Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. This is the Town of Paradise Valley Planning Commission meeting. It is September 15th, 2026, a little bit after 6 p.m. Would the staff please call the roll?

Commissioner Brown?

Here.

Commissioner Covington? Here. Commissioner Curtis?

Here.

Commissioner Bryant-Nagle?

Here.

Commissioner Nisikis?

Here.

Commissioner Rose?

Here.

And Chair Drogelos?

Here. And just for the record, Commissioner Covington is on Zoom this evening. At various points in time, the commission may seek legal advice, and to do so may go into executive session to confirm with its town attorney. This evening, we have a couple of items on the agenda. The first is the approval or amendment of minutes. And then we have two public hearings One relates to the Franciscan Renewal Center, and the second relates to the monument sign at Vista Church. Is everyone okay with the order of the agenda?

Yes.

Hearing no objection to the order of agenda, let's move on to the approval or amendment of minutes. That's item 26-222, and that's the approval of the August 18, 2026 Planning Commission minutes. Do I have a motion?

So moved.

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

I'll second.

Thank you.

I hear no name and amendment as The commission this action I state rules center The goal this evening is to review the application In its entirety field any comments answer any questions you may have regarding the proposed amendment and again provide that final recommendation to counsel next slide, please This place of worship is located east of the northeast corner of Lincoln Drive and Smoketree Lane. It is the town parcel adjacent to the county parcel to the east. So the June 16th public hearing on this case was continued to date specific tonight, September 15th, due to concerns regarding Array 3 to provide adequate time for further review and potential for the commission to go view the site. The September 15th planning commission this evening was selected also to avoid the Labor Day holiday for maximum resident attendance. Next slide, please. Again, to recap the planning commission review thus far, the June 2nd was the first time the commission reviewed this case in work session. Since that time between the June 2nd and the June 16th hearing, setback of Array 4 was an issue with the commission. Since then, Array 4 was removed entirely. Also concerned was the overall height of the proposed shade structures. The applicant has since lowered the remaining three shade structures from 16 feet to 15 feet maximum height, as well as additional vegetation screening pallet in the new stipulation 3 which was previously discussed. At the last June 16th work session public hearing as stated the sight lines were a concern and various residents during the public comment portion made that comment to the commission ultimately resulting in the case being continued to tonight. Next slide please. Can you go back one slide? No, you're right, six. Thank you. That requested site visit occurred on Wednesday, July 15th with three commissioners in attendance. The applicant provided their lift, which was raised to the proposed 15 height. foot height and at the setback of Array 3 to recreate the sight line from the northern property line looking south. These next few slides were taken on that day. The orange line represents the top of the lift as it was taken from the key map location on the right, the location indicated by the star. So you can clearly see that orange line depicting in the location and the height of where Array 3 would be. Next slide, please. So, yeah, there's three slides here that kind of go through and show the visualization from different points along that wall to the north. Again, that is an 8-foot-tall wall. on that northern border that is adjacent to where the wash is on the north side of the property. And as you get further west along that wall, you can see how dense the vegetation is along that wash. Again, this application constitutes a major special use amendment due to an increase of more than 40% upon the original square footage. This application is now 100% an increase in floor area on the site. To review, the applicant is proposing these three shade structures on the northwest portion of the site. All three arrays are guideline compliant in terms of setback and height. Next slide, please. Solar shade structures have been approved by the commission in years past. Most recently, the first Southern Baptist shade structure in 2023 and the solar shade structures at Temple Solil in 2013. Next slide, please. In terms of land use, once again, the church use is remaining unaffected by this request, and the potential future vegetation will assist in potentially mitigating visibility of these proposed structures.

Next slide, please.

This slide, I know it's hard to see on your screen, is a rendering provided by the applicant of site line from the residence to the north of the proposed shade structures, which again is included in your packet material. In terms of height, again, the applicant has lowered the remaining three structures to 15 feet from grade, and that SUP guideline for accessory structures is 24 feet maximum height. Setbacks for such structures per SUP guidelines are 60 feet adjoining residential and 40 feet adjoining a public street. The closest array to any particular property line is array 2, 3 at 99 feet from the residences to the west. As previously discussed in depth at our last meeting, staff has added stipulation three to the potential approval to add additional vegetation at the request direction of the residences to the west to be selected from the visually significant corridor patterns of nature plant list. Ordinance 2026-02 is comprised of nine stipulations as previously discussed, including that stipulation three, which outlines that vegetation process. For this hearing, the applicant reposted the site on August 4th and all other required notification was previously completed. Public comment was received during that June 16th public hearing. Next slide. And then with that, staff recommends the Commission forward Ordinance 202602 to Council with recommendation of approval. With any modifications from the Planning Commission this evening, the Commission may either now forward this request with recommendation of approval or forward with recommendation of denial this evening. Next slide, please. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions and field any comments you may have. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from the Commission?

Mr. Commissioner Rose, I understand that two of our Commission members were able to meet on this issue on Friday afternoon, I was not able to be in attendance. And I wonder if we could get their feedback on that meeting. Thank you, Commissioner Rose. Whoops, there we go.

Commissioner Nasik is here with Commissioner Brown, had the opportunity to view the I guess what I call the lift, which replicated where the structure is going to be located from the residence to the immediate north of the parking lot there. Although, from what I could tell, the structure will be seen. There is sufficient vegetation now that effectively blocks the view. And so I'm of the mind that we should move forward with an approval.

I guess I've got a couple of questions. And I was wondering, Chair, if we might ask our legal counsel for some guidance on a couple of those questions.

We can. Do I have a motion to go into executive session for legal advice?

I would make that motion.

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

Second.

Thank you. Commissioner Curtis, all in favor?

Aye.

Hearing no opposition, motion carries. We will now go into executive session. To go back into regular session?

So moved.

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

I'll second that.

Thank you, Commissioner Nisikis. All in favor of going back to regular session? Aye. All opposed? Hearing none opposed, our motion carries unanimously. So we're back to discussion about the matter 26-203. Is there any discussion or questions or comments from the commission? No? No? No? Hearing no question or comments, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. The public hearing is now open. Did the applicant want to make a statement? No, hearing that the applicant doesn't want to make a statement, I had a speaker request from Tim Lasoda, who is not a Paradise Valley resident, but wishes to speak on this matter.

Thank you. With me in the audience, she's my client, 6607 North Smoketree Lane. She is on the property just to the north of this proposed development, and we'd urge this commission to recommend a no to the council on this. Just in general, taking a look at the Paradise Valley Town Code, Section 1101 talks about general plan. General plan goal of maximizing the aesthetic benefits of visual openness. And then if you go down to section 1102, the special use permit incorporates the following goals. Goals and policies of the general plan. That's one. Preservation of view corridors. Two. Preservation and enhancement of neighborhoods appearance. Three. For his improvements that create substantial public benefits, that's actually letter H and I, standards to ensure that the neighborhood is preserved in an aesthetically pleasing fashion. I don't think this meets any of them. And I heard a comment earlier from the site. I've been to the site multiple times that, well, don't worry, this will be blocked by vegetation. It happens to be what we're talking about is an overgrown tree that blocks part of it. It certainly does not block all of this and it will be clearly visible from this backyard. And I don't think the answer to something that's going to block your view of Camelback Mountain is to just place another large tree in the way. Because either way, you're going to lose your view. I think that the applicant's efforts, unfortunately, have not been what I think this commission had in mind when it basically gave some direction to the applicant. Obviously, council gave some direction at the outset. And we still have what we view as very large, very tall, very visually unappealing structures. So the Schwartzes have lived in this home for a number of years. They have been congregants at the Casa in the past. They're disappointed that the church has not made more of an effort. And frankly... If you look at their property, which obviously we're looking at it right here, the area we're talking about, Paradise Valley zoned, is only a sliver of that. They've got all this other land off to the right, off to the east. It's county land, but why haven't they explored other places for this? Or they could put it closer to Lincoln. Now, the feedback I've gotten on that is, well, that's not going to look good. Well, yeah, but it's not going to look good from my client's backyard either. So I think the bottom line is, you know, there are a lot of places in the valley that something like this, you might look at it and say, well, it's solar. It's not that bad. I think Paradise Valley is just, it's not such a place. I think the view corridors here are incredible. They're worth preserving. I wish I had them where I lived. I don't. So there's there isn't so much to obstruct, but it's not something that is worth losing over over solar panels It's just it's a bad precedent I think it clearly is at odds with section 1102 the special use permit criteria, which is supposed to guide this commission So with that be happy to answer any questions, and we'd certainly urge a no vote on this special use permit request Thank you Thank you

Does anyone have any questions? No? Thank you so much. Thank you. I have a request to speak from Shawn Clancy, who is a Paradise Valley resident on this matter. Welcome, Mr. Clancy.

Hello. My name is Sean Clancy. I reside in the residence with my mother. I'm a Paradise Valley native. I'm also a realtor. And I just want to mention we have asked the Francisco Renewal Center in the past to trim that tree, and they have not. So that tree is blocking our view as it stands. And I think it's wrong that they're leaning on that to protect their solar project. As we all know, it will block our view. And As far as I'm concerned, I've never seen a solar project that doesn't produce glare. So whether the manufacturer claims it doesn't, they always do produce some sort of glare. And in addition, we've always been faced with the light issue. At night, they have their lights on very bright. I'm sure you drive by it. I know Paradise Valley has an ordinance for a dark sky. We had to plant a lot of trees to block their light off to the left of us. And I just feel that I was a parishioner there. I went there as a child. I just feel like if they were good neighbors, they would have at least talked to us about this. And we've had to fight about the lights, and now we're fighting about the solar system. So it's just very disappointing. I have nothing else to say.

I do have a question, though. So is there any type of screening that would be appropriate, in your opinion, in terms of screening The parking structures?

So the problem is that the parking structure itself obscures the view. And that tree obscures our view. I'd say about 50% of our view. So that tree has already grown too tall. That's already blocking our view. And we've asked them to trim it, and they have not. And to be honest, that'll be something I'll be fighting as well. And the problem is the solar system is just too tall. even if you reduce another foot, it's going to obscure our view. And then we're just taking another object and we're blocking it with another view. And I've seen real estate where several homes in McCormick Ranch that are behind churches who added solar panels, and the value of those homes drastically went down. So it's without question that the project that they're proposing will hinder our real estate. Whether it be value and view, it'll be both.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions of the speaker? No, thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak on this matter? Okay, hearing that there are no other persons who wish to speak to this matter, the hearing is now closed.

Okay.

Any other discussion by the commissioners?

Yes. Commissioner Rose, I have two questions for the applicant. Okay. Has the applicant exhausted... all the alternative locations for this solar panel on the parking structure? And secondly, can it be less than 14 feet? Now, I know I've heard conversation about people saying that there's high-level vehicles, but if there were proper signage on it, I would believe that we could lower the parking structure and have appropriate signage where the high profile vehicles wouldn't park under that structure. And so I'd like to just get the applicant's feedback on those two questions, please.

Sure thing, sir. First question, as far as exhausting other locations, all of the roofs that are capable of holding the weight of a solar system have already been covered in solar panels? The comment about why don't we put it on the east side of the property is because the transformer is very close to where we're proposing to put these arrays. So if you put it on the east side, then I've got to tear up the entire property. and dump another several thousand dollars into conduit just to get it back to where it needs to go, back into the grid. And the second question was, I'm sorry.

About the height of it, could it be less than 14 feet?

So the front of this parking lot here, if you look at the subject property, you see where it's gray instead of black. Those are drainage pavers. That was a substitution from digging a large retention basin. Underneath those pavers is a thick layer of rock. When it rains, or we have a 100-year flood, it will absorb that water instead of running off. As far as that goes, I've got signs at every entrance to that paver parking lot that say, no trucks. I can't tell you how many trucks pull in and drive right over it. And we don't have any control over that. And they crack the pavers. My point in this is that just signs alone aren't going to stop people from driving. So the only solution that I could think of of what you're suggesting would be to put up what you see at McDonald's before you go through the drive-thru with a yellow pipe overhead with red letters on it that say, caution. That's the only thing I can think of. So, I mean, if you want to talk about a horrible view, I would think that would be pretty nasty to look at.

This is a chair George Ellis have you priced out the the cost of running the conduit to the Alternative locations that would not block views that that would satisfy the same need Is that something you would consider I I mean, putting this in a different location than right here?

If that's the direction we have to go, that's the direction we will go.

Okay. Any other questions from the commission?

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay.

Just a question of understanding. So there is the option to move the parking structure if there was some work done on the underground conveyance with the power.

That appears to be the case.

So there is an option to not block the view. but yet have the solar panel and the parking structure in a different location?

Please.

Hello? Okay. So, yeah, you know, anything's possible. We've probably already sunk $12,000 into this process, and we haven't been able to even put a shovel in the ground. So as it is right now, we're running out of money. So yes, I can do that study. That's not the efficient way of doing this. And again, our argument is that this is not blocking any views. We provided sight lines that cost me $2,600 to produce to do that study. That's not even in the presentation for some reason. We have... members of this committee that have been to the property, both our property and the neighbor's property, and I heard that there isn't a problem. I do want to say one other thing. This gentleman that says that he's been contacting us to trim trees or deal with lights has never done so. I've been there for 18 years. His mother has reached out to me before. I've tried working with her very patiently, and there's nothing I can do to help make her happy. So we do have neighbors that will tell you that when they have requested things from us, that we will talk to them and meet them in the middle or take care of their concerns, of views or whatever. And I take that very seriously. I'm very proud of the relationships that we have with neighbors that are willing to talk, not just pretend that they have. Thank you.

Thank you.

This is Commissioner Curtis. I have a question for the applicant, or maybe I'm going to put you on the spot here a little bit. I think you need to be crystal clear in do you want to move forward with this project, or are you going to table it and look at a different location. We need, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Planning Commission needs to know clearly what your intentions are.

We want to move forward with this project as proposed. Thank you. You're welcome.

I have a question also for the applicant, if you don't mind. Sorry, getting your steps in today.

Yeah.

You said you've gone out of your way, and I believe you, you know, to meet in the middle with the applicant. And... My question is have you we did go over there and look at it with lift And thank you for putting that up so we can see what we're needed to see Have you done the same have you gone over there and looked at? You know where that would fall in terms of their sight line I see the drawings But I also went over there and and I could clearly see the scissor lift over the fence.

I haven't been invited I Have viewed it from the street And it is fairly visible from there, but I'm not going to go on their property without being invited. Understood. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

This is Commissioner Rose. Can you tell me more about this tree? Is there a tree that is on your property that's blocking access?

The Schwartz's view? In this presentation, there was pictures that showed all of the trees. I don't know which tree specifically you may be speaking of. I also would like to point out that it was the town that required us to plant those trees when we developed that land and put that parking lot in. So it's not like we're just sticking them wherever we want, willy-nilly. We were guided to plant those trees.

Yeah, I understand that, but the tree seems like an easy issue. If the tree's gotten too big and the town has asked you to plant those trees, could you replant a tree that isn't so high? I mean, I have a view of Camelback Mountain, and when the trees get too big, we top them off so we can maintain the view. The tree seems like an easy issue to me. And it seems like a sticking point that if you were able to do something with that tree, it may make the Schwartzes more amenable to what you're doing. And then secondly, this is just my opinion, if I own a high-profile vehicle, I'm not going to be rolling into somebody's parking lot under a structure if I think there's an opportunity that I might clip the top of my vehicle. And I'm sure the people, your parishioners, would know that it's maybe a 12-foot parking structure that the people with low-profile vehicles would park under that structure. But I'd like to hear the tree issue from you. Sure.

As said before, when people contact us and ask us to have a conversation, we do that. There was never any contact made. So how do I know it's an issue without contact being made to present the issue or what they think is an issue?

Well, you're hearing it tonight, so if we were to ask if you would make the tree go away and plant something smaller, would you be amenable to that? I think we'd be willing to top it.

Maybe that's what the first step would be. I'm thinking get in there and give it a good thinning out, top it, and see how the view is affected then.

It looks like... It's a conversation that's never been had. We're having it, and I'm happy to look at it. Absolutely. We're very reasonable.

Thank you.

Thanks. The comment about the high-clearance vehicles... I'm not really worried about someone's pickup truck. What I'm worried about is all the other vehicles that come onto our property. We're not just a church. We're a retreat center and a conference center. We have lots of deliveries made to our property. When Easter comes, we have to build a church outside in our courtyard. That requires a lot of box trucks, and these guys don't pay attention to what they're doing. I worked in the apartment communities for years as property management, and I can't tell you how many carports I repaired because people rent a U-Haul, they're not used to driving something like that, and they run right into the carports. So that's what I'm concerned about, is vehicles that are taller than a pickup truck being able to pull in there and destroy that.

One other thing, I'm Charles Brown, Executive Director. I work with Mike. I was here at the last commission. The tree certainly is something Mike can take care of. We will. The other thing Mike and I were studying on the array is the possibility of improving the sight line from the Schwartz home south to Camelback. If it was an opportunity to eliminate some of the arrays that are on the north side so that it opens up even better sight lines for them. As you can see on the diagram that you've received before, we're just nipping that 15-foot piece. And we studied that we would be willing to lose the energy created out of 8 to 12 panels by pulling them back to the south side, which will help that sight line improve. And then it also saves the island that's right in front of the array that has some vegetation that are trees that could protect that view if they were topped appropriately to the liking of the Schwartzes. As you can see them right there, those trees that are on that island would be preserved by pulling back the array improving the sight line, and creating the vegetation that's already existing as long as we maintain the standards that we want to only be protecting the view line of the array and not going any higher. Does that make sense?

Sounds like an improvement.

Yeah. We're willing to lose that in order to gain the satisfaction of our neighbor and move the project forward. Which is what our goal is.

What's the width of each array?

Mike? I'm sorry, I'd like to make a guess for you, but I'd say... No, that's okay. 48 inches by 60, something like that. And you realize that the solar panel is... the top. It's not a metal building on top of that. It's the panel.

No, I understand. I've installed smaller arrays on residences, but I don't know the size of these. I was just wondering what the distance is when you say 8 to 12 panels. What's the distance?

20 feet. So you'd be willing to... We're losing 20% of our array in order to make this project move forward. So you'd be willing to cut back 20 feet? An estimated 20 feet. Pull that back. Preserve the island, which has the trees already starting to grow on it, which will protect and shield the metal. Ensure that we preserve that at a height that doesn't go beyond that to obstruct their view. And I think that's a win-win.

Well, if we've got a stipulation on the table, we just need to figure out how to describe it. Agreed.

Well, it sounds like that's something that we can definitely continue to discuss. No, this evening. And... Can you give us a little bit more information, Mr. McMahon, as to, thank you, appreciate it, as to the size of the arrays and how this would work and maybe some potential language?

Yeah, certainly, Chair, members of the commission. As you can see on the screen, roughly eight panels, as he stated, would be roughly 20 feet to the south. So the new setback would be roughly 130 feet to the north. If you were to move forward with a recommendation of approval, you would add that addition to the approval that as it moves forward to council, that would be added to the new plan set and the new proposal as it goes back to council.

So I guess the verbiage needs to be something along the lines of removing eight arrays from the north side.

Commissioner Curtis, member of the commission, specifically to array three. I'm sorry? Specifically to array three. Yes.

And we also have the issue of the tree, I guess, in terms of another stipulation potentially. Correct?

Yes. Chair, members of the commission, I'm not sure how that portion would be added into a motion with the vegetation. I'd defer to...

I think there is one tree.

That's just an agreement between? Yeah.

I think it's an agreement between the homeowner and the applicant to address the one tree.

I think it's more than one tree, though.

Oh, okay. Several trees.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, there is one, I think, that... that we saw from the property that's right there.

They're all planted about the same time, probably at the direction of the town.

Isn't there the opportunity for us to put a height limit on the trees? I mean, in the stipulation, so it would be black and white. We would say that the trees can have to be topped off when they hit 10 feet or whatever the appropriate figure would be.

We can. I think that's probably best left to the parties as opposed to adding a specific height. We can.

Well, we're adding a specific height to the parking structure, and the trees seem to be an issue.

The parking structure is firmly what we're looking at. If people want to discuss the height to which to trim the trees, we can, or we could just leave it to the applicant to discuss it with the adjacent homeowner to address certain landscaping.

I think if it was memorialized somewhere, it might be easier later on, my thought.

Yeah, and the reason, with respect, it hasn't worked.

That's true. No, that's true.

And so I think there needs to be some black and white stipulations, and I'd feel more comfortable with that. Can we see the pictures again?

Yeah, please. And also, if you could also pull up the additional documentation that the applicant had prepared for us to review in terms of the sight lines, that would be great.

Okay, so the picture that's up right now, and that's showing a horizontal line at 15 feet. correct me if I'm wrong, and the array is going to go from 15 feet down to 10 feet, correct? Yeah, it's 15 to 13? Okay. I thought the drawing showed 10.

I think we had discussed a lesser height.

Ah, it's 12 foot 3. 15 to 12 foot 3. Okay, thank you. So how about a stipulation that the trees trim to 15 foot height?

So that would match the parking?

That would match the highest point of the parking structure, yes.

I mean, we could even say 10, so it's not quite that high. But 15 is fine, too.

Well, it might be nice for it to block some of the side view of that structure.

Sounds good.

That's the reason I came up with that number, but we could play with the number if you'd like.

No, no, no, no. Do...

Commissioners, Chair, if the height of the tree on the property is an issue too, perhaps the stipulation could say that the, you know, the staff should Come back with a recommendation when this about the trimming of the tree. I mean at this point I don't know how tall those trees are and I don't know how much you can trim or not trim them for the health of the tree and so I'm just suggesting that the concern that the applicant, maybe the stipulation is the applicant will trim the tree to the best they can to support of the view from the North property owner, or something like that, rather than putting in an actual number.

Right. And Chair, as a reminder, this is a major amendment. So you're making a recommendation to council. So council can certainly make modifications to the stipulation to refine it.

I understand your question and your point. I'm wondering if it might make more sense to say, trim it to the level that we say, Allowing for our horticulturist to approve it it you know like you said but if it can't be like you said if it cannot be I wouldn't want it to go up again because they were gonna have the same problem I would say replace the tree with something else a different tree that only goes 10 or 15 feet That would be my recommendation

Well, from trimming the tree standpoint, you really can't kill it. I mean, you could. I could.

It's a mosquito. I doubt you can.

Yeah, and looking at the pictures, I think 15 feet is easy. There is no way it's going to hurt the health of the tree from experience.

Yeah, they break in nature all the time and come right back.

Mr. Brown?

With the stipulation on the current discussion, I'd say we move forward with the stipulation that you've all agreed to with the tree.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Well, we can always say that as to the landscaping at issue, including this tree that we see in the depiction here, that essentially that landscaping should be trimmed to 15 feet or as otherwise recommended by staff. Something to that effect, I think, would probably work, since we are making a recommendation.

Charger Dallas, did you still want to see that slide that had the sight line?

Yes, please.

So the top portion is in section view, and the bottom portion is in plan view. And it's difficult to see, but it was also included in the packet material.

Okay, so the top portion, then, as we're looking at the... At the sight line by reducing that first I guess those first eight panels that that would reduce the the effect to the view corridor Chair per this plan that is correct Do we have any other comments from Commission No Hearing none, do I have a motion?

Excuse me, I do have a question. Okay. Are we putting down black and white stipulations here? All of us are on the Hillside Building Committee, and when we approve a project... Excuse me. When we approve a project, there are black and white stipulations. So I'm just unsure what stipulations we're going to put to this project when it goes to the town council that they'll understand what we are thinking here.

I think we can make this clear. Stipulation one is they're going to remove eight arrays.

Excuse me for a second. We have nine stipulations already that have been provided that I believe we're looking at right now. Mr. McMahon, do we have a stipulation relating to the lighting that relates to the arrays, if at all?

Chair, members of the commission, there is no proposed new lighting within the areas?

There's none. None in this area that relates to this or in that parking area?

Correct. The existing parking lot lighting underneath Array 2 will be lowered to be placed underneath it. That is the only lighting that will be affected.

Okay, but that's existing lighting. Correct. We're not putting anything new in.

That is correct.

And when does that turn off?

10 p.m. 10 p.m.

Okay, thank you. So we have nine stipulations right now that are on the screen in front of us, and then we are essentially considering two more stipulations is what I understand.

Good point. Yes.

Okay. So are you okay with this, Commissioner Rose? I mean, in terms of the black and white? Oh, sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you very much.

No, no problem.

Yeah.

So... I think that what we're talking about in terms of a 10th stipulation is addressing the sort of obstructive landscaping so that it's reduced to 15 feet or as otherwise provided by staff, and that can be stipulation 10. And stipulation 11 would be the reduction of the third array by eight panels on the north side. Is that correct, Mr. McMahon?

Chair, members of the commission, that's correct.

Okay, thank you. So those would be the additional two stipulations. All of that having been said, do I have any motions this evening?

No.

I move to approve 26203 with stipulations 1 through 11.

Second.

So I heard a motion from Commissioner Curtis seconded by Commissioner Nagel. Any additional discussion? Will you please take a vote? Call a vote.

Commissioner Brown.

Aye.

Commissioner Covington? Aye. Commissioner Curtis?

Aye.

Commissioner Nagle? Aye. Commissioner Nisikis?

Aye.

Commissioner Rose?

Aye.

Chair George-Ellis?

Aye. So motion carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, the second.

The second hearing. on our calendar this evening is item 26-215, Discussion and Possible Action on Monument Sign at Vista Church, Minor Special Use Permit Amendment, SUP-26-06, located at 5230 North Scottsdale Road. Mr. McMahon, I believe it's you again.

Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you again, Chair, members of the Commission. As stated, this is the public hearing for the minor special use permit amendment at Vista Church, formerly First Southern Baptist Church, case SUP 2606. So again, as stated, the goal this evening is to review the case, determine if this request constitutes a minor SUP amendment, and ultimately take action on this proposed amendment. Next slide, please. This place of worship, again, is located north of the northwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Vista Drive, bordering two public roads. To the west of the church is an R18A zoned lot, gross .2 subdivision. And then to the north of the church is Paradise Valley Medical Plaza. Next slide, please. So this evening, again, we'll be going over the scope of the request, why it constitutes a minor amendment, and ultimately commission action. Thank you. So a little bit of background. Vista Church, formerly First Southern Baptist Church, gained SUP approval in January 1969. In September of 1970, the town granted approvals to begin construction of the church campus. Various amendments have been approved throughout the church's history, most recently the intermediate amendment in 2023 to install solar shade structures in the existing parking lot. At the August 18th work session, the commission raised questions regarding the size as it relates to the guidelines and previously approved monument signage within the town. So the applicant, Arizona Commercial Signs, on behalf of Vista Church, is requesting the new monument sign, which is proposed to be set back at the property line per STP guidelines. 148 feet, 8 inches south of the north driveway, and 207 feet from the south driveway, outside of both 50-foot site visibility triangles. It's a dual-face sign, 7 feet tall from grade, 8 feet from the Scottsdale Road side. It is also 13 feet from the back of curb of Scottsdale Road. The sign area, the top portion, is 32 square feet in size. But the totality of the sign is 80.4 square feet, including the bottom planter sections. And just to review SUP guidelines, there are no setback requirements for monument signage. It just must be located on property. One sign at each principal entrance, 8 feet max height, and again, that 32 square feet max size. And again, to go further into that with a little bit of visual context, the primary sign area in white meets that 32 square foot per side requirement or guideline. However, the total monument sign area of the basin planter per side is that 80.4 square feet. Also, in terms of lighting and color associated with this sign, again, the sign has the names of Vista Church and Vista Church in Spanish, the logo and website. It's internally halo lit and meets our lighting requirements being .09 foot candles maximum at the property line. There'll be no indirect or additional lighting in the planter area. And again, the lighting will be terminated at 10 p.m. This is the slide depicts the photometric provided by the applicant, clearly indicating on the south and north sides on each side of the sign at the property line, that .09 foot candles at the property line. Again, this application qualifies as a minor amendment due to the fact that the request does not meet any of the requirements shown on the screen. And historically, monument signage has been processed through the Planning Commission via minor SUP amendment. And again, this request does not... change or add any uses to this special use permit, does not increase the amount of floor area, does not change the architectural style of the SUP, it meets the setback and height requirements, generally meets the recommended size, and complies with the lighting code. The draft stipulation tied to this amendment approval are that all improvements to be in substantial compliance with the narrative and plan submitted, the sign illumination again to be turned off at 10 p.m., and that all existing stipulations shall remain in effect. In terms of next steps, notifications for this hearing were mailed on August 19th. The site was posted on August 4th. All required affidavits have been received by staff. One public comment was forwarded to staff from a town council member, which is in your attachments, attachment G in your packet material. And again, staff recommends that A, that the Planning Commission deem the request amendment for the Vista Church Special Use Permit Amendment a minor amendment per the criteria listed in Section 1102.7.B of the Zoning Ordinance. And then the second action that staff recommends is that the Planning Commission approve the Vista Church Special Use Permit Amendment for a new monument sign subject to these stipulations. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McMahon. Do I have any questions from any of the commissioners?

Just wondering if we've heard from any neighbors at all about it, positive or negative?

Commissioner Brown, members of the commission, staff has received the comment that was forwarded by the town council member, and there was an e-comment that was received by the same commentee.

And for the record, what was the comment?

Chair, members of the commission, the comment was the same that was forwarded by the council member. The same comment. What was it? It's regarding site visibility triangles, size of the sign, and then overall lighting.

It's included in your packet in attachment G. It doesn't look like any of us have attachment G.

Is it possible to pull it up so we can look at it?

It's not even close to a view triangle. Correct? Commissioner Curtis, that is correct. Thank you.

I just want to know what the comment is.

So, Mr. McMahon, while we're looking at this, the major difference between 100% compliance of the monument sign and substantially complying is the planter area. Is that a correct statement?

Chair, members of the commission, that is correct.

So in terms of the actual signage piece of it, that falls within the 30 square feet. Is that correct?

Chair, members of the commission, that is correct. The top portion in the white area where the letters are, that meets the 32 square foot requirement. But with the addition of the base, that exceeds it to that 80.4 square feet.

Now, is there a way we could do this where we have a monument sign that fits the parameters and we just don't have the planter base on it?

Chair members of the commission, that is at the discretion of the commission. The request was to be in line with previous signage that was approved along a major arterial at that larger size. The previous examples were made at the work study session at Ascension Lutheran Church that those signs exceeded that 32 square feet being adjacent to a major arterial. So that is why the applicant is requesting a larger sign.

Right, but there is no actual precedent here. It's really what the zoning ordinance says, and then it's sort of at our discretion to make a decision, right?

Chair, members of the commission, that's correct. The guideline is 32 square feet, but in previous years, the commission has approved larger signs along major arterials.

Is there precedence for approval of a sign this large?

If you could go back to the slideshow.

I know the example that you gave was slightly larger, but not quite this.

There's some backup slides toward the end that has the other examples. So Paradise Valley Methodist Church there. was approved in 2016, and that sign area is 89 square feet, which is larger than the sign that's being proposed this evening. And Ascension Lutheran Church, which was approved in 2019 by town council, was 71 square feet in total sign area.

Thank you.

So the first one that you showed was 8 feet in length, 8 1⁄2. And then the second one that you say is smaller is 10 feet 8 inches. I know you're talking about the area, but... Correct. Okay. Is that the concern that's raised in that letter, that it's too large?

So the comments that were in Attachment G... pertain to, again, that site visibility triangle, the size of the sign, what part of the sign copy, and what was monument. Yes, so concerns over the overall size, corner vision. Those were the main comments. I don't know if they pulled that comment up on the screen for you to view as well, but... So the Ascension Church sign, similar in length, smaller in height.

Right. And I'm sorry, that memo you were posting went through kind of quickly. Did it also show that Council Member Pace was not in favor of it?

Commissioner Brown, members of the commission, it simply stated that the council member was forwarding signed concerns.

I believe this was a resident's concern.

Correct.

Right. It was not from a resident. It was not council member. Correct. Correct.

Forwarded on to staff. Correct.

Well, one thing for us to think about is if you look at the proposed sign and if you took away the base, then you're going to have an eight-foot tall sign with no base. And this base, I think, helps soften it, especially since it's also a planter. So I think aesthetically this is much better than taking away that base. But that's just my personal view.

No, I think you would have to remove the base entirely to get it back into the parameters. But that's neither here nor there. It's just a comment based on what we're hearing.

Chair, members of the Commission, also as a reminder that this church did also have a wall-mounted sign that has since been removed, as this is their new proposal for their signage.

Well, in addition, they could ask for two signs if they wanted to, correct? Commissioner Curtis, members of the Commission, that is correct.

Right. But this is a double-sided sign?

That is correct.

Yeah.

That's not just a single-sided sign.

No, but my point is they could have one fairly close to each driveway, but they haven't done that. I think that's a huge plus.

Thank you, Commissioner Curtis. Any other comments from anyone else here?

I would just add that from what I see visually here in the plan, it seems to fit the scope of what that church is all about. And it certainly is an improvement on what they had for their sake.

And this is going to – thank you, Commissioner Onisika. Sure. Was that your comment? Yeah. Do you have anything else to say? No, that's it. Okay. Mr. McMahon, is this replacing a temporary sign? What are we doing on this property? Is there something else going on there?

Chair, members of the commission, there currently is no signage on property. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Last question for Mr. McMahon. What does SBC on the sign stand for?

Commissioner Brown, members of the commission, I am not sure. The applicant is here to speak and answer any questions you may have as well.

Good evening. I'm Russ Matney. I've been a member of the church for almost 30 years. It stands for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Thank you. Thank you.

Is there a motion here?

Well, wait. So I guess we should open the public hearing. Any other discussion by the commissioners before I open the hearing? OK. The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this matter? Do we have any slips? No? Hearing that no one wants to speak on this matter, I'm closing the public hearing. OK. Any additional discussion? No? OK. We have some recommendations that have been prepared by the staff. Do I hear a recommendation deeming this a minor amendment?

Motion. So moved.

I'm sorry. So the recommendation is, A, it's recommended that the Planning Commission deem the requested amendment to the Vista Church Special Use Permit a minor amendment for the criteria listed in Section 1102.7B of the zoning ordinance. Do I hear a motion making that recommendation?

So moved.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Curtis. Do I hear a second?

I'll second that.

Thank you, Commissioner Nisikis. Can I have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Brown?

Aye.

Commissioner Covington? Aye. Commissioner Curtis?

Aye.

Commissioner Nagle?

Aye.

Commissioner Nisikis? Aye. Commissioner Rose? Aye. Chair Georgelos?

Aye. The recommendation A relating to the characterization of this matter is a minor amendment. It passes unanimously. We also have recommendation B this evening that states that it's recommended that the planning commissioner approve the Vista Church minor special use permit amendment for a new monument sign subject to the stipulations. Can we have the stipulations up on the screen, too, please, Mr. McMahon? Thank you. And there are three stipulations that all improvements be in substantial compliance with narrative and plans. The illumination will be turned off at 10 p.m. except for special events. And all existing stipulations shall remain in effect unless modified by the minor SUP amendment, SUP-26-06.

I'd make a motion to approve recommendation B.

Thank you, Commissioner Rose. Do I hear a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Nagel. Any additional discussion?

We need to add all the stipulations in that motion.

These are the stipulations.

No, I understand.

As stipulated. As stipulated. As stipulated with stipulations one through three.

Are we in discussion?

Sure.

What are special events? Is it just once or twice a year that we're talking about or once or twice a week? What constitutes a special event?

Chair, Commissioner Brown, special events would be any time they might be using a tent of some sort of structure to get a special event permit. So it's probably not too common. But I would say most places of worship, a few times a year.

Relatively infrequent. Thank you.

So just to clarify, so that's not like an outdoor midnight mass or anything like that?

No, that would all be part of their normal procedure. It would be things, if they have to put up a tent, they get a special event permit. I'm trying to think of the last one they had. I think they had one within the last year or two, but it's not too common.

Okay, so this means the defined term special event.

Correct, yes, as defined in our town code.

According to our town code.

Okay.

We also have to keep in mind that this sign really does not throw any light at all. So even if it was on all night long, I don't think anybody's going to complain.

I know. Even though it's on Scottsdale Road, we still believe in dark skies, so we're not going to have it on all night long.

Good point.

That's not the Paradise Valley way. Okay. So any other discussion?

No.

Okay. Please call a roll vote.

Okay. Commissioner Brown?

Aye.

Commissioner Covington?

Aye.

Commissioner Curtis?

Aye.

Commissioner Nagle? Aye. Commissioner Nisikis? Aye. Commissioner Rose? Aye. Chair Drogelos?

Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone. There are no action items this evening. Staff reports.

Yes, Chair. Just really one staff update. If you recall, there was notice of a neighborhood meeting at the Paradise Valley Double Tree Resort. I forget when that was. September 9th? We did have the chair in attendance, and also Commissioner Brian Engel was in attendance. I also was in attendance. I think overall it went pretty well. I think there was about a total of, with everyone there, minus the resort staff, about 15 individuals there. Some similar comments received. I'd say the most comments were about Jackrabbit, some parking concerns with people parking in the no parking areas. Again, it's unclear if that was really the resort or some other parking. There was concern regarding the parking Northwest exit on to Jackrabbit maybe having some sort of stop sign or some sort of sign the individual I guess Experiences some people coming from the resort thinking they were going into a parking lot not on to Jackrabbit Road being a concern that was relayed on to our town engineer They certainly can add some sort of traffic signage if they need to do that, if that needs to make it safer. Then the other concern I really heard was regarding the office parcel, which there's a stipulation from many years ago that they can have 45 spaces. It's really for staff and things of that nature. But the individuals living in Scottsdale on Vista Lane, which that would dump into. I think most of the concerns were past concerns, but concerns that as this resort continues to get used more, is that going to become an issue? But overall, I thought it went fairly well. Again, they'll have their second neighborhood meeting in October. That was all noticed appropriately. We will be getting summary minutes from this. Once we do that, we'll forward that on to the commission and to the council. But I don't have those at this point. And of course, the other commissioner can certainly add on to that if there's something I missed.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Michel. That's very complete. And I guess I would only add that this is sort of a look back. I mean, this is something that we had approved previously, and this gave the residents an opportunity to come out and meet with all the parties at the resort and sort of get comfortable with where this is at this point in time or voice any other concerns that they might have. Anyone else?

No other staff comments.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. Any public body reports? Does anybody have anything to report? Hearing none, moving on. Future agenda items. I think you're up again, Mr. Michel.

Yes, I am. So your next meeting is on October the 6th. We are planning some possible text amendments. One would include the assisted living state statute sort of changes. So we're thinking that would be a citizen review session on that. So you're very likely going to have a meeting there. Your next meeting after that is on October 20th. We do have a couple... special use permit amendments that were gearing up for study session there. Also, when the Hillside Building Committee just last met, I believe they wanted to do their training possibly on October 20th. I don't know how we wanted to set that up, if we wanted to try to do that earlier than 6 p.m., or if that's even possible, since all the commission rotate on that, and then we have the three permanent members. The permanent members could come to the commission meeting. We could certainly do that at 6 with our regular agenda, or maybe try to do it a little earlier if that was possible, but I'll let that up to your discussion. And then the last item, and we can get back to the October 20th meeting with the Hillside training, is November 3rd is election day. That is your regularly scheduled planning commission. We're not planning to have any items on there at this point in time, but we just don't know, particularly if we have some of those text amendments we need to squeeze in there. We're hoping that maybe we could move that meeting to the Monday before, which is November 2nd. At six o'clock if we'd get a quorum so basically those two questions if we'd be possible get a quorum for November second versus the third and do it as a special meeting and if we don't need it we will cancel it and then on October 20th with the hillside training if we could do that a little earlier than six So just thoughts on those

Mr. Michel, I was just wondering, on the October 20th hillside training, is that the only day that we can do it? I mean, don't we have an evening where we don't have anything on the calendar where we can just do that, like we did with the planning commission training? Or has that been set in stone?

I'm not sure it's been set in stone, but your planning commission meetings, I'm not sure when we would have. It's tough to say. I could say two months from now we may not have a meeting, but things crop up and then we have a meeting. Okay.

And how long is that expected to be?

I don't know. I would imagine at least 30 minutes, 30 to 45 minutes, but I would hope not more than an hour. Okay.

Okay. And do you think we're going to have a heavy calendar that evening or not?

On the 20th, you will have, gearing up, the two SUPs, we have a minor amendment at Phoenix Country Day School. That's their soccer field. That I'm pretty sure we're going to have. We also have a minor amendment at the Miralina regarding shade structures and a sign. that we're working through. We're trying to keep that on that agenda. So those are the two that you'd probably have for work study session. And then you would have, very likely, if we have the text amendment, for example, the assisted living would schedule the hearing for that text amendment. And I don't know if there'd be any other text amendments. So you're looking at possibly three items to work study and then an action on a text amendment, which hopefully would be fairly quick.

Okay, what are the thoughts of the commissioners about doing they I guess the training either before or after that I'm open flexible.

Okay. Yeah.

Well, could we do it after I Think it doesn't matter because we could do your regular at six and then follow that after it's however you want to roll it we just

That would be great if we could do it after our regularly scheduled programming.

The only downside, the only reason we proposed it before is because then everyone has to be here, and then you dismiss the folks from Hillside that don't have to be here. Otherwise, the Hillside folks will have to kind of guess or come sit through and wait. So that doesn't mean you can't do it that way, but that's why we've proposed it in front.

Okay, but so you're saying let's do this Hillside at 5? Is that what you're saying?

I think that would be a good place to start, yes? We can bring some food in. Yeah, we can serve food. And you've got a hard stop at 6, and then those folks can be dismissed, and you all need to be here anyway.

Okay. What are the thoughts of everybody? Great.

That works for me.

Okay, so hillside meeting at 5 and then our regular agenda at 6.

And we'll provide food as well.

On October the 20th. Okay.

We'll warm up. No, no, we'll do something more than that. We do have a little budget to get you some.

Thank you. And thoughts of everyone about moving our election day meeting to Monday the 2nd?

That's a good idea.

Yeah, that works.

Okay. Sounds like everyone agrees. Let's just move that to Monday.

Sounds good. Thank you so much.

Okay. Anything else?

No, nothing.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Breitnagel.

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Curtis. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? I hear none opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.

Good night.

Good night.