Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good

evening, everyone. This is the 10/21/2025 meeting of the town of Paradise Valley Planning Commission. Miss Fulbright, please call the roll.

Commissioner Rose? Here. Commissioner Nasekeis?

Here.

Commissioner Dickman? Here. Commissioner Curtis? Here. Commissioner Covington? Here. And commissioner Brown? Here.

And chair George Ellis? Here. Thank you all. So we have I think we have not just a quorum, but I think we have everyone present in the hearing room this evening. I think it's a great success. So this evening, we will at various points in time, we may go into executive session as needed to confer with the town attorney for legal advice. Tonight we have the approval of amendments. We have no study sessions. We have one public hearing. And we have a staff report.

So that having been said, unless I hear otherwise, we're just gonna go ahead and follow the agenda this evening. So the first matter is the approval or amendment of the minutes. Do I have do I hear a motion?

I'll make that motion, Chair. Bill Nusickis here.

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

I'll second that.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown. All any discussion? No discussion having been heard. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. So on to the main event of the evening, the public hearing, and this is matter 25 Dash232, discussion and possible action on Lot 2029 Stone Canyon Amended lot split at 5338 East San Miguel Avenue. Mister Mendez, are you presenting this evening?

Yes. I am. Good evening, Chair Gurgeles and Planning Commission members. As you mentioned, this is Lot Split. Lot 29, Stone Canyon Amended 2, located at 5338 East San Miguel Avenue.

It is in the south portion of town at Camelback Mountain, as you can see on the map. This is the aerial photo of the subject property. Sorry, this pointer is sensitive. So the planning commission is to the last meeting, the September 23 discussion, several points came up. One of them was that the applicant needed to submit right of way improvement landscape plan and preliminary cost estimate.

The applicant did submit these documents and they meet town requirements. This is the plant legend that they provided for the landscaping. And so part of their improvement shows additional trees. Palo Verde's that are going to be added. Then in terms of shrubs, they have brittle bush and creosote, approximately 20 brittle bush and approximately eight creosote.

This is part of our requirement for the town, and it meets that requirement. In addition, on the September 23 meeting, they discussed the drainage. There's preliminary drainage documents that were provided. This is typical for the lot split. There's detailed drainage documents that were previously provided as part of the hillside permitting process.

And then moving forward in the future they will have to provide a complete safety improvement plan that will go along with the development of each individual lot. In essence, we also discussed the retaining walls that are on-site. Those walls were kept in place after the demolition of the home happened. The remaining process that needs to occur is an encroachment permit through town engineering division, and that is in process. At the last meeting, there was a question about the history of the plant in question.

And so we put together this presentation where it shows the Stone Canyon history. You can see on the left where it shows highlighted the two parcels, and this is from 1955. On the right hand side, you can see an aerial view, and that's 1959. And the following Figure two shows the 1994 replat, which shows the current outline of the subject property. You can also see on the right the aerial view of that with the adjacent three lots.

And then finally, today's discussion is basically to divide that parcel into two. Some more background on this lot. The plat was approved in 1955. The original home on this lot was built in 1958. The existing home was demolished in 2023.

And then as mentioned, there are existing retaining walls on Solano Drive that were maintained to prevent erosion. That encroachment permit is in process, and the parcel is zoned r 43 Hillside. The 1955 deed restrictions that limits subdividing does allow for conveyances and that is provided that the lots are not less than 40,000 square feet which is in line with the town code and hillside regulations. In terms of the process, the law split, as mentioned, must comply with subdivision standards and also our 43 hillside regulations. Minimum lot size is determined by a slope, and that's the greater slope.

Would require that the larger the size of the lots. The minimum lot size is one net acre and that is for lots that are 10% or less in slope which this qualifies for. If this lot split is approved by unanimous vote, then it will be deemed approved. If the lot split is not approved by unanimous vote, then the lot split application is then forwarded to counsel for review and final approval. So the request is to create two lots.

The first lot is 44,282 square feet or 1.02 acres and the second lot is 57,759 square feet or 1.33 acres. The applicant provided the plat map with the topography. As mentioned, on average, the slope on this lot is slightly less than 10%. It's 8.33 and on the screen you'll see table one from the hillside development regulations which outlines that on average a slope of 10% or less would allow for a minimum lot size of one acre. The lot split would meet the four criteria.

It meets the 165 diameter circle. It meets the lot minimum of one net acre. It meets the orthodox shape requirement, and it also meets access requirement to have direct access onto a public road. In this case, this one has access from two roads. In terms of the the roadways, as mentioned, Solano Drive and and San Miguel Avenue, both are local streets.

Both streets comply with town right of way requirements, and both streets will require, some curb or payment improvements. On Solano Drive, to meet the local cross section option b as shown, on the screen, and then also San Miguel Avenue. We'll meet a typical local cross section option C, and this is per engineering. Landscape requirements. As mentioned, the right of way landscape plan was provided per section five dash 10 dash seven d of the town code.

The plan that was provided meets the minimum number of native trees and shrubs along the right of way. And in terms of traffic, no traffic study is required. However, the standard trip generation manual estimates single family home averages 8.78 to 10.09 vehicle trips per day. In terms of utilities, there is a required six foot and eight foot utility easement, which is shown on each parcel. All typical utilities will be provided APS, EPCOR, CenturyLink.

Both of these lots are on septic, so no sewer will be required. And the only pending item is a will serve letter from Cox, which is in process and will be required prior to recordation of the plat. In terms of drainage, each lot will be required to meet drainage requirements as part of the hillside building permit process. There is a wash easement. It meets the minimum width and depth cubic feet per second standard, which are shown on the plat.

And you can see that highlighted in the blue on Lot 1. In terms of fire protection, both of these lots have access to a public roadway. There is an existing fire hydrant 250 feet from Lot 1 on Solano Drive, which is shown on the screen on that with that icon of the fire hydrant. A new fire hydrant will be added adjacent to Lot 2 on Sal Miguel Avenue, And then the flow rate from the water impact study is compliant with the minimum code requirements. Noticing was sent out.

It was mailed out on October 3, and the mailing notice was for property owners within a 500 foot vicinity. No comments were received. So the recommended motion, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Stone Canyon amendment two, lot split, located at 5338 East San Miguel Avenue, dividing a 2.34 acre property into two residential r 43 hillside hillside zoned properties subject to the stipulations and the staff report and then summarized below. The development is in substantial compliance with plat and associated documents and then just prior to record date recordation to complete the following which is to include a formal letter, a Wilsford letter from Cox, submit right of way encroachment permits for the existing retaining walls, provide a drainage easement agreement for Lot 1, and then submit final improvement plans and a cost estimate, as well as assurance. And then lastly, to submit a mylar PDF of the plat map for permanent records.

Prior to issuance of the building permits, they will need to install water infrastructure, and that includes the fire hydrants. Install the right of way landscape improvements, street improvements along Solano Drive, and then street improvements along San Miguel Avenue. Lastly, these are the photos of the site. I'm sure you may have visited the site already. And then I am here for questions as well as the applicant.

Thank you, Mr. Mendez. I do have a couple of questions. So in terms of the orthodox nature of the lots, Lot 2 notwithstanding its sort of triangular size and shape, it falls under that orthodox requirement. Is that correct?

Yes. So the shape of the lot is a bit odd, but in terms of splitting the lot, that line that bisects the two lots, in essence, is orthodox in shape as it is a 90 degree angle. And you can see that on the from Solano Drive.

So the orthodox nature is really relating to the line that splits the two lots and how it falls between the two lots. Is that correct?

Right.

Okay. And so we've received the preliminary landscape plan or the landscape plan that we currently have. So all of the the plantings are compliant with the hillside building code?

Yes. Yes. And those are along the right of way per town code.

Okay. And a is it complying with the number of of plantings and trees that we need there? Is there something more that we should be looking for?

Yes. What is proposed is going to meet our code. Okay.

And the easement that runs along Lot 1, that will be dealt with under the easement agreement that will be finalized prior to recordation of the plot. Is that correct?

Correct.

Yes. Okay. And I did see that you said that Cox has not approved by giving its will serve letter, but that is a stipulation of the approval.

Correct, correct. And the applicant was able to provide an email, in essence attempting to get service from the provider, but they've had difficulty being able to speak with somebody that can provide that will serve letter, so they are still in process for it. But that will be required prior to the recordation.

Okay. And so at this point, as we said, all of the requirements, all of the town requirements for the lot split have been satisfied?

Yes, that is correct.

Does anyone else have any other questions or comments?

Chair Gergelis, I do have a need to better understand that drainage easement on Lot 1. I may not totally understand the drainage effort that's being made there, but it looks like the easement pretty much splits the lot in a way that when it comes time to pour the slab or build the house, does that suggest there's actually gonna be some sort of drainage underneath the house? Guess, is there someone here from the applicant that can speak to that? I know we had the engineer here last time.

We can speak to this, I guess, during the hearing process.

Shall we go ahead

and Yes. So we do have other lots within the hillside that do have a drainage easement. In essence, our applicants typically will bridge the easement, either have an actual bridge or the design of the home will, in essence, go over those those drainage easement or those washes. And so they do clear it through engineering, and then it it just follows the normal procedure for a hillside. So there in essence, although there is that drainage easement, it wouldn't prevent them from developing it or it it it's not particularly anything that is completely out of the norm for for a lot on Hillside.

Can you show that photo again with the blue highlight so that we could see what mister Nasekez is concerned about? I I was wondering the same thing. It's got like a blue highlight through it. Right.

Right This one. Can I answer that question?

Yeah, of course.

Sure. I am the architect. Essentially, that drainage easement, what we have to do is when someone goes to design for that house, there's multiple ways they can deal with it. They can either bridge over that easement. They can essentially cover water underneath that.

The ultimate goal for that is where the water enters the site, it needs to remain the same, and where the water exits the site. So it enters towards the San Miguel side, and then it exits along Solano. So we need to maintain those two points of where it enters and where it exits. How we divert the water around the house, underneath the house, or what have you is kinda go is gonna be dealt with in the design and and the engineering portion of that. So there's a lot of different solutions.

And, essentially, during the design process, we can also reshape that drainage easement too, and then we record that. But as of right now, that is the that drainage easement is the existing water path through that site. So that's why that easement is being dedicated right now. But again, during the design process, that easement can be reshaped and can do different things, that'll all go through, you know, gradient drainage and it'll be approved by the Paris Valley before we can essentially build on that site.

And and this is a pretty substantial easement. I mean, it's a 30 foot plus easement that runs through here. And and it does can you describe how how it flows at this point? Is there water that runs or

There is water that runs through that site. The exact amount of water that flows through that is in the drainage port, and Nick would be a better person to speak to that. But essentially, the majority of the water that comes down from the mountain, it actually travels along San Miguel Avenue and flows down that road. But there is water that enters in slightly north of that. So there is, you know, water that will move through that.

But this

is essentially, what we're doing and what we need to do is maintain the, you know, the store flows to the site, which we are doing.

And I would expect in connection with that, you will you'd be mindful of how the reconfiguration of the easement would affect a neighboring properties and how how those flows would occur. That's why the flows will continue to enter in the same place and leave in the same place But irrespective of whether or not there's a reconfiguration of the easement within the lot. Is that correct?

That is correct. And that is what the hillside safety improvement is there for. So that is going to be submitted to them, and then that too, I believe, has a public hearing process through.

So, yeah,

neighbors can speak up and

Thank you. Mr. Mendez, so you've said that we have had these types of easements that run through lots previously on Hillside. And at this point in time, that there really isn't a reason for the easement to create a violation of the restrictions. Is that what I'm hearing from everyone who's presenting?

Yes. Yes, that is correct. The most recent development that occurred that has a drainage easement that I can think of is 4474 East Valla Vista. And that's in that case, that lot is is pretty big. It's over two acres, and they decided to bridge or have a a bridge with their driveway over it. But in other circumstances or instances we have seen where they create almost like a a culvert underneath almost like a tunneling the water underneath the home and then they bridge the home in essence over it. So it doesn't change the flow. It doesn't affect the drainage easement.

So in this instance, as soon as there are plans in place for proposed construction, There will be updates to the grading and drainage plan that will be reviewed by the town at that point. Is that right?

Yes. And that will be included within the safety improvement plan. The safety improvement plan will have a forty five day open public comment period and then any comments usually would come from or they are required to come from a registered civil engineer. Most of the time we do have neighbors that would come in and ask us about it. We usually show them the plans and go over it at the counter since we don't release it to them unless they are registered civil engineer. But we walk them through what is proposed and we show them the documents at the counter. And so that will go through this process as well.

Thank you, Mr. Mendez. Commissioner Brown, did you have any additional questions or comments relating to the easement or other questions?

No, I yield to the professionals that are in the room here that build it and they will come. I guess I recollect from the minutes, commissioner Brown suggested that I hope we're not creating a how should I say, one good lot and one bad lot. But I guess that's will be in the hands of the potential purchaser and the owner of the lots now. But if it can be done, it's being convinced convincingly explained to us today and it will go through Hillside, I guess, as well.

Yeah. And I think that what we're looking at today is solely the splitting of the two lots and whether or not the split is in compliance with the ordinance of the town of Paradise Valley.

Yeah. Seems like it's gonna be a big trick because you're, you know, it's a mathematical problem where you wanna make sure that the water entering is is the correct amount and it's going to equal the water exiting, and that that's that's not gonna change. How you get back over to that point, I guess, is where the trick is gonna come in.

Yeah. Well, well, and also, mister Mendez, correct me if I'm wrong, but there there is a requirement under the hillside ordinance that each lot retain the water that that comes upon that lot.

Yes. There is a retention aspect to it as well. And so a lot of the time, especially on undeveloped lots, there's a big improvement with the drainage that occurs on the lot. And so there is a slowdown of water as well. And that will probably occur as well once we go through that process of safety, the safety improvement process that we mentioned earlier.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions right now from the commission?

Yes. Commissioner Covington, can you go back to the slide that has the slopes? There we go. And you said the overall average slope is if you can

call it that, is 8%? Yes. So this exhibit shows it's part of the requirement for the hillside code. And so they have to create these lines that are perpendicular to the slope of the lot where it shows how the slope or how it slopes. And so it is three lines per acre. And so that's how they came upon creating these lines. And in essence, what they're showing is that on average, the slope is 8.3 something, I believe. So it is less than that 10%. And what is the minimum

slope for a lot to qualify for Hillside?

10%. 10%. 10%. Right. But it is it is twofold. So in essence, they would have to show this exhibit showing the on average slope, but then there is an additional exhibit that shows where the pad of the home is placed. And so this lot just so happens to be in that average of eight percent, but then depending on where they would place the home would be another factor to consider in considering it a hillside lot. And even after the split, both

of these lots will qualify for hillside? Yes. Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions?

Commissioner, I'm sorry. One just curious question is the way the existing house laid out, I was made to understand that it had access, the drive had access from both Solano and San Miguel, although the address is San Miguel. Conceivable to think that the address could be switched to Solano if the home is designed in such a way that it makes more sense to access the the residence from from the north? In other words, the address, can that be Right. And and re reestablished as a as an address on Solano?

That that is a potential that that could happen. In essence, since this has a a double frontage Right. The setback would still remain at at 40 from the the road. So the the setbacks are higher. Sure. It would come down to to the property owner requesting that. But we also do look at the adjacent lots. And so then in this case, we would try to advise them that they keep them the frontage in line with the adjacent lots as well.

Thank you. Any

other questions here? I'm going to go ahead and open the hearing this evening. This is now the hearing for the lot split of Lot 29 Stone Canyon Amended Lot Split Ls-twenty Five-three-five Thousand 338 East San Miguel Avenue. Is there any additional discussion from the members of the commission? Hearing none, is there anyone in the hear from the public who would like to address this matter?

Seeing no other members of the public other than the applicant and our estimable vice mayor, I will note for the record that there's no one here that wants to address this matter. Do I have a motion?

Session or to close part two?

A a motion for the this matter.

Okay. I I will recommend a motion that we approve the last split of of of 5338 East San Miguel Avenue, into two residential units subject to the stipulations in the statute.

Thank you.

Second then.

Thank you, commissioner Covington. Thank you, Commissioner Rose. Any additional discussion? No? I would like to have a vote, please.

Commissioner Rose? Aye. Commissioner Nasekeis?

Aye.

Commissioner Dickman?

Aye.

Commissioner Curtis? Aye. Commissioner Covington? Aye. Commissioner Brown?

Aye. Chair Georgios? Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And now the public hearing is closed. The next matter on our calendar is staff reports. And I believe, miss Michaud, you'll be giving us an update on Scottsdale Plaza. And that's matter 25Dash235.

I am. Thank you, chair. So there was a request to give an update on the Scottsdale Plaza, and that information was provided both in a separate email as well as in your staff report for this evening. But I'll very briefly go over just some of the points. So Scottsdale Plaza, if you recall, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation on an intermediate special use permit amendment back in May 2023 for the Scottsdale Plaza.

And that's what the site plan is shown here. At that time, the amendment was to add 64 additional keys to the resort in various buildings. Three new restaurants, which are shown in purple. There, a new spa building, a new lobby pavilion, and some other ancillary improvements. Then back or this year in March 2025, the applicant then requested a managerial amendment.

And there's four different types of amendments when we have special use permits through our code. The lowest level is our managerial amendment. That's reviewed by staff, approved by the town manager. And then there's a seven day review period to our town council. Three or more members of the council don't feel that it's a managerial, they'll call a hearing to determine if it's a managerial or not.

In this particular instance, that was not done. So if that's not done, then the managerial is approved. And the managerial amendment, what that did that removed the 24 units that were in the pool area. If you recall from the 2023 amendment, if you can see also, it removed two of the restaurants, made one little larger restaurant that's at the corner that will knock down the existing building and replace with that. And then it added an event pavilion, which is what's being constructed there today, which is south of the lodge building.

It remains all the other stuff remains the guest units here, the spa, these other guest units here. Those will be done in the future. Right now, there's a building permit just for the event pavilion and then the improvements to the Porte Cochere, and the inside improvements that are into the lodge area. And so when we look at a managerial amendment, there's various criteria. The main criteria would be, if it's more than 1,000 square foot of increase, then it can't be a managerial.

If it's changing a stipulation, it can't. There's various things that we look at. Those were all outlined in the managerial approval letter. So when you look at the difference between what happened with the managerial to the intermediate one in 2023, the total floor area went down about 13,000 square feet. So there was a reduction of floor area.

A lot of that reduction, of course, was restaurant dining space. That in turn then reduces the parking and the traffic. So when you look at, for example, the parking, the minimum required parking with the 2023 amendment was five seventy one parking spaces. They've obviously had a lot more parking than that. And then it brought that down to four fifty five parking spaces.

And then the traffic demand also went down about a good 1,500 to 1,700 in total. So those are the things that we look at with the managerial and why I arrested with that. And again, that process doesn't involve the Planning Commission. But certainly we realize that sometimes you do get these cases and then something else may happen after. And sometimes we have a lot of resorts lately that just do a managerial and you never went through anything that went to commission or whatever.

We certainly can provide those once they're approved to you just so you're aware of things that may have changed. Certainly can address any questions or other items that you have. And I think I have another slide here. And so that's what the Event Pavilion will look like, what's being constructed today. And there was always a vent lawn there in the 2023 case. It didn't have a building attached to it. What

is the square footage of the Event Pavilion?

It's

not horribly large. Let me see if I can see somewhere else. I can try to find it here. Sorry. Other questions? I was looking for those. Yeah, it's not horribly large. I think it's like 2,000, 3,000 square feet.

The resort is being rebranded, correct? When will the rebranding be completed?

They're actually have they're permitted for redoing their signs. So that permit is not yet approved. So you'll start seeing new signs go up definitely by the end of the year for sure.

This is Commissioner Rose. I understand the managerial agreement process. And surely it was done properly because the town council approved it. Was this communicated to the planning commission? I'm I'm not sure that I I I may be mistaken. I'm not sure that I saw anything on that.

Yeah. Chair, Commissioner Rose, you know, under a managerial case, the Planning Commission wouldn't be notified because you're not part of that this body is not part of that process. It's staff and it's counsel. Okay. But what I'm saying or suggesting for future, once we get one approved, we can certainly let the commission know, particularly like in this in this case, you actually made a recommendation on an intermediate in 2023 and then a managerial was approved. And I certainly understand going out and looking at the site and saying, what is this?

I didn't approve. I think it would the sanity of the planning commission because we all said, did we approve that?

We're happy once more. Yeah.

There were a better way to communicate it, it would be much appreciated.

We can certainly do that. And chair, it is 7,020 square feet.

Okay. So 7,000? So we have a new structure of over 7,000 square feet, but in this instance, it wouldn't have come to us because there was an overall reduction as opposed to increase irrespective of the fact that this is a new 7,000 square foot pavilion that didn't previously exist.

Correct. But again, since you lost a lot of units and restaurant space, the reduction, we look at the overall. Okay. Yeah.

Was there a requirement for the town manager to approve it or could it have gone back to the planning commission? Is it shall or may? He may approve it or he shall approve it?

No. That's the process. If they meet those criteria threshold, it goes through the managerial process and the town manager council review process.

Thank you.

Maybe at this point, if you could speak to how it would actually come back to us.

It would come back to, example, say, they wanted to add this pavilion, but they wanted to keep everything else.

Yeah.

Definitely would have came back to you. Actually, would have been probably an intermediate again. But even though this goes through a managerial process, the

council members can also kick it

Oh, back to that is true. Correct. Correct. Right. So during that seven day review period, if three or more council members say, hey, we think this may not be a managerial. There's a certain time period they need to hold a meeting to decide if it's a managerial or not. We have not yet had one to go through that full process. But then if it did and they decided, oh yeah, this is not a managerial, then we have to determine, well, what is it? You know, is a minor? Is it intermediate? Is it major? What is it? And that goes through that process. And the Planning Commission of those four different types of amendments, you're involved in three of them. So the minor, you actually make the determination and it's appealable to counsel.

In the intermediate, you're making a recommendation to counsel, as well as in the major, you're making a recommendation.

But even in this instance, even in the instance that there is a managerial amendment, there is a safeguard there. Oh, If there are members of the council who want a review and recommendation from the planning commission, there is a mechanism for that to happen. And so, I mean, we are a, for the most part, a recommending body and serve at the pleasure of the council. So we review what comes our way. So that but in even in this kind of situation where there's a managerial amendment, there can be an instance where it can come back to us.

Right? Correct. Yeah. It goes through that.

Yeah. I think we saw that with a smoke tree. Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

When they wanted to add guest rooms and so it came back to the planning commission. I think we all understand that.

Yep. Yeah. Thank you, Jim. And Mr. Michel, us was that an intermediate amendment that the smoke tree went through with us? I'm trying to remember which of the four was that?

For when they just increased their number of units, their most recent one?

Right. Which

increased That was a minor.

It was minor.

Mhmm. And

and I thought this was

minor. No. This this this one in 2023 was an intermediate.

And that's intermediate. Okay. Yeah. I gotta go back to the book. But nonetheless, it's an interesting ad, you know, just from a, you know, a citizen perspective. And so they lose two restaurants. They had 7,000 square feet of meeting space. They lose, I think you said, 24 guest rooms?

Mhmm. 24 keys.

Yeah. And but the spa and the units that adjoin the spa, they remain and I guess they'll come in a different phase at some point when the owner wants to expand the resort. Correct. Okay. Yeah. And that's all approved, that that just goes by way of a building permit I guess.

Correct as long as you're building in accordance with the special use permit plan that was approved.

Thank you. Great.

Thank you. And the business journal did announce this week I think that it was going to be at Kimpton. That's how

it was going to be rebranded. That is correct.

And Tim it is a different brand per se. It wasn't actually branded in the past. It was known as the Scottsdale Plaza. It was an independently, you know, they may have had some marketing help from somebody, now it's gonna be a Kimpton, which falls under IHG, which is owned by Accor, which is a big French company. They lost their jewels but they got a new hotel.

But seriously, it's a great company and it should bring more presence to the market, you know, nationally that is by being a Kimpton. Most of us have probably heard of Kimpton properties. They typically are urban, and I don't know of many that are what I call in the resort market, but I guess this certainly will be one of them. Mhmm.

So It'll be interesting to watch. Right. Did you have anything else to share with us, mister Michaud?

No. That was all, chair. Thank you.

Anything else from the commissioners?

No. Thanks.

Okay. That was our staff reports. Any public body reports? Hearing none, any future agenda items?

Yes, chair, we do have some items coming up. So your next meeting is on November 4. And what we'll have on that, there will be a work study session. If you recall, this year there's been some legislative changes regarding administrative review on certain plats. So there was some discussion at the council level.

Staff has drafted up some ordinance to make some modifications to our final plat and platting standards that you will review. This is a town code amendment, which is very different than a zoning code amendment. Technically, town code amendments are just in the purview of the council. But council did want to have your input. We do have a shot clock time by the state to get everything done by the December.

So it is set for your work study session. So that will be your input area for giving us feedback or the council feedback on the proposed changes. So that's the only item that's on for your meeting on the November 4. Then on November 18, we're gonna have a citizen review work session and work session on another text amendment. This is in the zoning ordinance.

So this is definitely in the Planning Commission purview. You're required to have a citizen review work session, as well as a public hearing to make a recommendation to the council. And this is on making changes to the assisted living code provisions to be more in line with the current statute. And then you'll actually hear that item for recommendation on December 2. So those are coming up for yourself.

Okay. And so the town code amendment, that is just going to be one study session.

That is correct. Otherwise directed, that is what it would be.

And that will just be us making whatever comments or recommendations. Correct.

Is there a list anywhere of those future agenda items?

Not, but you'll be getting the next item pretty soon.

Yeah. Thanks. Any

other questions about future agenda items? Hearing none, do I hear a motion to adjourn? Oh, okay. I

thought it'd be who was to thank Charisse for the exceptional job she does on the minutes. I know we all take time to read them, but they really are easy to read because you distill out what I call the salient points. And I would love to go on record perhaps along with the fellow commissioners and staff of just acknowledging that officially and I know sometimes that gets lost in the shuffle but thank you very much.

And I appreciate that. Thank you. And please take that from the entire commission. Yes. Do a wonderful job for us, and we really appreciate it along with, you know, the whole rest of the staff. I don't know that we say this enough. Right. And mister Mendez, thank you for coming over and sharing your ideas on the lot split today. I know that we generally see you on Hillside as opposed to over so thank you. Really do appreciate all the good work that you do and everything that you do to make us look better. So thank you.

Thank you.

You Thank very you.

And so now, do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Commissioner Nasekez. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion unanimously carried. We are now adjourned.