Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order and roll call. Chair Goss present. Vice Chair Swap here. Commissioner McCoy here. Commissioner Noble here. Commissioner Sarkeesian here. Commissioner Sixa here. Commissioner Waters here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Can we all stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Welcome to the city of Kingman meeting of the planning and zoning commission. This is Wednesday, May 14th of 2025. Um, our first step tonight is the approval of last month's visit uh minutes. This was the regular meeting minutes of April 9th, 20 uh 25 planning and zoning commission meeting. Um, do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the minute. Second. I have a motion and a second. Can I get a roll call? Yes. Chair Goss, approve. Vice Chair Swap, approve. Commissioner McCoy, approve. Commissioner Noble approved. Commissioner Sarkeesian approved. Commissioner Sixa approved. Commissioner Waters approved. It's been approved. Thank you. All right. Next, I have the call to the public. This is for comments from the public. Uh those wishing to address the commission should fill out request forms in advance. Comments from the public will be restricted to items not on the agenda with the exception of those on the consent agenda. There will be no comments allowed that advertise for a particular person or group. Comments should be limited to no longer than three minutes. The commission may not respond to speakers during the call to the public. The commission may direct the staff to study the matter or request that the matter be placed on a future agenda. This is not where we do comments

for the agenda items. So, I'm just putting that out here. Um, I do have those papers. Um, did we get any extra comments? Okay. All right. Do we have any comments on anything else? No. All right. I see none. All right. First, we'll move to our action items. This our first one is RZ25-00002. This is the Walapai Edge Reszone. RZ25-00002. Zone change of approximately 11.04 04 acres from R-1-20 single family residential 20,000 square ft minimum lot size to R-1-8 single family residential 8,000 foot minimum lot size to align the boundary to facilitate a future residential subdivision located south of Louise Avenue north of Southern Avenue and east of Rancho Santa Fe Parkway Mojave County APN 322-12-00006 applicant call Iris Development Services for RSF Partners LLC. Do we have a presentation? We do. Thank you. Good evening, Madame Chair, Commissioners. Sorry. I'll be presenting RZ25002, a reszone for Walapai's Edge subdivision. We have an aerial map here that shows the site and the proposed area of the reszone is highlighted in red. It also shows that there's a single family residential subdivision to the west and mostly vacant land surrounding the majority of the site. Here we have a zoning map that shows the existing zoning of the site. The site zoning was approved in June of 2005 by ordinance number 1485.

The existing site zoning is R120, R18, and we have commercial zoning in the northwest corner of C2 and C3. And there's a little bit of RORO zoning in the north um northeast corner, sorry. Here we have the general plan map that shows the general plan land use designations for the site. It's primarily medium density residential with the portion to be reszoned there in between the low density and medium density residential. The findings for this reszone. The proposed amendment is consistent with and conforms to the goals of the general plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city and will add to the public good as described in the general plan. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provisions of public and emergency vehicle access, public services and utilities, fire protection, police protection, potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal to ensure that the requested zone designation and the proposed or anticipated uses and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise const constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. The proposal was sent to different intergovernmental agencies and outside agencies and we received no comments. Um public notice was given. We sent a mailing notice on April 22nd of 2025. The site was posted with signs on April 23rd of 2025 and a notice of hearing was published in the Kingman Minor on April 23rd. Three letters of opposition from the public have been

received as of the date this presentation was completed, and we've received several other opposition letters since that have been included in a packet you received this evening. Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff is recommending that RZ25-00002, an application to change the zone of 11.04 04 acres from R120 to R18 is hereby recommended for approval to the mayor and city council. If you have any questions, I also have a couple exhibits attached. Um, this is an exhibit provided by the engineer that provides the legal description for the 11.04 acres to be reszoned. I've also included the proposed subdivision plat which is at the preliminary platting stage and has not yet been approved. And then an additional exhibit, the area that's being proposed for preliminary plat um has all the lot information indicated on it. And you can see that there's still a buffer between the existing subdivision to the west of lots that will eventually be proposed for subdivision platting that will still have the R120 zoning designation. Any questions? Does anyone have questions for staff? Uh Chair Goss, I do. Um just to confirm that. Could you roll back a few slides? Sorry. The Yeah, earlier you had colorcoded based on the It was quite a bit back there based on the um the general plan a little further back right there. Yeah. So, are we just talking about the yellow green? Sorry, I'm color blind. So, the yellow is the R18 zoning designation. That little area highlighted in red is the area proposed to be reszoned to R18. And that's just

to help align the subdivision edge with the correct zoning. The white line there is the boundary of the entire subdivision. correct of the entire site. The proposed subdivision is just a smaller portion of the entire site. Okay. And that the site they the builder intends to honor that R120 on the left that that slice I believe. So there's there's no proposed plat for that yet. Got it. But there is a development agreement in place that was included in your staff report from the original resoning resolution that zoned the property back in 2005. Okay. Thank you. Are you done? Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Um, just to be clear, the the portion in red, the is the 11 acres, correct? And directly to the west, there are how many are 20,000 square foot lots? How many lots are in there that are proposed to be built there? There hasn't been a formal proposal. You just answered that. Okay. So, um, is there any way that that could change without a reszone or anything? No, they would have to go through a public hearing process for like this. Okay. And then the other side, the east side is definitely the R18, the smaller lots. It It already is that. Correct. Right. So, it already is this and it already is that. And this is in the middle that they're just trying to address. It's 11 acres to make combine it with R18. Yes, a portion of the proposed subdivision falls within that R120, but the lots that are being proposed meet the R18 standards for development. So, okay. And just to clean up the boundaries, just to clean it up. Okay. And so it already is the way it is and this is just a cleanup. It's not a

like a change, correct? Or whatever. So, and this follows the general plan, correct? For Kingman. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions for staff? Um, Chair Goss, just um following up on that. So, the section in red is currently zoned R120, correct? My little bubble in this image didn't perfectly I understand that. I'm just curious about um when you're saying it's just a cleanup. It is it is already R120 and it will be changed to R18. Correct. This exhibit might help a little. Yes. And would you go to the exhibit? I think it's two after that right there. So that's the proposed that's a proposed um outline for what it might look like. Yes. And that kind that kind of aligns with that um development agreement that was included in your staff report. Can you show me where Sandstone Street is? I think that I know where it is. I just want to make sure. Sandstone is the last row of houses built in Rancho. Yes. So I don't know if you can see my cursor, but I believe that's sandstone that my mouse is hovering over. Yeah, it is. Okay. So then there would be one, two, three rows of R120 after that. Four. It looks like here the starting. Sorry, I can't find one. Is that Is that last one still halfacre lots? Correct. And then they would be facing um the R18 lots. Looks like they would back up to those R. would back up

to it. And you mentioned earlier there was there would still be a buffer. Was that buffer for for Sandstone Street or what what's the buffer for? The buffer of R120 zoning between these proposed lots and the existing development on the other side. The Sandstone. Correct. Rancho Santa Fe. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Any more questions? No. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Sure. Great. All right, chair. One more thing. Um, I'm just curious about the buffer itself. I mean, a buffer should be a transition between two different like densities, right? I mean, but this is basically protecting Rancho Santa Fe with an R, you know, with an R20 and then it's just dropping off straight down to a, you know, an R8. So, so why isn't it like a step down? Why isn't the buffer like a 15 or, you know, like some some intermediate number instead of just a 20 and then falling off a shelf like that? water. So back in 2005 site site is honoring that natural buffer comes out into higher density.

I guess it's just confusing to me because it seems like it's it's still going to be abrupt. It's just you're moving where the abrupt abrupt drop off happens just further out from Rancho Santa Fe. You know, you're still having that same dynamic inside of this proposed subdivision. with the exhib. So on the exhibit before you, if you were to take that reszone and overlay it, the the western or the easterly boundary of that reszone would essentially bifurcate or bisect the second row of lots that's coming down in the proposed subdivision. That's the purpose of the cleanup that's before you this evening. Thank you. I appreciate Thank you, Jason. All right, I am going to um open up us for public discussion. Um I have some requests in front of me. I'm just going to um go through them. I'm probably going to pronounce your names incorrectly, but you get to come up to the microphone and tell me what it is so that I get it right from then on. Um also that way we can write it down. So I'm going to start with um Mike Balsley. Awesome. Come on up. State your name for us correctly and let us know what you have to say. All right. I'm Mike Bossley and I live over on Sandstone. And I I'm just curious because the whole Rancho Santa Fe development was all set up for higherend homes, halfacre lots, all of that. Now all of a sudden we're cramming in all kinds of, you know, 8,000 square foot lots out there. And I mean, a lot of

people moved out there because they wanted the open area. And that you have on the other side of the 40, you have what 3,000 homes that are going in over there. You have 300 and something over on Walapi. And my concern is where's all this traffic going to go? you know, they already told I checked with people that were doing the building the road uh that's the new off-ramp is going to turn on Louise. It's not going behind our house. They said not at this time. And so that's going to put a lot of traffic on Louise, a lot of traffic on Southern. It's it's just not set up for it. And then then it comes down to infrastructure with water, electricity. We're already buying electricity out of state. Um I I just don't think people are really realizing that a lot of people move to Kingman for more space and not to be congested like LA, Phoenix, Las Vegas. And it's just like I I pulled a flyer from one of the houses for sale over there by us. And one of the things it says it's it's basically based off the mountains subdivision is distinguished by large lots. You know, that's their selling point. Now all of a sudden, all right, here's our selling point. Yeah, you have a large lot, but you can look back and have, you know, how many homes is that? you know, that's going to be back there. It It just It just seems like it's overdeveloped for for that little area for for what we we need. I see tons of houses for sale out here and more building going on. I I just I'm a little bit lost as to how they think they're going to fill all of this, you know, and and and if you

lower if these are going to be houses for 250,000, what's that do to my property value? you know, if if I have a house back there that's 250 and I'm I've paid more than that for mine. So, just kind of curious, you know, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that, you know, we're we're trying to to build this up and I understand, you know, development and everything. Um, but I also understand that people still have a right to have a little bit of freedom in their area and that. So, that's about all I have to say. Thank you so much. All right. Next, I have Tom Buckle. I apologize if I repeat something because I'm hard of hearing, so I've had trouble hearing, but my name is Tom Buckle. I live at 2536 Sandstone. My back wall is abuting to what was supposed to be a four-lane street. In 2005, they wanted to reszone the entire 500 and some acres to R8. And the people of Rancho Santa Fe screamed and hollered and complained because there was no buffer between our halfacre lots and their fifth of an acre. So they finally everybody agreed they would put two blocks in of halfacre lots and then the rest would be fifth of an acre. And everybody seemed to be satisfied. Here we are. years later, they're bringing the same subject back and now they want to get rid of that buffer zone that we asked for so that we enjoy the dark nights. We we enjoy the lack of traffic and we feel that this is going to add a tremendous amount of traffic and we want a buffer zone for noise and everything

else which the four-lane street and the two blocks would give us. and that's all we asked for and we thought it was settled. Here we are all these years later, we're back to the same thing. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. I hope. All right. Next, we have Barb Carpenter. Hi. Good evening, chairperson, chairperson, chairwoman. I I get it all. And commissioners, I should have said Barbara Carpenter. I'm sorry. I'm one of the people that sent in a letter because I'm concerned about our infrastructure. Uh having the smaller lots doesn't make me happy, but all of the traffic concerns me. Louise and Southern all move over into Walifi Mountain, and Walapai Mountain is awful right now. And all this is going to do is exacerbate the problem. I don't understand how we're going to deal with it. I mean, maybe put an overpass over Louise that'll get people to 66. I don't know. But we are not prepared for this with our infrastructure. And our hospital, our hospital is not doing very well and people don't even want to go to it. We're going to bring more people here. How are they going to handle it? That's my only concern. You know, I I would like I would seriously like for y'all to consider the fact that we don't have any space for any more people at this point unless we get our act together, and we don't have it together. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I'm going to give this one my best go. Um, Scott K.

It's It's Scott Klein Hessink. Can you give that to me one more time? Klein Hessink. Clyde Teslink. Klein Hink. Klein Link. Got it. Close enough. Maybe. Okay. Thank you. I I'm I'm opposed to this this resoning area out there. Looking at the map, it actually make more sense. Uh I think it was um Mr. Waters you said a step down buffer zone to to go from the half acre to a little bit smaller to a little bit smaller then get to the 8,000 square foot. That makes a heck of a lot more sense to me. Um with that said, the nearest home that's less than a half acre is approximately 20 or 2.5 miles from there. I think that you should keep that consistent with the existing zoning out there. Uh not only can you please speak in the microphone? Thank you. Not not only that, it's going to bring additional u additional crimes calls for first responders um and resources out there and especi with the roundabouts. That's a different different topic. Uh but we have very current very limited infrastructure out there. The nearest shopping for me is going to be up to up at Walmart. There's nothing south I40 that's along with that there's no public transportation out there either. So that's going to bring it's also going to bring a lot more congestion to the overburden KRMC which is in my opinion very lacking. It takes months to get an appointment. Uh there's already a 300 plus house development plan for Southern in the county area out there as well. And they're already building another 30 to 40 acres north of Louise out there. Um that's going to bring a tremendous amount of traffic to Southern, a

tremendous traffic to Louise. Um not to mention Walapai Mountain Road. I've only lived in this area for about three years and the traffic has just got terrible out there. Currently there was the only those two roadways. Um plus they're looking at it building an additional 100 homes in between central and senica 500 in the county area out there off of southern and another 500 plus off of Santa Rosa. Okay. Where's the businesses to support this? Darn. Right now, there's only, if you live east of the railroad tracks, there's only two ways to get west of the railroad tracks. I spoken to dozens, if not hundreds of people about this development, and everybody's opposed to it that I've talked to. I asked my neighbors if they're going to come to the meeting, speak before you. They say no. I say, "Why not?" They tell me that basically everything the developers want to do up here is rubber stamped by you guys and by a you know and all I can say is that if you your family somehow are going to benefit from the resoning of any of these properties, you need to make that made make that known publicly and recclude yourself from voting on this. Thank you very much. All right. Next, I have Wanda Morog. Monroe. Yes, that's Wanda Marty Monroe. Um yeah, I would like to I just want to reiterate on what uh the previous

speakers have said and I we definitely agree and we have a very nice uh area there. We live at 4387 Gemstone which is right at the end right in there. And um those homes that are coming so close, we bought that area because we like the open space and I'm sure people who are going to be buying here would like more open space and the smaller lots you're going to bring people that we try to get away from. Let's put it that way. Because we didn't want a small lot. We don't want garbage out in the street. We don't want uh people parking junk cars all over the place. And I think a a larger buffer zone would be um something you should consider. you know, we uh I'm not going to say where I'm from because uh I was uh I was on the city council in California, so I know what you're going through and if you would please consider a little bit more of a buffer zone in that area and larger lots. Those lots are really small. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that is all I have from these papers. If anybody else wants to come up and address us, that's okay, too. So, um, is there anybody else that wants to Okay, I've got two. Um, so actually, we can't respond to any of you guys. However, you can come up and let us know how you feel

about it. Um Jason actually does write down some things and sometimes he can clear that up for you after the fact, but this is just like a information gathering from you guys right now. You mind if I come up? Go right ahead. One of the biggest things I have, my name is Vernon Edward Monroe. I live at 40 4387 Gimmstone Avenue. uh Rancho Santa Fe area uh as my wife last name Monroe uh was uh stating to Okay. Now, my biggest question is that Rancho Santa Fe Parkway still going in as according to your maps that was sent out to the general public, it showed it right up to our property line. And I was wondered if that Rancho Santa Fe uh Parkway is still viable or if it's not. I know from what I heard and I've talked to numerous people that's supposed to be a beltway basically from the interstate to Walai Mountain Road. I was you know with traffic and it's bad enough now with our uh off-roaders but uh can amount of traffic as was alluded prior to that situation and that area. I thank you very much for my time and your uh commitment to trying to improve and to help uh Cayman. I know it's getting very congested here, but thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else want to address the commission? Come on forward and state your name.

My name is Tanner Shritter. I am one of uh the owners of Rancho Santa Fe RSF and I'm also one of the owners of Walapai's Edge Development. Well, I shouldn't say one of the owners. I'm one of the developers that are helping. Uh I'm here to clear up any questions that you guys may have for us. Sorry, I got here a little late today. Uh there I was watching on the way here. Uh, one of the questions that I do want to address is yes, we intend to honor the the R120 and we're not going to change that. That will still be there as a buffer. Um, another question that was just asked, uh, I believe the Rancho Santa Fe Parkway in the developmental agreement is to be paved from Louise to Southern once I believe it is 250 home sites are put in place and that is to be paved by uh the developers of the the future acreage. I believe there's a total of 780 acres there. Um, we what this was was a boundary cleanup. We had originally gone off the GIS map and when we got the meats and bounds from the city, it was nowhere near it and it was very jagged and almost impossible to build a subdivision on that line. That is why we're asking for this reszone to to rectify that situation. Uh, I'm open to any questions that you guys may have for me. Also, uh, chair, may I ask a question? U, hold on one second. Can we ask questions during this part or do you want me to have him come back up during commission discussion? Close the hearing if you want questions. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any more comments that need to be made

first? be able to ask questions of him. No. Um, okay. So, I'm going to close the public hearing then and open it up for commission discussion and you guys can ask your questions. Okay. Chair Goss. Um, I I don't know the whole history of the subdivision, but could you have asked for R R16 and you elected to to go to R18? So it went to R16 the the property would actually be smaller square foot. But I'm just I'm trying to to get into your decision- making when you when you this uh project was started. Did you elect to go to the absolute densest as you could have or did you step it up a notch from so so the R18 zoning was has been in place since the developmental agreement I believe back in 2005 which was in place by my grandfather and several other owners. Okay. So it's been that way for quite a while. Yes, sir. Okay. So, was there any discussion about maybe tapering the the density from the 20 to say a lower step until getting to the the density? Yeah. Yes, absolutely. And I can address some of that. So, uh it is zoned R18 that is the smallest that we can go. There is one lot in this subdivision, I believe, that is about 8,100 square foot. The majority of the lots are 9,300 square ft or bigger. I there's lots that go all the way up to 17,000 square foot, which is just under half acre. Uh we I I I understand the concerns of everybody here and I we didn't want to go down to such a small level that it would affect the other home sites that are next to it. So that that's why we decided to go a little bit bigger than 8,000 square foot. Got it. But if if this was originally set up to be allowed an R16, you would have went

for R16, so it penciled out to a higher value. No, because I don't believe that is what is needed. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Um, is that buffer that runs along uh I see that other street right there. Um, what is Sandstone? What's the street east of Sandstone? Has that been named yet? So, the the street that's east of Sandstone will be the Parkway. Okay. And east of that and then east of that will be the the future R120 subdivision. So, will the houses be facing the their backyards will be on the Walopai Parkway and their front yards will be on that new road. So, as this plan sits right now, the the homes, all homes would back up to the Parkway and face into into the subdivision. That makes sense. And also on the other side where it goes to the 18, those uh halfacres that go to the 8,000 square foot, they have their backyards are backing up to each other and they face opposite. So, okay. I just wanted to be clear on that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. My question is um what is the time frame for this project? As soon when do you expect to start as soon as we have a permit? We are we are working continuously with the city with with Jason and with engineering on on getting our permits. How long? Uh I would I would Jason maybe you can answer this a little bit better. Chair, Commissioner Skeesian. Uh they are currently in the review process for their pre-plat. Uh we would anticipate that sometime this summer coming before the planning and

zoning commission. They I believe are also in the process of doing some of their final engineering already. Uh as well as some of their engineering studies that would follow with that. Uh my guess would be is they would look to have a final plat sometime before the end of 2025, which if that was the case, they would then submit for building permit. They would start with their infrastructure improvements, rightway improvements, uh, for the site and then start building homes based on market demand. So, when are you going to put a a shovel to the dirt? That's what I want to know. So, that I can't that I can't answer you. I can tell you the timeline. A year or two? I I would say he could probably be shovel ready in 18 months to 24 months just depending on again market demand. Thank you. This is probably for staff. When is the interchange going to be projected to be finished and functioning? Chair, Commissioner McCoy. Uh the interchange itself, I believe, is still on schedule. I think it's a slightly maybe a little bit behind. They would like to be further along than where they are today. Uh I do believe it's still uh on schedule to be sometime end of 2026, 2027, somewhere in that range. uh my city engineer uh we can certainly reach out and get that official answer for you. So your timeline and the interchange timeline coincide pretty close. Uh that would be correct for your started construction. Yes sir. And then Rancho Santa Fe Parkway will extend from the interchange through to where uh that with this first phase there was only 150 lots. So, uh, the interchange, the parkway will only go in to Louise at this point. And then once there is a second phase of our subdivision, then we have to run it from

Louise south to Southern. So, it's given us an alternative entry exit to the interstate from that kind of a choke point up there right now. Yes, sir. And I know that was concerns of where traffic is going to go. That's part of that interchange being there. They're going to be able to access that interchange and get into the city more efficiently. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any more questions? No. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, council. Thank you. All right. Before um we get too much into commission discussion, I just want to um let everybody know that we appreciate your comments and um we definitely feel for your position. Um I do want to ask Carl since we have him here um if he would just give us a quick um bit of information on what is the what is the point of law on this decision. I know that we are able to um vote in line with the city plan and um if you could just give us a little bit of correct. So as part of the recommending body you'll make a recommended recommendation of you know to approve or deny uh this is what's called a legislative function as opposed to when we talk about the plats were more ministerial. So as a legislative function, it is up to the discretion of the the P&Z commission and the council whether or not to approve based on their legislative policies, ideas, uh conformance with u the the state statutes and our city code, our zoning, and those sort of things. So, I'm not sure if I answering exactly what you're looking for, but as long as you feel this is meeting the needs of the community, it meets the general plan, you can make a recommendation to approve

or deny that recommendation to the council. So, great. Thank you very much, Cher Gos Commission. If I can, just also the illustrative uh subdivision plats that are there today, those are for illustrative purposes. is there not to be considered as part of your review this evening. It was really just to help uh guide the discussion in where the portion of the changes zone does reflect within the subdivision. Thank you, Jason. All right. Do we have any discussion amongst ourselves or does anybody want to make a motion? Uh just to discuss it really quick. Um, I I hear the I hear a lot of these complaints often up here. You know, I mean, the branch of Santa Fe subdivision, just my own opinion, it's they're the people that live there are doing an excellent job being stewards of their neighborhood. You know, they've elected to pay a little more, have a bigger lot, and keep it nice. And then to have like these other subdivisions just piggyback off of them to kind of take advantage of it in a weird way. It just seems wrong to me. I mean, and I keep hearing the the argument that, well, the person that bought the other lot next to them owns it. They can do whatever they want with it. You know, they can pack a bin like sardines if they want to. But, I mean, if somebody's supposed to care, it's supposed to be this board, right? I mean, and we've we've passed this general plan, you know, and I keep seeing amendments pop up over and over again. Not this time, but we're we're putting this sort of change before us just to second guess this the the plan. It I don't know. It seems like we should we should stick to the plan in this case, irrespective of the pretty drawing they have there, the credential plaid. they should just redraw it

honoring what we agreed to in the 2020 plat. Um it's the least we could do. It sounds like regardless they're still going to have these these tiny lots next to their their beautiful subdivision eventually. I would like to see it blend a little more, but it seems like we didn't think of that a few years back. But anyway, that's just the trend I see. Again, the the term rubber stamp was used earlier. I agree. I I think a lot of this this development is just being rubber stamped. It's everybody's pushing for it because this new freeway, it seems like we're just desperate to pack in as many people as possible in our community despite the fact that people are moving here because they're sick of that sort of growth model from the 1950s in California. So, I don't know. We'll we'll see what happens with it. But that's my own take. So, thank you. I appreciate it. I like to say something. I believe uh I believe in our staff and I believe in the people up here very committed to this community and in to Kingman and plan development. I don't believe it's stuffing people into sardines. I believe people are being very careful about what they're doing. We're here considering the community what they have to say and what the developer is doing. That's what I am doing here. And so I think that matters and it shows that we care and um people are coming here no matter what. So if we work together to get a plan development such as this then I think it's a boon to Kingman. I think this is what we need is to have people develop plan. The general plan is just a plan. So it it's always going to be added to. It's always going to get bigger. That's that's the way it works. So you don't stick to the

smallalness. They're going to come anyway. So why not plan it and do what you can to be involved in planning it and having it develop like this? That's my take on it. Cher Goss. Um we could we could stick with the plan. um or we can you know just let things slide to allow development. Um I think the problem is that the problem is that we're not we're choosing quantity over quality. You know, it it seems like we're desperate to get a new coffee house or whatever or these metrics to get our city to grow into something that we might not want. You know, like how many people do you know that have moved in a place like randos to get away from like a Phoenix or a Vegas or Southern California, you know? I mean, before we met metastasize into some sort of like tumor that we all hopefully make enough money to to where we can move away from again, maybe we should stop and think about whether or not we want to grow. I mean, I had this discussion with staff not too long ago. Arizona, believe it or not, isn't a big place. If you look at the map and deduct all of the state land, BLM, all the federal land, we're we're we're actually a small state and we're treating it like it's the wide open frontier and trying to pack people into here, become yet another Phoenix despite all of our water problems and traffic problems, which everybody here, I'm sure, knows about. So, these these aren't minor issues. They keep getting swept under the rug, I think. And anyway, I'm glad people have come out here and I just hope that we we consider maybe sticking with the plan that we put before the people uh not too long ago. I mean, if if it doesn't matter and we're just going to keep amending these general plans, then why even have them? Why not just have random decisions every single time we meet here whenever it favors a developer? Anyway, that's my opinion. Thank you,

Chair Gos Commission. If I can, we we are not amending the general plan this evening. It is a reszone that's being proposed that's consistent with the general plan. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear on the record. Yeah. Thank you. And and Chair Goss, it it's just I've been told that I need to understand how the general plan works. What I'm saying is that since we've, you know, passed it, we've had meeting after meeting where we're changing it and now we're just disregarding it apparently here even though we've specified which portion of this property should be R120. So, that's that's where I'm coming from. Thank you. Can I say something? I don't take this lightly and I'm not when you say we I I am not doing that, you know. I am not taking it lightly. I'm not shoving it together. I'm very intentional. And so I I don't agree with you, Cheros. Yeah, I'm I'm trying to avoid personal proven hands and and talk about ideas. So, if we do disagree, it doesn't matter to me and we're we're going to hopefully honestly discuss the debate. Thank you. I will say that um I think that the general plan uh does allow for prodevelopment um for sure. Um it allows for infilling the spaces that we have and trying to increase the amount of, you know, people and places that we have to live and work and buy things here in Kingman. Um, and so when that was approved, it makes it a little bit more difficult to try to keep the town small because helping the town grow is more in line with the general plan. Um, and so it's not

necessarily it it's not necessarily changing the general plan. It's that the plan that was put in place was for growth. And so we'd have to change the general plan to keep it small. um that that would be the plan of our town would be to to decrease infill, which it isn't um at the moment, which makes it a little bit tricky to say things like this shouldn't go forward because these things are in line with the general plan the way it is written now. And so, um, trying to change that and keep things smaller is actually what would be changing the general plan. Uh, Chair Gaus, I think there's a misunderstanding. All I'm saying is there's a hard line on a map saying that you shouldn't have R1 uh R18, you should have R120. I'm saying we hold to that in this case. That's all I'm saying. you know, instead of yet again deferring to developers who want to cram people into these developments, I say we hold to the general plan and let them redraw their plat and just figure it out themselves. So, I think when you're saying general plan, you mean the plan that was made for this area, not the general plan for Kingman. Yeah. If we go back a few slides, you'll see the slide where there's a demarcation between the R120 and the R18. And basically, we're talking about taking a sliver of the the area that was that was allocated to the R120, stripping it off, and putting uh making that R18. That so in in other words, we're just not seeking the plan. We have a developer that has a plat that wants to jam as many people into it as possible in this little area, and it didn't work. So, they're trying to take a sliver off of the R120. So, what I'm saying is that we just don't do that. We just make them figure it out. Redraw their roads a little. you know, maybe make fewer roads that are a little wider and then make the lots fill in the way they will.

Maybe it'll end up being R110 or something. I don't know. They can figure it out. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Chair Goss, I and commissioners. Um, just a few thoughts as I've listened to the people who have come tonight. Um, I used to live on Sandstone Street when we first moved here, backing up and I used to walk with the coyote and there were coyotes out in the desert and I loved walking out there. Um, and then we moved to Southern Vista and I'd walk in the desert there and it seems that just the natural state of things is that development happens. And that's we're all here for different purposes. Some of us are here raising families. Some of us have jobs that we have to do. Some of us are retired. And we and because we have we're at different stages in life, we all have different values. But we also share values. And the value that I see that we share is interest in Kingman and an interest to keep Kingman nice. And um a lot of us are working towards that. We're working towards recruiting more physicians and good nurses so that there can be good medical care here. We're working towards doing a good job on the chairs that we sit on even though we have different values. And I think that um even though we may all disagree with each other at the end of the night, um I see a lot of positive in that. Thank you, Jen. All right, you guys have been very quiet. I'd just like to say

that in my heart, I really disagree with this, but that this the way this thing is set up, I I don't think there's a whole lot we can do about it. uh you could vote to deny, but I think it's going to be overturned and uh you know the guidelines we have to follow. Um it doesn't doesn't really leave us a lot of room to do a whole lot. That's that's just my thought on it. Can I ask Mr. Shredder a question? Sure. To satisfy my curiosity, if this remained R1A, you said it couldn't be developed because of why the way it could still be developed. It would not be a cleancut line. It is a jagged line that moves west and east back and forth. So where we would have the boundaries of halfacres up to R18, that means half of someone's halfacre backyard would back up to half of someone's R18 yard where they'd be looking into each other's yards side from side to side instead of in back to back. Can you put the slide up that shows the proposed subdivision? Okay, that one. Yes, sir. And if I'm looking at this in the right way, that sandstone right there, that is a

drainage wash. Drain that sandstone. Where is sandstone on this map? Sandstone is where? It's the It's the straight line that goes down right to the right of that squiggle. So where you had the pointer on the squiggle go right right there. Right up and down right there. Okay. Oh, right there. There you go. You got it. So what's these? These are all R120s. Yes, sir. We still have two full blocks of them. The depth of those would be about what? Um, I would believe if they're anything like gemstones, they're going to be about 125 by 175. Okay. So, you're 500 ft away from the existing sandstone R120 here. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we have more discussion or does somebody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion. I make a motion to approve RZ25-0000. Can you lead a little bit further? I don't think they can hear you. 0002 walified entry zone. I second. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Can I get a roll call vote? Chair Goss, approve. Vice Chair Swap, yes. Commissioner McCoy, approve. Commissioner Noble, approve. Commissioner Sarkeesian,

approve. Commissioner Sixsta, approved. Commissioner Waters, denied. It's been approved. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Z025003. Let me give people a minute to leave if that's what they're looking to do. I'm sorry. Yeah, it's just if I keep talking, nobody can hear me. So, I'm just giving them a second. All right. Um, let's move on to I think it's a zero. Could be an O. Z25003 zone text amendment temporary signs political sign update. This is a city initiated zone text amendment to the city of Kangman zoning code section 4-90-70 standards for temporary signs. Specifically, the amendment expands the standard for temporary signs to include additional development standards and clarify regarding political signage placement. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Goss and commissioners. Uh before you this evening is a proposed zoning code text amendment regarding the addition of political signage requirements to the standards for temporary signage. This is zoning case zero, excuse me, Zo25-00003. In 2021, the current zoning

code was adopted, at which time the only reference to political signage and Arizona revised statute 16-1019 was a small endote at the bottom of a table. In an effort to expand upon and clarify the regulations surrounding political signage, staff reviewed several other jurisdictions throughout Arizona and how they implemented signage regulations for those political signs. The proposed expansion of section 4-9.070 070 will provide candidates and other political campaigns additional information regarding the state regulation and how the city's zoning code for temporary signage applies to that political signage. Staff does recommend the text amendment be recommended to city council for approval. As you can see here, I mentioned that single reference to ARS16-1019 being an endnote at the bottom of this table. That very small yellow box up there is the only reference we have to state statute in the current zoning code. The review of other Arizona jurisdictions included a variety of towns and cities, but we found that Phoenix, Chandler, and Paradise Valley all had robust, albeit varying, political signage standards. These examples demonstrated how the state statute could be upheld while also upholding the city's own individual zoning codes for temporary signage. Based on these examples and the city of Kingman's unique needs and our unique character here, the proposed amendment incorporated details regarding defining traffic hazards, expanding the sign-free zone, which council originally approved in December of 2011, enforcement of temporary sign code, and enhanced marketing to the candidates and other political

campaigns. The proposed amendment would amend section 4-90.0 070 by adding section 4-90.070 point D. This would give additional clarity to those candidates regarding the political signage and the rules surrounding them. You can see the proposed amendment here in red along with proposed uh addition of the uh site visibility triangle diagram which is part of the uh definition of safety hazards. So, in conclusion, the proposed amendment would update the city's zoning code, provide additional guidance to candidates as previously discussed, and is supported by the findings in the staff report and the goals of the general plan. A public notice was uh issued for this meeting uh and printed in the Kingman Minor on April 23rd this year. Uh to date we have had no agency or other outside public comments received regarding this item. Based on the findings in the staff report, staff is recommending that the commission recommend Z25-00003 for approval to the city council. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for staff? I do. So, how is this going to change? H This is just changing terms inside the what the code is for signs. That's what we're doing. So, is it going to change how signs are put up and taken down or how big they are and all that kind of stuff? Commissioner Goss and and Commissioner Siksta, the state statute has regulations around political signage specific that says uh we must allow

political signage within the city's right ofway provided it meets certain standards and that is state statute. It's based on size uh it's based on certain content on that uh you know it has to have contact information for the campaign. Um, so this is only for regulation within the city right ofway. Okay. A private business or a private homeowner still has to adhere to temporary signage standards, but they are more than welcome to place political signage on their property adhering to those standards. Typically uh temporary signage in in a in a regular sign world uh is not allowed in the city right away. So it okay it allows for it under certain parameters and conditions and this addition is clarifying that to make sure everyone understands those regulations. Thank you chair Goss. Um sorry I I I thought I I thought I saw that there were certain streets in town in town. I I remember doing a campaign years ago. Has that changed at all or is that part of this project like updating which which thorough affairs or whatever receive? You're correct Commissioner Goss Commissioner Waters. Uh there is what as I mentioned in December 2011 council passed what's called the sign-free zone and this is allowed by state statute for political signs where we can say uh designated corridors are um due to tourism due to um you know hotel zone other entertainment districts that might exist or aesthetics. we can say these are the areas in which we do not want this signage to be there and that allows us to deal with the peripheration that's been happening of that visual blight. So you are correct. There is a map. It is from it comes down Stockton Hill. I believe it starts at approximately northern um comes down uh Stockton Hill to Andy Divine. Comes down Andy Divine currently from Michael Street all the way down to Grand View

and then it goes from Halapai from Andy Divine to the city limits. Uh, one thing I mentioned is a recommendation for um amending that and simply extending it from on um on Andy Divine from Michael Street all the way to the city limit in order to help us protect our our Route 66. That is a uh resolution that will be going before the city council uh on June uh 3 when uh this uh items move moves forward as well. They'll be paired together. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Any more questions for staff? I have one if I may. The last election cycle I noticed a lot of political signs affixed to railings that that's being eliminated on page 53 number eight says they won't be allowed any longer. Correct. Uh temporary signs regardless of of their nature whether political or not temporary signs are not allowed to be affixed to fencing or things like that. Is that new or they never have been allowed? They never have been allowed. This wasn't enforced at the time. You're correct. Okay. Thank you. So let me get this straight. Just for instance at the corner of Stockton Hill and Airway right there on a Cracker Barrel. Yes. chain link fence that's there which continues down the street to where you to where I Yeah, I say you could turn into Wall-E whirl. Yes. Right there. Okay. All those signs that pop up there, you know, during the election cycle, are we saying going forward that's not going to be allowed? Commissioner Goss, Commissioner Sarkeesian, you are correct. No matter

the nature of the sign, whatever its content is, placing signs on those fences are is not permitted under the temporary sign standards. Another spot I can think of is um right there on Gordon um where the end of the Safeway parking lot is. There's a uh a flood channel there. A lot of signs get put up there on that railing. Another spot I can think of is in front of uh what is it? Planet Planet Fitness. Uh same type of thing there. There's an aluminum railing in there and I noticed a lot of signs get attached there. Okay. So, who's going to who's going to if a sign pops up there, what's going to what's what's going to happen? Commissioner Goss, Commissioner Sarkeesian, there is an effort being put forward by our neighborhood services division of which at the May 20th uh city council meeting will be giving a presentation next week all about temporary signs in working to educate the public on what is a temporary sign, what are the acceptable forms and styles of temporary signs and where are they allowed. So, we'll be working on an education campaign um provided city council uh gives us that that green light and we'll be working to start that in June to educate the businesses and the community on uh acceptable signage and acceptable placement. You didn't answer my question. I asked you what what are you going to do about it if a sign gets put up over there? Is it going to be taken down? So somebody reports and said, "Hey, there's a bunch of signs put up on the corner of Airway and

Stockton Hill right there by the Cracker Barrel." So we have the neighborhood services division, our code enforcement officers who will respond to those complaints and make contact with the property owner. We do have the opportunity and I do know that the Cracker Barrel property specifically has signed um I believe it's a a release or a waiver an agreement that allows us to enter the code enforcement officer to enter their property and remove those signs for them. Now not every business has done that. So we would rely upon contacting the business, informing them of the violation, requesting the uh remediation and should that not happen then then it moves down that enforcement road of notice of violation and so forth. So, the corner of Andy and um Stockton Hill, Yes. right there by the Walgreens. Is that fair game going forward for political signs right there on that corner? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by fair game. Is is signage going to be allowed on that intersection corner? Based on the rules of political signage, we would be allowing them to place political signage within the right of way provided they meet the the standards of that sign and that they do pro they do not violate the site visibility triangle or pose any other uh hazard. Okay. There are also time restrictions I should point out when it comes to political signage per state statute. Political signage may only be placed 71 days prior to the election and it must be removed 15 days following the election. Yeah, I I understand that. I don't have a any problem with that. That allows us another I'm just trying to touch on these what I call rogue areas

in the city like that spot where I said by Walmart uh where you come out of Walmart's parking lot and you're looking north and there's a channeling fence there. It's just inundated. Yes. With signage every political cycle that we have. Yes. Okay. That would be it's not permitted for any type of sign on that on that fencing. And please let me back up for a moment. I apologize. I misspoke. At the Andy Divine uh Walapai Stockton Hill Road intersection, that is the intersection, one of the main intersections on the sign-free zone. So, please let me take that back. They would not be allowed to put uh political signage in the ride ofway at that intersection. Okay. So, going forward in this next political or election cycle that we're going to have, Uh, I'm not going to expect to see any signage there on that corner around. Well, there should not be. There will be there will be enforcement. That's a very popular spot in Kingman for signage. So many signs. It'll be illegal if it's there. Correct. It is part of that that intersection is the part of the sign free zone and it currently has all it has been for years. it that has originally been in the sign free zone from the original passing in 2009, but it's never been enforced apparently. Well, Syuzian, we're going to make you the one who's going to be calling. This is your new job. No, don't call me. We'll give you some wire cutters. Well, you got stuff on the books or you got laws or whatever and it's not being enforced. What's going to change about that? just because you say you have some community um service now that's going to address this problem or what? That is the goal of the neighborhood services division. Again, with the upcoming campaign, we're

our goal is to be educating the community and the business community and any potential candidates in the future that this is a a serious matter for the city that they take that seriously and this is what's allowed. this is where it's allowed and then moving forward, ideally people will be well verssed in that prior to the campaign election cycle beginning. This is going to be interesting to see how this this plays out. I'll I'll I'll just be standing by tuned in on this for sure. Understood. Because if you haven't done anything that it's been on the books or whatever for the last few years and there's nobody doing anything about it, I don't I really don't see where it's going to change overnight. Can I say something? That's all two questions if I may. Okay. Is this a complaint driven enforcement or is it going to be proactive on the city's part that they're actually going to stop, pick up signs, call them, and say come get them or we're going to destroy them? So, it's going to be two-pronged. Um, in the presentation next week, I will have a map available uh that will show you the proactive enforcement zone. It not only includes the sign free zone that is uh allowed by state statute, we're overlaying uh that with some additional major corridors of the city. And these proactive zones are going to be for temporary signs, not just political signs. And also the weed embaitment program that has been underway since last month. Um, so that's a proactive enforcement zone. We currently only have two neighborhood services officers and this is a lot of area to cover. Um, so that is the proactive zone. We recognize those are major corridors, major tourism corridors and we want to actively spend time keeping those clean, keeping our our corridors that everybody who comes

here drives through. However, there are absolutely complaint based as well. should something come up and we get a phone call, they'll from 9inth Street to Grand View includes all of those streets as well. So all the advertising banners at the high school are technically not allowed. My understanding is that the school district falls under a different That is correct. Commissioner McCoy, Chair Goss, uh, the school district, the city does not have any purview or ability to regulate any of their signage, their banners that they put on their fences, uh, any of the development that occurs with any of the schools. And that would be with any of the state funded, so even charter schools that receive state funding. The city does not have any ability to regulate that type of signage. Any more questions? Uh, yeah, Chair Goss, I have a question. Um, regarding these regarding the your research, did did you have any other communities reaching out to you about or or giving some feedback on like the restriction the restrictions on these signs causing it to favor candidates that can afford like billboards, you know, like putting their ads on billboards, for example. There was there was one if you went out of downtown there was the LED billboard which was running some you know pro-democrat um you know candidacy ads there like did you receive any feedback from any of the communities or any concerns about that like limiting the ability of people just to go out and stake signs pretty much wherever they want to on the main therap? No. And based on the state statute they may take their campaign funds and buy a billboard that is up up to them and how they choose to campaign and spread those funds around. State statute does limit us in saying in a very narrow way. You have to allow at least

this. It doesn't preclude us from the temporary sign enforcement, but if someone wants to spend their money on a a private billboard and and pays that fee, that is how they choose to spend their funds. Um the other cities did not take that into consideration. Yeah. Well, I know chair of a bond initiative years ago and some of the exact locations that uh Commissioner Sarkeesian was mentioning, I've I've I know I've done my part to kind of graffiti the area. So, um I share I share some concerns over enforcement. I'm not sure how you're going to rein it in, but I support the city and cleaning up the language. So, thank you. Thank you. All right. Any further questions? All right. I see none. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. This is um requiring a um public hearing. So I need to open this up for discussion with the public if anybody there has anything to say except for Claudia. Feel free to come up. That's my daughter and she's only 12. All right. I see none. So, I'm going to close public comment and open it up for commission discussion. I'm all in favor of regulating signs. And this is a baby step, but it's a start. So, right. Do we have a motion to put forward? I would make a motion to approve 2025-00003 zone text amendment temporary signs and political signs. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Can I get a roll call vote? Yes. Chair Goss, approve. Vice Chair Swap, approve. Commissioner McCoy, approve. Commissioner Noble, approve. Commissioner Sarkeesian, approve.

Commissioner Sixa, approved. Commissioner Waters, approve. Approve. All right. Thank you. Um, do we have any reports from staff? No reports this evening. As it was mentioned already, at the next council meeting, we will do be doing a presentation that specifically addresses temporary signage. Uh, in addition to that, we'll also be doing a presentation on some legislation that's forthcoming. Uh, that does impact how pre-plats and final plats will be processed in the near future. Uh once that presentation is given to the council, I'll be bringing that back to give it to the commission at the next commission meeting as well. Great. Thank you so much, Jason. All right. Next, we have um announcements from commission members. This is limited to announcements, board and commission liaison reports, availability, attendances at conferences and seminars. Do we have any announcements? I will be um away for the July meeting. So, if we could do that presentation before or after the July meeting, I would love to be here if possible. And I'm also curious if um if it it might be interesting to receive some information about how the city plans to address the traffic coming from east over to the west. As a lot of people noted today, there's a lot of traffic backup. I don't know if we might be able to have a report on that or maybe I just don't know and everyone else does certainly chair gosh commissioner swap we can certainly have our city engineer come in we can prepare a presentation that shows you the overall master plan for our traffic our infrastructure plan for traffic and transportation and then kind of tie that in with some of the subdivisions that are forthcoming uh along with the improvements that they would be making

that help make some of those connections. Yeah, that would be really interesting and helpful. That would probably hit around July if that's the case given that we only meet once a month. Would you prefer August if you're It'd be difficult for me to zoom in for that. Okay. So, if we can get it on the June agenda, we will. If not, we'll we'll plan for the August so that way your presence is available for it. Thank you. I'd like to follow up with u some comment that Commissioner Swat made. Um, is there any plans in the near future that you know of or any talk about making a dedicated right turn lane at Andy and Walapai right there on the right there on the corner of the Dan Bar. Um, getting back to what Chairman Swap said, chairperson Swap said about the the traffic volume there on Walapi. Uh, it seems like that's starting to become a problem. Um, you can either go straight or you can turn. And probably nine times out of 10 that I use that intersection, somebody is always just sitting in that right lane. Um, and they just plan to go straight, which backs all that traffic up um on Walapi. Um, you know, I've seen it pack uh, you know, backed up past the gassing grub.

Um, has anybody ever given any thought to making some kind of a adjustment there with that situation? chair persons and commissioner Sarkeesian, if I'm picturing it correctly, we're talking at the Danbar at Andy Divine and Walapai Mountain Road, right? Uh I do believe there was discussion in regards to doing a dedicated right turn uh extending from what would have been just past Gas and Grub. There's a proposed Starbucks in that general vicinity uh that would then lead to the Andy Divine area. There are complications in regards to some drainages that are there as well as if I remember correctly some overhead uh telco or power lines and that was one of the things that was impacting whether or not we can get the right turn or a dedicated right turn there. I will follow up with the city engineer and bring that back to you. Yeah, I don't really stop. We should probably We're getting kind of a discussion and we could probably have that when he brings a report back. This is just announcements or requests. Oh, sorry. Okay. Sorry. Let's just be budding. I didn't mean to go off topic, but since you know, I just kind of segueed into it with uh what she said. So, that really needs to be looked at though. Cher Goss, I would like to make an announcement. I would announce my interest at this year's Arizona uh planning conference. Um I I'm very interested in the details on on where it'll be. I know it's a little early. So I announced that I'm interested in it. So if you could provide information. Thank you. I can help you with that, too. It's online. Oh, is it? Yeah. Well, you brought it up. I did. I did bring it up. Um yeah. Okay. I will I will add to

that, though. um if we could get a little bit more heads up than we have in years past about whether or not um the um planning department is going to send commissioners and how many commissioners they want to send, I think it would help for planning um who can go and how many people are going to go um and things like that. So, as soon as we could get information on that, that would probably be helpful. But does anybody else have anything? No. All right, then I will end us. Uh, you didn't ask about asking staff if they we wanted to ask them to bring something. Oh, everybody else was going to. Sorry, we're open again. Can um we have more updates from staff about anything? Yeah, I'd like to have staff bring us a presentation and have discussion on the site triangle ordinances about the size, dimensions, what's allowed, what's not, locations, limitations. um a general discussion of what they are and can they be modified. Chair Goss, Commissioner McCoy, and I'm in no hurry in the next couple three months is fine. Just just for clarification for the agenda and for our minutes. This is in regards to requests for future reports and updates. Item number six. Okay. Just wanted to read that into the record so we have that. Great. All right. Do we have any more? No. No. All right. We're journed then.