based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval. So let's back up a little background for those not too familiar with Avala. Avala ranch project was first approved in 2017. It has a lot of components a development plan development agreement investing tenative trackmap and a certified final EIR approved the entire thing. Overall, the project was found consistent with the city's policies, including the community design guidelines, zoning, and general plan. A lot of things have happened uh with regard to the project over the last few years. Uh this is the litany of the list, but essentially we've got phases. There's six phases and phases one through five are all completed or were approved and under different states of development with the exception now of phase 4 uh which is being considered and in an earlier action uh these phases could go in any order as long as the conditions were u covered what would

have been required in the earlier phases. So here we are toward the end of the Aval Ranch project. Overall, it's been 400 500 odd units have been approved. Tonight, we're talking about 194 units. So, context here, it's the southern part of the city, the southwest corner of the airport area specific plan that includes Avala Ranch, west of the airport. a little more detail. We're looking at the upper right northeastern corner of Avala Ranch uh which is the R3SP component within the context of the Aval Ranch uh development plan. Same graphic only shown with the development that's either been approved in the earlier phases to the west. Uh there's also a large park, a 9.5 acre park that was previously approved just south of the phase 4 portion of the project, which is again in the northeast corner of Avala Ranch. It's about 12 acres, a little under 12 acres. 194 residential condominium units are proposed. And the the key ask that's not already accounted for in the development plan is a residential monument sign exception. Get into that in a bit. I won't go through all this in great detail, but the point of this slide is to show the differences or the similarities between what's being proposed and what's allowed or required under various city regulatory requirements. Uh in general, it's it's pretty much aligning with in terms of the parking terms of the height the building heights setbacks. There are some minor deviations to the building heights and setbacks which I'll go through in a bit and u but essentially very similar to what's being uh what's required is what's being proposed. Uh the overall site plan I just use this as a reference slide but what this shows and I think the applicant team will go into more depth on this. There are six different types of buildings. There are

67 different buildings overall and the design of each is a bit different and they all include multiple uh dwelling units. There's a central park within this site. It's not part of the project. It's a previously approved park, but it is um integral to the development of this area. Just a couple overview slides. I think the applicant will touch on these just to give you a feel for the what it looks like or what it will look like. Uh this is looking over that park into the you get a feel for the density of the project and um we're talking about units that have three stories here. Again, this is along Jesperson looking more or less eastward across into the project. And this is looking from a roundabout uh which from the southwestern corner uh into the project site. Again, the density shows very clearly in in these slides. I alluded to the different buildings. I won't go into detail. I'll allow the applicant team to go through that. But as I say, there are six different building types and these are elevations which are in the packet and within your agenda report. This is an important slide because this is what the Avalar Ranch development plan requires for R3 and R4 in terms of setbacks and uh and lot configurations. And the the only change to this that the applicant proposes is um the front and corner setback standard change from 15 ft to 10 is what they ask. Staff supports that change in order to better meet housing and design goals. Importantly, that 10-ft setback is consistent with recently updated citywide R3 standards and so is consistent with the overall zoning in the city. So, let's talk about the monument sign exception. um as proposed and I'll get into the revision to that proposal in a bit. They have one externally illuminated monument sign 12 square feet in in size reflecting the Spanish

colonial architecture of the proposed development. It's in a location that's different than shown in the Avalar Ranch development plan and would replace one of those three signs that are prescribed within the plan. Um the the rationale being this is in a more logical intersection that is in a better uh viewing position for the entire overall development and does not otherwise create any other issues there. But there are issues with a sign in general. Monument signs are not allowed in residential zones unless there's an exception approved subject to findings and subject to ARC review. The development plan, as I say, allows monument signs but with an agrarian theme at three different major roundabouts. This one does not have an agrarian theme. A sign exception had been made for previous phase the R4 development to match the architecture of that development. So there is precedent for that and findings can be made for that. Um and there is flexibility allowed within the development plan or in the development agreement for Avala Ranch that allows some flexibility in such standards. U the findings that are necessary are included in the draft planning commission resolution. So this just goes to the overall where are the signs within Avala Ranch and they're either gateway signs that already have been signs within the R4 development which um are in the northern part of Avala Ranch and here we are talking about one at the corner of Wright Brothers Way one of the proposed roads and Jaspersonson uh to announce this project from the southwestern corner. So this project was subject to ARC review and it was uh reviewed by the ARC in November. Um they found the project was consistent with the required uh mission architecture within the Aval Ranch development plan. The proposed Spanish colonial architecture was consistent with the intent. They did make some recommendations with respect to some architectural design details which have since been incorporated into

the project for your consideration by the applicant team and they'll likely highlight that in their in their uh in their presentation. But the did make these recommendations. They wanted better articulation on all four building sides, not just on essentially three as most had been shown previously. Balcony designs uh should should be designed to for more privacy at least 50% uh opacity. The window shutters should appear to be operable at least appear to be if not actually operable again design details. U more Spanish colonial elements than were shown originally should have been incorporated in their recommendation. And then other issues, backflow preventers should have reduced visibility and they asked if possible if a direct pedestrian connection to Jesperson be made by uh via a special aquatic feature. It's really a drainage feature that goes through the site on the western side of the site. So those were the recommendations and um the applicant and staff responded to that within your agenda report in some detail. I'll hit on some of the highlights here with respect to the foresighted articulation. You can see some of the differences what they have now proposed um to create a little more interest architecturally uh within the development. Some of the buildings which were otherwise relatively flat um balcony privacies, most balconies already had the 50% screening, but the remainder were revised to address ARC comments. And there is condition of approval number six which essentially memorializes the ARC's recommendations with all these issues but just highlighting that one here. The window shutters more detail is now provided um to provide the the architectural look of being operable. Again consistent with their direction. The monument sign was redesigned. I mean the the original proposal was the one on top. the revised

designs, the one on the bottom, which does better reflect the architecture, the colors, materials, the overall look of the development itself within the area, not an agrarian theme, but there's been precedent to approving projects monument signs without an agrarian theme with the rationale being that it is more consistent with the development itself within the uh exist, you know, within the actual what's being proposed. the backflow preer visibility was addressed. Um and again requirements in the conditions four and six would ensure that the screening and painting and the the visual prominence is reduced. Um and then there's the issue of the pedestrian connection. Uh staff did review that possibility. There is steep topography between the proposed development and the drainage feature and for that matter Jespersonson road which would require some difficulties in achieving ADA requirements and more to the point there are other ways to access the central park within the site via other roadways that are not too difficult to do and so this was not seen as a necessary uh improvement or even a feasible one given some site constraints within that area. There's a development for the overall Aval Ranch project which was approved in 2017 and this is an important document that's helpful for all of your consideration. It provides the overall project direction, key direction on the intent. Does allow some flexibility in project implementation including some of the requirements and standards, but it does provide performance standards uh among other things to address energy use and it does work with in conjunction with the development plan and for that matter the city's uh zoning requirements. One important aspect of that is the call for um their affordable housing requirements. within the development agreement it called for 18 moderate income and 12 workforce unit. That is what is being proposed. Um the proposed

site plan does show the location of these units in 10 different building and again consistent with the intent of the DA which did specify the portions of the site which should include those units essentially the southern portions of the site both in the southwest southeastern portions of the site. This tables here not to go through in great detail but to show the differences between what is being proposed and what is required either in the DA or within the development plan. Again, very similar. There are some small differences but not enough uh to make a big difference terms of what's allowed under the flexibility requirements of the development agreement, but essentially what's being proposed 194 units is actually three units shy of what the DA could allow. The unit sizes are essentially similar in terms of range. Actually, a slightly higher range and a slightly higher average size, but the inclusionary requirements are identical to in what's being proposed and what is otherwise required in the DA. In terms of regulatory consistency, the Avalanche development plan was originally found to be consistent with the airport area specific plan and general plan when it was first approved in 2017. The development plan does augment city zoning requirements. So where the development plan is silent, zoning does come into play. The development agreement as I say allows flexibility in implementing some of these design standards which in some cases are slightly different. So some interpretation has been needed for the previous approvals and this one as well. The applicant's proposal for the R3 standards uh relative to setbacks are consistent with the intent of the ranch uh development plan, the DA and the zoning regulations. This is just a repeat of an earlier slide showing where the the uh consistency is with respect to setbacks, building heights and lot coverage. And the only difference being of any note is the slight difference in setbacks which

I had previously mentioned which they had asked for and staff supports that as being consistent with zoning requirements elsewhere in the city. Terms of energy use, the development plan does have energy provisions. I mean the development agreement does and sets performance goals and of course the development agreement was approved in 2017. So it has lots of references to the 2016 standards and then to the 2019 standards but here we are coming on to 2026 and the project now is going to be required to comply with the new 2026 energy codes which are more um rigorous than what was otherwise required back in 2017 or 2019. So that's that's their intent and that's what they'll have to comply with and that's actually uh memorialized within the conditions. The project would use all electric appliances uh consistent with carbon neutrality goals includes rooftop solar consistent with the California energy code and as I say will comply with the city's new 2026 energy code. terms of SQA compliance, the Avala ranch final IR was certified in 2017 for the entirety of the Avalar Ranch because this project is essentially consistent with with what was approved then um the EIR covers this project and so there's no further SQL review required for this project. There are a few minor modifications to conditions that when looked at closely and these are mostly utilities and engineering conditions. Uh staff worked with the applicant team u to make small uh modifications which don't affect the intent of those conditions but do make them more implementable and more consistent with what's being proposed. Um those conditions I'll highlight those here in a moment. Uh one of them is to remove one engineering condition that would have tied uh the the building to the final map for the condominium aspect

of the project which isn't really it's not necessary to do and is and otherwise is is is covered elsewhere within the project's um conditions. I won't go into great detail on this one, but this is a lengthy condition was lengthy before and still is lengthy uh with respect to how residential units are to be meter water meters for the condominium units. Um and this goes into some detail which I'll I'll set aside for the moment, but if you have questions, we certainly will be able to answer those in some detail. There are other small modifications to other utilities conditions relative to the uh on-site improvements rather than final maps uh showing and the improvement plans showing the the requirements with respect to the different utilities. Again, more of a housekeeping kind of cleanup here. A new utilities condition will be added uh with respect to u the surface utility location for the paint or or some other indicator for all private recycled water lines within the public rights away. Again, this is uh more um some detail with respect to implementing some of the utilities within the greater project. With that, I'll just hand I'll leave this slide up about the recommendation and uh just want to remind all you folks that the applicant team does have a presentation which will likely go into more detail on some of the design aspects. With that, I hand it back over to you.

Thank you, John. Um fellow commissioners, any questions for staff at this time? Yeah. Yes, sir. I might just have a quick one. Um the monument signs is the updated version, modified version the result essentially of uh city feedback and so so the applicant was the top one was the originally proposed one. Yeah. Yes. It's directly a response to the ARC's feedback on what the monument sign should include.

Okay. is the do you know if the removal of like the I don't know what to call it the pergola or gazebo element of it was because it's now being proposed to be placed on a roundabout and it would like what was is there a reason why it just seems like I get the the design element but it seems like it's a simplification of what we originally had approved and I was just wondering if there was a logic behind that. Uh well first of all the the monument sign hadn't been originally approved. There was no approval of the monument sign. It's just that's what they had proposed the original proposal. Okay. Exactly. Um I'll let the applicant when they come up speak to that question. They may have some Thank you. insight. Any other questions for staff at this time?

Okay. Um the applicant uh has 10 minutes um for public testimony and may reserve any portion of that 10 minutes for response. Uh please let the city clerk know if you would like any if you would like to reserve time for that response.

Great. Um thank you John and Cali. And I also want to acknowledge uh staff that has reviewed and collaborated with us to make this project even better than you see u before you today. So um good evening chair uh vice chair acting chair uh commissioners. My name is Carol Florence. I'm a principal planner with Oasis Associates and I uh yeah I'm not ready. You can leave it on that. Thanks John for being my Vanna White tonight. Um I'm representing the applicant Trumart Homes and I this evening I'm accompanied by my clients uh they're to my left behind me uh Dana Gillespie, Dan Garson and Justin Allison as well as the project architect Vadim Zenko with MDA and Vadim and I will be making a brief presentation allowing rest of the time for conversation with you. Next slide. So, as John elaborated, um, and I should say while he's going to that next slide, I want to thank you for reviewing our submitt, um, as well as the staff report. So our request this evening is uh to adopt the resolution approving the site design and the layout of the multifamily project that incorporates the ARC recommendations and based upon the findings and subject to and I I really like saying this next part 84 mitigation measures and 130 conditions of approval and uh the new 30 plus or minus as revised conditions of approval um that John introduced this evening and of course based upon the airport area specific plan, the Avalor ranch development plan, u the development agreement and the community design guidelines. Next slide please.

Um very quickly, Avala Ranch is a six-phase project. As you can see, phase 4 R3 is in the northeast corner. That's about 11 and a half acres. And again this also depicts uh the other phases in the project uh which includes the R2 uh product which was in phases one through three. There was the R1 single family residence in phase five and then uh phase three R4 multifamily which included essentially two projects. You know, one thing I'm hoping that the planning commission's had an opportunity to do is to visit the site because you can actually see the progress that has occurred and the neighborhoods that are being established and people using the parks and the multi-purpose trailly uh what we aimed for. This next slide again is a summer summary, excuse me, of the entitlements, but I realize they think that all of you were with me in 2024 when you reviewed the phase 3 R4 project. So, I won't belabor this other than to say uh council again approved the the entire avalanche project and certified the EIR in 2017. Fast forward nine years and here we are um looking at uh the second to last phase of this project because there's one phase left and that's uh phase six. Next slide. Um, this certainly doesn't capture all of the off-site improvements that have occurred um nor the on-site, but um you you know about Buckley Extension and now it goes through to Hyera. Certainly, you've noticed the widening of HLA and there's um a number of various intersection improvements that have taken place. And then you of course you

have the on-site improvements that include the trail and the pedestrian bridges um that connect ultimately all of the six parks and open space. And there will be additional improvements. Uh two that come to mind is uh widening of Buckley Road which I think everyone uh at this point feels like it's a little narrow and so we'll widen that make it feel a little more comfortable. And then my favorite project that we are working with Calrans on is um you visualize this southbound LOVR ramp onto 101. We'll have a ramp meter which I believe will be our first ramp meter in the city. Such excitement. Um this next slide is the home construction and it's been ongoing for the R2 units. You can see that there's 170 um out of the 297 that are either purchased or occupied to date with 50 additional under construction. Um the phase 3 R4 apartments and the phase 5 R1 single family will be coming online soon. this next slide. Um because you are also approving besting tenative track map 3245 for condominium purposes. Uh its origin was track 369 which included the four I'll call base lots. And as you know, um, a condo project is simply a residential common interest development that blends individual ownership with collective stewardship, typically via a homeowners association for uh, common areas. It was interesting uh listening to public radio this morning that the state is now pursuing and taking a hard look at some of the laws surrounding

condos and that 10-year period and trying to modify that in some form or fashion because I think there's a recognition that for sale condos is a really good component of the housing that is so needed um in California. Again, this next side is the overall project. 194 units, um, six building types, six [clears throat] unit types, twocar garages, um, and common open space and birthday park in the middle. And I'd like to hand it over to Vadim. He'll go through some of the architectural sides. And then I'll be back. Thank you.

Thank you, Carol. Uh, thank you, planning commission. And, uh, thank you to our clients, um, for the opportunity to be here. Uh slide we'll start with slide number nine. Um this perspective highlights birthday park uh which we position centrally so it serves both town homes gathering uh space in a shared amenity uh for the residents. I also want to note that we engaged a uh CAS accessibility consultant who reviewed the site layouts and the units with us to ensure accessibility requirements were thoughtfully incorporated through this phase. Uh the next slide um this slide shows the perspective of the duplex buildings as seen from Jespersonson Road. [snorts] There's a generous landscape buffer between the street and the buildings which creates a comfortable and attractive frontage. You can also see the multi-use trail that runs along the side of the project and continues throughout the site providing a strong pedestrian and bicycle connection for the neighborhood. [clears throat] Next slide. This slide shows the streetscape elevations for the R3 neighborhood, illustrating how the duplexes and town homes appear from uh both Wright Brothers and Jesperson Road. We intentionally alternated the building types to create architectural variety along the street. You can see the difference in massing, roof lines, color pallets, which gives the neighborhood a more residential rhythm and avoids repetitive elevations. Um, next slide please. Um, affordable housing is a key component uh of the Avala Ranch project and so too for the R3 units. As the slide notes, there will be 18 for sale moderate income units and 12 workforce units in the project um in fulfillment of the requirements of the

development agreement. Uh in the next slide, um the following architectural details will be added to ensure that the project represents four-sided architecture. Um as you could see on the left side that was the uh original and on the right side it shows us addressing the raised balconies, uh additional shutters, um hardware addition to the shutters, trim added above the windows, and horizontal trim added above the garage. Thank you. Thanks.

Thanks, Vadim. Uh you've seen this slide and we just wanted to give you a comprehensive overview of all the signage. There's a gateway sign at the uh corner of Buckley and Vachel. There's another proposed sign that will be at Buckley and Jesperson, which is kind of mid slide, if you will. And then the two monument signs at the top left were um as you well know uh part of the phase 3 R4 multifamily. And speaking of the project signage, uh here's a perspective of uh the town home buildings that you can see essentially from Jesperson and um venture into uh the cluster of units. And this now includes the community signage. You can see the foreground is the roundabout, but this is the community signage for the Briea neighborhood, which we think is at a a key entry point. So, it it not only um establishes this particular neighborhood, but it also has access either side of the sign and through into the project. So, so this next slide, and I'll speak really quickly, um, depicts the initial Bissa uh, neighborhood sign that was presented to the ARC. Uh, we thought it was a handsome arrangement of stuccoed walls topped with an overhead trellis and flowering vine. We thought it complemented the building architecture and made for really quite an outstanding um, entry feature. So this next slide is our alternative signage because based on the ARC comments, the design team went back um and tried to respond to um the recommendations. It takes certain other building components uh and incorporates them into a central design feature and

continues this theme with a terracotta cap and ledge. Um, frankly, we believe that both designs were wellconceived and appropriate for the project. Uh, not to put the onus on the planning commission, but I'm going to leave it up to you all to decide which side. So, with that said, that concludes our presentation. Um, we're available to address your comments and questions. I want to thank you for your time and consideration and support. It's lovely to see you all. I'll be back yet again for a sixth time um next year hopefully, but uh before that have a lovely holiday. Thank you. [clears throat]

Thank you for that. Uh fellow commissioners, any questions for the applicant at this time? Yes, sir. Your mic's on.

So, um [clears throat] it's good to see an evolving and maturing project. It's um in a lot of ways it's and to see extra attention to being sure we're up to date with the volume of solar panels and a whole bunch of things where you know they weren't really required way back in 2017 or they weren't in the same way. I was wondering about one of those other kinds of things that wasn't really ready for prime time back in 2017. That would be electric bikes. And I can see you've got um outlets 2 220 240 uh uh volt outlets in the garages. So that's certainly a place they could be charged, but I'm not sure the guidelines, the design guidelines are really settled for electric bikes. They've got to have power. They've got to have security. They've got to be accessible, you know, to pass and everything like that. But um uh are you satisfied that uh people will find a place for their electric bikes and this will all work out?

Thank you for that for that question. Um, we weren't quite prepared, but I'm going to ask um, Dana to address. Look around. I thought someone might bike in to [laughter] Hi. Good evening. Nice to see you all. Yes, Dana Gillespie. Uh, with Trumark Homes in Avala Ranch. The site plan does currently address ebike, the bike sharing program. It is a requirement in Avalon. I don't know if John is pulling up something specifically, but the package that is under review does incorporate ebikes specifically into the site plan and uh disperses them throughout the site. Bike sharing does. The bike sharing. Yeah. And ebike sharing. Yeah. Not the individual bikes that people may have, but Yeah.

Got it. Yep. So, people that have their own bikes will make do is what you're saying. That's probably true. the the individual garages are designed to have a bike parking space. I don't know if somebody else from our our team can respond to that. I didn't see that. Okay. I didn't see that. Yeah, there is a dedicated bike space as to the E component. I don't know if Justin, you can speak to that. The whole team tonight. I didn't I didn't see an elevation.

Yes. Good evening, Justin. Allison Trumark. Um, we don't necessarily have a a ebike parking spot in each garage because it's not a condition or a code issue, but we do have outlets in the garage throughout the garage um that people could, you know, plug their bikes into if they want to power them. Yeah. Good. I It's just that uh when we're I certainly when I visited the site, we were talking about this before. It's uh close to Trader Joe's. It's close to a bunch of things and I think we'll see much more development that way. And I suspect that electric bikes will prove really popular for Yeah, definitely. I think you see the trend going already. Um, we hope that people utilize the electric program that we have. Yeah.

That's located in one of the parks. It will, you know, really help that. Good. Thank you. Yeah. Well, any other questions for the applicant? Yes, sir. Oh, okay. No, I wanted to follow up on your question about what happened to the arbor and why. I kind of liked it and don't want to redesign the sign, but it is part of the mission to have arbors and things like that. So, just curious.

So, is that a question? Yes. Oh, well that was our first design and so we thought we would respond to ARC's recommendation ergo the second design. So the second design didn't necessarily lend itself to uh the overhead structure and the vine. Um okay. I thought it would look nice and although the new sign is much taller than the old sign was, it would be

you wouldn't see it over. I I I don't know I if as the applicants we have a preference because we were trying to respond to ARC's recommendations and again not to make it difficult for you tonight to have to make design decisions but have a good time. We'll we'll accept anything that you tell us because ARC didn't say they didn't like the arbor. No. Okay.

Yeah. Exactly. And just to clarify, what ARC asked for was to have the sign reflect more um of the Spanish colonial elements than they thought the other sign did, but it's certainly within your purview to go with whatever you think is best in this situation. Just quickly, u just for the record, are we to assume that you have no objections to any of the other conditions that are in the uh draft?

Um, no. And I'm sorry if I didn't make that uh clear, Commissioner Culie. Um, we took the time and staff worked with us uh to make those modifications. So, we're accepting um of the 30 plus or minus additional conditions as modified this evening. So, thank you for that clarification. Great. So, with the exception of asking us to take a look at the sign, you're in agreement with all the other conditions. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Because it allows us the flexibility, I think, in many cases to work with staff to get to I think the end game, the end goal. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh Carol, I have a question. Th this sign, is it um it's consistent with all the other monument signs of the development, right? The one that the ARC had suggested.

Um I'm going to say that the gateway signs um look very different and they certainly reflect uh more of an agrarian look. But ARC and planning commission when we brought forward the phase um 3R4 uh those two separate projects that were both multifamily um felt it was important to have uh recognition if you will of those particular neighborhoods. So I don't think anyone had a problem with that even though it's not technically quote unquote allowed by ordinance but um if you can make the findings they are. So you made it for that particular multifamily and we just thought it would be important to do the same in this particular case.

So I guess my point is is all the signs consistent in architectural style. Um the gateway signs are uh but the two um other multi- previous multifamily uh are very much um complementing the building architecture. And if you recall that building architecture for those two projects was much more contemporary than we're looking at today.

And just to add a little bit to that um one of the complexities of Avala Ranch is that five different architectural styles are allowed. And so it depends on where they could have made any of these in different styles. The sign issue comes up because it hadn't been anticipated. There was an anticipation that be appropriate somewhere within the project and it located those in the development plan of an agrarian theme. As this evolved, it became clear that um that's fine as far as gateway signs and that's why those two gateway signs at the bottom of this graphic look the way they do and they are consistent. But with the certain higher density developments, there is a recognition that those that there could be monument signs to introduce those products which have completely different architectural styles and that's okay, but that's why they're not consistent with each other. They reflect the actual development themselves.

Okay. Thank you, John.

Could [snorts] could I just quickly ask what the agrarian theme is because I'm not I don't think I fully understand what it is. I can get a sense by looking at the two monument signs here at the bottom. But do you have is there like a cliffnotes version of it that we can familiarize ourselves with? Within the development plan itself, there's a graphic in there that showed a conceptual idea of what agrarian theme would mean. I think the intent originally was this is on the edge of town, there's agriculture just to the south. Do something that reflects the heritage of the area. But um and and those signs that were you know that were previously discussed were reviewed by um ARC as well um that were part of other uh aspects of the project. So the issue is things could go into an agrarian theme but and none of it was really specified. That's why there's some discretion here.

Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? Madame clerk, do we have anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? No, we do not. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Last chance. No. All right. Oh, yes, sir. I just like to make a comment. I too like the arbor above the sign. There's something about it that I really I liked about it. Um, I'm putting in my two cents in. That's it. Would you like to make a motion with including the arbor? So, we would include the arbor with a new sign. Is that the thought?

With the sign consistent with the recommendation of the ARC? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll make that motion that we approve this development per the way it is written on the staff report and that we uh add an arbor to the sign that was approved by the ARC. Do I have a second? Can I before we do can I just make I think we heard during I don't know if it was staff presentation or the applicant that the arbor was not really consistent with the new design. Oh um and that was one of the reasons for not including it. So should we consider that before we move down this path and could we maybe hear what the applicant has to say about that? Yeah, if that's possible.

That's good. I need a little exercise. Thank you. Um, they are what I would say somewhat two distinctly different signs.

Um, so I'm not sure. I would have to look at how we could um apply, if you will, that arbor and realize it sits behind the sign, right? So, it's not necessarily on top, but we might change some of the proportions of um the central portion of that to make the arbor portion of it proportionate, if you will. Right? So, I think if I brought it back to you with the arbor, you would see some minor tweaks to the overall height of that central element just to make sure that again it's proportional. But but we can do that.

So I would amend my motion to say [laughter] work with staff on implementing an arbor into the sign and it doesn't need to come back to the planning commission. Unless you want to see it. [laughter] Uh we don't. Well, I do, but we'll see it when it's built. I'll send it to you. And commissioner, just to clarify your motion, I believe. Do we also have some amendments to the conditions that were made postation of the of the agenda packet?

That's correct. There's a handful and I alluded to those. Um, we have those memorialized within the presentation and also in one place um that if you want to make a motion that says with the updated uh conditions, we'll know what that means. Yeah. I'll also amend my motion to say include the updated comm um conditions that were um in the package. Then I would second that motion as amended.

Before we vote, may I just So, first of all, I I just want since I brought this up, I feel like we're going to start beef with the ARC and that was not my intention here. Um, second of all, and I know that I'm kind of getting into like purely subjective realm here, but it it I'm I'm going to be supportive of the motion because I think it's a good blend of it, but I mean I mean, if if we're just going on opinion, to me, the top one, the original proposed one, just it's just nicer. It seems more sophisticated. Like I understand that the bottom one is more in line with the design elements of the neighborhood, but I would expect to find a barbecue behind there to be honest with you on that bottom one. And the top one just feels just more sophisticated to me. And

yeah, and if it's a matter of matching the color to make it more like terracotta or something like that, but I just I would hate to see that top design uh be lost. That's but that's my personal opinion. It has nothing to do with what they're legally allowed to to do so. So So just to address personal opinions, I would agree with you. I like the top sign better also, but I didn't want to mess with the ARC and their [laughter] Yeah. and their opinions. And so I but I wanted to bring the arbor back in because I did like the way it felt. So I I'm back in your play

and just [clears throat] so you get a feel for realize that the ARC has not looked at the bottom design. That's the applicant's effort to address the ARC's issues. So if you feel addressing the ARC's issues could be accomplished by the first sign with some hybrid element, you know, there's a lot of ways this could go and it is your purview to decide how you want to deal with the sign issue in the first place. Okay. Well, I mean, I saw some tenatively nodding heads back there, so I think there might be an opportunity for the applicant to work some magic on this and maybe reconceptualize it a bit.

Great. So, back to you with your motion. I agree with what you said that have them work with staff on on um reconceptualizing the sign well meeting the ARC's intent but adding an arbor into it. Yeah. And tell them that we're sorry that we didn't that we didn't mean to insult them or I didn't anyway. And and I will uh congratulate the development team and the staff. You always want your planning commission arguing about an entrance sign. I mean, [laughter] it's a pretty pretty small item.

Commissioners, I would I would also sorry [clears throat] um I would also ask that the delegation be clear if if um working with staff if staff is authorized to um approve the final design or if that needs to go back to ARC or if that comes back to the planning commission that that delegation be clear in the motion. It sounds like it is not. Nobody wants it to come back to the planning commission, but I would just like that to be cleared in whatever motion is um made. Well, I will clarify the motion and say I did not intend this to come back to the RSC or the planning commission that I will let staff and the development work together. They've heard our intent um our our discussion and I think they understand.

Yeah. And I will rescend that motion because I'm more than happy to have this delegated to staff and the applicant to work out rather than try to impose my own aesthetic judgments on this. Okay. Any other comment? Madame Clerk, can you call roll? Commissioner Khan? Yes. Commissioner Kulie? Yes. Commissioner Munoz Morris? Yes. Commissioner Flores? Yes. Commissioner Jorgensson? Yes. Vice Chair Tolley? Yes. Happy [snorts] holidays to you all as well. Thank you.

Okay. And now for staff updates and agenda forecast. Would uh deputy community development director Tyler Corey please provide that update. All right. Fully members of the commission um this is our last planning commission meeting of the year. So with that our next regularly scheduled meeting is not until January 28th. We don't have one earlier in the month due to um notification requirements with the city holiday closure time period. It's just there's no way to schedule something u during the middle of the month there. So we um we have our next meeting on the on the 28th. Currently I have no items on January 28th. So that would take us to February um February 11th. And I do have um anticipating we're going to be bringing to you our update, annual update to the zoning regulations to address um housing state laws and some other cleanup items. So there should be some um should be a good meeting to kind of get into some of those those issues. And I don't have uh anything currently at the second meeting in February. So that's kind of the the one to to circle on your calendars is February 11th. And I was um in receipt of a memo today from uh deputy or from director Timmy Twe about the fraternities. So I guess we'll be seeing that again next next year. Yes.

Yes. That we do have a couple of uh re-reviews that will be coming back to the planning commission at this point. It might be in potentially the second meeting in February. Um but there were um some citations that were issued and one of them still kind of going through a final um appeal process and then we'll kind of see where that lands and we for sure have one but we might have two and I would put them both on the same um open agenda if we have it. [sighs]

Very good. Thank you. Um this the regular meeting of December 24th and January 14th, 2026 will be cancelled due to Christmas and the New Year's. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is January 28th. That may or may not be cancelled. Um everyone have a wonderful holiday and uh I adjourn. Thank you.