Planning Commission - August 27, 2025

planning commission public hearing. The
city appreciates your interest and
participation in the public hearing
process. The planning commission serves
as an advisory board to the city council
on land use and zoning matters. The
hearing agenda items consist of
development applications that require
public hearings. The planning commission
considers the item and makes a makes a
recommendation for approval or denial to
the city council. 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, continuence for items that will
not be heard tonight, withdrawals for
items that have been withdrawn from from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. Planning commission will
deliberate on the case and cast their
votes. And lastly, non-action items are
for discussion only items. No vote will
be cast by the planning commission.
Citizens wishing to speak on any agenda
item will need to fill out a blue
speaker card or if not willing to speak
may fill out a yellow comment card and
turn it in at the staff table before the
agenda item is to be discussed. The
chair will call your name when it is
your turn to speak. When called, please
come to the podium, state your name and
address, and then begin speaking. Groups
wishing to speak should elect a
spokesperson to represent the views of
the group. To facilitate the meeting,
your comment will be limited to three
minutes for individual speakers. one
additional minute for each additional
individual who is present at the hearing
and has contributed their time to a
representative speaker up to a maximum
of 10 minutes. Please format your speech
to fit within the allotted time. A light
system is installed on the podium for
timing presentations. The light will be
green for two minutes, yellow for one,
and red when your time is up. Please
conclude your comments when the red
light appears. Thank you for your
interest in time. Now we'll begin the
hearing with the roll call.
Chair Scar Bro
here.
Vice Chair Young
here.
Commissioner Gonzalez
present.
Commissioner Ertell
here.
Commissioner Joiner
here.
Commissioner Drake
here.
Commissioner Reid
here.
All here.
Thank you very much. Uh I don't see any
up here, but Mr. Curtis, do we have any
public comments for non-aggendaized
items?
No, Mr. Chairman, we do not.
Perfect. Then we'll move to the
administrative report. Mr. Curtis.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
planning commission. Just want to uh
remind you that the KA has been um
reorganized since the summer break by
the city council. So
the podium to my right here will be used
by the staff presentation and the
applicant presentation. And the podium
um further to the left will be used for
public comment. So, if anybody wants to
speak, they'll be using that uh podium
over there. So, those are the big
changes. The table out front here is
just temporary. That's um just hasn't
been moved for some of the council
items, but we won't be using that table
tonight. And uh as you see, they added
additional screens in front of us. So,
we'll just try to look over them. But,
um so those are the new changes. Um and
so, I hope everybody understands that
and hope everything works out smoothly.
So, thank you on that.
Um, just want to let you know that and
remind you at least for the the veteran
members. Um, we had talked a few months
ago about having a joint planning
commission development review board
meeting. Um, and that was right before
the summer break and as we had discussed
then we were down uh two members and so
we've since filled that out and summer's
coming to an end. So, we're going to be
looking at um um some potential days uh
in the upcoming months so we could um
get that meeting together again to talk
about some of the subjects that that we
uh previously identified. So, we'll have
to pick a few dates um run them through
the development board members um
planning commission members to see if we
can't target something um probably in
the near future among all the other
things that we all have going on. So
that's still uh an item that we want to
get uh established. So don't just wanted
to remind you of that. And then um also
with regard to tonight's agenda, agenda
item five, there is additional
correspondence
um since the original agenda went out.
So just want to make sure that you have
a copy of that in front of you and just
draw your attention to that. for item
number five.
Also, um in September, we do have
normally
two scheduled meetings, one for the
September 10th and one for the September
24th. Right now, we're not anticipating
any items on September 10th, so that may
be cancelled, but we do anticipate items
on September 24th. So, just give you a
heads up on that. Uh with that, that's
all I have for the administrative uh
items, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
Next, uh we'll go ahead and uh review
the minutes. Uh we have a minutes from
July 23rd, 2025. Do we have any
comments, corrections to those minutes?
And if not, do I have a motion?
Chair Scar Bro, I'll uh move for
approval of the July 23rd, 2025 regular
meeting minutes as written.
Thank you, Vice Chair. Uh I have a
second or first. Do I have a second?
I second the nomination. Excuse me. I
second the motion.
Perfect. Commissioner Gonzalez seconds
the motion. So we'll have a roll call
vote.
Chair Scarboro.
Yes.
Vice Chair Young,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
yes.
Commissioner,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
yes.
Commissioner Drake,
yes.
Commissioner Reid,
yes.
Motion passes 70. Thank you.
Thank you. Moving on to the consent
consent agenda. We have currently three
items. I do know that commissioner would
like to pull item three of the consent
agenda, leaving items two and four. Do I
have any other commissioners that would
like to move items two or four to the
regular agenda?
Okay, I see none. So, uh, do I have a
motion for items two and four on the
consent agenda?
Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the
consent agenda with items two and four.
Perfect. Does staff need her to have a
more robust motion or is that
Yes, Mr. Chairman. That would be
helpful. Um if Commissioner Joiner could
just um read off on the suggested motion
sheet items number two and four just to
make the record clear. Thank you.
Okay. I move to approve the consent
agenda with items 1AB 2025
and 4 TA 2024 pound two uh to remain on
the consent agenda.
Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Joiner
you want the whole thing red.
Yeah, because the uh motion she does
talk about making that recommendation of
approval to the city council.
uh consistent with the general plan. So,
if you could read that, that would
certainly be helpful. Thank you.
Okay. I make a motion for recommendation
of approval to city council for case 1AB
2025 per the staff recommended
stipulations after finding the proposed
abandonment is consistent and confirms
conforms with the adopted general plan.
Um three is the other one. No, four.
I make a motion for recommendation
uh of 4A 20242 after finding that the
proposed text amendment is consistent
and conforms with the general adopted
general plan.
Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Joiner.
Do we have a second?
A second.
Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner. We
have a first and a second. So, roll call
vote, please.
Chair Scar Bro.
Yes. Vice Chair Young,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
yes.
Commissioner Ertel,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
yes.
Commissioner Drake,
yes.
Commissioner Reid,
yes. Motion passes 70. Thank you.
All right, let's move on to regular
agenda and we'll start off with item
number 3, 9AB 2024, the Ardan Scottsdale
rideway abandonment.
Chair Scarboro, uh, Vice Chair Young,
and members of the commission. My name
is Chris Zimmer. I'm a senior planner
with the city of Scottsdale. Here to
present the Ardan 9AB, uh, 2024
abandonment.
Oh my, sorry. Hold on one second.
Okay. Uh here's the subject site. It's
located near the uh southern tip of
Scottsdale, just norththeast of Mckelps
and uh Miller Road.
Here's a blowup uh detail of that
abandonment area. It's approximately 25
ft. It's the southern portion of Pulk
Street um that they are looking to
abandon to ultimately build a multif
family development on this parcel. Uh
this is the existing zoning surrounding
the site. It is R5. Um and again is
subject to just that red area for the 25
ft of abandonment.
Uh again, the request for the city uh
for the planning commission is a
recommendation to city council regarding
uh an abandonment of 25 ft uh for
west or sorry east Pulk Street uh
located uh on the northern boundary of
those parcels uh associated uh and
located at 7601
East Pulk Street uh with existing
multifamily development.
Uh that kind of ends staff's
presentation right now. happy to answer
any questions. Um, the applicant is here
um and is willing to answer any
questions that you guys have.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. Uh, do
we have any commissioners that have
questions? Mr. Commissioner Gonzalez.
Thank you. Thank you, sir. Um I was
wondering on this abandonment because
the way it the way it shows right now
and I was looking at the the project
previously
um it's such a small sliver there and
obviously you know it's not going to
degrade the product by very much and the
the use of the abandonment will be
actually for is it for fire access also?
uh it'll ultimately be a part of the
fire access. Um the associated case with
this is 32DR2024.
Um that has all the multifamily
components to it, the building, uh
landscaping, circulation,
uh infrastructure, all of those
questions, Commissioner Gonzalez.
And so the access for fire is what?
It'll be generally in the same location.
Um I'll pull up the proposed site plan
um for the site um so you guys can get
an idea of what they are proposing.
So the total number of units in there on
the proposal was what again Commissioner
Gonzalez I believe it's 22.
Very good.
23. Sorry.
Okay. If they choose to
um abandon or process this as an
abandonment, are they going to did they
say anything about creating an HOA that
would put a gate onto this?
Commissioner Gonzalez, I would defer to
the applicant team to answer if they
would have an HOA or
Very good. Thank you, sir.
Looking at it, they're shaking their
head. No.
Okay. So then they would have complete
access to it and the city would have
access to the services on the property
because they're not going to enclose it
on an HOA. Is that correct?
That is my understanding, Commissioner.
Then the other the other fact of the
matter is is that if they're asking for
this abandonment, is the city going to
abandon this or are they going to give
it back to the city to manage as far as
an easement? uh they would ultimately
abandon the city would ultimately
abandon that right of way and would be
obtained by the uh parent parcels.
Very good. So then the city services
won't be interrupted or anything in
there if there's a if there's an issue
with that alley or you it's not an
alleyway but that that access point.
There's no uh problems as far as city
servicing into that that complex.
Commissioner Gonzalez, no. all the city
departments, infrastructure, solid waste
have reviewed the DRB uh submitt and
have made comments associated to it.
Okay. So then what the way I looked at
it right now because I didn't see an
access point, I mean an exit point to
this, then the then the easement is
actually going to create a uh how does
the the fire trucks basically get in and
out of that area if it's only 25 ft?
Sure. Commissioner Commissioner
Gonzalez, you can actually see it's very
light on this image, but they actually
show the truck turnaround for ref use in
here. So, it's ultimately one access
point off of Miller Road and they'll
enter the site and do any turnarounds
necessary for fire access, solid waste.
Okay.
And where is the waste? Is it going to
be a communal waste for the development?
Yes, it's uh currently right in the
middle of the project right here. Easy
access for the solid waste trucks. Okay.
And at this at this point in time,
there's no uh barriers or anything of
sorts for uh you know, roughly large
truck access.
Not that staff is aware of.
Okay. Very good. Well, you answered my
question. Uh I'd like to ask the
applicant a couple of questions and then
we'll just finish.
Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Commissioner.
Has this case has the Ardan already been
approved? So all we're doing is
approving this abandonment or has this
case come before planning before?
Uh so the abandonment commissioner
Joiner uh the abandonment is currently
right now being proposed in the ardent
development will come later uh from DRB.
Thank you.
That's why I'm asking the questions now.
So in another another case scenario in
there,
hold on. Point of order. Could could you
please state your name and your address
and introduce yourself?
Yeah, for the record, Taylor Earl with
the law firm of Earl and Curly. We are
3101 North Central Avenue, Sweet 1000.
Thank you.
Okay. So, in other words, in this
development, um with the unit size and
everything, um with um are the front
yards going to be of uh desert type of
landscaping or what is what are they
asking for? because you know because it
is pretty tight in there and the a lot
of the access points are you know they
have to move forward and back and back
out and and stuff like that for the
larger vehicle servicing this area. So I
just kind of wanted to see if there was
any barriers or impediment to to the
access.
Yeah. So with regard to access, so
tonight's really just about determining
whether or not it should be public or
whether it should be privately held.
Right. Right. But in terms of the
access, in terms of fire, in terms of
refues, all of that has to be reviewed
in part of our design review case. The
reason we think it's better to be in
private is that right now you have a
city street that is not being
wellmaintained. It's kind of an odd
little thumb that goes because it can't
extend any further east. It really
doesn't make sense for this to remain
public. So our our our only objective
here tonight is to determine whether it
can be abandoned. But in terms of the
questions you're asking about, hey, are
we going to make sure that it has
sufficient width? because the site plan
you're seeing on the screen has not been
approved and it's possible that fire
refues could say hey you know what
you're gonna have to redesign this
you're gonna have to move units around
so the only question tonight is should
we leave this public street in the
middle of this you know these series of
parcels or does it make sense for it to
go into private and so by privatizing it
normally we paying the city for it but
also we're agreeing to maintain it
because like I said right now uh it's
not been wellmaintained but it makes
sense because it's this weird kind of
thing of the cities the other concern is
that if you leave it public, you now
have an uninforcable area in the middle
of a project where currently there's a
lot of vagrancy going on in this. So, if
you were to say, you know what, let's
just leave it public in the middle of
this project, you would have an
inability by these property owners to
enforce anybody hanging out in that
middle of their their project, right in
the middle of their community. So, by
making it private, we do have to have
easement rights to make sure that cities
can come in and all of that can be
preserved. Um, but we aren't we aren't
prohibited from saying, "Hey, you can't
loiter in the middle of our project."
Right? So, we think it makes sense to do
the abandon now.
Well, because of because this is a a a
question about access. That's why I'm
asking the questions because if you
leave it private, I understand what the
HOA will will do and eventually a lot of
the not this particular project, but a
lot of HOAs decide later on in the fact
that that will either gate or ungate
something. And that's why I'm trying to
determine what what the actual uh case
will be about. so that we can see if
there's an access point or everything.
We understand that transportation
everybody has to come forward on this.
But by asking these questions, this also
is a public venue. We want to understand
and have public discussion if there is
any discussion at all about what this
entails
because this does impact the city
because you're asking the city to do
something and you're saying that you're
doing something but yet nothing's been
agreed to yet. So that's my that's my
point of questioning. So in other words
then your your um your your viewpoint is
basically that you're going to maintain
the property in uh a better attitude
than the city has done taken so far.
And again that's not a slam on the city.
It's just the note that you have this
weird public rideway in the kind of the
middle of nowhere. We wouldn't expect
the city to be investing large amounts
of money to maintain a roadway that
doesn't go anywhere. Right. Right. And
so in terms of policing Yeah. Yeah, I
would say that I I wouldn't expect the
police to be better at policing this
little strip of roadway than we will be
able to police it in terms of our HOA.
We have no intentions to gate this.
There really isn't a space designed into
our site plan where we could have a
turnaround, right? And we do want to
have refuge collection. So, that's
something that we've met with the city
on to make sure they're sufficient with
to make sure the hammerheads are things
we don't just get to, you know, draw our
site plan, right? So, um typical of a of
any type of multif family development,
you would not have public driveways. you
wouldn't have public roadways in the
middle of those projects. This is simply
putting us on similar footing to things
that the city has all the projects the
city has all all over its city. Um and
so we're not doing anything really
particularly odd here. What's odd is
that you have a project that effectively
took Pulk and cut it off so that there
was no future connection to the east. It
is sort of an oddity that it still
exists here today. And so we're trying
to put it into a normal condition of
having that driveway being a private
condition rather than the city having to
maintain it or police it.
My main my main viewpoint is is the
access point is determined by how much
the city has to participate in this and
that's the purpose for my questioning. I
think you qu you've answered everything
and I'm satisfied uh with your answers.
Thank you sir.
Thank you.
We're aware this has to go in front of
the development review board uh for a
final review of site plan, landscaping,
aesthetics. So I I'm just my one
question is how many units are currently
within this ride ofway area that you're
proposing?
Uh let me make sure I'm answering
correctly. So we are proposing 23 units
in the project
within the 25 foot ride ofway that you
would like abandoned. How many of the
proposed units currently reside within
sit within that? I think the answer is
one.
Okay,
possibly two.
That makes sense. Thank you. Uh, I'm I'm
perfectly fine with this application. I
know you have more of a process to go
with the city to finalize the project
and it's it's fine details. Uh, so good
questions. Anybody else have questions
for the applicant? Okay. If there are no
more questions, uh, could I have a
Oh, on this item. That's a good
question. Let's see. I do apologize. I
apologize. Thank you. There is a a
public comment on this. So, uh, we'll
have the public come up and mine. I'm
gonna hopefully I don't ruin this. Uh,
Pankowitz,
hopefully Meen I got that right. I do
apologize if that isn't odd.
Thank you.
If you'd state your name, your address,
and go ahead and start.
My name is Milen Pinkyovich. I live at
303 North Miller Road, which is the
development exactly east of this
proposal. Uh I want to preface the whole
conversation by saying that I understand
that this is an abandonment case and not
a design case. However, I came here to
provide public comment so it's available
for other commissions and so that you
are aware of my issues and hopefully
when other people go through this, they
don't uh have to go through the pains
that I went through. I am a planner by
trade. I've been principal planner at
the city of Tempe reviewing site plans
like this and principal transportation
planner at the city of Scottsdale
reviewing site plans like this. And my
concern with this site plan um regarding
the safety as as well as uh the
commissioner Gonzalez expressed and it's
something that we really took a look at
at Tempe is that people can access that
road. It is not gated and there is a
huge walkway on the back that's
accessible to everyone and causes a
hiding spot for everyone. That will be
exactly next door to my bedroom since my
unit is right there. And the whole
design you can't see here because this
is only the first story. Uh the site
plan does not consider for the second
and third story which actually provide a
pop out of about four feet to cover that
patio which makes that three uh story
wall even closer to my home. At this
time I'm measuring it at about 25 21
feet set back from my bedroom window.
And the elevations which are not shown
here either show balconies facing our
bedrooms for all of us at Casar Amigos.
Um, it is a concern to me. I understand
the site is entitled as R5. So, they are
entitled to their three stories.
Unfortunately, at the time that Cas
Amigos was built, developers were not
doing three stories even though we are
R5 as well. My concern is that looking
north and all of Miller Road, we don't
have that situation. Even when two R5 uh
developments are back to back. So for
example, we're only 60 feet we're 60
feet set back from the Scottsdale cas
which is also our five and two stories.
Between the Scottsdale Chastal which is
a Roosevelt and the Parku Villas that
are one story or there are three stories
and two stories. There is approximately
50 feet setback between those two with
additional setback because of a step
back not a pop out. There are there is a
small uh portion that's less than 20
feet between Park View Villis which are
three stories and the one-story
Scottsdale garden that has um there is
about a length of 30 feet where that
condition occurs that there is a 15oot
setback and after that there there is
those uh stepbacks that allow for more
circulation and then there is
approximately an 80 foot setback between
the onestory Scottsdale Gardens and the
twotory Scottsdale Park Suites and there
is a 70 foot setback between the
threetory condos uh the new Papago Lux
and the twostory Scottsdale Park Suites.
And then lastly, there is about an 80
foot setback including Culver Street
between the threetory San Traveria which
is newer and the two-story condos on the
southwest corner of Miller and Culver
and Culver. I just want to point that
condition. I want to point that uh by
approving and I understand there's no
other way to provide that access uh
because of how the the the
land sits but it's just disappointing
that these cases are not you know in in
next to each other so that I can do
better. I'll definitely come back when
this case is available. I just want to
make you aware of my concerns and just
the poor design of this development. I'm
not against development, but I think
that we do need to respect uh whatever
has been done uh just historically in
our South Scotsdale neighborhood. Thank
you.
Thank you, Miss uh I'm going to I'm
going to mess it up again. Bankovich,
hopefully I got closer to your last name
on that. I apologize. Uh we thank you so
much for your comments. Those are design
related and this will go to the
development review board. They will
handle design. I can also tell you I was
looking over Mr. Zimmer and he was
taking lots of notes. So, if you haven't
already, I would I would go and confer
with Mr. Zimmer, the planner for
Scottsdale, and make sure you further
articulate your concerns so that's heard
by the DRB as well.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Uh, so we have no more comments
from the public. So, uh, would love to
entertain a motion if a commissioner has
a motion.
Commissioner tell
uh make a motion for recommendation of
approval to city council for case 9AB
20224. That is the right one, isn't it?
Yes, it is.
Uh per the staff recommended
stipulations after finding that the
proposed abandonment is consistent and
conforms with the adopted general plan.
I have a motion. Do I have a second?
I will second that.
Thank you. Commissioner Drake is
seconded. Uh so roll call vote, please.
Chair Scarro,
yes.
Vice Chair Young,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
no.
Commissioner,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
yes.
Commissioner Drake,
yes.
Commissioner Reid,
yes.
Motion passes 60 or 6 to1. Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. Uh, next item on the agenda
is number 58 ZN 2024 Ranch Gate uh 40.
I believe uh Mr. Mario is not here
today. Oh, perfect. Okay.
Mr. Barnes,
good evening uh Chair Scarbor, Vice
Chair Young, and members of the planning
commission. I'm Jeff Barnes filling in
for Jesus uh for you tonight uh on 8ZN
2024.
So, the action uh requested before you
is a recommendation to the city council
uh regarding a request by the owner for
zoning district map amendment from the
current single family residential
environmentally sensitive lands R130 ESL
zoning to single family residential
environmentally sensitive lands R135 ESL
uh on a plus or minus 40 acre site uh
currently consisting of two parcels uh
for an eventual 32 lot subdivision at
the corner of Ranch Gate and 128th
Street. Uh some key items quickly uh
just to to cover uh on this one um is
this is located in the Dynamite
Foothills character area plan uh which
promotes preservation of existing rural
desert character. Uh there are amended
development standards uh contemplated as
part of this request uh for lot width,
lot area and building setbacks. Um those
are a component of the environmentally
sensitive lands uh zoning overlay and a
function of the uh the DRB's authority
through the preliminary plat but they
are mentioned through this application
so that that uh awareness carries
forward uh in uh in the process on this.
Um there are three large washes that uh
run through the site. Um those amended
standards do uh assist in configuring
the the proposed subdivision uh so that
the lots are uh tailored around those
washes and those corridors can continue
uh on through. Um this development
proposal accounts for providing
additional NAS uh in the amount of
approximately 3.87 acres above the
minimum requirement. Um, there were
public comments received along the way.
Uh, some of which were in your packet
when it was provided to you. The rest,
as Mr. Curtis mentioned, have been
provided, uh, today for you that had
come in more recently.
Getting into the site location, uh, this
site is located at the southeast corner
of 128th Street and Ranch Gate Road in
the highlighted area. Um, it's
surrounded on three sides by the Story
Rock development. Uh, out there, uh,
across the street, 128th Street to the
west, uh, is McDow Mountain Manor and
Sereno Canyon. Beyond that,
a little bit closer view here. Uh, I
mentioned this was two parcels
currently. You can sort of see that uh
that split, but also visually apparent
on this hopefully uh up at the top uh
cutting through the middle and down in
the the lower right corner are those
three wash corridors that uh that I
highlighted in the the key items for you
mentioned uh in the intro, but the
existing zoning R1130 ESL
is proposed uh to change to R135. five
ESL.
I can come back to these details, but I
really just wanted to to highlight for
you the top line in this, which is
density. Uh for your consideration
comparison of what what's being proposed
here, uh the existing R130
ESL zoning carries a 31 uh density,
which would result a calculated total of
of 12 lots. Um the proposed R135
uh in in its uh in its true form uh
would result 1.04
uh as a density factor uh and calculated
41 lots. But what's being proposed for
you uh is a more practical application
of 32 lots uh which results at 0.80 8
density um per the the site plan
included and stipulated to with this
proposal.
Putting that into a little bit of uh
perspective and the surrounding areas
densities for you um that proposed 0.8 8
uh is uh is opposite 128th Street from
McMmetal Mountain Manor which is also 8
uh Stereia Highlands just down to the
south there at 77 uh and the story rock
uh development surrounding on the other
three sides coming in at 96.
This is the site plan that comes along
with this application. Uh this
development would gain access uh through
a gated entry off of Ranch Gate Road uh
up at the north end of the site here. Um
there is a uh a secondary emergency
vehicle access point, not uh not primary
vehicle access point down at the lower
part. Um that would also account for a
trail connection out to the uh the trail
system along 128th. Uh as I mentioned uh
the the lots are arranged in a way to
attempt to uh to respect those wash
corridors at the three points through
the site. Uh a good portion of the
natural area open space requirement for
this is met through uh trackcts within
the subdivision. There are some uh
carryover on lot NOS areas but the
majority is being met through tracks
which uh accounts for capturing a lot of
that wash corridor area as well.
This proposal also includes uh getting a
scenic corridor along 128th Street. Um
that is a 100 foot average scenic
corridor with a with the minimum
parameter of 85 ft. Uh you can see
several points where it widens out uh
much greater than that uh along that
frontage. Uh we would also be getting
the desert scenic roadway uh buffer
along the ranch gate road frontage.
I'm going to skip to maybe this open
space plan that helps put uh some of
that in a little more context for you
with what is surrounding in the area
with the aerial photos here. um just
conveying that a lot of that perimeter
open space is bleeding into adjacent
open space areas within the other
development and and creating um larger
more meaningful uh open space sections
there.
covering quickly just some updates uh
along the way. Since this project was
originally submitted, uh there was uh
added uh the addition of a a street
light at the intersection of 128th and
Ranch Gate. Um this uh was the subject
of some of the correspondence that you
uh received today. U so I will take a
moment to clarify here that that street
light is a uh an illumination of the
intersection. There was some uh some
dialogue about a traffic signal that is
not uh what this is. Um and and that had
led into um discussions about if a
traffic signal then why not a
roundabout. But uh just uh in initial
response to some of that correspondence
and Jesus had provided some commentary
back out uh to uh to the public about
that. This is a street light to
illuminate um what has been identified
as a a dark intersection out there. Um
additionally uh the the updates made
since the initial proposal um is the use
of that secondary emergency access point
that I pointed out at the lower uh lower
left corner of the the site. Um that is
indicated to be used for construction
traffic during uh the construction
process. uh so that that won't have to
come in through uh Ranch Gate Road uh
for as long as that's achievable to do
that. Um and then it'll be uh restored
back with the final improvements to be
that trail connection and just the
emergency access uh route uh for that
and then the number of lots initially
came in at 33 uh and was reduced down to
32 um through the process uh to this
point.
So with that, uh, staff's
recommendation,
uh, is that, uh, the planning commission
find the zoning district map zoning
district criteria have been met and
determine that the proposed zoning
district map amendment is consistent
with and conforms with the adopted
general plan and make that
recommendation to the city council for
approval subject to the attached
stipulations.
That concludes staff's presentation. Um,
happy to answer any immediate questions.
I know the applicants here, they've got
a presentation for you and I can uh come
back in with additional uh questions
later if you'd like.
Thank you, Mr. Barnes. We'll open up to
the commission to see if commissioners
have any questions for staff.
I do.
Okay. Commissioner Joiner.
Thank you, Chairman. Um I spoke to the
original engineer yesterday that um
worked on the master plan for this area
and I've spent the last three days
driving around it. It's gorgeous.
Absolutely gorgeous. Preserve Ranch,
Story Rock. Um, absolutely pristine. Our
last remaining pristine area in
Scottsdale. Um,
I'm real concerned. Okay. So, I
understand that a street light is now
not going in. How much light is created
by what you're proposing?
Chair Scarboro, Commissioner Joiner. Um
I'm not sure that I have those exact
numbers in front of me. We do have our
transportation staff uh John Hong is
here. Okay.
Um I believe he may have uh some more
details that he might be able to share
on that.
Thank you.
Thank you. Jeff J um Scarboro and
commissioners John Hang senior
manager Scottdale traffic engineer and
operations.
So right now there is only one street
light stipulated for this project at the
intersection of Ranch Gate and 128.
And because of this uh roadway
classification, it's going to be in
about 7,000 lumens
equivalent to about 60 watts fixture
which is not compared to the arterial.
Arterial has about 12,000 lumens
and about 120 watt. So just just half of
what you normally see along the
arterial.
Is it a blinking light?
No.
So is it lit 24 hours a day?
Uh no. It'll be on It has a sensor, a
photo cell from dust till dawn.
Okay.
May I interject real quick?
Sure.
I I want to make a distinction. It
sounds like there's no traffic signal
going in here, but there will be a
street light to illuminate the street.
I understand. I haven't got to my point
yet.
Oh, okay. Go ahead.
Um, what is the plan right now?
128th is only paved to Joeax.
It's with the amount of building that's
going on out there and it's tre there's
a lot of building that isn't even
occupied yet, isn't even out of the
ground yet. What is the plan to pave
128th to Dynamite?
Do you know when that's scheduled?
Jeff, can I pass it back to you on that
one?
Paving or
any future projects commission?
Yeah, because there's there I mean we're
just beginning to see the development
out in that area. And the reason I'm
making this point is and I know some I
don't know if the person is in the
audience that made the comment about
traffic, but uh my concern is that I
think this is a perfect place for a
roundabout and maybe anticipating
um the amount of development that's
going on out there and that traffic is
going to increase. This particular site
is going to dump right out onto Ranch
Gate, but this is a small site that
we're talking. So, I'm not trying to
pick on this development at all. It's
gorgeous. I I mean, it is absolutely
beautiful, and I love what everybody's
doing out there, but I also that is the
last dark sky area we have in
Scottsdale. And because of the way that
it uh that it's situated off of McDow's
and then up onto the the golf course,
any light that's put in down there, it's
going to be visible from the whole area.
And I actually talked to somebody that
lives on the um east side of the McDows
and they can see that area from their
home. So, they I don't know if that
person's here because they texted me,
but um
why aren't we looking at a roundabout
for this area in anticipation of future
development which is coming?
You can't answer that. I'm sure I just
want to put it out there because this is
a perfect place for a roundabout.
Um J Scar Bro, Commission Commissioner
Joiner, I can answer that. So, a
roundabout, a traffic signal, or even
the always stops has
um evaluation analysis goes into it. Um
as of right now would um I guess it's
not a built out condition. So, uh more
than likely it may not meet warrants for
a signal or a roundabout, but maybe it's
something in in the future we can look
into.
Okay. Um, I have another question for
staff. Um, when I was talking to the
engineer yesterday, when we originally
did this, I was on DRB and there was uh
comments a requirement and stipulation
for sewage for a sewage line with a lift
station to go up Dynamite, Rio Road, uh,
for a lot of this development. I was
reading the application. How is the
sewage from this development handling?
because there's no the sewer line on Rio
hasn't taken place yet.
Commissioner Joiner, um, Chair Scarboro,
because I'm filling in for Jesus.
I know. I'm sorry. I tried to warn him,
but I I would imagine the applicant team
is okay. Far more in depth on that one
and would be able to answer. Yeah,
because I saw a lift station just north
of this on 128th Street, but when I
spoke to Ali, he said the lift station
was
uh stipulated for this whole area and I
didn't see any evidence of construction
or any reference in the case about that.
So, I'll let the applicant um address
that. But anyway, I just wanted on the
record that I want those dark skies
protected out there for the applicants
and for the residents and for those of
us that live up north. It's an ex it's
our it's exquisite. It's I just want to
protect it. So, thank you very much.
All right. Thank you, Commissioner
Joiner. Commissioner Tell.
Uh thank you, Chair. Um building off of
what Commissioner Joiner said, I mean, I
understand what uh Mr. Wong said about
um 700 uh or whatever it was. So 700
lumens versus 1300 or something like
that.
Yeah. 7,000 lumen is about 12 by a zero.
Um
I don't quite understand that. the 60
watt light bulb versus 100 and there is
a roundabout at at at Happy Valley and
Alma School and it's got lights on that
which people have complained, residents
have complained it ruins the dark skies,
it it's too bright. So, is the the light
that you're proposing for
this site or this area um less than the
same as or greater than the lights that
are at that uh roundabout at Happy
Valley and Alma School?
Chair Scar Bro, Commissioner Artel.
That's a good question. Actually
um the roundabout at that location you
mentioned Happy Valley and Alma School
has about 14 fixtures and all of them
are a lot higher intensity than the one
that they proposed. So, 14 versus one.
And there was a minor tweak that our
staff ended up doing because some a
couple of lights actually pointed
directly to
um the resident's home and we actually
tweaked that. We put shields on it um
pointed away from a resident. So,
that's good. That's good.
Thank Uh, another comment that came in
from uh, residents had to do with um,
seeing white they're they're higher up
on and they could look down on
surrounding developments and see white
roofs, white flat roofs and director
Curtis gave me some clarification on
that stuff that I probably should have
remembered, but could you uh, could you
address that? um you know why they can
have white or at least light colored uh
roofs in that area.
Uh certainly Mr. U chairman and
commissioner tell it's not just in that
area. A couple years ago, the um the
city passed the uh international green
construction code as part of the
building department requirements and
consistent with that is a low reflective
roofs for um to deal with the heat and
energy conservation. And so the zoning
code was uh changed as initiated by the
plan by the city council and then uh
open houses occurred and went through
the planning commission uh and then
ultimately city council to allow uh in
ESL um and anywhere else really um the
more reflective roofs from a a heat and
energy conservation standard to be
consistent with IGCC. So um but keeping
in mind that um that area is uh with
regard to the the the the citizen
comments that area is pretty new. A lot
of the trees will grow taller. The
buildings are limited to 24 feet in
height. Um and not all the roofs are
flat roofs. So but that's the reason why
there are lighter colored roofs that
typically you didn't see uh previously.
Okay. Thank you. Uh one last question
comment. Uh the proposed zoning would
allow for 41 uh units in houses in here
residents. Um and then it was from what
I saw from the presentation it was
dropped down by the developer to 33 and
then with the help of staff it was
reduced to 32. So you know my first
reaction was those are nine residents
that are not going to be available for
residents. Um it's not exactly resident
friendly to reduce the number of
residences available. Um but okay, why
did it go from 33? Because you know I'm
looking at looking at the the lot layout
uh not here but on the other slide um if
it had the um easternmost street I guess
uh had dropped down a little bit more.
Yeah. would take some of the NaOS, but
like you say, there's plenty of it
there. What was the reason for
losing that 33rd house?
Chair Scarbor, Commissioner Ortal, um I
will allow the applicant to respond to
that just so I'm not misstating some of
the history that I wasn't fully part of.
Okay.
But I'm I'm guessing they they will have
that for you.
Thank you. And Commissioner, we'll wait
until we get to them doing their
presentation, then you can ask that
question again. Is that okay?
Yeah.
Okay.
U just you know, with this reszone,
they're going from 12 lots to 32. So,
one could argue this is a 20 additional
homes for additional res.
It's half full, but it's half empty.
Okay. And Mr. Wong, I can't let you go
quite yet.
Thank you for your patience and thank
you for being here. Uh, with this
project, I'm assuming a traffic study
was completed, correct? Was there any
warrants related to that intersection in
terms of signalization or roundabout?
Uh, no, as far as I am aware.
Okay. So, this street light we're
talking about is not a traffic signal.
It is literally an an illuminating light
to light the street. So, it would hit
the ground. it focused to light the
intersection at the ground level. And
are there other street lights on any of
these streets? I apologize. I have not
been up there, so I'm asking.
Uh, so on any road 128th or Ranch Gate,
there are no street lights on any of
those roads currently. And part of this
project, there's no adjacent street
lights being required.
Uh, no.
Okay. So, it's a it's a single light to
light the intersection
and that's what's being requested by
staff at this point.
Um, uh, J Scar bro and commissioners.
Yes. Because this is a conflict point
intersection
um that we notice with increase in
traffic volumes.
Okay. I just want to make sure I at
least had that context while we had you
here and and uh there more questions to
be had. Of course,
I have one more question.
Well, hold on. We're quick. One second.
Are there any other commissioners that
have questions?
Just a second. Okay.
Uh Commissioner Gonzalez, go ahead.
Thank you, Chair. Um
I guess maybe because of the lumens, it
it kind of throws people a little bit
off of lumens and sizes and everything.
I'm just going to relate it down to what
we have like for tennis courts. You
know, they're they're uh basically a
shaded apparatus that downcast a lot of
the light. Would not that be adequate to
light up because we only want to
illuminate the intersection? We don't
need to illuminate everything. And
because of dark skies, the illumination
that goes above and beyond into the sky,
that's the biggest problem. whether it's
7,000 or 70,000, it still, you know,
filters into the sky. Whereas, if we
have something that basically just shows
just the intersection and lights up the
street at the intersection, we don't
need something that goes into the sky.
Is that a It's a hooded element. Have
has that been considered for that uh
intersection?
J Scarboro, Commissioner Gonzalez,
that's a very good question. We have
three different types of um fixtures
that does exactly that. We all the
fixtures that we have have internal
shield in it. So you we only going to
put the lumens on the roadway within the
right within the right of way and not
onto anybody's property. So hopefully
that we're not going to be able to share
the glare up in the sky and illuminate
the rest of the dark skies. We're going
to be able to control it and keep it
right at the intersection level.
That's correct. So pointed down um onto
the roadway.
Okay, perfect. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. All right, Commissioner
Joiner.
I promise this is my last question.
Knowing that 1300 homes are going to go
into this area and the traffic is going
to continue to go up,
how will that intersection with this
minimal light be handled? I mean, are
they going to come back in and go, "Oh,
a roundabout's too expensive to put in
now, so we're going to stick a traffic
light in there." What assurance can we
give the neighbors and me that this
isn't I mean, how will that be handled?
What will traffic do as that traffic
increases and especially as 128th gets
put through to dynamite?
Well, so I think we answer um right now
no warrants has been met for the traffic
signal for the roundabout, but in the
future, let's just say if there's
increase in traffic volume, we will have
our staff evaluate and do the analysis
of which one would be the most
appropriate at that location. Um if it's
the roundabout or traffic or like that.
Um, and then the funding. I don't think
we look at the funding as one of the
criteria we should do. Um, we're looking
at traffic safety.
If the signal is going to serve the most
purpose at that location,
um, the signal is going to go in. And
the same thing with the roundabout. And
that's my that's my fear is that right
now we have an opportunity to protect
this area that might not be available in
the future when the 1300 homes go in and
it opens up to dynamite. And I I I can't
imagine that anybody here wants a light
out there. And I'm just I don't know
what to do to keep it from happening,
but I think today is a good time to talk
about it. So anyway, thank you. I'm I
think I've made my point
and it's a good one. So, thank you for
doing that. I mean, one one could argue
that this is an opportunity if it makes
sense to look at having land dedicated
to accommodate a future roundabout for
this intersection to help make that a
reality. But again, part of the
discussion that'll happen in a little
bit. Uh with no more comments or vice
chair,
I do have one question. Uh Mr. long. So,
hypothetically, if there was a
roundabout here, would that warrant
additional lights for maneuvering in
that?
As you had mentioned, you had mentioned
Scar Bro um Commissioner Young. Yes. Uh
for
public safety, more than likely there's
going to be additional lighting. I
mentioned earlier at at Happy Valley and
Alma School there were about 14 fixtures
because we have to actually increase
public sa safety
knowing that pedestrians can cross
intersection.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, vice chair. With that, uh
we'll go ahead and have the applicant do
their presentation.
Alrighty.
Always got to adjust this thing a little
bit. Um, my name is Keith Nicter. I'm a
land planner with Kimley Horn. I just
had to look up my address because we
moved two weeks ago and I didn't even
know it. So, uh, it's 2046
Riverview Auto Drive, Mesa, Arizona. Got
it right. All right.
So today, uh, obviously talking about
Ranch Gate 40. Um, Jeff did a great job
with the presentation. By the way, Jesus
owes you. Um, so I'm going to skip over
a lot of this because I think he did a
great job kind of setting the context.
Um, additionally, if there's any
questions afterwards, I also have
members from the team here. I'm a land
planner. We got the smart one here. We
got a civil engineer. We got the the
client and uh some other members of the
project team. So hopefully all together
we can answer your questions.
Um this exhibit I think is just helpful
just to show again you kind of have a
sense of where the site is. But um
related to just the context and what's
built um you mentioned the the homes in
this area. The reality is a lot of them
are built. We're get close. Um and uh I
have been fortunate to work in this area
for the majority of my career. Um, in
fact, I've worked with uh my client here
um specifically on Story Rock um since
2012.
So, we are the the land planning team or
I was with another firm, but and that's
beside the point. Um and we also worked
on Sereno Canyon. So, the reality is
I've worked on this area a long time,
but unfortunately I'm gonna have to find
a new place to start doing work because
we're we're getting close to the end
here. Um, and the reason being is when
we did the story rod community, there
was a couple out parcels that weren't a
part of it. There was this one that's 40
acres, and then you'll see just south of
Alamita, there's uh 20 acres that are
essentially left. So, that's really the
the only out parcels other than the the
family village that uh would be left to
to develop within Story Rock. So,
conceptually, um uh our land owner, our
client has owned land out here since the
80s. Um, so they've been a part of being
annexed from, you know, county R143
land, uh, into the city. Obviously, it
was brought in at one R1130, but with
the general plan designation
of 128 per acre. Just kind of again
zooming in here just to give you a
little more context. That's kind of the
uh the surroundings that are under
construction.
Uh, as I mentioned, we're within the uh
rural neighborhoods destination. uh that
allows a maximum of one joint unit per
acre. So at 40 units um or 40 acres that
could allow up to to 40 lots. Uh my
client's a little unique. Uh he's been
doing this a long time. Um he he knows
that community outreach is a big part of
getting these approved. We originally
looked at a plan um that was 40 lots.
The reality is based on where the washes
were located um it it just didn't make
sense. We were cramming too much into a
small developable area and in order to
kind of set the context and match that
rule character that's out there as well
as just the overall quality and
character of the area, it made sense to
to not to not move forward with 40. And
so we looked at a plan um that
originally was 33. And the reason being
is because 33 is an R143 density. So if
you look at the the 83 dwellian units
per acre that's allowed within R1 uh 43,
we felt like that was a good fit. When
we developed story rock, um we kind of
worked from the inside out. We had
smaller lots internal and kind of worked
out to our 143s on on the perimeter.
So that's what we looked at from a
density standpoint. Um, again, these are
all reasons to to to match what the
general plan has related to keeping
special care to the open desert and
preserving the vegetation. I provided a
couple exhibits here because this kind
of tells the story as I move on. So,
within the general plan and the ESL
ordinance, there's discussion about
clustering. Um, the reason uh for that
is there are a lot of washes out in this
area, right? You can develop a large lot
and you can have a wash goes through
somebody's wash or lot on lot so it's
just preserved in an easement by
clustering. There's different ways to
approach it. You can move homes within
the developable areas and you can also
use amended development standards to
shrink lots to a avoid as much on lot
NOS. So essentially we're an R143
density but we are asking for R135
because of the amended standards. So the
reason being is this area we we know
what it's being developed as as far as
uh the builders go and um we we
understand you know the the character
out there. So we know what the size of
these development envelopes are. um the
development envelopes um are are set. It
doesn't make sense to have all this on
NOS. So with R135
um we we have a lot of R135 in the area
as well. Um we're able to essentially uh
maximize our tracked NOS. Um so I'll
talk a little bit more about that as we
go down the road here. Uh community
outreach again
community outreach is a big part of
this. We worked a lot on Story Rock and
it was actually kind of cool going to
the neighborhood meeting because a lot
of the residents that showed up live in
Story Rock now. So, it's cool to, you
know, hear how, uh, much they love the
community. So, uh, again, that all plays
into part how we develop these projects.
Uh, at the neighborhood meeting, I'll
just kind of go through some of the
talking points and I feel like we've
addressed everything and we'll be able
to kind of walk through that. Uh,
drainage. Uh, again, we're preser
there's three washes on the site. Uh the
north and south wash are our larger
washes. This the center wash is the
smaller one of the three. Um so we've
preserved the larger washes. We're uh
essentially reveating the middle one to
provide drainage to the site. The
staff's approved the drainage report. It
kind of matches the whole character of
the Story Rock uh development. And
again, it's to set those large bud
buffers. Uh water and sewer. Story rock.
Uh we actually master planned this area
with this 40 acres. Um the owner at the
time did not want to be a part of the
application, but she wanted to kind of
be brought along the way. So we assumed
40 lots for this site. So in our water
and sewer reports, we assume 40 lots. Um
we also built all the infrastructure. So
all the roads and infrastructure are in
place. The the water and the sewer are
stubbed to the site along with a
driveway apron. It's ready to go
essentially. on a plate ready for
development. Uh traffic. Um the
additional 20 lots here represents about
188 more trips per day. If you're going
about your daily activities, that's
unnoticeable. Um the reality too is man,
I have so many stories I could tell you
with story rock, but I'll tell you one.
Uh originally Greewood Flats was looking
to be relocated out here. So the tea
with Cavalier Ranch was actually there
were separate projects but it was
approved anticipating trips for Greewood
flats. So there's almost 800 trips that
will not be accounted for out here. Um
so related to traffic we lost 800 trips
and even with those 800 trips at that
intersection it did not warrant a
traffic signal or a roundabout. So I
know we've discussed that can talk about
it later during questions. since I'm
running out of time, but uh just set
some context there. Uh building height,
we're committed to match the uh the
existing community uh 24 ft, one-story
homes. Real quick, uh related to
roof uh types. Uh new news, breaking
news is uh David Weekly, really high-end
uh builder is under contract on this. Uh
fingers crossed uh if approved they'll
be moving forward as the home builder.
Um they've developed out in this area.
They do tile roofs. Um lighting, dark
skies. Uh we're committed to low-level
landscape lighting just at the entries.
The the light at the uh intersection
came up. Um obviously from from a safety
standpoint um but it was also required
by staff. I mean, in the reality, we
wouldn't want to build it, but um you
know, we care about safety as well. So,
we can work with the the staff and the
neighbors through the DRB process.
They're the actual uh body that approves
lighting plans. So, we'll be able to do
fortri and all that stuff. Wildlife, we
uh actually, even though it's not
required, have done a biological study.
So, uh nothing's out here that um isn't
expected based on all the development
out here. Fire. We added emergency
access. That was one of the reasons we
we lost a lot. And then construction
access. We added construction access off
128th because residents were worried
about construction cups trucks coming
down Ranch Gate. Um and and their gate
is just east of our entry. So they don't
want construction trucks coming down. So
we took out a lot to add emergency
access, construction access will be
temporary, and also a trail connection
which was another part of the
neighborhood meeting. Um so again that
the the lot size uh reduction is just to
have more tracked NOS. Um
Jeeoff went over the uh amended
standards uh related to the NOS. We're
providing a 27% increase but only 14 of
that is required
but almost all of the required area
we're providing attracts. We could have
developed this site, got larger lots,
they would have been able to be sold for
more. Um, but we value the the community
input. We also value a relationship with
the city. We've heard this a lot out
here. A lot of the development in Story
Rock has a lot of tracked NOS. Good
thing is it's not on someone's lot.
They're not responsible for it. The HOA
is responsible for it. So, from a fire
perspective, maintenance, all that
stuff, the HOA is responsible for that
tracked NOS. So again, we're just
shrinking the lots for for that. Um, but
the density stays within that R143 uh
density. It's actually less obviously.
Um, so try to sneak in some answers to
your questions there. Um, sorry if I was
going too fast. We can slow down uh
after this to answer any further
questions. But in summary, we lost a lot
because of just sensitive planning,
doing the right thing. uh also working
with the neighbors. Um so that that's
why we are where we are. The the general
plan allows 40, right? But um the
character has been established in this
area and we feel that now 32 is is an
appropriate request. Um the uh the all
the majority of the required NOS is in
tracks. Um we fit within the approved
master plans. That that's a unique thing
that was part of the benefit of story
rock. whole area was master planned. Um
I'll sneak in one more answer to the
question related to sewer if I don't get
in trouble. But um the uh the plan
obviously has capacity because we're
within 40 lots were anticipated for this
site in the master plans. So we have
capacity, there's capacity today. there
are is a larger IP in place that the
city's looking at regionally to make
regional improvements because there has
been some other development to the to
the west and so we will be paying an
inloo fee for those improvements when
that time comes. It's not needed now.
there's capacity now and again we're in
those approved reports but again we we
uh are sensitive to to those requests
and and so we will be paying an inlue
fee there. Um and again I think the the
big thing with this site it kind of
works out with the washes on the site
but we have very large buffers. Um I
think at our southeast corner we have
like a 400 foot buffer. On the north
we're only required to have a 50 foot
scenic buffer. It's really an average of
200 uh based on where that wash is. So,
uh with the uh you know addition of
David Weekley as our potential builder,
again, fingers crossed if we get
approval. Um we're just adding to the
high quality housing that's out here
today. It's it's needed. It's a growing
area. It's an exciting area. um a you
know again it's cool to see a lot of the
residents enjoying living there and
that's part of the the benefit of uh
what we get to do. So that's exciting.
So last thing I'll say is I just threw
this in here uh related to dark skies.
So uh the city actually has all these
lighting requirements. Again I mentioned
that uh this will be a part of the DRB
approval. Um, so we're required to
submit a lighting plan. Um, we're
expected to submit photometrics, but
there's different levels of lighting
within Scottsdale. You can go on this
site and look at it. There's a lot on
there, but there's different areas and
we're within like what you call
intrinsically dark area. Um, so the
lumens and the light pollution is very
low. Um, and in fact, you know, we're
willing to work with staff here. This
whole confusion about the street light
and the traffic light, again, it's not a
signal. Um, there's no warrants for a
signal or a roundabout, even with the
the bar based on that approved tea. But
um we're willing to work through um
obviously this if this gets approved
we're willing to work with them at DRB
to you know show photometrics see what
works out here because the reality is
the stipulations for a street light.
Technically you know a lot of things can
mean street light. So uh we could
potentially work even if it's on uh
private land maybe there's a way we
could work with the city to ensure that
this is very low level. It's not going
to impede anyone's uh property. Uh but
this was a a request from the city that
we uh we did uh oblige to. So um we're
we're willing to take that further and
look into it. So while it just kind of
came up, uh it hasn't given us a lot of
time to to discuss it. So happy to have
those conversations down the road and
and take that even further. So
thank you, Mr. Nicar. Appreciate that
very much. Uh we do have public comment
here. Request to speak. Uh Miss Stubs,
would you like to uh make a comment?
Please say your name, address, then go
ahead and start.
Hi, I'm Pam Stubs. Uh address 28570
North 84th Street, Scottsdale. So, I've
been a realtor in Scottsdale for 40
years. I specialize in this North
Scottsdale area, and I'm speaking in
favor of this development. I think it's
the proper development, the proper
number of lots for this area, keeping
that rural feel. And I don't know if
many of you know this, but that is horse
property. I specialize in horse
property. I sell a lot of horse
property. And that would have a high
appeal to people with horses because of
the size of the lot and the fact that
there's city water there. Real Verie is
pretty much bought out. There's there's
no real big large parcels left and the
water situation out there with the wells
is uh very difficult. So I think this
could easily go horse property and I
think most of the people that live in
Story Rock and live in that area would
prefer this kind of development. It's
going to enhance their property. It's
going to make especially when I hear who
the builder is, very highc caliber
builder, be beautiful homes. It's going
to enhance their property and make their
property more valuable. So, I speak in
favor of this development. I think it's
the right use. I think it's the right
number of lots and I think it is very
well designed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Stubs. Appreciate it.
Well, perfect. I I don't think you need
to rebuttal that.
I will I will say I with the sign out
there with my number on it, I do get
calls like, "Hey, when are the homes
going to be available?" So there there's
definitely excitement out there.
Great. Uh with that, we'll open up uh
questions from the commission.
Anybody have questions for the applicant
or staff?
The question that I had was you've taken
care of. I mean, okay, you lose you go
from 33, I guess, down to 32. You made a
good explanation. Um, I guess
I'm sure I know the answer, but you said
part of the reason is because you need
the construction access, which is
temporary. Once that construction access
is no longer needed, uh, would you be
able to stick one more unit in there?
Um, so there was kind of three things.
Um, so construction access was a big
one. Um, we had another lot essentially
along 128 Street. So, we we did our
street design to minimize wash
crossings. Um, with three washes, we
only have two wash crossings, which is
pretty rare in ESL. Typically, people
try to take advantage of all the
development area, but um, with that
being said, we only had so much
frontage. Um, so we couldn't fit a
development envelope um along 128th
Street and still have that connection.
Um, the reality is uh it worked
three-fold. Uh, were able to address the
concerns about construction access.
There was also concerns about emergency
access. Now, a development this size
isn't required to have secondary access.
So, it wasn't in our original proposal,
but we understand the concern and so our
thought was that we can tackle that
issue as well. Um the other the last
point was related to trail connectivity.
There's a existing sidewalk along 128th
Street. There's an existing DG multi-use
trail on the west side of 128th Street.
We did not have a trail connection out
to the west. Everyone would have to go
up to Rangegate and co. It made a lot of
sense with trying to make some of these
other considerations that we also have a
trail connection for the folks that want
to go down to Tom Sum. So all in all, I
think it it all worked out together. In
a perfect world, obviously, we'd love to
have the the additional lot, but um
we're we're kind of working within that
context.
As you say, this makes sense. So, thank
you very much.
Appreciate the question.
Okay, great. Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Joiner,
I have one more question.
I'm ready for you.
I have no doubt you're going to build a
beautiful project because it's right in
between all the other projects that
these homeowners are lucky enough to
live out there.
On my property, I have a wash that goes
across the back of my own personal
property. And I can tell you
preserving these washes is a is a gift
to the community. So, I'm glad you did
that.
Um, just to let you know, I will be on
DRB when you bring this forward.
Oh, perfect.
So, I will be watching for what you're
going to do about lighting carefully.
Well, we'll be happy to even work with
you up front and and have those
conversations with the neighbors as
well. So I think through a phototric
plan we'll be able to get a good sense
of how it impacts the neighborhood.
Fortunately at that intersection we do
have a lot of open space. I mentioned
that the large setbacks because of the
wash that kind of applies to all sides
of the intersection. So I'm hopeful that
this won't have any impact but we'll be
able to kind of vet that out.
I'm less worried about your project than
I am the future. I'm worried about and I
hope the homeowners pay attention
because sounds like city could stick a
light there if they decide. So,
well, the request was that it was a part
of our final plat. So, we'll we'll be
driving that ship, but we'll we'll have
the further conversations and be able to
kind of get down more detail rather than
springing it on you in a day. So,
thank you, Commissioner Joiner. Any
other commissioners?
Okay. Uh, if there's no comments or
deliberation, I guess I'm open to
motions if anybody wants to make a
motion.
I'll make a motion. Commissioner Drake.
Uh, I move that uh we recommend for
approval to the city council on the case
8-ZN-2024
per the staff recommended stipulations
that the finding that the proposed
zoning district map amendment is
consistent and conforms with the adopted
general plan.
I have a motion by Commissioner Drake.
Do I have a second?
I'll second. And I'd like to include in
that second this makes sense
economically because it adds more houses
and it doesn't burden traffic. Uh it's
going to look good and you know it it
and that's why I'm seconding.
Thank you, Commissioner. Roll call vote,
please.
Chair Scarra,
yes.
Vice Chair Young,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
yes.
Commissioner,
yes.
Commissioner Joiner,
yes. Commissioner Drake,
yes.
Commissioner Reid,
yes.
Motion passes seven to zero. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Believe that's the last thing we have on
our regular agenda. So, if uh someone
would like to make a motion for
adjournment, I'd be willing.
So, moved.
Okay. Got a motion. Second.
Second.
All in favor say I.
I. We're