Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Wow. Chatty cat. I know. Chatty Caddyy over here. My new Oh, that's a new nickname. Can we proceed without counsel? Oh, no. We can't. Can we? Yeah. We can. We can. We don't have to have Oh, that's right. is going to be out. We're fine. Yeah. Yeah. We don't have to We're discussing it whether we can proceed without him or not. But I think we can. [Laughter] All right. Like to call the Thursday, May 1st meeting of the CAS Grand Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Please join me. Rise and join me for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we're all here. Please let the record show all the commissioners are here. Director, any changes to the agenda? Welcome. No. No, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I have no changes. Thank you. Very good. Okay, commissioners, we have two sets. Yes. Uh, minutes? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. I would love it. Second. We approve the minutes for the April 3rd, 2025 meeting. Second. All right. Motion and second to approve the minutes for the regular

meeting of April 3rd. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make another motion. Thank you, sir. To approve the April 3rd, 2025 special meeting minutes. Second. Got a motion to second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Next up is our consent agenda. Um these items and it's only the one this one item um will be enacted by one motion, one roll call vote to the commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a commission member or somebody from the rep from the public so requests that event will pull that item and cover it in the normal uh normal fashion with the rest of our agenda. The only item on there is this is E1 um for a SEG uh for prominade CG holdings. Anybody from the public like to have that pulled? Commissioners. Okay. Seeing none, commissioners. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Thank you, sir. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Okay. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Could you call the role? Member Smith. I. Member Aldrret. I. Member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. Hi. Vice Chair Garza. Hi. Chairman Benedict. Yes.

Next on our agenda is our uh public comments portion. This this place is for anybody from the public that would like to address the commission on pretty much anything except the the uh issues that we are uh going to hear tonight. There's anything in general that the public would like to address with the commission, please come forward. Seeing none, close the public comments portion and go on move on to our new business. Um, I guess these guys all know. Okay, I was going to say we can describe what our normal process, but uh I think all of you are pretty experienced to these processes. I won't take the time to go into that description. We'll move right on to the first item. We'll have a consider a request by Bill Kenny for 75 ft wireless telecommunications facility. conditional use permit, minor site plan, and Sam's on. Good evening, uh, chair, commissioners. Um, yes, I would like to to bring before you a conditional use permit and minor site plan, uh, DSA's 250015 and DSA 250016. [Music] Click the mouse problem. There it goes. All right. So, we have a per conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunication facility greater than 35 ft in height and a wireless telecommunication facility requires a minor site plan. Um, in this instance, the site is located at 525 North

Colorado Street. It is a B4 zoned property and it's roughly one and a3 acres. This is just southwest of the corner of Colorado Street and East Florence Boulevard. Um, this is going to be a 75 ft monop. It's for AT&T. Um it's going to have a 20 by 30 foot um equipment um compound which will be concealed by an 8 foot CMU block wall. Um previously there was a setback variance that was approved by the board of adjustment that allowed them to have less than the required 75 ft of setback from the property boundaries. Um and that was approved back in October of 2023. Um, so this is what the site looks like if you were headed eastbound on or I'm sorry, westbound on Florence Boulevard looking south. Um, here's kind of how that's going to change the skyline there. Um, as this tower goes in, and I don't have it shown here, but it's going to be similar in shape to the other two uh, palm tree type cell towers you see there. So again, before after it's it's not going to be a significant change to the uh skyline that exists. Uh here is the uh site plan and this is showing the east the southwest corner of the parcel that has the uh the red hash marks there is the uh compound and the gray path is going to be the access that they will use approximately once a month to uh access the site. Um other than that, once a month once the site is constructed, there will be little to no other traffic coming or going. Um here is a uh elevation view of

that tower. Again, you can see the uh compound, the block wall, the uh structure 75 ft, the uh cellular array, and then it is going to have that palm tree type um camouflage. Um, our conditional use permit criteria are here on the board. Um, at this time if you needed to look further into it, the staff report covers all this in detail. Um, but, uh, right now all criteria has been evaluated and covered within the staff report and staff finds that all criteria have been met. And then um the criteria for site plans are uh city code calls out that uh if you're building something new, you're either got a major site plan or a minor site plan. Um this cell tower or this cell facility does not meet the requirements for a major site plan. Therefore, it is minor. And generally minor site plans do not come before the planning and zoning commission. But because we are packaging that with the CUP, that is why it's here before you tonight. Um so the criteria for a minor site plan um are are generally that the proposed site will not be detrimental. It won't cause traffic congestion or seriously depreciate the surrounding property values and that the uh the proposed site is in harmony with the surrounding areas the intent of the chapter and the um general plan. Um so as far as uh detriment health and safety uh this there was a condition um of the variance that the tower be built in such a way that should it unforeseen collapse that it will maintain on the site that it is on again I talked about there's expected to be one maybe two trips a month to the site once it's constructed so traffic is not a significant concern and this is a

our our business general plan, uh, commerce and business. And as you saw, there are two adjacent properties that both have very similar cell facilities on them. So, it kind of just fits in with everything else. As well as that lot is very narrow, very long, and it's situated between the uh, Grande Mñana Grande shopping center and uh, some self- storage facilities. So this is going to be difficult to develop as it is and this is nestled down in the southwest corner. So even when it does go to develop this should be of little concern and easily uh built around. Um all of the requirements for public notification uh have been completed and met and at this time there have been no comments or inquiries uh about this proposal. So at this time, staff recommends that the planning commission move to approve the following request, the conditional use permit and associated resolution for a wireless telecommunication facility greater than 35 ft in height, DSA250016, and then minor site plan. Oh, with the yeah, with the following condition that the applicant shall provide verification with the building permit submitt that in the event of structural failure, the tower would fall completely within the property. And then again the minor site plan for a wireless telecommunication facility uh DSA250015 and I will be happy to answer any questions. Great commissioners questions for staff. Got me dry. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Uh this point would the applicant or their representative like to come forward and address the commission? I guess not. Yeah, there he is.

Hi, uh, Bill Coning, Smart Link, representing AT&T. Uh, just here to answer any questions you guys might have. Commissioners questions. Pretty easy. Okay. Cut and dry. All right. All right. Then I will uh open Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We'll open the public portion of the meeting. Anybody from the public like to address this issue? Please come forward. State your name and address for the commission. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the of the meeting for this issue and bring it back to the commissioners. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. That'd be great. I'd like to make a motion to approve DSA 250016 conditional use permit associated resolution for wireless telecommunication facility. Second. Very good. I got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith. I. Member Alderret. I. Member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza. I. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Okay. We have another piece of this. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. That'd be great. like to make a motion to approve DSA 250015 minor site plan for a wireless telecommunication facility. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion, commissioners? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith, I. Member Alderret, I. Member Vanderhden, yes. Member Hubard, yes. Member Peters, I. Vice Chair Garza, I. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Okay. Thank you, commissioners.

Next, we have consider request from Brian Greathouse, Burch, and I'm not going to pronounce that right. On behalf of Quick Trip Corporation for a major site plan for Quick Trip DSA 250021, James, talk to us. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. So, if you remember last month, the zone change request for Quick Trip was in front of you, but this evening the major site plan request for Quick Trip is being discussed. A little bit of background. Back in October of last year, city council had denied the zone change associated with this site from urban ranch to planned area development. Um the request at the time was to allow for a convenience store um with no more than three diesel pumps for truck fueling. Um, but it was denied because there were concerns that the truck element would change the character of the area and it would also add to the traffic along McCartney. And just as a quick refresh, the new P A which was submitted and received your recommendation for approval removed the truck fueling element out of the zoning. The area to the south of the site that was going to be largely to accommodate for the truck fueling is still part of the zoning district, but the approved P A zoning just entitles that area for future general business B2 uses. And there's specific prohibitions within the PA AD

that um restricts any accommodations for truck fueling and truck services. On April 3rd, planning commission did unanimously move to forward to city council a recommendation to approve this zone change to P A. And then on April 21st, city council unanimously approved the zone change. However, zone changes are accomplished by two council meetings. So, the second meeting has yet to happen that's scheduled for May 5th. So, this evening we're just um presenting the major site plan. So, it's the next stage of the development now that the zoning is secured. Quick Trip has is now requesting consideration of the placement of the convenience store and the and the canopy on the site and all the various uh site elements that are reflected within a major site plan request. So, just to quickly go over some elements to the plan, they are proposing 51 parking spaces and a 5,300 square f foot convenience store that'll be 20 ft in height. And then there is a fuel canopy for automotive vehicles that sits to the west of the store between the store and Tucker. Um, that's about 7,000 square ft in size. and that sits at 22 feet in height. Here's uh some excerpts of the elevations for the building as well as for the canopies. There is a technical modification that was not provided in the staff report, but I did want to address it this evening that they're to provide an updated site plan to reflect

the absence of a door on the side elevation. The site plan actually shows a door on both the east and west elevation. They have actually since updated the plans, but I haven't had a chance to to get it off of my email and and into the system. So, I wanted that technical modification to be read when reviewing major site plans. Um, these are the criteria that get evaluated. A lot of these are overlapped with the zoning. Um, so I I primarily just want to hone in on the primary issue and it's it's the primary issue that had caused some concerns when this item was in front of planning commission and council a year ago and and that is the impact of the plan on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. So the site is about a quarter mile from I 10 in terms of where Tucker Road is. Tucker's about a quarter mile, maybe a little little shy of a quarter mile. And and the reason why that's important to point out is because it's it's been said that Tucker is the closest road from I 10 that will allow for full access. And that's really important when you think about other possible developments that will occur between I 10 and Tucker. Tucker is going to be a pretty significant road because that's the first road where you can have full access movements. By that I mean right ins, right outs, straight through the intersection, left ins, left outs. And so, um, also based on how close it is to the interchange, there's a number of, um, impacts that needed to be mitigated and you're capturing a little bit of that or or a little bit of that is captured on

this screen. Um, but they will be adding a traffic signal at Tucker and McCartney because it will allow for full access. But they're also going to be putting in some right turn lanes. A right turn lane for Tucker, a right turn lane for the um access drive that's on the east of the site, as well as two left turn lanes. There was a traffic impact analysis prepared by Loco High LLC um that found that this business will generate about 3300 daily trips with an AM peak hour of 347 trips and a PM peak hour of 292 trips. This is a 15% decrease in the daily trips from the previously approved TIA that was submitted when this project was proposing truck fueling. Um although that proposal did ultimately get denied. I should point out that the TIA that was associated with that development with the truck fueling had been accepted um by the city and by ADOT. And as you can see on that middle bullet, it had shown a much higher number of daily trips and um about the same in terms of the AM and PM hours, but the overall daily trips was was higher. And both the previous TIA and this TIA proposes to make the same modifications to the roadway network to mitigate the impact on the level of service for the roadways studied. I already touched upon what those improvements would look like, but but

essentially it would be a traffic signal at McCartney and Tucker, but then also all the area shaded in blue on the map shows all the rideway dedication that will occur, not only for additional rideway for McCartney Road to accommodate an extra through lane and turn lanes, but also rightway dedication for the extension of Tucker south of McCartney. And then on the south end of the site, there will be an east west collector road. In the area highlighted in yellow towards the right side of the site, that is a shared access easement with the property to the east. That was important as well because that property to the east is pretty access challenged because Tucker is the first road that can get full access. So we wanted to have some assurance that even though for full access sites to the east and to the south need to use Tucker, there was a little bit more convenient access along the east side of the Quick Trip site. So, it's been designed to be three quarter access. You you can make all the movements except for left outs. In addition to those mitigation efforts, the city is planning to make improvements to McCartney Road as a whole from IT 10 to panel. This is a an excerpt of the cross-section of just the area near um QT. But as you as you can tell what the plans entail are medians, in some cases raised medians, in other instances they'll be painted, but it will be two lanes in each direction. And um there will also be some other safety improvements to that area.

staff is striking a recommended condition of record that was on the staff report. Um, one of the conditions was that the approval of the project is subject to the approval of the TIA by ADOT, but staff is striking that condition because in both the former TIA, which was reviewed and approved for additional trip generation due to the truck traffic, and this TIA, which removed the truck traffic, the LOS, the level of service for the I10 interchange is at LOSF. It was F back when the truck fueling was proposed and admittedly it it it's at F with this project. And while this project does increase traffic and it does further impact the that AOS, it doesn't affect that in a significant amount. Um it's it's relatively dimminimous and improvements to the McCartney interchange are needed, but the improvements are not being sought from this developer because it is relatively small. It's a it's a convenience store with auto fueling on a 2 and 1/2 acre site. The idea is that there's an opportunity for larger projects that would have a greater impact to that level of service. um that's more appropriate to seek contribution from them. And then also we regard that interchange as regional infrastructure improvement funding will also probably need to come from sources beyond incremental development improvements to the system. This is just an excerpt from the A DOT acceptance letter when the project did propose um diesel truck fueling and the on the page on the left I just highlighted

where they acknowledged that it had been accepted basically a year ago. But then on the second page on the right, it did say it did acknowledge that continued coordination between ADOT and the city will be necessary to ensure improvements at the interchange. And that's still on the table. Um we all agree that improvements are needed. We the city just didn't want to put those improvement obligations on one relatively small development. Regarding the notification process, uh we went through a series of notifications. We did hold a neighborhood meeting back in March and then there was notice not only for the um the major site plan which we're discussing this evening, but also for the zoning which has already occurred. I did receive an email a couple of days ago and that has been passed out to you um from a homeowner within McCartney Center and she had expressed opposition to this project. She had also been opposed to the project when it was proposing diesel truck fueling. um she just didn't find that this use was acceptable given that she did identify that this would have a level of service F at that interchange and she suggests a less intense use. And then there was correspondence received last month from another owner within McCartney Center not in favor of a gas station. Her contention is this area should develop residentially and commercial development in this area is not appropriate. The neighborhood meeting that was held was lightly in attended. Um however the general sentiment at that meeting was that um people were pleased

to see that the diesel truck fueling element was being removed. Um, however, they were wanting to see McCartney Road improvements as part of the city project happen sooner than later. And we also did receive a couple of emails in support of the request. With that, staff does recommend that planning commission move to approve this major site plan subject to the following modified conditions of record and technical modifications. The conditions of record are that this major site plan is not deemed approved until the zone change for quick trip goes into effect. As I mentioned, the second council meetings on the 5th. And then the other condition is that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer of the site is to require is required to submit a map of dedication for the necessary rights of way for Tucker and McCartney and as well as a um planned general plan trail that runs parallel to McCartney. And then the two technical modifications are that the TIA be modified to reflect the civil plans that have been provided with the major site plan and then also to update the plan to remove the door on the site elevation which technically has been provided to me but I just wanted to include that and I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right, commissioners questions for staff. I have a question for Clark regarding the uh scheduling of the uh improvements along McCartney. Has that been determined yet? I know we've

discussed it in the past, but as far as the section like Panal to TCO and TCO to Per and then Per going east. Uh as far as what's coming first, yeah, public works has asked uh in our latest CIP program uh for fiscal year 26 for design uh with construction in fiscal year 2728. We're quite a ways out yet. So we are a bit out. Yes, sir. Thank you, chairman. And I have another question for clerk. Yes, please. Clarks, the development is going to be required to build the traffic signal at Tucker before opening. Correct. Okay. Because I'm looking at the TIA and in the conclusions, it doesn't speak about the traffic signal as a part of their improvement. So, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. And I'll ask the applicant as well. And and if I can interject, that was a condition on the zoning. Oh, that that it be u built constructed. Correct. Okay, awesome. Or maybe city council. So, uh 2027 is when we would start building on the on the improvements on on where let's talk let's talk I mean surely not the whole so the McCartney road improvements have been broken into two phases. The first phase um is currently under design uh is from Penmanal to uh TKLE. Phase two is from TCLE to I 10. Okay. So that's the segment we're talking about. Second. Yes, sir. Okay. So the one that impacts this. Okay. Just takes me a minute to get through my head. Thank you.

Any other questions, commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant or their representative please come forward to address the commission? Thank you, chairman, and good good evening, commissioners. Um, we're back. We're almost we see the light at the end of the tunnel. We're almost there. Very thoughtful questions. We've been working with staff for a long time on off-site improvements, including the significant improvements that QT will be doing just off their site on Tucker and McCartney. So, uh, it might take a little while to get the improvements down all the way to the east end of McCartney, but QT will be doing those improvements. They anticipate an opening of 27ish 20 27 28, so it should line up fairly well with those uh, off-site construction improvements on McCartney. We don't have a formal presentation tonight, but if you have any questions, we have a whole team of consultants and owners reps over here that can answer. Okay. Commissioners questions for the honor. You're you're comfortable building that traffic signal. I think that's your that's your sales for the community. It's it's needed. As Jim said, it's a it's a condition of approval on the zoning case that should go back to what council next week for final approval. Yeah. Thank you. Very good. Anything else? Yeah, you guys cut off easy. Okay. Always the easy ones. And we're okay. We like that. Yeah, we do like that. Um, anybody from the public like to address this issue? Please come forward. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the for this issue and bring it back to the commission. Chairman, I'll make a motion. That'd be

great. I move to approve DSA 250021 major site plan with the following modifications of record and record and technical modifications conditions and technical modifications. Very good motion to second. Peter second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please call the roller. Member Smith. I. Member Alret. I. Member Vender Hayden. Yes, member Hubard. Yes, member Peters. Hi, Vice Chair Garza. Hi, Chairman Benedict. Yes. Thank you guys. Thank appreciate you working with us all through with all the community. It's very much appreciated. Okay. Next up, we'll consider foring a recommendation to city council, a request from the Prep Family Trust on a zone change from R1 to B2 for DSA 250034. And James is on. I'm up again. This is a zone change request and it's for the property that you see on the screen there. It's just on the north side of Cottonwood, a little bit east of Panel. The request is to change the R1 portion of the property to B2. A little bit of background and and information about the request is the applicant, Janice Pratt, owns a 1.16 acre parcel. It's what's highlighted in in the black there. 65 acres of this parcel happens to be zoned R1 while the remainder is zoned B2. The reason for that is is originally it was multiple parcels, but

they've been since consolidated, placing two zone districts into one parcel. And so really, this is just to make a revision or a cleanup to that. Um, by changing the R1 piece to B2, the entire property would be in one zone district. B2 is known as the general business zone, allowing for a wide variety of retail, offices, and personal services. Typical uses in the B2 zone include auto sales, banks, community meeting halls. You can have office, whether general or medical, hotels, sit-down restaurants. Um, there are certain uses that are permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit, such as daycare or drive-through restaurants. Self storage is another type of use that would require a conditional use permit. And then the development standards for B2 would be 35 ft from the front property line and then the sides get an aggregate of 15 ft. So that means a building can be as close as zero on one side, but then that means from the other side property line, you'd have to be 15. And then there's a rear setback of 15 ft. However, this area is subject to a residential setback because that area in yellow is the R1 zone, which is a residential zone. So there would actually be a building setback of 45 ft from any residential area. And then in the B2 zone, they're subject to a maximum height of 35

ft. When reviewing zone changes, the criteria that is associated with zone changes are more or less come down to compliance with the general plan. And this area that is subject to the zone change actually sits within the neighborhood's general plan category. the rest of the property sits within the community corridor um general plan category. Now, while the city doesn't like to have two zone districts sit in a parcel, it it's not really any harm that there's two general plan designations. It is possible for the applicant to come forward at a later time to do a minor general plan amendment to clean that up, too. But it's not um critical that it that One half of the property sits within community corridor and the other half sits within neighborhoods. It it is a little bit unique but it does happen. In the neighborhoods category there is um a support for a variety of residential developments with thoughtfully placed non-residential uses and non-residential development should be sensitive to the scale and massing matching the neighborhood's character. And then within community corridor, which sits closer to Cottonwood, further from the existing neighborhood development, is um designed to provide a diverse mix of uses and activities with an emphasis on linking pedestrian activity to development and minimizing the appearance of autodominated areas. because this area is within the neighborhood's general plan category, but but more specifically because it does sit within um

it sits That's okay. That didn't scare me or anything because it does sit um close to existing residential development. Staff is actually recommending a condition of record that the maximum height in this 65 acre area be limited to 28 ft. Um that way it is more compatible with the residential development. In all honesty, um staff doesn't have a lot of concern with the residential properties to the north because you can tell those are pretty long lots. I think there's like a 110t distance from the house to um that property boundary. We have more concern with the residential property that lies to the east. That house to the east, I think there's a point where it's as close as like five feet from that that border. So, we thought that a condition minimizing the height was um was something that could help bolster compatibility. Another criteria that we look at is the action is consistent with the city's general plan including goals, policies, and applicable elements. So a goal that I want to call attention to is N1 which is the spatial form and design of development in neighborhoods areas should be transit friendly and appropriate to adjoining land uses and so an action step to achieve that goal is to design neighborhoods so that housing jobs etc are within walking and biking distance. Um, so B2 zoning is completely appropriate here because it is surrounded by the neighborhoods that the development on this site can can serve. Another goal that I want to talk

about is goal N3, which is to minimize land use conflicts. Um, one of the action steps to achieve that goal is to require physical separation such as fences or landscape areas between residential and non-residential developments to increase usetouse compatibility. There does happen to be existing masonry walls where the property abuts the single family properties and because B2 zoning requires a minimum building setback of 45 ft from residential zoned areas. Um, this goal can be easily met. Staff is recommending that condition restricting the height to 28 feet as a further measure to minimize land use conflicts. This is just a map that shows it uh the property zoned a little bit further out to show you that um where that area that's currently zoned R1 is is kind of like a little bit of a peninsula into the neighborhoods area. a lot of the the other um more commercial development lies um flesh with that east west divider between the pink and the yellow. The third review criteria that I want to discuss is the proposed zone changes necessary and proper at this time. Um we staff do feel that B2 is appropriate and necessary here to serve this area of the city. it has access off of Cottonwood. It makes a lot of sense to support B2 and the surrounding residential area can be reliant upon um whatever ultimately gets developed here and it does help clean up the fact that it currently sits in two zone districts. Regarding the notification process, we followed that which is required by code. I didn't receive any comments as a result of the public

notification efforts. Staff does recommend that planning commission forward to city council a recommendation to approve this zone change request from R1 to B2 with the condition of record that I had discussed. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Commissioners um apologize I didn't start this this section with this but um because my brother is helping represent this person I have I have no financial gain from this one either way and so I will uh if you're comfortable I will recuse myself from voting in discussions and if you're comfortable I'll continue to lead the meeting um just not shifting back and forth and u so if everyone's comfortable with that anybody not let's put it that way perfectly fine if you're not I'll just get out all together then Celeste can do it we're good we're good just lead the meeting as normal and okay great thank you appreciate that so with that commissioners questions for staff so how would you have access to this back lot um So the commissioner Hubard the the property is all part of the same parcel that reaches out to um Cottonwood. So there would be just through the driveway that's off of Cottonwood. It would continue north. Oh, like through here. Yep. Right here to reach the back. It It is a true infill lot. It it probably doesn't lend itself to a lot of uses because it is kind of tucked back there, but they would have to run a a driveway just continuing it north. And the houses to the

north, do they own that the whole lot right there? Or are those They they own up to where I have it shaded red. No, I mean, I apologize. The house is to the north of this um they they own this whole half acre, so there's nothing Correct. Because this is low to moderate income area and so I'm kind of wavering on this because you could do something else besides commercial and we are needing affordable housing here. I I think just just food for thought about about that concept is that to your point about how how do people get to that area of the lot, it is it is fairly access restricted. Um, as you can see to the east, there's not really any easy way to get to it. There's an alley that dead ends, but but we don't really recommend and support alley access for primary access, I guess, in theory. If you know, if you were to run the scenario, if that area were to develop residentially, probably the best thing would be to get to run a driveway through one of those residential lots to the north, get some sort of agreement to run like a private access drive, but it would entail working with, you know, that property owner. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant or their representative please come forward and address the commission? Please give us your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is Janice Pratt. I live at 425 East Providence Drive. And our families owned

this business for many years. In fact, those two lots were sold to us from the city that it was an economic development. um group that took the proceeds from that and helped do something to defay expenses with the lot holders to the north and in the area. That's my understanding. My husband isn't around so I can't ask them. And I was kind of shocked and a surprised to see that it was in two different zones and I thought that this needs to be tidied up and that's why we're here tonight. [Music] Any questions? questions for the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this issue at this time? Please come forward. Give us your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion for this item and bring it back to commission. I'd like to if Chairman if I could add anything. So, just to kind of be consistent with what I've done in the past and and I think what we've done as a commission, uh, when we've had a 28 foot height restriction placed on it, I personally would like to see that removed. Um, mainly for the fact that if you look at the zoning, there's a B4 zone property right next to it that extends further into the neighborhood than this property. uh that that B4 has a 30 foot height restriction on it as well or 35 foot height restriction on as well. Uh and I believe there's a condition that would suggest that it needs to be comparable to the or compatible with with its surrounding uh but not a height restriction. And then just north of that B4 property is an R3 zone property which is going to be the O'Neal Apartments. uh

and that also has a 30 foot or 35 ft height uh max on it. And so with the R3 property being further into the neighborhood, the B4 being further into the neighborhood than this one, uh and then this property having access onto Cottonwood Lane rather than from a residential street, and then the 45 ft setback of our code, which is I mean it it's a residential setback. it was written in there to mitigate those issues uh from the height that's permitted within the B2 zone. And so that 45 ft setback's going to work its job and and what it was written for. Uh and then if you think about just how how you might design a site, if you have a 45 foot setback that's required from both your north and your east boundary, uh the most logical thing to put there is going to be your parking because you can't use it for anything else other than your parking or landscaping, which I don't know why you would do 45 ft of landscaping on your north and east boundary. So if you do parking, we have a 10x 20 foot parking stall requirement. So you're going to have a 20 foot depth right there already and then 24 feet or so to for the access lane to that parking. So you're going to get to 44 feet before you even step off the asphalt in in in in design. And so then if you go and add a 5-ft sidewalk around your building on the other side of that parking and then any additional landscaping somebody might do on the north and east, you're probably closer to over 50 feet of setback before you even get to a building on this property. Uh, and so I know there's some some standards in the the neighborhoods uh land use designation and as James mentioned they can come back in the future and change that neighborhoods to to community corridors and it it would allow for uh greater development of this site. And so with that, I I think it would be appropriate to remove the 28 foot uh condition, 28 foot height uh condition that that staff is recommending uh just

for those reasons I suggested. I disagree. And then and then also to add to that, we also just approved a three-story self- storage building a few meetings ago that was right behind a bunch of single story. And so if that was considered appropriate, I don't know why 28 ft uh would be imposed on this rather than the full 35 that would be allowed under the B2 zoning. And so consistency wise, that's why I'm also suggesting this. And so that that's just my thought. Uh I think height in in along our corridors is a good thing. Many cities are trying to figure out how they can revi revitalize their corridors because they have not seen investment in their corridors. Part of the reason they haven't seen investment is height. They can't get the heights on their corridors through the current zoning of those cities. And so they're they're limited and you just continue with this investment and and no real ability to create something. Uh I believe self storage was considered that would probably be a great use for a uh very limited access parcel that is strangely shaped like this one. So that that's where I come from. If we're looking for revitalization of our corridors, uh our properties to turn into something else, be used for something, uh then we need to provide the the standards and the flexibility to property owners to achieve that. And and right now, I think 28 ft uh it's not necessary based off of the current standards of our code and just the consistency of what we have approved in the past. And so that that's my point. All right. anymore. I don't agree. That's fine. Well, I mean, 20 ft is what, two stories? And everything around there is that height? I think we should just keep

it. I don't see the point. Well, the O'Neal apartments are further in the neighborhood and those will be three stories. Yes, but they're further down. They're they're north of this property right away. Okay. All right. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else? Can I ask I'm going to mess up your meeting here. I I want to ask the applicant, where do people park today when they come off of Cottonwood? Okay, that'd be fine. and whether there's an agreement with the adjacent property owner for their parking. There's an agreement with the adjacent owner as an easement that was established eons ago. And you might recall this property was Pratt Pools and then also the building that we had the pool in. Pool's been filled because I saw it as a liability leaving that hole right there. And um I see this as being something that can be used for a different purpose. But if if you were to try to make those back two lots completely residential, you'd have to cannibalize so much of the front part. It would be difficult to do. And and my concern as the individual who purchased this from the city is that when we bought it, these these ideas were not in our head. And why would the city approach us to buy these lots when we were in a business entity if it were not to be to expand the business? Because we weren't looking to to do residential. This particular property is kind of an landlocked there. It's really not um that much use for it other than the um consideration of putting together as the banjo that it is right now. you know, the the the stem going down and the park

going out broadly. So, you have an agreement with that adjacent lot that fronts Cottonwood to use their parking in some fashion. Right. Right. We've been doing that for for years, which that will run with the land if you sold it somebody else. Yes. Okay. Yes. And and there there's an alley, too. The nice thing about this property is because you can access from Cottonwood, but you can also turn um get out of it through an alleyway. So that kind of makes it a little bit safer property in in that regard. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, chair. I'd like to make your turn, guys. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to forward an approval uh forward a recommendation of approval for the zone change request DSA 250034 from R1 to B2. Just that with no conditions with no conditions. Okay, we have a motion. Do I hear a second? Yeah, I'll second that. Okay, appear second. Discussion on the motion. I'm a no, just so you know. Okay, I want to leave it as is. Okay. And I I think if there's yet another motion to be made, I'm I'm kind of punting the question to you. Does that have to be made now while this other one's Boy, we need Bret. I know my No, you need Well, I I would I would be waiting for an amendment, a motion to amend their motion. Yeah, I would suggest handling the removal of the condition

separately than as presented. So, if you can make a motion to remove the condition, see how the rest of the commission feels about that or not, and then move forward with a motion to forward to the city council um with the condition if if that fails or not, depending. Does that make sense? Yes. So, I'd like to make a motion to remove condition one, the maximum height allowed for any structure within this within this 0.65 acre area is 28 ft. Okay. So you've changed your motion just to remove this condition correct of this request. That's what the original one the original motion was then. Well, but but but it's not approving it's not approving this. It's just removing it from the condition and then we're going to have to do a motion to if that passes, we're going to have to do a motion to approve whatever's left whether it's removed or not. Okay. I think that's what So that's good. And the second I think was you. Okay. So you'll approve that. Any discussion on the motion to remove the condition from this request? Seeing none, would you please call the role? Member Smith. I. Member Alderret. I. Member Vanderhden. No. Member Hubard. No. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza. No. Chairman Benedict, I've recused myself from voting. So, we have a tie. Love those. Okay. So, chicken. So, with the a tie vote, the the motion dies. Uh, so the condition remains. Yes, sir. That's what I would say. The motion dies. Okay.

So we have left this uh is uh still as presented with the condition is the request from staff chairman. I'll make a motion. Okay. That we forward uh to city council an approval of DSA 250034 from R1 to B2 with the following condition of record. Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Motion to second. Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith. No. Member Alderret. I. Member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza. I. Chairman Benedict accused. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck with the project. Go to the runner, don't they? Yeah. Okay. 1994. Ben, you ready? Yes, sir. All right. Cheers for the director. Um remember he had a cool Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh really happy to be here um and know and for years to come more than likely. Uh so the the Florence Boulevard DCR will be heard by city council um for acceptance on May 19th. Um when Director Ty left, there was a few development code changes that he was working on and because of a recent state law change, he put those on hold. But I will um move forward with

those and I'm anticipating probably sometime this summer, maybe July, August time frame for some of those development code changes. Um the other thing I wanted to ask the commission is these um these packets can get pretty pretty intense uh pretty thick and a lot of paper and I'd like to gauge the commission's interest in moving to just a tablet form, a digital form for these agendas. Um, I can get you tablets. We can even get you a little tablet stand. You're also welcome to use your laptops if you'd like. Um, I know there's also a summary that comes with these that I think is really helpful for the commission. Um, those are fairly thin. We could still provide those in paper format if you'd like to make notes. Um, so I'm open to your thoughts. [Music] Okay. Does that make sense everybody? what he's suggesting is that provide a hard copy of the summary that the staff puts together. Okay. And then provide um tablet tablets for us to be able to review all of the rest the full packet. Right. Right. So comments, thoughts? Well, this is this is kind of ridiculous. It's I think I think it was a plan by the new director. Perfect timing. It just seems, you know, the coincidence, you know, get rid of these big paper clips. Like Erica said, there's over 400 pages, you know, times seven of us, you know, that's that's a lot. It is a lot. That's a lot. It could be paired down. I think that's the biggest I've ever seen. Yeah. But like we said before, it's a lot of it. Is that TI TIA information? I don't think Well, one person read it. I didn't read the whole thing. That's

for sure. I was looking for that summary page, but I'm I'm good with the director. Yep. All right. Thank you. I'll move forward with uh purchasing seven tablets. We good with that? So, we are using those tablets during the meeting, correct? So really you look through your packet okay and uh to ref it'll be nice you can zoom in on some of the site plans if there's details it's okay ch they are challenging to read I think in this format as well so D put together your creative ideas about the when the discussion that I had with you about training me to be able to use software to make notes if there isn't some I'll shut up and move away but yeah you can always use if you find some let us know as the process moves along we'll do maybe even a voice recognition so you to write it. You can just say it there. You can whatever whatever the newest thing is gonna be because by the time I learn it, it'll be something new. We'll be termed out. And that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good. Okay. Uh anything else, Dan? city council approved all of ours that we forwarded to them. Um I don't know for Dan's here tried when we're trying to work into a new world and make improvements. Let me ask the question. Uh, commissioners, I think I was the one that promoted the report, the land use summary planning projects and the permit report, building permit report. Mhm. Um I like certainly in particularly the building permit report I like to see.

But is that something that you all find is it could be on the laptop as useful or oh she the tablet is the answer. Is that what you're saying? Tablet's going to be the answer to all the questions you need for Oh my gosh. Okay. I'd still like to see them in whatever form that we can Okay. that we can send them. That'll be great. All right. Okay. Anything else? Commissioners, anything else for the good of the order? Seeing none, uh we are adjourned and uh we'll open the next meeting in five minutes or Look at that. An hour and it was this thick.