Planning Commission - May 28, 2025

Okay, I think we're going to get started
here. Welcome to the Scottsdale 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 for or
against approval of the application. The
agenda is going to consist of the roll
call, administrative report, public
comment for non-aggendaized items,
approval of minutes for 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for items that have been withdrawn from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 comment. 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, fill out a yellow
comment card and turn it in at the staff
table over here uh to my right. Before
the item agenda item is to be discussed.
The chair will call your name when it's
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 and 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 at the
podium for timing presentations. The
light will be green for two minutes,
yellow for one, and red for when your
time is up. Please conclude your
comments when the red light appears.
Thank you for your interest in time.
Now, we'll begin the hearing with a roll
call. Chair Scarro,
here. Vice Chair Young here.
Commissioner Gonzalez present.
Commissioner here. Commissioner Joiner
here. Commissioner Higgs
here. All here. Thank you. Great. Thank
you. Um, as you can probably see, uh,
Commissioner Scar Bro is out of town,
but he's joining by phone, and
Commissioner Higgs is also joining by
phone. Um, we'll move on to public
comment, and I don't think we've got any
public comment. Is that right? Correct,
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission.
Uh, no public comment on non-aggendaized
items. Okay. And then we'll move on to
the administrative report then. Yeah,
Mr. Chairman, members of commission,
just wanted to draw your attention to um
some new information regarding item
four, some uh correspondence um dated
May 22nd for item number four, as well
as uh information in front of you um on
item number four regarding um um some
statistics from the economics
development department. So, I just
wanted to make sure that you saw that
again for item number four.
Also in front of you I provided you
um some information u not regarding any
of the agenda items tonight but uh
information about drought planning. This
is something just to get you some basic
information on drought planning. I know
that commissioner till at the last
meeting had talked a little bit about
that. So this is um a starter to um that
uh information gathering and if you um
take a look at this want some more
information certainly uh can continue
providing uh information and planning
commission because uh surely as you make
your decisions uh infrastructure and
resources become uh a topic of
discussion and so this is a piece of
that. So I just wanted to draw your
attention to that. And then lastly, um
we will be having a meeting um scheduled
uh on July, excuse me, June 11th. Our
normal schedule meeting in a couple
weeks. Uh so we do plan on having a
meeting on June 11th. So just want to
let you know. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you. All right. We're moving on to the
minutes of uh May 14th,
2025. Do I have a motion or any comment?
I move to accept the minutes.
Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a
second? Second it. Okay, we have a
second. Can we get a roll call vote,
please? Chair Scar Bro,
yes. Vice Chair Young, yes. Commissioner
Gonzalez, yes. Commissioner, yes.
Commissioner Joiner, yes. Commissioner
Higgs,
yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Uh,
we're going to move on to action items.
How the action agenda works. The
planning commission may take one vote to
act on all items on the continuence
agenda and one vote on all items on the
consent agenda or may remove items for
further discussion as appropriate. The
planning commission takes separate
action on each item on the regular
agenda. Persons interested in commenting
on any item may complete the comment
cards that I mentioned earlier
um and submit to staff. Um I already
mentioned how long you get to speak,
three minutes. Um so we'll move on to
the first item on consent agenda item
number two. Are there any request to
move this item to regular agenda or a
motion? I'll make a motion.
Um, make a motion for recommendation of
approval to city council for case
3A 20224 number two after finding that
the proposed text amendment is
consistent and conforms with the adopted
general plan. I'll second it. All right,
we have a motion and a second. Can we
get a roll call vote, please? Chair
Scarro?
Yes. Vice Chair Young? Yes. Commissioner
Gonzalez? Yes. Commissioner, yes.
Commissioner Joiner. Yes. Commissioner
Higgs,
yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Uh
moving on to the regular agenda. We've
got two cases, uh 6 ZN 2024 and 6TA
2024. Uh so we'll hear a staff
presentation on regular agenda item
three. Tessier. Hi, good afternoon. Um,
good evening um, Commissioner or excuse
me, Chair Scarboro and Vice Chair Young
and planning commissioners. I'm Mayor
Tessie with the planning department and
the case before you tonight is 6 CN 2024
Palm Lane
Residences. The subject site is located
along the northwest corner of North 74th
Street and East Palm Lane as highlighted
in yellow. And you can see that the
surrounding uses include a church to the
north, single family residential to the
east and south, as well as a residential
healthcare facility located on the west
side of this portion of the
parcel. Today, the applicant's
requesting a reszone to reszone the site
from single family residential R17 to
medium density residential R3 to
accommodate a 22 unit residential
development.
Before you is the applicant site plan
where you can see the 22 units laid out
throughout the site. Vehicular access is
going to be provided along both street
frontages, one along North 74th Street
as well as one along Palm Lane. You'll
see that pedestrian um circulation is
enhanced externally to the site as well
as internal to the site. This
application also includes an amenity
building with an associated pool.
before you use the proposed landscape
plan where the applicant is adhering to
the required 35- foot landscape buffer
setback along both street frontages that
will be comprised of mature trees,
desert landscaping which will be applied
throughout the
site. So some key items of
considerations for today's proposal. The
site is in conformance with the
Scottsdale journal plan of 2035. It's
consistent with the southern Scottdale
character area plan. It's a
redevelopment of the property within
Southern Scottsdale. The applicant will
not be requesting any amended
development standards as part of this
application request. They will be
stipulated to underground or remove the
existing overhead power lines that are
located along the northern property
line. They will also be um enhancing
that um street frontage with landscape
buffers of 35 ft again along both street
frontages. And again, city staff has se
re received citizen um input. And as of
um yesterday afternoon and early this
morning, I had to speak with the lady
that had concerns about traffic. So that
concludes staff's presentation. The
applicant is here to provide a full
presentation. And that concludes my
presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Uh
does
anybody up here have any questions?
Okay. I'd like to hear from the
applicant then. Oh, you have a question?
Yes. I'm I'm sorry. I wanted to ask you
a question if you don't mind. You can
answer it when you're sitting down. Uh
so the agreement with the underground uh
power lines that are being put forth in
there it is it just for this development
only will it extend or will is there any
uh cooperation amongst the neighbors to
go ahead and uh secure the rest of the
block for the lines or will they just be
the uprights just in front of the
property line is the ones that are going
to be uh sunk. bunk. Yeah.
Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair
Scarro and Commissioner Gonzalez. My
understanding is that the utility ED
line is to serve this parcel only and
that they'll be um removing this parcel
because they'll I believe the applicant
may speak to this a little bit more
clearly, but um the service is no longer
needed and the improvements will include
updates to these services. So perhaps
that's a question for the applicant to
expand on. Thank you. Exactly. Thank you
very much.
So, for the record, please state your
name and address.
I will do that. And I'll even get this
microphone a little bit lower
here. Um, thanks for bringing my
presentation up, Clayton. For the
record, my name is Lauren Proper Potter,
P. Box 1833, Tempp, Arizona 85280.
I'm here tonight regarding the Palm Lane
Residences project and I will try to
keep this um brief and address some of
the concerns that have been raised. As
you know, I'm always happy to go longer,
but I think in the interest of time, we
can kind of breeze through some of the
overview. So, Meredith covered the
request this evening. Um, it's to
reszone. It would allow a 22 unit for
sale detached dwelling unit development.
There's another parcel that is a part of
the overall development, but it's zoned
R5, so it's not a part of the request
this evening. Um, this is what the site
looks like today. This is a part of the
site. Um, very large parking lot area.
It's a vacant church and school. And
what we're proposing to do here is
transform this site into these uh new
residences in this area. You can see
here's just a couple of the renderings
here.
So this is the project site. You can see
that portion. That's R5. And this kind
of gives you a sense of what's around
it. In addition to those single family
neighborhoods that are separated from us
by the streets, we're sort of on an
island here that contains some other
very similar uses and more intense uses,
frankly. So you can see the zoning um
for the adjacent uh retirement community
is R5. Those are two stories. And then
the PUD zoning is actually another
multif family development. Those are
four stories. Um, and then there's the
adjacent LDS church. So, the
reasonzoning area again is just this
small portion here that's highlighted.
Um, again, the site is in compliance
with the general plan. It's designated
as as as a suburban neighborhood that
would allow up to eight dwelling units
per acre. We're proposing just a hair
under that. So, we're compliant with the
general plan.
um the southern Scottsdale it character
area plan or community area plan I think
it's called both in the document. Um you
can see here that we're just outside of
that Sky Song Regional Center growth
area. And so we think that this is a
perfect site to provide some of that
transitional housing that's not
necessarily mixeduse, high density,
highintensity, but sort of transforms
this infill site into a more appropriate
uh buffer as you will as you start to
transition from those more intense uses
into the single family neighborhoods
that are nearby.
So, just to give you a sense of those
building heights that are on this
portion of the the um this little island
that we're kind of a part of here, the
adjacent LDS church, that's to the
north, that's two stories, two very tall
stories, and they do have a big steeple
outside. Um the retirement community to
the west, that's also two stories. And
then there's that fourstory multif
family development that's directly to
the west as well. And so, here's a
height exhibit. This was as close as I
could get to actually presenting these
to scale, you know, on a PowerPoint
here. But you can see that what we're
proposing, it's actually it's a hair
shorter than the existing retirement
community that's two stories. So, it is
consistent with the heights and it's
actually a lot shorter than what's
nearby. So, it fits in well with the
area and it is again a good transition
as you start to work into those single
family neighborhoods.
Um again, so this just kind of shows you
what the site looks like today. You can
see those taller buildings um from the
site today. And then again, this is a
view of that LDS church. You can This
beautiful tree is in the way, but you
can kind of see the building is pretty
tall. It's elevated from the curb line.
And then they have this big steeple
here. So I think that this project is a
really great example of how you can make
things better with neighborhood
involvement. We're very lucky to have um
Michelle here who's one of the neighbors
directly across the street. She's been
incredibly involved. Sorry to give you a
shout out. She's here in support. She
doesn't want to speak. Um but it's been
a really involved neighborhood process.
So the initial submitt came in a lot
more intense. R5 uh 41 units, so double
the density almost. That's before you
this evening. The units were attached,
so they were more townhouse style. And
then it they were three stories plus a
roof deck. We got a lot of feedback um
that some of these things were not
necessarily
uh consistent with what the neighborhood
was hoping to see on this site and they
wanted to see this project be more of a
transition. So some of the things that
changed significant decrease in density.
We changed the zoning district request
from R5 your most intense residential
district to R3 which is the lowest
intensity multif family district. The
decrease in density is about 45%. So
significant for someone whose perform
was assuming they were going to get, you
know, 40ish dwelling units per acre. So
kind of having what they were planning
on a decrease in height almost in half
from 41 feet to just under uh 25 ft.
Those increased landscape buffers. The
district requires bigger ones. R5 is
obviously a lot less landscaping. So
we've got good landscape buffers on 74th
Street and on Palm Lane. And then there
was some additional guest parking added
as well. So beyond having the density
essentially, we also added more guest
parking. So this project is overparked
by the way. Um so the current submitt
before you today, R3 zoning, 22 dwelling
units per acre. Again, just a hair under
eight dwelling units per acre. So by no
means maxing out the district here. The
units are detached. They'll all have
individual yards, their own private open
space, as well as these beautiful
community amenity areas that you see on
the screen before you. The buildings are
only two stories, and they're going to
be a maximum of 25 ft. So, actually,
they'll be a little bit shorter than
that. Here's just a couple perspectives.
I know we're not doing design review,
but to give you a sense of of what we're
looking at here. Um, and then I just
kind of thought it would be important to
talk about what would be allowed today
by right in the district, what would be
allowed in R3 and what we're limiting
ourselves to. So R17 today would have
allowed 14 units just by right. You
could go in and pull permits for those,
build those houses. They allow a 30 foot
maximum height. R3, obviously you get
the density there. It would allow up to
35 dwelling units on this site. Again,
30 foot maximum height. what we're
proposing here today. Just under eight
dwelling units per acre, 22 units. So
really good in between those things.
Actually closer to the R17 than it is to
the R3 and then a 25 foot maximum
height. So this is by no means one of
those projects where someone comes in
and they're maxing out density. They're
maxing out height. This is a very
appropriately designed project
specifically in uh response to the
neighborhood feedback that we've
received. So and we we did work with
staff. There's a stipulation that limits
the density to 22 dwelling units on the
site. So that will ensure that if this
doesn't happen, someone coming in with
R3 can't just go max out the zoning.
There's going to be a restriction here
that makes sure that whatever
development happens is going to be
transitional as you work into that
single family neighborhood. And then
just a brief note on traffic. The most
recent current use, again it's vacant
today, but it was a church with a
school. significant amount of traffic
trips, right? So, the school daily trips
about 568 for 250 students. The church
daily trips is about 223
um on Sundays. Obviously, they're less
active on weekdays. Housing proposal, a
traditional neighborhood single family
detached housing, which would be allowed
today, would actually generate more AM
and PM peak hour trips, only by one or
two. So, it's not significant. um we
generate a little bit more daily total
trips, but you can see that we're
looking at about the same amount of
traffic with this requested reszoning
and this proposed project versus what
could go in today by right and it's
significantly less than the last use
that was on this very site. So, it
should be a lot less traffic than what
the neighborhood has been experiencing
on this site
historically. And then public benefits
here, I'll just breeze through these.
So, we've got that enhanced landscape
buffer and then there's an additional 9
ft to the back of curb so you get a
little bit extra. Um, it's not on our
property so we don't get to count it,
but the city gets that. Parts of it are
detached. Um, the sidewalk's going to be
increased in size to six feet and there
will be some benches placed uh
strategically throughout those just
right off this sidewalk. Those will be
open to the public. Um, and then also
we're going to be undergrounding those
overhead power lines. And then again,
we're minimizing curb cuts here. We only
have one point of ingress on Palm
ingress and eress. Same on 74th, one
access point versus every single single
family residents would have an access
point for their driveway. So, we think
it makes up for a little bit better um
condition there in terms of stop and go
on the street. Uh here's the landscape
plan. Again, I'll just kind of breeze
through these, but I did put some pretty
pictures. I'm a picture person, so in
case you wanted to just get a little bit
of a flavor for the palette. It will be
very There will be a lot of variety
here. There's going to be dozens of
different shrubs, ground covers,
accents, trees, etc. They'll have some
different colors. They'll all be low
water use, um, drought tolerant native
plants. We have conformance to the
Southern Scottsdale character area plan
and the general plan. Tons of things.
I'd be happy to go through them. I'm
running out of time and I don't think
anyone is that interested in those
things, but if you are, just ask. I'm
happy to do it. Um, and then we have
some great sustainability features as
well. We're reducing the heat island
effect. We're taking a giant parking
lot, putting some residences there. The
homes are going to be solar ready.
They'll have EV charging stations.
They'll be Energy Star rated. And again,
low water use landscaping. So, this is
what we've got today. Not incredibly
attractive. Could definitely use a
little bit of enhancement here. This is
a perfect infill site and this is the
perfect product for it. It's
appropriate. It's responsive to
neighborhood feedback. And this is what
we'd like to transform this site to
today. So, I'll conclude with that.
Thank you all. Great. Thank you very
much for the presentation. Uh, do we
have any questions for the applicant
right now? Commissioner Gonzalez,
thank you. I I'm just considering your
application and looking at it. Uh, what
do you think the profile of the uh the
the occupants might be? Is is it like a
generational type, 20 to 30, 20 uh or
older retirees? you know, because you
mentioned Skyong and the proximity to
it. Are you anticipating getting some of
that residual uh vacancy out of uh
Skyong and moving into these or what
what's exactly is the thinking on this
as far as the profile? Thanks,
Commissioner Gonzalez. It's always hard
to predict, right? You have no idea what
it's going to look like when it when you
know the the product is built. Uh, but
generally I think by the way a little
bit hurt that you categorized anything
over 30 as older, but uh we'll talk
about that
later. I do think so. Each of the units
there's four floor plans and they're
each three bedrooms. So it'd be perfect
for a family. We're super close to the
green belt. We're super close to the
Elorado Park. Great access to school. So
it'd be it'd be perfect for a family.
It'd be perfect for a couple students, a
couple girlfriends who want to live
together and you have room for a home
office. So, I think that you'll see a
wide variety of stuff here. It's not
like student housing, so you won't see,
you know, a bunch of 18-year-olds living
here most likely. Um although certainly
we wouldn't discriminate. That would be
against the law. But um I think
generally it's a neighborhood area and
so you're going to have um you're going
to have those kind of people who want a
it's the suburban character, right? So
people who are looking for a more mellow
environment will tend to settle here.
Okay. And so then the v variety of
bedroom type models that you're
anticipating two and three bedrooms or
just strictly three bedrooms. Do you
know as far as the count for the 21? I
do know 22 units. 22. Thank you. Yes,
Commissioner Gonzalez. They're all going
to be three bedrooms. So the the floor
plans vary in size by a couple hundred
square feet. So you don't just have kind
of the same box planted everywhere.
You'll have some nice variety in the
facades and stuff like that and the
sizes. Um, but they'll all be three
bedrooms and they all have two-car
garages, by the way. Yeah, that was my
next question is, um, okay, are they
tandem spots or side by side? As far as
the garage, Commissioner Gonzalez, the
garages are side by side and then
there's also, um, I believe 10 uh,
parking spaces that are u standard and
then three accessible spaces as well.
So, there's 13 guest spaces, so almost a
guest space per unit, which is in excess
of the code, one per six. I see. And
then
um without getting too deep away from
the particular zoning, do you anticipate
a um a start point of construction on
this? Oh, excellent question. Um
Commissioner Gonzalez, so we still have
to go to council and DRB and then uh the
gauntlet that is the building
department. So though that typically
runs about a year or so, but the the
team is ready to go as soon as we've got
permits. So I think you could expect
construction to start maybe in the next
like year and a half permit depending.
Okay. Very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Start here. Okay. Commissioner Joiner,
thank you for the presentation. You did
a great job.
Um, you know, I want to know about the
lighting. So, how is the lighting going
to be handled? The exterior lighting for
uh the surrounding area. Yes. Thanks,
Commissioner Jenner. I was running out
of time and I was like, that's okay. I
gave you the glad you asked. Yes, thank
you. U, so the lighting will all be dark
sky compliant. That's a requirement, but
it's also, you know, something that I
think people who live in Arizona take
pride in our views, even if we're, you
know, more urban now than we've ever
been. So, there's um only required
lighting in terms of what goes on the
drive aisle. There's just a handful of
those. They all have shields. They're
restricted in their output. Um the city
has lumen requirements. They also so
that that's intensity and color that
they regulate. So, none of those purple
lights you see driving down Phoenix
streets will make sure we don't have
that. And then all of the building
mounted lighting, they're just
essentially sconces. They'll all be um
pointing downward and they're they're
shielded on all sides. So, those will be
very um downward directed. Okay. Thank
you. Thank you. Um, I love the fact that
you're going to hide the or bury the
power lines and the landscaping buffer
for this size of a a property I think is
very generous. Um, I think this is a
perfect um use to comply with some of
the laws that have been forced on us uh
for housing and I think it's going to be
a real enhancement to that part of town.
Uh, and the fact that they're detached I
think is very special as well. So, I'm
very much in favor of this project.
Thank you, Commissioner Joiner.
Commissioner Artell.
Thank you, sir. Um, I guess more of a
comment. Um, but building off of what
Commissioner Gonzalez had said. Um, you
know, he was interested in who is the
market for this.
Um, Commissioner Joiner said, you know,
this is a good use that complies with U.
laws I think that you said have been
forced upon us. Um, her words, not mine.
Um, I'm
concerned, but it's none of my business,
but I'm concerned about the price. I
mean, I
I I'm not sure what it actually is
because I you gave me the number of 350
per square feet, I believe, and I worked
it out at home and I come up with a
different number here, but still it
seems to be um priced high for the
market, but again, that's not my
business.
Um, you know, I hope that you can sell
them. Um, I think it is a good project
for the neighborhood. I think it does
look good. I think it is it is good for
the neighborhood. Certainly good for
Scottsdale.
Uh is there any comment that you can
make on
um you know what the market niche is in
terms of economics? Commissioner tell
I'm a lawyer. I got a comment for
everything. So I'm happy to respond.
Um you know I thought you weren't going
to say Commissioner Ertel.
Oh that's right. We'll keep that between
us. Um, so, you know, like you, we hope
they sell, right? Um, I think if you
looked at what's for sale in the
neighborhood in terms of single family
product, the the price per square foot
is similar to what we're projecting.
It's just that these are a lot bigger.
Those those houses are older. So, um,
but I, you know, I think the area lends
itself well. There's houses that have
been selling in there for 600 $700,000
range. Um, I think it's it's an area
that's rife for this kind of housing
option. So, I think choices are great.
Um, and to your point, the market will
dictate. We certainly hope that we've
hit the right product, the right market,
the right time. A lot of it is luck. Um,
but I know that there are a lot of
people getting priced out of Scottsdale.
So, I appreciate your comment. Um, I
think that products like this offer a
good range for people. I think they're
an enhancement to the neighborhood and
they kind of fit uh they fit for what is
happening here. So, is everything going
to be in this price point in this
neighborhood for all time and eternity?
Highly unlikely. But I think it's just a
diversity of housing option uh that will
enhance everyone's property values.
How will the um uh the clubhouse, I
don't think you called it a clubhouse,
but I will. How is that going to be
operated and maintained?
Commissioner Tell, you're correct. It's
I didn't call it a clubhouse thing. I
called it an amenity area. Um I think
that everything will be FOB access
control. Is
Got it. That's right. So there will be
an HOA. Thank you for reminding me. Um
so because they're going to be for sale,
there's going to be the whole condo plat
everything. There's going to be an HOA.
And so uh but I I suspect FOBs, but
anyone who's lived in an HOA knows that
they're very particular about how they
manage stuff. Um so it'll be controlled
by that entity. Okay. Thank you very
much. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank
you. Um, let me just ask Commissioner
Scar Bro or Commissioner Higs, I know
you're on the phone. Did you either of
you have any questions?
Yeah. Um, I have a just a comment, uh,
if that's okay. Yep. Go ahead. Um, I I I
do like, um, that you have called out
the fact that this is the Energy Star
qualified homes. We don't see that very
often anymore, even if they are. But it
seems that there's a shift in in
people's interest levels around the
sustainability efforts being put into um
buildings, residential or commercial.
So, it's nice to see that. Um along
those lines and also seeing, you know,
everything that ties into that and the
EV chargers um uh and uh the list that
you had on there that's bas basically a
little more eco-friendly with the build.
um the people that tend to be in general
attracted to that as well as the
proximity of the location and close to
the path and and not too far from you
know the city if you will in uh
Scottsdale or Tempe. Um, from the work
that that I do with SRP, we have
different personas. And this perfectly
aligns with the the persona or the
segmentation of those that are um
younger um couples or individuals that
are um really entrenched in their
careers, maybe not necessarily families
yet. Just taking a guess at those that
are going to be interested in these for
for those that were were curious. And
the the age ranges between like 35 to 44
for that particular segmentation. I
could totally see those, you know, those
young working couples that are want to
be close to everything and are
eco-friendly, eco-minded. Um, it seems
like it would be a good fit for that.
Just just my perspective for what it's
worth. Thank you, Commissioner Higs.
Commissioner Scar Bro, do you have any
comment?
I do. Thank you, Vice Chair. Uh, could
you please show us exactly where the
overhead electrical lines are that are
being proposed to be uh undergrounded?
Absolutely. Commissioner Scarra, bear
with me just one moment
here. Trying to see if I have a photo of
them. So, the lines are they're actually
along the uh northern property line
here. So, if you are looking at this
site, it's where the pink line from the
LDS church to the north and the green
line outlining our subject site kind of
touch.
Okay. So, the lines are along 74th
Street then, perpendicular to 74th
Street.
Okay, Commissioner. Yes. Thank you.
Perfect. Thank you. Uh overall, I I like
this proposal. I think it's a a nice uh
buffer between the R17 uh and the higher
density uses to the west. Uh I like the
fact that the overall height is better
than allowed and will be stipulated to
that. So, I think that's great. I like
that the density proposed is much closer
to the R17 as well. So, uh I think this
is a a nice project for the area and I
think it has a a nice buffering effect,
if you will. So, I'm supportive of this
project and thank you. Thank you, Chair
Scarra. Thank you.
Um there any more questions or comments?
You have one. Go ahead, Commissioner
Gonzalez. Thank you very much. Um, do
you know if there's going to be any deed
restrictions on this property as as far
as rentals concerned? Commissioner
Gonzalez, I'm I'm glad you asked. I do
know uh there will be. So, the plan it
it's a little dicey the way that we have
worked with the city attorney's office
in the past to I've worked on other
projects that we've done similar things.
So, when the condo plat comes through,
we add language to the plat that just
says, "Hey, we're going to be recording
CCNRs in in conjunction with this
project." And those CCNRs are going to
have a number of restrictions. They're
going to talk about common area
maintenance. They're going to talk about
rental term restrictions. They'll talk
about how dues or whatever. So, we kind
of put it, we sneak it on the plat
essentially that way because we're in a
situation where the city can't require
it, but we are making a commitment to
that we are going to restrict the rental
terms here to 30 days, not less than 30
days. So, the CCNR documents then which
are cued on the plat. So, that's
recorded. the CCNRs, which will also be
recorded. Um, but the city doesn't weigh
in on those as much. Those will have a
minimum 30-day rental term.
Um I I when I studied the area and I've
been I know this area a little bit over
the years uh when the act actually
actually when the churches were more
active and um the the
um the um Latterday Saints church that
rents out their their civic areas for
different organizations and things of
that nature. they're trying to generate,
you know, whatever income they can do
over there. Uh it's been a pretty quiet
underused area for quite some time. And
so, you know, I I've liked the idea of
putting something there that is just
like you say, one big parking lot. And
that should work pretty well. My main
concern is obviously because and there
has been some feedback over the years,
not anybody in particular, but over the
years because of the BNBs and the
different types of uh rental exchange
and ownership changes in the area that
there is some concern for for the area
and having that happen. That's why I'm
asking if the deed restriction might
include something like the 30-day notice
or 30 their 30-day usage and stuff like
that. So, I'm glad to hear that you guys
are going to go ahead and move forward
with that so that the the neighbors can
be assured that it's not going to be
bunch of party houses in there.
Although, you know,
it's those size lots are obviously not
going to contribute much to that at all
because of the closeness and the
proximity. But one thing I do see is
more seniors actually engaging in that
area because they want to stay in that
area. If you go over to the Granite Reef
Senior Center, I think there's a lot of
people there that would like to move in
the area that have not been able to move
in that area because of, you know, cost
and the you can you almost pay that much
money for a house that was built in
1956. So, uh, I think your market's
good. If you can bring that in at $350 a
square foot, good luck. And I'm I'm glad
to hear it. But, uh, I think I'll
support this proposal as it's stated
right now. Thank you. Thank you,
Commissioner. Okay. Uh, well, I probably
shouldn't have given Commissioner
Gonzalez a chance to ask that question
because that was my question about
short-term rentals. Um, would you like
me to answer it again, Vice Chair? It's
okay. I think we got same answer. We got
that worked out.
Um, I mean, I would say that this
project checks a lot of boxes and I
think that, uh, you know, listening to
the neighbors, reducing the height,
reducing the density, the various site
improvements that you're doing with the
power lines and the landscaping,
um, I I think it'd be a wonderful
addition to the area. Um, we got one
request to speak and then she wrote uh,
doesn't want to speak, but it's in
support of the project. So, it sounds
like your neighbors that you've spoken
to um their their voices have been heard
and you've listened to to to their
concerns and adapted the project uh to
to kind of fit the area and kind of have
a win-win for everybody. So, um with
that, um if there's no more questions, I
think we're ready for a motion if uh I
can I can make that motion. Okay. M
commissioner
make a motion for recommendation of
approval to city council for case
6ZN 2024 per the staff recommended
stipulations after finding that the
proposed zoning district map amendment
is consistent and conforms with the
adopted general plan. Do I second it and
a second? Could we get a roll call vote,
please?
Chair Scar Bro?
Yes. Vice Chair Young? Yes. Commissioner
Gonzalez, yes. Commissioner Ertell, yes.
Commissioner Joiner, yes. Commissioner
Higgs,
yes. Motion passes. Thank you.
All right. Uh, moving on to our last
agenda item number four. Miss Tessier's
been busy indeed with two cases today.
That's right. Good evening once again,
Chair Scarra, Vice Chair Young,
commissioners again, Mayor Tessier with
the planning department, and the case
before you tonight is 6ta 2024 CO
internalized community storage
facilities text amendment. Can you hear
me? Okay, I I got
you. Tonight, the applicants are
requesting to amend the zoning ordinance
land use table to allow internalized
storage facilities, warehouse, and
vehicle storage as a permitted use
within that CO zoning district. Please
note that this proposed text amendment
will not only apply citywide, but also
to the Catalyst site located at 101
North 92nd Street.
The 2035 general plan promotes
development patterns that conserve land
uses and support business expanses
expansions, excuse me, and emphasizes
the importance of maintaining
rehabilitation, existing employment
centers to provide new job opportunities
and support communities long-term um
prosperity.
Some of the goals of the zoning legisl
legislation include the implementation
of the general plan, create a uniform
regulatory scheme applicable throughout
the city, and amendment should be
consistent with the overarching planning
policies with respect to all properties
located within that applicable zoning
district. So what is the intent of the
commercial office district? The purpose
is to provide an an environment
desirable for and conducive to the
development of office and related uses.
And those uses can contribute to
employment and generate daytime activity
and office synergy
synergy. Here we have an exhibit that
highlights the existing commercial
office districts throughout the city of
Scottsdale. As you see highlighted in
blue, this equals to approximately 683
parcels throughout the city. And then
the red parcel is the catalyst site that
we're discussing today as
well. So today's applicant is proposing
to amend the commercial office zoning
district to allow internalized community
storage facilities with accessory
vehicle storage and the existing above
grant um parking garage as well as
warehouse. Again, the objective is to
convert that existing office building to
the Catalyst site into an internalized
community storage facility, accessory
vehicle storage, and warehousing along
the perimeter of the
site. Additionally, the excuse me, let
me go back one more time. The applicants
proposing a land use criteria that
limits qualifying parcels to those that
have um 8 acres, an existing above
ground parking garage, and existing
buildings that are maximum 30 ft in
height. The applicant's presentation
will go into detail of the specific land
use
criteria. The applicant has identified a
site located within the city of um
Phoenix um industrial district where you
see um an office was recently converted
into an internalized community storage
facility. Along the perimeter of that
site was also some warehousing that was
installed. And let me just kind of hover
my mouse over that. And then this site
also included an enclosed six-ft tall
rot iron fence. As you can see in this
in the photos depicted, it appears to be
a more of an industrial type use and
more conducive to a district such as I1
or C4. So more of an industrial
commercial type use
district. So the proposed text amendment
has strict criteria that only applies to
a few parcels while zoning legislative
typically applies broadly to many
properties within the zoning district.
The amendment introduces irregularity
into the zoning code by allowing land
uses and development standards that are
not particularly consistent with the
intent of an office district. Storage
facilities do not contribute job
density, food, foot traffic, not food,
and economic synergy in an otherwise
office oriented environment. The
amendment proposed by the applicant
appears to be also crafted to be
benefiting only one specific parcel and
not addressing a matter of broad public
interest. So, it's not necessarily um um
an impact
citywide. Here we have um a zoning um
exhibit of the catalyst site that's
located at 92nd Street in East Mountain
View as highlighted in red. As you can
see, the surrounding uses are medical
office, office, retail, and then
multifamily to the south.
So currently this um zoning district
already permits internalized community
storage facilities in zoning districts
better suited for low intensity uses
such as the C4 and I1 zoning districts.
These zoning districts currently allow
this use and are more compatible to the
surrounding uses and overall context
within that area. Currently, the zoning
um code allows internalized community
storage facilities within approximately
4,149 parcels, vehicle storageages
within um parcels of equate to
2577 and warehouses within
2,654 parcels. Here's an exhibit that
kind of reflects those numbers that I
just discussed. So this left exhibit
again is um depicting um internalized
storage facilities allowed within C1,
C2, C3, C4, I1, PNC, and PCC districts,
which equates to that 4,149 parcels. Um
vehicle stoages are allowed within the
C3, C4, and I1 zoning districts, which
again equates to that
2577 parcels. And lastly, we have the
warehouse use which is allowed within
the C3, C4, I1, and IG zoning districts,
but equates to, excuse me, the
2,654
parcels. So, some key items of
considerations for today's request. The
commercial office district is again
intended to promote an environment
desirable for uh conducive to the
development of office and related uses.
um the economic development impact and
long-term viability of those office
districts. The zoning code amendments
typically um address citywide land use
concerns and encourage specific land
uses that are lacking
citywide. Um multiple commercial and
industrial zoning districts located
throughout the committee already exist
to accommodate the proposed storage
uses, warehouses, and vehicle storage.
Um the catalyst site for this text
amendment is very sight specific
location versus a city-wide impact and
then the proposed storage generates less
traffic but reduces the daily activity
that uh promotes an office environment
in district. Um lastly, staff has
received both support and opposition to
this request. I'll conclude my
presentation with the staffer
recommendation side which states that
staff recommends that the planning
commission find that the zoning text
amendment is inconsistent with the
purpose of the commercial office zoning
district could neg negatively impact the
land use compatibility is contrary to
the goals and policies outlined with the
general plan and make a recommendation
of denial to the city council. So that
concludes staff's presentation. And
again, the applicant has prepared a full
presentation that I'll walk you through
that land use table update as well as
the use criteria conditions that are
associated with these um permitted uses
that they're proposing. Thank you, Ms.
Uh do we have any questions for staff at
this time? I do.
Come back. Come back. Come back. Oh,
okay. Commissioner Joiner. Um I have a
question about um how we got to a text
amendment versus just an approval on a
specific
application. Um and I know you and I
talked about it and I've talked to the
applicant about it as well. Um is it
possible, maybe this is a question for
the attorney, can we we have a
recommendation of denial.
Can we make a recommendation of approval
of this application but not the text
amendment? Uh, Commissioner Joiner, if I
understand the question correctly, I
believe the application is specifically
for a uh zoning ordinance text
amendment. So, I don't know that we
could necessarily go change the nature
of the application. That's what I needed
to know. Thank you,
Commissioner. Could you differentiate
between um uh comm I think it was called
community storage and warehousing? Um
warehousing to me sounds like Amazon.
Um I realize
there's space in between. But what does
would would this text amendment allow
for a Amazon type warehouse? You know, a
Mac type warehouse.
Uh so chair scar bro and commissioner
hotel the difference between the two we
have internalized community storage
facility which is um one structure where
all the storage is located within so
vehicle you have to use a vehicle to go
internal to the site to then access your
unit unlike a warehouse where it's more
so of a drive up unit with a garage door
concept. So you see the garage door
externally versus internally. But didn't
this include
warehousing this text amendment
proposal? So to your point, the um text
amendment and and Caroline can expand on
this is that the warehouse is ancillary
to the internalized community storage
facility. So the primary use is
internalized community storage facility
whereas the ancillary uses or the
vehicle storage and warehouse. And
again, she'll kind of go through that
detail for you within the um criteria
set forth in her conditions for the
site. Okay. But yeah, to just I think to
receate what you just said, no Amazon's
it would be
um you know, whatever warehousing,
correct? Because Amazon's more of a
distribution type use. Warehousing here
is more of a garage, correct? Than it is
a in my mind warehouse. Correct.
Um so could negatively impact land use
compatibility.
Uh okay right now it's what um an empty
building.
Um the negative impact would be loss of
potential
uh foot traffic and business um traffic.
Maybe I just don't see that as a
negative, but if you could clarify a bit
what is negative about this,
Chair Scarville, Vice Chair, and
Commissioner Tell, Tim Curtis here. The
um the issue isn't so much of the
catalyst site. The text amendment um as
outlined in the presentation and in the
staff report identified the purpose of
the commercial office district. Um and
there's a lot of commercial office
zoning districts throughout the city and
um it hadn't been contemplated
previously that the internalized
community storage, the warehouse and the
vehicle storage would be a compatible
use um with all of the different zoning
districts that have commercial office.
Now, the applicant um is proposing some
specific criteria that perhaps could
limit the impacted properties or the
properties that would qualify for this
land use. And she'll walk you through
that. Um but the concern that staff has
had is that overall when you look at the
intent of office employment districts
with the synergy among each other and
the vehicle traffic supporting um the
surrounding commercial areas as well as
synergy with the office environment that
introducing
um a um what I would probably call for
lack of a better term a dead space of
just dead storage with um the occasional
um person coming in and out to retrieve
their storage goods or putting something
back into the storage um isn't conducive
and therefore negative to the intent of
an office district with an employment
focus uh and an employment synergy.
Okay. Thank you.
All right. Uh Commissioner Gonzalez, do
you have question or comment?
Um, I guess I don't know who to direct
this question to, but the the the
problem that I have with it because it's
a text
amendment, maybe some people don't have
a problem with that, but I do. When you
start changing and and doing and
fiddling around with text amendments,
it's so broad that you're impacted by
things that you just don't normally
foresee in the future. And that's where
I'm at right now. Having a little bit of
problem
with the uh text amendment is I think in
this case a little bit too broad. I
would rather see the application just
feature the the property in discussion
rather than trying to amend the whole
text amendment on this. I didn't I'm not
saying it's not legal. I'm not saying
anything to that. It just that I wish it
wasn't so inco broad and encompassing of
a lot of different
features. So the I guess the main issue
is is that if you foresee some like on
main topic is a lot of vehicle uh
infrastructure vehicle storage
facilities are popping up in the city.
My my my problem with that is is because
I am familiar with how these structures
work and some of them uh some of the
owners are very good at what they do.
They warehouse
uh cars that are worth more than the the
property they're in. And uh that's a
good thing. And you don't see them
changing oil and doing things and
working on cars and things of that
nature.
It can be a fire issue for the marshall,
but that's not my perview. But the thing
of it is it's so broad that I'd like to
see this more on an application uh per
ownership brought forward rather than a
broad overall uh text amendment.
I guess the the most important thing to
me is just to keep the residential areas
safe and uh and although even classic
cars and things like that
uh normally are are are good for storage
areas, but I can even at at this recent
time in the last 30 days there's been
two vehicle fires within these type of
establishments and they've all they've
barely escaped having a a major issue.
in these areas and these are industrial
areas in the air park. So in other
words, maybe what I'm trying to do is
try try to be more sightsp specific
about the applications and rather than
having a broad text amendment towards
it.
Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Uh
Commissioner Scar Bro or Commissioner
Higs, do you have any questions or
comments?
Nothing from me. Thank you, Commissioner
Scarro. I do. Yes, I do. Uh, Miss
Tessier, uh, was a reszone path
considered for this case?
Thank you, Chair Scarro. So, if we were
to consider a reszone, we'd have to have
the applicant um, submit an application
so staff can do that analysis and then
do the proper notifications to the
public and required postings as
necessary to explore the avenues of a
reszone case.
Just out of curiosity, uh, just for
staffing to have time to review and and
consider it from a reszone perspective,
how much time would staff
need just internally to review it from a
reszone perspective?
Uh, thanks, Chair Scarro. I mean, it's
um it's it's hard to target a hard date
how long that takes. After all, we would
need to take into consideration um
public comments and concerns. they need
to do the outreach open ho houses, but
we tend to say six to eight months,
possibly longer depending on the um
community um feedback on that on that
application process, but also staff's
analysis on finding a district that's um
um compatible with the catalyst site.
Okay. So there isn't a path here for
sort of a a redirect from a a broad text
amendment approach to a reszone sight
specific approach other than refiling
the application as a reszone while they
pause the the text amendment correct yes
chair scarbo that's correct
okay thank you uh vice chair that's all
I have for right now all right thank you
um if there's no further questions we'll
have a presentation by the applicant
Thanks to you all and Meredith. I might
need help queuing this
up.
Um, Mr. Chairman, uh, vice chair,
commissioners, thank you for your
records. My name is Carolyn over
Holtzer. I'm a land use attorney with
Bergen Frank Smiley and Overberholtzer
at 4343 East Camelback here on behalf of
the Catalyst property owner. Um, given
the nature of the staff recommendation
of denial and the dialogue back and
forth, I'm going to try to hurry through
my presentation, but if the chair um and
the commission would indulge me in extra
time, I think we might benefit from it
to get through all of your questions.
Um, you can let me know as we go. We'll
have some time to to for you to answer
questions. So, do you need more than 10
minutes? I think I might just How much
how much longer? Maybe 12 minutes. 12
minutes additional. 12 total total.
Okay. I I think that would be fine.
Thank you. Okay. That was a big that's a
big ask. Didn't want to exp well my I
don't want to overstay my welcome. Um so
I I just um want to hit on a few
things and then come back to some of the
questions I heard which is out of the
order of of how I kind of thought I was
going to do this. But um I uh I've
worked for the development team in other
sites uh around the state. And uh one of
them was the office conversion that
Meredith um showed to you all. I've also
done a lot of new development with this
team. And when they called me about this
site, I didn't have to do a whole lot of
research because I have lived in this
area for 20 years. I live at the corner
of 96 the Mountain View. I've driven
past this site thousands and thousands
of times, so I knew it very well. Um,
and what I've al always thought when I
drive past it is how interesting that
there's that parking garage there. It's
on Mountain View. It's so odd to see a
parking garage and not a really big
office with it. Um, and what I saw with
this parking garage is what you see on
the 92nd Street view, which is if you
blink, you will miss it. The the
frontage on 92nd Street is a very small
office window um, in terms of the
adjacency to that street. And it wasn't
until I started working on this project
that I realized there's a 115,000 square
foot building back there. And that
office um, has not been occupied for a
number of years. And there have not been
cars parked in that garage for a number
of years. And I have frequented in those
number of years the location that is on
the car hard corner that's uh blurred
out on on the left but is shown in the
aerial which is where Smile imaging is.
Now they have all their own parking.
That garage on our site is totally
separate from them. Um, one of the
materials that was received late on this
project on Friday was uh an email of
emphatic support from that adjacent
property owner to the text amendment.
And um I don't know if you have it in
your packet, but what they said is given
the persistently high office vacancy
rates in our area, this amendment
provides a logical and efficient
solution. The converging of conversion
of aging office spaces into self-s
storage facilities is a low impact
alternative that directly addresses the
evolving needs of the community. It
helps avoid unnecessary demolition,
extends the useful life of existing
structures, and generates significantly
less daily traffic compared to
traditional office uses. I couldn't have
said it better. Um, the struggle in this
area is as Meredith showed you guys is
there is an abundance of commercial
office zoning. and abundance. There is
not an abund ab abundance of alternate
uses within the commercial office
district to go to if office is not the
sustainable use for that district. And
so what this shows you is that in the
city of Scottsdale currently there are
seven other districts that currently
permit internalized community storage
which again is that inside self storage
and I'll get into the details of the
vehicle and warehouse in just a moment.
Um which are under this and that's why
you have the extra P's. Um but we we
just added this as this use is permitted
now in this district to give these land
owners with high vacancy rates an option
for conversion. And so what we started
with um to the chair's question about
was a reasonzoning considered? It was.
And we looked at these alternate
categories and what might we go to in
this location that would be both
compatible and facilitate this use. And
we couldn't find a good answer. um IG
industrial garden is what this had been
historically in the original McCormack
Ranch uh PCD and that doesn't allow this
use. So that would also require a text
amendment and a reszone. Um we also
structured our initial request as
including a conditional use permit. So
instead of going the permitted with
conditions route, which is where we are
tonight, we had originally proposed a
conditional use permit. In fact, we even
had that use permit presented in our
neighborhood meeting a few months ago.
So to the chair's question of you know
another route I think that is something
that it was an option available to us.
We went away from that trying to address
staff comments um concerned with that
approach but we did have this evolution.
We've had a very collaborative working
relationship with staff. I don't often
find myself in a situation recommending
denial. I don't like it. So we really
have tried to find the best path
forward. Um and so this is why we're
here. Uh the the thing I think that is
also important to see here I just said
there's not a whole lot of uses that you
can do in office. So in red here shows
um a lot of the uses that are permitted.
Well this this table as a whole shows
you every single co use that is allowed
every single one. And then the where the
squares are the uses we're trying to
add. So you can see this that there are
only 17 permitted uses compared to
there's a 100 non-residential uses in
the zoning ordinance. Now also of note
on this is the green line. So that is
again that line showing internalized
community storage and that it is a
permitted use already in seven other
districts. Now down below that you see
the office district. Office is one of
the most ubiquitous uses permitted in
the Scottsdale non-residential zoning
categories. It's allowed almost
everywhere, almost as frequently as
municipal uses, schools, churches,
daycarees, wireless facility. Those are
those other uses that are nearly
ubiquitous. So to say that office, we're
losing an opportunity by allowing this
to convert to another use. There's
literally thousands of office um able
parcels in the city currently and could
be in the future. In fact, in that
adaptive reuse text amendment, I know
was forced on all of the cities, but the
one that you guys adopted tonight in
that staff report, it references that
there are over 4,000 commercial office
and mixeduse parcels in the city. I
think Meredith's presentation also
showed you that there's over 4,000
parcels in the city that allow office.
So the commercial office owners have a
unique problem because there's enormous
competition in the city because the city
has made it so that office isn't
funneled to any one category. It is
really allowed almost everywhere. So
we're struggling how do we find the next
identity for this? We've talked about
the vacancy rates. I won't belabor this
point. I think staff's given you
feedback on it. Um I know you've got a
supplemental report. We don't disagree.
It's citywide. it's, you know, somewhere
around 15 to 16% vacancy, but in the
large footprint, which this building is,
it's much higher than that. It's much
closer to 30%. If you capture the Salt
River Indian community, it's more like
38%. So, the history just as the
catalyst site, just for a framework, is
that this was 100% occupied in 2014 at a
time when it sold for $24 million.
Two months into the pandemic, it sold
again for 19.2. And that tenant didn't
return to work, but they did carry out
their lease, but it was formally vacated
in terms of both lease and occupancy in
2022. The then owner demoed the
interior, trying to um make it so shell
space and be open to any number of
medical office uses. No traction. So, it
ultimately sold again in 2023 for $8
million. It is a struggling parcel and
it is not alone. I think we we can skip
this um in the interesting time and come
back to it. But this again is market
data to show that there is sustained
high vacancy. And again, the bigger
point is what does that yield? That
yields breakins. That yields crime. Um
there's a lot of community support. You
see letters in your packet speaking to
we don't want this blighted property. We
like a place to store our stuff nearby.
Most of these homes are older inventory
from the 80s. McCormack Ranch,
Scottsdale Ranch. We've got twocar
garages. We have to place our things in
storage units. I've had a storage unit
for the last 15 years. I don't envision
a time where I won't. Um I'm not
acquiring anything less in spite of my
kids moving out. So I, you know, having
something close to home where you can
put your things and I've also gotten
calls from neighbors saying, "I'm a
snowbird. I have a carport at my condo.
I'd love a safe place to store my
vehicle." So this will reoccupy the site
with uses for both the community and
area businesses. This is the historic
zoning. We don't need to go through
that, but here's the CO concentration.
We are in a sea of CO. There is an
abundance of this zoning district in
this location. And in Meredith's map,
you saw that there is probably the
highest concentration of CO as a
district in this location in this area
by the hospital. And so this is
something as a city I think you want to
take a macro look at. How can we help
these CO property owners reinvest in
their buildings, reoccupy them if this
oppus vacancy is never going to turn
around? But the great thing is that if
it does, internalized community storage
is an application within an existing
facade that is very easy to convert
back. The most common adaptive reuse for
office in the valley is residential. And
you see that play out in the legislature
in the Texas amendment tonight. Multif
family residential is the pressure for
converting office. But that requires a
whole lot more demolition, a whole lot
more disruption, and you really aren't
going back once you do that.
But you can convert internalized
community storage back to office if you
would ever want to. These land owners
are trying to make this property
economically viable and an asset to the
community. And if there's a higher and
better use in the future that would
convert it back to office, it would
certainly be entertained and it wouldn't
be prohibited. Um, adaptive reuse is
supported by the city's general plan.
And so we landed on this permitted with
conditions approach. As I said earlier,
we started with a conditional use
permit, but staff wanted to or
encouraged us through collaboration. We
took the hint that maybe we should
suggest conditions that would both limit
this but also be rational and connected
to um the why which is adaptive reuse.
Fundamentally, this broad application
can take a micro approach even though it
is in the form of a text amendment. um
we have created very um objective
criteria. It's acreage. It's that it has
to have an existing above ground parking
structure and that's because we have
these this space with this unused
parking structure and we want to
reutilize it and there is demand for the
vehicle storage. Historically, it's been
used for vehicle storage whether it's
for office workers or it's a snowbird
that's leaving their car for the for the
summer.
that structure can be repurposed under
this text amendment for that use. And
then it also uh establishes a height
limit. I think there was an error in the
presentation. It's 36 feet that um this
establishes the limit for that is to
encourage that office buildings higher
than two stories would not um convert to
this use. Again, trying to limit the
amount of um locations that are eligible
for this. Although it's it's not an
issue for us. That's just something to
address comments we heard. And then it
also requires that locations um have any
loading and unloading areas be screened.
Now to the specific questions about both
vehicle storage and warehousing. This
would be permitted only as accessory to
the internalized community storage. This
is not a separate allowable use. It has
to be on the same parcel. If you use the
vehicle storage for storage, it cannot
be to the detriment of the otherwise
required parking calculation for the
main structure. So this is purely for
excess parking that is not necessary for
the main use. It is limited to passenger
vehicles and again it requires screening
treatments um for anything that's
visible from the exterior and requires
DRB approval. Now the warehouse
component is simply to allow for those
drive up garages. Those garages would be
placed on the exterior. Got two. Do I
have two minutes? That was the full 12.
That was the full 12. Well, this is the
last. If you can wrap it up in next
minute or so, that'd be that'd be fine.
Thank you. Thank you very much. So, this
um details all of the restrictions on
the accessory use to internalized
community storage. It also limits the
amount of building area that can be
devoted to this use to 30%. Again, the
idea here is now you have excess parking
fields, excess asphalt, and this is
converting that into garage spaces
instead of
asphalt. It also provides for screening.
Um, the eligible properties, if you
apply this criteria, staff gave me a
list of 600 and something. We went
through every single one of them.
It's hard to say whether or not there's
any other properties that um are
squarely consistent with the that would
fit within the criteria. There is a
building on Double Tree that appears to.
However, we did not evaluate the height
of that building and it might be a
little taller than 36 feet. So, um just
full disclosure, I don't know the height
of that building and it might cut that
one out. Um and with that, I'm I've got
graphics uh of our DRB submittal that go
with this. Um, and I'll just leave it
with the traffic because I do live in
the area and that's all people talk
about in Scottsdale Ranch and McCormack
Ranch in this corridor is traffic,
traffic, traffic. And we will be
reducing traffic by over 4,700 trips per
day if that office building were ever
occupied at a full occupancy. That is
the significance of that reduction. Um,
and once upon a time it was that. And
this um reduction of trips is also um
important because it's it's also for the
community and this is not a a use that
belongs in industrial area. I personally
don't want to go to a storage facility
in an industrial area. I'd like to go
get my Christmas decorations in a nicel
looking office building like this and
not have to go to an industrial area.
And as I mentioned earlier, this use is
already permitted in seven zoning
districts. and all of those overlap with
districts that also permit office. These
uses coexist together all over the city.
And I'm happy to answer any questions
that you have. All right. Thank you.
Um, we're probably going to have some
questions for you. Figured. Commissioner
Tell, correct me if I'm wrong, but
didn't your client have a project right
up the road and on 92nd Street at 92nd
Street in Shay? Uh, some portions of the
client group, not the full client group.
Okay. But
you I'm pretty sure I remember correctly
that caught a lot of flack because of
the traffic that was perceived to have
been generated. It sure did. I recall
that. Okay. Yeah, she is pretty busy,
but um you know, former transportation
director Basha pointed out that you
know, people are smart and if they can't
get out on a easily, they'll go down
92nd Street um to access the freeway or
whatever down that way. But people were
still unhappy because of the additional
traffic that they perceived of. And now
what we have
is the alternative from an office
building which if fully occupied or even
partially occupied would dump a huge
amount of traffic onto 92nd Street and
and Mountain View.
Um which is kind of moot because offices
aren't coming back.
Um, sure there will be some increase,
but we've got a lot of, you know, what
is it? 18% vacancy. Um, they tried to
rent this place out. U, I'm sure this
wasn't sabotage. If they could rent it,
they would rent it. You know, they tried
demolishing the in inside and making
smaller spaces. That didn't seem to
work.
Um anyway, it just seems to me like um
office doesn't work. You know, you could
conceivably, I suppose, look down south
and say, "Hey, there's residential right
down there. We could we could uh get
this reszoned for uh for
apartments." And that's not going to fly
either. Not in this environment.
Um, land shouldn't just be sitting
vacant. This seems like a good use. Um,
it was interesting, you know, as I look
through the
proposal. You know, I came up with one
conclusion and I noticed that uh uh
Chair Scarbor came up with a different
conclusion. You know, you know, why is
this so broad? And staff said, why is
this so broad? Why would you do a text
amendment to that doesn't just apply to
your property but to you know at least
one other property maybe five other I
think you had in the write up um to me
you know two two
um sayings come to mind you know this is
a nation of laws and u what's good for
the goose you know it's supposed to be
what good for the goose is good for the
gander well what's good for the goose is
should be good for other geese
And what you're doing here is saying,
"Okay, let's put this into law as
opposed to in a one-off exception sort
of thing. Let's look at the need and say
if it can apply to other property
owners, then it should." Apparently,
there aren't too many. If any complaint
that I have, it's that it's not broad
enough to cover more. you know, let let
property owners know what
is allowable, what's you know, and don't
make people come in and get exceptions
every time or get variances or you know,
reszoning. You know, put it into the law
so that
um you know, people know what to expect.
And anyway, that's more of a comment.
Well, it's nothing but a comment. I
don't have any question. It was just a
comment. And um Mr. chairman, vice chair
and commissioners and commissioner till
thank you for that
you it's a tough case because we have
the ability to apply for a text
amendment to do this there's nothing
inappropriate about doing it this way
it's it's philosophical differences at
this point but we do not um we're not
wed to having so many conditions you
know that was done to provide for
predictability where a use permit was
not the tool um So, just to respond and
say that we certainly would be
amendable. I think um Commissioner
Joiner asked about different ways you
can approve this. Well, you can always
recommend a modification to the text
amendment. And if um there's something
that the commission would like to see
changed about this, we'd be happy to
have that dialogue and welcome the
opportunity to make it better than it is
right now if that's a path that you
would like to pursue.
Thank you.
Commissioner Joiner,
I have a question for the
attorney. We just got a law passed by
the state that requires or gives the
option of if property is vacant and
determined to be obsolescent, it can
automatically be turned into apartments.
Does anything in this text amendment um
uh open that option up?
Uh Commissioner Joiner, I just want to
make sure I understand is the question
essentially are there elements of this
proposed tax amendment that function
similar to yes the adaptive reuse bill?
Um, obviously the adaptive reuse bill or
I guess the amendment to it that we're
dealing with right now,
HB2110 is a much larger and more complex
uh set of regulations. So, it's kind of
an apples to oranges comparison. Uh, but
I guess the the part that you pointed
out uh the obsolescence requirement in
the adaptive reuse um bill is not
present in this proposed text amendment,
at least not based on my kind of
preliminary review. I haven't gone
through every single line of it
unfortunately. Uh but it does not appear
that there is a requirement like there
is an adaptive reuse that the office
building has to be functionally and
economically ab obsolete. Okay. Thank
you very much. Can I follow up on that?
Sure. Um the adaptive use uh legislation
that applies to offices. Is that
correct? And not to storage units. So,
if you had an obsolete storage unit or
storage
facility, that adaptive use law would
not apply to that. Is that correct? Uh,
Commissioner Ertell, uh, you know, to
the best of my recollection, I I haven't
had a chance to go back and review it,
but I believe with this current
amendment to the adaptive reuse bill,
uh, they have specified that it is
commercial office buildings. So, those
are the only types of properties that
are eligible for adaptive reuse.
commercial office, not commercial or
office, but commercial
office. Is that I'm not trying to I'm
just trying to understand. Sure. I'd
have to go back and look at the specific
language, but the essential concept with
adaptive reuse is that you have uh
office buildings that can then be
converted into multifamily residential.
So, as the property stands now, it seems
to me that it would be subject to that
legislation. U if it were converted to
storage, it seems to me you're not
you're not clear on that, but hey,
neither am I, but I can act like I am.
Uh, you know, it would not be subject to
that legislation. I believe so. I I
believe the way they have amended HB or
the adaptive reuse bill, I I believe
they would probably have prevented that
option. I don't think you could
necessarily go from storage warehouse to
multif family residential. I think you
would have to go from commercial office
to multifamily residential.
So if we want to avoid u being subject
to the adaptive use legislation, it
would be better off going with this text
amendment. Maybe not perfectly, but
better off.
I don't know that I can give an opinion
on that. uh because that's more of a
policy issue and you know to get into it
I'd have to probably do a whole legal
analysis and give a legal opinion that I
can't necessarily do here on the record.
All right. Thank you. Okay. Um
Commissioner Gonzalez had I wasn't done.
Oh, you're still I'm still talking
following up. I'm he he just Oh, he
interrupted you. He interrupted. Okay.
Just want to clarify that. There you go.
Giving everybody their shot. That's
That's all right. Well, that's all
right.
Um, excuse me. I'm very familiar with
this piece of property. I have three
doctors that I have been to frequently
in the last month in that like walking
distance area.
Um, on it on its own, I would highly
support this application. I'm just very
concerned about a broad text amendment.
And um if anything has taught me a
lesson over the last years that I've
been on this and DRB, the MAC project
comes to like we we ended up with
MAC because of zoning that took place
that we didn't have any input on. And so
I know when I talked to the applicant on
this, he said there was just one other
parcel, I believe it's in McCormack
Ranch, that would meet the criteria. But
I
guess could that be expanded to include
other properties at some place down the
line? Are we opening up a Pandora's box
without having the opportunity to look
at each
application and say yay or nay or let
the neighbors chime in or whatever. And
I guess maybe you can answer that or
staff can answer that or maybe we both
want to take a stab. But I I'll say um
through the chair um Commissioner
Joiner, the um I go back to the
conditional use permit. The reason we
had asked for that was to give you all
and the community the individual
feedback on that use con conversion. Um
we would we would return to that uh as
an option if that is supportable by the
commission. Um but in the alternative
the the conditions that are um provided
here
and the narrowly structured way that the
commercial office district is put
together um you know it I think it lends
itself to incrementally expanding uses
to it because it has so few uses to
begin with and so there would be nothing
to prevent a future text amendment if
this is something that works out well
where you would amend these standards to
remove some of the permit the conditions
that we have. Um maybe you want to
change the property size or or maybe you
don't want to require above ground
parking be a part of it. There are ways
that this can be layered back through
text amendments in the future. The city
processes those every year. An applicant
may process those. So um you know you're
trying to hit at two issues, right? One
is we want to deal with this big policy
thing, but also we want to see every
case through. So the yeah, I don't want
you to have to wait nine months to get
one project approved. But I I've been
I've been in this dis for way too many
years. I've seen these nightmares come
back because we have unintended con
consequences that come. Neighbors don't
have a chance to chime in. And to me,
this is a perfect project for this. I I
love how you've done it. I like what it
is. I drive that thing far too often
during the week. And um I think I think
you've hit all the buttons for a great
project, but I don't know about all the
other ones. And I've asked I've asked
staff, I've asked, you know, you nobody
can really nail down how many projects
this would really affect if we do the
text amendment. And that's what makes me
nervous. and and to that so you you see
the use list on the screen now in yellow
this is all of the uses that are
permitted in CO we have put a P which
means permitted by right but then it has
a footnote which triggers all of the
conditions it's easy enough to convert
the P to a CU and that requires
conditional use permit and you see there
are a number of uses within commercial
office and other categories where the
use permit is required we have already
filed for that use permit we did have
our neighborhood meeting for that use
permit when we originally applied for
this text amendment and it is sitting
there sort of in a holding pattern
waiting for the outcome of this. So we
wouldn't be starting from square one
were we to go that route.
That's all my questions right now. Thank
you. Thank you Commissioner Joiner.
Commissioner Gonzalez.
Yes. Thank you. Um on that note that my
question was what public outreach have
you done upon this application have you
uh this particular application not prior
applications but have you done any
outreach on this application towards
their because you you have McCormack
Ranch you have Scottsdale Ranch HOAs and
COGS? Yes sir. Um we have and in fact we
have uh the McCormack Ranch um property
owners association approved the use
conversion and the redevelopment of this
site. Um we had our two neighborhood
meetings in December at two different
locations. Um one at a hotel right up
the street because it's a text
amendment. We had to do one at a
different location. So we did one up at
a hotel at Princess and the 101. Um we
had one member of the public attend the
one uh that is at that was at 92nd and
Shay. Um the uh public feedback has been
very minimal. A few people have
submitted early emails in opposition
saying that they, you know, didn't
support the use, but then they didn't
even know where the property was. I was
been on the phone with the neighbors
that live south of it. I've explained
them. I said, "Walk outside of your
house. Go left. Now look." And they
still didn't know where this property
was. So, I've had a lot of dialogue with
my neighbors, too. Um, I mean, this is
where I live for 20 years, and so I've
talked to a lot of neighbors outside of
the citizen participation feedback. It
has not been difficult to get people to
write letters of support because it's
something that they see an abundance of
we live in this concentration of
commercial office where there are
persistent vacancies. It is there's a
high concentration here. So this
community does see the value in
something else to avoid those breakins.
So but neighborhood meetings, multiple
letters, we had our conditional use
permit application that was a part of
those meetings. So it's been a full
disclosure festival. We already have our
DRB application in. There was another
notification that went out with that
one. So it's been a very um notified
process, four-fold at least. Okay. Um
then
um would
you just basically just as a question
out to the applicant itself have have
you looked at adaptive reuse as far as
what's the new HB bill u proclaims? Have
you looked at that and have is there any
usage in there for this type of
property?
Something you consider? Yes. So, the
chair and the vice chair um and and
commissioners, uh going back to
Commissioner Orchel's question about
what does that statute apply to and what
would the city's new ordinance uh how
would it apply? Um I think one of the
fundamental components of eligibility is
that you had to have a certificate of
occupancy for the office use. So, we we
have that in the conditions for this. um
the new bill. Not to stray from your
agenda item. I'm sure your city attorney
is going to stop stop me if I'm straying
from the agenda item, but the bottom
line is um when you change the occupancy
to the storage use occupancy, which is a
different occupancy classification, as
you know, um I don't know if that takes
it out of the eligibility, but I don't
think it helps. And it and we're saying
it's a viable use on the record today.
Okay. So, I think it'd make it hard for
us to convert to storage and then be
able to be eligible to convert to multif
family. But if you want
to limit the number of properties that
are going to go to multif family, look
at that commercial office district and
find other uses to put in it that are
viable because now everybody's got
multif family. And if you're one to 20
acres and you fit that criteria of
having the CFO, I think we qualify
today. I've looked at it. We're not in
any of the excluded areas. So if this is
approved as presented, I think we
qualify and this could be convertible to
multif family by rate. I'm not saying
that as a legal opinion or I'm not
asserting that as fact. I said I think
because I just reviewed it today like
all of you, but I studied it pretty
closely when it was adopted too. So all
that to say um that commercial office
district is a unique animal because
there just aren't a whole lot of other
options and so I think you are going to
see a high concentration if there is
going to be an application for
conversion to multif family in that in
that space. Well there are time
constraints also involved with this as
far as you know for the HP part of it.
Now I guess what how long has this uh
project been abandoned or basically
nonused? So the pandemic is partially to
blame. Um it was it was fully leased
prior to the pandemic and then they did
not occupy for an extended period of
time but the lease went until 2022. It
has been officially vacant since 2022
with no activity whatsoever. The only
other inquiries have been from a church.
Um so non-revenue generating um you know
if it goes to a a church uh in most
cases the property taxes also go away
because they have special tax treatment.
Um so you know that is the only other
inquiry I want to be clear that there's
been no office inquiry since the last um
tenant but that they weren't they
haven't been there since 2020 at some
time. Okay. So it's been five years.
That's that's fine. Thank you very much
for your time.
Uh, Chair Scar Bro or Commissioner
Higgs, do you have any questions?
No, none for me. Thank you.
Uh, I do, uh, Vice
Chair.
So, as I'm looking at this, I can agree
with, uh, Commissioner Joiner and pretty
much her entire statement. Uh, I like
this project specifically for this area.
Uh, I have no problems with this
specific project. I am still struggling
with the use of it text amendment for a
specific
use. And that's really where I'm I'm
struggling is is this the right path for
uh a specific use to to get the
appropriate entitlements. Um, I'm
looking at the text amendment language
and the conditions that are being
proposed. and you're taking a text
amendment and making it very sight
specific. I think this sort of lends
itself to what commissioner was saying.
And so if a text amendment is the path
here, then I think it should be more
broad in nature and should be considered
as such. But trying to uh focus a text
amendment for a specific site or two
from that presentation you showed us is
where I'm really struggling with this. I
I don't think this is a proper use of a
text amendment. And so just my questions
are going to focus around the
conditions. U how many affected parcels
uh would there be with this text
amendment without the conditions you've
presented? So for example, number one is
a lot that is 8 acres or less. So if
that condition was away, how many
parcels would then be affected?
Mr. Mr. Chair, um I'm not sure I heard
you exactly. Are you asking how many
parcels are CO zoned that are not 8
acres?
No, let let me clarify. You you've put
hopefully you can hear me. Okay. I'm not
sure how the speaker system is working
there. Uh but right now you've got A, B,
C, D, and E conditions put onto this
text amendment which narrowly focuses to
this site and one other. I'm asking
since text amendments are truly in
nature meant to be for a broad a broad
spectrum change that is needed for a
specific zoning district or whatever is
needed to be changed in the in the
ordinance. This is very sight specific.
So I'm asking you know there must have
been an analysis that these conditions
were placed to get that sight specific
focus taking out the sightsp specific
elements of these conditions. how many
properties would be affected by this
text amendment and this is sort of going
down the path of commissioner's question
of why why focus this so much why not
make it more broad so I'm just asking
the question as a text amendment
approach what is truly the overarching
u effect how many parcels how many
properties would be affected by this if
not for the sight specific conditions
understood
Okay. So, um, Mr. Chairman, the, um, I
believe staff has the number of CO zoned
properties, period, with no
restrictions. So, I would look to
Meredith for that number. And
then the only other number I know of
that's different than what um was in the
presentation from staff is at one our
initial um application we had it at 10
acres and with no conditions and that um
brought in over about 650 properties. Um
but that number was a bit misleading
because it captured a lot of office
condos that are all within the same
building. Um, so not necessarily
isolated buildings. So I think staff's
number of just how many cozed properties
are probably addresses your
question. Thank you. Thank you, Chair
Scarbo. And that number is
683 and that's outlined in attachment
four of the report if you happen to have
that in front of you for this
discussion.
Thank you.
So I I go back to uh you know just
dropping it from 10 to 8 acres has a
drastic effect on on how this text
amendment would affect
uh the CEO district and so I I struggle
with the use of a text amendment here.
Um as a as a potential reszone as a
sightsp specific project I am absolutely
in support of of what is being proposed
here. I think this is a great reuse for
this specific area. I do believe there's
abundance of CO in this area. Um, and I
I like this approach and and what the
applicant is trying to do. Um, I'm so I
would love to hear what the other
commissioners think. I I've heard Doc
Commissioner Ertell and Commissioner
Joiner. uh I'm just struggling with the
approach and if if the approach is text
amendment I feel it should be more broad
because if the argument is CO is so
restrictive then we shouldn't have all
these conditions on it because there's
so you know so few options within the CO
district and office is is not as favored
these days especially large floor plate
office and I'm I'm just curious if a
text amendment is necessary should this
not be more broad if this decide
specific. I struggle with a text
amendment. So, not to repeat myself for
a fourth time. I will defer to the to
the rest of the DAS there, but that
that's where my head's at right now. And
I'd like to hear what everybody else
thinks.
Yes, of course.
I have a question of
staff. I hope you can answer it.
If we deny the text
amendment, does that prohibit the
applicant from going forward to city
council or can they still go to forward
to city council with a denial and let
city council
um decide
how what where is that fine line there?
Yeah, Chair Scarro, Vice Chair and
Commissioner Joiner. Um, as with all
cases, you're making a recommendation to
the city council, whether it's recommend
approval, recommend denial, or recommend
to the city council that they continue
this u because there's not enough
information or what have you. So,
regardless of what you do, it looks like
you'll be sending something uh a
recommendation one way or the other to
the city council. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, may I offer
something? Mr. Vice Chair, sorry. Sorry.
I know he can't he can hear us, but I'm
not sure if you can see me asking. I was
going from reading to looking and I
sorry I didn't see um I I hear a lot of
consistent feedback that I feel like we
could address if we had the benefit of a
continuence um as an alternative to
trying
to our last goal ever is to go forward
with a staff recommendation of denial
and a planning commission recommendation
of denial. So, if there are supportable
elements of this and and the broader
this can go, um, the better it sounds
like, I I go back to the conditional use
permit as being that tool that's a
middle ground. It's not establishing
what the conditions are. It's just the
typical use permit analysis where you're
looking at the adverse impacts of that
use to a specific area, whether there's
any measurable increase in traffic,
noise, sound, those sorts of things. And
that application is brought before you
that does require a text amendment, but
again, it goes back to just changing the
P to a CU. And I think with the a
continuence, we might be able to get the
feedback we've gotten from you tonight
and bring something forward that is
perhaps more palatable to the issues
raised, addressing the issues raised.
M
Mr. Chairman, vice chairman,
uh the applicant team brought up the
conditional use permit and you see those
all the time. Uh, and you aware that the
conditional use permits are based off of
strict criteria. Um, mostly dealing with
noise, dust, odors, and traffic impacts.
Um, I'd hate to, one of the reasons why
we suggested that that doesn't make a
lot of sense here is because it gives a
false impression maybe to neighborhoods,
maybe to the commission that this is
something that uh, from time to time
different applications may not meet the
criteria and therefore it could be uh,
recommended for denial and then denied
to the city council. However, when you
play that out, when you look at the
criteria,
um in most cases, perhaps every case,
and we've talked about this with the
applicant, um each one of these would
probably meet those criteria. Um they
probably don't have noise, dust, odors.
They probably don't have uh a lot of
traffic from a compatibility standpoint.
And those are the criteria that are
established with a conditional use
permit. So aside from the six to
eightmonth process to go through the
planning commission council for each
conversion of an office into this land
use uh it gives the impression that it's
subject to a potential denial. But when
we worked through those
criteria, probably each one would meet
the criteria and it gives a false sense
uh to the neighborhood and to the
community that um there's a potential
for it being denied when it's very
difficult to deny a conditional use
permit if it meets those criteria. So,
um, just wanted to give you some
background on our conversation about the
condition use permit where we'd hate to
have a a use permit process that takes a
lot of time and give the impression that
um it could easily be deemed uh uh
inconsistent with those criteria when
those criteria are fairly simple with
regard to the impacts associated. Um, so
just wanted to share that. We're happy
to answer any questions about that or if
if I wasn't clear enough about that. Uh
we didn't think that that was a a viable
um process that people can rely on for a
for a denial if the neighbors didn't
like the land use because the criteria
doesn't include whether the neighbors
like the land use or not or whether the
uh project looks good uh with the the
typical fencing that's around these
these uh these uses for security. Those
aren't really part of the conditional
use permit criteria. So I think the
commission and council in the future
would be so hardressed into saying it's
not compatible that all these land uses
would typically uh meet those criteria.
So that's why we suggested a different
approach uh than uh again what we
consider kind of a false sense that it
could actually be denied because like I
said most of them probably meet those
criteria. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes.
So are you suggesting a continuence to
come back with modifications to the text
amendment? Is that what I not sure I
understood what you were saying? So in
short, yes. Because what I'm hearing is
that you would like to see both this
become more broad in in terms of not so
many conditions, but also that you don't
want to open up this to the universe.
Um,
and I think the way to do that is a an
amendment to our text amendment that
would um either limit the conditions or
or alter them so that they are broader,
which we have no issue with,
or just not have the conditions and
utilize the conditional use permit
process, which is that separate
individualized zoning process that you
see all the time that Mr. Curtis just
explained um but does provide for that
individual compatibility analysis. It is
an analysis that you go through before
you consider those and it does consider
the project and the impact to the
surrounding area.
So either one of those is what I think
we would benefit from in a continuence
to be able to modify the text amendment
to do that because I'm hearing broader
is is more palatable. But the the thing
is with this site and again going to all
the sites around it CO is is everywhere.
Um we would have to reszone it if we if
we aren't considering a text amendment.
So there's no path forward
without coming through you all. It's
either a text amendment or it's either
either a resoning. And when we looked at
resoning because that was also where we
started. If you look at the map and if
you look at the general plan, how going
to one of the many categories that does
allow internalized community storage
here would be going to a very wide
openen, very broad category where all of
the world's uses would be permittable
outside of the limited use in the CO
district. And that is probably something
that would unnecessarily agitate the
community, unnecessarily open um traffic
issues and those considerations. So
that's why we tried to say well let's
try and fix CO incrementally to allow
for more uses in this district and we
are in a sea of it anyway. So to go to a
reszone it would it would require that
we say you know one of these kids is not
like the others um on this map because
of our unique configuration too being
adjacent to two streets but not fronting
that hard corner.
So, it's not easy this site and this
issue. And so, we appreciate the time
you've taken to wrestle with it. And I I
would benefit if we if you think we
would benefit from a continuence to try
and come back with something in that
direction, we're happy to do it. Um,
well, we've we've heard a lot of
different perspectives on what might be
the right path. what that is ultimately
has to be decided by you and staff to
put together possibly an alternate
application. Uh what that is I'm not
sure what that's going to look like or
how long that's going to take. Um, I I
think we can all agree, well, maybe I
shouldn't say that, but this this one is
is is has got I think I might have said
at our last meeting is this one's got
some hair on it, and it's difficult to
um kind of wrap your head around this
when it's
benefiting this property and possibly
one other.
unless other parcels
subdivide and break off a piece to meet
the criteria that you're putting
forward. So, it could have an impact
beyond with what we're talking today
because who knows? I mean, their
property rights, they have the right to
subdivide and get the property within
the criteria that meets the the the the
use that you're talking about today. So,
um,
if and I think Commissioner Joiner
clarified, it sounds like you're
requesting a continuence then to to go
back, re-evaluate, and then have further
discussions with staff. Is is that the
case? I think so. I think though to a
date certain would like
to so we don't have to renotice if
that's possible. A date to be determined
or date certain. A date. Okay. Yeah, I
mean we'd have to if that's I mean you
and staff would have to work that out.
Could I clarify on that? Not interrupt
but clarify. Of course. Are you asking
for a continuence or are you saying if
we can't get an approval, I would like
to have it a continuence. That's what
she's saying. That's what I'm trying to
figure out. Well, I I think we have to
vote.
We do. We do. So, I would be happy to
make a motion if that's okay. We're
Well, should we get let's get
clarification. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. We
still have a comment to make. Well, I'm
asking for a city attorney to clarify
your question.
I apologize. Uh, Commissioner, could you
repeat the question for me? We had a
sidebar here for a minute and I just
want to make sure I'm answering uh the
question that's been asked. No, my
question was to the applicant saying are
you asking for continuance or are you
saying if I am if the motion is going to
be a a a denial um then I want a
continuance and and other people
answered on her behalf saying she wanted
to get this approved.
So, Mr. chair um and commissioners, I
appreciate the question and um we would
be asking for a continuence to um I
would like to know what the available
planning commission dates would be so we
could set the target for when we're
coming back to you. Um that's what that
would be our request.
Okay. And while they do that,
Commissioner Tela, just the one point of
clarification I would like to make. Uh,
under this body's bylaws, the only time
it can grant a continuence is if it's
requested by the applicant. Uh, so it
would be important to get that as we
just did, uh, rather than making a
motion and trying to sort it out that
way.
So, if we made a motion and it didn't
pass, would she still have the
opportunity to request a continuence
or what? I it would depend on how the
motion's worded, I suppose. uh if you
were to make hypothetically a a motion
to recommend approval and that motion
failed uh then she would still have an
opportunity at that point to request a
continuence because we wouldn't have an
affirmative recommendation for council
yet. Right. That makes
sense. This does seem like a middle
ground what we have here. Commissioner
Joiner wants it narrower, you know, a
case by case, and I believe Commissioner
Scarbor and I would like to have it
broader. So, this is, you know, this is
what Goldilocks would say. This is just
right. Not talking about you, talking
about the fairy
tale, but I guess it fits. Real
quick, real quick, I just want to make
sure I I am just speaking of of the
pathing of the of the project. So if it
is a text amendment and and that's the
path forward, I think the text amendment
needs to be reviewed in in a more
appropriate fashion as a text amendment,
not as a sightspecific entitlement
process. So uh that's my position. So I
just want to make sure I'm taking pieces
from both Commissioner Ertell and
Commissioner Joiner uh from both of
their u their statements. So uh
Commissioner, I just want to make sure I
made that clear for you.
Thank you.
Okay. So, I guess this is for the city
attorney to grant a continuence. Do we
have to do we then we would vote on
that?
Uh, yes. At this point, I think because
the applicants made the request, you can
make a motion now to it
sounds being requested. Yes, you can
make that motion.
July 9th. Yes, please.
Okay. Well, uh, the applicants asked for
a continuence, so uh, I suppose we
didn't we'll just do a roll call vote
for that.
Yeah, just to clarify so the record's
clear, we would, uh, need somebody to
make a motion to continue K6TA 2024 to
July 9th. Okay,
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion
to continue case um sorry uh 6TA 2024
date certain to July 9th. We have a
motion. Do we have a second? Second.
Roll call vote, please.
Chair Scar Bro,
yes. Vice Chair Young, yes. Commissioner
Gonzalez, yes. Commissioner, yes.
Commissioner Joiner, yes. Commissioner
Higs.
Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank
you. All right. That's the last item on
the agenda. Uh do I have a request for
adjournment? So moved.
All in favor? I I thank you everybody. I
thank you. Good night.