Planning Commission - July 9, 2025

Planning Commission public hearing. The
city appreciates your interest and
participation in the public hearing
process. The planning commission serves
as an advisory board to the city council
on land use and zoning matters. The
hearing agenda items consist of
development applications that require
public hearings. The planning commission
considers the item and makes a
recommendation for approval or denial to
the city council. The city council will
make the final decision for or against
approval of the application.
The agenda consists of the roll call, an
administrative report by staff, public
comment for non-aggendaized items,
approval of minutes from the previous
hearing, continuences for items that
will not be heard tonight, withdrawals
for items that have been withdrawn from
any further consideration.
Consent agenda for items not likely to
require a presentation or discussion.
All items on the consent agenda may be
voted on together. Any commissioner may
move any item from the consent agenda to
the regular agenda.
Regular agenda is where each item
includes a presentation and
recommendation by staff, a presentation
by the applicant, and public comments.
The applicant will then have an
opportunity to respond to the public
comments. The planning commission will
deliberate on the case and cast their
votes. Non-action items are for
discussion only items. No vote will be
cast by the planning commission.
Citizens wishing to speak on any agenda
item will need to fill out a blue
speaker card or if not willing to speak
may fill out a yellow comment card and
turn it in at the staff table before the
agenda item is to be discussed. The
chair will call your name when it is
your turn to speak. When called, please
come to the podium, state your name and
address, and then begin speaking. Groups
wishing to speak should elect a
spokesperson to represent the views of
the group. To facilitate the meeting,
your comment will be limited to three
minutes for individual speakers, one
additional minute for each additional
individual who is present at the hearing
and has contributed their time to a
representative speaker up to a maximum
of 10 minutes. Please format your speech
to fit within the allotted time. A light
system is installed on the podium for
timing presentations. The light will be
green for two minutes, yellow for one,
and red when your time is up. Please
conclude your comments when the red
light appears. Thank you for your
interest in time. We will now begin the
hearing with a roll call.
Chair Scarrell
here.
Vice Chair Young
here.
Commissioner Gonzalez
present.
Commissioner
here.
Commissioner Joiner
here.
Commissioner Drake
here.
Commissioner Reid
here.
All are here.
Thank you. Uh do we have any public
comment, Mr. Curtis?
Nothing for the uh non-aggendaized
items.
Great. Thank you. Then uh we'll move to
the administrative report.
Thank you uh Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission. Just wanted to welcome
uh Commissioner uh Reid and Commissioner
Drake uh to the planning commission.
They were recently appointed and we're
glad to have you. So, welcome aboard.
Um wanted to
draw attention to additional
correspondence that we received earlier
this week. It should be in front of you,
but it wasn't included in the original
uh uh agenda packet from last week. So,
I just point that out to you. And then,
uh lastly, we do plan on meeting in two
weeks, July 23rd. Um so, we do have
agenda items scheduled for two weeks,
July 23rd. So, just wanted to bring that
to your attention. That's all I have,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Uh we'll go ahead
and review the minutes. Uh if there are
no comments or questions regarding the
minutes from June 11th, I would uh
entertain a motion for approval.
Uh Chair Scarbor, I'll make a motion for
approval of the July I'm sorry, June
11th, 2025 regular meeting minutes as
written.
Second.
Okay, we have a first and second. Roll
call, please.
Chair Scarough,
yes.
Vice Chair Young,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
yes. Commissioner,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
yes.
Commissioner Drake,
yes.
Commissioner Reid,
yes.
Motion passes 70.
Perfect. Thank you.
All right. We have nothing on the
consent agenda, so move to regular
agenda. Item number two, 6 TA 2024 C-
Internalized Community Storage Text
Amendment.
Yes. Uh, good evening, Chair Scar Bro,
members of the planning commission. I'm
Taylor Reynolds. I'm a principal planner
with Long Range Planning. So, I'm going
to uh take you through the first half of
this slide deck as there's more citywide
and policy implications at the general
plan level that I'd like to walk you
through. Then I'll hand it over to uh
Meredith Tessier, senior planner with uh
uh current planning.
So with that this evening, uh the action
requested by the applicant is a
recommendation to city council regarding
a zoning ordinance land use table
amendment to allow for internalized
community storage facilities, vehicular
storage, and warehousing as permitted
uses in the commercial office or CO
zoning district. That proposed amendment
would apply citywide. However, there is
a catalyst site that's located at 10,01
North 92nd Street.
in review of zoning code amendments that
come before city council and ultimately
planning commission. Uh the review side
from uh uh city standpoint and even with
when an applicant brings such through is
to one implement and comply with the
general plan. Two, address uh citywide
land use concerns andor uh encourage
specific land uses that may be lacking
within the city. uh to encourage the
introduction of new land uses that uh
are compatible with surrounding
development and reduce unintended
consequences. And finally, they should
not be tailored to accommodate a
singular site or development proposal.
So, they should be more broad and
citywide reaching because there's
different areas of city that could
implement that zoning district.
In terms of the commercial office office
district purpose, it is intended to
provide for the development of office
and those related uses and further to
promote compatibility with residential
use which is typically adjacent to these
commercial office areas. When we look at
them citywide, they support professional
medical and administrative office uses
and generate daytime activity. on the
right hand side of the screen. It might
be hard to see, but uh on the map, all
those blue sites are uh commercial
office districts throughout the city,
and they make up generally uh 683
parcels citywide.
The last time uh planning commission saw
this uh request, the applicant had a
textbook amendment proposal that was
more limited in its application. It was
had spec specificity to lot size as well
as uh to determine if it was applicable.
It had to have certain existing site
improvements and it wasn't very broad.
It was very specific. It might have been
implemented on a handful of sites
citywide. Um so there was um direction
for planning commission for the
applicant to come back with more of a
broad uh implementation of this text
amendment. It also lacked standards to
protect adjacent residential uses. So
with uh working with the applicant, they
revised their text amendment to have uh
again more broader application citywide
with a focus on the adaptive reuse of
existing buildings on on these sites. It
also introduced additional standards for
residential uh adjacency such as
screening. Um but with that said, there
are two legislative uh versions in your
packet this evening. One is the
applicant's draft and one is the staff's
draft. And I'll get into why there is a
difference there.
Uh the applicant's draft, as you can see
on the left hand side of the screen,
includes all those things we talked
about early on in the slide deck, adding
internalized community storage,
vehicular storage, and warehousing as
permitted uses within the CO district.
It also includes that criteria to ensure
residential compatibility.
Staff's recommended draft includes all
those same things. However, it excludes
the warehousing use as a permitted use
within the CO district. Again, I will
get to why that is in the uh next
slides.
This has citywide implications. Uh
typically warehousing as a use is not
typically adjacent to residential areas
of the city. Why is that? Commercial
office use or CO these areas are areas
of the city that are typically low
impact and impact and daytime use only.
They serve as a transitional buffer to
residential neighborhoods and are
designed for compatibility for those
nearby homes. When we looked at those
locations citywide, typically adjacent
to residential areas of our community.
So that buffering is important. They
typically produce minimal noise,
traffic, and visual disruption. However,
when we look at a warehouse as a
permitted use, it's permitted within
four zoning categories currently. the C3
district, C4 district, those are more of
our intense commercial uses. And then I1
and IG, which is more of our light
industrial or manufacturing areas of the
city. So these are uh areas of the city
that uh produce more intense day and
night activity. They're not typically uh
located adjacent to residential areas.
They're designed for compatibility with
other employment opportunities, and they
can produce off-site noise. They have
they may have delivery traffic and have
a more utilitarian design.
Switching between the zoning side of
things and the land use or general plan
side of things. Warehousing again which
permits wholesale warehouse and
distribution are located within those
four zoning categories I mentioned on
the previous slide. And warehousing in
particular is uh currently allowed on
approximately 2600 parcels citywide. And
you can see those in the green on the
right hand side of the screen.
Um because warehousing is within is an
allowed use within these four zoning
categories. These are the most intense
again uh zoning categories that are
permitted within the city and thus align
with a more intense general planned land
use category within our general plan.
The employment or light industrial
office land use category. the subject
site itself as well as uh perhaps most
of our CO uh zoning zoned properties are
aligned with our employment office land
use type when looking at it from a
general plan land use level.
So what's that what's the difference
there between those two employment
categories? So the general plan has land
use definitions uh that can generally be
implemented citywide and a lot of these
definitions are by and large general to
allow for the various types of uses that
might may occur within them. In some
instances there are specific land uses
uh highlighted. So when we look at the
employment uh land use category has two
subcategories. On the left we have the
definition for the office subcategory
and on the right we have the light
industrial office subcategory.
The applicant site and again most of
those co district citywide are within
that employment office subcategory where
these sites should have more residential
scale allow for office uses accommodate
citywide and regional labor pools again
more office related. When we look at uh
the light industrial office again that
more intense office or employment land
use subcategory it specifically states
that it provides for opportunities such
as warehousing. So we would be typically
seeing that warehousing use within the
light industrial land use category. So
in review of that, the applicant's
proposal to include warehousing as uh an
appropriate use within the CO land use
or within the CO zoning category would
not align with our general plan in terms
of these definitions because there is
specificity here. With that said, the
general plan does include amendment
criteria. It is an amendable document.
However, our criteria five states for
the change to the amendment criteria or
land use category definitions criteria,
a modification to the general plan that
includes a text change to the use or
intensity of a definition of a general
plan land use would necessitate a major
general plan amendment. So again, we
have these two uh legislative drafts for
you here tonight to review. The
applicant's draft includes the proposal
to include warehouse as a
um
a use that could be implemented within
the CO uh zoning district. And then we
have the staff's recommended draft that
removes that. With staff's recommended
draft, this would be able to move
forward uh tonight with your
recommendation and go to city council.
by moving forward with the applicant's
proposal, a major amendment would have
to come along with that uh request at
the text amendment level as well to
ensure that all CO districts citywide
not only align with this now allowable
use, but then again implement our
general plan. That concludes my portion
of this uh
slide deck. I'm going to hand it over to
Meredith Tessier who will take you
through the more regulatory side of this
request. So, thank you.
Good. Good evening, Chair Scar Bro, Vice
Chair Young and commissioners. Again,
Mayor Tessier, senior planner with
current planning department. Um, I'll
begin this segment of the presentation
with the catalyst site. And as you can
see, the catalyst site is on commercial
office plan community development which
permits retail office and residential
healthcare type uses. You will also see
that the catalyst site is surrounded by
other office uses to the west, north,
and east as well as the southwest
portion of the site. But it is also
adjacent to a residential district to
the southeast portion of the site where
you see it's zoned there R5 PCD.
Uh before you is the applicant site plan
where you'll see warehouses um proposed
along the perimeter of the site as
highlighted in red. Um we see that this
is inconsistent with the framework of
the text amendment which is adaptive
reuse. Um warehouse is inconsistent with
the general plan land use category
definition and also warehousing adjacent
to residential is out of character for
the general plan land use category of
employment office. So, we just don't see
that that warehouse is compatible to the
adjacent uses.
Again, we we visited this last um on May
28th, some illustrative photos of a site
located within the city of Phoenix where
it was an office um project that was
converted to a storage and warehouse
facility. As you can see, the
development is um projecting a
industrial type use, therefore resulting
um in a a location that should be more
suited for an industrial zoning
district.
Um next two slides are just two sites
that we have within the city of
Scottdale that are zoned commercial
office that are adjacent to residential
districts. Again, just to reiterate, we
see that um the new warehouse um that
could be constructed on the site would
be um inconsistent again with this
adaptive reuse text amendment. Also, it
would be inconsistent with the general
plan land use category of definitions
and once again not compatible with the
um surrounding residential character of
that area and inconsistent with the
visions of the general planned of
employment office. And then here's just
another example within the city of
Scotta where we have commercial office
next to single family residential where
the applicant is proposing within their
draft new construction of warehouse
adjacent to residential and that would
have those same um bullet points that
would pertain to our concerns about
that.
So staff will conclude their
presentation on the staff's
recommendations slide which states that
staff recommends that the planning
commission find that zoning text
amendment um excluding that warehouse.
So that's the staff's draft that's
attached to the report um finds that we
it is consistent and conforms with the
general plan and make a recommendation
to city council again for staff's draft.
So that again concludes staff's
presentation. The applicant is here and
has prepared a full presentation. We'll
go into a little further detail of the
um text amendment and the differences
between the two and we're happy to take
questions after that. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Tessier. I do believe we
have questions from the commissioners
and I believe the first I've heard is
Commissioner Joiner.
Thank you. Thank you. Uh Meredith,
did the application we reviewed before
have warehousing in it? The warehousing
is something that's been added since the
last meeting. Is that correct?
Uh, Chair Scarboro, sorry, is my mic on?
It sounds odd. Chair Scarboro,
Commissioner Joiner, um, the former
draft did have warehousing on within
that
because I don't remember us talking
about the warehousing. So, okay. Well,
thank you.
Yes, you're uh,
Cher Scar Bro, um, Commissioner Joiner,
you're correct. There wasn't a lot of
time spent on the warehousing portion. A
lot of the conversation was about uh the
general plan and about the uh I think
the applicant spent a lot of time
talking about the adaptive reuse of
existing buildings. The conversation
didn't really get extended to this third
piece of the uh proposed warehousing.
Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any other Oh,
thank you, Commissioner.
This is an even more basic question that
I should have asked earlier, I suppose.
when you use the term when the city uses
the term uh warehouse or warehousing
um does that include um warehouses like
you know back in up in the MAC uh Mac
city north of 101 as well as mini
storage or is it
sorry Mike chair scar bro and
commissioner I think max concepts more
distribution and this um text moving
forward there is more discussion about
warehouse purposes. So more of those
mini warehouse type concepts.
I'm sorry I didn't follow that. That's
what happened when we get hearing aids
through Amazon.
No problem.
So speaking of Amazon that's more of a
distribution center which is probably
comparable to your Mac example that you
brought up. Okay. Unlike this, I think
it's more so the mini warehouse concept
where it's just the rollup garage doors
for your Christmas and decoration
storage purposes.
So when you say when when the city says
warehouse, it simply means many storage
and nothing more than mini storage. Is
that correct or not?
So, Chair U Scarboro and Commissioner, I
think it's a very broad um term in our
zoning code. We really don't um break it
down into pieces, but certainly um the
industrial districts that allow
warehousing and distribution, certainly
you could do some warehousing there
without the distribution. Again, it's
probably your more intense zoning
districts. Um but uh even the many
warehousing that that have individual
storage um um buildings for household
items is considered warehousing. It just
doesn't have that distribution component
to it. Um but I think the zoning code
really didn't break that down into
separate uses because those uses are
only allowed in the more intense
districts that are typically heavy
commercial and industrial.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Anybody else? Go ahead,
Commissioner Gonzalez.
Yes, thank you. I had a question about
since we're talking about the
warehouses, then uh what are the hours
of the operation of the warehouses, if
they're individually have individual are
they have individual owners of or
renters for those warehouses?
Chair Scarro um and Commissioner
Gonzalez, I would defer that question to
the applicant to speak more so on the
operation.
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you.
Yeah, go ahead. And
well, perfect. We can have them do a
presentation. Do you have any questions
for staff at this point?
Okay. No, if it's just for staff, thank
you very much. Are do you know if those
are individual uh individual warehouse
spaces or are they all one key uh uh
leaseole tenant?
Thank you. So I'd again defer that
question to the applicant just to kind
of bring the details of that operation.
Thank you.
Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner
Gonzalez. Any other commissioners for
staff questions? Okay. Hearing none,
then the applicant if you would please.
Oops. Oh, Meredith, I touched the the
keyboard.
Well, it went away. There it is. Okay,
perfect. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman,
vice chair, and commissioners, thank you
uh for having me back again. Carolyn
Overberholtzer with the law firm of
Bergen Frank Smallley and Overholzer,
4343 East Camelback. For the last 20
years, I've resided um at 9788 East
Topaz Drive, which is in walking
distance of the Catalyst site. Um, so I
am a longtime resident of this
community. Um, I would like to um
supplement what staff gave and what we
talked about last time, but we have the
ben um the benefit of having two new
commissioners. So, thank you for being
here and welcome. I was wondering if um
if necessary if the chair would indulge
me and allow me to present for perhaps
two minutes extra this evening.
Yeah, we can add two minutes to the
clock.
Thank you. Um so
again, we really appreciate the time for
the continuence. Um, we are here tonight
handinhand with staff on most of this
and as been discussed, we have sticking
points on just a few of these items
related to our house. I will certainly
get to Commissioner Gonzalez's questions
in a moment. Um, but just to refresh for
um the new commissioners, this site has
been mostly vacant um since 2020. It has
been officially vacant since 2022. and
um the owners have struggled with the
next identity for this. There's been a
robust leasing effort and um there's
just a ton of properties that are
similarly situated with vacancies and
it's very hard to get traction and
absorption. So the discussion, you know,
around that um has evolved over time and
this is just a history. We went through
it in more detail in the market in more
detail last month just about the value
of this property and and a huge decline
that's um occurred because there is a
large uh concentration of CO office in
this area and so we're looking at well
what what can we do to change that and
to help the other properties also um
absorb and and get new tenants. So the
catalyst site here is again proposed for
internalized community storage. Um, that
means inside of the building. There's a
definition, and I'll take you guys
through the definitions in a moment,
that speaks to storage as a use that is
permitted widely in the city. Um, and
then the the parking garage that you see
on the lower portion, that's where we
are implementing the vehicle storage.
This site has two times the parking
requirements for office in the city.
There are about 320 spaces in the
parking garage. There are another 320
outside of it. And so the reason that
we're having this conversation about the
addition of mini warehouse, key word
being mini, is because we have this
abundance of excess parking. And so the
idea is to allow for the addition of
very lowcale structures that are
accessory to the primary use that will
enable the storage of the same type of
items. Not business items, not
warehousing, not distribution. It's all
has to be accessory to the internalized
community storage business. And um there
are limitations that are proposed that
will secure this as accessory and not
become the type of warehouse uses that
are discussed in the general plan.
So how your code structures these uses
is snapshotted here just with regard to
CO. We we covered this slide last time,
but you'll see green internalized
community storage and you see all of the
non-residential districts that it's
already allowed in that are not
highlighted. So, it is widely available
in the city. We're adding the um uses to
it to allow for those accessory uses and
we'll go through those in a moment. This
is a lot going on, I know, but it is um
a compilation of every single use that
CO allows is in yellow. So we took them
from all the different parts of the
zoning ordinance and um there's three
uses in CO that you can do that you
cannot do anywhere else. You can do a
veterinary hospital, you can do medical
and diagnostic laboratories and a
hospital but only with a use permit in
all other ways. It's a very common
district. Um all of the other uses that
are in red are the districts or the uses
that are permitted just about
everywhere. So then you look down at the
addition of internalized community
storage again you see that use is
already permitted in many districts and
notably look at the yellow horizontal
line office that use is permitted almost
everywhere. So what that does there's no
funnel to create office in these
locations and where we have these co
high concentration areas where you can
only have so many animal hospitals and
medical and diagnostic laboratories. So
that's why we're looking for what is
this? What can this be? You'll also
notice that multif family conversion is
now a use that you can do in the city
other places. And just on the topic of
the general plan, it is general and not
every text amendment and zoning change
um to the text that applies uniformly
across the city can be consistent with
every general plan category. We allow
daycare uses here with outdoor play
areas. Outdoor play areas is different
than the office category. There are
subsets of these uses that are
generalized and they are consistent with
a character type, but this general plan
conversation is important because it is
very broad and it is not it is very
general and I'll get to that again in a
moment. But why we're here again I
cannot underscore the um importance of
trying to find um ways to uh reoccupy va
these vacant buildings. This is a highly
populated area. There's traffic by it,
through it all the time. We're less than
a half a mile from police headquarters
and still it gets broken into all the
time. This is just from a few weeks ago.
Same pictures I showed you guys last
month, but for the benefit of the new
commissioners. Um again, this is just
the slide that uh staff showed the
concentration of CO. You can see around
us um the hospitals across the street.
And then the gray on the general plan
map to the left shows the employment
office category.
So the questions about uses um
Commissioner Ortell and others had
questions on what are the difference of
these uses. So these are the definitions
from your zoning code as to each of
these uses. Internalized community
storage means it's in an enclosed
building. Access to the units is inside
and it can include an office or a
dwelling. Um that is an old school way.
Before uh remote security systems,
people used to live at these sites. That
is not a thing anymore. Um vehicle
storage is defined as anywhere where
you're parking four or more cars.
Warehouse is insanely broad. There is no
subset of definitions for warehouse. And
that's why we find ourselves in this
position tonight with the general plan.
Warehouse just means a building or
building used for the storage of goods
of any type. So not businessto business,
not my personal things. It's any type
and where no retail operation is
conducted and there's no parking
standard for office. Mini warehouse is
not defined in the code but it is
treated separately for purposes of
parking. And for the parking calculation
associated with mini warehouse, it also
provides for an office calculation.
There is an office associated with this
whole development. The mini storage is
functionally the same thing as
internalized community storage. It's
just how do you access your unit?
So when we look back and forth to where
we've been, I do have the original text
on the left, the proposed text on the
right with each one of these which each
um component of the text amendment. Um
as staff outlined, we did broaden this.
We took out the minimum lot size
requirement. We took out the b the
maximum building height requirement. And
instead we added that this is a
conversion only option that it can only
be converted when um convincing staff
that it's functionally or economically
obsolete and that it does not permit any
additional building area for
internalized community storage other
than what exists today. This is only for
the reoccupancy of a formally occupied
building as an office. So it's very
limited. It creates a new use in the
zoning code. It is a very unique new use
specific only to CO. And then it
provides that um all loading areas have
to be a certain distance from
residential districts. We are clear of
that by a long shot, but as staff
mentioned, there might be other sites
where you would need to have these
additional setbacks that would be
triggered. Then the vehicle storage
component. Um we tailored this a bit uh
to provide for again additional distance
requirements where there is proximate
residential. All of our immediately
adjacent properties are church or office
uses. Um no additional vehicle storage
areas can go beyond the existing parking
areas of the site. So basically it's
again the focus is reusing what you
already have. Let's reuse what you have.
um everything that is um out in the
parking field at a certain distance from
residential also requires a carport
structure. So those are the
distinctions. Everything about limiting
these no RVs, no trailers, no ATVs,
that's all stays. Um they have to be
operable.
And then this goes on to then require
additional wall. Um, if you're going to
have a wall over three feet, it has to
be 40 feet back from any property line.
And then it requires exterior lighting
um, with the cutoff requirements in line
with the zoning ordinance.
And again, staff and us in total
agreement with all of these things of
all of these changes. It's this slide
where we have a dist a difference. And
this is where warehouse is permitted
only as an accessory use. accessory in
your zoning ordinance is defined as a
use that is clearly subordinate to the
use that is primary on the lot or the
building. So what we've structured here
still is that it has to be on the same
lot for the same property where the
internalized community storage is
happening and that you have to have a
maximum of 30% of the building the
existing building internalized community
storage building. You can't have more
than 30% of the property go to this mini
warehouse use. It still limits the
buildings to 12 feet which keeps it in
residential character and it we're
providing for breaks in the buildings
every 200 feet for landscaping. So it's
very very tailored to a residential
character and it is subordinate to the
main use on the site which would be
internalized community storage. staff
took you through the general plan
category. It hits on that office allows
a variety of office uses and we do have
an office use. This is moderate traffic
volume. It is actually very low. It is
located along a collector or arterial
and it is near residential areas. So
this is consistent with the general
plan. Um I think I have touched on all
of this. The general plan also speaks to
um com coming up with innovative
adaptive reuse and again because of the
limitations in CO this is a very good
implementation of this general plan
policy that is seeking to adjust the
districts to adapt to the new economic
climate. Um again this is the catalyst
site. The distinction of where those
mini warehouse buildings would be in
relation to the larger buildings on the
site to highlight again this is
accessory only to those uses. Um the the
text requires that they be
architecturally consistent with those
uses. That's going to all be subject to
your design review board. Um again this
is the office building. I would love to
have my storage in this type of a
building versus the one we currently
have, which in 15 years I've never gone
to. My husband gets to do that, but if
it was here, it's a much friendlier
environment and it will really create um
I think a new standard for storage and
that will be unique. Um again, we had a
traffic study done. The difference
between office and this use is a
reduction in 4,700 vehicle trips per
day.
As to the catalyst site, the Maricopa,
pardon me, McCormack Ranch Property
Owners Association has reviewed this
entire package, including the mini
storage. They've approved it. Um, and
again, we have community support. So,
with that, I'm I'm happy to answer
questions. Um, our project team is both
here and online, and thank you again for
allowing me that additional time.
Thank you very much. Um, we'll go ahead
and start with Commissioner Gonzalez.
You can go ahead with your questioning
of the applicant.
Okay. Basically, uh, what are the hours
of operation?
Um, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner
Gonzalez, the typical hours for storage
facilities are 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Every operator is different, but those
are the typical hours.
the outside storage that will they be
accessible at any time or 24-hour basis
to for the renters to to get into or are
they limited to those office hours?
So, Mr. chairman and commissioners, as
to the catalyst site, this would be a
gated uh there would be gates installed
at two of the entrances and those gate
accesses would only be openable to
tenants during the business hours of the
operation. So if it is if they close at
8 then those gates don't allow access at
8.
Okay. Then is there any uh additional
because you have the space are you
anticipating any outside storage? No,
that was strictly prohibited um in the
text amendment and so there is no um
possibility for outdoor storage anywhere
on this property if the commission
recommends this text amendment.
Will you be anticipating any commercial
uh renters like commercial vehicles to
be use utilizing the storage area? Um
Mr. Chair and commissioners, no, these
are for personal vehicle storage.
Will you um will you have any
limitations on what type of vehicles
will be uh stored there like electrical
electrified vehicles and stuff like
that?
Um Mr. Chairman and commissioners, there
is no limitation on if they're gas
powered or electric powered. Um I there
would most certainly be electric powered
and we have um part of the
sustainability requirements of the city
when we come through with a development
um proposal not in the text amendment
but outside of it would be that a
certain portion of the parking areas are
um equipped with chargers or be um EV
capable. But as to um the restrictions
on the type of vehicles that can go
within this um the vehicle storage text
specifically provides that the stored
vehicles have to be operational. Um
there is no repair or maintenance and
that this it specifically excludes the
storage of RVs. This is an H on the
screen. RVs, all-terrain vehicles,
boats, trailers, heavy or light
equipment vehicles and also excludes the
storage of household items. So, it's
it's vehicles only.
Will the um will there be any outside uh
charging stations within that vehicle
storage area?
Um Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, as to
this site, I'm not sure yet.
Okay. Um, and I guess my my question
there get there again is you said you're
going to have a a a g a a gated uh
system there that will cut off hours of
outside the 7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. hours.
So, you won't be getting people coming
in at 10:00 at night and going through
their storage area or something like
that in a residential area.
Correct, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
The way that this site functions is it
has several access points. Um the
Mountain View access point would be
gated. The 92nd um street frontage,
pardon me, 90th Street frontage has two
access points. One goes behind the
building and that's where the gate would
be. The other comes around to the front
of the building and that's where
customer arrival going into the office,
checking in, that's where that would
happen. that is the only area of the
project that would be unsecured and
remain open um after business hours and
so there is no access to the building at
from that point either but it's I just
wanted to highlight that at least as
with regard to the catalyst site there
is an area that does remain open but
there's not access to anything from that
location
okay and then like the hours of
operation are like I guess the front
entrance way where people could be
utilizing the internal storage, they're
not going to be allowed to come in after
8:00 p.m. at night.
Correct. And that's typical of this
operator. Again, other operators, this
is a a city-wide text amendment. Um
there's nothing in the text amendment
that speaks to hours of operation. You
know, if that's something that's
important to the commission, it's
certainly a component that we can
discuss. We just didn't think to add
that.
I think it might be pertinent to the
residents in the area. That's why I
asked
within the residential within a
proximity of residential to limit the
hours to after a certain period of time
I think is um is something we can work
with.
Um is there any specific um let me ask a
a question of staff. Is there any um any
particular uh light levels that are to
be uh shown as far as the illumination
of the side structures and anything like
that? or are they going to have pole
lighting at, you know, in the parking
lot or how are they going to do the
elimination?
Thank you, Chair Scarbo and Commissioner
Gonzalez. They'll be required to conform
with the or um ordinance requirements
for lighting standards. So, it needed to
be uh full cut off and meet with our
required minimum foot candles for that
site.
I um yeah, I'm familiar with that a
little bit, but you what concerns me is
having a 24-hour illumination of, you
know, solar soral solar type lighting
going on with sodium lights on the side
of a of a warehouse space on on a a
building this large. That's all I'm
saying is the illumination. Uh, not
necessarily that does it cast a lot of
illumination out, but it just lights up
the whole building all over the sides.
That's what I was looking at so much.
Certainly, I think the code does speak
to some security lighting purposes, but
it maybe that's also a customized um
criteria that could be added as well.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Miss Commissioner Gonzalez.
Uh, real quick, I got a question for
staff. Um, but uh if somebody could put
the slide back up where we had the
definitions, that would be great. I
don't know if that I think that was part
of Miss Overholzer's uh presentation,
but if you could bring that slide back
up that had the definitions of each one
of these items, especially the
warehouse.
Are you looking for the definitions on
staff slide?
If it was your slide, I thought it might
have been her slide.
I believe it's Did you have a definition
slide? Okay, sorry.
It's the applicant slide.
I think that was a Miss Overhalter's
Yeah, I agree.
Caroline, do you know the slide number
by any chance?
Huh?
Do you know the slide number?
I have to advance to it. Is that okay?
I think it was hers, but we'll see who
right here.
I believe this is the slide.
This is it. Thank you so much. And this
is question for staff. If anybody on
staff is feel free to answer this, but
if this project defined the warehouse
component as mini warehouse, would it
then not be in compliance with CO zoning
and not need
uh to have a general plan amendment as
suggested? Because if it's labeled as
mini warehouse, it would be reviewed as
internal community storage which is
allowed by CO.
Uh thank you, uh Chair Scarro. uh we
would still see it the same way in terms
of the definition within the general
plan. The the def definition the general
plan says warehousing just as the
permitted use list only says warehousing
as well. So we would treat it the same.
So we would need to again amend the
employment office uh definition to allow
for that. When we're reviewing the
applicant's request in terms of adaptive
reuse, they are moving forward with an
adaptive reuse of the existing office
building which we we see keeping in
character with the office again land use
and also the co district. They're also
adaptively reusing the parking lot and
parking structure. But in terms of the
warehousing, one it doesn't align with
the definition and two it's new building
footprint. So it doesn't really align
again with that adaptive use discussion
as well. I that's a side argument. I I
could I could opine over the idea that
that uh you're adaptively reusing the
parking lot to put a structure there
that could better be used for the
citizenry. But I guess my question then
is it seems like we have a hole in in
the code here where we have mini
warehouse being defined as equivalent of
internalized community storage. And so
we have a conflict within the ordinance.
And so I'm just curious, how do we
resolve this this conflict where one
side could argue that that by definition
here this is not an issue and yet staff
is is arguing the other side. So it
seems like we have a hole in the in the
ordinance in terms of definition of
warehouse versus mini warehouse because
right here it says mini warehouse is to
be reviewed as internal internalized
community storage. So I'm just trying to
make sure I understand.
So chair scar bro members of the
commission.
So mini warehouse as made clear here is
not defined in the zoning code. And so
it's
use is functionally the same as
internalized community storage.
So
so there's a text amendment. Could the
text amendment not define menu warehouse
and and bypass the general plan need?
you could conceive
a text amendment that we don't have that
in the proposal yet to have a new
definition
for the mini warehouse. But functionally
when you look at internalized community
storage
um it is not um
accessed from interior to a building. So
it's not the same.
Understood. But it says use is
functionally the same as internalized
community storage. So
Oh, that's me editorializing, Mr. Chair.
Oh, I apologize. That is not part of the
true definition.
No, that is true. That is Sorry because
there is no definition.
Okay.
So, this is me saying there's no
definition and we are saying it's
functionally the same. So, I wanted to
make that clear.
Thank you for that clarity. Yeah. In
your slide, next time I would make sure
that you change the color, you change
how it's written here.
Absolutely. So it's it's it's clearer.
Uh point still stands though if mini
warehouse is not defined should it not
be defined? It feels like there's a hole
in the zoning ordinance here that we
should have that definition understood.
And frankly the idea that we have
warehousing for I guess what I'd call it
residential or mini storage versus
commercial warehousing. It it feels like
there needs to be a bifurcation of that
term regardless. Is that a at least a
fair thought?
Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, I think it it is a fair
thought certainly um it's something that
um hasn't been an issue um because we
haven't been looking at um adding this
type of warehousing in different zoning
districts that would need to
contemplate, hey, do we need to um
create new definitions? One of the
concerns would be is um still if you
create a new land use category called
mini warehouse with its definition. Then
trying to decide what zoning districts
that would be allowed in. Um I'm not so
sure that
that putting it into the a CO district
for instance would be consistent with
the general plan for the reasons that
we've already discussed. So it would
probably just be duplicative of the
basic warehouse definition. Um certainly
it could be contemplated if this mini
warehouse which is a lot of people talk
about the old school um self- storage
units. Um, we could have a whole
conversation of what zoning districts
that would be allowed in. I think
historically in Scottsdale, they still
uh they have been in the industrial
districts. And I think moving forward,
there would be a sentiment that this
still should be in the industrial
districts
and and I think that review has only
been by reviewing warehouses as a whole.
And I'm I'm suggesting that there needs
to be a bifurcation of mini warehouse
verse warehouse. And I think when you
split those out, I think the review of
that use would be wildly different than
how staff has reviewed it so far because
you have to look at it from a holistic
perspective of what a warehouse is. And
that, as we can see, is is wildly
different than what's being proposed
here. We're talking about mini storage,
mini warehousing, not your typical
industrial heavy use warehousing
distribution setup. So, I'm I guess I'm
just arguing or discussing here out loud
of
how much of the staff's position is is
predicated on the more intense version
of warehousing versus what I'm
suggesting of of the need to bifurcate
the term warehousing.
Does that make sense?
Yes, it does. It's not included in the
proposal. So, we're we're we're talking
about something that hasn't specifically
been proposed, but you're right, in the
context of the specific application to
the catalyst site, they're looking at
mini uh warehousing without a definition
for that mini warehousing. Uh but again,
it's a good conversation. It would
probably be a different type of
community conversation about um the mini
warehouses and where they should be
located and are they that much different
than other warehouses in terms of the
the bays and the rolling up and the and
the uh the rolling up of the doors and
the noise associated with that and then
the um vehicles moving in and out and
what types of vehicles are moving in and
out. um usually vans or large build or
large structures moving in household
goods or office goods in and out of
these smaller mini warehouse type units.
So it's something that we hadn't um
haven't uh really discussed from a
community standpoint.
Yeah. So this this is where I struggle
because I really like the project. I I
think it's a great adaptive use at this
location. I I'm just still struggling
with the path that this is going through
to be bunded up from a general plan and
text amendment perspective. I'm just
trying to figure out what's the easiest
path to effectuate this adaptive reuse.
From my perspective,
um, this is where I struggle. I think
the pathing is is difficult here. If if
a general plan amendment was needed,
then that should have been part of this
application from the get-go with
whatever text amendments were needed.
And it feels like we're just trying to
figure out how to make this work. And
and so, I mean, I'm looking at this
project and I really do like it. I'm
just wondering if if there's a even a
path and again you as the applicant you
don't have to answer this right now uh
but where where the warehousing gets
peeled right now until it goes through
the proper process um from staff's
perspective in terms of getting the
right text amendments or general plans
processed and you move forward with the
other elements of this project. You
don't have to answer that right now.
Those are just my thoughts and I'll I'll
go ahead and let another commissioner
speak. Go ahead, Vice Chair.
Thank you, Chair Scarro. Um, thank you
for the presentation. Um, I'm curious
the 30% number that you came up with, is
that because what you were able to get
to fit on your site,
Mr. Chair and Vice Chair, um, so
when we originally made this proposal,
which it started in the fall of last
year, um, we we struggled with the path.
we uh saw the hole that you see and um
when we talked about accessory uses and
I'm looking at the definition of clearly
subordinate I wanted it to be far lower
than half um the original configuration
of the mini storage was not done with
that 30% because then as we went through
staff review and they added
recommendations of break the buildings
up every 200 feet you need to have
landscaping
um that you know chips away at what
could be there. But what we are
comfortable proceeding with is 30%, we
can fit that on the site. It does
magically fit into the number because
the building is 115,000 square feet. So
that 30% is keyed to the number of that
building. And that is also trying to
keep it within the scale. it's tied, the
language is tied to that building
because we didn't want it to be able to
dominate in relation to the other
buildings on the site. Um, also
staff does have a policy document, the
self- storage facilities design
guidelines that apply to, you know, the
internalized community storage. And when
we were scouring the ordinance for the
words mini warehouse to try and tie this
all together, um you we we didn't the
only reference we found was that
parking. And so I apologize I created
confusion on that language there. But
the self- storage guidelines do say in
the second sentence of the document
under self-s storage land use, these
facilities are referenced as
internalized community storage in the
city's zoning ordinance and can also be
referred to as mini warehouses. So, I
think there's this it's a use
distinction, but the exterior access
changes it. And so, that 30% again is
the adapted reuse of that parking area
because we have such an abundance of
parking when it doesn't go to office.
The reason why we have 4,700 fewer trips
a day is because we don't have employees
coming there to park all the time. So,
trying to figure out what else to put
there, trying to keep it within the
scale of the community. 30% works for
the site and it we felt like it worked
with the definition of accessory.
Okay. Um do you have maximum and minimum
unit sizes for this mini warehouse
concept?
Not in this draft of the text amendment.
And that leads me to my next question is
if we'll just use round numbers. If you
got 100,000 square foot internalized
self- storage facility, you could
effectively have a 30,000 square foot
warehouse with a single user.
So, these would all have to be on the
same site. Um,
sure.
Suppose that we could add language to
tie it to
um I mean the primary use on the site is
internalized community storage, but I
think what you're keying on is is the
primary business. It has to be accessory
to that same business. So maybe that
clarification addresses a concern that
you would have a separate business that
would be able to locate on the site.
Well, I guess I I would be concerned.
And I think this is probably staff's
concern is that if like I said, if you
got 100,000 foot internalized self
storage Yeah.
and then you've got a 30,000 foot
warehouse,
you're getting into a sort of a use
situation where it's more u akin to a,
you know, we won't call it distribution,
but it's warehousing a lot of stuff for
a single user. So,
um, and I I I'm I'm having a little bit
of because there it's a little
open-ended there. And I think if there
was a way to as as chair Scar Bro
alluded to, you know, to define this
mini warehouse concept a little bit more
clearly that there was a a minimum or m
or maximum size per unit uh for these
that it I think and again staff would
need to work through the semantics of
all this, but I think we're getting kind
of caught up on definitions and but but
they're important.
Yes. And I think that
I mean they're very important do that. I
think that that having a standard size
is um is certainly something that we can
incorporate. How we tried to get at the
scale to prevent the 30,000 foot
building again is just they're limited
to 12 feet in height.
Um so and and the and these breaks. But
if we want to introduce um a
maximum size or a minimum or both, um I
think that that's an industry standard
that's easy to arrive at. And um you
know if if the motion were to be I know
you're struggling with how do we move
this forward if if you if there's the
will to do so um you know you could move
it forward always with a recommendation
of a modification. And so if if your
modifications that you recommend or the
addition of um some size limitations or
requirements um I don't see an issue
with it from uh the broader application
of it.
Okay. Um,
all right. I think that's all the
questions I have for now. M Mr.
Chairman, before you um pull for more
questions, just wanted to remind you of
the last meeting that we had about the
adaptive reuse of the buildings and the
compelling argument about hey, you know,
um depending on the market demand, uh if
the market demand is less for office,
it's important to take uh some of these
existing buildings and adaptively reuse
them into the uh in this case
internalized community storage And so,
um, since that meeting, there's been a
lot of work to get toward that under
that concept. Um what the concern is
when you're talking about the adaptive
reuse concept is if you start taking
away parking that was for the office and
you start putting structures where that
parking was,
that office building would much less
likely be converted back to a uh an
office if the market were to change
because now that parking not is
dominated by structures. So, uh if
there's a concern about um having that
flexibility, tolerating
some storage uses that weren't um
originally allowed in the CO district,
but because of the market demands for
the building might change from time to
time, you start building more structures
where that parking was for the employees
and so forth. changing that back to the
office, which was a compelling argument
at the last meeting. Um, you lose those
opportunities because those structures
all have already been constructed to
take up that parking. So, that was a
concern. Um, we had offered just
additional vehicle storage on that
surface parking lot that you could rent
out that wouldn't necessarily impact the
site as much and wouldn't create
additional structures that would be
maybe cost prohibitive of just changing
it back to an office if the market uh
changed and and in order to implement
the uh commercial office purpose. Uh
that's I just wanted to remind us of of
how we as a staff got comfortable with
that adaptive reuse based on the com
conversation with the planning
commission last time. Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you for that clarification,
Mr. Curtis. Do I have any other
commissioners that have questions?
Yes.
Go ahead, Commissioner Joiner. Then Mr.
Commissioner afterwards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great
presentation. Um and I'm not sure if my
question is for staff or for Carolyn.
Um, I've heard various numbers between
the last meeting and this meeting. How
many properties in Scottdale if the text
amendment was passed would this impact?
And am I correct that if the text
amendment passed
um we would not have an opportunity to
look at additional cases as they came
through. They would have they would have
it by right. Is that correct?
Uh thank you uh Chair Scarro,
Commissioner uh Joiner. Yes, we reviewed
from a citywide standpoint. We're at
about 683 properties citywide that are
CO. As you can see by what's uh being
proposed by the applicant, it would be a
permitted use for those properties that
already have an existing uh office uh
building. And as a result of that, then
they could have a permitted use of
having um vehicular storage. And in the
instance of what uh the applicant is
proposing, warehousing or mini
warehousing as well.
Thank you. Um as I said at the last
meeting, I really like this application
and I actually went to the doctor today
and drove right across the street, sat
in the parking lot in the little covered
garage and I thought about it. So I wish
you would have just brought this through
for that application. I think you would
be done with us by then by now. But I've
sat on the dis long enough that I've
seen lots of unintended consequences
come and I am just not comfortable
um with 683
properties not being subject to
neighborhood comments, lighting. We've
already talked about lighting and um uh
I I just I'm concerned about that for
market condition changes and and
neighborhood input. So, um, but thank
you for the question. That's all I have.
Thank you, Commissioner Joiner.
Commissioner Gertell.
Thank you, Chair. Um,
most of my questions have been asked and
answered. Um,
I guess, you know, I have comments on,
you know, Director Curtis says, well, if
the market changes, um, the owner is
going to have difficulty going back to
office. But I think that's really a
burden for the owner, not for the city.
Um, if the owner does something that
puts himself at a disadvantage sometime
in the unforeseeable future, that's on
him, not on the city. Um, I do
appreciate what Commissioner Joiner
says,
opening this up for all 6, whatever it
83 properties. Um, I don't
philosophically have a problem with that
because okay, it provides
predictability.
Um, but as she says, there's going to be
neighborhood con considerations.
Um, you know, lighting, that sort of
thing. Um, that might be subject to um,
correct me if I'm wrong on this, a
operating permit. Um, the lighting would
be subject to the DR. Um,
it wouldn't go to DR.
Wouldn't it go to DR?
Mr. Chair, should
Sorry, Commissioner Ortell, if I may.
There is a DR component here in the text
amendment. It does require when you add
the buildings, it does have to go
through design review. So, there is
neighborhood outreach that happens with
that and we did do that with regard to
this site and that's why. Um so I just
wanted to clarify that.
Okay, that was you know at a higher
level my issues, thoughts, whatever. Um
you did say I believe that there is an a
traffic access point on uh Mountain View
which is right adjacent to the the
residential area. Is there any way to
avoid that?
Mr. and commissioners. Um that is a
major collector and um that would be a
gated access. So we are not able to um
close off that access because the other
access is also gated. We have to have
two ways in and out when they're gated
to secure the site and also to secure
the vehicles. But that gating does uh
restrict the ingress egress to that far
more than if it you know went to office
or any other use where you wouldn't have
it be secured. Um I I am on that street
every day and uh it's it's not a street
that really gets a ton of traffic
anyway. It's you know 90th certainly
does around the hospital. Um but you
know the key is balancing with the
access is also making sure that um
people can get safely in and out but
that the things that are inside stay
there and are secure.
Right.
Director Curtis made the point about the
noise of of uh doors going up and down
and I was thinking if you if you were
able to put trees across that area uh
then that would absorb some of the
sound. Um
but I guess you can't you can't do that.
Um I'm with whoever said it. This would
have been nice if it came through as a,
you know, one-off proposal as opposed to
an entire text amendment. Um,
I don't know. After last meeting, I knew
exactly how I felt about it. And
pardon me. And then as I go through this
at home,
I know exactly, but it's the other way.
um coming in here.
I'm going back and forth. Um
that's all I have to say.
Thank you, Commissioner. Uh do we have
any other comments, Commissioner Drake?
Well, I have to I share uh Commissioner
Joiner's opinion that uh the text
amendment could affect all those other
properties. And so that's what I'm uh
concerned about. Uh I think this is a
really neat
situation, but it it's just fitting for
this one particular property and the
ramifications could far out last or move
on throughout all these other
properties. So or projects that could
come and we wouldn't be able to have any
input on it. So uh that is my biggest
concern.
Thank you, Commissioner Dre.
Commissioner Reid, do you have any
thoughts on that at the moment?
Commissioner,
back again. Back again. Um,
uh, the chair had suggested, um,
working the definition in for, um, mini
storage into this, uh, which I think is
a great idea. Um,
is that something that would take
another month or so to, uh, to work out?
Um, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Ortell,
so the way that um, we had structured
this originally was that the mini
warehouse component
went under internalized community
storage because there wasn't a
definition of mini warehouse. Um, I
think it would be very easy to either go
back to that, keep it as is, and just
come up with a definition of mini
warehouse. um to uh add to this either
within um the use table because I think
the unique thing we have here is this is
internalized community conversion
storage. So it it would be unique to CO
different from internalized community
storage in the rest of the city that
does not have to go to these little P's
that are on that use table right here.
I'll go back to here. P19, 20, and 21,
right?
You know, we created those to give these
subsets for these accessory uses, but
that can easily be converted into
definitions as well. It's just it's the
path that that the chair mentioned
earlier, right?
And so, as you see here, internalized
community storage in green is a P with
no little number on it everywhere else.
It has a little number on it here
because we're creating a new definition
for internalized community storage
conversion, which is different than all
the others. So we can put mini storage
under that new use as one path and it
would be the same structure that we
have. It's just it becomes a part of P19
instead of its own um which would be
under you know warehouse here. So this I
think slide helps you just because it
shows you the other instances where
there's a number next to something
indicating that in that district it's a
little different. So I think we could
handle it that way. There's there's any
number of ways
that sounds reasonable to me. Um, you
know, we've talked before about the
general plan and so forth and so on, and
I remember when that was being uh uh
promoted, when it was being sold, it was
the idea this is an aspirational
document. Um, this is a a well an
aspirational document. It is not a set
of rules per se. Um, that's how it was
sold at any rate. Um I think once it
gets passed then we tend to look at it
as a set of rules but still it's an
aspirational document and
you know we we need to fit the need we
need to fit the times. Um
if you could work on the definition and
one of the reasons I appreciate lawyers
you're a lawyer right? Uh because you're
precise with words. For the most part
lawyers are precise with words. Um, you
know, the planners are are good with the
rules. Um, you know, both sides are
important, but I think if I hate to say
it, if we took another month and you
worked on the definition and they looked
at the other 682 properties and with the
idea of
Yeah.
how could we how could we clarify and
maintain
um
community wishes. I don't know how
better to say that. Uh it doesn't bother
me that we would never get to look at
those other 682 properties. You know,
the way I view it, government's job is
not to, you know, micromanage to look at
everything possible, but to come up with
the rules that people can look at and
say, "Okay, yeah, I can do this based on
the rules." and we don't need to get
more approval, more expensive approval.
But at any rate, I would propose a
continuence. I don't This is not a
proposal. I'm just kind of talking out
loud so the chair can decide how we do
this. Take another month. Um, you know,
I hate to do that. We're stretching this
out forever. Um, you know, all costs the
uh all costs the owner. Um, but I think
we do need clarification both in terms
of mini storage and in how it affects
the other 682 properties.
Mr. Chairman,
one second. Is there Commissioner Tell,
you're done. Okay, Commissioner Joiner,
go ahead.
Yeah.
Um, we have two things here. We have a
text amendment that applies to 683
properties and we have a case that we've
we I think the majority of us agree on
and I I am not a proponent of a
continuence because we this is the same
conversation we had at our last meeting.
Um I would like you to come back with
this application at that address. Uh I
think it's a great use of that. Um, I am
not a proponent of text amendments that
apply to 683 properties and no, I don't
want to see 683 files either, but um, I
think it's too big. So, anyway, that's
just my comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, for staff, uh, based on,
uh, what Commissioner Joiner is asking
and Commissioner,
uh, what is staff's view of the most
expeditious path forward from the
comments you're hearing?
So, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, um, with Commissioner Tel's
proposal, you'd be looking at a
continuence to, um, a date certain,
which would be August 13th, uh, or
August 27th. Um, that would be a time
frame. Certainly, um, this applicant
team has been, uh, easy to work with. we
could um not knowing you know um so's
schedule in terms of the summer um
schedule hopefully we could um just get
back to work working with um perhaps a
new definition uh a new land use um
um specification for the mini warehouse.
Um we could look at a variety of things
regarding that. Um and so um the next
available meeting would be August 13th
if the commission so desires to um to
work with the applicant uh on a
continuence. I don't know um where the
applicant team is on uh their desire for
a continuence, but that obviously is a
an important function of this
conversation.
And that would be sufficient to uh
negate staff's concerns regarding a
general plan amendment.
So that's something that we would have
to um look at to see if there is a
concept uh regarding a mini warehouse
and how that
how that would affect any sort of
implementation of the general plan.
something that we haven't really talked
about, but um clearly you saw the
general plan um definitions with regard
to the offices and um it does say
warehouse. And so we'd have to think
about the the scope and intent of uh
what a new definition would be and
continue working with the applicant team
perhaps on uh minimizing the impacts
associated with that.
Okay. case. What I'm hearing is that it
doesn't potentially solve the problem.
It's a continuence that gets us to a
potentially another hearing without
getting the case to be able to move
forward either with a approval or a a
recommendation for approval or
recommendation of denial. That sounds
like there might still be more work that
has to be done from a general plan
amendment perspective that may not get
ironed out by the date certain.
Yes. without knowing a little bit more
about the definition, um, we may still
have an issue with the general plan.
And then, uh, Commissioner Joiner, uh,
had her opinions and thoughts in terms
of this being a very sightsp specific
application. What's the quickest,
easiest path for the applicant to
achieve that where we're not doing a
text amendment that that effectuates 600
plus properties?
Well, Mr. Chairman, there's a a couple
thoughts about that. Um, one would be
reszoning this property, um, which would
basically start over and that would be a
much lengthier process with the public
outreach and everything six to nine
months. Uh, another thought that was
um that you've seen and is built into
the code is for some of the more um uh
land uses that are uh debatable whether
they'll be compatible with a
neighborhood or not. Um the oneoffs
would be the condition use permit um
requirement for something like the mini
warehouse component of this. Um that
doesn't necessarily get you out of the
general plan uh um issue as it's defined
currently in the general plan. Um, but
those are also tools um to help assure
compatibility
uh particularly if it's new construction
as opposed to just adaptively reusing
the building. Just some thoughts that we
would probably be working toward and to
try to make sure that um
we're always consistent with the general
plan and that we're uh protecting the
community's interest in terms of
impacts. And just to be clear, the the
point of contention is the warehousing
component, not the other components of
this project.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, based on the
commission's um conversation a few weeks
ago um and the desire for uh additional
opportunities built into the code for
adaptively reusing some buildings.
Okay.
So, I guess I would just ask um Yeah,
just a second, Commissioner Reid. I'll
let you just just a second. history. Uh
the reason I'm I'm asking all this is so
that we have a little bit better basis
of understanding for everybody up here
and even the public at large. Um and so
staff is saying they're comfortable
moving it forward without the
warehousing component. And I guess I
would just like to ask the question u to
Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Reid,
and anybody else who'd like to comment.
Is your point of contention the
warehousing alone? Are you fine with the
other elements of it? So if the project
move forward without the warehousing and
project
the text amendment.
No, I'm not comfortable
Okay. So that's the question. So go
ahead, Commissioner Reid.
Well, I'm in agreement. I'm I'm very
supportive of the proposal. I'm not
supportive of the warehousing and the
text amendment. They they're two
separate issues
in my mind anyway.
Okay, Commissioner Joiner,
I'm done.
Okay, Commissioner Joiner has nothing to
say. Perfect.
All right, so uh right now we are at a
point here where does the applicant have
anything further she would like to add
at the moment before we let the
commissioners
make
famous last words, Mr. Chair? These will
be my last words. Um, thank you so much
for your careful deliberation about this
again and spending the time on it. Um, I
realize we're we're trying to solve for
a problem that really is citywide. Um,
it's not just particular this property.
When you do a text amendment, you have
to say, do you have a catalyst site? So,
that's why we have all the focus on our
particular site. Um, but when we do look
at that site and the other options, I
just bring everybody back to the land
use table and to look at the areas in
green that match with the areas in
yellow and all of the places in the city
where you can currently do internalized
community storage and also office. When
we look at where the option is to do if
we're going to treat warehouse as is
mini storage as warehouse, we have fewer
options. That's C3, C4, I1 and IG. But
IG does not allow internalized community
storage. So when we were looking at
reszoning the property, we were left
with C3, C4, and I1 um all to keep a an
office building functionally intact. So
for this reason um and because of the
con commercial office district being so
limited, we thought we would solve a
city-wide problem with the commercial
office because there there is need for
more uses in that category. Um but a use
permit to handle this uh storage issue I
think is something we could absolutely
work on. I understand that's not going
to solve the concerns for some of the
commissioners, but um we're open to to
however the the pleasure of the
commission is, but if you wanted to
continue us to the 13th, I think there's
a path where we could develop a use
permit structure for the mini storage
component. Um I think we've shown this
commission that we work really well
together and quickly together if given
the time. Um, however, if um if that's
not the pleasure, then you know, however
you move forward. But I just wanted to
um again, thank you and I know it's not
easy and I really appreciate that the
ways that you're thinking about us and
and challenging us to come up with the
best solution.
Thank you for that. I I I agree that we
need a catalyst site um and that it is
the the job of the planning commission
to recommend approval or denial of text
amendments for the city. So, this is
being presented as a text amendment.
While there is a catalyst site in play,
this is a text amendment that's going to
affect the entire city. Uh, and so that
is well within what we're supposed to be
doing here. And so that doesn't bother
me at all. I like the conditional use
permit add-on. Uh, personally, just that
way uh, while it probably adds a little
bit more bureaucracy, it also allows
projects to come forward and and have
more touch points with the citizenry.
Uh, go ahead, vice chair.
Thank you. Um I just a clarification on
what you just said. So you said a use
permit about the mini storage. Did you
mean the mini warehouse?
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr.
Vice Chair.
Sorry, we're we're talking about all
these definitions and I just want to
make sure we're all clear about what
what is what
the exterior access limited to 12 feet
in height, building size, accessory,
those things. That accessory would be
the use permit.
Subject to correction.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Well, thank you. Do we have any
other commissioners that have comments
before we seek a motion?
Uh well, for comments, Commissioner
Gonzalez's comment. Okay.
I just want to wish the applicant to to
pursue this more. Yeah. I don't want you
to get too depressed over it because
it's really a decent application, but
yet because of the conflicts that
there's going on plus the broad spectrum
makes it very difficult because we we
just don't have to we can't just look at
this one particular project if if we
like really like it or don't like it. We
have to look at what the citywide
projection will be and that's what makes
it so difficult. So, I really ask you to
come back, work with staff, work the
differences out, and I'm sure you could
probably get something done next time.
Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Uh,
yes, this is a text amendment that's
coming before planning commission. So,
should this be continued or heard, um, I
just would like to remind the planning
commission that it gets reviewed as a
text amendment that has a catalyst site.
So, as we're reviewing this as a
planning commission, I hope we are
reviewing it as a true text amendment
and not as a specific site project. We
all like the site project and but it
really is a text amendment. Go ahead,
Mr. Curtis.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as you're
thinking about um uh a motion and
obviously the applicant team and if
they're willing to um um have this
continued, one of the things that we
always have to deal with is public
outreach notification.
And so we want to build in enough time
if we do a continuance to make sure that
we advertise correctly. And as we've
advertised this so far, we never really
advertised the section of the code that
deals with definitions. And so, um, we
probably need to build in enough time to
make sure that we have the appropriate
advertisement and posting, um, that we
would be adding a definition or changing
the definition section or something like
that. And so with that being said, we
probably looking at later in August uh
to build time quickly in the next couple
weeks to figure out what we need to
advertise so we make sure that we have
uh and cure uh the appropriate
notification of that. Even that's a type
time time frame. Um so I just want to
build that in. You have the option of
doing a continuence with no date to be
determined. Why? While the applicant and
staff figure out exactly what we do need
to do to advertise this to cure this of
any sort of noticing flaws and we
definitely don't want to go through all
of this and then have a noticing flaw.
So, um you may not need to focus on a
date certain uh if there is a
conversation about a continuence, but
certainly that needs to be um coming
from the applicant team. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Joiner.
Um
so, our the motion that's in our agenda
is on the text amendment, not on a
continuance. So should we not vote on
the text amendment first and then talk
about the continuence?
Only the text amendment is on the
agenda. Whether we continue the text
amendment would be the consideration. We
can either approve, approve,
modification, deny or continue.
Okay. But the text amendment would still
come back for all 300 and some
properties, right?
Correct. But keep in mind
properties.
Yeah. based on the ordinance in the
bylaws, the applicant um is requesting
um an action. Um the applicant hasn't
requested a continuence yet. Um so you'd
want to make sure that the applicant is
requesting that continuence if that's
how you wish to move forward. But you're
right, this conversation is solely about
the text amendment, the pieces of the
text amendment. what was in our staff
report which is in front of you in terms
of the motion sheet is the staff's
recommendation for approval of the text
amendment excluding the mini warehouse.
Um so that's what's on your motion sheet
right now. Um and none of this includes
any sort of reasonzoning of the specific
property because that would be a whole
separate process.
Okay. So if
just saying hypothetically, if someone
made a motion to deny this application
that includes the text amendment,
how would that impact the applicant in
doing a continuence of just their case,
the the specific property that's tied to
this case?
Uh, Commissioner Joiner, I'll step in on
that one since we're dealing with sort
of parliamentary procedure. Um, right
now the sheet that's in front of you is
just recommended language for if you
wanted to make that motion. At this
time, there's no motion pending. If one
of the commission members were to make a
motion to deny, and that motion were to
carry. The application at that point
would have a recommendation of denial. I
think at that point, we'd be done with
this proceeding. It would just get
forwarded on to city council according
to normal procedure. Um, and at that
point, city council could make their own
determination.
Okay.
chair.
Yes, sir.
Um, I think director Curtis said that or
somebody said that the applicant would
have to request a continuance. I thought
that I had heard Miss Ober Ober Holtzer
say earlier uh that she wanted or was
open to a continuence. Is that the same
thing as saying I want a continuence?
Mr. Chairman and commissioners, um, I
think
it's the And this is I I defer to your
attorney um on your ability to make
motions. I think the commission has the
ability to make their own motion for
continuence and we also have the ability
to request one. But if the commission
would like to continue the case, we do
not have any objection to that. Um, I
think that the time period within which
we could work to address the issues we
heard tonight around storage are
probably best handled with the addition
of a use permit as was mentioned as a a
concept. I think that's a pretty easy
change. Um, as uh Mr. Curtis mentioned
though, if we get into other sections of
the ordinance and they have to renotice,
I'm with him that we wouldn't want to
set a date that we couldn't meet. So, um
I think maybe in that event the 13th is
a little aggressive, but the 27th of
August works. Um and it keeps us all
moving forward. Um so,
we would we would be fine with that.
So, you're saying you'd like a
continuence to August 27th.
Did that work for you, Mr. Curtis?
Mr. determined members of the commission
and commissioner tell specifically the I
think what works better is a a date not
to be determined because we're not quite
sure what section of the codes would be
changing and believe it or not we run
out of time really quickly with regard
to public outreach notification and
working with the newspaper on publishing
um the uh the notice
Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Commissioner.
Would it be better for us,
I don't know what the rest everybody's
going to vote, but let's say we deny
this. It's still going to go to city
council and get a read of what the
current council is going to feel about
this before a whole lot of attorney
hours and applicant hours and staff
hours are spent.
Uh, Commissioner Joiner, it's sort of a
non-legal issue. It certainly sounds
like a possibility, right?
Um, you know, because this is a
recommending body, city council would
not be tied by a recommendation of
denial. So, you could certainly make a
motion uh to deny the application as
currently submitted, make that
recommendation, and then council has the
independent authority that
they can continue it. The applicant can
request a continuance at that stage. Uh,
so there those steps can still happen.
Whether or not that's what this body
wants to do, I can't really
because that way the applicant would get
the feel of the current city council
much quicker and without spending lots
of lawyer hours on trying to figure out
something and then still work on getting
the definitions changed for future use
and things like that. Okay, I'm ready to
move.
So, real quick, I'm going to pause you
there because again, there is no
specific application here. So for them
to do a specific application would take
roughly about nine months to engage. So
there is no specific application. It's
just a text amendment. So So getting a
gauge on this is is not related to a
specific project.
But city council would have to vote on a
text amendment as well. Is that not
correct? Uh yes, Commissioner Joiner,
Chair Scarro, just to clarify, uh
although we are talking about a zoning
ordinance text amendment, it is still
initiated by an application. Uh so, you
know, you can have an application for a
reasonzoning or an application for a
text amendment. So, normally text
amendments are initiated by staff and
you don't have an uh application, but in
this situation, we do. So, there is an
application. It's just sort of a
language thing. It's ultimately
city council would still be making the
final decision regardless of what we
say, right?
Correct.
All right. Thank you. Uh if anybody has
a motion, I do I'll entertain a motion.
Yeah. I I don't think it's a good idea
to just punt to the city council. I
mean, that's that's why we get the free
dinners to uh do the best we can.
Um, so I would make a motion to continue
uh K6TA
2024.
Um,
help me with this attorneys. Um,
for a date to be uh determined in the
nearest possible future.
um
expedite this uh to resolve the
definitional issues of mini storage and
and the um to clarify
uh potential impacts on the other 682
properties. Not a very good motion, but
it's the best I can do, buddy.
It's okay, Commissioner. to clarify. I
believe what we have is a motion to
continue to a date to be determined
subject to the conditions you've
indicated. Um
before we get to a second just it is an
unusual wrinkle of the rules of
procedure for planning commission but
for planning commission to continue on
its own. It does have to be done at the
applicant's request. So I would just
like Miss Overholzer to clarify whether
or not that is technically an
applicant's request.
Thank you. Um, okay. So, that is the
answer to the earlier question. Mr.
Chair and Commissioner Ortell, I
appreciate the um direction for us
during the continuence period. When we
do indefinite continuences, it requires
that we renotice everything, which is
very expensive. Um, and we've done a lot
of noticing on this property. So, we
would have to renotice it if we do come
up with a solution that goes outside of
the provisions that have already been
amended. But I I think that to allow for
the possibility that we won't do that,
our request would be to a date certain.
Um if you don't feel that August 27th is
enough time or staff doesn't, um you
know, we're we're open to the date, but
I I would respectfully request a date so
that we can not have to start over with
all of our newspaper native
notifications
um and everything that goes along with
it.
Director Curtis, how about another two
weeks on
Yeah, Mr. Chairman, uh, Commissioner
Tell, members of the commission, so
you're looking at, uh, I mentioned
before August, you're looking at
September 10th and September 24th.
Which one do you choose?
September 10th. How's that?
Maybe you could arm wrestle for it.
Mr. Chairman and commissioners, um, a
question if I may of staff as far as
what would trigger a renotification. Um,
based on the direction that we've heard
regarding
mini storage,
do you have a guess at whether or not
we're going to be triggering a different
provision of the ordinance for the for
handling that?
Mr. Chair, I'm assuming you want me to
respond on that. So, what we're
anticipating is advertising, letting the
community know that we're amending
article three, um, which is the
definition section of the zoning code,
which we currently haven't advertised.
Um, so that's one thing. Um, working
through that definition um to see what
we can do about and then anything else
that we need to do to deal with this
general plan issue because it is
defined. And so those are some things
that um we're gonna have to brainstorm.
Um and we were able to do that before
and we'd like to do continue doing that.
It just takes some time. Um, so the to
answer the question in terms of what
specifically I'm I'm thinking article
three hadn't been contemplated or
advertised and so we'd have to do that
regardless of what date you pick. And if
we if you pick a date and we don't meet
it, then we'll have to continue it again
because we advertised an original date.
Um but without a date um we would um
at least um not have to come back with
another continuence because we had to
cure some sort of notification
flaw September.
So again our recommendation is
consistent with the motion on the table
uh to a date to be determined and
certainly we don't want this uh project
lingering in our office any longer than
anyone else does. is we'd like to get it
to the planning commission as soon as
possible uh with your recommendation
eventually to the city council. I don't
know if September 10th works or not for
the applicant team, but it's certainly
better than August.
Commissioner Joiner is suggesting the
24th then. Does that is that too long
for you?
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, um based
on the response of staff that we're
probably going to have to renot
readvertise part of this. Um, our
preference would be then to withdraw a
continuence request um and ask the
commission to move forward uh as it see
fits as it sees fit because we can then
process a text amendment to address the
mini storage and basically achieve the
same time frame on that but move forward
with the bulk of it as well. So it kind
of would take separate tracks but that
would um because we have to renotice it
anyway. uh if you made the motion and if
if it uh you were to exclude the mini
storage from that motion, we could still
pursue this solution just outside of
this pending application and isolate it
to that issue.
Vice chair. So in essence then we would
be if we voted in the positive it would
be with staff's recommended stipulations
to the text amendment. Correct
Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, that would
certainly be your prerogative and that
is what I'm I'm getting at. Yes.
Okay. So we would just remove the
warehousing component of this whole
thing.
My problem isn't with the warehousing.
Okay. So if if we simply approve as
staff has recommended, that does exclude
the warehouses. Yes. Okay. So I need to
withdraw my motion or does it have to
get officially shot down? Can I simply
withdraw it?
Yeah, Commissioner El because there has
not been a second. You can withdraw the
motion without having a vote of the
body.
I'd be delighted.
So it's drawn. Okay. Now we're back to
seeking a motion.
In that case, then I will make another
motion. Let's see how this one goes.
Make a motion for recommendation of
approval to city council for case 6A
2024
after finding that the zoning text
amendment attachment 2 exhibit A staff's
draft excluding the warehouse land use
is consistent and conforms with the
adopted general plan. But as
Commissioner Joiner used to do, I say
this under protest.
Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a
second?
I'll second. We have a motion and a
second. Roll call vote, please.
Chair Scarboro.
Yes.
Vice Chair Young,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
no.
Commissioner,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
no.
Commissioner Drake,
no.
Commissioner Reid,
no.
Motion fails. Four to three.
With the motion failed, uh, I'm seeking
another motion for this text amendment.
I thought that was the motion for the
text.
We had to
We don't need another.
Is the fail enough, Mr. Curtis?
Uh, Chair Scarboro. So, because the
motion has not passed, we haven't
resolved this matter yet. Uh, the motion
was to uh issue a recommendation of
approval. Because that motion failed,
that means there is no recommendation of
approval. and we are still alive so to
speak.
Thank you. Okay. So, chair is still
seeking a motion.
I'll make a motion.
Okay. Commissioner Joiner,
I I move to deny case 6A
2024 after finding the text amendment
um
does not meet my criteria.
I don't know how to word it.
If if I might, Commissioner Joiner, I
think the the easier way to move forward
may be to just make a motion for
recommendation of denial. Okay. Of case
6 TA 2024.
I move to recommend denial of this case.
Thank you.
Great. We have a motion. Do I have a
second?
I second it.
Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Roll call. Vote, please.
Chair Scarra,
no.
Vice Chair Young,
no.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
no.
Commissioner,
no.
Commissioner Joiner,
yes.
Commissioner Drake,
yes.
Commissioner Reid,
yes.
Let's
say three, four.
Okay. So, uh, Chair Scar Bro, I believe
since this motion has also failed, we've
now had a motion to recommend approval
and a motion to recommend denial. Uh the
rules don't contemplate us sort of just
timing out. We do have to have some kind
of resolution here. So we are
effectively still alive.
Thank you. And I understand completely.
So um right now we've had motions both
ways. Uh and it's been 43. So um if
there's a new motion that can be
presented that is different than the
last two that we've seen so that we can
perhaps have action.
I'll move to back to my original motion.
Do you still have a copy of that? Can we
just read that off again or did you dump
it? Uh make a motion uh to continue
K6TA
point of order real quick. We we can't
initiate it. The applicant has has
withdrawn her request to continue. So we
cannot initiate.
Uh you're right. You're right.
Never mind.
It's okay.
I don't understand what we're being
asked to make a motion for. I'm
confused.
So, Commissioner Joiner, it seems like,
yeah, we might have gotten a little
mixed up on that last one. So, the
original motion that failed was a motion
to recommend approval. At that point,
the recommendation of approval would
have been forwarded on to council. That
got voted down. That was rejected. That
motion did not pass. So, the second
motion was to issue a recommendation of
denial, which would have still moved
that recommendation on to council. So,
I'm not sure if maybe there was some
there, but I believe that was the point
of the motion. But those are kind of the
two options we had. The third option
that council has that motion has not
been made yet is a motion to recommend
continuence. In that case, it does go on
to city council and then it's up to city
council whether or not to continue the
matter. Um there's nothing in the rules
that say you can't make another motion
for the same outcome. You could
certainly make another motion to either
recommend approval or denial uh if you
felt like maybe there was going to be a
different outcome or you can make a
motion to recommend continuence, but at
this point because the applicant has
withdrawn their request for a
continuence,
this body cannot continue it to a future
meeting of this body. So the continuence
would be to council, not to planning
commission.
It would be a recommendation for council
to continue the matter on their own
because council has more authority to
continue matters unilaterally.
Yeah.
Commissioner Gonzalez.
Um I wanted to ask you a question now.
Since they pulled their their their um
continuence,
they said that they didn't want to
continue it. Am I correct in that
understanding?
Mr. Chair, um, Commissioner Gonzalez,
the, uh, reasoning for requesting the
withdrawal of the continuence has to do
with what appears to be the bulk of the
issue centered around many stories.
Okay, that's all I that's all I wanted
to know that you you you
said that you didn't want the
continuence. So now
legal counsel if they don't want a
continuence
why are we saying that we want a
continuence?
Uh Commissioner Gonzalez, I'm not sure
uh I don't know what is being desired at
this point. I'm just indicating what the
rules of procedure allow, which is if
the applicant is not requesting a
continuence, then the planning
commission cannot uh continue this
matter unilaterally. You can make a
recommendation for council to do so, but
planning commission cannot do it itself.
Very good. Thank you for clarification.
I was confused.
Vice Chair, I'll try again.
I'll make a motion for recommendation of
approval to the city council for case 6A
2024. after finding that the zoning text
amendment attachment to exhibit A
staff's draft excluding the warehouse
land use is consistent and conforms with
the adopted general plan.
Second.
Okay, we have a first and a second roll
call vote.
Chair Scarra,
yes.
Vice Chair Young,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
yes.
Commissioner,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
no.
Commissioner Drake,
no. Commissioner Reid.
Yes. Motion passes 5 to two.
Thank you.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time, uh, Miss
Overholzer.
Uh, moving on to item three of the
regular agenda 597 PA 2024-2
accessory dwelling unit text amendment
initiation. Mr. Carr.
Thank you. Is it on? Okay. Thank you and
good evening, Chair Scar Bro, members of
the commission. Um, we're back at it
again here with uh items to address
state legislation. Next, uh up on the
docket is a recently passed legislation,
this uh latest um legislative session
with the state uh related to accessory
dwelling units again.
And during this last legislative
session, um the state legislature
um addressed a cleanup with the ADU bill
that happened uh primarily last year.
This cleanup um addressed a number of
different issues mostly in bulk related
to um the state legislation related to
uh county's regulation of ADUs. But in
addition to those new county regulations
to ADUs, um there was new text added to
clarify how the airport exclusion
related to um uh the city's legislation
um on how we can exclude ADUs adjacent
or near airports. The air exclusion was
revised to now include a 65 decel
threshold in order to determine
eligibility. Anything um with a a sound
level greater than 65 dB would still
remain uneligible. But those properties
uh even though they may be in vicinity
of the airport that have a 65 del or
lower or that are lower than 65 dB in
sound would now become eligible as a
result of the changes to the
legislation.
Um that again as a result has it
dramatically shrinks the exclusion area
for ADUs. Um, if you don't know that 65
uh decibel area is usually just right
around the airport, directly right
around the airport. All other provisions
of the ADU requirements remain intact
from last year. And uh these new
provisions must be adopted by this the
city no later than the end of this year.
Just again quick background of the
legislation from last year that was
House Bill 2720. This added all the
requirements for ADUs um and the
requirement for the city to allow ADUs
to our to our zoning ordinance. All
those standards uh are on the screen. I
won't go through all of them, but the
gist of it is is most properties in the
city are would allow for at least one a
ADU on all all single family properties
uh with the ability in some instances to
increase that to two or three ADUs in
addition to that existing single family
residence on the property. Um there's
also some provisions uh that that
dictates the size of those ADUs as well
as the city not being able to require
fire sprinkers in those ADUs which is in
in conflict with how we typically
address any kind of residential property
or building in the city. Um and that
also that uh that that legislative
language also allows ADUs to be rented
separately from the long from the main
residence on the property as a long-term
rental. those were adopted, those new
provisions last year, late last year,
November 2024.
So, with this update, our approach is
going to be um to simply just change uh
how we approach the um airport exclusion
in our legisl in our zoning ordinance.
That small modification will be again
just very precise to how we address the
65 decel requirement that's now within
the code or will be now within the code.
timeline again is similar to all of our
other text amendments we are initiating
with you tonight and and drafting that
text amendment shortly thereafter. We
will then go out to public outreach in
September and October of this year,
hopefully back to you uh early October
with for a recommendation on that new
proposed text and then finally uh city
council hearing again in November.
So this evening we are requesting
initiation from the planning commission
of this new text amendment to address
this new state legislation
u and all applicable sections of the
code that are required to be updated.
I'm happy to answer any questions you
may have includes my presentation.
Thank you Mr. Carr. Do we have any
questions from the commissioners?
I have a question.
I got it real quick.
Oh, sorry.
Commissioner Gonzalez and then
Commissioner Joiner.
Thank you, Chair. Um
Mr. car. I had a question about now the
attached ADUs
there. They there's still an ADU. Am I
correct? When they're even attached to
the main uh structure.
Chair Scar Bro, Commissioner Gonzalez,
you are correct. ADU could be an
attached or detached structure. So then
but as I far as I remember on the first
passing of this ordinance that structure
did not needed to be struct uh
sprinkled.
Yes, you're again correct. Uh if it's an
ADU u that portion even it was attached
to the main building would not be
required to be sprinklered even if the
main building is still required to be
sprinklered. How how does that work with
our ordinances that we had passed in
what 19 I forget long time ago when they
required the sprinkors that still if you
leave that part of the house because
it's still part of the house although it
has a different entrance way correct is
that what classifies as an ADU
y
then the structure that burns without
the fire sprinkler is offers no
protection for the house that spring
courts. Am I correct in that?
Correct. There there are some building
code requirements uh none of which I'm a
complete expert on, but I have some uh
kind of periphery knowledge of that
would require a fire separation wall
between the two units,
right?
That may help with that. But yes, in
general, the ADU would not be
sprinklered uh or does not be required
to be sprinklered, but the main
residence would be sprinklered even if
they are both attached. How did
when staff interpret this and looked at
this, what was the recommendation of
staff at the time that they saw this?
Because I'm sure it's not a glaring
error on my part.
What was the what was the u construct of
this thought pattern of this? Is it
something that we we're faced that we
have to do no matter if we like it or
not?
Yes,
pretty much. Yeah. and the staff didn't
really have any input on this. Um the
the standards that uh of fire sminkers
are while not totally unique to
Scottsdale are one of the things that
kind of separate us from a lot of
communities. So maybe in drafting this
uh requirements at the state level, they
just didn't really think about those
type of provisions that may be present
here in Scottsdale. Um, but I think
there was a concerted effort on the
drafting of this to maybe limit the cost
by not requiring spirakers, but it puts
it in direct conflict with how we
normally do things here in our building
code and our amendments to the building
code and how we how we have those fire
sprinkers normally in every single
family residence or or residential
building for that matter.
Is there anything
that the city of Scottso can do to kind
of remove this conflict?
Um well short of the state changing
their requirements no we can't uh you
know okay can't go around that
requirement uh that's at the state level
it have to be uh amended at the state
level.
Okay very good thank you sir
thank you commissioner gzal commissioner
joiner
thank you first of all I want to commend
you of doing an absolutely wonderful job
of presenting an absolutely horrific
change to the city of Scottsdale.
Anyway, my comment has to do with our
current policy of uh if a property is
rented,
neighbors to the right and the left and
directly across the street. First of
all, the rental has to have a permit and
neighbors have to be notified when
there's a rental. Does that apply to the
ADUs? Because, you know, these are all
going to be rentals.
Sure. Chair Scarboro and Commissioner
Joiner, I guess maybe a point of
clarification uh real quick. Are you
referring to a long-term rental or
short-term rental?
Any rentals.
Okay. For long-term rentals, there's not
a notification requirement currently.
Um, but if a property were to have a
main residence and perhaps another
building that they wanted to um rent out
separately, that's not permitted
currently. Now, with this new or it
wasn't permitted until the ADU
requirements allowed that, right? So now
with this ADU requirements, they can
rent the main residence and that
separate building as an ADU, two
separate ADUs, and two separate renters
or two separate people. Um, short-term
rental wise, there's still the
notification requirement that is there
presently. But how the short-term rental
side of it works is we we would say
typically that you can't rent out the
short-term two different buildings
separately as different short-term
rentals or even have the main residence
occupied by the owner and the short-term
rental be or the other building be a
short-term rental. That's also changed
with this legislation. It allow now
allows the ma the short the other
ancillary building to be a short-term
rental as long as the property owner
lives at the site. So before both
buildings would have had to been rented
completely as one to uh short-term
rental. That can now change where the
the homeowner can now reside on the site
and have this the this uh ancillary
building be rented separately as a
short-term rental.
But does the notification still apply
and the permitting getting a permit from
the city of Scottsdale?
It does. Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Joiner. Any
other questions for staff?
If no other questions, uh, if anybody
would like to make a motion.
I'm not making it.
Sure.
I'm not making it.
Make a motion to initiate project 597PA
2024
number two for the zoning code text
amendment.
Thank you, Commissioner Hertell. Do we
have a second?
I'll second. Thank you, Vice Chair. Do
we have a first and a second? Roll call
vote, please.
Chair Scarra,
yes.
Vice Chair Young.
Uh, yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
regretfully, yes.
Commissioner Ertell,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
under protest, yes.
Commissioner Drake,
yes.
Commissioner Reid,
yes.
Motion passes 70.
Thank you. I believe that uh closes our
docket for the day. So uh do we have a
motion to adjurnn?
So moved.
Second.
Second.
All in favor?
I
I
We'rejourned.