Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission continues review of Franciscan Renewal Center solar carport amendment after neighbors raise view and glare concerns
Summary
Commissioners heard staff and applicant presentations on a major SUP amendment to add three photovoltaic carport arrays at the Franciscan Renewal Center, received public objections about view obstruction and light, and voted unanimously to continue the item to Sept. 15 to review sight-line documentation and coordinate site visits.
The Paradise Valley Planning Commission on June 16 continued consideration of a major special use permit (SUP 26 SUP 2602) amendment proposed by the Franciscan Renewal Center to install three photovoltaic carport arrays on the campus.
Staff presented the application and said the applicant removed a fourth array after an earlier study session and reduced the remaining arrays’ maximum overall height to 15 feet with a 10-foot clear height. Staff said setbacks were revised to meet SUP guidance and that the total new covered area would be about 12,330 square feet — an increase roughly equal to the center’s existing community life center and a 100% increase in floor area over existing conditions compared with an earlier 150% request.
Neighbors who live immediately north and northwest of the campus urged commissioners to delay approval. Sean Clancy, who said he lives at 6607 North Smoketree Lane, told the commission the proposal “will obstruct the view and will drastically damage the resale value of this property.” John Clifford, another Paradise Valley resident, suggested the applicant could locate arrays on the southern edge of the lot facing Lincoln Drive so the church would accept any view impacts on its own property rather than on neighboring homes.
Francis Slavin, a member of the project’s building committee, and Charles Brown, the renewal center’s manager, told commissioners that removing the western array (Array 4) was a ‘‘significant concession’’ and that the project team would meet with adjoining property owners to discuss screening. Brown said the project team prepared sight-line cross-sections and a revised planting plan but that some materials arrived too late to include in the packet.
Commissioners asked the applicant and staff to provide the sight-line diagrams and angle calculations and expressed interest in a site visit. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to decide without seeing the late-arriving documentation in full along with the engineer who could walk the panel through the cross-sections.
On a motion by Commissioner Rose, seconded by Commissioner Naseekis, the commission unanimously continued the matter to the Sept. 15 meeting and directed staff to coordinate site visits and circulate the additional materials to commissioners and the public. The continuance preserves staff’s recommendation that the commission forward the ordinance to town council with a recommendation once commissioners have had an opportunity to review the additional documentation.
Next steps: The commission will receive the submitted sight-line materials, may conduct a field visit to the site with staff and the applicant’s engineer, and will reconsider the SUP amendment at the Sept. 15 meeting.
