[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6314035,"mediaKeyId","2385734-17c8edd44029a7706d944e4473db5d7a","parentId",2385734,"title","Commission approves LDC text amendment to add alternate Redevelopment Commission member with recusal option","audioSeconds",648,"startMs",2430000,"endMs",3078000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2385734-17c8edd44029a7706d944e4473db5d7a&start=2430&end=3078","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2385734-17c8edd44029a7706d944e4473db5d7a/thumbnail_2430000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6314035/Gilbert/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Commission-approves-LDC-text-amendment-to-add-alternate-Redevelopment-Commission-member-with-recusal-option","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6314035-0f21660ffb671f94f85cd5390f4d3f7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771203908&Signature=S0VhldTitauDIN5kJFngUVm0BSu1fdPlWWL8TDfBh7SbNxkcXDoehOGXBPETZ1s2xsSzr6HqkKLt5LUWZEYqk12Rad5ByKq4UpJB0HPH2ZCCvixV-6NjWwEjF0LbP0dJyQ4Q7IAGo9H0rN~TwMoGR7LJQH1e-clVzQI501-8vEB5NFg1orVP27ozwuE2soOsflGoln6L1hW9iUBvbesMvgRqiu3yG8-jrnmnrBjqDCOJY7yM2OMaz61d8uZrFvj4d-APhWBTPgrcszOcDP4lnkeknxtObT2BcEuVvA5PvSoCsiJpGloXfkhderk1bGKLQdAUhgdU10cAOBtdYW-O6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Gilbert, Arizona","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","Planning staff presented an LDC text amendment that would add one alternate member to the Redevelopment Commission. The alternate would be appointed by the mayor to one‑year terms and would serve in place of a regular member when that member is absent.

Staff noted the draft language, as written, provides for the alternate to step in for absences only and does not expressly allow an alternate to sit when a commissioner recuses themself from a particular item. Commissioners discussed whether the alternate should be permitted to serve for individual recusals (single agenda items) as well as absences.

Legal staff and commissioners clarified state statute establishes a five‑member Redevelopment Commission but does not explicitly permit or prohibit alternates; the town can codify alternate membership in its local code. Commissioners argued the Commission’s infrequent meeting schedule and the recurring need for recusals in redevelopment matters made a case for permitting the alternate to serve by line item to preserve quorum and institutional knowledge.

A commissioner moved to approve the amendment as recommended by staff with the inclusion of recusal as one occasion when the alternate may serve; another commissioner seconded. The commission then voted on the amendment and the motion passed 4‑0.

Ending: Staff will forward the commission’s recommendation on Z25‑1 to the Planning Commission (per the standard process) and will incorporate the commission’s direction on allowing the alternate to serve during individual recusals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Redevelopment Commission - 2/19/2025 6:00:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The commission recommended approval of a text amendment to the Land Development Code to add one mayor‑appointed alternate to the Redevelopment Commission and approved an amendment allowing the alternate to serve for recusal on individual agenda items; the measure passed on a 4‑0 vote.","taxTitle","Gilbert, Maricopa County, Arizona","taxId",2208,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6314041,"Redevelopment Commission approves Heritage North sign program, allows modest signage increases",799,1572000,2371000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2385734-17c8edd44029a7706d944e4473db5d7a&start=1572&end=2371","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2385734-17c8edd44029a7706d944e4473db5d7a/thumbnail_1572000.jpg","/articles/6314041/Gilbert/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Redevelopment-Commission-approves-Heritage-North-sign-program-allows-modest-signage-increases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6314041-7e71fb8985c373aa3516bf3cd749f57f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771203908&Signature=fohG1D6qgooyvn6z4ig1LLO0l04Pg7ZAsKi0hgJWP26Oq66AE5KKbtqL9mZHM4Q2xnWHbKfvRCFAf5V5ltg3lPS-DyXOW0qLiljkgt~YIPowUOLAB-7RE5sAW0PVZxHqSovRAqga0zlqTO68~enQPLQeljbCRDX9~J5idOoiTJqMMGjhLwmlMxbdnWD34x7UCqptAj-mFwWo-lUmrL5PWUzleAqzKNZEwVUOdW0FMNbChmIp1ohkWXNF~i9HrDDYV4jmVYNnYf0vML87J7prXMrcCYqlFH-md79EdMPFSxNJVVyofKcDvtQxoUuzkiENsGbZY~q3viiB7DTLiWHPog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Redevelopment Commission approved a sign program for the Heritage North development covering allowable sign types and locations across nine buildings and the site’s monument sign.

Planning staff said the 9.9‑acre site at Gilbert and Juniper is zoned Heritage Village Center with a Planned Area Development overlay and was originally approved in 2022. The program proposes three frontage types (historic/frontage F1, flexible/internal F2, and restrictive/neighborhood F3) with tailored allowed signage and illumination rules for each frontage type.

Key details: staff said the proposed rooftop sign for the hotel building is 4 feet, 2 inches tall by 45 feet wide (about 187.5 square feet). That fits below the redevelopment district threshold of 250 square feet; staff noted the applicant’s currently proposed size is within the lower allowable amount but asked the commission to approve a maximum flexibility up to 250 square feet for future minor adjustments. The project also includes a monument sign approximately 7.5 feet tall with about 40 square feet of display.

Staff explained a new “neighborhood identification sign” category will be treated as wall signs under the Land Development Code, meaning those signs will deduct allowable wall‑sign square footage from the host building’s allotment. To offset that reduction for tenants, the applicant requested a 25% increase in allowable wall and monument signage; staff recommended approval of the increased allowance to preserve tenant signage opportunities while accommodating neighborhood identity signs.

Commissioners asked about temporary sidewalk A‑frame signs. Staff referenced the Land Development Code’s temporary sign policy and confirmed a business may have up to four A‑frames, which must be placed in front of the business being advertised and removed outside business hours; A‑frames may not be placed on raised medians, stakes across streets, or on multi‑use trails.

The applicant was present to answer questions; no public speakers addressed the item. A motion to approve the sign program passed (motion and second recorded; chair called for a vote and the motion passed). The staff report and slides were incorporated into the record.

Ending: with the sign program approved, staff may proceed to sign permit review consistent with the program’s parameters and the town’s permitting process.","The commission approved a comprehensive sign program for the 9.9‑acre Heritage North development, authorizing permitted sign locations and a request for up to a 25% increase in allowable signage to account for new neighborhood identification signs; commissioners clarified limits on temporary sidewalk A‑frame signs.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6314045,"Commission reviews proposed alley speed table and removable canopy behind Water Tower Plaza",1071,240000,1311000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2385734-17c8edd44029a7706d944e4473db5d7a&start=240&end=1311","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2385734-17c8edd44029a7706d944e4473db5d7a/thumbnail_240000.jpg","/articles/6314045/Gilbert/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Commission-reviews-proposed-alley-speed-table-and-removable-canopy-behind-Water-Tower-Plaza","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6314045-9bd428af9e75c378ebb923776d103d01/orig.mp4?Expires=1771203908&Signature=l0K753o22Ria3WOPlEkHPgNYq4fZONYO-43JB4ZxgnAbUt86i3iDN010lIPvtGbkADKH0DUj3azIk3PfHyC5gJpWA3-UXYxjdDLi6ZsrzbbgWtd7sRy2I734KeA4dL-a-IrAdFUrn89BobOLUXvckuFLU02twwz0TnvSsIYe9FuwJm759RnVmfI4sC41MHO3QKRhX08OYATSb0T9w2wl~7LMpW-4d3nE1dEgWGTrM5enf1V--V1VxJlXw5rGH-HYVEUbkU28qxVy-OEJj4v4hhVEcN51wWpEte~Cu5Q8AaGVj0S326SdELemo5Nx5rxYVJLMcX~KuQu7Re3R9TSNZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Town planning staff on a study-session agenda presented conceptual designs for alley improvements behind a building adjacent to Water Tower Plaza intended to reconnect a front storefront to a rear storefront without an enclosed walkway.

The proposal would raise a short length of the alley into a ‘‘speed table’’ to create a flush walking surface between the front and rear buildings, and install a removable four‑post canopy with a shade‑sail roof. Staff said the canopy would be supported by steel columns mounted into the adjacent buildings, and the canopy fabric would be removable so utility or maintenance access could be accomplished without demolishing permanent structure.

Why it matters: the alley is public right-of-way; utilities (identified in discussion as APS, Cox and Southwest Gas) run in easements there. Town staff and the engineering reviewer said the town owns the alley surface but utilities are protected by easements, so any physical work would require encroachment agreements that obligate the property owner to remove or reconstruct the improvement if utility owners need access.

Planning staff said the design is early and intended to solicit feedback rather than to approve a final construction plan. Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for technical clarity: engineering staff raised drainage and long‑term maintenance concerns and said current plans lack sufficient detail to ‘‘stamp’’ approval. The development engineering manager said staff expect the applicant to provide plan details showing drainage (including pipes through the raised table) and slope modeling for storm events.

Commissioners also focused on emergency access. Staff said the alley must provide clearance and a slope that a fire apparatus can traverse without bottoming out; the study materials referenced a 15.5‑foot vertical clearance at the top of the ramp for fire apparatus in the Heritage District. Staff said they will ask the applicant to model typical fire‑truck dimensions over the proposed ramp to demonstrate feasibility, and that ramp geometry may change as a result.

On dimensions, staff and commissioners noted different figures in the materials: initial slides described the raised element as “approximately 6 feet wide and 2 feet tall,” while later plan images and commissioners’ readings showed the raised platform measured at roughly 16 feet wide and about 2 feet high. Staff said the project is in first review and dimensions could change with further engineering input.

Utility access and removability were repeatedly emphasized. Staff and the applicant’s spokesperson said the canopy is designed to be removable (shade sails that can be unclipped) so that crews can access subsurface utilities if work is required; by contrast, removing the raised table to access utilities would be a major operation (jackhammering) and would be addressed in an encroachment agreement with the property owner.

Next steps: staff said they will continue the engineering review, request clearer drainage and slope calculations from the applicant, pursue utility clearance letters, and, if the details show compliance with town standards and fire access, return the project as a formal permit submittal. No public hearing or vote occurred during this study session.

Ending: commissioners provided feedback—chiefly to resolve drainage, assure emergency vehicle access, confirm utility clearance, and ensure the canopy material and colors fit the Heritage District—before staff moves the concept forward toward permitting.","Staff presented a conceptual plan to raise a section of the public alley behind Water Tower Plaza to provide a flush pedestrian route between front and rear commercial buildings; engineers flagged drainage, emergency-access, and utility-easement concerns and asked the applicant for additional detail.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves LDC text amendment to add alternate Redevelopment Commission member with recusal option

Redevelopment Commission approves Heritage North sign program, allows modest signage increases

Commission reviews proposed alley speed table and removable canopy behind Water Tower Plaza