Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. I'd like to call to order the June 16th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Commission. It is now 6 p.m. Mr. Michaud, would you please call the roll?

Certainly, Chair. Commissioner Rose? Here. Commissioner Nisikis? Here. Commissioner Bryant-Nagel?

Here.

Commissioner Curtis?

Here.

Commissioner Brown?

Here.

Commissioner Covington should be joining us remotely. He's not yet. And Chair George-Alice. Here. We do have a quorum.

Thank you so much. This evening we may go into executive session at one or more times during the meeting to confer with town attorney for legal advice if need be. Tonight we have certain items on the agenda. One is the approval of minutes. We have a study session item and we have three public hearing items. Is everybody okay with the Order of the items. Do I hear any? any need for change Hearing none. We're gonna move forward with the approval or amendment of minutes. It's item 26 dash 194 approval of the June 2nd 2026 Planning Commission minutes so moved Thank You Commissioner Brown.

Do I have a second second Niseka seconds. I

Thank you, Commissioner Nisikis. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. The first presentation this evening is a study session item. It's item 26-196, Discussion and Possible Action on Franciscan Renewal Center, Major Special Use Permit Amendment, SUP-196. 26-02, and it's located at 5802 East Lincoln Drive. Mr. McMahon?

Yes, thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. As stated, this work session is regarding the major special use permit amendment at Franciscan Renewal, located at 5802 East Lincoln, case SUP 2602. The goal this evening is to review the updated application, field any comments, any questions you may have regarding the proposed amendment. And again, this item is also on the business portion of tonight's agenda for action as well. This place of worship is located east of the northeast corner of Lincoln Drive and Smoketree Lane. Fronting Lincoln to the south, and then to the immediate north and west are our 43 zone lots, part of the Lincoln Drive Vista subdivision. And again, to the immediate east is the majority of the church site. In terms of process thus far, at... Your June 2nd work study session, you'll see some of the review there on the screen, setback and height work concerns of the proposed arrays, the screening plant palette, as well as the request for the array designer to be in attendance for tonight's meeting. And on the following slide, I'll go more in depth on those items. So again, on your June 2nd study session, The commission expressed concern with the setback of Array 4, which was originally set back 42 feet from the western property line. SEP guidelines is 60 feet for accessory structures adjoining residential. In response, the applicant has removed Array 4 altogether. The commission also had concerns over the overall height of the various arrays. The applicant has, in turn, lowered the remaining three arrays by one foot so that the new overall max height would be 15 feet from grade with a 10-foot clear height. This, again, aligns with the first Southern Baptist Church array that was approved in 2023, and that max overall height is 14 feet 11 inches. Thirdly, the proposed landscape screening also was discussed. The two proposed plant palette types were not preferred by the commission. In response, the applicant and staff have worked to craft a stipulation for additional screening along that western edge, which I'll go over in a future slide. And then finally, the commission requested that the array designer engineer be in attendance, and he is. To reiterate, this request constitutes a major SUP amendment due to the fact that the increase of floor area is greater than 40% on the existing square footage. The three arrays now calculate to 100% increase as opposed to the 150% that was part of the previous request with the four arrays. So to summarize the request the applicant Mike's livers with the church is requesting the installation of the three photovoltaic systems mounted on three new carport structures located At the site's existing parking lot array one will be roughly three thousand seven hundred forty five square feet in height array to four thousand three hundred and seventy square feet in area an array three four thousand two hundred and fourteen square feet in area and In total, there'll be 12,330 square feet of addition, which is 6.01% of increased floor air ratio. The existing community life center that is on site today is 12,281 square feet. The ultimate goal for the church is for these arrays to provide power and shade for the campus. On this slide, you can see information and data on the two solar shade structures that reside on places of worship within the town today. As I previously mentioned, First Southern Baptist Church solar shade structure, which went through an intermediate amendment process back in 2023. The closest setback for that structure is the 29 feet six inches to the east of that property, which is also an SUP property. And again, as previously mentioned, that max height is 14 feet 11 inches with a nine foot clear height. Tempo slow also went through an intermediate amendment back in 2013. You can see that on the bottom image. The closest setback for that shade structure is 56 feet to the east, which is the Kiva School. That shade structure has a nine foot clear height and 14 foot six inches max overall height from grade. In terms of land use, as outlined in the council directed statement of direction, the church use will not be affected by this request. As previously stated, the vegetation was discussed and a new stipulation has been added to the draft ordinance. No noise, light, odor, or vibration will be emitted from these and the visibility will be mitigated by, again, the removal of array four, the lowered height, and the increased setback of all of the structures. I don't know if you missed, did you skip one of the slides? Oh no. So the next few slides I'll go over current conditions on the site. Staff went to the parking lot and took various photos. These two photos are standing close to where Array 4 would have resided, facing west. You'll see that some of the immediate lots To the west already have a lot of vegetation on their lot specifically to help mitigate visual impacts. The image on the left is looking northwest from the southern portion of the parking lot. Again, reiterating that there is some vegetation along that western edge and that the opportunity for additional vegetation will be at the discretion of those owners. This image is looking south from the north portion of the parking lot, not necessarily from property line, looking south again along that western edge, and you can kind of see the parking spaces where Array 4 would have resided to the left side of that image. These two images are of the northern portion where the retention basin is along that northern edge. You can see there is some lush vegetation, and then the residence is to the north. sit higher up on the berm and where their walls are located as well. And that one on the right, you can see the direct north from the existing parking lot. Again, the overall height of the three arrays is compliant with SUP guidelines. The guidelines suggest 24 feet overall for accessory structures. As previously mentioned, the height of these arrays has been lowered to 15 feet. with a 10-foot clear height, again, to mirror what was approved at First Southern Baptist Church. Setbacks for the three arrays are compliant with SUB guidelines as well. As previously stated, 60 feet adjoining residential and 40 feet along a public street. Array two and three are set back 99 feet from the west. Array three is set back 110 feet from the north property line. And array one is set back 240 feet from Lincoln Drive and 115 feet from the eastern property line, which again is part of the church property as well. Speaking to that proposed landscaping, 10 trees will now be removed or relocated elsewhere on property to accommodate their arrays, as opposed to the 16 previous that was for the four arrays. The applicant will also plant an additional 20 ground covers along the existing parking lot. And also, again, as mentioned, staff has created stipulation three, which is in your packet material, essentially, which gives flexibility to the residences to the west to determine if they would the applicant. This is a rendering from the north to the south from the existing parking lots Closer to Lincoln looking north at Array 1. This is a view from the west looking at Array 1 from the existing parking spaces. This is kind of a bird's eye shot from the southeast looking northwest. You can see the opening of the parking spaces with the removal of Array 4. And you'll see the Array 1 at the bottom of your screen and then 2 and 3 just north of that. Birds, another aerial rendering, again from the west, looking at the top of the screen being the east of the three arrays. And then this is from that southwest-ish corner, looking north toward Lummi Mountain. And then again, this is from the south, closer to Lincoln Drive, looking north at the proposed arrays. And I think finally, this is again from the north, looking more southeast toward the arrays. And then a final rendering, again from the south, looking north. Draft Ordinance 202602 is included in your packet material as well. The ordinance itself is comprised of nine stipulations, which are summarized on the screen. The first being, being within substantial compliance with the submitted plans and documents. Stipulation two, if in conflict with other stipulations, then these stipulations shall govern. stipulation three again, I'll go over in further detail on a later slide is regarding that additional landscaping and Four, that the landscaping shall be maintained and have automatic irrigation system. Five, that relating to construction permit issuance until the plans have been submitted and approved by the town. Stipulation six, during the period of demolition and construction, the signage posting. Seven, temporary screening that is standard with a lot of other SUP stipulations. and eight being that waiver of claims which is included in your packet, and then finally, stipulation nine, that all existing SUP stipulations shall remain in full effect unless change are modified by this SUP amendment. Speaking further to that stipulation three, so the proposed language reads that landscape screening, tree or hedge, will be communicated to the three adjacent residences to the west. Those are the various APNs of those slots. If the owner of the adjoining property conveys no reasonable request for additional and or alternative vegetation screening to the applicant, the applicant will be relieved of planting additional vegetation on their side of the property wall. The specific plan type tree or hedge must be derived from the patterns of nature plant list found within the visually significant corridor plan. At least three trees or hedges planted adjacent to each of the affected residential lot unless otherwise communicated by the adjoining property. At least two attempts shall be made to the adjoining property regarding these plantings. The minimum standard again being a written letter sent via certified mail. So this Process was taken and is similar to what we do with our shared wall agreements So it's a process that's already familiar with the town and again this stipulation was crafted per Commission request that the plant pallet be again in line with that visually significant corridor a plant pallet All required noticing for this amendment has been completed and Those are the dates that each of that process has been completed. Two letters of opposition were provided to staff today, both from the resident at 6700 North Smoketree Lane, the residents to the north, and two other comments were made today as well. Those were printed and given to you prior to today's meeting. Thank you. So for tonight's action meeting, staff will ask for your input and comment. Moving forward with staff's recommendation that the Commission forward Ordinance 202602 to Council with the recommendation of approval provided with any modifications from the Commission as this satisfies the statement of direction. During the action portion of tonight's meeting, you may either forward the major amendment on to Council with the recommendation of approval, continue for further review, or forward with recommendation of denial. With that, I'm now happy to open this for discussion and take any questions that you may have, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. McMahon. I have a question about stipulation number three. Am I reading it correctly to say that there will be at least three trees or hedge plantings adjacent to each of the affected residential lots unless the resident states otherwise? Is that the idea? Or if there's no communication, there will be no

No plantings chair members the Commission that's correct the two attempts to communicate with the residences after two Officially sent letters if they have not heard back then there will be no additional plantings if they do hear back the three either the three hedges or trees Is the minimum so depending on the communication that goes back and forth with that property owner and the church? that's just the minimum we put in the stipulation so that that's kind of the base and

And so as of right now, what is the nature of the requirement that the staff was proposing? Can you remind me of that, please, prior to this?

Chair, members of the commission, the previous landscape plan that was provided already just stated that the applicant was going to provide X amount of trees, X amount of hedges along that. This now gives the flexibility to the adjacent property owners for them to decide what they want, if they even would like additional screening. So this kind of mirrors what we do with the shared wall agreement in terms of process, but gives the authority to those property owners.

Yeah, I would like to have a certain threshold, which is at least the minimum, and then if we go out to the neighbors and they want something else, then you go with what the neighbor says, but I don't want it to default to no screening at all.

Chair, members of the commission, staff has not heard from any of the residences to the west. That again went into the thought process of giving them the opportunity, because they might not even want additional screening. Some of those pictures displayed, there is some significant vegetation there as well. So that was the thought process that went into crafting this stipulation based on it being at the request of that homeowner.

Yeah, no, I understand that, but communication being what it is today, I think there can be problems getting in touch. So, um, I'd rather not have it to default to zero, but that's my own personal opinion. I don't, I have not heard from the balance of the commission.

This is Commissioner Rose. I have a question on the height of the arrays. In my experience, when you're requesting to build something like this, it would seem to me that we'd get with the neighbors that are questioning the height of these arrays and run a line where the arrays are gonna be 15 feet high and proved to everybody that it's either blocking their view or not blocking their view. I'm very uncomfortable approving a project like this without knowing what the neighbors are gonna see. I see all these renderings, but they don't prove to me that anybody's view is gonna be blocked or not blocked. So how do we proceed to ensure that everybody on the commission believes that nobody's views are gonna be blocked?

Chair, members of the commission, staff is moving forward as this proposal does meet SUP guidelines. The setback is greater than the 60 feet. 24 feet is the maximum allowed per SUP guidelines.

I get that, but guidelines and the church over on Scottsdale Road is a lot different because it didn't affect, I don't think, any residents of the town. And in my estimation, I'd like to see some proof, regardless of what the guidelines are, that this is not going to block anybody's view. I mean, if somebody were going to do that to my house, I'd certainly be at the dais. And I think we all deserve to know if this is going to block the view or not block the view.

This is Commissioner Brown. I would echo Commissioner Rose's comments. And I drove out to the location today and took a look. And I would have the same abiding concern that Commissioner Rose just expressed. Thank you.

This is Chair George Ellis. I appreciate all the changes that the applicant has made today. I think that they're listening to what we were saying as a commission in terms of setbacks, in terms of heights, in terms of complying with the requirements of the town. What we have not heard from yet are the residents and people who want to speak today. And so we'll have an opportunity to do that today. And whoever's in the audience in this matter can give a speaker request form and they can state their point of view on this. Do we have any other comments from the commission? No? Okay. Hearing that there's no additional discussion, I think that the pertinent thing here, and I think all the commissioners would like to hear from anyone who wants to speak on this. So at this time, I think we're gonna move from the study session portion of this discussion to public hearings. And the public hearing for today is 26-160, Discussion and Possible Action on the Franciscan Renewal Center. And it's described in the same manner, Special Use Permit Amendment, SUP 26-0258, 02 East Lincoln Drive. So I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. I have... I have three slips today and two members of the public who stated that they wanted to speak on this matter. The first person that I have is Sean Clancy, who's a resident of Paradise Valley and said he'd like to speak on this matter. If you'd like to come up to the podium, please. Yes, and make sure that the microphone is functioning. Just hit the button, okay.

Testing. Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Sean Clancy. I reside in the property with my mother that's exactly north of the project, 6607 North Smoketree Lane. And I just want to voice that we're very upset with this potential project. We're actually parishioners of the CASA, and we have politely voiced to them the concerns of their project obstructing our view. And I agree with what Mr. Rose and Mr. Brown have brought up concern-wise. We've told them countless times of our concerns and they've completely disregarded it. And it's my understanding that if this wasn't an issue, we wouldn't be here today. But it's clear that this project will obstruct the view and will drastically damage the resale value of this property. I mean, I feel that my mom, as a resident of this Paradise Valley, has a right to enjoy her view of Candleback Mountain. Not to mention, I'm also a real estate agent, and I've yet to hear of a solar panel that does not reflect light. So I have a hard time believing that a matte, finished solar panel will not reflect light. In addition, the Francisco renewal center also has landscape lights on the premises of the parking lot. And we have notified them countless times that it is shining. to our backyard and they refuse to correct it. So as us being parishioners, we've been very polite and it's just frustrating and sad to see that our concerns are not being considered, especially since our property runs the entire north section of that project. So I politely urge that you oppose this project. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a slip from John Clifford, who's a Paradise Valley resident and would like to speak on Franciscan renewal.

Yes, good evening, members of the board. I'm John Clifford. I live at 7028 East Balfour Road in Paradise Valley, and that's about 100 yards from the Baptist Church on Scottsdale Road that has solar panels. I'm not here to speak in favor or opposed to solar panels. That's for someone else to decide. The applicant wishes to have them, so they must perceive a benefit. I think it's unfair for someone to seek a benefit and impose a hardship on others, namely the neighbors. We all live in Paradise Valley. We all treasure the views of Camelback Mountain. Taxpayers live in the homes. the price of which is a function of the view in many cases. This applicant has chosen to seek a benefit and impose a burden on others. I submit there's a less restrictive alternative this applicant should be forced to pursue. Namely, they can put the arrays on the southern part of the property adjacent Lincoln Drive. and they can accept the burden on their property of hindering the view of Camelback Mountain from their property. It will be as far away as possible from the residences. They get the benefit. They should get the burden. If they don't want additional solar badly enough to accept the burden on them of having those panels along Lincoln, the southern part of their vast parking lot, they'll still get the shade on their parking, they'll get the power on their property, and they will impose the burden of hindering their view, not the view of others. If they don't want to accept that burden badly enough to build the arrays along Lincoln, then they don't want the solar power badly enough. Let them accept all the burden and all the benefit and save the neighbors who are taxpayers, who are taxed on the value of their view among other things. They shouldn't be hindered and opposed. Where I live, the arrays of the Baptist Church don't bother anybody. There's no residence that's hindered by that array. It's as far from the residences as possible. It's probably 100 yards from the nearest house. The closest adjoining property is a commercial property that's a plastic surgery cosmetics business. They get the benefit of the shade for their employees to park in the shade, I think. But I don't think they're looking out the window at the mountain. while they're working. So I think it's time for them to take the burden and leave the neighbors alone. I do think they improved the proposal from taking out those arrays, but not enough. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Clifford. I have one more slip from Kathleen Schwartz, who's a member, who's a resident of Paradise Valley, and she doesn't wish to speak this evening, but objects to the CASA's improvements with the arrays. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak on this matter?

Chair, you want to make sure the applicant has opportunity to speak as well. Absolutely.

Yes.

Good evening. I'm Francis Slavin, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. I'm a practicing lawyer. I've lived in the town for over 30 years. I've had the experience of working with matters in the town for over a number of years in my law practice. I know George Burton very well from all years. Right, George? Anyway, I'm a member of the building committee at the Francisco Renewal Center. And we did take into account the views, for instance, Area 4. That was a significant elimination from our parking needs and requirements. So that's something that we did ahead of time. Okay. So in terms of trying to, there you go. Okay. So you got to wait for it. Okay. So two and three are on this pattern right here, are already in place. But the one just to the west of that, that's a very, very significant array. That has been eliminated. substantial amount of reduction in our covered parking and in our electrical generation capability so that was really important for us to take care of number 2. The height of the structures are important. And by the way, our engineer, Brian, is here this evening in case there's any questions that he might be able to answer with regard to the structures themselves. Now, we do not exceed the maximum height at all Are we not even come close to the maximum height of structures under an SUP? I believe that's what 20 24 feet Okay, so we were at a little higher than 15. We're now at 15 feet and then we're at 10 foot clearance on the other side only because The if you take into account vehicles that are today there's just a lot of vehicles that are that are lifted and it's amazing anymore when you drive around this town, all the lifted vehicles, we don't drive them. Okay, probably none of us drive instant vehicles, but there's a lot of people who prefer those, particularly younger people, and they would not be able to fit under that carport and probably damage the carport, or excuse me, the... the canopy as well as their own vehicles. So we have to have some flexibility there. Then we also need to have it tilted so the water will run off. If the water doesn't run off, what happens? What happens? Right, it damages it. So we've got to be able to have that as well. So we've tried to think of all these things when we were putting this together. Now also, particularly, and the people to the west, we will meet with them, we've met with them in the past, and we'll make sure that whatever questions they have, we'll be able to resolve with regard to the landscaping. A lot of them already have heavy landscaping, which is good because, and we all do that. I do that at my house. I have landscaping that protects my backyard, so I don't have to have people viewing my backyard. I think we all do the same thing. Charlie, did you have a question?

Not until you're done.

Okay, this is Charles Brown. He's the general manager for the Francisco Renewal Center, so he's... He is here to make sure that I don't screw this up. Anyway, Brandon, do you have photos of Ms. Schwartz's house to the north? We have some of those that show that basically she has a very, very protected backyard. Her wall is not only eight feet tall, So when you're walking in a backyard and you've got an eight foot tall structure and she's probably less, she's probably a little over five feet, but you don't have a view that's being blocked because you don't have a view of your backyard. Then on top of that, there's all sorts of landscaping that protects her backyard. So she has all that, which is important. very important to have that landscape and protecting her sanctity if you will of her property so that's important to have that there for her so she is and so she enjoys that but but basically and then when we it's not in your packet but it will be another packet going to the city council but the town council but we did a cross-section of And the impact on the views, basically it limits some of the views at the lower part of Camelback Mountain. But at the same time, those views are covered by landscaping. And the distance. So, you know, that mountain doesn't come all the way down and it's not covered. It's got all kinds of things that are there that surround the base of it. So when you're looking from her home, the impact on the view is not going to be that significant. But more importantly than that, by our taking out Array 4, that opens that up. It opens it up. So that was a significant... concession on our part to cause that to happen. We did recently, in the last five or six years, we completed the new church. It's beautiful. And we enjoy going there. To suggest that somehow we would put these structures there to then, you know, if I can say mar the view of our church, is not something that's particularly exciting for us to think about. but but we've got plenty of parking both on the on the side that's in the county and then on the side that's in the town of Paradise Valley, so By picking a central part a central location on the five acres. We thought we were doing pretty well By taking all of these factors into consideration every one of them You got something to say sir

Thank you, Mr. Slavin. So just to clarify, you're appearing in front of us on behalf of the applicant today. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Slavin?

Chair, I have one question, and it comes back to the location of the existing parking spaces. Mr. Brown, I know that If I'm looking at the diagram correctly, the site plan better said, there are two runs of parking that parallel Lincoln. Has that been explored as an option? And if so, there's a reason, yeah.

Please put your microphone on.

I'm Charles Brown. Director? I'm Charles Brown. I am Charles Brown. Great. I'm just going to keep my finger on it. First, it's been a pleasure to work with the town the last almost three decades to accomplish a lot of good together. But before we get started, I want to apologize to the neighbors from the bottom of my heart that there's been any issues Lack of communication. I'd like to put on record that anything that they want to talk to us further about concerning this lighting gets solved. And I thought we had solved it. Obviously, we haven't. And that's something that concerns me. I've been very proactive in getting to know all the neighbors along the property line. And I'd be happy to have you do an audit on that to see how truthful I'm being right now. But it's been really important for us to be good neighbors for all these years. Especially with these neighbors. So please, I welcome them to come stop by my office or I'll meet with them and figure out what we gotta do to fix the lighting, once and for all. Secondly, we did do a study last week with architects, Douglas Fredrickson, who were able to design exactly what Mr. Rose was asking for. We couldn't get it into the packet in time for all of you to see it, but it's been done. And it's not stamped, but it's nearly stamped by the architect, okay? So we're doing everything we can to try to make this work. I understand what the other neighbor said about solar and the burden. We get it. We really do. It's our goal to do as much as we can to redirect expenses to ministry. And we mean that from the bottom of our heart. So the more we can save on power, the more we can help support the needy. We did look at those two other parking areas. Yes, they would be ideal for neighbors. No, they would not be ideal for our community. There's an important message that's coming out of the window that is right adjacent to that. And it's to be a beacon of light for the rest of the world. And we would prefer not to put solar panels up in order to discriminate against what that window means. And if you're driving down Lincoln, which you shouldn't be looking to your left, you should be looking straight ahead. But if you pull in and you park and you see that beacon of light, It's reflective of our theology. It's reflective of our intentions to do good. And so we would not put solar panels up to block that.

Any more questions?

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you so much. We appreciate your comments.

I do have a question.

for Mr. Brown?

Yes.

Mr. Brown, can you please come up to the podium again?

I'd like to make it known that I've been a resident in the town and you're Your enclave has been a great neighbor to all of us. I guess Doug Frederson put together that schematic, and what did that show on the views for the neighbors?

It showed exactly what Mr. Slavin was sharing, that the sight lines of Camelback are not impacted by the new lowering of the panels that were recommended by all of you at the last meeting.

Yeah, I know you said that it was late to get into the packet, but is there a way that we can...

I gave them to Brandon, and I'm not sure where they are right now. Right.

Well, we can also... executive session yeah no no no no i mean uh i think it depends on whether or not everyone's ready to take action today if not then we'll be able to look at the materials if we just continue the the date for decision And I think that's probably the best approach because I would like to see that documentation before making any kind of decision. Absolutely.

This is Commissioner Curtis. I just have a question. Are you saying we can look at this document that exists right now? Because I think we should. Because an issue I have with some of this discussion, and I don't think we should block sight lines, but something that's 100 feet away and starts at 10 feet, goes to 15 feet, I doubt it's gonna block much of anything. Plus, if I'm reading this correctly, it's the short side of this array that's facing north. Third, they're within the guidelines of the SUP, so I don't understand how we can not approve it. So I would love to see this document, and I think we need to allow the public to see this document as well, or anybody who's interested in it, and take a look.

This is Commissioner Bryant-Nagel. The last page, kind of the diagram at the top of the last page was sort of what I was interested in. It seems to be a relatively simple math problem to figure out angles. So I wonder if somebody could speak to that diagram and explain the results of the diagram on the last page at the top.

Chair, excuse me. Yes. We are trying to get the... We're going to scan that document in and put it up. The audience would like to have that up before you're talking, if that's okay?

Well, I guess... I think we'd like to have an opportunity to actually digest the materials. I mean, this is sort of running through this, and I don't know that it all needs to happen at this moment in time. I think it would be best to have it scanned and have the commissioners have an opportunity to review the materials in due course. So I think that would be my inclination.

This is Commissioner Rose. The thing I'd like to do is, can we take a field trip? I mean, we've taken numerous amounts of field trips to the Ritz-Carlton project, to name a few. And I just think I'd feel more comfortable if I could go... see what Dr. Schwartz and Mr. Clancy are talking about, and be able to make a decision. I agree with Commissioner Curtis that it does meet the guidelines, but that doesn't mean that we have to approve it. If it met the guidelines and it blocked everybody's views, that wouldn't be fair. And so I'd encourage... maybe delaying our decision on this and being able to go see it with our own eyes. And as I said before, I think they're great neighbors. And I think you wouldn't tell any false truths or we'd have lightning striking. But I just like to see for myself and be able to visit with you and ensure that we're making the right decision. I would concur with Commissioner Rose on that note.

I guess one question I've got, Madam Chair, Commissioner Rose, when you say blocked view, I mean, it's going to impact the view, but it's not blocking any views on anything, okay? It's limiting some of the views. So when you talk about blocking views, I mean, if we were not here developed as a church, okay, if this was just five acres in the town, zoned, one dwelling unit per acre, We could put five two-story homes on there. And what kind of impact would that have on the neighboring properties? Significant. So I just want to point that out.

And I really appreciate everything that the applicant has to say. I agree that the Franciscan Renewal Center is a good neighbor in town, and all that we want to do is understand the process, have an opportunity to review the documentation, and that's why we had requested today as a study session day to be able to get additional information and have your engineer here to help us walk through. But I think we should have an opportunity to digest the materials. If commissioners want to come out to the Franciscan Renewal Center, I think that is appropriate. And I don't I'm hearing that there's enough interest in continuing this discussion. So I do, does anyone else have any other questions right now?

Just one comment, if I may, just to follow up on the comment about you might be able to build five homes. Is that what you said, two-story homes?

Right.

Yeah, but in that case, you know, these homes, when they were built, they bargained for the costs behind them. They didn't bargain for, you know, five homes at that time. So I'm not sure I understand that argument.

Let me explain it. They bargained for us to be there, but when you bargain for us to be there, we are going to grow, right? We're growing our theology and our membership, what have you. And it's been significant. I mean, it's incredible the number of persons that now attend from all of this valley and from beyond. So when you're locating next to the casa, what does that mean in terms of what structures might be needed in order to be able to accommodate that? Whereas if they were, if this were not developed as the casa and going forward in a normal theological development, and yet it were a single family subdivision, I think the view impacts would be significantly greater if this were single-family homes. That's my position.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

The only other thing I wanted to share was 20 years ago, and I shared this with the neighbors, we cut down 15 20-foot pine trees that were right adjacent to this property that if they were still there would be 40 to 50 feet high and And it would be interesting to understand what would our recourse be to help them have better views other than to cut those pine trees down for them, which we probably would have done.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have one more slip from Kathleen Schwartz, MD, resident of Paradise Valley.

Hi, I'm Kathleen. I had my son speak for me. I don't like to speak publicly. But I have lived in Paradise Valley. I bought that house in 1996. When I bought that property, it was zoned that there would be nothing built behind it. I mean, that was what I was told. They changed the zoning, and they built the community center, which I wasn't aware of. I had lots of drama in my home at that point. And so, yes, I have... Planted quite a few trees to block the community center and it had it impacted my view I and I I mean, the reason I bought the property was because of the view, and I really, it's very, very distressing to me to have this, and he's saying it won't, yes, it will obstruct some of the view, but where my vegetation is now, I get a very nice view of Camelback Mountain, and I've enjoyed it, and I've enjoyed living in the town for 36 years, and I just would like you to appreciate what has happened. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this matter?

Please come up and introduce yourself. I'm Kathleen Clifford, and I live in the town. And first off, the Southern Baptist Church is now called Vista Church, just so everybody knows. Thank you. It's a totally different name. I think the real elephant in the room is that these solar arrays on carports, they look like a Safeway or a Basha's. They're not attractive structures. And I live near this church at Vista Church. And it's a very small little thing. You barely see it when you drive by. When I saw these pictures of this thing, it's huge. And this is in the same parking lot as this beautiful church that I guess cost $20 million to redo. So I think there is an aesthetic issue that was probably bothering some people in addition to views. And I nowhere see, is it that they want shaded parking, or is it they want their electric bill paid for? Because if it's the electric bill, there are other places to put solar on this property, on other buildings. So I guess I'm just kind of torn The parking lot never is busy in the summer when it would be hot, and in the winter it's full and people don't need the shade. So I'm questioning some of the reasoning by why they want to fill this parking lot with this massive, huge array of carport. It's not attractive. So that's my comments on this. Thank you.

Chair, members of the commission, if I could speak to that quickly. Again, at the previous work session, the applicant reiterated that their roof-mounted solar is tapped out. Their goal is to get to net zero and accommodate shade on the property. So those are the two ideas that went behind this request.

Thank you, Mr. McMahon. Did anyone else want to speak on this matter this evening? Seeing no hands, I'm going to close the public hearing. If anyone has spoken and hasn't provided one of these little slips of paper, if you could fill one out and give it to either Mr. Michaud or Mr. McMahon. I appreciate it. Thank you, everybody, for coming out and giving us your opinions about this project. We really appreciate it. We always want to hear from residents in the town. And so thank you so much for taking your evening and coming out with us. So all of that having been said, Do we have three options this evening on this matter? We can either... Either there's a motion to recommend action with approval, there is a motion to recommend denial, or we can continue for further review. I mean, based on everything that I've heard this evening and the desire for the commissioners to see the additional materials, to be able to go out to the location and do a visit of the CASA. I think what makes sense is to continue this matter for further review. Do I have a motion?

Yeah, this is Commissioner Rose. I'd like to make a motion on 26-160 to continue this for further review.

Thank you. Commissioner Rose, do I have a second?

Chair, just to interject, did you want to do that date-specific?

Yes. Okay.

So we have, if you want to do a September meeting, it's September 1st or September 15th?

I think September 15th would make the most sense so that we're not near the Labor Day holiday.

Okay. Does Commissioner Rose amend his motion to continue to September 15th?

Yes, until September 15th.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Sika seconds that.

Any discussion around this?

The only discussion is that with the applicant, I know that the Planning Commission would be more than available to go out on the site with you and maybe staff could arrange time or times for us to go out and visit the site and so we can make a good decision on this.

So if staff could coordinate a time for a visit.

Chair, certainly, we'll go ahead and do that for you. Thank you.

Okay. Now, there's still a motion on the table. Any other discussion? Hearing no additional discussion, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Hearing no opposition, motion carries unanimously. Thank you, everybody. So moving along to the next hearing on the calendar, which is item 26-191, discussion and possible action on Camelback Bible Church, minor special use permit amendment, SUP 26-05. It's at 3900 East Stanford Drive. Mr. Burton?

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. So the request is for a minor amendment at Camelback Bible Church. So today's goal is to review and take action on the request to modify stipulation to allow for two schools at the church instead of one, while maintaining all existing limits and requirements. So the agenda for tonight, I'll briefly go over the background, the scope of the request, and the recommendation and actions for tonight. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR 40TH STREET AND STANFORD ROAD. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID DISCUSS THIS AT THE LAST MEETING ON JUNE 2ND DURING WORK STUDY SESSION. SEVERAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS WERE ASKED BUT NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EDITS WERE REQUESTED OF THE APPLICATION. THIS DOES QUALIFY AS A MINOR AMENDMENT. IT DOES NOT ADDER CHANGE OF USE. THERE'S NO INCREASED EMPLOYEE RATIO. SHOULD HAVE LIMITED NO IMPACT SINCE YOU'RE KEEPING ALL THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS JUST ALLOWING TWO SCHOOLS INSTEAD OF ONE. AND SINCE THERE'S NO NEW CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST, THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CAMPUS. So again, the request is to modify the stipulation to allow for two school entities instead of one. Currently there's the Acton schools there, which has had limited growth and they have 43 students. The proposed school is Protos Academy. They anticipate starting off with about 28 students and probably capping out with a 50 student body, but combined they will not exceed the 120 student limit. So the request is to stipulation 9K in the SUP, which will strike throughs and bolder the new language. No more than two school entities shall operate on the church campus at any point in time. Protus Academy is a sporting academy for soccer club players. They'll have three 15-minute recess periods during the school day. They'll comply with all the SUP stipulations, and any soccer training is conducted at another location off campus. And this is just a comparison of the current with proposed changes. Again, number of schools will go from one to two. Student body total will remain the same, 120. Grades K through 12, start and end times will remain the same. The existing classrooms will be used. Acton's allowed to have one A-frame sign, and then Protos will have one as well. So again, there's no changes to the campuses. There's no construction associated with this change. And staff is recommending approval of this application since it should have no impact on neighboring properties. The summary of the stipulations identify that all improvements shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted narrative and that modification to stipulation 9K which identifies two schools and all existing stipulations shall remain in effect. So since this is a minor amendment, there are two actions for commission. One, you have to deem it if it's compliant with the criteria as a minor amendment, and two, either approve the amendment, deny it, or continue for further review. And that concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Burton. Do any of the commissioners have any additional questions at this time? Hearing none, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this matter with either residents or the applicant?

Chairman Giorgielis, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Andrew Miller. I'm a member of Camelback Bible Church, fairly active, and on the prior case with Akron, I did represent the church at the firm of Birch and Crack Gila, 1850 North Central, Suite 1700. It's a very, very simple application. When we came back with Acton, we thought there'd be more growth. It's pretty static right now. They only use three classrooms with a total of nine. Protos would use just two. We put them on the farthest parts of the campus away from each other. We're not changing any of the TRAFFIC COUNTS OR ANY OF THE STIPULATIONS. THERE'S NO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS CURRENTLY. ACTON IS K THROUGH SIX. PROTOS WOULD BE FOURTH THROUGH EIGHTH, KIND OF A MIDDLE SCHOOL. THEY NEVER PLAN TO HAVE ANY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. AND THAT'S, THEY OPERATE FOUR DAYS A WEEK. I THINK THE TWO USES WILL FIT WELL TOGETHER. PROTOS DOES FIT A LITTLE MORE WITH THE CHURCH MODEL BECAUSE IT IS A FAITH-BASED SCHOOL AS WELL. AND I DO HAVE ROBBIE FINLEY, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT. Jeff Fisher, co-president of PROTUS here today, as well as Phil Martins. And Phil, who was here at our last meeting of the study session, is a board member of PROTUS, as well as a member of Kemblebeck Bible Church. So that got to some discussion when we saw that Acton wasn't growing very fast, that maybe the two schools would fit well together. And that's the change. Only two words in one stipulation. There are, by my count, at least on stipulation nine, 12 subparts with other subparts. So you're looking at basically about 22 different listed items. We're changing just two words in one item. That is the word one to two and the word entity to entities. And I know there's another case behind us, so I won't take more of your time unless you have some questions for us regarding this application. Thank you.

Do any of the commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Thank you so much, Mr. Miller. So I'll just reiterate, is there anyone else who would like to speak on this matter this evening? I've received no slips and hearing no hands. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. The public hearing is now closed. We have two choices this evening. We can either recommend that...

So there will be two actions for this evening. The first action will be to identify if the Commission believes this qualifies as a minor amendment per Article 11 of its own ordinance. And if that motion passes, then the second action will be to either approve the amendment as submitted, deny it, or continue for further review.

Okay. So our first action is...

If the Commission believes this qualifies as a minor amendment.

Okay. Okay. Do I have a motion relating to whether or not this complies for a minor amendment?

This is Commissioner Brown, and with respect to item B26-191, I would move for recommendation A, that it does meet the minor amendment criteria listed in section 1102.7.B of zoning ordinance.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, Commissioner Curtis. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. So that having been approved, there's also recommendation B. and whether or not we're going to approve the SUP. Do I have a motion?

Commissioner Sikas, make a motion to approve Camelback Bible Church SUP amendment to allow the church to have two schools subject to stipulations in the staff report.

Do I have a second?

Commissioner Rose seconds.

Any discussion relating to this matter? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next item on the agenda is item 26-195, Discussion and Possible Action on Paradise Valley Doubletree Resort, Minor Special Use Permit, SUP 26-03. The resort's located at 5401 North Scottsdale Road. Mr. Richaud, would you please present?

Yes, thank you very much. Good evening, members of the commission and audience. So yes, this item, staff will review the request, review compliance to our guidelines, provide commission opportunity to discuss the request, the applicant ability to address questions in the request, public comment, and then for your action. So this is a minor SUP amendment, much like your last item, and the action ends with the Planning Commission unless it's appealed. So it's gone through your work session on June 2nd, and this is your action item for this evening. So the site itself, the resort, is located on the southeastern portion of the town, as illustrated on this aerial here. So just some background. It was annexed in 1961. The original zoning happened in 73. It didn't open until 1985. The last major amendment to this site was in 1997, and the current owner bought the site in 2023. In 2023, they started doing some substantial improvements. Some managerial requests and other requests for the property Knowing full well that there would be some other changes to the property including this current request that you have in front of you So what's part of this request is really broken down into five areas. There's a new outdoor event lawn Which would just be north of the portico share which would remove 17 parking spaces and this goes off the pre-function area of that grand ballroom and They would also be adding meeting rooms underneath the forum ballroom, which is the ballroom behind the grand ballroom. That ballroom in a prior SUP was at a basement level. It was raised. That created additional space underneath that ballroom, which was just sealed off, and now they want to utilize some of that for meeting room space. The third item is to redo the exterior signs of the resort, and these signs are all located along Scottsdale Road. The fourth, there are some perimeter improvements, mostly wall landscaping and lighting, and then there's some modification to existing stipulations as well as some new stipulations related to this request itself. So what this is showing in purple, so this is the site north is to the left here, is showing the areas of this minor SUP. So it's really focused at the Port of Cashier area along Scottsdale Road, the Forum Ballroom. There's just some substantial compliance matters regarding the walls at the Paradise Park and Sports Lawn, but those were approved with the 2025 SUPs. So at your work study session on the 2nd, there was quite a few things that were discussed, as you recall, and then some directions. So what was discussed were questions regarding the occasional use of temporary tents at that new Camelback Lawn. And again, any sort of tents that they might use would go through our normal special event permit process, which is a case-by-case look. And again, the concern there was to make sure that the tent color and height would be appropriate. There was discussion on the methodology of the noise study that's in the packet, as well as the parking study. There was discussion on the emergency access points within the basement area. Again, that basement area is going to have the same exact exit points, and it is a fully sprinkled building. There was verification that the proposed stipulation that requires authorization on the proposed sign. There was a proposed sign at the corner, that corner where the... A well site is owned by a separate entity than the resort that would require authorization, and that's in the stipulation. There was discussion on the driveway gate. There's a driveway gate, permanent gate being proposed on the southern entrance. Right now there's a chain, and whether that would require or restrict emergency access, and it wouldn't. It would be a gate and would require a Knox box, which is actually a better situation than a chain that would not have such a thing. The other items that were discussed regarding the existing stipulations, so probably the two major ones, is there's an 850-person cap for local functions that was put in 1985. The applicant did provide a parking study. There was not one at the time when this resort went through. And so we feel that, or the applicant feels that that cap should be removed. Also, we don't have similar caps in other resorts. There was also a stipulation regarding four foot tall lighting. We didn't actually still have those plans with the amendment that happened in 2025. We actually do have a full lighting plan, so we know where these lights are. And there's essentially the perimeter lights that are those four foot tall lights that you see out there today. And again, the applicant couldn't really change that. They're still mandated to that plan. So if they wanted to put a 16-foot tall light, they couldn't do it. They would have to still do an amendment. Also, the question was to put a site address on the entry sign or wall. As you can see, the applicant is proposing to put the address on the wall. This is the wall that would be between the two driveways, the northern driveways, which is facing the Port of Cashier on Scottsdale Road. The other item that was discussed was regarding... Their applicant is proposing to put illumination on the perimeter wall along Scottsdale Road, and you had asked for additional information on that in your packet. There has been some additional information on that. There's also the stipulation 3F that's in there, which we can go over at a later point. There was encouragement that the new block wall that is, again, from the SUP from 2025 that's on the shared driveway, that it not just be a stark white stucco wall. There is a stipulation that has been drafted, which is number seven, which, and also this is in their narrative as well, that the wall would incorporate materials complementary to the primary resort. And again, the issue there was not just having stucco block wall, but mixing some of the block in it. So that has been addressed both in the narrative and the stipulation as well. And so those were the discussion points that you had there. And so again, going back through what these items are. So there's that outdoor event lawn itself. Again, this would take up 17 parking spaces north of the Port of Cashier. It would be about 4,500 square feet. It does face Scottsdale Road. It adjoins, as I mentioned, the Grand Ballroom. There would be no permanent structures in this space. The space is delineated itself by faux turf. There's a... palm tree and agave border inside, then there's a six foot block wall, then a ficus hedge, and then a walkway surrounded by that as shown in the plans and as illustrated here on this particular slide. Then they are proposing lighting of this area, which would replace any of the parking lot lighting. There's a foot candle measurement we look at. It's not near residential homes. The setback is about 83 feet from Scottsdale Road. Again, there's walls and landscaping both around the new outdoor vent area here as well as along the perimeter itself. Scottsdale Road, of course, is a major arterial, which does have quite a bit of illumination among itself. So there are three light fixtures within this area. There's palm tree lights, which already exist on the property and as well as other resorts. They are stipulated to be no taller than 16 feet. They are to be directed downward. There's a bollard that would be more on the walkways that is about three and a half foot tall. And then they are proposing string lights in the area, as illustrated. And again, there's a stipulation to not be more than 16 foot tall, which is, again, very similar to the stipulation they have on their resort as well as other resorts. And then the string lights do have a shade, so there's no light trespass shining upwards. And the lumens are all within our guidelines as well. So with that, we did require that there be a noise study with this request. And as you can see in the circle area, it's not exceeding our 45 decibels, which is our lowest decibel level, which is after 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and on Sundays and legal holidays. And that is that particular request. Then the meeting rooms underneath the forum ballroom. As I mentioned, that forum ballroom floor was raised. The picture that you see here is what it looked like before. And the lower picture is just how you get down into that area besides the elevator. There's a stairwell as well. So they're looking to put four breakout rooms, which is a little over 7,700 square feet. There's also some hallway area. There's also still some basement area that's not going to be used. In prior SUPs, in this SUP, they removed a lot of square footage to make sure that the net is under 5,000, which would make it, from a square footage standpoint, to meet our criteria for a minor amendment. So this is the floor plan of that area. Again, showing the four meeting rooms, the hallway, and the other basement area that would remain sealed off. Just a cross-section. Again, that was originally a 36-foot tall building area, and then that basement area is about 11 1⁄2 foot tall. And this is just that change study which is showing where they added square footage and deleted square footage. And really where they gained the square footage is the purple area. Let's see if I can grab this. The purple area where the Paradise Park is, here there's a covering, they removed that, and near the pool area they removed some square footage there. So when we look at the square footage as a whole, we look at our guidelines. Our guidelines are 25% lot coverage. The lot coverage on this resort would be at 22%. There's no floor area guidelines, but obviously the floor area would increase because they're increasing basement area. The totally impervious area and open space area also comply with our guidelines as well. When we look at parking, there's right now 604 total parking spaces. That includes 559 on-site. There's also 45 off-site. The 45 off-site go back to the 97 SUP. There's a commercial parcel directly to the south where they have a perpetual agreement to have 45 spaces. That is not going away and will remain. So the only subtraction are those 17 parking spaces for that outdoor area. So with the parking study, the peak demand was shown at 493 spaces, 407 off-peak. which would be well within the 587 available. We did also ask them to do a further analysis if everything was going at once everywhere just to make sure that the parking is working and it's still working within the numbers that they have on site and available in that office lot. And this is just data from the parking study. So again, no parking impact with the added meeting or outdoor space. There's no history of parking complaints, at least on our records. There's no parking study, or the parking study that models is, again, typical to worst case as what those do. Again, it's located on Scottsdale Road in the edge of the town, which does provide better alternative transportation methods than if it were more internal to the town. And the market, or the resort itself markets to conference groups, which again would result in less sort of single family use in alternative transit modes. So looking at circulation, there's no change in the circulation minus the minor circulation in the parking lot here with that outdoor area. You can still fully go around the entire site. All the driveways are remaining the same. The driveway that's temporary here will be closed back up and will put back on once the construction's finished. So then the third item was removing the exterior signs. So when you go to the site today, the existing signs, there's an existing sign on the Port of Cachere. That sign would be removed. There's an existing kind of V-shaped sign with two signs on it closer to Jackrabbit Road and then one south of the second port. or the port of cashier entry. The sign and structure here will be fully removed. And then the sign here would be replaced with directional signage. Then it would be adding new signs. And the new signs that they would be adding would include a new sign at the corner of Jackrabbit and Scottsdale Road. Again, this is on that water parcel. So again, there's a stipulation that would say they would need to get authorization before they could could do that these signs are all within our guidelines on height and sign area and illumination and as you can call what did change in some of the illumination they are showing a new light fixture which would be mounted on the sign itself instead of on the ground and so the two there so then again looking at identification signs These signs are also in compliance. There's a couple that, there were some in the right-of-way, that one existing sign. But other than that, they meet the number of signs from our guidelines, and again, as I mentioned before, the sign area and height. So then there are directional signs they're proposing. So there's one sign at the easternmost Jackrabbit entrance, as illustrated here, again, meeting the dimensions for, in our guidelines, which again, would be illuminated. And then this is just illustrating how they're mounting that sign illumination. And then there's directional signs on the gate itself that's on the southern end, still remaining the walkway. And again, these are all within the height and the sign area. And then there are some directional signs within the parking lot area itself. And this is where, one, this type of sign exceeds the height. Instead of being six foot, it's at seven foot tall. Staff does feel that's probably appropriate with being in a parking lot with higher profile vehicles and seeing those sort of signs. And then this is just a map that's in your packet, again, illustrating where those signs are located. Again, the corner sign, removing the sign here, putting a sign here, keeping this but putting directional, the gate signage, and then there's, somewhere over here, there's a couple signs, the signs with the directional signs in here. Then on perimeter improvements, so we mentioned this a few times, the southern entrance with the gate as shown here. Again, that gate is compliant with our gate height. Setback-wise, you would just really go to, our guidelines just refer you back to our residential standards. So normally you would have a 10-foot setback. The wall that exists today or where this gate would be is the property line. But staff and our town engineer does feel that there's enough adequate turnaround if someone were to pull in to get out So we don't feel there's a safety issue with that. So then the other item was the accent wall lighting, which is what you wanted additional information on. They are proposing about every 10 lineal feet to put low-level lighting shining up on the wall that's existing along Scottsdale Road. There is additional information that was sent to you, I believe, yesterday or today on that. WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE ADDITIONAL SHEETS HERE IN THE DATE CHANGE IN THE STIPULATION. AND THEN THERE'S A STIPULATION REGARDING THE LIGHTING 3F. IF YOU DO DECIDE TO ALLOW THIS SORT OF LIGHTING, JUST A CLARIFICATION THAT IT SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON THE GROUND WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SINCE IT STILL TECHNICALLY COULD BE IN THE AIR, IF YOU WILL. AND THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THEY WOULD MOUNT THOSE LIGHTS ON THE WALL. And again, this is just showing the locations of those. And then the other improvements, so that the wall that's between the two entries on Scottsdale Road was actually approved as part of the 25 SUP. Really the change here, the removing the palm trees, and so there were gaps in the wall, so now there's no gap in the wall is what the difference is. And then we have talked again about the the finish of the wall and the stipulation requiring that it not just be a white stucco wall. The other change is pretty minor. The 25 SUP was going to shrink down the existing fountain. They're leaving the fountain exactly the way it is, so that's the only change there. When you go in the back area, which is on the east, which is their Paradise Park outdoor area, and then their other lawn area, which we're at one time both tennis courts. Again, these were already addressed in the prior SUP. The only change is regarding the wall that is up there. Their as-built condition was a little different than the 2025 SUP. And these are just illustrations of kind of what it looked like before and what those outdoor areas look like today. And again, they had tennis courts in the one and now it's a lawn area. So then looking at the stipulations, so there would be new stipulations that would be added, and you have the detail in your packet. This is a summary of that. Stipulation one would reference all the submitted plans and documents. Stipulation two adds noise requirements to meet our town code, that live music must end or move indoors at or before 10 p.m., that the resort themselves needs to measure noise, that amplified sound is discouraged but prohibited between 10 and 7. There's stipulation 3 on various lighting requirements to meet the approved plan. If it's unclear, they need to meet our guidelines that the light emitting element may not be visible. If there's a complaint from inspection, it would need to be moved or shielded. that landscape lighting needs to be focused on the plantings in the site feature, the 16-foot height maximums for the palm tree and the string lights, the palm trees above any roofline would need to be replanted if there are impact from views, just as in the Paradise Park area stipulation, and that the Scottsdale Road accent lighting not be in the right-of-way and be architecturally integrated. Stipulation 4 relates to the landscaping requirements meet approved plans, be maintained and have irrigation. Regarding stipulation 5, this is on signs that they would remove that existing V-shaped sign at the north end. and then that they would get authorization from the owner for the sign at the corner before they can on that. Stipulation six is a requirement to obtain a right-of-way encroachment permit for the wall since that one sign would still be in the right-of-way and there's also some portions of walls based on the ALTA that are in the right-of-way. Seven would be a requirement to combine, there's three parcels on this site, to combine them all into one lot through our final plat process. And then the requirement for the waiver of claims, which they have provided. And then nine, that all existing special use permit stipulations remain in full force and effect. So those are the new stipulations. Then the stipulations that are modified, and again, this is a summary. The details are in your packet, to remove the 850-person cap. Again, some of the arguments for that is longstanding uses of the resort with no recent complaints. We do have a current parking study supporting that. And then just noting that this stipulation was just carried forward in several stipulations, so it occurs in various areas. So, the second modified stipulation the applicant's requesting is to remove all the tennis-related stipulations. There are no tennis courts any longer at this resort. The resort now only includes that one sports lawn, which I had shown earlier. There's new noise stipulations that address various outdoor sounds as other resorts, as I described over a little bit ago. So then the third was to remove the low lighting requirement. That's the four foot tall stipulation, as I mentioned earlier. We do have an actual lighting plan. They can't just go ahead and change that without just replacing a similar light fixture. Then stipulation number or item number four is to remove completed requirements. And there were several. that were sitting out there. The cost sharing for the traffic signal at the intersection of Scottsdale Road and Jack Rabbit Road, which has been installed. There was relocation or vaulting that had to be done to the well site. It was vaulted, so that condition was met. And then there were timing of the perimeter walls, which obviously have been up for many years. So then looking at the criteria, so when we look at a minor amendment, we look at certain criteria, so it can't change or add any uses, and the functions do remain the same. It's a primary resort, it's for resort keys, and then the other uses are all accessory. It can't increase the floor area more than 5,000 square feet or 15% of existing. It's the 5,000 feet threshold that applies, and their net increase is a little over 4,000 square feet. Can't have a material effect that can't be sufficiently mitigated. Based on the location of Camelback Lawn facing Scottsdale Road, with a lot of non-residential near it, it seems to support that is mitigation. There's new stipulations that have been added regarding noise and lighting. And regarding the next stipulation or condition or criteria with architectural style, there's really no new structure, so the architectural style is staying the same. With that, we did have some comments, so all our noticing went out. And there were a total of five comments. Those are all in your packet, and any new comments that were received today, which we received too, were sent to you and also provided in paper for you at the dais. And these related to noise, offsite parking concern. There were concerns with the string lights, the visibility of them, whether they have shields or not, and then any impact on Jackrabbit Road itself. And with that, as I mentioned, it's a minor SUP amendment. So if you do take action and approve it, it ends here. There's an appeal period of 15 days. And with that, we can certainly take questions.

Do any of the commissioners have any questions for Mr. Michaud?

This is Commissioner Rose. Is it within our purview to question the signage? In my estimation, if I look at all the signage of all the other resorts in Paradise Valley and even businesses, I'm looking for the word. The white and black is very stark. And it just doesn't seem to fit in with the signage that the rest of the resorts have. You know, they're cream color. You know, I look at Camelback Inn and Mountain Shadows and all the other resorts and it just seems that this is more stark than what we're used to in Paradise Valley. In fact, the signs that they're replacing, those brown signs, seem to me to be more in concert with Paradise Valley. And I'm just wondering if it's within our purview to question the color of the signage, or is that something that it's just a foregone conclusion?

Chair, Commissioner Rose, I would say, I mean, this is part of their request. They're proposing signage. We don't have guidelines per se on color, but certainly this is their request. you know, for signage, so I think it would be in your purview if you had some direction on material color.

It's just a personal observation. I'm sure it doesn't speak to the rest of the commission, but it just seems that it's out of place with what we've seen with the other resorts within the town.

Commissioner Rose, I think we did talk about this last time in terms of it being sort of a very stark, long wall along Scottsdale Road and that the white doesn't seem to totally integrate with the rest of the resort because it's got sort of a softer, more Frank Lloyd Wright feel about it. So we did talk about that. I don't know if the applicant would be willing to soften that up. I think what they have said in the materials is that they are willing to integrate other architectural features on the white wall. But we can ask the applicant this question. Right.

And I guess, Chair, too, I think Commissioner Rowe is also talking about the sign itself being white. I think you're talking about both things, the wall and the sign, correct? Right. Okay.

Okay. Mr. Michaud, just by way of clarification, so the entry and exit points into what used to be the downstairs ballroom or the downstairs tennis court, so that's all going to be approved by the fire marshal in terms of it complying. That is not within our purview. It's going to be sprinkled. They're going to make sure that's just fine.

Chair, that is correct. And again, those aren't changing from what is existing.

And in terms of the landscape stipulation, so in the event that parts of the landscape die, remind me if that's got the replacement requirement in it as well.

Chair, that is correct, yes.

Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Sikas here. Just for my own edification, does the Doubletree brand go away? I know that's not at all indicated in any signage anymore. Maybe Mr. Tate can answer that.

Are we on here? There we go. Madam Chair, Commissioner Nisikis, for the record, Benjamin Tate, Withy Morris Bar, 2121 East Highland Avenue, on behalf of the developer and owner of this resort. I want to go back to the signage thing for just a second. I want to gently push back on something Commissioner Rowe said as far as it being out of place with signage in the rest of the town. I guess it's okay to admit this now. We actually stole this exact paint color. I mean, SPECT is the exact same color that Ondaz has. So it is identical to the paint specification that Ondaz uses on its signage. And I'm pulling from memory here, so I was trying to pull it up on my phone before I got up here, but I'm actually fairly certain that their signage is black metal lettering against... a white masonry sign exactly like ours is. So, thinking that we're out near Scottsdale Road, sort of in a similar environment to Onda's, we're doing something similar with our signage. And then, sorry, I got sidetracked for a second. Remind me of your question, Commissioner Nisiquis. Yeah, so, and I'll get to this in my, I have a short presentation. I'm fortunate that Mr. Michaud is always incredibly detailed in his presentations, which takes a little bit of the burden off of me. to tell a little bit more of the story. But yes, the Doubletree branding is going away, so it'll still be under the Hilton flag. It'll be a soft-branded resort. So as you see, we're calling it the Ranch House, but it is still under the Hilton flag. It is just what we would call a soft-branded boutique resort. Okay, thank you.

My question was around some of the letters that came in about the sound and the lighting concerns. Are you prepared to address that, or is staff going to address that for us?

Commissioner Georgelos, Commissioner Brown, or Chair Georgelos, Commissioner Brown. Yes, absolutely. And that's in my presentation. I'd be happy to just kind of walk through that. But I think and I was going to get I was going to sort of touch on this at the top of my presentation, because I think this is really the headline for this entire amendment. And Mr. Michaud touched on it in the criteria for a minor amendment, which is that we're mitigating our impacts. I think the headline for this this. SORT OF PACKAGE OF IMPROVEMENTS IS THAT THERE IS NO MARGINAL INCREASE IN THE IMPACT THAT THIS RESORT IS HAVING ON THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND I WOULD QUANTIFY THAT USING TWO MEASUREMENTS. THE FIRST IS OUR SOUND STUDY AND THE SECOND IS OUR PHOTOMETRICS PLAN BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE TWO THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND ACTUALLY, SORRY, OUR THIRD, OUR PARKING STUDY. IT'S REALLY THOSE THREE REPORTS. because we're talking about light, we're talking about sound, and we're talking about parking. And what our photometrics show is that at the property line, around the entire property, the measurement is zero foot candles to the property line, meaning there's no light intrusion from the lighting on our property that goes beyond the boundaries of our property. In fact, if you look at the new lighting that we're doing on this Camelback lawn, it hits zero foot candles before it even gets out of the parking lot. And so any new lighting that we are doing with this Camelback lawn, the effect of that light, sort of the bleed of that light, doesn't even make it to the property line. And especially when you consider that this is on Scottsdale Road, where we have, I don't know the type of lighting that Scottsdale, I don't know if it's sodium or one of the other chemicals that they use for that lighting, but those lights are far brighter and far harsher than anything that we would have. So even if there was light intrusion beyond the property, it would get completely lost in the street lights that are on Scottsdale Road. So that's, I would say, number one. Number two, is with respect to our sound study, it also shows, as Mr. Michaud pointed out, that on all boundaries of the property, with outdoor events going on before 10 p.m., our decibel levels would not exceed the limits permitted by the town. But particularly as we're talking about the Camelback Lawn, because that's sort of the new feature on the property. Oh, sorry, I didn't know if you had something for me. If we're talking about that being sort of the new feature on the property. The average decibel level of an arterial street just from traffic noise is 70 to 75 decibels. And I believe as our sound study points out, we're at 45 at the property line. So any sound that hit, even at 45 decibels, that would get completely lost and drowned out by traffic noise. And then as it relates to parking, because that's really the other impact we're talking about here. The only thing that we're asking for, I guess really two things we're asking for with this is, one, we're losing 17 parking spaces as a result of putting in the Camelback Lawn, which brings us to a total of 587 instead of 604. But as our parking demand study shows, even when everything on the site is humming at the same time, we still have a parking surplus at our peak hour in peak season of, I believe, and I'll have to check my math here, I think it's 90 spaces per That is our surplus even during peak season at our peak demand hour so if The other number that you're seeing in there relates to the removal of that arbitrary 850 guest cap for local events. And this originates from a 1985 amendment to the SUP, if we're getting into a little bit of a history lesson, when there was an, and I truly mean arbitrary cap put in place that wasn't tied to any type of a parking study. There's nothing in the town zoning records that indicate that it was the result of any equation or analysis related to parking. And what our parking study shows is that even with our guest rooms sold, with the lounge busy, we can get to 1,265 people in our event spaces before off-site or valet parking is necessary. And in that instance, there's been a historical arrangement with the church across the street where if that is necessary, we're able to do off-site parking.

Thanks. I was sort of hoping to stay on the sound. Sorry, that was a long answer to a short question. I know you're trying to get to all three of those issues. So where is the 45 decibels measured from?

From the property. So if we go to the graphic. Sorry, is there a clicker up here or something? Usually there is.

It wasn't working. It's not working. I'll have to.

Well, if we could just say. I have a wife and mom. I've got a four-year-old. Okay, I understand. Maybe the... If we can maybe open the public hearing and take comment, and then you can re-come up and address any additional comments at the end from the standpoint of the applicant. Okay, thank you. Okay, having heard that people would like to give their comments, I will go ahead. Unless we've got something more from the commission, then we will address it afterwards. Let's just go ahead and open the public hearing in this matter right now. I have one slip right now from Paul Olson, who's a Paradise Valley resident. Okay, please come up to the podium.

I'll start by mentioning that I'm a construction person, 36 years. I'm 60 years old, and buying the house next door might have been the biggest mistake of my life. I bought the land four years ago, put a good chunk of my life savings into constructing this beautiful new home, and things were pretty quiet at the time. Now it's a circus. Um, bait and switch in my life, but it's... The parking situation. I live on Jackrabbit, 7313 East Jackrabbit. There's no parking on the street. It's a unique configuration they got there. And so I get to look at these cars parked in front of my house, beer bottles everywhere, spillover parties, the noise, the decibel. Took the liberty of recording this morning, 4.30 in the morning, Got some video here. Maybe you guys want to listen to this. I can forward it to anybody if they'd like it. Let's talk about this decibel level. Okay? 4.30 in the morning. All morning. Construction. Okay? That's his bedroom. Four years old. Um... Got lots of that for you. Um... So this has become a circus in the last three years. I've had one break-in completely tied to the Doubletree. Someone left the Doubletree smashed drunk, attempted to break into my house, was pulling on the front door. I was in town having dinner someplace. My wife called the police. They came in short order and arrested the guy. I've had three guys running through my backyard. They climbed the two fences, if you can believe it, two six-foot walls. I donated an easement driveway. I donated 15 feet of my frontage to Paradise Valley. So I lost that property. And so my acre has been chewed up on two sides, so I don't have that buffer. But either way, these parties, these calm, lovely parties we like to think about, they're college parties. So there's been, we've called the police no less than five times. One major arrest for breaking, attempted to break into the house. Welcome to look that up whenever you'd like. And I get a parking lot in front of my house. There's no parking. There's no shoulder. There's no parking. They park there anyway. I didn't retire and move to that street. I understand residential issues. often as conflict with construction as it evolves. I get it. But after 36 years, I understand. I understand all this. But this has gone too far. Cole and Cindy behind me, they wouldn't come up to something like that. They're low-key people. Scott and Rachel, one house down. They live in Virginia half the year, so they can't be here, but I just talk to them. People that spent $10 million building a house right next to mine, I'm sure they have an opinion on this too. But I'm the one, this is in my face. This is a residence. I live in Paradise Valley. This is Paradise Valley. I don't expect lighting to be increased. More parking, more volume, more people. more decibel levels, if this decibel level goes up any higher, I can't sell the house. It's kind of worthless because of these parties. So we'd all like to think it's 1985 and it's a nice, sleepy, you know, it's a beautiful resort at the time and was state of the art, probably unbelievable. Well, now they want to evolve and they want this to grow. It's right in my face. You're welcome to look it up. You're welcome to come over. And I'd like you to think about what it's like to sit in your nice, beautiful backyard. I put up ficus trees. I put up other trees to do what it can to buffer the sound. But if the number of parties and the volume of the parties goes up, the house is worthless. And I'm speaking for the other six or seven families that get to enjoy this on my street. So construction meets residential, but this is evolving. And you wouldn't tolerate it. So I think it's a disaster. At least have the decency of putting a line of ficus trees that buffer and take away some of the visual pollution I'm going to be enjoying as I look west. And my view of Camelback is... So a very large run of ficus trees that could buffer some of this. Forget about the lighting in the back. I don't think we need advertising. The place is 40 years old. I don't think they need it. I don't think people have difficulty finding the double tree, so I don't think we need to flaunt it with any greater signage, something that's more commercial. I don't think we need that either. But either way... The parking situation is way over capacity right now. The decibel levels and the frequency of them are way out of line. And I don't think I live in a residence. I think I live in Old Town or something like that. So it's not appropriate. It's not fair. And it's evolving. And it's just getting too much. Look at the police reports. I've got people, idiots running through my backyard. I don't know why, you know, but when you have this frequency and this number of people, good echelon, I'm sure, you know, people are fine. When you drink, you're going to have a few. And there's always a couple of knuckleheads. They need to run through the backyard, throw stuff around. I got to clean the front of my yard all the time. Not a big deal, but I'm fine with this. My wife, I got a wife, okay? She... It's very invasive to her. And that break-in, she wouldn't come tonight, okay? That break-in has affected her for two and a half years now. And I didn't even process it. I didn't move forward with it because I feared that one time out of town, the guy really comes after my family. You know, I don't know. So I don't know. You know... So I'm right up against this. And it's a disaster. Buying this lot, having the front of it chopped, that's fine. The side was another easement. But this just adds insult to injury. So all this sounds good, but doing sales pitches my whole life, it all sounds good until you live there. And I would love for you to just spend a couple of days, come over on the weekend, Saturday or Sunday, just sit in my backyard, get a lounge. And you, this sucks. My wife's parents come to town with me. So I can't sell the property. A billion dollars, I could. Two billion dollars, sure. But no one's gonna pay. It's like, I'm stuck. And we like the area, we like the neighbors. But this whole Doubletree thing, you can check my flight ticket. I flew across the Atlantic Ocean to be here today to make this point. This one's gone too far.

Thank you, Mr. Olson.

You're welcome.

Is there anyone else who wants to be heard on this matter? Okay, if you could come up one by one and then give us a slip before you leave.

Hi, I live in Grosse Pointe. I'm within the 1,500 feet of this resort. Please state your name for the record.

Oh, Kathleen Clifford.

Thank you, Kathleen. We have lived in the neighborhood over 10 years. When the Days Hotel was there, we had noise coming from that all the time from... outdoor venues. I can hear the entertainment zone on a Sunday afternoon two miles from my house. So the thought of adding another outdoor entertainment venue within 1,500 feet of my house and across the street from several Scottsdale multifamily projects, this does impact residents. There's a huge property and I don't like the idea of having more outdoor entertainment very close to the road. Somebody says, well, it's Scottsdale Road, so you don't hear the noise. You do hear the noise. The noise can transfer more than you think. It transfers to a lot of residents, This man especially, but we would hear it at our house as well. In addition to that, string lights aren't allowed, and so you put little hats on them, but you still see them. So you can do a study saying, oh, you don't have light measures, but you still see them, and they don't look good. So I would like to see that a more professional permanent installation would comply with sort of the dark sky standards. you know, vision of our town. And then, I had one other point. You know, the music, the tents, the signage, it just, it seems very commercial and you drive by other res, other resorts and they seem a little more further set back from the road than this. This is really an old resort that's very close to the main road. So all these improvements, they sort of make it feel like it's more at you. The wall is brighter. I know the Andaz sign, you're right, it's white, but it's way back there. So you go back in the Andaz at night, you don't see string lights. So I don't like the string lights either. So that's me. Thank you.

Thank you. Please come up to the podium and introduce yourself.

Yes, again, I'm John Clifford. I live at 7028 East Balfour. On this picture on the screen today, my house is southwest of the corner of the Doubletree Baptist Church.

Is there someone who can show us where it is on the screen?

And then there's Via Vista Neighborhood. My property adjoins Via Vista Neighborhood. Kathy's my wife. She said it's 1,500 feet. I trust her. The southwest corner of the Doubletree is very close to my house. The outdoor venue is my concern. I can tell you I lived with the Days Inn Hotel, which is just south of this property, with live music and DJs. I could hear the people doing the toasts during weddings at my house. I could sing along with the music. I believe with all due respect, sir, you are getting the bums rush. 45 decibels? I don't believe it. I don't believe it. And the intervening noise source, 75 decibels, that doesn't wipe out the music. I could sing along at the day's end. I don't know what the sound system is going to be. I don't know if they're going to have a wedding where they bring in their own music, their own live band. They crank it up to 11. We called the police, the Scottsdale police, because the Days Inn is in Scottsdale. The police would go. They would turn down the music until the police left, and they'd turn it back up three times in one night. I'm very concerned. And as for the lights, bums rush time, zero foot candles, no. If I can see those lights, it's not zero foot candles. String lights, cantina lights, 16 feet up, light will leave the property. If they have a little hat on the top, maybe the light doesn't go up to Mars. but it goes horizontally or slightly down from horizontal, it's going to leave that property. It's going to go to the church. You can see it from the church. If you can see it from the church, you can see it from the houses in Villa Vista. And if I were a little taller, you could see it from my house. The bums rush is coming, gentlemen and ladies. This is not zero foot candles when you can see string lights. They don't need string lights. They can have lights that direct 100% of the light down and not to leave the property. I think string lights are a scourge. The light pollution from them is vast. We don't need any more string lights in Paradise Valley, and this commission should say no to string lights. And they should have a fine if my decibel meter on my watch exceeds 45 decibels when I walk down that sidewalk. And it will. And I'll call the police. And how many police resources are we going to dedicate because we gave this development an outdoor venue they don't have now? This property is not in the entertainment district. There is an official entertainment district to the south. They're converting this hotel property into an entertainment venue without being in the entertainment district. And I say no to that. Noise pollution, light pollution, these other factors, parking, et cetera. And this poor gentleman, I guess he took his son home. Oh, my God. You wouldn't put up with it. Don't make me put up with it by approving this outdoor venue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Clifford. Is there anyone else who, please come up to the podium, introduce yourself, and state whether or not you're a resident of Paradise Valley, please.

My name is Phillip Lester. I live in La Jolla Blanca, which is just north across the street on Jackrabbit. And our house is actually two blocks within La Jolla Blanca. I'm also concerned about the noise. All I can tell you is currently it's not unusual for us to hear noise from outdoor events. from this property. And keep in mind, the current outdoor events are inside the courtyard. You're probably familiar with the property, but there's a large courtyard that's surrounded by the hotel, a big rectangle, if you will, or at least a U-shape. And so the noise we're hearing currently is actually going over two stories of the hotel going north, then going over the wall that's on Jackrabbit, going over our wall that's on our side of Jackrabbit, and then going through bushes and trees and going through houses the second block to our house. So I think it's something to certainly consider. I think the decibel level is misleading. Whatever the maximum decibel level is on Scottsdale Road is probably measured during peak traffic times. Most of these events are at night when the traffic is minimal. And there's not that much traffic to override, if you will, or cover the noise that's coming from the hotel. So I think you need to be thoughtful in terms of the decibel level and kind of those kind of mathematics, if you will. But currently, like I say, without it even being in the parking lot, we're getting a lot of noise when there's an event. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Please come up to the podium, introduce yourself, and tell us if you live in Paradise Valley.

Yes, good evening, Consul. My name is Mark Bacon, resident of Arizona for 48 years, and currently live in the area under discussion. Jack Rabbit. I live on Jack Rabbit and 74th Street, actually across the street from Mr. Olson. And I concur with a lot of his concerns. Obviously, we have commercial butting up to residential, so we have to, in a way, live with that, but there also has to be respect for both parties. In regards to the parking survey this gentleman mentioned, I can attest that in the past three years, with the current events before any of the remodeling has occurred, we get overflow parking on parking. MANY OCCASIONS WHERE OUR ACTUAL ADDRESS IS ON ARLINGTON, WHICH IS THE FIRST STREET IN TO THE SOUTH OR EAST OF 74th STREET. AND THAT WHOLE AREA FILLS UP WITH PARKING ALONG JACK RABBIT, ALONG 74th STREET. SO MY CONCERN IS IF THE CAP OF 850 PEOPLE IS LIFTED, WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL IMPACT IS THAT GOING TO BE TO THE RESIDENT AREA? THE SECOND WOULD BE The start and stop times of construction. As Mr. Olson demonstrated this morning, at 4.30 a.m., I was awake and as well. Our house runs, or faces north-south. The west end of our house butts up to 74th Street. So there's a lot of construction that goes, construction vehicles that are going in and out of the hotel continuously. Earlier this summer, when they were doing some, early construction on the back, the east side of the resort, there were gravel trucks idling outside that window at 4.30 in the morning for a month straight. And they were continually doing a loop around the neighborhood to drop off their gravel loads in and behind the hotel. And then we heard construction noise as of like maybe a month ago, 10 o'clock on Saturday evening, jackhammering going on. So I don't know if there was any type of emergency or a water main broke or what the occurrence was, but it was quite loud and it went on and on. 11 o'clock or whatever it was so um i know that paradise valley has noise restrictions and we're just wondering who's monitoring those noise predictions what the start time in the morning is for construction and what the stop time is for construction in the evenings and is that seven days a week is that monday through friday um so those would be some of the concerns um We love the neighborhood. We've lived there for 10 years now. Knocked down our house, put significant money into it, rebuilt it. So we understand and respect the right of the development of the new company, but we would ask that there be a little bit maybe more studies, especially on the noise in the parking, going forward to make sure we have accurate information for everybody. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to be heard this evening? If the applicant would like to come up and make your presentation.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, it might be easier at this point for me to address some of the comments if that's what you'd prefer. Please. I will do my best to go in order from from the comments we heard. As far as the audio that was played, it's what sounded like maybe a backup chime at 430 this morning. I'm not sure when it was because it was just played from the microphone with no context whatsoever other than the. Oh, understood. Understood. We're not doing any construction on that part of the resort right now. It's all happening internally. I would be happy to get our project manager up here to talk about it, but I can say with certainty that that wasn't us. As far as a break into the gentleman's home or people walking through his backyard, I don't really know how to respond to that, considering that it's somebody saying that there were people in their backyard and they were assuming they were from the resort. That's all I can really say in that regard, because I can assure you, and this is one of the things that Mr. Michaud said as part of his presentation, is with respect to the calls for service in this property, this property has been a good neighbor for 20 years. and there haven't been any noise complaints that have certainly made their way to us. And in fact, the last gentleman who was up here who talked about cement trucks idling on the east side of the property, I actually remember when that happened because our project manager reached out to us and we made sure to address that so that there were no longer cement trucks idling on that side of the property and we corrected that immediately. As far as I know, that is the only formal complaint. And I'm not even sure it was formal. I think they just reached out to the property, but we corrected that immediately. I'm trying to go in order here and think about some of the other comments that I heard. With respect to the event lawn, with respect to the sound overall, so when we're talking about decibel levels, there's a reason that there's a decibel level and it's not zero. Just because you're hearing sound does not mean that it is exceeding the town's decibel levels. That's why those exist. We are below where they are right now. And in fact, the stipulations that we are asking for As far as noise, hours of sound for outdoor events, the decibel levels that those sound levels can reach. And actually, I believe I heard somebody say that they would be checking that with it, you know, asking that that be checked with a decibel. That's actually one of the stipulations that the resort manager or their designee has to go and regularly check the sound levels to ensure that they're in compliance with the town's guidelines. All of those stipulations that we're asking voluntarily to be applied to the property exist at every other resort in Paradise Valley. These are standards that are not unique to this property, and we would be held to the same standard as any other resort in Paradise Valley, many of which are just as close to residential as this property is. with respect to any of the studies, whether it's light, which was done by our photometric plan, which was done by our electrical engineer, our traffic study and parking study, which was done by CivTech, and our acoustical study, which was done by MD Acoustics. These are consultants that have pretty much done these reports for every resort in Paradise Valley. They are the gold standard, the town standard. The Planning Commission, the City Council, the staff rely on them for accuracy. And so while I certainly appreciate the gentleman's concern about light leaving the property, and well, how much can we really believe this? These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of science. That when you hit zero foot candles, that does not mean you can no longer see a source of light. It means that it is not creating an impact that is not creating additional light intrusion or spillage beyond the property, just because you can see a light source does not mean that it is creating foot candles beyond the property line, which again, the town doesn't have a standard for that, but you cannot get dimmer quite literally than zero foot candles. That is meaning that there is zero intrusion beyond the property line. If these string lights really are a significant source of concern for the neighbors, if that's something that, as a matter of taste, they wouldn't like to see anymore, we can get rid of those. That is something that we'd be happy to just take out of this application if that is a way of addressing one of the concerns of the neighborhood. But I can tell you with certainty, just based on the track record that we have, this gentleman's concerns about people leaving beer bottles in his yard, people creating sound or noise outside his paperwork, people trying to break into his house, this is certainly the first that we've ever heard of it. And I'm certain that it's the first the town's ever heard of it because if any complaints are made to the town, there's no delay in them letting the property owner or their designee know so that it can be addressed. I would also like to point out that back in December of this year, Knowing that we were getting into significant construction on some of the outdoor improvements to this property, which I believe some of you toured over the course of the last week or two to see what we've been doing on the property, we held a neighborhood meeting before we had filed an application to introduce ourselves to the neighbors, to give them our contact information if they had any concerns about light or noise. We sent letters to pretty much everybody within that 600-foot radius east of Scottsdale Road, everyone on that side of Scottsdale Road. We had probably 50 people attend that meeting. We talked about a lot of different things. We talked about the construction that was coming. We talked about what we would be proposing in this amendment. And we did not get a single complaint. And these are all to an individual are all residents in that neighborhood that is immediately east of our property line between the canal and the east side of the Doubletree. And it was an incredibly productive meeting. It was very positive. People were happy to hear that we were investing in the resort. This is a $40 million renovation of this resort. And as an indication of the work that we've done with the folks who are directly adjacent to our property line, none of those folks are here this evening. I believe I covered everything, but if there's anything that I didn't, I would be happy to answer the commission's questions.

Do any of the commissioners have any additional questions for the applicant at this time?

Oh, and that actually reminds me, thank you for bringing that up, because just like any other property, we are subject to the town's restrictions on hours of construction. And I'm sure staff will verify that we haven't had any complaints about hours of operation, except for, as I said, that one time when a neighbor was concerned about concrete trucks idling early in the morning, which we addressed immediately.

Please come up please come up and introduce yourself. My name is Isabelle bacon

I'm his wife, and I live at 74th and Arlington, which backs to Jack Rabbit Road. So I'm officially in Scottsdale. I'm about three houses east of Mr. Olson that was up earlier speaking. We hear the noise really loud, and we've always wondered what it's like for him because it's very loud when you have events going on. And my concern with the second lawn that they want to put in, because it seemed like from the photo earlier that there's a lawn where the courts used to be, Now as a lawn, I think they're probably having some events there. Now they add another lawn on the other side of the property. Are they going to have double events going on at the same time, which means double the noise? I mean, it's quite loud. And as far as parking, we always have cars parking on our... I wouldn't say always, like when they have conferences and that sort of thing at the hotel, there's not enough parking there. They're parking along Jackrabbit, 74th Street, on our cul-de-sac and even into the next cul-de-sac. And... I would ask who it is that we have to contact. We've called Town of Paradise Valley police before. We've called City of Scottsdale police before. I'm not sure who we would need to contact at the hotel with regards to any complaints. Obviously, there was previous ownership before, so I'm not sure whether anything that was reported to previous ownership was relayed to the new owners. But it just has gotten worse over the last three years. The parties are more rager parties, not a wedding, which is having a nice little bride and groom dance. You know, they're DJs and quite loud and, you know, people, you know, screaming along with the DJ and the music and it's just out of control rager parties. And I would be concerned if they're having another lawn, like I said, are they going to double the events there? Because that's just going to create that much more traffic, that much more parking issue, you know, and that is a residential neighborhood and we shouldn't have to put up with that. And Frankly, I don't know why they don't add signs, too, because we've already gone through the city of Scottsdale trying to get studies done on Jackrabbit because that is a dead end. And you don't know how many times back into Jackrabbit we have had semis and different trucks that go down to the end of the street and they can't turn around because the turnaround isn't big enough for that big of a truck. And now they have to put it in reverse to try to back out of that area because they don't realize that it's a dead end. So we've tried with the city of Scottsdale to get that happen. And the only sign that's there is the one that's on Scottsdale Road up at the top at the stoplight that says dead end. But there's nothing beyond that. So once the trucks are in there and all of the delivery areas for the hotel are a long jackrabbit, it seems like that's where it seems like some of their truck bays and stuff are there. Once they're in there, like, they can't get out. If they miss the 74th Street turn to try to go out another way, they have a hard time getting out of there. And 74th Street is a residential neighborhood. We shouldn't have delivery trucks and semis having to go through there to turn around. So... It really is a problem. And, you know, I understand there's a business there, but they need to do better with the signage if that's what they're going to do so that their trucks are turning around inside of their parking lot and going back out jackrabbit the same way that they came in and not having to go down to the end of the street and then trying to back their way out a big semi trying to get out of there. So maybe additional signing would help as well. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, a couple of things. The first of which, they're trying to find the right way to say this. There are certainly some concerns that appear to be impacting the neighborhood that I can say with certainty are not being generated by this resort. with respect to deliveries, it's exceedingly rare that deliveries to this property come in an 18-wheeler. It's almost always come in box trucks and delivery trucks, and semi-trucks just aren't what are used to bring deliveries to this site. But in any event, to address the commenter's concerns, one of the signage pieces of this property, or of this sign package, is a sign that is directing people to basically indicate to them that that are, I guess it would be the easternmost driveway on Jackrabbit, is basically your last entrance to the property before you end up on the dead end. And we talked about that at the study session as being part of this sign package is to indicate to people that this is that last driveway so that we don't have people getting lost and wandering their way into the neighborhood. With respect to parking, and again, two things. The first of which, sorry, three things. I'm just trying to go in order of the things that I heard. The types of events that are typically held to this property Certainly the ones that are held outside don't involve DJs. So while I'm not sure where they're hearing that noise from, but it's not coming from this property, the bread and butter events for this property are typically held indoors. They're typically held in either the Forum Ballroom or the Grand Ballroom, and they're generally conferences. I was just there this weekend to take some photos of the property for my presentation. There was a, I'm going to butcher the name here, I think it was the Little Miss Arizona Cinderella Conference. A lot of young ladies dressed up in Cinderella costumes, but that is far more the target audience. That conference is, there was an apothecary conference earlier this week, actually, when we toured the property. That's just far more where the clientele for this resort is coming from, certainly not ragers. And we've done several parking surveys of the property, and every single time, and even at the peak times that we've counted, full parking spaces. That's part of when you do a parking study, you have to go and survey how many parking spaces are full, how many are occupied, how many are open. There's certainly not been a single case in which we've surveyed the parking in which the parking was full, much less overflowing off the site. Again, I think I addressed all of the comments that were made, but if the commission has any additional questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

This is Commissioner Rose. Who did the parking study?

CivTech.

And normally in a case like this, we would have the person that did the study address the commission. Has that been done?

Commissioner Rosk, Chair Georgelos, no, but Hannah Thielen from CIFTEC is here.

Chair and Commission, do you have any questions specifically about it, or do you want us to go through any of the numbers or methodology for our calculations?

Yeah, I'd just like to have you go through the methodology of how you did the study.

Yeah, I can tell.

Because if you're raising the limit in the ballroom from 825 to 1,200... I just, was that taken into consideration in the study?

yes um chair and commissioner so for this study we are like with this project we're looking to remove that 850 seat cap and again that matches other resorts within paradise valley um the reason we did supply a cap of or not a cap but necessarily um but a uh kind of a maximum capacity of the resort is when we're meeting that 600 or 1625 parking spaces And the methodology behind this is using nationally recognized standards. One is the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the other is gonna be with a shared parking analysis study. So these are gonna be manuals that we're using to reference and do our calculations based upon. So they're not gonna be necessarily town-specific standards, but we're using nationally recognized standards to come up with these totals.

It says right there, 642.

chair and commissioner uh the 1265 is us just looking at what we'd be looking at if the resort was fully at max capacity and what the parking could still provide or the existing parking that is there uh which will end up being the 587 total parking spaces uh what the meeting space can hold is 1625 seats And that's again, if the hotel is completely full, like the rooms and everything are full as well. And again, that's just a number we came up with just showing that maximum capacity.

Chair, it might be appropriate to close the public hearing or have all the commentary given as opposed to a discussion in the audience.

Okay. Thank you. A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. I GUESS MY TAKEAWAY IS I UNDERSTAND, I READ THE MATERIALS, I'VE SEEN ALL OF THE, I'VE TOURED THE RESORT, I'VE READ ALL OF THIS. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ALL OF THE CONCERN THAT IS SORT OF RADIATING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. I mean, I really think before this moves forward, it would benefit from the resort reaching out one more time to the neighbors, to the neighborhood, to address concerns that have been raised. I don't know what the position of the commissioners is on this.

Chair, would it be possible for us to get a... a report from the police department within maybe say a two block radius of the calls. We've heard that a lot of calls were made and then we've heard that we haven't received any calls. Would it be possible to get real data on that?

Chair, that is in your packet. And there was nothing. They did three years. We pulled it. So if people have issues, they need to contact the police so it's on record or contact the planning division. If it's after hours, it has to be the police, whether it's a non-emergency number. We don't know. I mean, this is the first I'm hearing that there's issues. I mean, we purposely, intentionally pulled police records and had the police department pull these records.

And there's nothing. Sorry to interrupt. Have we spoken to the Scottsdale police as well? I mean, we've acknowledged that many people don't recognize that this resort is part of Paradise Valley as opposed to Scottsdale. So I wonder if we've reached out to Scottsdale police and asked if they've heard any complaints.

Not only that, but this gentleman said that he had a break-in, and that would show up on the report.

It should. But I'm saying it's in your packet. What the police department gave us is in the packet, and they had nothing. For the last three years.

Not a break-in.

I mean, that's all I can tell you. Staff did reach out specifically to the police department to pull a record. It is in your packet. It was in your packet for work study session. It says nothing. No complaints.

Right. And I just want to be clear that my question is not about the resort per se. It's just about police reports, which it's remarkable that we wouldn't have... a police report with somebody who said they had a break-in and called the police.

Because it's probably on their property, very likely. It's basically the report's against that property, very likely. It's not against this resort.

Chair, Commissioner, just to lend some clarity. So I don't believe we've reached out to Scottsdale. We could certainly try to do that. One of the problems, to your point, Commissioner, is... trying to find the nexus of the problem. So I've done this in towns with a lot of commercial and neighbors will attribute issues to certain commercial users, but the fact is no one knows. Now this may all be attributable to this property at some point in the past. We can pull the numbers if the commission would find it useful. We could bring those back. There's no way to tell where the parking scoff laws are coming from or parking to necessarily, at least from a police report. Certainly if somebody's watching them, any person that might break in could have come from the hotel. They could have come across the street. They could have come from down the street or on the bus. We can certainly provide as much information as the commission would like. If we go back to our police department and try to broaden the scope, I'm not sure if it will tell us much about the impact of this hotel necessarily or the impact of the fact that this is a piece of property on a busy road. It's Scottsdale Road.

Either way, I'd find it illuminating if we could broaden it. I don't know how the rest of the commissioners feel, but I would find it illuminating.

I think we should try to do additional fact gathering here. I mean, I think we've heard enough this evening that it gives me some pause for concern. I understand that the applicant's doing everything they can. I think I would suggest I would suggest that another community outreach might be helpful.

So Madam Chair, members of the commission, what concerns me here is we're talking about a number of impacts that there's certainly being a lot of assumptions made that it is attributed to this resort, but there is absolutely, at least I haven't been shown any factual basis at all that any of these impacts are the direct results of this resort or the management of this resort or any of the operations of this resort, as your staff has indicated. We have three years' worth of history with the Paradise Valley Police Department with a completely clean record. No complaints to the Planning and Zoning Department, no complaints directly to the resort. And so that's my concern here is a bunch of impacts are being attributed to a resort without any factual basis to establish that any of these impacts are coming from the resort and are being attributed to a series of requested improvements that the reports that have been done by consultants that the town views as the gold standard. CivTech has done the parking study for just about every resort in the town of Paradise Valley and it has been accepted as a gold standard. credible report. Same is true of MD Acoustics, which has done the sound studies for all of the most prominent resorts in Paradise Valley. And my main, I mean, aside from the fact that we're talking about impacts, that again, I work with a lot of clients. I work with a lot of developers. This is one of the best operators I've worked with as far as being responsive to community concerns to holding an outreach meeting when they didn't even have a pending application to ensure that they were establishing contact with the most impacted residents for the sake of starting construction. And it just, I worry that their reputation and the track record that they've, the official track record that they've established with the town's code enforcement department with the town's police department and our own records on site of when we have and have not been reached out to about concerns from the surrounding neighborhood, that all of that is being cast aside for concerns that I do not question for a second that they are real. It sounds like there are people parking on Jack Rabbit Road. It sounds like there is noise coming from areas around the resort. but none of which has been established as actually coming from the resort. And my fear is that my client is at risk of being punished for this at a time when if we aren't able to earn the commission's approval tonight, this is, as I understand it, this is your last meeting before the summer recess, and we lose the entire summer construction window to do these improvements before the season in the fall and risks a significantly large investment at the tail end of a $40 million renovation of this property. So I wanted to make sure to put that on the record because... We've gone out of our way to contact the neighbors, to reach out to them, to hold a significantly large neighborhood meeting on the property when we didn't even have an application pending to guard against and to gather information for exactly these kinds of concerns. And we heard none of these concerns at the meeting that we held on the property, or these are things we would have dealt with immediately if we were able to identify where they were coming from, that they were actually coming from the resort, and we were able to address them.

Chair, I have a question from the operator here. I've experienced life in the resort business. And I know all about sound and lighting and all of that disturbance which affects the neighborhood. But the people that get affected first are the guests. How often do you get complaints from your guests?

That's what Madam Chairperson and fellow commission members, that's one of the reasons I stood up right now. I mean, we're a two-tiered business. It's important to have... happy, positive, good, successful conferences, but we're on 23, 26 acres with a lot of guest rooms, and we have to ensure that what happens there during these conventions doesn't overly impact the guests. And with a $40 million investment in this property. We're looking to elevate the clientele. We're looking to elevate the rooms. We're looking to elevate the entire resort experience. And we would hinder ourselves if we have guests running around throwing bottles of beer and making noise. Our operators on site take care of any concerns immediately. And I can tell you, and you know this, and Mr. Rose, you know this as well, it's difficult to have construction at a resort, not just for the neighbors, but for the guests who are there during the resort. So we did everything we could to mitigate sound. Dump trucks and cement, we had that occurrence happen. We knew that we had to pour. We knew there's restrictions with when the cement arrives and that. So we did the best we could to mitigate and we addressed it immediately. But in general, when we operate, we need to make sure guests are happy first and foremost. Right. And we have done that.

Makes sense. Thank you.

Any other questions for me?

Well, I do have a question. So I understand everyone who runs a business wants it to be the best business possible. I understand that you are making a substantial investment in this business. But I do have pause for concern that all of a sudden we've got a room full of people who showed up and and they have concerns about this. So I guess my question is, is it impossible to do one more outreach before we make a decision?

I would say for the Camelback event lawn and the season that you are down for construction, it's going to hurt significantly if we can't build that lawn out during down season. And unfortunately, down season is now. So I mean, we pushed. We did everything we could with neighborhood. I'm rather surprised to hear some of the comments I've heard tonight as well. I wish, especially the couple that were sitting there, I wish they would have come over, come to the front desk. I'm there all the time. And I'm happy to meet with them, walk them through, and hear their concerns. it would significantly hurt us to lose the approval for the Camelback event lawn now. I mean, that would put us, you go through, come out in the fall and everybody knows business in the fall. And then we have a huge spring training population that comes in. So then once we get done with the big fall conventions, we really hit spring training and we have conventions as well. And then, you know, summer, it's a short window. So it would set that back by a year, which hurts the ROI for the $40 million investment.

This is Commissioner Rose. I didn't know we were taking the summer off. There's certainly time to make an intelligent decision. I never want to do anything quickly that's going to impact our neighbors. I don't know I heard a lot of comments that people are upset with the resort. And that's their view of things. And it would be, if it were me, I would have another outreach meeting and I'd do it quickly. And I'd try to get all what these neighbors seem to think is coming from the resort I don't think these people are... I don't know how they would not think that it's not coming from the resort. I mean, they live right next to it, and the gentlemen and a lot of these neighbors are saying that we're hearing noise from the resort. And I think, in my estimation, it would be good to have one more outreach meeting to... to get the neighbors on the side and to have them see what you're doing and see if you can get their buy-in. But it doesn't appear that the neighbors are very happy with what's going on.

Commissioner Curtis, this whole thing is very interesting. You guys are all completely in the guidelines of the SUP, which normally I'm a very black and white person, but You guys have some issues, and I don't know where else the noise would be coming from in that neighborhood. I've lived here for 30 years. I've been coming here for a lot more. So no offense, it's gotta be coming from you. So is there a way, and I'm just throwing this out to everybody, is there a way that we could come up with a lighting stipulation to change the lights, is there a way, and I'm talking about right now, is there a way we could come up with some sort of a noise pollution stipulation that really tightens down what's going on, where things are shut down, if the police show up, and things aren't turned down, things are shut down if you guys aren't taking care of business. I'm trying to come up with a middle ground because I'm a homeowner. I've got people speed up down my street in Paradise Valley. I don't like it. I've also been a real estate developer and home builder. And I get the finances of what's going on here and the comments. So is there a way that we can tighten down some stipulations and maybe make everybody... either happy or not totally happy, but come to something that we can make this work and make everybody happy in the neighborhood.

That's a really interesting idea, but I really think that the answer really is community outreach first. And we're not sitting here at the end of the summer. We're sitting here in June at the commission meets. Generally, we do not make final decisions during the summer months because those are slower months. This is something where I really do think that this has not bubbled up before for some reason, and everyone was here tonight making comments. So I think there needs to be another community outreach. I don't know what everybody else thinks.

But they've already had a community outreach, and we've just had a community outreach. So I don't think it makes sense to have another community outreach. We know the issues. And I think we need to deal with the issues right now if we can. You're going to get the same comments down the road. They could have a community outreach, spend two or three months doing another community outreach, and we're going to have all the same comments. So let's clean it up right now.

No, I'm not disagreeing, but I really think that, first of all, the applicant can respond.

Yeah, sorry, I'm getting a little fidgety. I have a lot to say.

Go ahead.

Chair, Commissioner Curtis, I really do appreciate your willingness to try to find a solution. And, you know, as I like to say, find a way to get to yes. And there are a couple of comments in that regard. The first is... As much as I certainly understand and appreciate your desire to have more community outreach prior to a decision, Chair, my primary concern is that we're left with an unsolvable problem. Because right now, again, and Commissioner Curtis, as much as I also appreciate your supposition that this is all coming from the property, I want to point out again that this resort... is right on Scottsdale Road in a very busy part of Scottsdale Road with a lot of restaurants that serve alcohol and a lot of traffic. Scottsdale Road is one of the busiest arterial streets in the valley. And we are right on it. And so the idea that all of this can be attributed to the resort I mean, unless I'm missing something, the commission hasn't been provided with any information that any of this has actually come from the resort other than it being in proximity to the resort. The resort is also in proximity to Scottsdale Road. I just worry about being tasked with solving problems that aren't necessarily ours or ours alone. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that there's not a solution here. I think that was a double negative, but I think you get what I'm trying to get at here. And I had another comment, but I'm blanking, so I'm going to move on to the next one. A couple of things. So the sound stipulations actually cover, Commissioner Curtis, a lot of what you're talking about. So one, it sets time limits. So after 10 p.m., anything outdoors, not just amplified sound, anything outdoors, any type of event, shuts down, goes inside, has to. And that is something that exists across most resorts in Paradise Valley.

Can I step in for a second? I know that, and I know the rule, and I know the 10 p.m. deadline. But if it's before 10 p.m., And the police are called because it's loud. The police find that it's loud. And then your DJ or whoever it is, the band, they quiet it down until the police are gone. That doesn't work. So what I'm trying to do is put some teeth into something where I'm going to make this up. If the police are called two times within 30 minutes, they show up. with their decibel meters and they find that you're out of compliance, it's shut down, it's done. It's not turned down, it's shut down. And again, I don't know if this is even possible, but I think something has to be done because people are upset. And help me out a little bit because how close are the bars and other restaurants to this resort? Aren't they pretty far south of you? I don't know off the top of my head.

Or am I incorrect? I live there, but I didn't answer that question.

So, Commissioner Curtis, I see what you're getting at, and I think maybe there's a different solution. You let me know if this sort of fills the void that you're looking for. Whether we just need to put in a stipulation, and I'll lean on staff, and particularly Andrew McGuire, down in Cerny, as to whether this is enforceable. But the sound stipulation specifically, because that's what we're talking about here, is the ability to enforce those stipulations. Because if we're playing by the rules, then there shouldn't be any concern, right? Yes, of course. So, well, no, I say that to say, that if we can put a stipulation and I've seen I've certainly done this in other jurisdictions where we we we set a time to revisit this at a public hearing to where we are we are coming back to a public hearing to specifically revisit these stipulations and basically have like a status check to determine whether or not they're working if there have been any complaints if we're not addressing the issues so that the the the commission has the ability if they so desire to then modify those conditions we are allowed to do from a sound perspective is that is Tenable?

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, some sort of a look-back provision is certainly possible. And I think two things to keep in mind. One is that that look-back provision would then be in the the context of Prop 207, so we'd have to have a recognition, and probably the 207 waiver gets us there, that this type of stipulation could result in a change to their SUP later on. I'm uncertain, however, part two, of a stipulation that goes beyond the town's sound regulations being challenging for our police department to enforce, and then keeping in mind that your mechanism is a land-use mechanism, not a property-use mechanism. Yours is an approval for the thing that happens there. Operation of that thing has to fit within town code. So there are different... species here. And I think it's a little bit dangerous to have a sound provision that's different than your town code. If the applicant's willing to have that, that's fine. But keep in mind that the officers showing up are going to enforce the town code, not necessarily the SUP stipulations.

Got it. And I guess that's kind of what I was worried about. Because like I said, based on the requirements of the SUP, They fit within those, period. But again, we've got an issue.

And Commissioner Curtis, I think that's where I'm struggling as well. Certainly going into tonight, we've, and I continue to be proud of the track record that we have, the actual track record, which is... from both the police enforcement and the zoning sides of the house, we have a clean track record with the town. And that's all we have to rely upon between what Wendy said, our project manager here, about ultimately if the guests aren't happy, who are going to have a far more direct exposure to any type of nuisance on the property than guests outside the property, that's certainly the worst thing you can have for the sake of business. I mean, if we're not being altruistic here. And again, I'd like to emphasize again that this is, among the operators that I work with, this has been one of the best as far as being responsive about thinking ahead to concerns and sort of anticipating the concerns of the community. When I add all those things up, something doesn't seem to be fitting here. And that's where I'm struggling with is that I don't, I'm having trouble connecting A to B as far as how this fits into the very clean record that we've had with the town and as far as how this resort has conducted itself. Which is why I'm trying to find some type of a middle ground in which we're given some credit for the work that we've done and the record that we've had while still being conscious of the fact that clearly whether it's us or some other source, there's clearly a problem. And whether that means, you know, if we're fortunate enough to get an approval this evening, we have further outreach and further meetings. I certainly don't think we would shy away from that. I think being good neighbors is important even after the gavel goes down. And making sure, because ultimately, look, Whether the complaints are coming from the neighbors or they're coming from the guests, that is a problem that the resort would rather not have to deal with. That's something that they want to take on head on because it means that they're not having to spend man hours and time trying to address whether it's problem guests or construction workers or whomever it is. There's a shared interest there in making sure that those things aren't a problem. So I'm with you here. I'm working on something where... you know, we're given some credit for the work, not only the work that we've done, but the record that we have, while also looking forward that we agree, we don't want this to be a problem because it's a problem for everybody. And I'm struggling to see exactly what that is while staying within our extremely tight timeline of getting construction started this summer.

Well, and I get that, and I really don't think we're very far apart. Right. I'm just not sure how to move forward at this second, that's all.

What I'm hearing, though, is that much of your argument seems to bolster the case for further investigation, right? I mean, if we're saying that there's something here that we don't understand, doesn't that bolster the case for further investigation?

Commissioner Brian Nagel, I don't disagree with you. But I would suggest that there are kind of two different things going on here. There's one, there are clearly impacts that the neighbors are feeling that require additional investigation as to how those impacts are occurring. I would say the things that we're asking for this evening and the impacts that we're discussing can coexist. Because I guess the one thing that I can say with certainty of the things that we're talking about is that the parking piece of this is something that cannot be attributed to the resort, just based on the work that we've done, even at the busiest times, to count the number of parking stalls, to count the number of parking stalls that are empty. And I just don't see how that math adds up, that that parking is attributed to the Paradise Valley Doubletree Resort. So then if we're taking that off the table... And we're talking about light and we're talking about sound. We've already offered up that clearly the sort of the biggest pain point or the biggest source of nuisance from a lighting source standpoint is the string lights. We're happy to excise those from the application. And then the only thing left is noise. And the standards that we are asking the town to hold us accountable to are the exact same standards that every other resort in the town of Paradise Valley is held accountable to. And so I... We can certainly commit to you, and even if you want to put it in a stipulation that within a certain number of days of approval we have to send out letters and hold another neighborhood meeting and report those findings to the town, more than happy to do that. I think that that's something that we want to do. Again, I... My concern that we don't have a definitive attributable source to these things, I don't want that to diminish my concern that the impacts are being felt or seem like I'm being dismissive. I have no doubt that these impacts are being felt, that those sounds, that those lights, that all of those things are real. What none of us can say here definitively is that those things are coming from the resort, and I think that's what we would work...

With earnest to establish to address those things if in fact they are coming from the resort But I don't think that based on what we're asking for this evening that precludes the the commission for moving forward Okay, if you don't mind, let me throw something at you So you you can put string lights in but they just go straight down I can't remember the lighting company, but I'm very aware of that. That way you wouldn't get any sideways light bleed. How about a stipulation? So just, this is gonna be kind of a two-part thing. It's gonna answer somebody's question. From the time change that we have in the spring, construction's allowed to start at 6 a.m. When the time changes again in the fall, construction is allowed to start at 7 a.m. So how about a stipulation? You get no deliveries On your property before 6 a.m. in the summer and 7 a.m. in the winter.

Yeah, we can live with that.

And either every six months or every year. Hold on, you've got your legal department. 5 a.m.? Okay, well, see, I've been retired, so that's what happened. I wasn't up to date. Well, maybe stipulate to 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., even though the law is 5 a.m. I don't know. Again, I'm trying to come up with something that we can move forward. And maybe you have community outreach once or twice a year.

Sure. For how long? It can't be in perpetuity. That would be a very difficult thing to... Well, that makes sense.

I don't know, for a year, for two years? So people could really voice their opinion. If problems keep cropping up, they've got a place to go.

And Commissioner Curtis, and again, I'm leaning on town staff for this just to remind me of whether or not this is the case. Because... Unlike most jurisdictions, pretty much everything in the town that's not a single-family home is subject to an SUP. That creates sort of an additional layer of protection in the sense that if we were doing, if it reached a level of egregiousness where you simply didn't, there was something that you wanted to outright eliminate, I believe that the staff or the town has the ability to initiate their own amendment to the SUP to change something about it. Am I incorrect in that assumption?

You wanna go first?

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Mr. Tate's correct that the towns could initiate an amendment to the SUP subject to Prop 207. I mean, so a diminished value claim would probably quickly follow that. So the things that are built into stipulations that could result in changes to their SUP are covered by the 207 waiver for this item tonight. Things that are not in the stipulations that might result in that would be a fresh claim.

This is Commissioner Rose. It seems to me that this is an oversight challenge. if it were me, I would get all the neighbors together and get them together very quickly and find out how you can come with common ground on if there's... And I understood that this event lawn was just going to be for the ballroom pre-function... Is that true? It's just going to be an outdoor pre-function space?

Or is it going to be a party area? A party area is certainly not how I would characterize it, Commissioner Rose. Its main purpose is to function as a pre-function space for the Grand Ballroom. That is why we've located it where we have.

That's why I'm digging in here is that there's probably not going to be a lot of music here.

That's correct, Commissioner Roberts.

If it's a gathering place before a dinner in your ballroom, I wouldn't think that you'd have a lot of music out there. And I think also you could, if you had this meeting with the neighbors, you could show them maybe a different lighting pattern, and tell them that we've got security, and if we've got a big night of parking, we're going to be out on Jackrabbit making sure that people aren't parking on Jackrabbit. I just think you need to do a better job of aligning yourself with the community because obviously there's some concern here. And I think it could be, you know, and give them a number to call if, a function gets out of control noise-wise even before 10 o'clock so they know who to call and be able to have the thing taken care of right away. It just seems like the neighbors don't have anywhere to go or who to call or talk to, and they're probably not sure of what the lighting is going to be like on the event, on the outdoor event patio. I just think there's a lot of communication and information sharing that's got to be done to make sure that the neighbors feel good about what's going on on your property. Because it obviously doesn't, as my dad used to say, it doesn't sound good from the curb.

Sure. Chair George Ellis, Commissioner Rose, I guess... A couple of things. First is, I would point out that what you're referring to was precisely the point of the meeting that we had in December. That was to introduce ourselves to the community, to share with them what was coming with this application, to hand out our contact information should they have a complaint about noise or light or any other issue during construction or otherwise. And again, we had probably 50 members of the community that attended this event just before the holidays.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think that's what Commissioner Rose's point is, is that didn't work. And so we're here now. We had, I don't know, maybe four families to start with to talk to. So I appreciate what you're saying, but if that didn't work, then maybe we take Commissioner Rose's idea and go forth with that.

Understood, Commissioner Brown. And Wendy here reminded me of something and put it up on her phone so I could be reminded of it. I'm not certain that if you were to, and the town is more than welcome to go and pull Scottsdale Police's records for this property, but she reminded me of something that I actually remember from my days as a prosecutor, that's how I started my legal career, was as a prosecutor for Maricopa County. When you call the wrong jurisdiction about a complaint in your jurisdiction, that is routed to the correct dispatcher and to the correct jurisdiction. So I think we can say with relative certainty that if somebody did mistakenly call Scottsdale PD with a complaint about this property, that would show up in PV's records because that call would have been routed to the PV dispatcher to address because Scottsdale doesn't have the jurisdiction to address it. Chair.

This is Commissioner Rose again. I don't know. I just think that if you took the time and did it expeditiously and got the neighbors together and explained this whole project and showed them lighting and the sound situation, because... Again, I'm repeating myself, but if you're using it for pre-function space, it's people congregating and talking and having a couple of drinks before they go into dinner. It's not a thing where they're gonna have a dance band and a DJ. And if the neighbors were to understand that and you were able to relay them to them that you're going to have security on high parking nights watching the Jackrabbit Street, I just think there's a lot of information that they need to know and they might appreciate more what's going on on the property.

Yeah, Chairman Rose, and we did that in December, and I know you said that something was missed, but I mean, we had 50 families. And so if you have four people show up after a meeting of 50 where I detailed out construction, the owner detailed out with renderings what we were looking at, Camelback Lawn, this is what we're doing on the property, this is everything. I'd just say we could do it again, but I think back to Chairman Curtis's opinion, we might end up right in the same spot where you have five families out of 50 who would still not be satisfied. To your point about this Camelback event lawn, This is for the group that uses the grand ballroom. So as we discussed, the idea is they come out of the grand ballroom. They enter into the camelback lawn. It has the ficus. It has the fence. It's a private space for them to communicate with each other with ambient music and happy hour, cocktail hour. It is not meant to be a wild party because these people are then going back into their conference and attending the after dinner events or meetings. So, I agree with how you perceive the space. Okay.

Chair, if you'd like, I could kind of try to narrow our options here and make it a little more clear. Okay. Maybe a little. So, I think it is worth noting that my department, police, town manager, frankly, the commission and the council have not heard of problems on this site. in recent years. That's not to say the things that were reported tonight didn't happen, but no one attributed them to the town, to this property. That being said, both then and now and going on to the future, we do have an SUP that would allow us to look at those things. Whether we would approve this change or not, that is the case. The SUP is the mechanism that allows the town to work with the resorts to make sure that they're being good neighbors. It's not perfect, but it works well. It's worked for every other resort that we have. We don't have any ongoing right now contentious neighbor issues with resorts. We didn't know that we had one with this one. Maybe we do. But I think that the fact that no one managed to get to us to say this resort is a problem does tell us something. Maybe not everything. So the options are this. That will be the case going forward. A, you could put this off until September, as we did with the other case. I'm not sure what's going to change because the problems we have now aren't about this construction, they're about existing issues. So another option would be for us to continue to find more research. We will look in Scottsdale records to see what we find out. I think it sounds like the applicant's willing to continue doing lots of outreach and research with us because all of those problems are existing, apparently. To the most recent point, the improvements they're proposing aren't really gonna change it much. 95% of this hotel is there now and has been. This 5% change, my estimation, it doesn't make it any worse. So it's kind of just about the timeline you would prefer. And if you would prefer to hold off the construction that they're trying to do to solve the issues that are ongoing, we don't need to do that. We can work on those ongoing issues either way. Also, there is an option if you think that something is going to change in the next month, which I don't think it will, you could meet in July and hear this and decide on it. It's not typical. But you all are the ones that have to come and decide about it, so you can do that. But I would request that you inquire to their timeline because I don't think the applicant knew that that was an option because it typically is not.

Thank you. I agree with that. And I guess, again, I just think there's more information that has to be given to the neighbors uh... uh... i don't know if you want to meet with the the neighbors that have uh... brought up these challenges and talk to him about operationally what you would want to do i don't have a uh... a challenge with uh... and mister commissioner nisikis and i probably think that there's not going to be a lot of noise coming from that event lawn you know it's on scottsdale road there's a lot of traffic noise from Scottsdale. It's probably not going to be a lot of music. It's just going to be people having conversation before they go to a dinner. But somewhere there's a feeling with the four or five neighbors that they're uncomfortable with what's going on, and I'm wondering if... showing them what your plans are once again and making them feel better about how you propose to manage the resort and who's gonna be in charge on nights when you've got functions going on and people looking for parking. I'd feel more comfortable if that happened in the next couple of weeks. and we could get some buy-in from the neighbors that they feel more comfortable about what's going on.

Chairman, to your point, If there were issues on a night three months from now, we'd rather they come to us first anyway. No one wants the police called for your property. We would love and rather have them call our general manager so that he can address it immediately or he can at least say, hey, it's not us. We've called and complained as well because it's disrupting our guests who are having their private event or sleeping. We'd love the open communication. And we have an open door policy there.

Thank you. This is sort of what I've heard this evening. I've heard experienced operators of hotels saying, go out and talk to the residents. I'm not, you know, I'm not a hotel operator. That's not what I do in my daily life. But I've heard other experienced people saying, hey, I've got some concerns. I do have some concerns that we had people coming in and making comments. Remind me this is something that stays here. This is not a a final Recommend this is not a chair.

Correct a minor SUP The action is with the Planning Commission and then it's appealable within 15 days once that action happens, right?

so so this is not going to go to we're not going to recommend and have it go to the Town Council so you know The way I see it, you can take a couple weeks, go and talk to people. You can agree to not have any loud music in that front area other than what is piped in. You can sort of nix the string lights and police what's happening with the parking areas. I don't know that I would want to risk taking a vote this evening based on what I've heard.

Commissioner Georgelos, or Chair Georgelos, I don't think we'd be opposed to committing to all of those things this evening. And I think that's where your director was getting at, is the problems that are being voiced by the residents have to do with either our existing operations or things that are happening around the property, but have very little relation to the approvals that we're asking for this evening. In fact, the stipulations that we're asking to be held to this evening, particularly as they relate to noise and sound, are actually more stringent than the ones we have now and are far more specific. There are a couple of things, one thing in particular that I'd completely forgotten about, and I want to go all the way back to the first gentleman who spoke who lives in the home that's just outside of the northeast corner of our property. And he said, gosh, it would be great if somebody would plant a bunch of large ficus trees and plant a ficus edge on the other side of the wall. That's actually in our landscape plan. And the only reason that we haven't planted them in our approved landscape plan, and the only reason we haven't planted them yet is we're waiting for the stucco on the new wall to cure. So that is actually something that we were already planning on doing, is planting a far more robust ficus edge along that eastern property line. So when you take that in combination with the fact that we've agreed to eliminate the string lights, and Commissioner Curtis, what you were referring to with string lights being Shielded pointing down that's already the specs that we're proposing as part of these string lights That's actually part of the town's requirement.

They have to be shielded the town doesn't allow fully exposed string lights Well, it's true, but if I remember correctly You've got a cap so the light doesn't go up. It does go sideways so and It's not no offense. It's it's it's not accurate. So I I've got the light for you. Cooper Lighting, Lumiere. I can hand you the spec right now. I just looked it up. Why don't we make this, what you said is perfect. Let's make it a stipulation. All those items, let's make them a stipulation, and let's vote.

I think it would be simpler, Commissioner Curtis, to just remove the string lights. That's okay, too. I think that's just cleaner. I don't want to get caught up in this because, again, I think, We're more than happy to get rid of it if that's something that will make the neighbors feel more comfortable about what we're doing, more than happy to do it. I would just... For future reference, just with this commission, when they're looking at issues like this, the question I always emphasize that we're asking with relation to anything, whether it's height or setbacks or lock coverage or anything like that, is those things in and of themselves aren't bad things. Height's not a bad thing. The context for the height. Is it near another property? Is there a privacy issue? Is it blocking views? It's something related to the height. It's not the height itself. Same with the string lights. What impact are we solving for here? We're talking about string lights on Scottsdale Road where there are street lights that are much brighter than these that are... There's no marginal impact. We're more than happy to get rid of them, but it's just something I would suggest for the future that what impact are we solving for here? So I say that more as food for thought than looking for a response.

Well, I understand that, but we've had a number of people make a number of complaints. Right. So... Just trying to come to a happy medium to get you guys down the road and get the people that live around there happy because we're here to protect them as well. That's right.

Chair, if I could, I just have one statement about the lighting. The commission is free to handle this as they choose. We have a number of resorts that have the string lights they've proposed. It's not new. It's not uncommon. This would be, frankly, the lightest, brightest, busiest spot that they would exist in the town. And so it's not to say that based on a complaint from a house that you could do something about that, but my agnostic view of the resort... The more typical we do things, the better we do them as opposed to one-offs.

Understood. Thank you. Okay.

Can I make a further suggestion? Because I think we are... Again, I can't emphasize enough how mission critical moving forward tonight is to the... the feasibility and long-term health of this resort from the perspective of the scale of investment that's being put in it and how harmful the delay would be to the overall investment. We offered tours to all of the commissioners. Some of them took us up on that to see the property and see what's already been invested in it with more coming. And with that in mind, there are a few things we'd like to offer up here as a way of moving this forward. The first is the string lights. That's number one. We'll make sure that it's included, that we are excising those from the lighting. Number two is, you know, for now, because it's the way to move this forward and we can demonstrate through future compliance and come back and ask for it if we need to, that we will agree to no amplified sound on the Camelback lawn. So where we've talked about it being a pre-function space, that's what we expect it to be. We can live without that having amplified sound. If we come back and we need it, we will come back having done all of this additional work engagement with the community to demonstrate that we've continued to be good neighbors, that we've continued to have a clean track record with the town, and we'll ask for it then. And then with respect to parking, I think that's the one that I have the most heartburn with, only because there's it's almost impossible to definitively establish whose cars those are, why they're parking there, and who's parking them, particularly given the surveys that we've done, actual hard data of how many parking spaces are open on the resort, even at peak times. So if it's enough to move the commission forward that we're willing to lose the string lights and agree to no amplified sound on the Camelback lawn, that's what we're prepared to do. 100%. And if you'd like us to hold another neighborhood meeting within three months, we'll do it.

Could you let the neighbors know that you've made those decisions?

Yeah. I mean, sooner than later. Sure. So one of the things that we did when we held our neighborhood meeting back in December is we had a sign-in sheet that had contact information, email addresses for everybody who attended.

Yeah, you could send out a letter.

We'll send out a letter. We'll send out an email letting them know, hey, you know, here's what we've agreed to. Here are the additional conditions we've agreed to. And also we will be holding another neighborhood engagement meeting on the property. Here's the date and time. And we will provide the findings and a summary of that meeting to the town.

Yeah. And this, Commissioner Rose, I think somebody brought up the fact about those ficus trees.

Yeah.

Well, you know about the ficus trees, but they don't.

That neighbor doesn't.

The neighbor doesn't.

He left before I could tell him.

There's obviously a breakdown in communication for what's going on, and that was my only point, that if you could explain to these neighbors that there's not going to be music on the Camelback, that there's gonna be a change in the lighting.

Yeah, we were given the restriction to have only the most music we could have. This was at Sanctuary one time, a string quartet. And I know that sounds a little stupid, But it was reality, and people lived with it.

And Commissioner, we'd be happy to live by something.

But the truth of it is, Commissioner Sikas, I think it's easier just to say no music.

I'm just giving you an example of what could work.

When we talk about how loud Scottsdale Road is, you probably wouldn't be able to hear a string quartet over the traffic noise.

Well... So be it.

And Commissioner, about the relationship with the neighbors, the owner of this property, he's not a flipper, a property flipper. This guy has bought this property and he plans to be here for 10, 20 years. This is a long-term investment. We want a good relationship with neighbors. We will continue to work to develop that and we'll continue to have that open door policy.

Include in your neighborhood mailing information. A phone number.

100%.

So they don't call the police. They call you guys first.

That's what we want, Commissioner.

And we will send it out to the full 1,500 foot radius like we would for a notice meeting. And I say this at potentially my own peril, but I'm going to do it anyways. You know, as most of you know, I've represented several of the resorts in the town. I've done a lot of work in the town. I will continue to do a lot of work in the town. And it certainly doesn't do any favors for my reputation if I come back and it turns out this resort continues to be a disaster. So you certainly have my commitment that I'll continue to work with this operator because we will continue to be investing money in this property to ensure that we're good neighbors.

I think we're headed in the right direction. Does anybody else want to weigh in on that?

Yeah, I think we are headed in the right direction. The last thing we want to do is hold up a project. But the last thing we also want to do is we don't want to approve a project that is going to be adversarial to the neighbors surrounding the project. And so if we could... take a bite off the elephant one at a time. And the parking, I think, could be solved by you assuring the neighbors that if parking gets out of control, you're going to have somebody out there managing the parking so people aren't parking on Jackrabbit. You'd have somebody with a flare and a... deal to make sure that they're parking on the property and not on Jackrabbit, explain the Camelback lawn with the lighting and maybe no lighting or low lighting and no music, and then assure them that you're going to manage the noise on the property with the ficus trees and all that. I think you could win over the neighbors. Why don't we just stipulate all that right now and move on?

Yeah, how do we do that? Can we do that?

Well.

I mean, I think that's what we're talking about. I mean, if we want this to have teeth, we stipulate it.

I'd be more than happy to suggest some language. I've been writing it in my head for the past 20 minutes. Right. No string lights shall be permitted on the Camelback lawn. That one's easy.

But I agree with Jim. We don't want to. You know, what we heard tonight had nothing to do with this patio. It had all to do with what's existed there for the last umpteen years. And those things happen. I've been called at my resort for noise issues, and I solve them. And we move on. So you guys are going to be faced with that, whether you have this patio there or not. You've got a big resort with a lot of space, indoor and outdoor. And as I said, your guests will be the first ones to complain. And it's self-regulating.

So I have three suggested stipulations. So that would be the first. Sorry, Sherry, it seemed like you wanted to say something, so I cut myself off.

You go ahead with your stipulations, and then I will comment.

Sure. So string lights shall be prohibited on the Camelback Lawn. No amplified sound shall be permitted on the Camelback Lawn. The applicant shall send notice letters and hold a neighborhood meeting within three months of approval. to the same mailing radius as a minor SUP, so it's a 1,500-foot radius, and provide a summary and a report of that neighborhood meeting to the Community Development Department.

And I think there was one more that you might have left off, and that is to provide a good contact name and number. I think that's really critical.

We will include that in the letter. So if you just want to include that, that would be part of the letter is contact information for an on-site contact.

I think if the gentleman especially had somebody like that to go to and had a relationship with, probably wouldn't have shown up tonight.

And Commissioner Brown, again, I'm going a little bit out of order because this was something that occurred to me when you were speaking earlier as to why that Attempted break-in wasn't didn't show up in the town's records He actually said and if you go back and watch the video you hear it that he didn't report it. He didn't call it in Right And what about parking along the streets So the only thing that I can think of that would be an enforceable stipulation and I think we've actually done this on other properties is so we've got the number in the parking study of 1265 for events on the property. For any events that exceed that number, that we would be required to obtain a special event permit and provide either valet or off-site parking.

Right.

And you have valet 24-7 as it is today, right? So I guess that, yeah, so off-site parking and a special event permit for anything over 1265. Right. which again would be consistent with the way that the town has treated every other parking study that CivTech has done, which is pretty much every resort in the town.

And the only thing that I would say is clearly there's something that bubbled up.

I don't disagree.

There is a problem, and I would rather resolve the problem, if possible, before making a decision. I like this direction. I like these stipulations. I think that it will go a long way towards kumbaya, but I sort of liked Commissioner Rose's approach of getting people under the tent and doing it faster rather than slower and having a meeting in July.

But again, these issues have nothing to do with what's in front of us. They have everything to do with normal operations, supposedly.

Okay, they have everything to do with this hearing today, is what I would say.

I disagree.

I didn't plan this.

Why don't we stipulate to these things? Because they're not going to be able, in two weeks, they're not going to be able to resolve all this. The best way, I think, for it to be resolved is stipulate it right now.

Well, I think we've made notes of the stipulations. Staff, have we made notes of these stipulations?

Yes, Chair, we have. At this point, we would suggest, if there's a motion to come, accept the changes that Paul demonstrated from the PowerPoint this evening and the changes stipulated by the applicant. That will encompass, for our purposes, what we need going forward. That's if you want to approve this item right now.

Okay. I might be repeating myself, but this Camelback lawn... I don't think is gonna be the root of the problem, the problems that the neighbors have now. With no string lights and with no music, I keep getting back to the fact that you have to, assure the residents that you're going to be on top of what's going on on your property. And what makes this even more invasive is that your neighbors are right on top of the resort. There are other resorts that have neighbors, but they're not as close as what I think these neighbors to the east are. And maybe to the north with Jackrabbit, but... I don't know. My opinion is that if we could get these stipulations intact and you'd have the meeting, I'd like to get a vote and have a motion and see if we can get this settled tonight.

Why don't we add a stipulation that they have a meeting within...

30 days and Two meetings a year for two years and make that the fifth stipulation Commissioner Curtis if we could stretch that timeline just a little bit longer for the initial sure and that's why I suggested three months It's the summertime. It's probably the time that the resort is the slowest anyways It's the time when we're going to be doing this construction So we're gonna be limited in terms of the number of guests we can even have anyways So it's probably not representative of the operations anyways I'm fine with that. Okay. Yeah. And I would just remind you that I think that one of the, and Commissioner Brown, I think you were the one who reminded me that we needed to include this, was the contact point. The on-site contact point in the notice letter I think is going to end up being the most critical piece of all of this. Because if nothing else, I think Wendy has demonstrated that their team is very interested in addressing any complaint that comes. It just has to find us. Because I don't think anybody doubts our sincerity in that if someone had come to us with any of these issues before tonight, we would have been all over addressing them so that we're not standing up here for 90 minutes discussing this. It's in nobody's interest. And so I think having that on-site contact in the letter is probably going to end up being the most important piece of all of this.

Yeah, I mean, we don't love being here doing this either.

I'm gonna need a note from my wife.

Okay, so you're proposing the first meeting is when? Within three months.

Within three months. Yes. Great, and then? Another one within six. Okay. Meaning six total. So basically two meetings within the next six months.

Yeah, before the end of the year.

Yeah. Right. So maybe even say that. That works. The first within three months, the second before the end of 26.

Okay. I don't know how everyone else feels, but...

Because I think it's in our interest as well, because with construction starting this summer, having that touch point to make sure that we are continuing to be good neighbors, even for the folks who may not want to bother calling the town or calling us, I think it's in everybody's interest. Right.

Well, you can show them the Camelback lawn. Let them come out there for a reception.

Anybody who had attended our meeting back in December would have had a great time. The neighborhood basically treated it like a holiday party. We were serving beer and wine. We had snacks. It ended up being a really nice time.

Someone should have gone next door and wrapped on his door.

Yeah, I think that was the one that surprised us more than anything. Gosh, I have a hard time imagining that somebody who's paying money to stay at a resort would bother going and trying to break into a house next door, but I just don't know.

OK. All of that having been said, is there someone who would like to make a motion this evening?

Yeah.

Yeah. Chair, remember there's two motions. So the first motion is, is this a minor to make a motion? And the second is if you wanted to either continue, act on it, deny it, that's the second motion.

Okay. Well, do we have a motion on whether or not this should be deemed a minor special use permit?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Curtis. Do I have a second?

Second, Nisikis.

Thank you, Commissioner Nisikis. Any discussion around this? Hearing none, I don't know. We should probably do a roll call vote on these.

Yeah, and Commissioner Covington, we've been having problems where our thing falls off, so he's not on. So he's on and off, but he will not be part of this motion.

Okay. Okay.

We'll do a roll call vote.

Please.

Commissioner Brown. Aye. Commissioner Brown's an aye. Commissioner Curtis. Aye. Commissioner Curtis an aye. Commissioner Nagel.

Aye.

Commissioner Nagel's an aye. Commissioner Nisikis. Aye. Commissioner Nisikis is an aye. Commissioner Rose. Aye. Commissioner Rose is an aye. And Chair George-Alas. Aye. Chair George-Alas is an aye. And the motion passes six to zero.

Okay.

Okay, so the next item that we need to vote on, I just want to be clear, there are certain stipulations that the town already has. Correct. So do those need to be listed?

You can reference the action report, the stipulations that are noticed in the action report.

Right. And so just to note, on the stipulations in the action report, there were two modifications described in the presentation. One on 1I, which deals with the date of the plan is June 11th. And then the second was 3F regarding the accent lighting with the wall that shall not be placed on the ground since they'll be most on the wall and in the air.

So then that motion would include the stipulations suggested by the applicant regarding string lights, amplified sound, two meetings, the on-site contact information, and a report back to our department. Okay, so...

Yeah, so I have, so string light prohibited on Camelback Lawn. Two, no amplified music on Camelback Lawn. Third, applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting and send out notices to neighbors within a 1,500 foot radius of the resort. They know she'll have the contact info for the resort. And they should report back to the town with the minutes, draft minutes of that meeting. The first meeting shall be held within three months from date of approval of this amendment and another meeting held by end of 2026. And then the fourth one, they'll need a special event permit when they have a guest capacity of 1,260 guests to address any potential offsite parking. Did I summarize that correctly?

Did you say no amplified music on the lawn? On the lawn.

You said that? So, Madam Chair, the motion, unless Mr. Tate has a... A minor correction.

The number was 1265, not 1260. Okay. And for the purposes of being consistent, because the 850 cap had to do with local events, I would use the same language for this, that any local event exceeding 1,265 guests requires a special event permit. Thank you. Because that would be consistent with the language that was on the 850 cap.

I think those are two completely different things, though. Please explain.

Chair Giorgelos, the cap that exists in the current SUP says, and I don't have the language in front of me, but it refers to local events, meaning people that aren't staying on the property. Sorry, no. Maybe there's a cleaner way to do this because I'm not sure I was entirely clear on the definition of local events anyways. But I'm not quite sure how you quantify it because the cap referred specifically to event attendees. So maybe that's the word. If events on property exceed 1,265 attendees, a special event permit is required.

Correct. Thank you.

The motion would be to move to approve including all stipulations in the staff report as modified by staff this evening and the stipulations as articulated by staff in the summary and as just modified by the applicants. Because we have all of it on record and we can get it and move all

Okay, this is Commissioner Rose. I'll second that.

Thank you.

Make the motion. Somebody's got to move it. Somebody needs to make the motion. The town attorney can't make that motion.

Somebody needs to... Would you like to make the motion, Commissioner Rose?

I'd like to make a motion that it's recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Paradise Valley Double Tree Resort Special Use Permit Minor Amendment, SUP 2603, subject to the stipulations in attachment O of this report, and as modified in the meeting this evening.

I'll second that.

Thank you, Commissioner Rose, and seconded by Commissioner Masikis.

Right.

And do we have any additional discussion or are we discussed out? I need oxygen. I can get you some water. Okay. Roll vote. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Brown.

Nay. I'd still like to see some more homework done.

Commissioner Brown is a nay. Commissioner Curtis. A. Commissioner Curtis is aye. Commissioner Nagel.

Aye.

Commissioner Nagel is an aye. Commissioner Sikas. Aye. Commissioner Sikas is an aye. Commissioner Rose. Aye. Commissioner George-Alas.

Nay.

Commissioner George-Alas is a nay. The vote passes four to two.

Okay.

Thank you, everybody. Moving on. Any action items this evening?

There are no action items, Chair.

Any staff reports?

There are none.

Future agenda items, please.

Yes, so we have canceled, if you recall, there are two July meetings, so your next possible meeting would be in August. I think that's August, whatever the first Tuesday is, August 4th, I think.

Our next meeting is...

Your next possible meeting would be... Oh, next possible meeting. Yeah, possible meeting. That would be, yeah, August 4th, August 18th. Okay. You might have a work-study session item or something of that nature. Okay. We don't know at this point if we can cancel it, so we'll let you know. Great.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown. Do I have a second?

I'll second that, Chair.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Hearing none opposed, motion carries. The meeting's over. Thanks.