Planning Commission - May 14, 2025

and 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
city council. The city council will make
the final decision for or against
approval of the application.
The agenda consists of the roll call,
administrative report by staff, public
comment for non-aggendaized items,
approval of minutes from the previous
hearing, continuences for items that
will not be heard tonight, withdrawals
for items that have been withdrawn from
any further
consideration. Consent agenda for items
not likely to require a presentation or
discussion. All items on the consent
agenda may be voted on together. Any
commissioner may move any item from the
consent agenda to the regular
agenda. Regular agenda is where each
item includes a presentation and
recommendation by staff, a presentation
by the applicant, and public comments.
The applicant will then have an
opportunity to respond to public
comments. The planning commission will
deliberate on the case and cast their
votes. Non-action items are for the
discussion are for discussion only
items. No vote will be cast by the
planning commission.
Citizens wishing to speak on indie any
agenda item will need to fill out a blue
speaker card or if not willing to speak,
they may fill out a yellow comment card
and turn it in at the staff table before
the agenda item is to be discussed. The
chair will call your name when it is
your turn to speak. When called, please
come to the podium, state your name and
address, and then begin speaking. Groups
wishing to speak should elect a
spokesperson person to represent the
views of the group. To facilitate the
meeting, your comment will be limited to
three minutes for individual speakers,
one additional minute for each
additional individual who is present at
the hearing and has contributed their
time to the representative speaker up to
a maximum of 10 minutes. Please format
your speech to fit within the allotted
time. Again, you have the blue speaker
card and the yellow comment card. A
light system is installed on the podium
for timing presentations. The light will
be green for two minutes, yellow for
one, and red when your time is up.
Please conclude your comments when the
red light appears. Thank you for your
interest in time. Now we will begin the
hearing with the roll call. Chair Scarro
here. Vice Chair Young here.
Commissioner Gonzalez, present.
Commissioner Kaminsky
here. Commissioner here. Commissioner
Joiner here. Commissioner Higs present.
All here. Thank you.
Perfect. Uh public comment for
non-aggendaized items. Do we have any?
None. Perfect. Okay. Uh next is
administrative report by Tim Curtis.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. Just wanted to provide you
an update with item four on tonight's
agenda. We received um additional public
correspondence that should be in front
of you. Um we also just drawing your
attention to an an email uh memo that we
sent to you um from Mr. Barnes regarding
item number four about uh some changes
that the applicant um will be making um
to the original application that was
part of the original agenda. Um that'll
be part of their presentation. So just
wanted to make you aware of those
things. And then with regard to upcoming
meetings, um we do plan on meeting on
May 28th uh in two weeks. We do have
agenda items scheduled for that and we
also have agenda items scheduled for
June 11th. So
um so we're looking forward to seeing
you guys. I know it's uh get out of the
heat time of year, but um business keeps
coming. So hopefully those of you can uh
help us and continue um serving on those
days in the starting the heat of the
summer. I really appreciate it. So thank
you. Great. And I believe uh this
evening is Commissioner Kaminsk's last
hearing with us. Yes, certainly. Uh we
appreciate her years of service and uh
we'll hope that she'll come to uh a
meeting in the future at least enjoy
meal and a cake and and a thank you from
all of us to her.
uh upcoming depending on her schedule,
but certainly Commissioner Kaminsky has
been um uh served very well on this
commission. Really appreciate that.
Yeah, she's been a great asset uh on the
plan commission and so has Commissioner
Higgs, which I believe is going to be
staying with us for maybe two more
hearings, which is fantastic. So, thank
you for that as well. Uh with that,
let's move to the minutes. Uh, do we
have any comments or motions regarding
the minutes from April 9th?
No comments, but I'll make a motion,
please. Uh, I move for approval of the
April 9th, 2025 regular meeting minutes
as written.
First, I'll second that. We have a first
and a second. Uh, roll call vote. Chair
Scar Bro, yes. Vice Chair Young, yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez, yes. Commissioner
Kaminsky,
yes. Commissioner Ertell, yes.
Commissioner Joiner, yes. Commissioner
Higs, yes. Motion passes. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, moving on to consent
agenda. We have two items. I I have not
yet received any motions from
commissioners to move any of the consent
items to regular. I want to put that
forth towards the commissioners one more
time. Does anybody want to move? Go
ahead.
Um, I just would like to have a short
presentation on them since they're very
similar. Just basically just just
showing us where you know what they
whatever they have on it if they have
time. Do you have a preference on either
item number two or three? No, I don't.
No. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you.
Uh, I guess if we could uh have a quick
presentation on item number two and then
uh we'll we'll take a consent agenda
vote. Sure. No problem. from uh Chair
Scarboro, members of the planning
commission, Keith Neer with the city's
planning department. We have two
different existing uh faux palm tree
wireless communication facilities um
that are uh have been in place since
about the 2014 time frame. One is near
McDall and Hayden. The other one is near
Hayden and Indian School. this specific
one that's on the screen. This is um
southeast of the intersection of McDall
and Hayden
Road. There's a blowup of that subject
site.
uh zoning on the on this property is I1
Industrial
District and uh the request is to uh
have a conditional use permit to keep
the existing type 4 alternative
concealment wireless communication
facility on the site and if approved it
would allow this uh facility to remain
for at least another five years. Uh
conditional use permits for wireless
sites are good for uh up to five years.
And like I said, the the site was
initially approved back in
2015, built in 2017, and then it was
renewed in 2020. And five years later,
we're back here today
renewing. And this is uh the existing
site. Verizon on either side is not
planning to make any modifications to
the sites at this time.
That's it. Thank you so much,
Commissioner Gonzalez. Do you have any
questions or comments? Uh, not really.
Thank you for the presentation. I just
was confirming everything. You answered
all my questions and I'm satisfied with
Okay. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate
it. If there aren't any other questions,
I'll make a motion for approval, please.
Okay. Finally have the chance to do
this. I would like to make a motion for
the recommendation of approval to city
council for cases 8UP 2014 number three
and 10UP 2014 number three um per the
staff recommended stipulations after
finding that the conditional use permit
criteria have been met and the proposed
conditional use permits are consistent
and conform with the adopted general
plan. I'll second it
very fast. All right, we have a motion
to second. Uh, roll call vote.
Chair Scar Bro, yes. Vice Chair Young,
yes. Commissioner Gonzalez, yes.
Commissioner Kaminsky,
yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner
Joiner, yes. Commissioner Higgs, yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, moving on to regular
agenda. Let's go to item number 42 ZN
2024.
Good evening, Chair Scarboro, Vice Chair
Young, and members of the planning
commission. I'm Jeff Barnes with the
city's planning department presenting
for you Art Tessa 2ZN
2024. Uh starting out uh the request
before you tonight. Um, and it reads a
bit long on the screen just by virtue of
the the zoning designations, but this is
a uh recommendation um for um
recommendation to the city council for
approval of zoning district map
amendment uh from the existing planned
community center environmentally
sensitive lands hillside district
PCCLHD zoning uh to the planned
community center environmentally
sensitive lands planned shared
development velment overlay PCC PSD ESL
um on this 22.26 acre site uh which
includes an update to the development
plan. Getting into some of the uh
context and details of the site. The
site is located uh at the intersection
of Dynamite and Alma School um at the
southwest corner. Um this is an existing
developed site. The 22
uh.26 acres um is the entirety of uh the
gross acreage highlighted in the yellow
um on the screen there. Um as you can
see uh a good portion of the site is
developed with existing uh commercial
and office uh type uses that uh wrap
around the frontages of the property. Uh
the uh back portion of the property uh
behind that uh is undeveloped. Uh was
contemplated for development originally.
Um but that uh that never came through.
There's also a vacant pad uh site that
is contemplated for future development
and was uh with the previous development
plan.
Uh so as I mentioned the existing
zonings PCC, ESL um the HDHC designation
on there uh accounts for that this was
originally part of the uh true north
master zoning which came in under the
hillside district before that ordinance
was replaced with the environmentally
sensitive lands ordinance. The ESL has
exemption provisions that allow uh
developments that were zoned under HD to
continue to follow HD requirements. And
so we carry that forward um in the
zoning. They are as part of the current
request to add the PC PSD, excuse me,
the plan shared uh district in there.
they are opting to follow the current uh
ESL uh standards and remove sort of that
tag along of the hillside district
exemptions. This site uh is designated
commercial from the general plan land
use standpoint. Um there that aligns
with the existing zoning and there is no
proposed change to that um with the
request before you tonight.
some of the uh goals or purposes behind
this request. Um I mentioned that
undeveloped area of the site. Um the uh
application seeks to uh establish a uh
residential uh development component of
the site in that area that um at the
time of the application uh was
represented as 67 uh dwelling units. Um
as mentioned, we we provided a memo. We
got some uh some updates within the last
couple days from the applicant team.
They're looking at some modifications
that uh as I understand it would uh
lower uh the number of stories on that
which then would change the number of
dwelling units. Um so uh 67 represented
in here. They'll tell you about the more
updated numbers. Um, and that's probably
a good moment to just throw out a
reminder that when we get uh to the
point of you entertaining a motion on
this, uh, please take into account that
it may need to account for uh, some of
the the alterations that they'll be uh,
discussing. Uh, so moving into some of
the other uh, details and the purpose of
this. Um this site is currently uh
comprised of five different parcels that
make up that uh that approximately 22
acres. Um the planned shared development
overlay uh is a uh a zoning tool to
allow um sharing of development
standards amongst properties within an
overall development plan. uh and so that
is a tool that will um account for the
uh the five independent parcels still
functioning as one and um the the
redistribution of um allowable uh
density within the site to the
undeveloped portion of the site. Um, the
other thing to to just restate here is
although this is a uh a zoning request,
the uh existing planned community center
uh zoning designation and the
environmentally sensitive lands zoning
overlay um are not proposed to be
changed as part of this. Those are
carrying forward. The the ad here is
mostly surrounding the plan shared
development district creating an updated
development plan. Um and the plan shared
development district comes with an
accompanying need for a development
agreement that manages the distribution
of development
standards. Uh some additional items to
uh to mention. Uh so the existing PCC
zoning was established back in 1983. uh
for this site I mentioned as part of the
True North uh master zoning actions. Um
the last update to the development plan
for this site uh was back in
1995. Um that also accompanied uh the um
the addition of the gas station which
required the use permit that's also
referenced up there through UP95 with
that zoning case. Um part of that
development plan contemplated the
undeveloped currently undeveloped
portion of the site that we're talking
about. Uh shifting to residential uh
having been potentially a um a grocery
or large retail anchor um with inline uh
commercial tenants. And I'll uh pop up a
a copy of the existing development plan
and some additional slides for you. Um
and then I mentioned the the unit
allocation and that will be subject to a
little bit of change once you hear from
the applicant. Uh so this is that
existing 1995
uh development plan. Um it's not
oriented at the exact uh angle of the
site, but uh we've got dynamite uh off
uh to the uh the right hand side of the
screen here. We've got Alma School to
the um the lower part of the screen. Um
you can sort of make out some of the
existing development that wraps around
those frontages. And it's this back
portion um that was that large uh anchor
tenant and uh inline
shops. Moving into um more clear updated
proposed development plan. Um this
includes uh accounting for the developed
uh locations of the existing commercial
and office buildings that are out there.
um that future pad site and then inserts
the the proposed uh residential
development component to go with
that. Also included uh in the
development plan is a blown up uh image
of that uh that residential portion of
the site. Uh I may back up just a second
to highlight um that
that fits
into the existing circulation uh in the
site. Uh the existing driveways will
still be maintained for access out to
the public streets. Um this just uh adds
itself back into that uh site
circulation.
Also accounted for in the development
plan um is the required open space uh
both natural area open space under the
ESL ordinance and um frontage and uh
common open space under the the
PCC. Uh, also highlighted in the
development plan is a um, circulation
plan showing both the pedestrian and
vehicular connections both in amongst
the the uses in the site and out to the
public rideway on the adjacent
streets. I probably won't spend too much
time on these elevations. As I
mentioned, they're going to uh
potentially change uh with the
applicants presentation, but I'll just
highlight for you that um they did
provide originally perspectives uh
showing a threestory uh building in
there. Um, and it it does sound like
they're looking at bringing that down to
a twotory. Um, that will look uh similar
to this, but again, um, I'll let them
give you the details, so I'll move
somewhat quickly through the
elevation drawings that we had here. Um,
I will pause on this one as I don't
think this one's changing, but there are
uh one-story cassita units uh and
one-story uh detached garage uh elements
that uh that are also provided in in
elevation in the development
plan. So, covering just some of the the
details, uh I mentioned the 22.26 gross
acre uh size of the site.
Um noted here, the existing PCC zoning
uh development standards allow a maximum
building height of 36 ft uh for that uh
that site. Um and that PCC is not
changing. So that would continue to be
the maximum allowable building height,
but again subject to what's represented
in the development plan. Um, as I
mentioned, they are uh achieving and
exceeding the minimum uh open space and
natural area open space as demonstrated
in their open space plan. Um, and just
backing up one second there to mention
that uh the uh from a density
standpoint, the existing zoning, the PCC
uh underlying zoning district does allow
for dwellings as a permitted land use.
Um it does allow for uh four dwelling
units per acre of density uh which for
the entire 22.26 would calculate out uh
to 89 units uh available. Um, presently
the uh the current development plan
wasn't utilizing them, but the the
calculated um uh zoning uh density would
be that um and I mentioned that 67 units
uh that was being proposed um is likely
dropping. I believe 47 was the the
number I had seen um which the applicant
can confirm in their presentation.
Uh I mentioned the development agreement
that will manage development standards
distribution. Uh not to spend too much
time going through this but just to um
provide this as a representation that a
uh a table such as this will be featured
in that that will manage and uh account
for um that distribution of development
standards amongst the five parcels.
So, with that, I'll wrap up staff's pres
presentation. Um, leaving up the uh the
action slide, but reminding you that any
action you take will likely need to
account for modifications uh that will
be
discussed. And if you don't have any
immediate questions for me, the
applicant team is here uh with uh with
additional info.
Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Appreciate the
presentation. I'll ask any commissioners
if they have questions of staff at this
point. Perfect. Commissionerell,
I do have a question. Um, well, I guess
I have two questions. One, you keep
saying that that um anything we
recommend
uh should reflect the 47 units rather
than No, no, no. He said 47 versus the
67 that are presented here. Um, is am I
mistaken on that? Isn't that what you
said? Uh, Chair Scarboro, Commissioner
Ortell. Uh, you are you are picking up
on what I what I had said. Um, what I uh
maybe should clarify with that is that
the uh the applicant uh advised us of
these changes in the the days leading up
to the meeting um and and provided the
letter that was in the memo that we gave
you in advance.
We didn't have the time for them to have
given us these very specific sheets to
just swap out development plan criticism
of that. I understand that. But for we
are under no obligation to approve it at
a lower number. Is that correct? We
could we could recommend it at 67
um as it stands right now. Is that
correct?
Chair Scarboro, Commissioner Ertell, I
believe that's correct. That would pres
pre present a maybe misalignment with
what they would then be
um proposing uh to the city council as
the next step in the process. Yes, I
understand that. You know, I just I um
when I first looked at this project
um I saw where it was located. I saw
what the purpose was, you know, with the
niche or niche as you prefer. Uh they
were going after um independent living,
not assisted living.
Um supported living, if you will.
Um a few blocks south of that at at
Joeax and in Alma School. Um my wife and
I have a friend used to be friends, but
a 13 months ago the husband passed away.
Um the you know our
friend doesn't know how long she wants
to stay in that house. She's she's but
she wants to stay in the area. She wants
to as the city would say age in place.
Um interestingly enough neighbor across
the street from her. Same situation. Her
husband's been gone a little bit longer
but they want to age in place. They have
friends in the area. Uh they have the
church in the area. churches in the
area. Um, this is where they live. And
just the, you know, it took me a while
to get comfortable with the idea of
dropping down from the, what was it, 89
that the zoning allowed down to 67, you
know, and I just look at that and I say,
that's 20
plus Kathy's, if you will, Kathy's and
Linda's that won't have the opportunity
to age in that place. And there's
nothing else right around there. There's
assisted living. Uh, and there's
certainly single family homes around,
but there's nothing like that in
independent living. And now they're
coming back. And I say they, I'm not
picking on anybody, but we come back and
now it's down to 47. Um, my first
reaction is, let's recommend this
quickly before it drops down to 27. But
that's sarcasting and I don't mean to do
that. Um but anyway, so my question was,
do we have to recommend at 47?
Um 67 to me is quite a quite a a
compromise. Um but my my original
question for you, and I realize this
would be blindsiding you. So it's a
question that will really go with each
project that we see. So I'm just going
to throw it out there and not put you on
the spot for an answer tonight. But uh
the chair and I both went through the
citizens water academy and I think we
were both impressed with the um the
management of the water
supply. Uh they have a lot of
credibility with us. In this writeup and
every other writeup it says 100redyear
supply. You're assured of that
100redyear supply. And yet more
recently, as I read in the newspaper, uh
well, we need another whatever it was 50
million to start recycling um
um used water, if you will. Um I'm
thinking why do you I think that's a
good idea but at the same time if you
tell me not you personally but the city
tells me we've got enough water for a
hundred years for existing and
anticipated needs and then they say but
by the way we need $50 million or
whatever the number is to have you know
to be able to recycle this water which
we need. I'm
thinking there may be a reconciliation
there. You know, there may be a way to
get the two tied together and both of
them make sense simultaneously, but I
don't see what it is. So, I should have
notified you in advance. I didn't. Um,
but like I say, the next time we have a
project that references assured 100
years supply of water, I will bring it
up and I would like, at least I would
like a uh an answer as to how that
reconciles. I believe the water
department
um not doubting that, but I just don't
understand and there's a lot of things
that I believe that aren't necessarily
true. So, I'd like to have that
verified. So anyway, that's a question
uh that will come up again. No need to
answer unless you know the answer off
the top of your head right now. Jeff,
Commissioner, I do not. Okay. Thank you.
Uh thank you, Commissioner. Any other
commission? Commissioner Gonzalez, go
ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Mr.
Barnes. Uh my my questions are just
related towards the height of the of the
project and I'm going to first ask you
is where does the on the height of this
of this project? What is the floor
level? Is the floor level actual
finished floor level? Is it at the at is
it at the street level or where is the
height taken from at to come up with the
30 foot? I understand why the 30 foot.
What I'm saying is where is the actual
measurement taken from there only
because it's a basically at a foot
foothill level project and the increase
of height varies depending on the grade
usually. So if you could explain that to
me I appreciate it. Certainly. Um, Chair
Scarbo, Commissioner Gonzalez, the site
is located in our environmentally
sensitive lands overlay and part of that
uh specifies that the maximum building
height is measured relative to the
natural topography the the predisturbed
grade the so it would be that 36 feet
rising and falling with the slopes the
contours of the site. Um, I can tell you
that uh for this the applicant team
provided a what we commonly call a roof
over topography plan uh and and worked
through with staff in the reviews
leading up to this to ensure that uh
that the buildings were were achieving
that uh that height at the three stories
that were part of the original proposal.
Right. So basically what I'm I guess
maybe what
I'm trying to get at is that I don't
have any problem following the zoning
the way it the way it recommends. The
problem I have is when the topography
usually elevates then the buildings
elevate and at certain point the
elevation although it may conform to the
floor level the problem is is then then
it starts creeping up the hillside and
then when you have the same type of
height measured out then it's
overwhelming over the rest of the area
and that's what I'm basically concerned
with because how how it u visually
impacts the area. So I guess my next
question would be is as far as looking
at the elevations of the surrounding
area, is it is it in in a higher would
do you think the finished floor level
might be a little bit higher than the
other developments that have been built
uh at this time?
Commissioner Gonzalez, uh to the uh the
extent that I can recall the topography,
and I'm limited as he gets further out
from the site boundaries, but uh where
the um the new buildings would be
proposed, uh the site is actually
dropping uh from the existing commercial
center buildings down towards the south
southwest uh of the site. And so rather
than uh maybe as you were describing it
going up a hill, it's actually
decreasing and so the buildings are
being held to to the pole down at the
the south end of the site. Okay. Well,
thank you. Then I'll just I'll look at
what their elevations look like and
stuff like that and you know we'll we'll
see you know what's going on. But that
was my own main concern on this project.
Thank you.
Chairman. Perfect. Before we Oh, thank
you. Commissioner Kamincy, do you have a
question for staff?
Yes, I did. I'm wondering if they could
bring up the slide that shows the aerial
with um the natural open space area. I
had a question regarding the existing
conditions and how the natural open
space area may be
redeveloped because it looks like the
wash area is going to be part of what's
disturbed with development.
So that green band what looks like I'm
assuming is the kind of the retention
area or the the conveyance of the
natural wash that's part of the new
development right
Commissioner Kaminsky if uh if if I'm
following and I'm I'm not sure if you
can see me mousing on the screen or not
uh but if you can if you're at least
looking at the uh the closeup
uh context aerial. Um there is a a a
portion of where the the current
development proposal is that does uh
does land in what would be perceived as
sort of that uh sort of dip uh and wash
uh corridor. So um they will need
through construction document
finalization to be accounting for uh for
that drainage flow. Um but that is also
part of the context of um what I was
describing for Commissioner Gonzalez
about the site dropping uh in that uh
that area as it moves to the southwest.
Okay. So, the green swale, as we'll call
it, where the where the natural
vegetation is, I'm assuming they're
going to have to do identification of
removal of native species, hopefully
maybe reusing any of the mature trees
that are worth relocating, but are they
going to recreate an artificial wash to
the west as part of their natural open
space, or is the natural open space
basically going to remain as it is with
in terms of topography and and
landscape.
Commissioner Kaminsky, as it stands, um
the the natural area open space easement
that's out there today uh is further
over against the the west and south
boundary of of the site. So, um I don't
recall that they're eating into that so
much as as working within the space that
is not that. But that does, as you've
mentioned, happen to be that sort of
green swale space. Um that would uh
require them as would be the normal
process to um do a native plant salvage
inventory, account for uh those plant
materials, account for the um civil
engineering that would go into all of
that. Uh if if that helps answer your
question.
Yes, thank you. I'm looking forward to
their presentation. Thanks,
Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have a question.
Can we just clarify is the application
at 67 units or 47
units or how many units are we talking
about now? Chair Scarro, uh,
Commissioner Joiner, um, the application
as submitted was 67 units. the the
applicant provided a a letter uh earlier
this week that indicated they were
intending changes to reduce uh to remove
a story from the three-story building
which would have have an impact of
removing 20 units. Uh and so the
expected at least from the information
staff has received is that 67 would
become 47. Okay. Um, but I I'd like to
let them Okay. tell you in case any of
that has changed in the time leading up
to this meeting.
Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Barnes, for the
presentation and response to questions.
Thank you, commissioners. Uh, if we
could have the applicant come up and
give their presentation. I agree.
I agree.
State your name and address for the
record, please.
Most certainly, Mr. Mr. Chairman,
members of the commission, Susan Bidder
Smith here on behalf of the applicant,
Lifestyle Communities. Um, I office here
in Scottsdale at 511 North Scottsdale
Road, a longtime Scottsdale resident. I
am really pleased to be here on behalf
of our lifestyle communities client. And
I want to take just a minute to
introduce them to you because this is
their first foray into the city of
Scottsdale for a development project. um
they are very accustomed to doing these
kinds of we're going to call it
retirement, we're going to call it 55
plus, we're going to call it aging in
place, whatever the right term is for a
very special community. Uh and although
they are based in Minnesota, uh and they
have done great work in Minnesota, and
I'm showing you a few examples of some
of the awards they have received for
doing exactly this kind of project, they
have their heart here in Scottsdale. the
principal of this developer um went to
ASU, got a degree from ASU, has a health
in North Scottsdale, was waiting for the
right time to do the right project, and
we believe this is the one. I will do my
best not to uh repeat um what the staff
presentation told you, but I want to
again reacquaint you with this is
exactly where the site is, Dynamite and
on the school road. Um, and you were
also shown the 1995 city approved plan
which goes back a long time ago. Um,
this is obviously under PCC zoning and I
want to remind you again as Jeff did
that we are not asking for a change to
the zoning at all. In fact, um, we are
just abiding with what the term of PCC
usually is that there's residential
permitted and ultimately encouraged to
happen in the PCC zoning district. I'm
going to show you a little bit of the
background that substantiates that um in
the ordinance to tell you that this was
not just a whim when they purchased this
property. Um but really a calculated
idea to complete the acumen of having
both residential along with
residential. Um after looking at the
site, Lifestyle has put together the
what we're I'm now calling for sale
luxury retirement homes because that's
exactly what they are. Uh whether or not
they are for single women or single men,
Commissioner, not clear, but they
certainly serve a great purpose because
as you suggest, part of what the city
would like to see happen is aging in
place and keeping our residents here to
stay engaged. And this is an opportunity
yet in this part of town to do that. Um
again, I want to reshow you so we can
compare what the 1995 approved site plan
looks like as to the proposed site plan.
Um you can see that uh what was intended
to go here in 1995 and has been and
still could be today would be a grocery
store. Um a grocery store that could be
at 40 plus feet with a pertinances uh to
surv serve the neighborhood. There is
already a great deal of um retail there
already at at heights ranging from um 33
feet to 38 feet to 30 feet. The
Walgreens uh the bank others things that
are there are in that that zone already
in the retail site. So, um, I wanted
again to clarify since there were
questions about the proposal. One of the
reasons I'm here making the
presentations, you're used to seeing me
talking about neighborhood and community
outreach. This developer is an example
of someone who understood ultimately
they needed to be consistent and
listening to neighbors and responding.
Give me just a little I want to give a
little background in terms of how they
got here through this process because
this case has been moving for almost two
years. Um, and at least several of you
on the commission I know have been
through this process because you were at
several different open houses for this
particular parcel. Uh, when they came
into town, great proposal, but were
didn't really yet understand the nuance
of North Scottsdale. I want to tell you
to their credit, they did an open house,
heard the neighbors, and came back and
said, "We need to bring in a local team
to help us do this correctly." They did
that and they've spent this time
listening and responding to what the
surrounding neighbors have asked uh and
provided suggestions for. You're seeing
that still happening in the last 48 to
72 hours um as they've responded yet to
one more inquiry about is there a way we
can remove this the third story on our
proposed residence to twotory to make
sure that we are not infringing on the
lifestyle and and what is happening in
that area to other residents. So, just
to give you a little background again, I
want to make sure you know that the
again the current allowed height of the
grocery store is 48 feet. The heights
now requested for the residents are 31
ft for our two-story product. That's 35%
lower in height uh than what could go
there today. in uh looking at a new
proposal as well. Uh we you'll see that
we have made great reductions from where
this could have been if they were to
build the grocery store in traffic, in
open space, and in building height.
Substantial reductions of what could be
built today without coming in front of
this commission and the city council.
Our NER our proposal requires and
provides substantial setbacks from
Dynamite and from Mama School. So, as
you're driving by, if you live in those
neighborhoods, your impact on your
viewshed is dimminimous. There simply is
not an impact at this point. Uh because
it wasn't at the earlier height.
Certainly now with that reduction into
twotory makes a great big difference. I
also want to tell you a little bit about
um what's happening in setbacks from
those neighbors that are on the other
sides of the project. As you can see,
there's substantial distance between um
single family homes that are on the
border of the retail zone project from
the grocery store. There is a great deal
distance including the NaOS which um
Commissioner Kincy, I want to make sure
you know we have already done the native
plant survey um and very aware of what
we need to do and I appreciated that
question because that's certainly part
of what we want to do to maintain the
viability of the site.
One more shot at what the grocery store
in the villas looked like in terms of
the setback from existing neighbors. We
dramatically increase the NOS on the
site, which I think is a huge advantage
um for neighbors and residents in the
area.
So part of what I wanted to recap again
because what's really important to me in
terms of what this developer has done a
and has exhibited interaction with the
neighborhood is listening from 23 2023
to now and making a series of
substantial changes. Um and we listened
and and you'll see the number of
residents has decreased by 40%. The NAOS
is up by 21%.
Uh ashvault coverage is diminished as
well which has a heat island effect
which of course we're all concerned
about. The daily trips is down by 31%
and our residential sizes are down by
17%. I know at least one member of the
commission knows that initially there
was a different ownership structure uh
suggested when we first came into town.
That has been changed. This is for sale
ownership product. Again targeted to 55
plus um residents who want to stay in
the area and want to be part of that
neighborhood. There's also no short-term
rentals uh in this project, which is
very important to the city and I know to
the neighbors. One of the other things
we heard from the very beginning was
that the at least the initial proposal
didn't uh really reflect northern North
Scottsdale Scottsdale architecture
without a blink of an eye. Um we were
moving forward to do something very
different. And so I want to give you a
sense of the material pallet for the the
the project. I recognize that's an item
that will come from the development
review board, but it makes a difference
in terms of how this project represents
itself and it becomes part of the
community. It integrates into what's
currently there in terms of design and
true north. Um here
is the new cassita design and the
cassitas are the singlestory product um
that are the closest to the
neighbors. This is the new villa design.
This is the two-story now two-story
product. Um, natural colors, very much
uh, sonor and desert oriented, great
landscaping, an opportunity to really
showcase the site without being
incompatible to the neighborhood. I do
also want to talk to you a little bit
about the topography um, because uh,
Commissioner Gonzalez, you asked a
little bit about what that looks like. I
have a graphic here for you, too.
Indeed, as staff told you, the
topography does decline in this area.
Um, it's unusual. We're not going
uphill, we're going downhill. Um, which
makes a huge difference in terms of what
the impact of height is. And again, uh,
in terms of NAOS and what we have to do
from the native plant review will be
done and obviously we have to
accommodate that as we move forward
through the permitting process. There's
there's one other issue we heard a
little bit about and we certainly know
that lighting is an issue in the
neighborhood. We want to be responsive
to that. Interesting enough, at the most
recent open house where we had a number
of neighbors who came who really did
talk to us about that third story and
they also wanted to talk to us about
lighting and if you just see under the
approved commercial plan that is what
lighting would look like uh because
that's what's currently allowed to be
done particularly with a grocery store
in a grocery store with night traffic.
um lifestyle communities has decided and
I think appropriately so this is a
residential area and we want to have
low-level lighting to make sure that we
um are respectful of dark skies in the
areas. So I have a sort of a tenative
plan here to share with you um we would
talk about doing um all low-level
lighting uh potentially I think and I
want to confirm with my client there
would be monitored is that correct? So
that at 1:00 in the morning, you would
have motion sensor if someone's coming
in, but it would not be glowing all
evening as well. Uh, one other thing I
certainly want to mention as we talk
through the the issues that are out
there environmentally. Uh, and I will
mention that in conformance with what
many other developers are doing, all of
our trees will be for a inchbox.
Commissioner Joiner, I know you that's
very important to you. We will continue
to do that. Um, so again, in summary, I
think we are I'm excited to be here
because this is an example of how a
developer can work with a neighborhood,
adapt a plan to what they heard to come
up with a project that's useful, meets
the city's requirements, but is
responsive to the needs of the community
in that particular area. So, with that,
I would be happy to answer your any
questions. I do have the development
team with me um because I am neither an
architect or landscape architect, but I
have experts here that can answer those
questions. Thank you so much. Thank you.
That might be right on the buzzer. I
don't think I've ever seen an applicant
presentation. I'm I'm waiting for the
next boxer to come in with gloves, but
well done. Uh, perfect. I'll open up to
the commissioners to see if there's any
questions for the applicant at this
time. Okay, Commissioner.
This would be a question for the
architect or you maybe the the builder
himself. Um, Commissioner Joiner passed
me a note, um, which could be a could be
a good idea. 67 units in two stories.
Um, not making the units smaller, but
is, you know, I look at the footprint
and said, "No, I don't know that it
could be done, but I ain't no architect,
but the architect is also shaking his
head, I think." Um, is there any way
that you
could do the the 67 units without going
to the third story? So, while they Mr.
Chair, Commissioner Tell, while they are
kibbitzing, let me again, the proposal
now is 47 units, 14 cassitas, 33 villa
homes. The cassitas are 15 feet. Uh, the
two-story build is the building height
is at 31 feet. Just so we're we have
that in context. So, I'm going to turn
to
um Tim's
issue or having information relay. Hang
on.
Oh,
okay. That makes sense. I I'm I'm being
told by those that are in the
architectural world um that that could
not actually be done without drastically
impacting the the natural area open
space. And that's one of the beauties of
this proposal. I I I appreciate the
question um from the commissioner, but I
the natural area open space is an
important element I think to this
project and to the neighborhood.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um I think
it's good to listen to the uh immediate
residents uh but it's even better to
listen to the city um to to all
residents current in perspective. You
know, again, we're getting rid of some
whatever it is uh uh 40 40 units. Um you
know, if you know, our city council is,
you know, stresses being resident
friendly. It's not really friendly to
get rid of residents reticences, if I
can say the word. Uh and that's what
we're doing here. I'd really like to see
it kept at 67. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Tell. Any other
comments? Uh, Commissioner Gonzalez,
thank you. I appreciate bringing out the
color palette and everything, showing us
things that DR just looks at instead of
us, but I appreciate coming forth and
bringing this forward because it helps
us contextualize things.
And you know, although it's not within
our pre preview to really say yay or nay
on those things, it presents a a true
color of the project and that's what I
appreciate. Thank you for coming forth
and being honest about it. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Commissioner. I
appreciate the comment.
Perfect. Uh, Commissioner Kaminsky, do
you have any questions for the
applicant?
No, I just want to say I appreciate
their efforts to work with the neighbors
and um thank you.
Thank you.
Go ahead, vice chair. Thank you.
Um this is the second time I've seen
your presentation. Uh thank you for
sharing all this information with me the
other day. Uh I guess I'll say it's not
often that we get a project that seems
like it doesn't have any hair on it. And
this
one seems like it's uh it got better. Um
forcing a developer to build more than
they want to build. Um you know, there's
there's a lot of things that go into
those decisions and may not just be
because they just want to build fewer
units. Uh I've seen other construction
projects where they took two and three
stories off of a hotel just because it
was so dong expensive to build these
days. whatever the reason is why you did
it, you did it. And I think it uh makes
for a better project overall. Uh it
sounds like it's going to satisfy a lot
of concerns that the neighbors had. Um
and I think it this is a perfect site
for it, especially with the topography.
Um I think it's going to have very
little visual impact. Um, which is kind
of unfortunate because I think your
buildings, at least in the renderings,
look kind of nice and they're hidden
behind, you know, an existing retail
center and behind a big hill. But, uh,
I'm sure your residents will will truly
appreciate and enjoy that. So, uh, with
that, I I support this project and
applaud you on all your efforts. Thank
you. Thank you, Commissioner or Vice
Chair Young, should say. I know you have
a couple of cards. I'll be happy to
respond to those comments uh, if
appropriate. That's where we're going to
start now. Thank you, vice chair. Uh,
thank you, chairman. So, first up Oh, go
ahead. Are we making comments or are we
going to We're going to allow the the
citizens to speak. Y perfect. First, we
have uh Lisa Black. If you'd like to
come up and speak. Uh remember, you have
three minutes and if you could please
state your name and address for the
record.
right here. Hi, my name is Lisa Black. I
live at 10833 East Hedgehog Place. Um I
am in the subdivision Pinnacle Canyon
Las Ventonus, which is immediately
adjacent to this proposed development.
Um I unfortunately was not able to
attend the community meetings that had
been scheduled because I was traveling
on business. But I have some serious
concerns with respect to what's
currently proposed. I know that there's
changes that are being presented today
that have not been shared with any of
the neighbors that I think would be very
helpful for um those neighbors and
homeowners to understand what those
changes are.
Um, while I haven't spoken with every
homeowner in my community, I've spoken
with many of them and there are a lot of
concerns with respect to the development
the way it's currently
proposed as as presented um through the
the process with the city, not
necessarily with what is being proposed
today. So I and I also understand that
um recently it was discovered that
there's a conflict of interest on the
legal side of things between property
immediate property owners that I think
really needs to be fleshed out so that
that both parties can be
um um can work together to try and
resolve what their concerns are between
the two parcels and have a cohesive
solution and not conflict. Um I am
concerned about lighting. I'm concerned
about additional traffic in that area.
I've lived there for 29 years. Um and I
I just think that there needs to be a
little bit more time provided,
especially since they're changing what's
what was originally proposed is
something different now. It would be
nice if there's a little bit more time
to communicate that to the homeowners
and the neighbors um and get their
feedback. I I think it there are a lot
of favorable things that come from that,
but um I think not giving them the
chance to do that is not necessarily the
right thing to do either. I had a
development behind my house maybe 15
years ago and the city was very
proactive and coming working
individually with homeowners so that you
weren't losing sight lines and some of
the beauty of the area that's there. And
I just don't see that happening here.
it's really kind of being shoved down
the path as quickly as it can without a
lot of communication to the homeowners.
So, I'd respectfully request um the
commission consider allowing this this
time, additional time to the homeowners
so they can understand what's being
proposed and potentially be way more
supportive of of what um is now being
revised.
Thank you. Thank you.
Uh, next we have Mike Domer. Hopefully I
said that
correctly. If you could please say your
name and address before you start,
that'd be great.
I'm Mike Dolmer. My address is 24851
North 91st Street, Scottdale
85255. Um I'm
also a direct uh neighbor to this
development. I'm one of the I'm a 50%
owner of Serene which is Bellis Soul at
Scottsdale North
completely directly adjacent on the
southern end of the proposed uh uh site.
Um at first I uh was just informed by
our zoning attorney
um John Barry about this and as soon as
we heard about this we said wait a
minute this is a conflict of interest
uh you represent us how can you
represent these folks so he's
has excused it recused himself from the
representation
um I object to the effect of uh the
statement that there was an effort to
consult with the neighbors. No one has
ever consulted with us. Uh we have 21
homes. We spent a huge amount, millions
of dollars on Serene. We have built two
model homes. We're selling properties in
there. And the price range uh the lowest
price is 2.7 million to 3.7 million.
Um
the property, their proposal shows quite
a distance from the neighbors to the to
the west which is Pinnacle Canyon, but
their proposal their property structures
are almost adjacent to our property
right up against us. And uh we've
already sold two of those properties
that are backing up to that. And these
are $3 million homes are backing up to
these building structures.
Uh I understand that this was originally
a commercial
site, but now it's going to be a
residential site. So we have a
residential site and we have to live up
to the rules of a residential community.
For example, in our community, uh our
homeowners will not be allowed to park
their cars in the driveway. They'll have
to be in a garage all night. This
proposal has parking and lighting which
will not be allowed in our community. Uh
it's uh it's not really a like kind of
residential for that area. It's
completely opposite of what that whole
area is in residential. So if you're
going to go residential,
uh we feel it should be like kind and
this is not like kind. It's completely
different. Um I repres I'm also a broker
in town. one of the top agents in
Arizona and I sell quite a bit of
property in Pinnacle Canyon which the
homes there value from around a million
dollars to $5 million. From what I
understand, some of these structures
will be5 or $600,000 dwellings which
will greatly impact the property values
of not only us in Serene but also in
Pinnacle Canyon, possibly
Estansia True North and the surrounding
areas.
Um I'm also not assured of proper
infrastructure. I don't know if the
sewer, water, and all the other stuff is
proper to go from a density of up to
include we're at 21 homes. If you go to
67 here that brings it to 90
uh or if you go to 47 and that brings it
to 68. How that's going to affect
traffic and everything else? I do know
it's congested there. There's a lot of
traffic now. Now you pull out a 100 cars
or six 70 to 100 cars out of there
daily, it's going to affect that whole
area. Um, Mr. Durmer, if you could wrap
up your comments, that'd be great. What
was that? If you could wrap up your
comments, that'd be great. Okay. So, I
what I'm asking for is a um a
continuence on this so we can discuss
with these folks their their proximity
to our property. the building structures
are going to be up against our
homeowners that are in our community and
uh to really figure out what's going on.
We were never informed. I thought we
should have been informed about this
before this even happened today and uh
we've never had any discussion about it.
So, I'm asking just for a continuence.
We just need more time to see if we can
work out the differences and come up
with a solution that will be immunable
to not only us but to everybody else in
that surrounding area. Thank you for the
time. Thank you, sir. If the applicant
would like uh to respond to those
comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members
of the commission. um to to both
comments from Miss Black and Mr.
Delmare. I guess I'm confused because
we've been extensive conversations with
Mr. Feifer who is the co-owner of Serene
um even written communication back and
forth and as you might have guessed that
has resulted in a change in legal
representation but there have been a
number of comp conversations. In fact um
part of the the neighborhood input that
was gathered not just by um these
property owner but also by others is
what moved us to be responsive to do
this two-story units. We've had a number
of openhouse meetings. We've had um a
number of individual meetings both with
the HOA and then two open houses in the
last couple of years. So I guess I would
respectfully disagree with the
perception that um this particular
property owner was not included. There
has certainly been a great deal of
conversation um with them and and again
responsiveness to be respectful of what
their concerns were. Happy to answer any
of your questions. Uh Mr. Chair or
commissioners. Great. Thank you. Uh,
I'll let other commissioners uh ask
questions and I'll have a few of my own.
Go ahead. Yeah, I have a quick question
about um the last gentleman
um said he thought that these would be
around the $500 $600,000 range. My
understanding on one of the slides that
these are going to be around 780 per
square feet. I don't know how long the
resident how large the residences will
be, but 1,200 square feet is $936,000.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Higs, that's
correct. My my client is is nodding.
Your math is is accurate. Okay. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Go ahead.
Thank you. Um, let me just start by
saying I live 200 yards from this um
from this project and I believe I was at
the very first open house that was
attended with five other city councilmen
that were there and I was also at the
most recent open house that was here.
And I am thrilled at the difference um
and the attentiveness that the applicant
has come forth with all the objections
that were expressed at that time. Um I'm
also very happy about the dark sky uh
reference because I do live in that area
and the gas station provides more than
enough light uh that we can see and I'm
thrilled that we're not going to have to
deal with that. uh the lower height. Um
I would have liked to have seen the
three stories stay because I feel the
same way Commissioner Ertels feels that
um all of us, no matter how young you
are, were aging and it would be
wonderful to be able to leave our larger
homes and go to something smaller that
was still in the area that we all love.
Um, I know that the traffic reports
indicate a certain number of traffic and
I'm being told that that is uh
relegated, but senior citizens drive
less miles than people that are raising
children who have people go or their
kids are driving and they're going to
soccer games and everything else. So no
matter what the traffic report says in
this application, I believe the traffic
that will be generated from this many
many of these um occupants may be
seasonal as
well. Um I love the way the NaOS was
respected. Um I walk that area with my
dogs and um it is a difficult piece of
property because of the elevation
changes. It's a beautiful piece of
property and I think that the applicant
with the changes that have been made has
respected that very much. And one thing
I did not want was a grocery store. Um,
a grocery store could be built there
today backing up to the neighbors home,
the subdivision that they're referencing
without having to come through us or
anybody else. So, this has been a um a
great effort on their part. Um I am not
in favor of continuing this.
Continuences cost money and I think that
um this has been a very expensive
process and applicant application to
bring to this to this area. So I do
highly support it and I thank the
applicant for all the work you've done
over the last two years. I was at that
first meeting. So thank
you chairman commissioner join. I
appreciate your comments. I do just
wanted to add that um the reason I am
standing up here with great confidence
as a neighborhood and community outreach
person is because these clients have
spent a great deal of time talking to
responding to neighbors. I'm going to
tell you they're not done. So if there
are conversations that need to continue
to happen, we can continue to do that as
we move through the process.
Thank you. Commissioner Joiner, do you
have any other questions or comments?
Nope, I'm good. Okay. Commissioner
Ertell.
Thank you, Chair. uh just we're in the
comment phase. So uh you know I go
through my usual uh you know three
criteria uh amenities you know as I said
before this is a good niche product it's
not available
uh outside this you know this area it's
you can go farther away but you can't be
in this place uh and find this sort of
thing. So, you know, as I've mentioned,
I know two people some I guess
um
u Susan was saying, well, there may be
men here as well. I only know one widow
uh widowerower, excuse me, you know, so
it's mostly widows. Um but whatever.
It's a good product for the area. Uh
that takes care of amenities.
Aesthetics, it does look good. uh as uh
Commissioner Young I believe has said,
you know, it's too bad that it's not
more visible, but the people will like
the privacy. Um you know, it's quiet,
it's dark. If there's anything, I would
say it's desert bland, which I'm not a
fan of, but you know, I'm just
different. Uh okay, we have some fans of
desert bland. I say that's good. Uh
economics, um you know, I ask about
water because water is always an issue.
the demand of 67 or 47 or 82 people, you
know, is not an issue for, you know,
water demand. Uh traffic,
um I agree with Commissioner Joiner.
Um you know, traffic is not an issue uh
for this number of of vehicles,
certainly compared to the grocery. Um so
it's a good allocation of resources for
um providing providing the aging and
place um residences. Uh it's going to
pay property taxes. Uh that's good for
the city. Um and like I say, negligible
demand on infrastructure. So I think
this is a good project. Um, if I get the
opportunity to make the motion, I will
leave it as is at the 67 and other
people can not second or vote me down,
whatever. But I think it should
be 67. So, we're not ready for a motion
yet, though, right? Not yet. Okay. Thank
you, Commissioner. Any other
commissioners would like to Mr. uh
Commissioner Gonzalez, go ahead. Um, Mr.
Barnes. Um, just real quickly, um, did
you make notations of the open houses
and things that the applicant have, uh,
performed in recent time?
Commissioner Gonzalez, uh, we have
record of the ones that had taken place
previously that, uh, was submitted as
part of the outreach summary. Um, but
not necessarily the more, um, recent,
uh, so if you did want that
documented in the record, uh, we'd we'd
just want to get that from the applicant
to Is it
I'm being uh I'm being corrected
informed uh that the most recent report
covers uh the most recent outreach
efforts. So we we would then have Do you
know what time period that might be and
anybody can answer that staff or
applicant whatever
commissioner? I don't have it in front
of me. I imagine the applicant team does
their scram for that. Thanks.
Miss Peter Smith, Mrs. Mr. M. I think it
was a month ago because I attended it.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Gonzalez, it
was it was about a month ago. It was
April 15th. Uh, in addition to other
individual responses to questions and
follow up from that meeting. Very good.
Thank you very
much. That ends my questions. Thank you.
Before I have questions, uh, any other
commissioners, uh, vice chair, do you
have any questions? Okay. Commissioner
Kaminsky.
Yes. Um I know our purview is not
design. The only concern I would have
with design if there was a way of
integrating the parking into the units.
I'm just thinking of the people that are
living in these units having to walk
to whether it's covered or or uncovered
surface parking not adjacent to their
unit. That would be one thing that I
think as an amenity, having the parking
adjacent to the units they're living in
would be preferable.
um to the response of the comments
regarding the property to the south. I
think if somebody is buying a property
with the intent of building a three $3
million home in doing their due
diligence, they would have seen that a
Walmart or grocery store could go in on
that lot to the north and they would
have had to have bought with the
exception that that was the reality they
were going to be facing. and what's
being proposed in terms of
zoning is less than what they could do
by entitled right. So we have a
situation where yes, as Commissioner
Ortell indicated, they could be doing 89
units. They proposed
67 even within that. That was their
right to do that. And now they're
proposing even less, which is less
impact to the area, in terms of traffic,
in terms of visibility. Now they're
lowering it in terms of height. If they
were able to do subterranean parking and
and keep the density that they
originally proposed, you know, that
would be great. They've indicated that
they can't get the density they
originally proposed. I don't think we
should mandate that, but our role in
recommending to council can certainly be
that we recommend what the applicant is
proposing with a recommendation that if
they
even had the ability to increase the
density with meeting the concerns of the
neighbors that we would also recommend
that. I don't know if that's possible,
but um those are my thoughts in terms of
the zoning and in terms of the design.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Kaminsky. U
appreciate those words, a lot of what I
wanted to say as well, but I do have a
couple questions uh from Mrs. Bitter
Smith if you've got a moment
here. Uh we did receive some interesting
feedback uh and I appreciate that. Thank
you, Lisa Black and Mike Dome.
Appreciate that very much. We also had
some written responses. uh in terms of
questions and concerns and most of the
written responses were the third story.
So removing that third story was pretty
key. Uh focusing in on the fact that
what can be done by ride as Commissioner
Kaminsky has noted. Uh can we go back to
your slide that shows uh the existing
versus proposed developments and the
slides that specifically shows setbacks
between the adjacent residential.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, give me one second
here. I'll get my crack
assistant.
Think is that the suspects?
I should have kept them in order. My
apologies. I did not do that.
Mr. Chairman, were you wanting the
visuals or were you wanting the graph?
Uh, the visuals, I believe. Okay. All
right. All
right. There we go.
Perfect. Now, Mr. Chair, also there's
also a graphic, I think, that actually
has the setbacks with arrows.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is the setbacks
from the streets. And then you wanted
this. I think there's a third that you
were looking for which we're pulling out
of my now disarrayed slides to show you.
There we go.
Perfect. So I I wanted to to review
these slides uh because again the
grocery store and inline retail are by
right would not come forward to planning
commission at all. And so the proximity
of the grocery store to the closest
residential it looks to be 169 ft. And
right now the closest cassita is
230 and that's for a single story to
single story. That's the the ver the the
horizontal separation correct and that's
the tightest. Every other dimension
seems to be significantly more than
that. Okay. I believe you also have a
slide that contemplates dimensions
perfect from the
multi-story. And again we have the 169
and the 379 respective for the grocery
store. and it looks like it's 527 and
342. So again, a significant setback um
less impactful than the current approved
grocery
store. I believe uh Mrs. Black was
talking about the site plan. I mean,
we're really focused here a bit on the
site plan and how it it's changed from
the grocery store to these residential
units. With the removal of the 20 units,
we're just removing a floor. The
footprint, the site plan has not
changed. Is that a correct statement,
Mr. Chair? That's correct.
Okay. Uh so, so ultimately what has been
presented in the public outreach and
conversations that you, the applicant,
have had with neighbors, the site plan
itself has not changed, just three to
two stories.
Mr. Chair, that's correct. Uh comments
from neighbors and the adjacent property
owner. Okay. And uh also doing that
comparative. I know you went through the
slides, but the traffic generated from a
commercial grocery store and inline
retail compared to what is proposed here
with 47 units. I believe you do have a
graph for that. Can we can we look at
that one more time, please? We do.
And again, bear with me.
traffic.
For just a point of clarification, there
were when in removing that top floor,
there were some very small modifications
which we can get uh the design team up
here to to talk about in a little more
detail as far as um removing a small
bank of parking spaces obviously that
were not necessarily needed with moving
uh removing 20 units. So about 10 spaces
which reduced the uh asphalt footprint.
um as well as moving some covered spaces
into enclosed garage spaces. So there
were some tiny modifications to the site
plan, but um we believe there were
improvements to that. So the footprint
of the structures of the cassitas and
the two stories has not
changed. Okay. And I believe, Mr. Chair,
this is the graph you're looking for in
terms of the the potential traffic from
the grocery store
to proposed residential. It absolutely
is. Uh these changes I believe are
significant and really make this project
a a good fit for this area. I like the
idea that it's not like kind to
everything around it that there's a bit
of a mix of opportunities for for people
to be in that area. So looking at the
building height being significantly
reduced that that's a significant impact
to the neighbors as well. So not only
the distance but the height of the
structure
u the open space significantly more open
space that that borders those single
family homes in this development and I
think that the traffic I believe it
might have been commissioner that said
that traffic isn't the problem here and
and I agree I think the problem would be
if this was a commercial project we
would have a a real problem with
traffic. Uh so I really appreciate that.
I also want to say thank you for showing
the topography of the site to really
explain how that site looks vertically.
It also shows that even the building
height at 31 ft I think to your word
would be dimminimous in in any impact uh
to the adjacent neighbors. Uh overall
I'm very supportive of the project. I
like the idea that that you have another
option in close proximity to an
otherwise amazing area of Scottsdale.
So, uh, with that, that's all the
questions I have for the applicant. I,
if there are no other questions, then I
am ready for a motion to be made. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Uh, we're going to
have fun with this tonight.
Commissioner,
we always have fun. I will make as I
prepare to make the motion. I want to
clarify something. Uh correct me if I'm
wrong on that. What we do is
to vote to recommend or to recommend
approval to recommend disapproval. We
could do a continuence, but what we do
is recommend. And what we recommend is
not binding on the city council. City
Council isn't locked into saying, "Well,
either we approve this the way the
planning commission recommended it or we
don't." I believe they have the
flexibility to approve what they want to
approve. Is that not correct? Correct.
Yes. Yes. Commissioner Tell, that is
correct. Thank you. Well, given that,
then I make a motion for recommendation
of approval to city council for case 2
ZN 2024 per the staff recommended
stipulations after finding that the
proposed zoning district map amendment
is consistent and conforms with the
adopted general plan.
I second the motion.
I don't have a live mic. No, it does
not.
That was my point. So, we have a we have
a a motion and a second. Um, is there
any deliberation before we make a roll
call vote?
I I can make a commission. When can I
make a I have to make wait for that
vote. Never mind. Different motion.
Okay. All right. So, can I clarify? Yes,
please. Commissioner Kaminsky, I'm
sorry. Is the motion for as the
application was presented in the report
and recommended by staff prior to the
amendment with the density change? Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay.
Does staff have any comments during this
deliberation?
Uh yeah. So, Chair Scarell, I I think
Commissioner Higgs was potentially gonna
want to discuss the possibility of an
alternative motion. I don't know if that
was uh the direction that was heading.
So, uh we're kind of taxing my knowledge
of parliamentary procedure, but I'm
fairly certain uh the commissioner can
make an alternative motion before we
hold the vote on the main motion.
I I caught myself because I was thinking
we needed to vote on the first one. And
if that doesn't pass in a second motion.
Yeah, I think that came up once before
and we had to vote on the motion.
I recall.
So I think in terms of order of voting,
I think that's correct. Vice Chair
Young, I think Commissioner Higs can
still present the alternative motion,
but ultimately the commission would vote
on uh Commissioner Ertell's pending
motion first. If the motion passes at
that point, uh because of the nature of
the motion, you wouldn't be able to make
an alternative motion. It would be moved
at that point.
Okay. Uh so call for the question. There
you
go. Okay. So, roll call vote.
Chair Scar Bro.
Why do I go first? Right. Right. Chair,
you wanted the seat.
[Music]
Uh, yes.
Vice Chair Young, no. Commissioner
Gonzalez, yes. Commissioner Kaminsky,
no.
Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Joiner,
no. Commissioner Higgs, no.
Uh, motion fails. Correct. Motion
failed. Couldn't do the math. Okay. I am
uh opening the uh floor to any other
commissioners who are Yeah. I would like
to make an alternative
motion. Um, make a motion for
recommendation of approval to city
council for phase 2 ZN 2024 per the
staff recommended stipulations as
amended based on the applicant's changes
after finding that the proposed zoning
district map amendment is consistent and
conforms with the adopted general plan.
I'll second it. Fantastic. We have a
motion and a
second. Any deliberation on this motion?
Roll call vote, please.
Chair Scarro, yes.
Vice Chair Young, yes. Commissioner
Gonzalez, yes. Commissioner Kaminsky,
yes. Commissioner, well, I guess 47 is
better than none. So, yes. Commissioner
Joiner, yes. Commissioner Higs, yes.
Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.
Fantastic. I appreciate that uh lesson
and parliamentary procedures. So, we're
moving on to item number five on the
regular agenda. 596 PA 2024-2 adaptive
reuse tax amendment initiative. Mr.
Carr.
Thank you and good evening, Mr.
Chairman, members of the commission. Um,
here this a this evening to uh go over a
proposed text amendment initiation by
staff with regards to the adaptive reuse
legislation. Um, so getting into that, I
know most of not all of you are pretty
familiar with this legislation from the
last goound. Um, but for those in the
audience that may not be, we get a
little bit of background on where we
are, where we got, how we got to where
we're at. This initiation or this
initiative, I should say, started in
2024 with House Bill
2297. Um, the legislation passed this,
the legislature passed this last year
and the government, the governor signed
that last year. Um, it was intended to
address the conversion of economically
or functionally obsolete uh commercial
office and mixeduse properties to multif
family residential
uses. The legislator legislation
outlined uh several uh objective
criteria for um conversion of multif or
of commercial properties to multif
family residential uses. Those include
that um and probably most importantly
that a public hearing process is cannot
be uh enforced by a municipality as part
of the process of conversion. So uh
typically a you know cup or reszoning or
development review board or any other
type of application that would be
required for um conversion of a
commercial property to residential would
be uh would not be allowed per the
requirements of the state legislation.
In addition, there outline some uh some
objectives with regards to ensuring
adequate water supply. Um site plan
review of an application. Um as I said
before, it had to be showed that there
was uh property was economically or
functionally obsolete and there was a
provision that the new multifamily
development provide lowinccome or
moderate income housing at least minimum
10% over a 20-year period. Um there's
also some provisions related to setbacks
and density and building height and as
well as some specific exclusions uh
where this this new legislation and the
ability for that conversion would apply.
Notably historical areas or those areas
in the vicinity of a designated airport
would be excluded from allowing uh or
from uh taking part in these provisions.
So, uh, staff went through this process
last year, 2024, through the summer and
fall, and that culminated in city
council adopting those new requirements
in the city's zoning ordinance in
November of 2024.
Fast forward to this legislative
session, House Bill 20 2110
um was recently passed and signed by the
governor which sought to I guess clarify
some of the requirements um as a result
of um some of the um actions taken by
different municipalities across the
state. So, um, some of those revisions,
uh, you can see on the screen there.
Previously, the prior requirements
stated that not more than 10% of the
city's commercial space could be
converted. That was changed this year to
say that at least 10% had to be
converted. Last year, the city chose to
to um allow up to 1% conversion of our
commercial space. And as a reminder,
that was done as a result of some
careful analysis by city staff about our
existing land use composition. The city
of Scotsdale doesn't really have a whole
lot of commercial space uh and as it is
right now. So in order to maintain that
composition between that balance between
uh commercial and residential, we had
chosen only to convert 1% of our
existing commercial space. But again,
the new legislation overrides that and
says that we have to do at least 10%. Um
further changes in this legislation um
now relates to um how parcels are now
designated versus land uh building area.
Prior we had to go and calculate all the
building area uh without this throughout
the city determine 1% that conversion.
Now we're converting based on parcels
number of parcels. Um it continues to
this new legislation does continue to
exclude historic uh designate historical
areas and areas that are in the vicinity
of an airport. that's still in the
provisions. It also continues to exclude
areas that the city may want to
designate as important commercial or
employment hubs. Again, to remind you,
those are the areas that the city has uh
identified as being very important to
the commercial activity and um daily
operations of city of uh the citizens
lives here. Uh maybe those are grocery
store locations or similar. The city can
protect up to 10% of our existing
commercial areas. in that manner. The
new provisions also include um an
exclusion for those parcels that have a
sound level over 65
dB. And finally, those provisions, the
new provisions also make some clarifying
um changes with regard to setbacks and
density and building height and how
those are calculated. These new
provisions were enacted with an
emergency clause. As a result, um the
city has a deadline of July 6th to make
these u changes in their zoning
ordinance. So our approach similar to
the last time around, we were going to
um review and analyze this uh this new
legislation. Um but the fact is the
state legislature and this the governor
have already signed this. So it's now an
implementation stage for us. Um we'll
make some updates after some public
outreach which we'll go over in later.
And some of the analysis we're going to
be doing is um those statutory
exclusions that are provided by the new
legislation as I mentioned the
commercial employment hubs are still in
place. The airport vicinity exclusion is
still in place and of course historical
buildings. The timeline as I mentioned
is condensed. We are here this evening
to initiate this text amendment with the
planning commission and we will have a
draft of those proposed amendments as a
result of this legislation provided here
pretty pretty quickly. We are also
conducting public outreach this week. We
had an open house on Monday and we will
be following that up with another open
house tomorrow night at Mountain View
Community Center. Finally, or next up
will be planning commission
recommendation hearing just two weeks
from today. So, we'll include um any
updates we have to that public outreach
and um provide a report to planning
commission on on our approach uh and
hopefully a recommendation from the
commission on May 28th. And then in
order to meet that deadline of July 6,
we are hopeful to get to city council by
June 24th for action on that. So this
evening, again, as I mentioned, we are
requesting that the planning commission
initiate a text amendment to the zoning
ordinance to address these proposed
changes uh through the applicable
sections in the zoning
ordinance. Um and on the screen here is
some information about if you want some
additional information, you can use this
QR code. Um we are that QR code will
take you to a website that will provide
you that draft, that forthcoming draft
of the city's proposed changes to the
zoning ordinance. Um that will be House
Bill 2110 will be our new 3TA 2024
number two. You can provide additional
public comment on that website and stay
up to date on upcoming hearings. That
concludes my presentation for this
evening. I'm happy to answer any
questions. Thank you, Mr. Carr. I've got
one quick question for you. Uh having
read through this and looking at House
Bill 20110,
uh there's an added
um provision here on page three.
Multifamily residential development that
is constructed pursuant to this section
does not qualify as being within one
mile of the parcel being redeveloped or
the next closest multif family parcel.
Thought this was really interesting
wording. Could you sort of enlighten us
and the public on on what that means to
the city staff? Absolutely and thank you
for the question chairman. So that is
actually found in uh on the left side of
the screen on line starts on line six
number five. And what that um that
provision is intended to do uh because
the way this this legislation is uh is
organized, it basically says that a new
multifamily conversion and the density
and the building height uh for that new
multifamily conversion is based on any
existing density and building height in
in the vicinity uh onem vicinity of the
proposed site. And so, um, in order to,
I guess, limit the idea, the the ability
for someone to daisy chain these
different sites together and get one new
site approved and then have another site
that's another mile away and and then be
able to use the density from that
existing site or that new site. This
provision basically says if you build a
new multifamily conversion site, that
site no longer becomes eligible as a
basis for another site in the future.
It's worded a little bit uh I guess a
little bit construed but um that's the
intent of that provision. Great. Thank
you, Mr. Carr. Do any of the other
commissioners have questions for staff?
Commissionerell. Thank you, Chair.
Uh you said that the state came back to
you know to clarify some of the language
of the previous one and you me and you
did allude to other cities I believe
around the state that had uh some
misconceptions or whatever you want to
call them. Uh you know Scottsdale had
said well it says up to 10%
um you know may be converted and so the
city said let's go with 1%. Were there
other cities that did that same sort of
thing on that particular point? Mr.
Chairman and and Commissioner, I don't
know of any specifically off top of my
head. Uh my colleague Adam is here.
Maybe he can opine on that.
Commissioner Ortell, uh through Chair
Scarboro, uh thanks for the question. At
the time of the drafting of the last
year's legislation, uh I believe it was
the town of Gilbert had selected 5%
uh and and other communities had kind of
fallen in line with you know a method
that they were comfortable with. None of
which were really um as thorough
candidly as what Scotsilla had chosen
based on the analysis that we provided.
Perhaps the number looked
ultraconervative but again we had a a
very clear methodology as to how we
applied it. I understand. I was just
curious if other cities had done it. you
said at least Gilbert was one that did.
So that's, you know, thank you very
much. I appreciate that. Thank you,
Commissioner. Any other commissioners
have
questions? Okay. I uh I believe we're
going to have to now take a vote on
this, so I guess I need a a motion and a
second. Go ahead. Um I'd like um Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to
initiate project 596 PA 2024 number two
for the major general plan amendment and
text amendment. We have a motion to have
a second. Second. Second by
Commissioner. Roll call vote, please.
Chair Scar Bro, yes. Vice Chair Young,
yes. Commissioner Gonzalez, yes.
Commissioner,
yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner
Joiner. Yes. Commissioner Higs. Yes.
Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Carr. All right. That
takes care of the regular agenda. Now
we're moving to non-action items. Number
six, status update regarding noise
regulations. Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, members of commission. For the
record, I'm Tim Curtis with the city's
planning department.
So, the planning commission uh requested
an update on the city's uh noise
ordinance
status. The
um the special noise violations code um
structurally is in our city code as
chapter 19 on
offenses. Uh it's not part of the zoning
code or any land development code. It's
part of the city code dealing with
offenses and um that section of the code
deals with uh human or personal
behaviors. Uh part of that section
includes public
intoxication, discharge of weapons,
smoking in public spaces. Um so that's
just to outline um where that part of
the code is. As you know, the zoning
code deals with land use, land use
regulations, not so much uh personal
behavior. The um that part of the code
has been and and continues to be
reviewed by and managed by the office of
the city manager um with emphasis
because of the offensive uh behaviors by
police and code enforcement and of
course our legal departments.
Little bit of background. In 2010, the
city adopted a special noise ordinance
uh that was intended to address
unreasonable noise uh by businesses
primarily that serve alcohol and live
entertainment. Um through that um
adoption, there was regulations to
measure based off of the decibel level a
bandweight level. Um and they adopted a
68 dB as the as the measuring stick to
that. Uh as we deal with uh noise the
planning commission and planning
department most often with uh reviewing
and making recommendations city council
on conditional use permits. Um and
so as you well aware we deal with noise
and other mitigation methods and even as
you rotate on development review board
sometimes there's some discussion about
noise mitigation with designs of
buildings and so forth. So it's not
entirely foreign to us even though it's
not part of the zoning code.
more background. Um, jumping to November
2023 after over a decade of that uh
noise ordinance in effect, there were
some community workshops um just to
discuss the effectiveness of the noise
ordinance. Um there were the workshops
had over 100 participants, stakeholders
and city staff. And then shortly after
those open houses, um the city council
had a work study session, um where they
came to some consensus on many items,
including a need to conduct further
analysis of sound uh in Scottsdale and
balancing the needs of various
stakeholders. And one important
component of that um was uh adding or at
least having a conversation of analyzing
and adding a measuring base impacts
which would be the uh C bandweight level
uh DBC units. So that um has been part
of an ongoing process in terms of the
status here uh where there's research
and um involvement of various city
departments
um and uh working for additional public
input and all of that takes some time.
Um but that has been going on um for the
last year a little bit more. Um, but I
think there's been some stall. Uh, we do
have some changes in city leadership
both at the with the election uh in
November as well as the city manager's
office.
So uh although currently there's no time
frame for completion of these uh efforts
uh I I I am aware that the city
manager's office is um looking at um the
noise ordinance conversation with the
city council. I know the city manager's
office at least I've been told that city
manager's office is going to be talking
about that a little bit more internally
um in the next week or two. uh and and I
know that there's interest of course
continually with the city council. So I
wish I had more of an update for you and
I'd be happy to um continue keeping you
a breast of the uh any updates that we
received um given other priorities that
the city leadership has. Um I'd be happy
to answer any questions if I can. But
again, it's not something being managed
um or directed by the planning
department. Um but we uh have been
involved um during that year of
analysis, but it's mostly um code
enforcement in the office of the city
manager. So with that, I'd be happy to
answer any questions. Thank you, Mr.
Curtis. Uh do we have any commissioners
who would like to ask some questions? Uh
yeah, I have a question. given that this
really isn't under the I guess purview
of planning and
zoning, but with the potential
changes, could it be somehow um tied
into planning and zoning? So if a case
comes through that there might be some
um requirements for noise mitigation
that could be part of discussions um
when a case comes through or is it
always going to be kind of separate um
from our efforts?
So, Chair Scar Bro and Commissioner
Higgs, the the actual ordinance um
creation and and recommendation, if
anything, goes to the city council,
would not go through the planning
commission because, like you said, it's
not within the purview. But as you um
know and as you've applied in the past,
um having a conversation during
conditional use permits that that
generate noise is certainly one of the
criterion of the use permits. And so
that's fair game for the case by case
for the conditional use if if it's
compatible with the surrounding. Uh so
that's one. um as you've done in the
past, working with applicants on on on
additional stipulations and or sound
measurements nearby resulting from their
activity. That's another one. Right.
Right. And then um you're involved in
zoning code amendments uh that um that
could include references to the noise
ordinance in terms of cross references.
Um and maybe some of that expertise
gleaned from those ordinances and the
creation of those ordinance may be able
to be applied to um use permit criteria
in the future. Mhm. The idea is that if
you have a strong noise ordinance, one
maybe that's better than it is today
that deals with DBA and DBC for the base
levels, that that would help alleviate
some of the um stress and or burdens
being placed on the planning commission
when evaluating compatibility of land
uses because it is behavioral more so
than land use. Um so we're hoping that
uh when the an update is provided that
um that would be then part of the
updated stipulation package for these
land uses to help assure compatibility
and then um if there's a problem with
those conditional uses. This would just
be another tool to um in addition to
what the police do to get correction
based off of the risk of losing their
use permit. Right. Okay. Thank you for
understanding and translating what I was
trying to get out. You you responded
perfectly. Thank you. Thank you,
Commissioner Higs. Anybody else?
Chairman. Yes, Commissioner Joiner. Go
ahead.
You knew I was going to bring this up.
Um, I know that Councilwoman Salange
brought it up yesterday at the retreat
and I want you to know that the comments
I'm going to make, um, I did run them by
Vice Chair Damascus this afternoon and
she told me to pass on to you that she's
in total support of what I'm going to
say. Um, and I want to Did anybody in
here reme remember the pickle ball
applications? Oh, yeah. Okay. We we
talked about pickle ball noise for 20
hours on DRB. remember that? And we had
a U noise specialist come in and talked
about the noise from pickle ball. So I
was trying to remember I've been now on
DRB and planning for going on almost
five years and I bet we've heard
applications 25 times from bar owners,
from restaurants, and from neighbors
about noise. So, we do deal with noise
on a regular basis. And so, I think that
part of the problem is nobody knows what
the rule is. Nobody knows um we're
applicants tell me they have to spend
inordinate amounts of money on an
attorney that is an expert in noise just
to get in front of us. That's not fair.
There should be a rule. And I think
neighbors should have an idea of if they
buy in Oldtown, they should have a
reasonable expectation of what noise is
allocated. If you build buy next to a
bar, it's probably going to have noise.
And I think noise is defined differently
by everyone. I mean, to me, rap music is
offensive to me at any level, but yet
people love it, you know. So, I think
it's all um a personal opinion, but I
think there has to be a level that is
acceptable and expected. It would
certainly cut down on your time because
when an applicant comes in, I don't know
how much time you spend counseling them
on the fact that they're going to have
to address noise issues. But,
um I'm very sensitive to the fact that
there's been a huge change in city
council. Um, I believe that at the
meetings that I think you guys held last
year, the the forums that we had, those
were fabulous, but we never saw any
results from them. What What came from
those? Did it just because other things
took more precedence? I would have loved
to have seen the compilation of what the
hundred people that attended those said
about the noise and what their
recommendations were. I know at the
table I sat at the big deal was the
noise coming from Westworld during
motorcycle week and it was a hot button
for the homeowners that back up to that
area. So it is relevant in a different
way to everybody but I think it would be
helpful if we just had a decibel level
or a base level of some type of sound
that was
acceptable. You may not think it's
acceptable. or I may not, but at least
we know what the rule is. And I think
that would cut down on everybody's work
and make it a much easier process for
applicants and and especially for
homeowners. So, I I hope this is going
to go forward. I'm going to talk to city
council about it because I I want it to
be fit on your schedule because you guys
have so much free time. I know. But I
think it is important and I think it's
important to the voters. I think it's
important to the bar owners and um I
think it'll be important to us because
we won't have to constantly be hearing
homeowners saying I don't want the bar
because it's too noisy and the bar owner
going but I promise I'm not going to
make any noise. You know that's not
realistic. We need a rule. I'm I'm all
about the rules. So I appreciate what
you're doing. We just need to do more.
So thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Joiner. Yeah, I
I I echo those sentiments and I I really
think having a comprehensive noise
ordinance is really important. I don't
believe the decibel level threshold we
have now contemplates the different
types of noise. I appreciate uh Mr.
Curtis, you showing the difference
there. I think bass is one of the more
problematic parts of the noise that's in
our community. Uh so I I'm just hoping
and and echo that that there's movement
on some sort of understanding uh for
noise ordinance and decibel levels that
is comprehensive and not just focusing
on one portion of
noise. Uh does any other commissioner go
ahead commissioner? Thank you chair. Um
I do understand that at least the police
have told me that you're supposed to
measure the decibel level x feet away.
Um, and when you're in the entertainment
district, you don't know then which bar
you're picking up or which bar is the
offender. You know, if it's, you know,
if it's my neighborhood, if it's me
playing Willie Nelson or Metallica, you
know that everybody knows it's me
because the neighbors aren't playing
Willie or Metallica. Uh, but in the
entertainment district, which bar is it?
And if you're checking decibel um as
opposed to whether it's Willie or
Metallica um you know who knows where
that decel is coming from. So you know
that's the I don't want to say excuse
that was the explanation that the police
had for how why it's difficult to
measure. You know I am sure people that
are technically proficient uh could come
up with ideas as to how to isolate a
particular bar. Maybe measure more
closely. You don't need meat for that.
But I, you know, we do understand that
there's this isn't just a matter of
saying, well, do something. Uh, it's a
matter of do something that can work. So
anyway, thank you for your efforts.
Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have any
comments or questions? Uh, Commissioner
Kaminsky?
No. Thank you. Okay. All right. If there
are no more questions or comments, I
guess we'll uh look for a motion for
German.
So moved. All right. Second. Second. All
in favor? I I Thank you. Thank you. Bye.