Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Paradise Valley Planning Commission for 12/02/2025. Miss Fulbright, please call the roll.

Commissioner Rose?

Here.

Commissioner Nasekis?

Here.

Commissioner Dickman?

Here.

Commissioner Curtis?

Here.

Commissioner Brown?

Here.

Chair Georgios? Here. Thank you. And I'd like to note for the record that commissioner Covington is absent this evening, but we do have a quorum.

Thank you. So this evening, the Planning Commission may go into executive session at one or more times during the meeting to confirm with its town attorney for legal advice. Please note that we do have the streaming ongoing and so that the meeting will be archived in the town's website for future viewing. And if you are participating from Zoom, please mute your microphone. We're not speaking.

This evening, we have a couple of items on the agenda. The first being the approval of minutes and and the second item being a discussion and possible action on proposed amendment to article, 17 assisted living home, of the zoning ordinance. And let the record reflect that commissioner Covington is now also here. Do I have a motion this evening to go into executive session?

So moved.

Thank you, commissioner Brown. I have a motion from commissioner Brown. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second from commissioner Curtis. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Hearing none, we will remove to executive session.

Thank you everyone. Okay. Thank you everybody for your patience. We really appreciate you being here this evening, and and we're we're back. The the first item on our agenda is an approval of minutes.

We do do I have a motion to approve minutes?

I'll move to approve the minutes.

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

Commissioner Naseke seconds.

Thank you, Commissioner Naseke. Do

we have any discussion?

No? All in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. All opposed? Hearing no opposition, motion unanimously carries. Our next item on the agenda is item twenty five two sixty seven, discussion and possible action on proposed amendment to article 17 assisted living homes of the zoning ordinance. Mister Michaud, are you presenting to us this evening?

Yes. I'm gonna start the presentation and other staff will chime in as necessary.

Thank

you. So thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners and everyone in attendance. So, yes, this is discussion regarding the possible action on article 17 in your zoning ordinance regarding our assisted living home regulations. This was an amendment as discussed at your your last meeting regarding other amendments that the town is looking at that the council directed us to start the process.

And just as a reminder, assisted living homes don't include sober living homes or other similar facilities that fall under a reasonable accommodation process, and that process is not changing. Also, I know that the last citizenry work session that we held, it was probably not super clear, but any of the existing lawful homes that we have in town would be allowed to continue to this pass with up to 10 residents, which would just be subject to our nonconforming use provisions that are in our zoning ordinance. The town's general plan, which is what we always fall back on and as most people should be aware, we're a low density single family residential community. That's our character. We have very limited commercial development.

As you can see by our land use percentages, 75% of the land is in single family residential use, and only 6% is in our nonresidential, which is again is very focused on certain types of uses. Municipalities are oftentimes required to allow for various uses and accommodations by federal or state legislation. Think of our short term rental use that we have to allow. Assisted living homes is another one. And then any community, when they look at adopting these things in their code, look at their own unique character.

You know, we're certainly Paradise Valley is definitely unique compared to our neighbors of Phoenix and Scottsdale, while still meeting the legislation itself. There's varying types of living options for people living in these type of facilities. So assisted living homes is one type. Obviously, there's other larger type of facilities that fall under more commercial or other type of zoning districts that wouldn't apply in the town. The six person occupancy does align closer with the town's definition of family.

That includes groups of not more than five people. And then when modifications are warranted, again, they are the process is our reasonable accommodation process. There are several statutes that apply to assisted living homes that are described in your in your packet, as well as in our town code. And really, the the section that's changing is article 17, which is the focus of this discussion. And there's really three areas that are being looked at.

The occupancy, which is currently 10 to six. The parking, which now just says the workers who live there or work there would park on-site to everyone parking on-site. And then a real typo correction regarding the development community service director title. So the text amendment process requires a citizen review session, which we did hold on November 18. There's a required commission recommendation to counsel, which is this evening at a public hearing, which includes public input.

Then this would move on to the town council for their review and public hearing, which is tentatively set for January, or this coming year. And there's no specific deadline to make the amendment, unlike some other amendments that you recently have seen. So the draft ordinance, as I mentioned, there's the three sections regarding the the number of residents, the parking, and then the change of the title of the director. So looking at the citizen review work session, we've received about 10 to 11 speakers at that meeting. We've received several comments since that meeting, particularly in the recent days.

All this information was provided to you as a Planning Commission, also copied at your desk this evening. These are some comments that came in earlier, but they represent a lot of the comments that have come forward since regarding the reason for the amendment and a lot of that is is to align with the vision and values of the town's general plan. Being a residential community, we heard a lot of concerns regarding if the existing living homes can still still operate with 10 residents. As I mentioned, these would fall under our nonconforming use regulations. So the answer is yes, they they can as long as they're legally in operation.

We heard a lot of stories from family members on the benefits of these homes. Again, any changes are meant to balance those benefits with the single family character of the home of the town. There was statements giving that there's a lot of older age groups in town that creates demands and the of course, the town does skew older, but certainly there are different opportunities that the town has with existing assisted living homes. I mean, still moving forward if the change happens with six. And then of course, there's larger communities nearby that do offer a wide variety of housing options.

There were statements giving about reducing the occupancy, negatively impacting cost and staffing. I guess homes and facilities do exist with less than 10 residents in the area. There are statements that noise and parking is not impactful and you had asked staff to provide more information or police department to provide a four year look back at that and there really wasn't much documentation that regarding those particular issues. But again, noise and parking are the focus of all our uses in the town. It's a common concern that we hear at a staff level.

There was also noted that the amendment may effectively cap the number of homes. Again, legally assisted living homes may allow to stay at 10 and then we can certainly have new homes at six. It was asked when the deadline what's the deadline if the ordinance would take effect and that's typically thirty days with ordinances. And then there was a question regarding compliance of when this would go into effect. What would you need?

You need an active town business license for an assisted living home or have a building permit in process as we do have an existing one that's in process today. All those comments, these are just the list of comments summarized. We give all their specific details. Those were all, again, as I mentioned in your packet or at your desk, so I won't go over those. And as I mentioned before, should you make a recommendation this evening to move this forward, the tentative dates for counsel are January 8 for their study session and January 22. And with that, that concludes staff's presentation chair.

Thank you, mister Michel. Commissioners, would you do you have discussion this evening? Does anyone have anything to say? I think that the idea behind this is to really have it be more consistent with our general plan where we've got 75% residential uses in the town. And and I understand that, you know, the the one issue is reduced occupancy and the second issue is is a parking issue.

As to parking, I know that in the past home based businesses have been required to have on-site parking, and I think this would be sort of consistent with that. And I this is something that we're reviewing, and, you know, I welcome any kind of discussion that you wanna have.

Well, this is commissioner Dickman. I I think this is a solution looking for a problem. I think if the concern that we have around density going forward, this could be solved in another way by adjusting the quarter mile application process rather than backdooring us to change it from 10 to six and there hasn't been any parking issues. And we heard from a couple very touching stories about people visiting and so on and so. I, you know, I think the rationale for making this change doesn't seem very good.

I don't really understand it. So I you know, it's hard for me to rally around that. That's that's my comment. And I think there could we should be able to take on at another time the density issue and perhaps that should be dealt with straight up if that's a concern.

We had some questions at our last meeting and I just wanted to clarify. And and I think they were really involving, our legal team here and that was, if if we do move this forward, and it it is strictly a recommendation to counsel if we move this forward, those current group homes would be grandfathered and be allowed to maintain the 10. Is that correct?

Madam chair, commissioner, was about to say council member, but, you know, don't wanna be presumptive here. In the the typical course of any text amendment that you do, if a use is existing legally at the time of the change, they are then allowed to continue on as what we generally call legal nonconforming use. And the reason we say legal nonconforming is because it has to be operating under the current code at that time. There's a section of our code that gives a, you know, a framework for how to maintain that. It's generally property based and not ownership based, so ownership can generally change as long as the use of the property remains the same.

So any of them operating legally under those provisions today would be allowed to continue as long as they maintain that nonconformity according to the code. Thank you.

Chair, just to clarify, it might be good for us and the audience to understand how many of these homes exist and I was told 13. Is that is that correct? 13 exist today?

Chair, commissioner Tasekez, there are 12 existing and then there's a thirteenth that's under construction.

Thank you.

Can we go back to the slide that discussed the parking? I just wanted to make sure that I understood that because I thought that it said all parking and then it referred to staff. Does that mean all staff parking or all staff and visitor?

Chair, commissioner Brown, it's all parking. So any any parking associated with staff or anyone on the site.

Thank you.

Is commissioner Dickman. How would the police practically enforce that? So you've got a car parked in front of, one of these assisted living facilities at 12:00 noon. The person's going in to visit somebody. And with the police, how would they just have to wait for the person to come out and see where they what house they're coming from before they issued a ticket? Or how would they practically enforce that? Because it would be perfectly fine if the next door neighbor had a visitor and came in and had a a

parked on

the street. And it wouldn't be obvious just there's a car parked on the street in the middle part of the day.

Yeah. Chair, Commissioner Dickman. Yeah. It's probably gonna have some difficulty in doing that. It's no different than as the chair mentioned, our home occupation has the same provision. You know, it takes a little bit of reconnaissance on their part to to do that. So yeah.

Madam chair

Town council.

Commissioner, if if you can, keep it in context too of a land use provision that, like a shopping center will require all on-site parking. We'll have minimum requirements for them to park on-site, but that doesn't mean someone might not park in the neighborhood and walk to a grocery store nearby if they can't find parking on the site. It's that difficulty of whether or not the parking is part of the approval part of their their use is more of the have you provided for the parking on your site rather than did people actually use the parking you provided on your site. I don't think that we're anticipating that they're going to be able to police it. The regulation is intended to ensure that they have the parking available on the site.

Well, and that's consistent with other other uses in town. Any kind of SUP would have to have its its own parking requirements. And to the extent that this is being used as as a business, it would have to have its parking requirements. Is that correct?

Madam chair, that's correct. We

received one letter that asked about maybe correctly, maybe incorrectly, about developmentally disabled. Can you add some clarity to that as well, whether that's what we're talking about here or not?

Absolutely. Madam chair, commissioner, we are there's been some confusion, and rightfully so, because the state statutes, are not, the easiest to use. But the facilities we're talking about today are assisted living facilities, are either assisted living homes or facilities under the statute, a different section of the statute than developmentally disabled. That is a much more robust statute that's a little bit, frankly, newer that is directed at specifically folks who will require twenty four hour care with developmental disabilities living in a residential care facility. That's different than what we're talking about tonight.

Mr. McGuire, could you also speak a little bit in a in a little bit more robust way as to how this this came to us today? I mean, in terms of, we're we're reviewing this as part of, you know, sort of a a broader legislative review.

Madam chair, members of the commission, we are in the process of adopting or bringing forward for adoption for the council a number of provisions that were mandated by the state legislature this year. At the same time, we're also in the process of an amendment to do a a wholesale cleanup on a number of provisions in the zoning ordinance, and the town has hired a consultant for that purpose. So there's a lot of amendment of this document going on. And in that process, there was a request from a council member to con make this consideration part of the discussion, but not necessarily as a result of any of those other things. It was just this is a convenient time to be having the discussion of that that concern that was then brought back in terms of, potential modifications to the council on a study session.

The study session resulted then in the ordinance you have before you tonight. Last week or the last meeting you had was what is the neighborhood meeting. If a if a developer had asked for a change to the zoning in a provision, whether it's text or on a piece of property, the neighborhood meeting would be held by them and staff would merely attend if they or to facilitate it. But because it was a town initiated text amendment, you all essentially provided the neighborhood meeting for it. So then this is the first public hearing or after which you're you give a recommendation either up or down or if you want to continue it, you can do that as well.

Then the council will hold another public meeting, another public hearing, and consideration. So there's this is the beginning, you know, not quite exactly the beginning, but close to the beginning of the process. But that's how we got to where we are today.

Thank you. And, mister Michaud, you spoke to a requirement in town of five persons living in in a dwelling. Can you speak to that a little bit more? Certainly.

Our chair, our definitions in our definition section is our zoning ordinance. The definition of family is where it says, you know, five unrelated individuals. So that's when we when we look at a group of living people living together, that's what we would look at.

Okay. And and so in this instance, we would we would have unrelated people living together and we would have people being yeah. We would also have staff on-site as well. So I guess to a certain extent, this would be closer to that. Is that correct, mister Maguire? How do how would all that dovetail?

Madam chair, under the zoning ordinance definition of a single family, there would be fewer unrelated people permitted in a single family home that was not an assisted living facility

Okay.

Than one that was. Because you can have six residents, and the number does that number does not include the owners of the facility or on-site staff, but the total number cannot exceed eight. So in a you know, say for instance, when you certainly don't have these in in, Paradise Valley, but you had a group of students living in a home going to college, they would only be able to have five where the assisted living facility could have as many as eight.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. You're welcome. Did you have something to say, mister Masekas? No? Any other comments from the commission? Well, any okay. I'm gonna go ahead and open up the the public hearing. It's about 07:04.

The public hearing is now in order. I think we're given the number of people here this evening, I think we're gonna stick to our three minute limit. And I have a whole stack of of papers with people's names on them. So I'll just start calling people out. And you can please come up to the podium and speak into the microphone so we can go ahead and record.

And we look forward to hearing your comments this evening. The first person I have is, Scott O'Connor, Paradise Valley resident. Hi. Good evening.

Here a

couple weeks ago at

the earlier meeting.

I don't think

as commissioner Dickman stated, I don't think there's any public groundswell of support to make a change here. I don't understand why we're even talking about it. And the only commentary that seems to be defending moving forward with this is to make these homes more like single family housing, but they already are like single family housing and that the people who live there are our parents, and the structures themselves are at about the average square footage of homes in Paradise Valley, if not smaller than some of our newer homes. So the idea that this is somehow different and the occupants are some threat to our single family lifestyle here makes no sense to me. So I I just don't see any reason to move forward with this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate your comments. Leslie Frobe Turner, not a resident of Paradise Valley.

Good evening. Thank you for the clarification of some of the things that went on in the last meeting. I appreciate that. I am a daughter-in-law of a resident in a group home, and I spent long time, over a month, looking at a variety of living places for her and came upon the group homes and felt that that was a wonderful match. Since then, she has done so much better being in a group home with structure and making relationships with other residents.

We live within a short walk of one group home, not the home that my mother in law's in. Has never been an issue. We can see it from our house. There's not been a lot of parking, any wild parties. There are there is an Airbnb around the corner, and I find it interesting that you have VRBO and Airbnb's that are a lot more of a problem in my opinion than these group homes.

I have never seen people parking on the street where my mother-in-law lives. I have never seen anything. In fact, it's more of the neighbors that are kind of odd than the group home. And I I do have a concern from a business perspective that I'm glad you're gonna grandfather these people and then not evict them because these people have no voice for themselves to fight for themselves. But I just think that if the owners of any of these were to sell and say, maybe the new owners wanted to remodel to some degree to fit your criteria of building, that there would be no problem that they wouldn't be able to continue with that 10 person situation.

That there would be nothing where the town of Paradise Valley was trying to make it a little Switzerland and keep it very precious and the way they wanted it, NIMBY otherwise. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Scott Turner, not a PV resident, but mom is.

Thanks very much. I might take a minute or two of my wife's to add on there. My name is Scott Turner, and my mom is a resident of Mountain View Residential Assisted Living in Paradise Valley. Town Of Paradise Valley has a choice. It can continue to ensure access to safe, convenient housing for its aging population as they require more assistance, or it can limit capacity, increase cost, and force an increasing number of residents to leave Paradise Valley to get the assisted living they need.

Does the town fully appreciate how dramatically its demographics are changing? According to the PV website, about 23% of PV's population in 2010 was age 65 or more. But in just thirteen years, according to 2023 US census data, this jumped to about 33% of PV population. About one in seven residents are already 75 years old at ages when assistance is increasingly needed. PV has over the last twenty years made a virtue of necessity by conforming to state law and allowing 10 bed assisted living homes.

However, even though the state legislature, the federal government, seemingly everyone except PV are desperately trying to increase housing and affordability, the proposed PV ordinance heads in the opposite direction. PV is taking advantage of an unintended loophole in the new state law in order to downsize to six bed homes. This is uneconomical for owners and unaffordable for most PD residents. Don't be surprised if the Legislature cracks down hard on your attempt. State law may however save PD seniors who need assistance from eviction.

But town of Paradise Valley due to this proposed ordinance. So called grandfathering of existing 10 bed homes under state legal conforming laws should protect current assisted living homeowners and therefore home residents. Nevertheless the lack or lack of trust in gendered by pb's process so far demands that you have that you clearly acknowledge robust grandfather in writing in either the whereas section or in the ordinance itself. It's terrifying for those of us with loved ones in these residences to think that if state law did not protect us, PV could in effect evict 40% of assisted living home residents in thirty days after passing this ordinance. By the way, did PV ever even realize by capping occupancy at six, PV can no longer regulate those smaller homes.

It must treat them exactly the same as every other home in the community. I'm not a lawyer, but according to the plain text of the state law, your new ordinance parking restrictions seem illegal per the very state law you claim to be conforming to. Not to mention that six bed homes can be placed closer together since PV's thirteen twenty foot limit no longer applies, goes down to 1,200 feet per state law for six bed assisted living homes. Why does your ordinance not conform to state law in either of these regards if that is one of the main goals of PV doing this. This seems like an unseemly rush to action with some inadvertently illegal elements and without considering the many unintended bad real life consequences.

We talk a lot about legal requirements. What about moral ones? What about the golden rule? If you personally needed living assistance, would you be upset to have to leave Paradise Valley to find acceptable housing? Do I have to travel thirty minutes to visit your mother or father or in law compared to five minutes now? Or to have to pay much more or to settle for lower quality due to too few available choices in PV. Remember, more choices, I. E. Competition, keeps prices lower and quality higher. PV talks a lot about single family homes and it seems to hate the idea of having businesses.

Chair, would you like to extend his time that three minutes has passed?

Okay. Could you just wrap it

up? Yeah. Almost done.

Just

But have you spent several hours in an assisted living home? They are families.

Okay.

And they live in a remodeled single family home.

Thank you. Thanks. Valentin Gradinaru. I don't know if I said that correctly. A Paradise Valley resident.

Good evening, distinguished council members and community leaders. My name is Valentin Gradinario. I'm resident of Paradise Valley since 2019 and I'm also the owner of an assisted living facility here in Paradise Valley. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to respectfully express my deep concern regarding the proposed change to reduce assisted living home capacity from 10 residents down to six per facility.

I understand that every decision you make is aimed to preserve the character, safety and well-being of Paradise Valley. But I believe this particular change will unintentionally harm some of the most vulnerable members of our community, our seniors. The demand of assisted living is higher than ever. Facility in Paradise Valley and surrounding areas are desperately searching for safe, respectful and nearby places where their loved ones can receive care. Reducing capacity means fewer available beds, lower waiting list, and more seniors being forced to move away from the community they loved for decades.

If capacity is reduced to six beds per home, the need for care costs do not disappear. The need for care does not disappear. The demands will still be there. This means more homes will inevitably be opened to compensate for the lost beds. Instead of having one well operated 10 beds home, the town will end up with more assisted living homes in the same residential neighborhoods creating more traffic, more business activity, and more overall impact on our community.

Our elders build this community. They deserve families here, supported they raised their families here, supported local businesses, volunteered, paid taxes and contribute to the culture and beauty that Paradise Valley is known for. They deserve the chance to remain part of this community, not to be displaced because we limit their options. A 10 bed homes is not overcrowded. It's small family style environment that allows our for individualized care, close supervision and warm personal atmosphere, reducing capacity does not improve safety or quality.

It only reduces access and creates unnecessary hardship. When capacity is lowered to six, the cost of operating a licensed care home does not decrease. Staffing, food, utilities, training, licensing, insurance, all those expenses stay the same. But with fewer residents, the cost per residents raises significantly. This makes care less affordable for Paradise Valley families and put higher financial pressure on the residents who want to keep their loved ones close to home.

We are not asking for anything extraordinary. We're simply asking that our seniors to be giving the dignity to live among as as regular citizens because that's

Thank you.

Is exactly what they are. They deserve a beautiful neighborhood, a peaceful street, and a caring environment. I respectfully urge the council to reconsider this

Chair, the time has passed.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Okay. Let

us protect our elders, not limit them. Let us expand opportunities, not reduce it. And let us show that Paradise Valley

Thank you. Council member Julie Pace. Paradise Valley resident. Thank you. Mhmm. Thank you.

Speaking. First

name and name, but also

as account I just

Serve on council. I listen to everyone and it's really hard. I first of all, I thank you and I thank staff for the type of work that you're doing. The staff report was very good tonight. Thank you, mister Michaud. I appreciate all the people who are here. I live here for twenty two years and I'm a fourth generation Arizonan. And all of our parents grandparents, I should say, and parents lived in group homes in Paradise Valley. I enjoyed that. It was great.

It was convenient. They were awesome. But we have a limited number, and it's not the values and the land not the values, but not the land allocation in our general plan for Paradise Valley. Some of the people who served and helped my grandmother are here tonight. And we have a limited number of 12 and now it'll be 13. They're grandfathered in as Andrew Maguire, our town attorney has said. That's enough. They get a right legally to come into the town of Paradise Valley. If they follow the rules, it's a creature of the state. It's not a creature of the land allocations of our general plan in Paradise Valley. Paradise Valley, we would I would like to have a gas station. I might like to have a retail. Would I really? Not because it's allowed in Paradise Valley. These are the things we have to remember.

Just because we think it's convenient, we don't expand from our general plan. We don't change the founders and what they started here. It's a very residential community. We're a very small community. The good news is we're fortunate to have Scottsdale, Phoenix, Tempe all around us with wonderful group homes and we have 12 to 13 already in our community. Moving it from 10 people to six is for the future ones. The other ones are grandfathered, so this shouldn't be a problem for any of the group homes tonight that are here that we're worried about that. That's unfortunately, I saw the last meeting. I'm sorry that you guys got frustrated about that. It was never the intent in my view to ever be kicking people out of homes or changing what was existing.

But no, we do not want a lot of expansion of businesses in Paradise Valley. We go through this issue every few years. I think 2017 was our last big battle on it. We've had lots of retreats on it long before our some of our recent council members were on it, and we've tried to reduce the number of businesses in homes in residential neighborhoods. We do hear about it all the time, much to differ with commissioner Tim Dickman, who needs to go back and look at our general plan and understand that our residents do not want expansion of businesses.

They want to reduce this and they've come forward with that. So you haven't been paying attention. That's not the core values that people have asked for from our commissioners on planning. So, the reason this is coming forward is the number of complaints, the votes that occurred with the general plan by the majority of our residents who want us to reduce these businesses in Paradise Valley. I applaud the caretakers. I'm glad we have some very good, hopefully operating group homes in our community. And, I am glad we're gonna reduce the noise and parking and density, which is one of our goals as a council member and also for our community. So I thank you for your time. I ask you to vote for this tonight and to reduce it from ten to six. And again, I thank the group homes that are here, but you need to understand this is Paradise Valley and we have a general plan and land use allocation.

Thank you. Thank you, miss Pace.

Darren Washak, a citizen a resident of Paradise Valley.

Thank you very much, commission. And I'm gonna be the one NIMBY up here. Okay? I'm just gonna admit it straight up. There are 12 assisted living homes in town. The thirteenth is built being built right next door to me. So I had no notice. All of a sudden, it starts getting built. Now Amy pops here. Is Emile

here? Yeah.

Emile. They're my new neighbors. I wish you were my neighbors. I wish you were my neighbors, but I get your clients. I'm a non I'm a residential property. I didn't have a choice. And now I have a neighbor, good people by the way. And we're gonna make good neighbors, so I'm not worried about them. But this wasn't a choice of mine. I got no notice on it.

And now, I'm concerned about what's my property value. What's gonna happen to my property value? Somebody comes to my house, they look at the exact same house somewhere else in town. Are they gonna choose mine with an assisted living facility next door, or are they gonna choose the one that's just like mine but without that commercial use? So again, I'm a NIMBY, I'll admit it, But I would prefer that if it was a facility of six, that would be my choice because it would be closer to what a residential property would be.

Ten's a big number, and I was freaking out when I first heard about this. Again, I don't anticipate any change to my neighbors and what will happen with them. They'll do their property. It'll be what it is. And I wish them the best because, of course, that means good for me as a neighbor. But do understand that property owners that are living next door, I would just ask you this question. If you had a choice to buy a property in Paradise Valley, would you choose to live next door to an assisted living facility? So those are my comments.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna ask that you keep from making comments in the gallery. We are recording this meeting. Thank you.

And so I definitely support the six versus 10 because if I had a choice at least, that would make it better for me as a resident of a town as opposed to a commercial user in town. Thank you very

much. Thank you. Donna a Paradise Valley resident.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Donna Holbura, and I am a resident of Paradise Valley since 1988. I am here to support the town's proposal to reducing the number to six. I have owned care homes, adult care homes up to 10, and I also have assisted living centers, and I've been in this business for about thirty five years. The reason I'm supporting the town's request or recommendation is because as a resident, I have seen the care homes that are here that are tending to lose the to increase that institutional look when you have six different garbage bins on the street, when you have smaller streets in Paradise Valley and the families have to drive to the home, the streets are very narrow.

We're not here on Doubletree or on Shea or Tatum where you can have, you know, excessive amount of traffic coming and going. And something that the town or the commission hasn't addressed yet is the traffic. You have a group home of 10 people who, let's say three of them are on hospice, they might have different hospices coming in to service those three residents. And if you have every other day or daily visits from those nurses at least three times a day, plus the family members coming to visit, traffic tends to be an issue. I think parking is okay because they can park on the property.

The properties are large enough to accommodate the number of cars, but again, you have to look at the traffic coming in. And when I have developed smaller homes and centers, we did have to do a traffic study to see how much traffic is coming and going, and it does impact the residential community. Also, have to look at the reasonable accommodations. I think the federal fair housing gap does allow that here in Paradise Valley, and I don't think the issue is whether to allow these homes or not. I think you are, And I think they're wonderful care homes.

They serve a tremendous benefit to the town and to the neighbors around, and it's wonderful to have this. But again, take a look at the traffic impact when you decide that the number of residents to have in a certain area, the comings and goings, and then also the nuisance of the look because it does lose that home environment and the home look when you have a smaller family versus, you know, 10 to 12 people residing in that and coming and going. Thank you. Thank you.

Chris Stokes, a Paradise Valley resident.

Hello, and thank you for having me. I live right next door to one of the residents. And like the gentleman two ago said, he was very worried and nervous about them coming in and all the traffic and this and that. And I can tell you, I live right next door to them. They're the nicest people. There's not a lot of traffic. At night, there's usually one car there during the day. Many of the residents, spouses, and family come to visit, but I would say on average, there's three or four cars there. Don't have any problem. They have they've improved the value of the neighborhood.

The house that they bought was dilapidated. David never did anything. Now it's one of the prettiest houses on the street. And I I gotta tell you, I see both sides of it, but I hear my neighbor here that was a little worried about something called the unknown. It's like walking into a room that's dark.

You don't know what's in there. When you turn the light on, you see it's not so scary. And I think my mother will probably live next door to me here so I can walk over and visit her because I see that these residents have a lot of visitors of family members every day. But I wanna thank you for your time, and six or 10 doesn't really make a big difference, and they're really no problem at all. Thank you.

Thank you. Marnie Myers, not a Paradise Valley resident.

Hi. I'm not a Paradise Valley resident, but I did grow up in Paradise Valley. My dad is Don Myers. He has lived in Paradise Valley for most of his adult life, over fifty years. And in that time, he and my mom raised six kids.

He was an original founder of the Fiesta Bowl. He ran a very successful law practice and even volunteered as a judge right here in Paradise Valley. By any standard, he has been a productive and valuable asset to this community. My dad is also your neighbor and he has earned the privilege of living close to home at this most vulnerable part of his life. Two years ago, following a series of severe COVID infections, it became untenable to safely care for my dad at home.

And after nearly sixty years of marriage, my parents were faced with the devastating reality of having to live separately. Second only to the outstanding care that he receives at Vista Living is the tremendous comfort of having him live within minutes of my mom. We can easily visit a couple times a day. I typically go for appointments and physical therapy and then take my mom in the evening so we can spend time together. In fact, all of his kids here in town live within ten minutes of the home.

If my dad could be here today, he would be the first to support the city's efforts to make reasonable provisions to ensure neighborhoods and property values are protected. I would strongly encourage the city to consult Brett Wiesel and Jean Peterson for their expertise in crafting reasonable guidelines. Together, they operate eight, I believe, of the finest homes that I have toured. It would be extremely shortsighted to limit or worse, make it financially unprofitable for them to do this life giving work. People endeavoring to open these kinds of homes should be prepared to meet a very high standard of care.

The home should be beautiful, well maintained, enhance the neighborhood, and be able to accommodate the visitors and staff. Had a room at Vista Living not been available, my mom and I would have been forced to hire and manage a team of at least three full time caregivers and do major construction to make the house functional for my dad. I would mind those seeking to limit the residences to six people that the cost for families could potentially double using that business model, and for many families, the cost is already north of $100,000 a year. At any income, that's a huge expense, but on a fixed income, it's out of reach. If you don't already, someone you know or love will likely require this kind of care, and when that time comes, I sincerely hope that you have the privilege of securing a place close to home for your loved one.

Thank you. Jeremy Wasserman, not a Paradise Valley resident.

Reading this on on behalf of my wife, attorney Jennifer Wasserman, who was here a few weeks ago. She's at home sick this evening. Mister to mister Weaver, congresswoman Georgianos, and commissioners. The Arizona Department of Health Services, ADHS, has executive jurisdiction over the licensing and monitoring of residential assisted living homes in the state of Arizona. Residents of licensed assisted living homes need assistance with their activities of daily living, which must be documented by a medical professional in order for them to qualify for residency in that environment and are thus considered disabled.

Under the state and federal fair housing acts and the Americans act the Americans with Disabilities Act, they are entitled to reside in housing of their choice integrated within the community under long establishing case law. Well, it is true that the counties and minis excuse me, municipalities may adapt or enforce building and zoning regulations for health care institutions which are equal to or more restrictive than regulations for the regulations of the department. Paradise Valley's assisted living home ordinance article x b I I section 17 o one has been in existence for the past twenty years in alignment with the state's licensing authority for up to 10 residents. A proposal has been introduced to modify section 17 o one in three ways. One, to limit the number of residents and licensed assisted living homes in Paradise Valley to no more than six with the allowance for no more than two additional owner staff members to require that all parking including including to the so excuse me.

To the assisted living home be on-site versus the current requirements applicable only to staff parking. And three, to change the title of the administrative review section for planning department director to community development director. Council's apparent reliance on ARS 36 dash five eight two in support of reducing the number of occupants allowed in licensed assisted living residential assisted living homes is misplaced as the statutory provision is part of title 36 chapter 5.1 developmental disabilities. Article two developmental disabilities, residential facilities as the term is used in ARS 36 dash five eighty two is defined by ARS subsection 36 dash five eighty one to mean a community residential setting in which persons with developmental disabilities live and live and limits it me. That is licensed to operate support support or supervised by the department.

Statutory

Chair, the time is up. Thank you.

Michael Greenland, not a Paradise Valley resident.

This is a continuation of where Jeremy left off. Statutory interpretation thus limits the applicability of ARS 36,582 to residential facilities licensed for occupancy by persons with developmental disabilities title 36, chapter 5.1, not to assisted living facilities who apply to licensure and are governed by title 36, chapter four and applicable regulations promulgated pursuant to that chapter. Indeed staff has indicated in its statement that the residency limitations applicable to developmental disability housing and reasonable accommodation request procedures would remain unchanged by virtue of this proposed amendment. Taken to the extreme, if paradise valley is confusing its authority under ARS thirty six thousand five eighty two to extend the licensed assisted living homes then changing section 17 o one in reliance on it may result in the town no longer being able to enforce subsection a of section 17 o one prohibiting an assisted living home to be situated on any lot that is within one thousand one thousand three hundred and twenty feet from the lot line of another assisted living home because a r s thirty six five eighty two b and c would preclude the town from enforcing the setback provision which is not applicable to all other single family residences in Paradise Valley.

Therefore, on behalf of several licensed assisted living homeowners operating within Paradise Valley, we must ask why the town wishes to change an established allowance after twenty years without setting forth a rational basis for for a result that would impede future housing choices for disabled individuals. Assisted living homes enable persons with physical or cognitive conditions to get the help they need to engage in activities of daily living in a in a supportive family style home to get the help in an environment. These environments are not just home like. They are actually homes that replicate the family setting and provide certified caregiving support within the confines of a comfortable environment. These residents share common areas, eat meals together, talk, play, play games, celebrate birthdays, grieve losses, and interact in shared activities in much the same way that families do.

The planning commission heard testimony to this effect as its planning section held on 11/18/2025 from residents and others who have family members residing in these communities.

Thank you. Laura Cohen, not a Paradise Valley resident.

Thank you. I'm just going to make one mention of my own personal experience and I will carry on with what was just read. I just wanted to acknowledge that up to now the Paradise Valley, township has done a very good job in embracing and caring for our seniors. However, if we grandfather the existing homes to a 10 resident and they don't change in the 10 to six, this is only a temporary solution because if the change of ownership, if the existing homeowners decide to sell their business, the Department of Health Services is where we report to and they might decide that the 10 bed is gonna now not be approved and therefore the licensing requirement would result in making assisted living homes and caring for our seniors in the town of Paradise Valley obsolete. I guess we need to ask ourselves a question, is this truly the goal for the town of Paradise Valley to make assisted living homes obsolete in the future?

Having said that, I'm gonna continue reading where it was left off, that municipalities are subject to the Arizona Fair Housing Act. The license holder of these homes are equally protected as a person and organization who has established a home for people with disabilities. Thus, it is incumbent upon the community development department to listen to the concerns of those license holders, as well as citizens and others who would be affected by a 40% reduction in assisted living home capacity to the town of Paradise Valley. From our analysis, the current licensed residential occupancy allowance is less than 1% of the entire population of the town. You've been presented with other statistics regarding the need and one person's opinion of the cost that's not reflected of the actual monthly fees across the licensed homes within the within the municipal boundaries and also does not take into consideration overhead costs, wages, insurance, taxes, nor compare with the exorbitant cost of around the clock professional care.

The comments received in support of reducing occupancy to six are opposed to the commercial or business character of these homes and a chart has produced reflecting a 75% single family land use indicating that a reduction in capacity will confirm these premises to somehow be more residential in nature, although they are part of the 75% slice of the pie. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wanted to speak this evening? I've gone through all of the the people who have given me slips this evening. And if not, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing.

Okay. The gentleman I'm Ernie Riffer. I'm a neighbor. I'm I'm a Paradise Valley resident. And

I'm sorry. State your name for the record.

Ernie Riffer. I didn't wanna speak because you guys were all here two weeks ago. I kinda figured why do you wanna hear the same speech I gave two weeks ago. Was we're kind of expecting a different crew, I guess. But when when Jean initially was building the house on 48th Street, we were there too and nobody knew what's going on and everything else.

But again, the house that was they were remodeling it pretty much gutted was an old house that so already was an improvement in the house. We didn't know what was going on at first and we also were concerned about well, I heard rumblings from people when I walked the dogs, what this was gonna do to our property values having a assisted living facility a couple houses down from us. And turns out, six years later, it's done not a damn bit. My I think my property appreciated at least a third, at least 33% over the last five years. So it has not affected property values whatsoever.

And it's and pretty much everybody in the facility is pretty much local. I mean, we I had my father in there. He passed away in March. It's really nice when you can walk a couple houses down and and check on your parents, and pretty much most of the facilities, people who were there, everybody's pretty much local. So you're not exactly we're not importing people that aren't there. You're basically either prior Paradise Valley residents or people who are basically we're residents and our we put our parents close to us when they can no longer care for themselves.

Thank you. If you could fill out a slip and give it to miss Fulbright, please. Thank you. The public hearing is now closed.

Madam chairman, may I make a comment?

Go ahead.

I wanted just to, comment on Julie Pace, councilwoman's Pace's comments directed to me. I think, I've earned the right to be here. I served a number of years on the safety committee. I chaired the, short term rental committee for five years. I've been on the planning commission for two years and provided substantial input on the general plan. I'm well aware of the general plan. And I just wanna make a comment that when you're not criticizing someone or taking credit for other people's work

Thank you.

I I

don't appreciate that. And I wanna wanna just make another point which is the way this works is we are an advisory board or commission to the town council. So I think it's not appropriate for members of the sitting town council to show up and criticize

mister Dickman, thank you. I appreciate your comments.

I agree.

Thank you.

I mean, it's not appropriate. Correct. I I also wanna make another point which is off to a different topic. I think my earlier comments were misconstrued because I share mister Wachak's concern around the density. And there are other levers that we have that we can use to control density in the town.

Going from 10 to six or fiddling around with parking that hasn't been a problem is not really the solution. There we as a you we have a quarter mile limit. We could make that five miles or 10 miles. So what I was supporting was keeping it 10 and leave don't change the parking. And this is not what's proposed to us from the staff, but doing the work to geolocate how many we have and basically create a process where we don't create that. Because I'd ask the question to everybody here. How many of these would we want in the town? Would we be okay if there were a 100 of these in the town? 20? So, I mean, we're not using all the levers that we could

Thank to you,

mister create a Dudman. Density

That's not what we have before us this evening.

And I don't think council and I don't think councilwoman Pace really understands that either. So we have other levers that we can use and then your normal fashion, you don't listen, Julie.

Okay. Order, please. Thank you. So I guess the the question that I have for the commission this evening is we've, we've looked at the the draft ordinance. We've considered the the general plan and the effects on the town, the the issues with people who who wanna have facilities in town, the issues around a a a consumer business about traffic, about other other issues relating to parking.

And so I the I'm asking if if you all have any additional discussion this evening or I'd like

to make a motion that we table this, that we bring back and direct the staff to bring back a proposal with geo accessing and looking at what that would mean and to put a cap on these with the that we legally could do that and not address this at this time and then direct the staff to come back with an alternative recommendation. And whatever that means for additional hearings, that's fine. I'm certainly okay with that. That's my motion.

Do I have a second on this? Not hearing a second,

I'll I think second that.

First of all,

I

think we can consider that, but I think the question becomes in terms in terms of discussion at this point,

if Just a point of order. Motions to table don't have discussion. They go for a vote.

Exactly. Right. Yeah. No.

Yes. No. There's discussion. You can have discussion before a vote.

Not on a motion to table if it's seconded. Please.

Madam chair, commissioner, the the motion cannot be discussed as to its merits. It can be discussed as to the propriety of whether to delay and put it on the table. That's the limitation on that.

Okay. And I guess I would like some additional discussion if the commissioners would be would be interested in in not having a vote this evening and I I'd like to hear from people on the on the issue at hand. No?

Well, I believe that's what

Okay.

Commissioner Dickman is proposing.

Okay. Yeah. To to be clear, I'm not proposing yay or nay. I'm proposing we table, direct the staff to come back with an alternative proposal that looks at the geo mapping and the quarter mile and what that could reasonably be increased to and not fiddle with this other stuff that's not really gonna have any

Well, I I don't know that we can direct at this point in time. I think the I think the idea is can this be up and down in terms of whether or not we want to to continue this hearing to another date. I think that is what the what the the motion really is, commissioner Dickman. I I think that that we have matter on the table and we can continue and and and ask for additional information.

So what you're saying is these are two different subjects.

Correct?

Correct.

So what what you want is you want us to vote for this. The proposals that are on the table through staff, you want us to vote for that. And then if we wanna do something different down the road, which commissioner Dickman is is proposing, then we act on that. Is that what you're saying? Well

Madam chair, the the motion on the table is to continue well, it's the table that effectively continue the items tonight. So that's a singular motion by itself. Any further direction after that would have to come in a subsequent meeting where it's agenda is in those topics actually put before the public so everybody knows what we're talking about here in the agenda so that people who are interested in that specific kind of approach to this can know what is on the agenda. So the limitation on the vote right now is just whether or not to put it on the table and to not forward it to counsel with the recommendation.

I and my point is I think there's other options here, we're asked to vote yay or nay on something that there's other bet in my opinion, there's better options for us to consider.

Well, I I think what I'm hearing is that we that you have a motion to continue right

now. Correct.

And you have seconded commissioner Curtis the motion to continue?

Yes.

Okay. All all in favor? Well, let's I I would like to have a roll call vote, please. This

is on a motion to continue. Correct. Commissioner Rose?

Aye.

That was a nay vote?

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Nasekeis?

Aye.

Aye vote. Commissioner Dickman? Aye. An I vote. Commissioner Curtis? Aye. An I vote. Commissioner Covington? Nay. A nay vote. Commissioner Brown?

Nay.

A nay vote. And chair George Ellos? Nay. Nay. The motion fails four two three. We have three nos and or sorry. Four nos, three yeses.

Thank you, miss Bullbright. So that leaves us with the matter at hand. And do I have a motion recommending forwarding this matter to to the council? Do we have language around this?

There's a recommendation on the screen.

Okay. Thank you. I move that we recommend to the town council to let's see. To, approve the ordinance amended the amended ordinance of to reduce the number of residents from 10 to six, to, make the requirement about on-site parking and to, make the, change into the staff, title.

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

Commissioner Brown, second.

Thank you, commissioner Brown. Miss Bullbright, please call a vote.

This is on a motion to recommend approval to the city council. Commissioner Rose? Aye. And I vote. Commissioner Nasekeis?

Nay.

A nay vote. Commissioner Dickman?

Nay.

A nay vote. Commissioner Curtis?

Nay. A

nay vote. Commissioner Covington? Aye. And I vote. Commissioner Brown? Aye. And I vote. And chair George Ellis? Aye. And I vote. The motion passes four to three.

Thank you. Thank you everyone for coming and sharing your thoughts. I know this is a highly emotional topic, and I I really appreciate you being here today. There are no other action items this evening. Are there any staff reports, please?

Chair, the only staff item is to thank you, the Planning Commission, for your service. This is our last planning commission meeting for December for 2025. Thank you.

Any public body reports? No public body reports? Please, future agenda items.

Yes. Chair, we actually have no items for January 6, so that meeting will be canceled. We do have a couple items coming up. We have the overall tax code change that will be coming up probably February, March ish, but not in January. And then we still have Phoenix Country Day School that's still on the docket that will come forward to you. But again, January 6, no meeting. That will be canceled.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second.

Moved by, commissioner Brown and seconded by commissioner Dickman. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All opposed? Hearing no opposition, we are adjourned for the evening. Thank you.