Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. We're going to get started. This is a meeting of the Town of Paradise Valley Planning Commission. Today is June the 2nd, and it's a little bit after 6 p.m. Would you please call the roll?

Certainly. Commissioner Rose?

Here.

Commissioner Nacikis? Here. Commissioner Nagel?

Here.

Commissioner Covington? Commissioner Brown? Here. Here. Chair George-Alice?

Here.

We do have a quorum.

Thank you. So this evening, we may go into executive session one or more times in order to get legal advice from the town attorney as necessary. Tonight, we have an approval of minutes, and we have three study session items. And... On our agenda, no public hearings. And so does anyone have any issue with the order of matters on the agenda?

Not for me.

No? No. OK, great. So the first matter is the approval or amendment of minutes. It's item 26-163, and it relates to the April 7, 2026 Planning Commission minutes.

Commissioner Nisikis would make a motion to approve the minutes of April 7th.

Thank you, Commissioner Nisikis. So it is moved by Commissioner Nisikis. Do I have a second?

Second that. Commissioner Rose?

And seconded by Commissioner Rose. Any discussion relating to the matter? Hearing none, let's have a vote. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. So our first study session item this evening is 26-147, Discussion of Franciscan Renewal Center Major Special Use Permit Amendment, SUP-26-02. And it's located at 5802 East Lincoln Drive. Mr. McMahon, would you please present?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. As stated, this item is regarding a major special use permit amendment at Franciscan Renewal Center, case SUP 2602. The goal this evening is to review the application in its entirety, field any comments you might have, answer any questions you might have on this proposed amendment. This place of worship is located east of the northeast corner of Lincoln Drive and Smoketree Lane, fronts Lincoln Drive to the south, and the immediate north and west are of this church property, our R43 zoned residential lots. The parcel to the immediate east is also part of the church property, though it is in the jurisdiction of the county. In terms of process thus far in this major special use permit amendment, the April 23rd council study session action meeting, council did discuss the impacts of this proposed solar panels on the residences to the north and west specifically, both the arrays regarding themselves and any proposed vegetation to help screen. They also had questions regarding the monument sign along Lincoln Drive that again is within that Maricopa County parcel, particularly the brightness of that sign. That review and approval was done through the county. Renovations kept the existing size and shape of the sign, but town staff separately is in coordination with the applicant and church leadership to potentially dim the monument sign lighting. Thirdly, council had questions regarding clarifications on the renderings, which you'll see later in this presentation, and the site plan clarifying with north arrows indicating locations and where the maximum tilt of these arrays would reside on that parcel. The fourth item that was discussed is to provide the existing wall heights along the west and north of the church property. Staff was able to find that those wall heights range between six and eight feet, which again are complying with Article 24 requirements. And lastly, council had questions regarding noticing with a focus on the homeowners again to the west and to the north of the shade structures. To review the noticing for a major special use permit amendment involves several formats, occurs at different stages of the application process. The applicant is required to hold a citizen review meeting, which was held on May 28th of last week, which was also noticed on May 15th to the required 1,500 square foot radius. That, again, will be noticed when this item goes back to council for potential adoption, as well as the newspaper notice The applicant has also sent voluntary notice to the properties directly to the north and the west. And that was done on April 28. And then lastly, council had questions, again, regarding some of the proposed trees and vegetation, which you'll see later in the presentation. The applicant has proposed a secondary hedge. That could be discussed by the commission as well. So that was what was discussed at the SOD hearing. This application constitutes a major special use permit amendment due to the increase in floor area. Major SUP, anything that is 40% or greater, this application is, because there's very limited floor area on the parcel itself, is an increase of 156% upon the existing. The applicant, to go deeper into the request, is proposing four parking lot shade structures on the west-northwest portion of the site. Array 1 will be roughly 3,745 square feet. Array 2, 4,370 square feet. Array three, 4,214 feet, and array four, 6,869 feet, totaling again that 19,200 square feet of addition, which is a 9.42% increase on the floor area. There's 12,281 square foot existing, which you can see in this photo, which is that community life center building. The goal is obviously to provide the campus with power and shade for the campus. Speaking specifically to the items as laid out in the statement of direction from council, land use, so the primary areas of study for the planning commission, which would include the design, specifically the material and finish being visible from offsite, the location of these structures, the impact on the surrounding areas, and the use of landscaping to help mitigate views. Staff's analysis is that the church use is unaffected by this request. Again, we can go further into the vegetation selection and what would be preferred. And again, no noise, light, odor, or vibration will be emitted by any of these arrays. And again, the visibility will be mitigated by setbacks and future landscaping. Secondly, the Planning Commission shall evaluate the proposed height and view sheds based on the visibility of these arrays. particularly off-site, the structure's appropriate scale, special consideration again to those residences to the west and north, and as well as from Lincoln Drive to the south. Staff's analysis is that this is compliant with SEP guidelines, a maximum height of 24 feet for accessory structures. This is only 16 feet, which again mirrors what a guest house or accessory structure would be for a regular R43 zoned lot. Again, Planning Commission can focus on the proposed height and again, the visibility from offsite. Thirdly, the setbacks of each structure. The four arrays are compliant with SEP guidelines with the exception of array four. SEP guidelines are State that setbacks are to be 60 feet adjoining a residential property. Array 4 is roughly 42 feet 8 inches as they are covering existing parking spaces. Again, this would be up to the discussion of the Planning Commission to explore appropriate setbacks for these structures. The solar arrays themselves, I know this picture isn't the greatest up on the screen, but they are to be a matte black finish, a non-reflective material. And again, no new lighting or removal of lighting is proposed. Two existing light poles will be lowered under Array 1, but there again, there will be no new lighting associated. And the existing lighting is compliant with our 0.75 foot candles at the property line requirement. Here you can see what the rest of the shade structure material and color is proposed to be. The far right picture, you can see that the array material is to mirror what is attached to the main sanctuary building that resides on the lot today. The next few slides, I'll go over those previously mentioned renderings that was provided by the applicant. This is a view of all the arrays from the northwest looking into the site. This is looking from the southwest looking northeast for that arrow. So these are the arrays, again, from that southwest point. This is a view of all arrays from the south along Lincoln frontage. This is another view from the south a little bit further to the east along Lincoln frontage. This is a view from all the arrays from the north looking south. This is a rendering of all the arrays from a bird's eye view. Again, looking as if the top of the screen was the east. This is array one from the west. Again, north toward Mummy Mountain is to the left side of the screen. And again, these are arrays two through four from the south. As you can see, to the west, the maximum tilt is tilted away from those residences to the west. So again, in terms of landscaping, the applicant is proposing to remove 16 existing trees to make way for these four shade structures. They also are proposing to plant an additional 12 pollinators and milkweeds at the ground level. And then to the greater discussion, the applicant is also proposing to plant seven willow acacia trees or red tip patina hedge along that western edge to help better screen from those residences to the west. Again, at the discretion of commission and potentially neighbor input. These are two photo examples of what each of those proposed vegetation screening would be. Acacia on the left and then the Photinia hedge on the right. In terms of next steps, if it is needed, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to hold additional work session if needed. The Citizen Review session, again, was held last week. Staff is in receipt of those minutes, and that will be included in your next packet. And then tentatively, the Planning Commission scheduled for your next meeting June 16th for discussion and possible action, which that meeting has already been noticed for. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions, field any comments you may have, and thank you.

Thank you.

Do any of the commissioners have questions?

Commissioner Messias, I just wanted to reference a similar project that was completed almost two years ago, maybe. We were at the Baptist Church off of Road and Vista. Would these be similar in height? The ones proposed for the CASA, as was installed there.

Yes, Commissioner Nisikis, members of the commission. That array was roughly 14 feet in height. This array is proposed at 16. So roughly.

Thank you. So there's a living example of what is proposed, if anyone chooses to take a look. I think those seem to have suited the neighborhood just fine.

Mr. Commissioner Rose, you mentioned that the neighborhood meetings were held, but can you give us an idea of what the content of the meeting was and was there any feedback from the neighbors?

Commissioner Rose, members of the commission, staff has just received those minutes. I haven't really dove into them. The applicant is here, if the commission so wishes, for him to speak and kind of give an update if that is what is preferred. But yeah, within the next packet, you'll have those minutes and a full summary of what occurred at that citizen review meeting.

Yeah, in my mind, it would be helpful tonight TO FURTHER THE DISCUSSION IF WE KNEW WHAT THE NEIGHBOR'S FEEDBACK WAS.

I WOULD WELCOME INPUT FROM THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT AND ANY OF THE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY.

Hi, my name is Mike Slivers. I'm the Director of Operations at the Franciscan Renewal Center. We did hold our citizen review meeting last Thursday, and we did have two residents that did attend. I believe one of them is here this evening. So our neighbors to the north that are present had some concerns about sight lines, especially with views of the mountain camelback from their backyard, as well as just a feeling that these could be an eyesore for them. I personally have gone out and taken some photos and some measurements. around the property today. I did send those to Brandon. We have a lift on the property, so we went up 16 feet and took some pictures and drew some lines as to where those elevations would max out at. And in most cases, most of the trees in the area are already taller than the structures would be. So I don't see... From their perspective how these would I don't even think they'll be visible from the behind their 10-foot wall We had another resident I don't know which property she lived at she did not she did not let us know that who said that she had recently installed solar and Was pretty supportive of the project Did you have anything else to share with us this evening no, that's it I

Thank you And again chair members of Commission those photos will be included in the packet material for the next meeting as well And and the this question arose the residents to the north today did the all of the arrays Cause sight line challenges in their mind or was it one particular array or I

The arrays I believe that they are concerned about would be the ones that are closest to their property line, which would be arrays three and four. But that wasn't specified in the actual conversation, so I can't really speak for exactly what their concerns are.

Is there any flexibility to bring down the height of the arrays a little bit?

The designer of the system feels that if we were to lower them, that they become a hazard for being ran into by vehicle traffic. It's 16 feet on the high side, but 13 feet on the low side. If you get lower than that, you start having issues with some taller vehicles potentially ramming into the structure and damaging it.

And the tilt is necessary because, I mean, you're not the technical person, but have they explained the design to you and why it has to be like this?

Yeah, you want to have some drainage. So anytime you put a carport up, it's going to have some tilt. This is a little less than five degrees. We have proposed five degrees, but that... would have increased the height beyond 16 feet. I believe it was to 16.9. So we've reduced the slope to accommodate that 13 foot max. But we do need some type of drainage so that the water can flow when it rains.

Does anyone have any other questions for the applicant?

This is Commissioner Covington. And the tilt is also required by a lot of these panels for maximum efficiency. And I did notice that the arrays that are in question are 131 and 109 feet away from the property line. So it seems to me the setback should be adequate.

Thank you, Commissioner Covington.

Chair, I've got a couple questions.

Go ahead, Commissioner Brown.

Thank you. I thought I heard it reported that the setbacks were not in compliance. Did I hear that incorrectly?

Commissioner Brown, members of the commission, solely Array 4 as it's covering existing parking spaces. The guideline per the SUP is for 60 feet from residential.

Right now, I would think we want to maintain that. That would be 1 concern that I would have. And the 2nd, 1 is on the acacia trees. If you've got swimming pools. I think you said you were going to put those on the West side. To the West side neighbors, the folks with the swimming pools and or sewer lines running through there aren't going to appreciate the acacia trees in 5 years. Ask me how I know. Those are my only two comments, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. McMahon, are those willow and acacia trees or the red-tipped photinia, I mean, the willow looks like a gigantic tree that doesn't really create much screening, I don't know that. Is that one of our trees that is on the approved list in PV? And the hedge just seems like it's gonna be a very dense hedge that will create a wall. Can you speak to these trees and whether or not it's in our approved landscaping list and thoughts of the staff around them?

Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. I'm not too certain about being on the approved plant list. This is what was proposed by the applicant. I can have him speak to why he chose these two as the options.

The willow acacia, there's already, I believe, four of them on the property line along that neighbor's wall. They've been there for as long as I've been there, 18 years. They're also toppable, so if height is an issue, we would be happy to top them. The red tip I came up with is an ornamental beautification. We're completely open to what our neighbors would want as far as any screen, no screen. Things like that. So I had to pick something. So I picked what was already growing in the vicinity and a second option that I thought was beautiful.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, the acacia seemed like really, really big trees. And the other Fortinia hedge just will create a hedge. And I don't know if that's good or bad. I think that's going to become a gigantic wall. So in terms of the view sheds of the residents, I doubt that's probably what they want at the end of the day unless it is at a level where it's pretty low.

Also, Chair, members of the Commission, the applicant has also stated that if there is a desired height for these, we can explore that as well for maintenance. He's already indicated they perform maintenance. very frequently. So if there's a proposed height, if these are to be 16 feet, if there's a desired height of some of these screening, the applicant is willing to speak to that as well.

Well, I don't think that we would want it to be greater than the 16 foot height. And so As to the view corridors, so what is the impact? Do we have any measurements? What do we have that shows how the arrays and landscaping will affect the view corridor of the neighboring residents?

Yes, Chair, members of the Commission, based on the renderings and the photos that were provided today by the applicant, those kind of give a general view of what the site and off-site might look like. I'm happy to go through the renderings again, but if there's any specific questions from the West or from the South.

Well, I guess what I would want to know is how this affects the neighbors, right, in terms of of the sight line, and I'm not really seeing that here. I mean, we've seen it in the past in terms of how this will cut through their sight lines.

I was going to ask that exact question. What was the neighbor's input on the vegetation, the trees and the hedge that you were proposing? Did they have some input on that?

I don't believe so.

No?

This is Commissioner Rose. The only question I have on the willow is there seems like there's a lot of trunk, and would that block these parking structures from the neighbor's view? In other words, it just looks like, if you can go back to it, it looks like there's,

Right, I see what you're saying.

A lot of trunk until you get to the leaves that would actually block the tree, if that makes sense. So I was wondering if there's a tree that has more leaves and less trunk.

Well, and Commissioner Rose, those grow really, really tall. Those are not. Those are very fast-growing, tall trees.

Well, that's what I mean. If it grows tall.

I agree with you. Yeah.

You're going to lose the screen.

Right.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, it sounds like they picked those because that's what they already had on the property, which would make some sense. But I'm not sure if I were redoing this, that that's the one I'd pick. And Oak might be a better one, Commissioner Rose, for what you're describing.

Yeah, we do have several. That's what's in the parking lot now. Again, we're open to selection on plants, to whatever the commission or mainly the neighbors, really. They're the ones that have to look at it. But the idea is to screen any view of any metal structure from their view.

Yeah, and the question is, what will satisfy that? Right. OK.

I guess that would be my suggestion is that we look at some alternative trees.

Yeah. If you could provide us some alternative vegetation options, that would be great.

And this is Commissioner Rose. I know on the Hillside Building Committee, we have a list of what are approved trees. what's approved vegetation, and I'm wondering if we should give that to the applicants so they can take a look and choose from that list.

And also the visually significant corridors plan also has approved planting lists in it as well. So now let's discuss the setback issue. So we've got three arrays that are within the setbacks, and then we've got one that encroaches onto the setback. Is there any way to adjust for that? Can you give us a little bit more information as to how that came to pass or what happened there?

Well, that's the way that the solar designer suggested that we put it in. We didn't have any information about setbacks when we applied. It's my understanding that the 40 foot is recommended, but not set in stone, I'm not sure.

As chair members of the commission, 60 feet is the guideline for the SUP. Again, it's not a requirement. It's just a guideline. So it's at the purview of commission and council whether they deem this to be appropriate for the site.

And just to clarify, only one of the four arrays is within that, the westernmost one. The other ones are all within setback.

But that's also the one that's closest to residence, right?

I think I heard that three were in there.

No, I'm sorry. The one was and the three were compliant. If I misspoke, I apologize. But yeah. So I'm assuming it's there because there were parking spaces there already? Is that how that was already designed? Correct. OK. So I mean, it was the existing situation. The question becomes, You know, since it's closer, does that affect the adjacent neighbors, and do the neighbors have any issue with that?

And again, Chair, members of the Commission, to clarify, both the height and in terms of open space criteria, it meets both of those requirements as well, being even set back closer than the 60 foot per the guidelines.

So does this affect any of the existing lighting in the parking lot? And how does it affect any of the lighting in the parking lot as it is?

Yes, chair members of the commission. So no additional lights except for the two underneath array one will be altered. So everything will be staying the same. They'll just be lowered and placed underneath array one. So I think one of the renderings has a view of the two light poles. You can kind of see it.

Array one.

It's difficult to see. But underneath Array 1, I think you can kind of see it there. You can kind of see the two light poles will be lowered, and they're underneath, adjacent to those cars here and here. Outside of that, no other lighting is being proposed, and everything is compliant with that point.

And so all the remaining lighting stays the same.

Correct.

And that's compliant with our... with our requirements.

This is Commissioner Rose. Can you put up the location of these and reorient me as to where? Is 4 on the far west side?

Yes.

Commissioner Rose, that is correct.

OK, so this is north would be at the top of the.

I think maybe we could see the entire site plan again. Did I see that on there?

This is the view of the site plan, but in terms of the entirety of the site, that's the orientation of the four arrays. Two and three are adjacent to each other. Four is the furthest west, and then one is the furthest south.

This is Christian Rose again. The only question I would have on the height is, and I know you said that they wanted to make sure that nobody took it out with a high-profile vehicle, but a lot of people with high-profile vehicles know you know, where their vehicle can go. I mean, you know, you even go to malls and you know that you can't drive a really high-profile vehicle and some of those, even at Fashion Square. So I'm wondering if you could lower it and have signage that would alert, you know, the drivers that, you know, it's only 12 feet or 14 feet. And I'm not sure... How do I say this? A lot of people parking at church with, you know, they can't have that high profile of vehicle. It would seem like it'd be a construction vehicle or something. Right. I mean, if there's anything we could do to lower the height of the structures, you know, I would be more amenable to that than not. You know, with proper signage.

Sure.

Well, it might be helpful to have your designer address us as to the reason that this was designed in this way and if we have any additional flexibility.

You know, this question rose again. I get the slant because I think, I'm not in the business, but it would seem to me that if you slanted it, you would get a better shot at the southern sun, you know, to.

Right. I think that's, in addition to the drainage question, that's probably a big piece of the puzzle.

Right. But I would agree that it'd be great to have the designer here so we could pick his or her mind. I think that would be great.

right so chair members of the commission just to to make sure i have consensus the applicant potentially would provide alternative vegetation options and also potentially lowering or increasing the tilt to lower the maximum height if that was an option and yeah we i think we'd like to hear from the the designer to understand the the options that we have there i don't know that

Increasing the tilt will really necessarily get us there. I think we'll get a higher structure as a result, but we just need to understand the issues here. Because, I mean, the other ones were designed so that they were 14 feet, not to pull things, wrap it out of a hat or anything, but there's got to be some flexibility here potentially, and I So if we've got 16 as the maximum height on the top part of the tilt, where are we at the bottom? We're at 11, right?

Correct. The lowest clear height is 11 feet from grade.

That's 11 feet. So I guess what size are most of the vehicles that we drive around in? I have absolutely no idea. And will they fit? I mean, I don't want to create a problem.

Yeah, just visually, it looks like the 11 feet, I mean, the vehicle couldn't be more than six feet, I would think.

Well, is this structure, did you say it's two feet higher than the one over on Scottsdale Road that we approved?

Yes. Correct, roughly, yes.

Yeah, so I'd want to know why we can't do that here. But we won't know that until we talk to the designer.

So at least given on these issues, maybe we push the hearing so we can have someone come talk to us about this.

So again, sorry to chair members of the commission. So consensus on... an additional work study session, the designer of the arrays to attend to discuss potential height adjustment, and then also providing alternative vegetation options. Those are the three items.

I think so. Thus far. So the other item that was discussed at council was dimming the sign. Is that something that would be potentially a stipulation under this, or how is that Expected to be handled chair members of commission.

That is a separate item from this request. So the the Applicant is working on that on his end and staff is in coordination But again that sign resides within the county's jurisdiction So staff and the applicant are working if there's any new updates on that We'll be happy to share them with you. But as of right now, I think he's having discussions with sign designer and all the intricacies that go into that.

Well, is there any way we can have at least under this a stipulation that the sign would be turned off by like 10 o'clock, which is what we do in practically every place else in the valley? I guess I would ask our town attorney.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I don't believe the stipulation that affects property outside your jurisdiction is going to be appropriate for this action.

Okay.

Thank you.

And Chair, members of the Commission, for context, that portion of the church facility has overnight uses, so that's why they have the hours of signage and lighting that they do on the county portion as well.

Okay, so you will be, the applicant will be dealing with that voluntarily with the town is what you're telling me?

Correct.

Okay.

Chair, may I also add that I think the fourth issue was on the setback and I didn't want to lose that one off of our list.

Yeah, and I think that's something that we can also address in connection with the design of the arrays and If we need to have it pop up, I think that's something that we can look at again, since we're gonna be looking at this one more time.

Mr. Commissioner Rose, was the, well, we'll probably have to ask the designer of this, but was there any thought given to putting the solar panels on the roof of the CASA? I mean, I don't know what the square footage of the CASA is, but this is 19,000, Is it 19,000 square feet that these are covering?

Yeah, I think that was it, Jim. Yeah.

Yes.

Are there solar panels on the Casa roof?

There are. We have actually maxed out on roof space on the property. So we've already got 681 solar panels mounted on roofs. And none of the other roofs that are available are structurally capable of handling the load. So that's why we're now, we've maxed, we've gone that route as far as we can. And for our goal of net zero on the property, we have to expand to the parking lot now.

Okay. Does anybody have any other questions?

Yeah, this is Commissioner Covington. Is there a site plan that shows the plantings of these willows and the edge? I don't remember seeing it before. So these would go between the edge of the parking lot and the fence that now runs adjacent to those properties?

Commissioner Covington, that is correct.

Because there's pretty serious screening there already. And I'm sure these people that live in these houses have been screened from the parking lot for quite a while. So the, I guess the screening that we're implying here would be just for the structures themselves. And where on this drawing is the hedge?

Commissioner Cummington, members of the Commission, would be in place of those trees. So it's presented as a tree option or as a hedge option.

Oh, or a hedge option. Okay. Now I understand. I've walked through this parking lot any number of times, and there's pretty serious screening going between the parking lot and the houses to the west already.

Thank you, Commissioner Covington. Could we also have a landscape plan for the next time so we see what exactly is being proposed on the amendment?

I have another question. Commissioner Rose, so thank you for informing us on the solar panels on the roof. So if you're maxed out on the roof, What does the additional 19,000 square feet of solar panels do? I mean, this isn't my business, but I'm just wondering if you've got so much on the roof, does that pay the electric bill? And then if you put more on, are you making more money? I mean, why would you add more solar panels?

Sure, I can answer that. We're producing about 40% of our electricity bill right now with the rooftop solar that we have existing. So more is necessary to get to net zero.

Okay, so the roughly goes to 40%.

That answers my question. We can't become a solar farm and sell power. As a nonprofit, it would be an unrelated business income.

I wasn't insinuating that. No, I was just interested in what the roof provides.

Yeah. Thank you. Great.

And, Chair, just before we move off this, so since this was advertised, we will put this as a work-study session for June 16th, but it also will be on for action, and action would probably be to continue if that would be the case. But just so you know, it would still be an action item due to its... That sounds great.

Thank you. Any other questions?

No.

Okay. Thank you. We appreciate you.

Thank you. Thank you.

The next item on the calendar is 26-159, Discussion on Camelback Bible Church Minor Special Use Permit Amendment, SUP-26-05, 3900 East Stanford Drive. Mr. Burton.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. So today's goal is to review and receive input for Camelback Bible Church's request to modify one of their stipulations. to allow the church to have two schools instead of one, while maintaining all the existing requirements and limitations that are in place. So I'll briefly go over the background, the scope of the request, and next steps. So the subject property is located on Stanford Drive near 40th Street, just north of the Phoenix Country Day School. And since they are modifying the stipulation, it does qualify as a minor amendment. And the proposed change does not change or add any use, does not increase the floor area, should not have any material effect on the neighboring property owners, and does not change the architecture of the SUP since there's no physical improvements to the campus. So again, the request is to modify the stipulation limits the church to one school to allow it for two schools. Current school is Acton. They have 43 students. The proposed school is Protest Academy, which are going to start off with 28 students, and they anticipate growing to 50. So the combined will still be below that total cap of 120 students. So at the bottom is the proposed changes, the strikethrough, and then the bold is the new language. So no more than two school entities shall operate on the church campus at any point in time. And Protos Academy is a sporting academy that's focused on soccer club players. They'll have three 15-minute recesses, and they'll comply with all the existing SEP stipulations. Any soccer training will be done off campus. And this is just kind of a comparison of the current requirements with the proposed. Again, they're going to maintain this maximum total student body of 120, the grades K through 12, hours of operation will remain the same. Everything's going to take place in six existing classrooms. Again, the only changes is to go from one school to two, and then currently they have one A-frame sign for the current school act, and protests will also have the same one as well. This is compliant with our general plan amendment. Again, the addition of second school should not have any impact on the neighbors. There's no physical improvements to the property. And it will not increase the intensity use, since they're going to maintain all the existing hours of operation. And this is scheduled for public hearing on the 16th. And since it is a public hearing and a minor amendment, there will be two actions for that night. Commission will have to deem it as a minor amendment and then either approve, deny, or continue for further review. And I'd be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant's available for questions as well.

Thank you, Mr. Burton. Okay, I'd love to hear from the applicant.

I'll just stand for a minute. Andrew Miller, I was the... Oh, I'm sorry. Just real quick here. All right. Chairman, gentlemen, members of the Planning Commission, Andrew Miller of the law firm of Birch and Crackula, but I'm not here. I'm presenting Birch and Crackula today. I'm here as a member of the church. I'm an active member of the church admissions committee, Sunday school teacher, and some of the commissioners remember the presentation a little less than two years ago on this same property. We went through a lot of different... recommendations, on stipulations, worked with staff, looked at other schools such as Tesseract and, not Tesseract, Jones-Gordon, and what would make sense for stipulations and worked through those. And we brought in Acton as well, and we've experienced a couple years with Acton. Their growth is pretty slow, and one of the things that the church body noticed is that we did succeed in one of our goals, which is to try to attract some of these families to come to the church. I know that I think four of the families do come to our Wednesday night program, and One of the families is attending church regularly. In fact, their daughter's in my Sunday school class. So that was one of the ideas behind bringing in a private school that we believe has good values, tries to teach as a values-oriented school, but not necessarily Christian as a school. I think it's worked well. It's just that the growth is very, very slow. We've got existing classrooms. And I want to introduce Phil Martins in a second. Phil is a member of the church, also participates in lots of different ways, including on the finance committee. But Phil is also a board member of Protos. And we started talking to some of the leadership at the church about would it be possible to bring in Protos as a second school to work alongside Acton? It's also a very, very small school. These are kind of niche schools, I would say. They offer something a little different for people. In Protos' case, there's an emphasis on, I think, sports training and character development. And the request is pretty simple. George asked, do we have a PowerPoint? I said, well, it's... It's really just this one slide, which is no more than two school entities shall operate on the church campus at any one point in time. That's the only change that's being requested. All the stipulations will stay in place regarding high school students, limits on parking, drop off and loading, number of student limitations. I will say that Protos has no high school students currently, doesn't plan on any, and Acton has no high school students as well. So it's mostly lower grades at this time and probably will be for quite some time. Acton, when we brought the application a couple years ago, was hoping to build and take some of the existing students and keep them as they grow through the years and maybe get to high school. And that looks to be a pretty long way off. So the whole issue that we talked about last time, number of students that drive, how many that will park, very few. And so the traffic impact has been very, very light. And we think we kind of sit in the shadow of Phoenix Country Day, when we had our neighborhood meeting last time, most of the concerns were about the traffic. And one of the concessions that we did ask Acton to do was to start at school at 8.30. So after the high peak traffic that would occur on behalf of Phoenix Country Day, there was a drop off based on the study done by Paul Basha at that time. And the let out of the school, the release would be after 3.30. Again, missing that peak that comes through Phoenix Country Day School. So very, very low use. And with that, I would probably just go ahead and turn it over to Mr. Martins to give a little more background about PROTOS and be here to answer any questions you have.

OK. Thank you.

Well, he covered a lot there, so thank you for hearing me. It might actually be better if you have questions that I can answer instead of me continuing to speak. So I'm open to any questions.

OK, thank you. This is sort of a soccer-based programming. Can you speak to that a little bit and how that's going to impact the school hours?

The origin story is of a soccer club called Dynamos that that is run by Robbie Findley, who was a former U.S. soccer pro Olympic player, came back to Phoenix to start a club soccer team, particularly focused on grade four through eight, getting them ready for more rigorous training, and in that discovered the need for further character formation, and came up with the idea of a soccer academy, a school that's connected to this club. The training is done through that club called dynamos. And so the school is called protos The there is no formal training at the school. It's nearly more of a Opportunity for those kids that are going to dynamos to also then have a unique education experience particularly faith-based so the any activity that occurs is going to be essentially just recess. Anticipation is three recess periods of about 15 minutes. So the intention is not to host anything on the Callenbeck's campus. We really enjoy as a church having that park, so to speak, but it's not going to be reserved for any type of training or competitions.

I just might add one thing that we did hear from the resident input with Acton two years ago was that residents in the area, particularly Scott O'Connor, former council member, really appreciated the fact that the church finally put the time and money into improving this area with grass and kept the basketball court intact. and provided parking and lets the community use it. And his concern was that we not run a lot of after school programs and not close it off. So there's a school here that we would not close this as a campus and keep the public from being able to use that space. And so I'd say after two years we kept it open. I think it has signs that say please use at your own risk. We haven't been sued yet, hopefully. won't be, but it's open to the public to use. I've seen people with dogs, people sometimes didn't pick up basketball games. A lot of times like little kids, you know, four, five, six just playing football or soccer or something like that, being like coached, just little groups that will use it. And we let it kind of self-regulate. The only time we've ever had a conflict is we do Wednesday night programs for our Wednesday night activities for kids logos. We do ask people that when that starts at about six o'clock that they not be using the field at that time. But other than that, it's been a I think a good community resource, and it gives us an opportunity to actually meet and talk to some of our neighbors as well, which I think is nice.

Commissioner Bryant-Nagel, so it's this park then on the east side of the campus, and you said that would be used for three 15-minute recesses. How is this different from the existing use for recess or something else?

It'll be very similar. Protos and Acton will have to coordinate timing for that.

So it would be essentially then a 45 minutes in addition to the recess time that's been in use currently.

Yes, and it'll be allocated throughout periods of the day as long as the children have some breaks.

Do you know what the existing recess use is of that land?

I do not. At the time of the prior application, they had one, I'll call it active sort of game time, about a 45-minute session where they actually have different kids create a game. And then they play the game, and then the kids critique the game. It's sort of an entrepreneurial school. So let's see what they do in terms of formulating a game that everybody plays. So that was about a 45-minute period. And I think they have, during the lunch period, the ability for kids to also go out. So probably, I think it's two 45-minute periods for acting. And so this is 315 just kind of coordinating between the two so that the kids are running to each other on the field Thank you Just

And the new program is expected to be, what's the head count?

Currently, it is 28. And they hope to be around 35 for the upcoming year. And Acton is currently at 43. Right, OK. Oh, yeah, there it is. Thank you.

And the age ranges, is this K through like eight now?

It's grades four through eight, maybe grades three through eight, but that's all. The idea is that once kids enter into high school, it's, I'm still learning a lot about the soccer club, but it's very intense and they have scouts and they go to different schools. And so by the time you hit grade nine, you're off to a whole different type of system of soccer performance or competition.

Okay. And the existing school, what are the grades of the existing school?

They are K through about grade four, I believe, right now. So again, this is getting back to sort of the thoughts we had about adding another school. The original application that Acton provided was a little more optimistic than what's occurred. I'm sure they still have. I know they've told me they have still plans to go to grade 12, but they are far from that right now.

Yeah. Well, because I remember that Acton had lower grades is what I recall. So this sort of fills it out so that you're getting to eighth grade.

OK. Thank you.

OK. Well, this will come back for public hearing on the 16th.

Thank you, Mr. Burke.

Thank you.

Moving along, item 26-162, Discussion of Paradise Valley Doubletree Resort Minor Special Use Permit, SUP-26-03, 5401 North Scottsdale Road. Mr. Michaud.

Mr. Van Damme, Chairman. Yes. We want to disclose that Commissioner Nisikis and I met with Wendy the owners Representative and Benjamin the Attorney for the applicant Whenever it was Friday Yeah, Friday one o'clock so Thank you very much.

Commissioner Rose. Mr. Michaud. I

Yes, thank you. Good evening. So yes, this is a minor special use per amendment request. It's at the Paradise Valley Doubletree Resort. It is just for study session for this evening. So goal today is for really staff to review the request, kind of go over compliance with our guidelines, possibly give the applicant opportunity to explain the request, and of course for you all to discuss it and give us any direction and the applicant. So process-wise, they've completed their pre-application. That was done earlier this, or actually was done earlier last year. And then they submitted a minor special use permitment, which was April of this year. You're now in process of reviewing it. It is set for June 16th, but again, as in the first case, if there's additional time, you obviously have the option to continue or move to a different date. So this site is located in the southeast portion of the town. kind of as illustrated here on these aerials on Scottsdale Road at the corner of Scottsdale and Jackrabbit Road. It has a general plan designation of resort, which is the appropriate general plan designation for resorts, as you're well aware. And then the zoning is a special use permit with resort. So background, it was annexed back in 1961. The original SUP zoning happened in 1973. However, this resort did not actually physically open until 1985. There were very few amendments, if you go through the history that's in your attachments since 1985. Probably the last... Big amendment happened in 1997 when they took the forum ballroom, or created the forum ballroom, if you will, because when it was originally produced, it was indoor tennis courts. They still had some meeting use in the 1997. They just established that as a forum ballroom. That's in the basement level of that. The current owner bought The resort in 2023 and had plans for making various revisions over time So there's no substantial changes to the resort structure itself. That's there These were interior changes and changes to some exterior landscaping lighting things of that nature So there were two managerial amendments that happened The first is the outdoor event area, which is on the northeast side, which they call Paradise Park, that at one time had tennis courts, but for many years it hasn't had tennis courts and was used for outdoor meeting room space. And so the first managerial amendment really just established that historical use of that space. There had some minor changes to that in landscaping and things of that nature. And if you recall or had been to the site before, that outdoor area and the other one with the existing tennis courts that were there were sunken underneath the grade level. And so that managerial amendment brought up at least Paradise Park at the time. So then the second managerial one then dealt with the other one, which brought that up in alignment or grade with the grade of the parking lot, if you will. And the manager amendment did describe that there would be possible future amendments because part of the amendment included creating a floor, basically raising the floor of the forum ballroom so it's that grade with the other ballroom space in the main level of the resort itself. that obviously created additional space underneath the ballroom. And any additional space is, in our code, floor area. Any additional floor area, you can't use. So they basically said, in the managerial, you can't use this, seal it off. But when you want to use it, now you're an amendment. And hence, the amendment before you for part of the space underneath it. as well as some additional amendments or additional requests that are part of this minor amendment request. So what's part of this request, there's a new outdoor event lawn area, which is in the front or the west side, so along Scottsdale Road, just north of the Port of Cashere. So we're moving 17 parking spaces to create about a 4,500 square foot outdoor area, which is off their grand ballroom. That's the ballroom. So they have two ballrooms there. One is Immediately north of the portico share area and then the forum is kind of behind that Then the second request is to add meeting rooms and some of that space underneath that new floor area basement area of the floor ballroom There's also requests to redo the exterior signage Which is really focused along Scottsdale Road and then there are some various things regarding some walls between the driveways and landscaping and lighting and things of that nature and and then to add and modify some existing stipulations. And so that's what I'll detail for you in this request. So what this site plan is showing you in purple is really where those changes are being proposed as part of this request. So everything else is Not part of this crest, not really changing with this crest, and it's the same. And I'll go through each of these areas in a bit. So we'll first talk about that outdoor event lawn area. So again, it's about 4,500 square feet. It's north of the Port of Cashier area. It's replacing 17 parking spaces. It faces Scottsdale Road. Obviously, the view over that way is the Camelback Mountain, if you look past. And then across the street is non-residential. That's where we have what was called the First Baptist Church is now the Vista Church. We also have the Dermatology Center, and then we have just north of that the Medical Plaza. And then you have homes way behind that. Then north of this site is on Jackrabbit is in Scottsdale, but those are some smaller residential lots. And then to the east of this site are our 43 single-family lots that are within the town. And then south of this site At the corner is a commercial complex, and it becomes residential, which is in Scottsdale. And then part of that office complex, there's some shared parking with this site that was established in 1997 for background. So again, the event lawn itself, there's going to be no permanent structures. Directly adjoin the grand ballroom pre-function area if you've been into that before It will allow for some temporary tents like any other resort which would go through our special event permit process at whatever time They would decide to do that I'm just looking at what would delineate this outdoor area you would have folk turf is the predominant main part of it there would be agave and palm trees sort of on the inside lining the area and You would have a six-foot-tall block wall that then cycles around it. You'd have a ficus hedge outside of that, and then a walkway outside of that, and then it's within the existing parking area when you're looking at that. And so again, this purple area is just showing you kind of where that outdoor event area is, and then the map over here is just kind of showing you that landscaping and the walkway and the things of that nature. So we also have lighting in here. So you can see there's three different types of light. First of all, I want to look at this as the photometric. Well, what do the foot candles say? So we look at our special use permit guidelines. Our guidelines would suggest really no more than five foot candles as an average. They are showing 6.75. But staff thinks there's some reasons to support that. Mainly, it's not near any residential homes, as I mentioned, with what's around it. It does have a pretty decent setback from Scottsdale Road, about almost 85 feet. Again, as I mentioned, it's going to be screened by walls and landscaping. Scottsdale Road, of course, emits quite a bit of illumination on its own. And then the photometrics itself, we look at what are the photometrics at the property line. Since it's not a bordering residential, there really is zero foot candles required. And if you just look at this lighting, it would be zero. It would be pretty much zero by the time you're not even outside the parking lot itself. So there are three fixtures that are proposed in this outdoor area. There's palm tree mounted lights. And again, we do have stipulations in this that it could be more than 16 feet. They do have these type of lights on this property already. There would be a bollard a little under three and a half foot tall. And then there would be string lights. And again, there would be a similar sort of stipulation. And they do have some string lights in Paradise Park that were approved. And then the string lights would have to have a shield on top, which would be our requirement. And all these light fixtures, if you look at the lumen counts and the kelvins, they're all compliant with what we like to see through our guidelines and whatnot. We also want to look at sounds. We did ask for a noise study. So when you're looking at this outdoor event area, it's not even getting anywhere near the 45 decibels. If you recall, 56 decibels is our max during the day, and then 45 is when it's between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on Sundays and legal holidays. You can see It exceeds about the 45 at certain points on the Paradise Park side of it, but then there are stipulations that are part of this, since we couldn't add stipulations with the managerial, that are really replicating stipulations you see in other resorts to address common noise sort of things that we would look at. And I also did make sure to reach out to our police department to see if there were any sort of noise, any sort of complaints, any, whether it was noise or whatever. And they mentioned there was nothing that is in your packet as well. Then that is that. I don't know, Chair, if you'd like me to just go to each of these together and just go as a whole. You want it to stop, I can just roll right through it and go back, whatever your preference is.

It might be a good idea to just stop. Okay. I know there's a lot of components to this.

And see if people have questions right now. So this is the outdoor event here.

Yeah, this is Commissioner Rose. It isn't a deal breaker in my mind, but the temporary tent causes me a little angst. I've never met a tent that I liked. And I know it's in other resorts. They do have the ability to have temporary tents, but this is right on a main street, and I'm just concerned about what it would look like, because that's a beautiful resort. I mean, they... It reminds me of the Arizona Biltmore with the Frank Lloyd Wright feel to it, and I just think, I don't know, I just question the temporary tent. As I said, it's not a deal breaker, but I just wanted to make my thoughts known, especially being on a busy street.

It definitely changes the streetscape when that tent's erected, and I'm not sure if... You know, they have that brown facade, and then all of a sudden there's a white tent. Right. So... Could there be any stipulation that referenced the tent color?

Could be that it would match the facade or...

Right, right.

I think the question here is can we get a little bit more information about what the tent's going to look like, color, the way it's going to look.

I'm assuming it's collapsible and et cetera, et cetera. And how does it blend with the building? I think that's what you're asking for here.

And do we know the height of the tent?

Typically, Chair, we restrict it to 24 feet. Staff did ask if there was going to be, since we noticed there were no structures in it, and it is west facing, so there'd be a lot of sun. If they were going to have any structures or tents, and the applicant just mentioned, we could, we might. And then our normal process is you go through our special event permit process. Certainly, the applicant could provide us more information for the next meeting or here if you'd like. And of course, you could certainly add whatever stipulations you might deem necessary for that area as well.

So I guess we want some more information on the tenting. So this primarily faces Scottsdale Road. So this portion of it doesn't seem like it's got an issue with residents fundamentally because it's on the eastern edge of the property. Is that correct?

Chair, correct. The applicant did just do their mailing. I'll get to that later. We did get at least one call today. It was from a resident who lives just directly north who's in support of that. It did raise some concerns with possible noise or when would weddings end or things outdoor end. I did go through all the stipulations that are in the packet. She didn't have an issue with that. She also had just some other issue with just some visibility sight lines at the corner of Scott Still Road and Jack Rabbit, which is actually the water parcel, but that's a separate issue. And I'm sure we'll maybe hear some more individuals, but at this point that's all we've heard. And I know that the applicant voluntarily, there's no neighborhood meeting required with a minor. I do believe early on in the process they did reach out to the neighbors. and had meetings, and there was nothing that I'm aware of that came from that meeting that was in the negatives.

We haven't had any comments from members except for the one that you discussed previously.

Correct. Commissioner Breitnagel, I'm just curious about the noise study. You're studying the proposed sound system that they're adding on the west side of the property? I guess, what are you studying with the noise study?

Chair and Commissioner. So we do typically get these noise studies and what they look at is they look at if all activities were going at a maximum sort of capacity outdoors, so there would be some sort of amplified music happening at this new area, the outdoor areas out there, what would be the level of decibel level at the property line? And that's really what we're looking at.

So are they specifically testing a proposed new sound system or existing sound systems?

No, it's really modeling just to try to get a handle on what could be the possible maximum noise that would occur here.

And I noticed that you're taking readings from the east side of the property, and it's understandable because you've got the close residents there, but I'm wondering, on the west side of the property, are you taking measurements for the residents that are a little farther away?

Yeah, as you can see, so the colors here, the green colors were already well within our guidelines. So you can already see, you're not even at the property line yet, and you're

Right.

Yeah. Really, you're going to hear more Scottsdale Road noise than I would imagine than any noise coming out of this outdoor event area.

Just hypothetically, though, the noise from a speaker or a sound system can be very different from traffic noise, right? So I'm not sure how the... Again, I'm not sure how persuaded I am by the idea that the traffic noise is potentially louder because it's also potentially very different.

And remember, across from Scottsdale Road is the church, and the closest neighbors to this would be these neighbors in Scottsdale.

I'm just curious how it might also affect the, I mean, full disclosure, my neighborhood is very close. I received one of your letters, so I'm curious about what it's going to sound like on the other side.

This is Commissioner Rose, and I understand, I think we've talked with the owner's representative that they were going to install a sound system that... If there were to be a sound system, it would be like what a lot of the resorts are using that are smaller speakers that are on the ground that have made a difference in terms of the noise and the other resorts in the town. Is that correct?

That is correct, Commissioner Rose. The distributed sound system is what is required. But my understanding is you're not having any sort of sound system, which is better.

But if there were, there are ways that you can mitigate the sound with the new stipulations we have.

Just to clarify then, so any sound amplification And with that in mind, it's not permanently installed necessarily. Yeah, that makes sense to me. It gives you an opportunity to scale it appropriately.

And in terms of lighting, the lighting is all shielded. Is that correct?

Chair, that is correct, yes.

Can you show us where the walls are located?

Sure. So the walls are bordering... It's right between the hedge and these palm trees. Right. And then this is the walkway and then the parking spaces.

And the purpose of those is to just block off that area.

Correct.

To make it more private. Right.

It will help with some noise, obviously, because it's a block wall.

And the wall is within our height parameters.

Oh, yeah. Yeah.

The vegetation, so there are palm trees in some sort of a hedge around the exterior perimeter of the wall structure. So I guess you're as concerned as anybody about shielding it from the parking lot visually for the It looks well ensconced within what I would call a buffer. If anything, it's going to improve the streetscape a bit. From right now, it's just a sea of parking.

Okay.

Yeah, so I think that's a good thing.

Thank you, Commissioner Nisikis. Anything else on this portion? Hearing nothing, Mr. Michaud, please proceed.

Certainly. So the second part is they'll be adding some meeting room space underneath that forum ballroom. So as I mentioned before, the forum ballroom was raised. The floors to be at the same ground level as the rest of the main resort. The plans, of course, are to use some of this area, but then there are still some area or square footage that will remain unused. So what we have for square footage is there's about 7,700 square feet for four breakout meeting rooms. There's about 1,500 square feet for hallway to service those. There's still about 6,400 square feet that would remain inaccessible and not use possible for future use. The net square footage, and this was important to determine this as a minor amendment, is 4,078 square feet, and we get that math because from this SUP and the prior managerial SUPs, they really lost a lot of square footage. They cut some areas off, particularly if you look at the Paradise Park, there used to be a large covering. That's a large area that they removed. And then near the indoor... Courtyard area where the restaurant the main pool is but they remove some covering areas or patio cover to kind of get that down. I And then these pictures here are just illustrating. This is what the forum ballroom looked like before when it was underneath the basement. So this should be the grade level of the rest of the main resort. So they basically extended the floor over there to create a basement level underneath this area. And then this is how you just access the basement area from the stairs, at least, from kind of where the Paradise Park area is down into that area. And then this is their floor plan. So again, these are the four meeting rooms, this is the hallway, and this is what the four-room ballroom was, and then the area that they're not utilizing. And then this is just a cross-section showing the height. So that ballroom or four-room ballroom area was a 36-foot tall structure inside. If you went from floor to the tippity top of the ceiling, then you can see the floor was added here, and that created this basement area, if you will. And then this is just showing you where those square footages changed. Blue added, pink and reds kind of deleted, and it all gets up to that 4,000 square foot number. And again, the main areas which I had just mentioned before was this covering here that was removed, and this is the Paradise Park area, outdoor area, and then these pink areas where there was some patio cover area that was removed. So we want to look, of course, at square footage since we're talking about floor area. The lot coverage with this current request is at 22%. Our special use permit guideline is 25%, so it's well within that guideline. The lot coverage is less than the prior condition. And again, that's mainly because of those two areas that I mentioned before with the patio cover that were removed. There are no floor area guidelines in our special use permit guidelines, but of course we always do talk about floor area. The floor area would be increasing because you just added basement floor area space. We also look at the total impervious area and the open space area, and those are Technically, the open space is going up because you're taking parking lot and turning it into outdoor event space. But they're all both well within our SUP guidelines for those provisions. So then we look at parking. So the existing parking, as it exists today, is 604. That's 559 onsite, 45 in that offsite parking lot, which is just adjoining the property to the south. With this special use permit, as I mentioned, 17 spaces get removed due to the outdoor vent space area. That would bring them down to 587 total spaces. They did provide a parking study, since we'd want to know what was happening. So in the peak, the demand is showing at 493, 407 in the off-peak. That would give a surplus of about 100 to 180 parking spaces. Staff wanted them to do an additional analysis to really look at if everything was fully going on in this site with all these different spaces, kind of what would happen? And that is what you're seeing in this lower number and the peak being about 586. So again, still within their parking allotment that they have. And that's just from the parking study itself, which is in your packet. So there should be no impact with the added meeting and outdoor space based on the parking study. We don't have any history of parking complaints. Again, the parking study models, your typical worst case scenario, This location of this resort on Scottsdale Road, which is on the edge of town, does provide a lot of alternative transportation methods compared to some other resorts that are more internal to the town. And then, of course, the resort markets itself to more conference and groups, which should result in less single vehicle use and more alternative transit sort of modes as well. There is no change in existing traffic or circulation patterns, except for removal of that Adding that outdoor event area, you just can't circle around this little area, but you can still do a full circle around the whole entire resort. The driveways are still staying the same. You have this one on the southern side on Scottsdale Road, which is, we'll get to this in a bit, but it already has a chain on it. They're proposing a gate, but that driveway is still remaining. You have these two main driveways to get into where the Portico Share is. I have the driveway here on Jackrabbit and the driveway here. Those are staying. There is a temporary construction one here which will be going away and wall put back and landscaping put back. And I think that is it on circulation. And I will stop there because the next one is signs.

So in terms of

It looks like the conclusion is that there's no real impact unless it's maximized, right? Is that what you're saying here?

Yeah, and I think staff would say it's not even, there's no impact there. They get pretty close to their maximum capacity, but they're not over their capacity.

Okay, and in terms of overflow parking, if it has to go somewhere else?

Yeah, I do believe they do have an arrangement with the Vista Church across the street, and they have had for years, so they could utilize that.

Okay, so there's another option. Correct. And most of these conferences are going to be local conferences, or are people coming in?

I think it's people coming in, but I'm not the best one to answer that.

Okay, thank you. So there will be people driving in. I guess both ways they will drive in, or Uber. I know that the inclination is to say that Uber and Waymo will take over the world and we won't need parking, but I don't believe that. I think there's still a need for parking, but based on... based on what you're saying here, it looks like there's sufficient parking to satisfy the needs and that there's overflow parking in the event that that becomes necessary.

It might be good for the group to just remind us how many guest rooms there are. 280. 280. You can kind of do the math in your head. 280 guest rooms and 587 parking spaces, I think.

Madam Chair, I have one question. I apologize for not asking it on Friday, but whenever I see subterranean public gathering places, it always causes me angst on a fire. And my question is, is there more than one... Way to get out of there. God forbid there were to be a fire As you guys Yeah, and now I remember the sprinkling, but you always hear of a nightclub fire, and nobody could get out because there was one entrance, but if there's three, that's much, much better.

And if you saw the average groups

Well, I think wait till the end, but when you are making comments, it's helpful because this is all being recorded and it's on Zoom, so it's hard. But I guess this is fully subterranean. It doesn't have any kind of windows or anything like that. Go ahead and come up.

I can sit over here if you'd like to. Okay.

Madam Chair, there are some windows, if you saw from the picture, they are subterranean, so it's hard to explain without being there, but those two staircases that come down from the corridor that's on the east side of the building are open to the sky, and then it's an outdoor corridor before you go into the building, and that's all windows from the subterranean outdoor corridor into the forum basement.

So there could be additional ways out is sort of what I'm thinking.

There's glass. If you really had to get out through the glass, you could.

Okay.

But we have multiple points of ingress and egress, and we also have additional windows as well.

That's correct, Madam Chair. And as I mentioned earlier, the basement area is also fully sprinkled as well.

Did anyone else have any questions about that?

And the other thing that I would say would have to be COVID, so that we would be protected in that manner.

And I suppose for the record, Madam Chair, Benjamin Tate with Withy Morris Bar, 2121 East Highland Avenue.

Thank you. if you will, that is, I can't remember, what's the, is it 10 feet?

So, Madam Chair, Commissioner Nisikis, so the, it's a really interesting space, and I would actually, if there are any other commissioners that would like a site visit sometime between now and Friday, I'd be more than happy to tour you because there's so much just happening on the property. I'm out of town next week, otherwise I would make the invitation for next week as well. The Forum Ballroom just has a really interesting history, and Mr. Michaud mentioned it earlier. When the resort was originally constructed in the mid-'80s, it was billed as a tennis resort. So we had four outdoor tennis courts and an indoor subterranean tennis stadium, essentially. I think over time, as tennis kind of fell out of favor, they saw use of that space as something else. And so in 1997, there was a major ACP amendment to turn the indoor tennis facility, which was called the Forum, into a ballroom. But they didn't bring it up to ground level at the time. So it was a ballroom that was 14 feet below grade, which obviously, for a number of reasons, isn't an ideal way to have a ballroom. It's a nightmare for service. It's not great for guests. And so as part of this renovation, which I can kind of walk through the whole theory of the case with this request at some point, maybe when we finish with the questions, we're in the midst of a $40 million renovation of the property. The two managerial amendments were really phases one and two. This is phase three. And in phase two, which was the last managerial amendment, was when we raised that forum ballroom floor 12 to 14 feet up to bring it to grade level to make it more serviceable. That created a whole bunch of extra space underneath that we weren't quite sure what we were doing with yet. So as part of that stipulation, it was that space is off limits until you file a minor amendment to do something with it. And so these four breakout rooms are what we are doing with essentially half of the space. The remaining space will remain inaccessible.

And the ingress and egress points, could those be choke points at any one point in time? Or is that going to be? sufficient for people coming and going and if there needs to be a big group of people that leave quickly?

So, Madam Chair, I guess the best way I can describe it is these are the same ingress and egress points that exist when it was a ballroom, which would have significantly more people for its use as a ballroom than it will with four breakout meeting spaces. So we're taking the same number of ingress and egress points that we had for a 10,000 square foot ballroom as we're going to have for four much smaller meeting spaces.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions right now? Mr. Michaud?

So the next area is regarding the exterior signage. So their request is to remove the existing resort identification signs. So there are two signs that are south of sort of the middle Scottsdale Road driveway. And then there are two just north of the northernmost driveway, closer to the intersection with Jackrabbit Road. They're illustrated here. So this is the one that is closest to Jackrabbit Road in a V shape. These two signs would go away, as well as this whole structure. Should be noted that the wall is essentially the property line. So everything in front of that is right of way. And then you have this sign here. They would remove these signs with new signage, but keep the portion that's encroaching into the right-of-way. They're calling directional signs, although there's some resort name on it. You can call it, I guess, either way. It kind of works. And I'll go through that. The existing sign on the portico share would go away. And then there would be a new monument sign. That would be at the entrance over here, and then a new one at the corner over here, which I will So there would be two new resort identification signs. So this is the one. They're both 7 foot by 7 foot, so 49 square feet, much smaller in area when you look at just the text of it. They would just have illumination, just two lights illuminating up at the sign itself. And then... These signs themselves are generally within our guidelines. Sign area is normally 40 square feet in our guidelines, so these are technically 49 if you look at that whole white area. We have allowed some larger signs. Think of the Methodist Church on Lincoln, just west of Tatum. So in instances, we have allowed something that's a little bit larger than our normal sign. But these signs do meet our lighting criteria, the height. They're well within it. Because normally on Scottsdale Road, we would have a guideline of eight feet. These are seven feet tall, not eight feet tall. These new signs would not be in the right of way that they're proposing for these two, which is good for us. And location-wise, or number of signs, we generally say one sign per driveway. So there's technically three driveways on Scottsdale Road, two on Jackrabbit. They're proposing no. ID signs on Jackrabbit, and then just these two signs along Scottsdale Road. The one sign at the corner is on the water parcel, so there was a draft stipulation that you see that would require authorization from that owner in order to put that sign there. And that is those two particular signs. Then they have what they call directional signs. So when you look at our guidelines, we do have something that's different for directional. It's a little debatable if this is a directional sign or an ID sign, but they have four sort of ID signs today. So if you wanted to call this an ID sign, it would still be well in compliance with our guidelines from that. It does meet our directional sign guidelines. We don't have a minimum or maximum number of those. We do have a size requirement for those. This is a four foot by three foot sign area. Again, it's the whole sign with one light shining on it. You have another directional sign. This is on Jackrabbit Road, which is much smaller, showing for guest check-in, which would be at the second entry point on their property to go in. And then there are some directional signs on the gate that's being proposed. Again, there's a chain today that's there, and I'll get into this again a little bit later. So there's some signage there on that. which is directional signage. And then you have these couple of signs like this that are check-in parking. And again, when you look at directional signage, We normally say five feet in height, 12 square foot in area. You know, the illumination is all, most of these don't have illumination. Where you're not meeting it would be that existing sign south of that V sign, that's south of the driveway on Scottsdale Road where they're going to remove that sign. They're going to put these other directional signs, as I mentioned. So technically that will still be in the right-of-way, but it exists today. And then this particular directional sign is one foot tall. than our guideline but since it's well deep in their parking lot and again with larger vehicles it probably makes sense to be a little bit taller and it shouldn't really be visible off property anyways but the rest of these directional slams besides those two points are in compliance with our guidelines and And then this is just showing, again, the location of those. So that's that check-in sign that's on the property here. This is the water parcel that's showing the ID sign. That's seven by seven. This is the other seven by seven ID sign. And then you have that existing V sign here that they're going to put the, which they're calling directional sign because they're 12 square foot in area. And then you have those other six foot tall directional signs here and here. And then you have the gate here with the signs on the gate.

Do any of these signs have the address on them?

Yeah, they probably, you know, they probably would need at least the main ID sign.

At least one should have the address on it so that if someone's looking for it, I mean, I know they'll see the signage, but sometimes that's helpful as well.

I think that's it. And I'll stop here with any questions on signage.

So there's that existing V sign. Explain to me again what's going to happen there.

So this sign that's closer to the intersection will just be fully removed and out of the right of way.

One is gone and one stays.

Yeah, this one will stay. It's already encroaching. The town approved it, but it was encroaching. They're just going to replace the actual sign that's there with a different sign.

And as far as dimensions of the signage, I mean, it's really not complying on those that are a little bit bigger.

The two main signs here, the white area, because we'd consider that the sign, is 49 square foot versus 40 square feet. As mentioned before, they are on Scottsdale Road, which is a higher travel road, and we have in the past allowed something larger.

Okay. Can we see those again? Sure.

So this is at the entrance on Scottsdale Road. This is the one at the corner. They're both the same size, seven by seven.

Okay, so most of it's white.

White, yeah.

And I guess if we did make it any smaller, my question would be how visible would the letters be? I mean, can you read it? I mean, I think that's probably fine. It's along Scottsdale Road. It's not in a residential area or anything. Okay. Anybody else have any questions about signage?

Commissioner Rose the I think your idea of the address is a good one. I'm just wondering if there's some way they could put it on the wall or You know because if you start adding the address You're gonna run out of space there, and I'm just wondering if you could do some nice numbering on that wall.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Rose. Oh, thank you. Madam Chair, Commissioner Rose, it's a good note, and we'll look at the sign package and see where an appropriate place to put it is, because I think what we're really trying to go for is for some very sort of clean, simple signage. So what we would want to do is... crowded or make it look jumbled, but also make it usable, because really the whole idea behind having the address like you'd suggested is so that people can see it and they know where they're going. So we would just want it to be usable and effective for the people who are trying to find it without making the signage seem crowded or busy, if that makes sense.

Right. Well, revisit your sign package and see where you can put some addresses in there so people can actually find it. It's a good note. Thank you. Yeah.

And Chair and Commissioner Rose, sometimes it's just the number that goes on there, not like, you know.

Right. Especially on Scottsdale Road. Does the address five digits?

It's 5401 North Scottsdale Road.

This is Commissioner Covington. At first glance, this looks like a lot of signage. On the other hand, I bet there aren't 10 people in Paradise Valley who know

Madam Chair, Commissioner Covington, I was one of those people who did not.

Yeah, yeah. But I still, there seems to be a lot of, to me, there's a lot of signage.

If I may, just to walk through kind of the idea behind the sign package.

Go ahead.

Okay. So since we've got it all on the screen, I'll just kind of play tour guide here. So the important one is the monument sign that will go at the main entrance at the entry feature right there. And there will be a new six-foot screen wall that goes along with that that spans that entire length. And the idea behind that is to create a slightly quieter, more intimate setting when you arrive at the port. at that portico shared, you're just looking right back at the traffic at Scottsdale Road and all the cars that are passing, and it's loud. So there will be a six-foot screen wall and a hedge. So that monument sign will sit right at the end of that screen wall as you enter. So that's our main monument sign as you enter. We are removing a sign that's above the Portico Share that says Paradise Valley Double Tree Resort that is quite large. And that's the idea there is that one is actually set back pretty far from the road. And so it's kind of hard to see and is obscured by some of the trees and it's not a very effective sign. So we're essentially taking the monument sign that's above the Portico Share and bringing it out to Scottsdale Road where it's actually visible.

Well, it's a change of building signage to monument signage.

Correct. And then for those two B signs that are out on Scottsdale Road, we are eliminating one of them that encroaches into the right-of-way, only keeping one of them as you're approaching, because there is no desailing on Scottsdale Road, kind of letting people know as they're coming to the door, hey, the entrance is coming. So that one serves some value. The corner monument sign, Yep, right there. That's a potential future to be determined because we don't own that property. It's owned by the water company that is – there's a well down there and there's a pump house that serves flood irrigation to the neighborhood that is behind us to the east. It is a small water company that's actually wholly owned by the neighborhood. But we don't own that parcel. That would be the subject of a future agreement between us and the neighborhood to allow us the ability to put that sign there. But if you're coming south on Scottsdale Road toward the resort, that's the only sign that you're really going to see before you get to the dedicated left to make it into the resort. So that one also serves a very important purpose. The directional sign that is at our driveway on Jackrabbit is, I would actually say, the most important sign out of all left onto Jackrabbit and you're trying to get into the resort and you miss that driveway, you're going to end up back in the neighborhood. It's your last opportunity to get into the resort before it sends you back in the neighborhood to the east. So that'll direct people back to the resort so they don't end up getting lost in the neighborhood and having to find their way back. So that's, I would say, overall the purpose of all of those. Each one does serve a purpose. We don't have any superfluous signage as part of this package.

The only thing that I would say is with the water property sign, you have absolutely no right to that right now. You don't have an agreement in place. I don't know that we really need to be addressing that signage at this point in time because you don't own that property, and why should we be authorizing a sign where as part of your SUP when there are no rights there? I guess I would want to see the agreement in place before we move forward with that sign.

So, Madam Chair, the idea there is simply to save processing time because otherwise, in order to modify our sign package, it would be another amendment to the SUP. All this does is authorize the dimensions, lighting, materials of the signage should the water company agree to it. So that's already in place as far as the... the scope of the sign. But the only way that we could even get a permit for that sign is if we were to execute an agreement with the water company and provide that agreement to the town. All this does is save both the commission and the town and the applicant the time and expense of going through the process again just for one sign.

Well, I guess I would want to see that there is a basis for that, and right now that's not property you own. It's not part of the SUP. If you had an agreement in place and we'd have a right to approve, I would say that would be a different thing. Likely that would probably be a managerial amendment at that point, wouldn't it? No?

No, probably not.

That would have to come back?

Minor.

Okay. Well, do we have any precedent in authorizing a sign on somebody else's property?

I don't think he's asking, but I'm...

Well, I think it is. I think we're saying, yeah, we can go ahead and put a sign there.

No, I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying that if they were to have an agreement with the water company, this is the size sign that would be on the property. But he's not asking, as I understand it, to have a sign there approved because there's no agreement with the water company.

Mr. Michaud, can you speak to that, please?

Chair, yes and no. That's correct. There is a stipulation that is drafted that would state that they would have to get that authorization from there, and they could not move any further. So if you were agreeable to a sign at that location, they would have to demonstrate that there was authority to place the sign there. I don't know if the town attorney wants to add to that.

Mr. McGuire?

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, there's not really much to add to it. It's a lot like the other stipulations that we have that are forward-looking. So it is your direction to the applicant and your recommendation to the Council for the applicant to have

This ability under these conditions So it's it's an if then if there is an agreement that is put in place by the applicant to have the ability to use or get an easement over that or signage rights or whatever you end up negotiating with them then Then you can potentially put a sign there but there has to be the first there has to be a condition proceeding that occurs before the other comes in.

So all this does is establish the dimensions of the sign should we get an agreement in place with the water company.

Okay, so our stipulation has to be clear that we're not authorizing a sign at this moment in time, that there has to be a condition that is met, that there's an agreement in place, and once the agreement is in place, you can potentially put a sign there, and these are the These are the sign requirements, so to speak.

Yes.

OK. What's next?

So there's some various perimeter improvements. So one, I've alluded to several times, is replacing the chain that's on the southernmost driveway on Scottsdale Road, which is illustrated here on the bottom, with a new gate. It would be decorative metal five foot six inches tall It would be 15 foot setback from the travel lane, but generally on the property line The pedestrian access would still remain through there Generally when you look at our guidelines Walls fences generally go to our walls and fences section, which is really a residential code section so typically it would be ten foot step back from the property line six foot tall and would not meet the setback technically on that for that guideline. However, I'm not sure they could technically meet the setback because the parking is already established and how the thing is laid out. It's been operating in this manner for many years now. The town engineer did review it to make sure there's maneuverability. It is obviously wider than a regular driveway because it's a commercial driveway, not a residential driveway for if someone were to come in and come out.

And what is the reason for blocking off that ingress and egress there?

It's for service use only. So they've already used the chain for just allowing for service use and not regular use. Or if they have a heavy meeting, I'm sure if there's a large meeting group, they'd open it up. But it's not for everyday use.

Does this impact the... The ingress and egress for emergency vehicles at all or what what are those patterns?

So madam chair members of the Commission we I think we Even with this one in its current state. We have four other driveways two on Jackrabbit and two on Scottsdale Road as as Paula noted this this driveway has been in this condition for quite some time and really I think the The importance of it is to make sure that we are directing guests to the port of cashier and to the entrance so that they're not sort of prematurely making that right, circling around the property. It's just, it creates a more manageable traffic pattern on the property.

Okay, so it's to alleviate confusion for new guests, but you're saying that the drive patterns are going to be better and this won't adverse affect any of the drive patterns for emergency vehicles.

That's correct, Madam Chair. The only time this would really be opened is for significant deliveries. If we had an 18-wheeler or something like that, they need to get in this way. Obviously, this is a better path than through the port of share or for any events that are occurring on the east side of the property and those event spaces on that side. Just, yeah, for service vehicles and commercial vehicles.

Okay. Does the fire department need to sign?

Yeah, there would be a chair commissioners there be a Knox box that will be required with any gate so So they could access it.

Correct. Yes. Okay Please continue.

Okay. So then there is also proposed lighting along Scottsdale Road on the wall, which would use the same ground-mounted fixtures that are shown for the sign. They're spaced about nine feet apart, at least measuring-wise. Mounted in the turf in front of the wall, again, those lights would be in the right-of-way. There really is no guideline on accent lighting. I mean, Hillside does, but we would prohibit this you know, accent lighting on the walls, but not on Flatland or our SUP guidelines. The wall, the lights itself would be fully shielded and not direct onto property. They aren't proposing any lighting on Jackrabbit Road. I think staff's direction was that there wouldn't be any lights in the right of way. Generally, we don't like to see things in the right of way. And if you do allow some sort of lighting, it would be architecturally integrated into the wall. Where they could probably maybe meet this is the new wall that they're putting in that between the two driveways where the Port of Cashier is in the front, that wall is actually set back into the property. There probably is room for them to put lights there if it's on their property. But when you get to these other existing areas, those walls are really on the property line. But again, Certainly be up for your discussion if you think you know lighting is appropriate along Scottsdale Road on these walls And or in the right-of-way.

Well, there's already lighting along Scottsdale Road It's not exactly like it's you know in in the heart of Paradise Valley That's dark skies, but I really don't think that there should be lighting in the in the right-of-way area

Commissioner Rose, is there a way we can see a rendering of what the lighting would look like? I mean, is there a lighting plan?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Rose, there actually should be. It's in the packet.

Is that in our packet?

It is, yeah. It's with the photometric. Yeah, there's one in there. And there's a rendering, both day and night time, of what that screen wall along Scottsdale Road would look like.

Well, I just don't think that it's necessary to put lights in the right way.

And they won't be. They'll be ground mounted if we're able to within the property. And if they are closer to the right of way to where ground mounted is not possible, then they would be as architecturally integrated. So they'd be mounted to the wall.

I guess I would like to see what that looks like.

And speaking of the driveway entry, so they are modifying what was approved with the managerial. So the wall, as you can see, that was approved in the managerial was in pieces because there's existing palm trees today at that area. They're going to remove the palm trees and basically have one kind of overlapping wall, if you will, with the hedgerow behind it. And that's really the only difference in this scenario for that.

Okay, so that complies with our requirements. Yes. Okay, thank you.

And then these other ones really are generally substantially compliant, but since they clouded them and put them as part of the packet, I'm showing you these. So when we look at where the portico shear is, the fountain in the managerial case, they were going to actually cut down the fountain a bit and add some different landscaping. They're essentially just keeping the fountain the same. So that's really the difference there. And, of course, that impacts the landscaping a bit in here and there.

I don't understand.

Oh, yeah. So you can see here with the managerial, this is the existing condition that has been for the fountain. Okay. And you can see in the managerial, they were going to actually cut that fountain down, make it smaller.

Right.

And so they're deciding just to leave the fountain the way it was.

So there's no change. There's no change, right.

It turns out minimizing or reducing the fountain was very expensive. Okay. So we're just leaving it.

Understood. The fountain has the... I guess you'd call them horse statues. That's correct. So those stay.

Those stay, yeah. So that's just that change. Then when you go to Paradise Park and where the tennis court or sport court park is, again, the managerial covered all that. Really what is clattered and different is really the wall area between that space and the parking lot. It essentially just had one gate area. So now it has two gates areas and some different landscaping that's in there. But that's, again, we would deem it as substantially compliant. But again, just illustrating it for your purposes. And just to give you a feel of really before what that space looked like. So this is Paradise Park. And you can see it was more sunken down. So this is that forum ballroom. And now you can see that it's the walls up. They don't have yet have the hedge in the back yet on this photo But you can see the difference there and then when you go to the tennis court area again, you know, it's a sunken down tennis court area now it's just a lawn area with with individuals with the wall and then the hedgerow which has already started to grow well beyond the wall area so just for comparison of before and after And then the next section, if there's nothing, is just the stipulations, which I will go over. So there are some new stipulations that would be added. And I'm just summarizing them here. You have in your packet the actual detailed wording of those stipulations if you needed to go over those. So the first stipulation just references the plans and submitted documents. Stipulation 2 talks about the various noise requirements. So meeting our Article 10.7, live music to end or move indoors at or before 10, that the resort needs to measure this noise, and that amplified sound is discouraged and prohibited between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. And again, these are coming just from our other resort stipulations. Then we have some stipulations regarding lighting, that they would need to meet the approved plans. If it's unclear, you meet our guidelines. The light-emitting element itself, is it visible or has a problem, that basically we can go out as staff and say, hey, you need to move it. The landscape lighting needs to be focused on the plants and site features. These are more particular to this resort. There's a 16-foot height limit for the palm trees and the festoon lights themselves. That's already part of Paradise Park. But since that was a managerial, I wanted to make it quite clear in the stipulations applies here as well with this SUP.

And so just to stop for a second, so we've got these palm trees that have the capacity to grow into the skies and to be trimming them and what have you. So I mean, how are you going to keep those palm trees at Levels that that you want is that the best choice?

The lights would be because they're mounted and they would have to not be more than 16 feet. There's an additional stipulation regarding just the height of palm trees once they start going over the building if they're a problem and And again, this is unique to this resort, since there's so many palm trees that's just historically been there, that if they do become a nuisance, there's a process in the stipulation for a neighbor to, if there's two or more, I forget what it is, neighbors to complain, then they would remove the tree and plant a new palm tree.

Oh, okay. So there's a whole process in place for the big giant palm trees.

Yes. Okay.

All right.

Yeah, we had some concern with the managerial one, and since there's palm trees in this area, we said same step. Okay.

It's a circular.

Directed downward.

Is that limited?

16 foot tall, right.

That's worth 16.

Right, and that is typical that we put on like Ondas and some other resorts too. We cap it at the 16. Right, okay, yeah, got it. Then stipulation four talks just the landscaping needs to meet the approved plans. There's some maintenance and irrigation stipulations that are pretty typical. The sign stipulation really is just verifying that that V-shaped wall that's near the intersection will be removed out of the right-of-way. STIPULATION SIX IS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN A RIGHT-OF-WAY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, IN PARTICULAR AT LEAST FOR, EVEN IF IT'S NOT THE LIGHTING, FOR THAT V-SHAPE SIGN THAT'S THERE. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY SIGNED SOME LEGAL DOCUMENTATION ABOUT WHAT NOT.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. IT'S JUST ENCROACHING?

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. And then authorization, as we mentioned before, authorization from that water parcel owner regarding approving any sort of sign at that intersection. There's a requirement, stipulation eight, to combine. There's three parcels on this parcel, and as another resort, we like to see just one parcel. That would just go through our final process, which is a staff process with a seven-day notice to council. And then the waiver of claims you'll be seeing in your packet, which is, again, a standard process Item and then all other existing stipulations remain in full force and effect. I think with that That's the new stipulations and the applicant is requesting some modification of prior stipulations So when you look at your attachment all the prior stipulations are in there. There's not a lot of these older resorts That's why we added several new ones because the older resorts really didn't add a lot of stipulations in the past We tend to like to add stipulations more now So they are requesting that there's an 850-person local cap to remove that. I guess some of the reasons to possibly support that. It has been longstanding uses at the resort with no recent complaints. The parking study, of course, supports the parking, as we mentioned before. It's mentioned several places because it Probably happened in 85, and we just carried it forward. There are some various tennis-related stipulations.

Let's stop for a moment at this 850-person local function cap. So what is the capacity of the resort for functions? It was, I don't know.

to give a little bit of a background on the history of this stipulation because when I started working, I've been working with this developer or this owner on this project for a couple of years now and dug back through all of the historic SEP records, every piece of paper that the town had related to this site. And when it went through that amendment in 85 for the 850-person local function cap, that stipulation didn't exist when they first started going through the process and then through a lot of interaction with the neighbors at the time, particularly concerns about parking when there were a lot more single occupant, single driver, everyone needs a parking space, which really isn't the way that parking functions today. But there was no rhyme or reason whatsoever to that 850 cap. It was an arbitrary number that was put in, I think, a bargain that was struck between the neighbors and the resort developer at the time. But there was no math done, no equation, no real rhyme or reason, it appears, just from everything in the historical record that it was just an arbitrary number. And so we did a parking study to establish, okay, how many people can we actually accommodate in the ballrooms for local functions with everything else at capacity? So if all the guest rooms are occupied, which I'm not sure you've ever in recent years sold out, that's just... because of where it is, because of where the resort itself, I'm not sure it's ever been sold out, but even assuming that it was, the restaurants are busy, the ballrooms are full, we could accommodate up to 1,265 attendees in the ballrooms before parking becomes an issue. And so that's when you hit that 586 number with a capacity of 587 spaces. That's when you bump up against it. When you're hitting... All of the ballrooms at capacity, all of the guest rooms are sold. When it would then, at that point, 1265 plus, call it 1266, we would need to avail ourselves of the agreement that we have with the church across the street for auxiliary parking.

So the 1265 or 1266, whatever it is, is that functions or is that functions and rooms?

Both. So 1265 assumes that the guest rooms are all fully booked as well.

Okay. So what is – because this is a function cap, right? So I don't know really what that means. I don't know if that means just – People in the restaurants and ballrooms and and yeah, sure It was it's really was not the restaurants.

It was for the ballroom spaces Okay only and it was for local only so if it was all out of state people out at it It was just yeah, it's it's yeah, it was an odd We have nothing like this in any other resorts and madam chair.

That's so for For anything you're seeing related to a modified stipulation, this was really our attempt to clean up some fairly messy stipulations that have been put in place over the years and some that don't really seem to have any rhyme or reason to them or simply are no longer needed. I mean, the next one is a great example, the tennis-related stipulations.

Right. OK, so before we go to tennis-related, so what is the occupancy for all the public spaces?

Chair, that's the 1265. So the parking study, staff particularly had them add that because we had a concern. They kept using 850. And we said, eh, you need to use something more than 850 because what if all this is going on? So that was the addendum in the parking study to address what is that 1265 number. And again, that's looking at, because with parking studies, now you're looking at shared parking and used and all that sort of stuff. And Mr. Tate is correct. When you go back to the records from 85, There's no parking study. I'm sure they used some numbers based on something, but it wasn't based on current stuff, certainly today, and how we use parking studies.

So what was the deal that was struck then?

I think it's just this 850 cap. I think there was just a lot of concern. Because remember, this opened in 1985. So I think there was concern when it was opening, oh my god, there's this huge resort. It's going to be a ton of parking. It's going to overflow into our neighborhood. And what happens if it's all people who are in the Phoenix area that are going to come to this conference, and they're going to take all the spaces up? So they agreed to a number, which happened to be 850, but they only applied it to the ballroom spaces for local functions only. Yeah. I mean, at least there's a historical record here that's been since 85, and that seemed to have a problem.

Is that going to be replaced with 1265? No.

Our request would be to delete it for two reasons. One, the number was arbitrary in the first place. Actually, sorry, three reasons. One, it was arbitrary in the first place. Two, it would... it would be very difficult to enforce regardless unless you have somebody from the town out there doing a head count with every single event that we do. And three, as I think Madam Chair, you were the one that asked the question, do we have anything like this at any other resort? And the answer is no. And so part of some of the changes we're asking to make are just kind of the level of the playing field to sort of put us on equal footing with how the town has treated resorts in a more modern context in the town.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions on this?

Yeah, this is Commissioner Covington. Does the fire marshal have any limit on the, I'm sure he does, on the capacity of that bone?

Chair, yes, correct. And those limits are always way more because their limits are based on how many people you can stand back into a space, not when you have seats and tables and that sort of use.

So you don't know what the fire marshal's limit would be?

I would not, no. Madam Chair, Commissioner Covington, it would be a number significantly larger than we would ever be able to get on the property.

Well, and that doesn't go away, Commissioner Covington. So the fire marshal's requirements are still in place. This is a requirement in excess of that. That's my point.

Okay, thanks. Okay, so then the other modified stipulations relate to removing a lot of these tennis-related stipulations. Again, these were added when the resort had six tennis courts. They will have no tennis courts, except for that sports lawn, but again, it won't have tennis on it. And these really included requiring tennis 10 to 10, no outdoor amplified sound for, you know, events sort of things for tennis, various lighting and other provisions that really don't apply anymore. And then, of course, we have the new added stipulations, which really are dealing with noise, which really would.

So, query, there is that big grassy knoll, so to speak, out there. Do you have plans for the use of that big grassy area now? I mean, do you think that's going to be a function? What are you going to do with it?

So, uh, madam chair, so it's right now we are treating it as sort of, uh, a long game multipurpose space. And even when, um, Commissioners Rose and Nasikis and I were out there on Friday. There were some folks playing ping pong. They have sort of an oversized chess set. And that's what we're using it for. Could we have an outdoor event there if somebody wanted to rent that space? Yes, it would allow for that, but it would be subject to the same noise stipulations as any other space on the site. And I want to back up to something, because I think it's sort of really important for the context of all of this. One, this resort just over the years has been a very good neighbor. almost no complaints, if any complaints whatsoever, from the surrounding neighborhood. But with that in mind, when we had started construction on some of the improvements from the managerial amendments last year, we thought it would be a valuable thing to introduce ourselves to the neighborhood, tell them not only what we have coming with the construction, but what we're proposing with this minor amendment. And so we hosted a neighborhood meeting back before Christmas. I believe it was the second week of December. sent out letters to a full radius like we would for an amendment. So we sent out quite a few letters. Although I think we kept it to the east side of Scottsdale Road because those were really people affected by construction. We catered it. We had some beer and wine service. I think 40 to 50 neighbors probably showed up. First of all, there wasn't a single negative thing that anybody had to say about what we were doing. I think people were just excited to see somebody making a significant investment in the resort because all of the neighbors lived so close to it. And I think people were just appreciative that someone was investing in it. People just kind of treated it like a holiday party. People were just excited to have a reason to get together with their neighbors, visit amongst each other, and then for us to kind of share what our plans were. But by and large, this was received very positively.

Well, we haven't had any comments, really. We had one comment, right?

Correct.

And then there are some stipulations regarding low-level lighting. In particular, it's the four-foot tall lighting. We don't actually have the plans from that SUP anymore, but when you go through the parking lot, you can see there's these four-foot little tall parking lot lights, so I'm sure they're referencing that that's along the perimeter. Even with the removal of that stipulation, they're still subject to the lighting plan, which was part of their SUP, their managerial SUP. which shows these existing lights, they can't just swap in a 16-foot tall pole for replacement of these four-foot. They have to be in substantial compliance with that. So they could put a baller there that's four-foot tall instead of the existing light, but they can't wholesale change out lights there.

So what is the purpose of removing this since it has to comply with the already existing plans?

I think part of it is... We don't have the plan anymore. So I mean, I guess I'm assuming that the four foot tall lights that are out there that I see, because the stipulation really just is generic. And it almost seems like it applies to the whole site. But we obviously have taller lights that are in other locations. And now that we've approved, there's some other ones that have been approved. Say there's just the string lights that were in Paradise Park and the string lights with this outdoor area. So I think we do have a solid existing lighting plan in play where we know these lights exist. So I think from a staff perspective, we would agree with the applicant that.

Wouldn't we just amend this to have it reflect the correct statement as opposed to deleting it entirely? I mean, I understand that there's a lighting plan out there, but this exists, so why not make it right? Oh, it's just a question.

I don't know. I think I think we're Staff is agreeable more to not have it since we do have a there's a stipulation that to meet the lighting and we have a lighting plan of all the exterior lights Any any comments on this

No? Okay, keep going.

Okay. And then there's, just to remove some other completed requirements, there's requirements regarding cost sharing for the traffic signal, which obviously has been up and is up. There was, regarding that private well site that's there, that site has been vaulted. It was either supposed to be relocated or vaulted. It is vaulted. And then there were some timing requirements regarding the perimeter walls, and those have been up and are still up.

Okay, so none of those are relevant anymore.

Correct, correct. And then that was with the stipulation. So, again, as being a minor amendment, there's criteria that we would look at. It can't change or add any uses. Again, the functions and activities still remain, you know, for guest use, you know, guest units. The increase in floor rate came from more than 5,000. We talked about that, that it is under the 5,000 threshold. It can't have a material effect. That can't be mitigated. So again, the lawn is along the frontage of Scottsdale Road. Again, not near any sort of neighbors. That would include with lighting and signs. That meeting space is really underneath the ground area. We have a parking study now with this showing substantial parking and additional stipulations. So I think from a staff perspective, we feel that It is meeting this criteria, and it can't change the architectural style. There's really no new buildings, if you will, on here. So the architectural style is still remaining the same with that. Public comments? Again, there's no notice.

So one second with architectural style. So, I mean, what about the white building? Is that just for the walls? Is that, I mean, the rest of the resort remains the same?

Yeah, there's between on the perimeter wall, it's block, and then there is, I wouldn't call it pure white, but there is white in there. The new block, the new wall going in between the driveways would be a white stucco wall, so the white signs would match, and I guess, you know, with signage, it's something that you would actually see, you know, it's the point of a sign, so...

But the remainder of the resort sort of remains true to the original architectural style.

Oh, correct.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Correct, yeah. Because there's no new, the outdoor area doesn't have any new structures. The meeting space is all in a basement area. So there's really no, all that brickwork is staying the same. No changes.

Thank you.

Mr. Michaud, I'm sorry, could you mention a white wall? Where would that be?

The new block wall that they're putting, I mean, there's going to be a hedge, but there's a new block wall between the Scottsdale, the driveway in front of where the Port-au-Cochere is, you know, the two driveways that go in at the street. That's that wall area. They're putting a new wall there.

And it's adjacent to the signage.

Correct. Yeah, OK. Yeah, so that little stretch there.

But it's not on Scottsdale Road.

No, that's on Scottsdale Road.

So isn't there a lot of brown, black wall there?

madam chair uh commissioner rose so it's it's the wall that'll span between the two main entrances so right now yeah so that's that kind of pony wall it exists on both sides of the main driveways but right now between the two main driveways there is no wall at all and so we would be adding a six foot wall with a hedge there to just create a slightly better condition for the arrival so that when folks come into the Port of Cashier and they're checking in, they're not looking back at the traffic on Scottsdale Road. It's going to take away some of the traffic noise, just create a better condition, screen the whole entry experience a little bit more from the arterial street.

And that wall was part of the managerial. Really, the only change is it's removing the palm trees, so there's not that opening for the palm trees. It's just a solid wall. But as we were talking, the block wall that runs along Scottsdale Road isn't all block. As you can see, it's stucco with block. It's a mixture.

And so is the rest of it going to be, is it going to look the same or is it going to be all white? Is it going to be consistent?

It's an all white stucco wall. And as Mr. Michaud noted, that wall was actually approved in the last managerial ICP. We're just making some modifications to it as part of this one, which standing on its own wouldn't require an amendment.

It seems like from a consistency standpoint, it would look better if you made it look the same as the other wall. I don't know, consider that.

And so again, so for comments, as I mentioned before, there was really only one comment received so far, which again was from the neighbor to the north who was supportive of it, just really regarding some concern with noise, but was satisfied with the noise stipulations, and then concern with some corner vision, which the engineering division has gone out and will look at. But again, that's located on the water parcel itself. And all that noticing material is in your current packet, but it has been properly noticed for the next meeting itself. And with that, that is all. Unless you have any other additional questions. And just to recap, just so I know.

There were a few follow-ups.

So I think there were three things. So the applicant to get back more information on the temporary tent detail. I can provide a little bit of insight there.

Oh, OK. So Madam Chair, Commissioners, so the So for Paradise Park, which we have on the east side of the property, that's a space where, as part of that managerial ICP, we've already established tent dimensions and all those kinds of things to where we don't need to come back and get a special events permit every time we want to do a tent. We've already gotten that approved as part of a managerial amendment. We don't intend to use tents on this space nearly as often for a few different reasons. One is the whole idea behind having an outdoor pre-function space on that side of the resort is the views that you get at Camelback Mountains. And so the only instances in which we would want or ever need to use a tent are when the weather's not cooperating. So really, the only two times that would occur are, one, if somebody wanted an outdoor event space in the summertime, which would when rain or some other element would dictate having a tent out there. That's really the only instance in which I could see ever even wanting to use a tent here, just because of the nature of the space. And that's why, rather than establishing the dimensions, making it part of the SUP, this would be one where we would have to come back and apply for a special event permit anytime we want to use a tent in that space, which I just, again, based on the nature of the space, would be exceedingly rare.

Okay, so you're not looking for an approved tent space going forward. You will come back to the town every time that you need to use it. That's correct. Well, so is everybody okay with not getting additional information on tents then since it's going to have to be on a case-by-case basis approved by the town? I mean, I think that seems fine to me.

And chair again that would just be the special event permit is approved at a staff level so we're gonna come back to the commission

I mean, I think if it's getting approved each time, that's a different animal. Correct.

Sometimes, and that's why it was asked. We asked, we wanted to understand if they wanted a temporary tent, something specific approved. We have some of those. I know Sanctuary has that. A lot of resorts have that. Some just... wing it case by case if they need it. So, you know, but again, if they do do that, it's clear in our code, it is a special event permit that gets reviewed by all the different divisions in the town.

Okay, and you'll look at heights, you'll look at lighting, you'll look at any kind of sound system associated with it, you'll look at colors, you'll look at, okay, so the whole shebang.

Correct. So I assume then nothing sounds like they need to come back on?

I think so, unless I'm missing something. Does anyone else have any comment on it? If it's going to be done on a case-by-case basis, we don't need to pre-approve.

Okay, then the other item was the address, so getting some sort of detail on the sign or on the wall or whatnot. A great observation, and we'll definitely look at that. Okay, thank you. And then more detail regarding the lights on the wall along Scottsdale Road was the third. Right. Whether it's architectural integrated or not, and those were really the only items I saw for more information.

I should have one last question, I promise. It may be a moot point, but am I to understand that the whole exterior wall along Scottsdale Road is going to be white stucco?

No. No, the only wall changes between the driveway. That's correct. The rest of the wall is staying as is.

OK, it'll be the brown block wall. Yes, correct. OK, thank you.

It's just this section between the two main driveways. OK, thank you.

And the only other thing I would say is consider making it consistent.

Some texture.

Well, no, I mean, you've got block. Can you match that block so that it's more consistent with the existing wall structure? Or does that not matter? You're going to have a white wall. I mean, you've already got all of this other area that looks a certain way.

Well, that's my... I just wondered why it's... That part's white. Now, it may...

Can you come closer to the microphone, please, and introduce yourself? I'm Wendy Nelson. I'm the honors rep for the DoubleTree Scottsdale Paradise Valley. And we really looked at that as a feature wall. And a lot of concepts went back and forth. But at this point, we really thought just a nice, clean, textured wall. bring some character and difference to all the block and all the beige. So that's where the architect and designer were coming at with that wall.

And I guess the important point here is that this was just sort of a cleanup item in a larger amendment that does require minor approval, whereas making the modification to the wall that the town has already approved standing on its own would just be an administrative approval item.

Yeah, but we're looking at all of this because it rises to a certain level. So I understand that concept. And these have come sort of staggered in front of the town. And I think we get to comment at this point in time.

Yeah, and the only reason I bring it up is that I said before, it's such a, it's a beautiful facade, you know, the building and the wall. So, you know, the white sort of, SCARED ME.

I GUESS, MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER ROSE, I GUESS REEMPHASIZING THE POINT THAT OUTSIDE OF THIS SECTION THAT'S IN BETWEEN THE TWO MAIN DRIVEWAYS, THE REST OF IT IS STILL THAT LOW PONY WALL WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE PURPOSE OF THIS WALL IS LESS FOR THE

Yeah, but it's also signage, though. I mean, I think isn't the signage, it pulls from there.

Yeah, I would say the sign is integrated into the wall.

Yeah, so, I mean, it's really part of that sign and wall. And that white is going to be sort of, I mean, I'm not your designer or anything, but it seems to me that's going to look sort of inconsistent with the rest of the resort. That's my concern there. We'll go back to the owner of the property. Yeah, you may want to just consider how it's going to look. Because sometimes people will come in and say, hey, I've got this traditional Mediterranean-style resort, and I want to put, like, a modern portico chair there. And it just doesn't go, right? I think this is sort of part and parcel of something like that. You want to enhance the existing resort, which is a beautiful resort, without having it sort of, oh, that's

I think we're trying to get to the same goal. It's a great looking resort. And in some ways, that part of the process is a bit self-regulating. If we put in that wall and it looks terrible, we're probably going to want to change it.

Okay.

Yeah, and our responsibility here is not to design the resort, and we're just asking the question because of the, you know, the beauty of the block, and so anyway, that was why I asked.

Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Covington, I think an effort should be made to match the weight of the new wall with the existing weight on the existing wall. instead of having one totally bright white and maybe the rest of the row is an off-white. I think it's just going to be sort of shocking. If they could just match the white, I think that'd be fun.

It'll lack consistency at the end of the day. It's up to you guys, but those are our thoughts.

Could I also add for the staff to correct the spelling of stipulation on the slides? It's driving me nuts.

Thank you, Commissioner Covington.

Where's Charisse when we need her?

Did you have anything further, Mr. Michel?

No.

Did the applicant have anything further to add?

Madam Chair, the only thing that I would say is just a thank you to staff generally because we've been working over the course of now two managerial amendments and this one very closely with Paul and Chad and it's just been a great working relationship overall. I mean, obviously, I've worked with the town on a lot of different projects, but this is one where, especially because it has come in a little bit piecemeal as we've gone through these different phases of renovation, they've just been incredibly accommodating and have given us great direction, which is why I think we've gotten to where we are with this one. So it's just a note to staff that we've really enjoyed working on this one.

Thank you so much, and we do appreciate our staff. They work really, really hard and really try and make each and every project the best project that it can be.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Next there are no public hearings this evening Are there any action items?

There are no action items chair.

No action items. Are there any staff reports?

There are none. Okay future agenda items Yes, so your next meetings would be in July. So July 7th and July 21st however, we don't have any scheduled cases for those items. So we would go ahead and request that those just be canceled. So your next meeting would be an August meeting, whatever

Yeah. Don't we have a June 16th? June 16th is your next meeting.

June 16th with all these three items for action. And then July, you would not have any items. So then August, you would. And then, of course, for those who are on Hillside Building Committee, you have Hillside, which that packet will be going out this week. You have on June 10th. And then I believe July 8th. And then July 8th would be the rescheduled, where you're going to have all the commission with all the board is the plan.

Sorry, what did you say?

On July 8th, there's going to be a scheduled meeting just to go over hillside code items.

Is that the hillsides? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. Correct. And when is that going to be?

That would be the regular meeting in July. So just to give you a heads up, since you won't have any July commission meetings, but you'll have a July hillside meeting. But it's invited for all of you.

And that'll be in the evening?

No, it'll be the normal hillside. It's usually in the morning, 8. So just a heads up. And that is all for agenda items.

Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Nobody wants to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second that. Commissioner Rose?

Okay. A motion made by Commissioner Nisikis and seconded by Commissioner Rose. Any discussion about this item since it didn't seem nobody wanted to adjourn? I take it no. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? I hear no opposition. The meeting is adjourned.

Good night.