Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Liberty and justice for all.

No, I said Griffith. Yes. All right, clerk. Can we do the call? Roll call, please. Commissioner Evans here. Commissioner King is absent. Commissioner Kaden Graci present. Commissioner Joe Colossimo here. Commissioner Sandra Griffith present. Vice Chairperson Joe Hwat here. And chairperson Ted Herb here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. So, good evening. My name is Ted. I'm the chairperson for the planning and zoning commission and I would be proceeding over the commission's deliberation and open or hearing item this evening. The planning and zoning commission sits in advisory capacity of the town council. As such, the commission reviews planning and zoning issues and forwards recommendations regarding important issues to town council. All members are appointed by town council and serve in a voluntary volunteer capacity. If anyone doesn't appear we have anybody in the audience, but if anybody online wishes to speak during the comment period regarding a hearing item or wishes to speak during the call to the public on any matter, you must have pre-registered with the clerk in order to speak this evening. When recognized by the clerk, please come to the podium or make yourself known online and state your name and address for the record. I ask that you direct your pertinent comments to the commission through the chairperson and not to staff or individuals uh this evening. A three-minute time limit will be imposed. As such, I ask that the speakers tonight adhere to this 3minut time limit and when speaking at the end of the 3 minutes, you will hear a bell and if asked to finish your sentence and be seated to allow others to to speak. Regarding the public hearing item and the agenda this evening, uh proceedings will follow as such. First, I will read the public hearing item into the record. Second, staff will present the agenda item. Third, the commission will have the opportunity to ask questions of staff. The floor then will be opened for comments from the public. After public comment um has closed and the hearing on the hearing item, the hearing item will return to the staff for any clarification or comment from the commission or staff.

Calls of the public. Obviously, there's nobody in the audience. Do we have anybody registered for comment? We do not, Chair. All right. Well, that makes it quick and easy. Any announcements, commission, anybody have any announcements this evening? Um, let's do approval minutes. My understanding, Commissioner Evans, you have uh some comments for the March 9th uh meeting and meeting minutes.

I do indeed. And um I usually speak sort of off the cuff, but I feel uh this needs to be completed enough I'm actually going to read this. Uh I'm not trying to relitigate the results of the Harlequin Drive resoning vote. That's water over the dam. These comments on the March 9th meeting minutes are about process, not results. A commissioner's family's experience with a residential product type is not gerine to the commission's deliberations. Neighborhoods are described by using circles or squares or rectangles. Trying to define the product type mix of a neighborhood by only describing the characteristics of a single irregular line, a street within a larger neighborhood is misleading.

Excuse me, chair. And inappropriate. It is wholly inappropriate for a commissioner to advise an applicant that it should make changes to its totally legal and legitimate. We have a point order. Was this part of Was this part of the agenda? Well, he does. I'm speaking to the minutes. He's speaking to the March 9th minutes approval of the minutes. He's speaking to things outside the minutes. No, they're in the minutes and they're all in the video. If you watch the video and you read the minutes, it's all in there. So, if you'll allow me to finish, I've got about 40 more seconds. I would like to make an objection to to the a diet tribe over what

you can you you can object when I'm finished. It is wholly inappropriate for a commissioner to advise an applicant that it should make changes to its totally legal and legitimate business plan because of that commissioner's personal preferences. A rationale that a modification initiated by PNZ feedback at a prior meeting that improves traffic safety is reason to no longer support that proposal defies logic. Since PNZ is a legislative and not a quasi judicial body, the commissioners are allowed a certain amount of discretion. Discretion not caprice, discretion not free reign, and discretion not pontification. There are legal as well as custom and usage fences applicable to the deliberations and authority of a planning and zoning commission. In the interest of preserving public trust and commission integrity, let's hope that those limitations are better respected in future.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do I have a motion to approve the March 9th meeting minutes? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the March 9th, 2026 meeting minutes of planning and zoning. Do I have a second? I'll second and I also concur with Mr. Evans. Clerk, can you call a vote? Commissioner Graci, yes. Commissioner Colossum, yes. Commissioner Evans, yes. Commissioner Griffith,

yes. Vice Chairperson Hiwatt. I'd like to make a comment before I uh put my vote in. Chair, go ahead. Go ahead. These items were on the agenda. I'm asking our legal counsel. This item was on the agenda that we had a chance to review. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Appreciate the promotion, Mr. Chairman. Would you like me to address the issue? Yes, please. I'm asking the chair. Oh,

yes. And I believe what needs to be addressed is is the comments made by Commissioner Evans versus what the item is on the agenda. So, it was an approval for minutes that led to further discussion and whether that one is allowed and or two how how we proceed based on that.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, the item on the agenda was to approve the minutes. And if someone has a desire to amend the minutes before they're approved because they believe they're inaccurate, that's what the purpose for this agenda item was. It it is not to comment on what the minutes were explaining about what happened in a prior meeting. So the it's a it's a a more detailed question than just I want to comment on what the minutes are telling us about that meeting. It's I have either this or that suggestion for the way the minutes ought to read and then the the motion would be either to accept those amendments or not and then to approve the minutes. So the whole purpose was simply to approve the minutes. Based on that, then the comments made by Commissioner Evans, would those be stricken from the the evening's record as they were not amendments to the prior minutes? Mr. Chairman, obviously they are part of the record because they were stated. You allowed them to be stated, but the motion needs to be either I accept the minutes or or or I don't. Understood. My apologies. And um chair, I I know we don't have a an audience here, but after that meeting, I was uh I was abruptly um um I I wouldn't use the word attacked, but questioned uh about my position at that commission meeting. I thought it was highly inappropriate. and then to get this diet tribe without having any sort of um ability to uh review uh the open comment uh is I think unreasonable especially coming from another commission member and that's the reason why I make my objection. I have no problem with approving the minutes but I I have an objection to uh

commission members attacking each other based on their position at the commission meeting. I didn't name I didn't name a soul. You did. You did. During the last meeting, Commissioner Evans, you you came directly to me and and was was highly inappropriate and uh so that that's that was my concern. Mr. Chair, I I would encourage you to just go ahead and and since we are we don't have an agenda item for this discussion back and forth, we probably should just go to the motion and move on. My point. Exactly. Understood. Let's uh continue the vote for approval of the minutes. Um clerk and I would I would render a a a yes vote for the approval of the minutes as written.

Thank you. Chairperson Herb approved. Motion passes. Okay. At this time, uh, any member of the public is allowed to address the planning and zoning commission and and address the commission and jurisdiction. The commission, uh, respectfully ask that the individuals wish to speak the public hearing listed uh, item on the agenda. Please hold their comments for that agenda item or public hearing item. Um, clerk, you said we have nobody registered this evening,

correct, chair? Okay. So, we're going to move to the public hearing item. I'm going to open public hearing item ZOA26-00001, Town Code Chapter 13, text amendments, consideration and and possible action. Um, tonight presenting is uh Miss Cleveland. Is that correct?

Good evening. Stacy Bristo, development services director, chair, vice chair, commissioners, uh, town staff. Uh, I just wanted to thank my staff and take this moment. Um, these are heavy lifts as you know. It takes us a very long time to go through this process. It's very technical. Um, I want to thank my entire planning uh, team that's here, Britney, Chris, and John and their participation. Both our legal, Ivan, and Frank, for all their support through the process. Often you see these kinds of updates going out to consulting firms and spending an exorbitant amount of money getting their support. So, we were able to do a lot of this in-house because we have a ridiculously talented and amazing team. So, I just wanted to thank all of them for their hard work on this and appreciate that. And Britney has a great presentation. She's already done this in front of council once for the initial work study session and she'll be presenting that to you this evening. So, thank you for your time and consideration and there will be time for questions later. So, with that, I'm going to give you Britney. Thank you. Good evening, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. I'm Britney Cleveland, Planner 1 with development services. Thank you all for taking the time out of your day to be here and for providing your valuable input for staff and for the community. Let me pull up our presentation here. Okay. So today I have the privilege of sharing a project that we've been collaborating on with community and staff for over a year since the adoption of the rewritten and recodified uh zoning ordinance. As we know, chapter 13 was readopted December 11th, 2024. Um staff decided that the best strategy to effectively implement a consistent interpretation of this new code was to

meet weekly and talk through subjects that had come up. I happened to be stepping into my role at the time. Uh so naturally I had a lot of questions. Um that turned out to be a benefit for uh that back and forth provided a valuable insight on alternative ways that the code might be interpreted. and we were seeing a lot of the same questions come up from applicants. Having worked with the previous code, I can say that this new version was a breath of fresh air. Um, we can easily find what we're looking for and we don't have to worry about any hidden requirements in sections that we would never think to look. Frank did an excellent job of improving the accessibility of this text. Because of that effort, our ability to clearly communicate our requirements to the community was significantly improved. And as a result, we were able to have effective conversations with them. From these conversations with members of the community, applicants, and with staff, we discovered opportunities to respond to needs that our community has today and improve our process along the way. So these opportunities that we identified can be summarized into two categories. Um businessfriendly enhancements and clarity, consistency and process efficiency. Our idea for businessfriendly enhancements are born out of applying the code to our existing infrastructure and buildings and adding that nuance and detail um that's required to provide opportunities for businesses seeking to get started here in town. And when we talk about clarity, consistency, and process efficiency, um, we're talking about things that range from clarifying existing text, improving consistency across the code, simplifying definitions, and making amendments to details that improve efficiency for the entire downstream process of our department from planning to inspections.

In total, we're proposing 40 total amendment items, which may seem like a lot, but those numbers start to add up quickly with non-substantive modifications and clarifying language. In reality, only about half of these items have substantive changes like amending um measurement points or adding definitions and options. The process for consideration of these amendments was extensive. Once our planning team identified something that could be improved in our code or an item that someone from the community asked that we look into, we documented it and dedicated time to vet it out vet out the proposal. We weighed whether leaving it as is or exploring the amendment would be in alignment with our goals as a community and with our general plan. We looked at the code as a system and evaluated what else might be impacted. We researched our neighboring jurisdictions and we had conversations with other departments that work closely with the public to explore the best solution for all of the processes involved. We've been working with Frank for a few months to work out the language, but most importantly, we centered our community feedback. We're responding to the voices of the people we've worked with and we took our proposals to the groups most impacted such as the YCCA and Kathma. Um, so let's get into some of the highlights here. I didn't want to get into the nitty-gritty of all of the administrative amendments that are included in this proposal. Um, so with that, I wanted to highlight some things that we are excited about and we see as wins for the community. Um, so for example, early on in 2024, 2025, we met with a family that wanted to open a daycare for children ages 1 to 5 in a CG zone. We did our typical review of the code and let them know what zoning requirements would be met would need to be met for their project. However, we found that as a part of the new code, there was a requirement that their use needed to be contained within within a completely enclosed building. They told

us that they wanted to have an outdoor play space for the kids, but under the current code, it was outright prohibited. This led us to explore the prohibition on other uses impacted by this condition. And we found that uses like preschools, restaurants, and bars were prohibited from outdoor use. Knowing that the town is wanting to encourage activated outdoor spaces, we wanted to at least provide an option for these businesses to apply for outdoor use where it makes sense. Another frequent obstacle that new businesses face when trying to move to town, or even if they're just trying to get started, is a struggle to meet our parking requirements. Most of our business registration denials derive from a lack of parking per our code, which tends to be general and lumps many different uses into the same category. Staff recognizes that we may need to conduct a comprehensive review of our required parking in the future, but for the time being, we wanted to give businesses an option to prove that their site will have adequate parking for their business model. Our hope is that this will help expand location options for businesses and encourage a healthy economy. For the sake of time, I won't go into all of the other ones, but of course, we'll address whatever ones you guys want to dive into. So, I wanted to provide a few examples of amendment proposals that will improve our processes. A really good example of a small change that helps our downstream process and provides clarity to the public is the adjustment of our setback measurement points. Um, our code today states that the required front and rear yards are to be measured from property line to wall and required side yards are to be measured from property line to drip line. That sounds simple enough, but it actually gets rather complicated once you start adding different variables. Is it an accessory structure? Is it in the rear half of the lot? Does that plat have a separate setback? And does it call out a

measuring point? Not to mention in the field inspectors have to estimate where the drip line might project when they have a footer to measure to. Our proposal is to change the measuring point to the wall or post for all sides. This simplifies what we tell applicants and it helps all phases of the project. Staff was very detailed in our approach with this one and we considered unintended consequences. So, we made sure to add language that keeps existing protections in place, such as ensuring the minimum setback for accessory structures, changes from 3 feet measured from drip line to drip line to 5t measured to the wall. And we also added language that any drip line cannot ever be closer than 3 ft from the property line, essentially maintaining that same sense of open space. Other examples um of clarity improvements are items like changing the name of the preliminary development plans and entitlement site plans to clearly differentiate between old code and new code processes. Frank can go into the specifics on this one after the presentation. Um, but I did add a slide here to just kind of help us um really get a clear picture of what the changes were in that uh state statute that required development plans to be reviewed administratively rather than um going through a public hearing process like we're used to. So, as you guys are familiar, prior to 2025, a reszone would be required to have a preliminary development plan um come before this body for approval. And that was two separate motions, a reszone and a prelim preliminary development plan. And then council would approve the final development plan prior to construction as a part of the entitlement process. today. Um, reszones require a zoning entitlement plan per our amendment here. That's just one motion. Um, it's basically the preliminary development plan is the zoning entitlement plan and

it's the same type of approval as you guys are used to. Final development plans are administratively reviewed for conformance with that approved plan and are no longer allowed to be a part of the entitlement process per that state statute. um any substantial modifications to that zoning entitlement plan would result in an entirely new resoning process. So we would never see just a preliminary development plan come before you for a modification alone. Okay. And then last but not least, I just wanted to highlight some things that were frequent asks from the community such as def defining privacy screening separately from fencing. um adding a definition for self- storage and warehouse uses and a pool setback reduction to be consistent with Yavapai counties uh from 10 ft to 5 ft for W's edge. In conclusion, this has been a long and iterative process. We're always asking ourselves where we can improve if the current way is working and how we can respond to the community. We can't thank everyone enough for all of their work, input, and the effort that went into this project. We are now seeking feedback from the commission on this round of proposed amendment items. We're always looking for input on where we can improve, so text amendment items not currently up for vote can absolutely be added to the next round of considerations. After tonight, we will be taking your recommendations to council this Thursday and then for a second reading on May 28th with a projected effective date of June 28th. So, with all of that, staff and Frank are here for questions, comments, concerns.

Thank you, Miss Cleveland. Um, I do have a couple questions. I'd like to start if we could. Um the two that jumped out at me I think were the changes for the parking reduction uh 20% reduction allowance based on justification relative to use. Right. So I'm I'm curious to know what those justifications would be and if we have those uh set in code or in in planning and zoning amendment to what those allowances would be.

Mhm. So right now we have um a condition in there that you need to have traffic uh a traffic engineer put together a report and that's based off of engineering models. We have similar stipulations in the code already for like shared use um parking agreements. So we're just allowing that if you can have a traffic engineer with a approved traffic model show us that your use will work then we will accept that.

All right. Um, the other one that I wanted to comment on was the outdoor use and and the one that jumped out at me I think of course and in the public's eye would be bars and those kind of establishments and being able to have outdoor seating. Certainly since co and and you know things that came about during the you know 2019 and and beyond businesses certainly I think can benefit from allowing or having more additional seating and outdoor seating environment especially in you know the downtown area where I consider a pretty nice area when you come to some community or some uh establishments and and could enjoy to sit outside. My question is, would there be a difference or a process for an existing business being able to apply for outdoor seating versus a new business coming in and building a new facility? I understand a new building obviously would be part of the permit process. And if allowed either for a new and I probably think the bigger issue is existing buildings, would this be some form of a conditional use permit or would it be out outright allowed um for both existing in some approval process andor new buildings?

Yeah. So staff went through and identified all of the uses that were affected by that superscript that does require a completely enclosed building. Um for that one specifically, we wanted to remove the um requirement outright for bars and restaurants. Um for other uses, we have created a new condition where you would need to apply for a conditional use permit um where we find that that would be more of um a special use that would it would the variables of the environment would impact that. So by removing the the condition altogether for places like bars and restaurants,

how would we as a town regulate how large they can make it, how many people they can have? I mean it to me it seems would be some degree a change of use um by allowing outdoor seating for something that may not have it today, right? Doesn't exist. They have no outdoor seating. They now want to create one. Mhm. I I'm maybe I'm missing the missing the or not connecting the dots here, but I would think that there would be some obviously permit process they would have to go to do that. So, if they're having to go through a permit process for approval. Mhm.

Would that process be simply looking at those things like occupant load, egress, what sort of separations between their seating area and their parking area? And then once that's approved, then that's good for the history of that occupancy. Yeah, you you hit it right there. Um, we would still look at occupancy load, things like that during the permit process. Um, there are some things that would just naturally limit like parking requirements, things like that. If you expand your dining area, you would need to add parking for that, for example. Um so by eliminating the requirement altogether for for those types of businesses what triggers an existing business

from going to what triggers that process right if if it's not a conditional use permit or something of that such that they would have to come and obtain in order to now have outdoor seating. How do they come to the town and even start such a process? Yeah, it wouldn't be a matter of whether or not the use is allowed. It would be a commercial TI permit. Okay. So, we look at as a tenant improvement permit to expand or add outdoor seating of some sort. Okay. All right. Thank you. Of course, commissioners. Any anybody for comment?

I just have a a couple small ones. Uh particularly section 4 uh G talking about the need set back uh from 3 to 5t. what was the uh justification for the increase? So, when we're removing the statement saying that all sideyard setbacks must be measured to the drip line, uh that would mean that potentially you could move your business or your accessory structure closer to the property line. So, we were accounting for an average of 24 in eve. Um, essentially you can't place your accessory structure even anywhere closer than you normally would have been allowed to.

Understood. Thank you. Uh, the other one, uh, section 18, uh, vacation rentals, short-term rentals. Uh, there is a piece about, uh, notification, uh, but it doesn't give any kind of distance. I was curious why there was no consideration. adding a a distance much like when we uh discuss multif family living. Uh why it's just a a description of of adjacent directly across from that kind of verbage.

Yeah, staff hasn't looked at that section specifically for this round of uh proposals for amendments, but we'd absolutely put that on a list to look at down the line. Thank you, M. Chairman, I have a couple questions, too, if you don't mind. Yes, go ahead. So, um I'm I'm a little confused on the setback uh stuff. Um so, forgive me if if I've kind of said something that's probably not correct.

No worries. It was confusing for us, too. So, um, the way I'm I'm picturing this, um, that, um, actually actually taking it from the wall as opposed to the drip line generally benefits the property because then their their wall could be closer provided that the drip line isn't any closer than three feet from the property line. Right.

Okay. All right. So, that that sounds right to me then. Yeah. I was just curious about that just because in my mind I'm thinking affordable housing. I don't know how that mixes into this whole thing, but you you get a couple who buys a house, their family expands, they buy it because they think under the old code they could maybe have an addition, but now that they don't because the different change and setbacks. Did you kind of are you tracking with me? So now they're stuck in a house that they may not be able to get rid of. So is this is this all new structures or houses purchased after certain date or is this all properties existing no matter when they were built?

Yeah, if we look at an example of uh an existing home in Oldtown, most of them are built with that 7 foot to the drip line setback on the sideyard there. Right. So really when we're moving the measurement point to the wall, we're giving them an extra maybe two feet. An extra two feet. Correct. Okay. um with that three foot drip line minimum full stop requirement at the property because there's not a real specific requirement on the size of the drip I mean the overhang I mean the the we didn't want to regulate that so that's why we put that three foot minimum that that's good I just I was mulling over that while I was looking through this and I just kept going back to that idea what if somebody got into a home and they wanted to expand would this hurt them or not

they would technically be allowed two more feet yeah and and then the accessory structure stuff Um, I appreciate you bringing that up because, um, so somebody's got a dilapidated shed condition that that they got to replace. Maybe it's even a code enforcement issue. Um, but they can't replace it where it's at based on the new requirements. They need to replace it because there's a violation, but they can't replace it where it's at and still meet the requirements, right? You know, because 5T's a pretty good distance away. Most properties, you know, with improvements in the backyard, some of these yards are small, they wouldn't be able to have an accessory structure.

Previously, our code required uh minimum 3T from the drip line. So, our thought process was that it wouldn't be actually changing that three foot separation. Yeah. And I'm trying to make that calc in my head and I'm just not able to do it. Sorry. Right. So, so I'm going to take your word. It's not going to really hurt the folks that maybe either have a code enforcement issue that they have to address, right? Anything prior would be legal non-conforming. If they have an approved permit, then Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh gosh, that's the hard part. A lot of these places, these people throw up sheds and accessory structures like they're candy, you know. So, um yeah, those are my only two questions. And my last one was about the parking. It says that they might be able to experience a 20% reduction if they get um a um an engineer involved to do some sort of an analysis. Um but with but what happens if that 20% reduction doesn't allow enough parking for the use? Then we typically wouldn't allow them in that location anyway. It's only when there's enough space then they could maybe

we're giving them that flexibility to say if you found this location and it's awesome and you love it and you're just short on the parking if you can prove to us that it won't be a significant traffic impact, then we'll give you a 20% leeway to still be able to use your use at that building. Completely reasonable. I just want to make sure we're staying within the requirements. if say, "Well, this is going to give me my 20%, but it's I'm not going to meet the code standards." So then, you know, you guys obviously would say, "Hey, no matter if you get this or not, you're still going to have an issue, right?" Yeah. Exactly. That's why we need the the engineering evidence.

Yeah. I can't even. Really incredible work. It's not an easy task. So, thank you. Yeah. Really good. For as minimal comments as I've heard so far, it's a really good deal. Really good job. I had a couple questions. With the with the pool setback being reduced, how does that affect the surrounding safety fence?

So, that's actually regulated under the building code um which our zoning code actually has all of those verbatim copy paste from the building code. So, all of that would still apply. Um, the only difference that was pointed out by our building department is if they do want to go all the way up to that five foot from W's edge to a property line or even I I believe it's a home, not my area of specialty. Um, they would still they would need to require engineering for that at that point, but we didn't want zoning to be the restrictor there. One question I had sent in was how are these modifications going to work with um HOA CCNRs?

Right. Yeah, thank you. You did send that question ahead of time. Um we HOAs are allowed to be more restrictive than um local jurisdictions. So if their code is already more restrictive than these exceptions that we are um putting into place, then those would still stand. Um yeah, so we would not have an impact or a jurisdiction to regulate their So families would have to check both codes basically. Correct. And they they do today as well. Yeah. Thank you.

Of course, Mr. Evans. real quick. Um, Frank, this process started what? Probably in mid 2024.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Evans, a actually the the rewrite started years ago, but uh as soon as the 2024 amendment was done, you know, you start to experience the new code and people say, "Oh, that's a little weird." And so you started to have a list of that's a little weird things. Um that we started to take a a look at. And as Britney pointed out, we kind of worked through all of those. So yes, it's been a long it iterative process

which was the point I was sort of trying to make is that um I kind of think of your whole team, the town people and and you yourself as a consultant as the pros from Dover on on this particular matter. You guys have spent thousands of person hours over a couple of years and I think you've created a uh a fantastic document and a great uh code vehicle for the town going forward and just wanted to say thank you very much for that. Thank you sir. Commissioner Graci, do you have comment?

I just had one more uh clarification uh regarding the um uh registered landscape architect stamp. There's a piece uh in section 26 that was revised um that accepts that state for duplexes. What was the justification for those?

Yeah. So, we wanted to um clarify and really only apply that expense to uses that made sense. Um, so for things like duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, we're not really seeing a need to have a registered landscape architect get involved. Um, after that five units or more, it's technically considered a commercial use. So we seem we deemed that as substantial. Thank you for the clarification. Of course, Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Graci, that was one of my questions,

man. You got it. Good. Brittany, your presentation was superb. So, thank you. I loved your PowerPoint. It kept me engaged.

So, good job. Kudos to you. I do have a couple questions and you answered a few of them, but I want to explore them a little further if you don't mind. Um, under manufactured homes, I read the terminology urban development. You shared with me that that is HUD. I feel that HUD should be listed in this chapter because not a lot of people. Did you know what urban development was or am I the only one? Housing and urban development. H shameful.

No. But I I feel for our readers in some of them that we should maybe take some of these definitions and steps just a tad bit further. So I I would really like to see HUD in that definition. Um I am so used to using the word preliminary development plan and Mr. Cassidy, I have got to get on board with the new terminology zoning entitlement plan.

Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Griffith, um this is totally my fault. So, you're talking to the right person. Uh so what actually happened on this is uh in the 2025 legislative session. So just right after we adopt this whole code that uses the terminology preliminary development plan uh the legislature adopts a law that says you must approve subdivisions, development plans, etc. through an administrative process. So, as soon as I saw that, I started to get anxious about the fact that we called our zoning entitlement document, the thing that says, "Okay, when we give you this zoning, it's subject to these promises you made, this package of promises you made." And we call that a preliminary development plan. And if you change that, that's a zoning change, and you better come back through the process if you want to substantially change that. Well, when you look at the new legislation, somebody could use that legislation to say, "Oh, no. You called it a preliminary development plan. That means it's a development plan. I get to have that administratively approved, even if it's part of the package of those promises." So being the paranoid person I am, I said, "Let's just change the terminology to make it clear that we're not talking about the kind of development plan that you use to build your house, you know, which is completely administrative and ministerial." And that's the kind of thing the legislature was really thinking of at the time. And so this is one of those things over the year or so that this came up that I've said to the staff, let's come up with terminology. I mean, we can call it crenelmore for dwee dweefbot if you want. I mean, some ter

new term if you want. in the uh in the valley. A lot of the cities in the valley refer to these uh or require a developer when they're coming in for a reasonzoning to prepare a booklet of promises. This is really what my vision for this resoning is. And they call it a zoning reasonzoning narrative. And you'll see in a lot of the valley cities that they'll condition the approval of that resoning on consistency with that zoning narrative document. I didn't like zoning narrative as the terminology very much because we had used the words preliminary development plan and the word plan has the impression of a visual doc representation of what the project was going to be in addition to the words that go along with the descriptions. So I wanted to keep the word plan. Uh, you might say, "Well, where'd you come up with a zoning entitle, you know, zoning entitlements plan? I made it up." That's the bottom line is I made it up and it's a descriptor for what it is. It's a plan that identifies the zoning entitlements. And if you deviate from the plan that defines the zoning entitlements, you better expect to come back through a resoning process. And don't point to that new statute that says I get an administrative approval of a preliminary development plan because it's not going to work. But that being said, you you know if I

I'm open to to having other terminology if you want if you wanted if you like zoning a narrative

throughout it's amazing and my question to Britney was Britney where did this terminology come from? So, thank you for that super cool explanation and I support the new terminology, zoning entitlement plan. Um, Britney, I have another question that is going to go along with Commissioner Gracy's question on the landscape architect. In your earlier PowerPoint presentation, there was verbiage that these changes remove a lot of regulatory points and conversations which you have done a great job. I do not feel that landscape plans should have a landscape architect in all cases. I feel that we are creating an economic barrier and we're adding a cost factor that may or may not be necessary and the plans that we've seen so far coming from nonlandscape architects without a stamp are pretty impressive. So, I'm asking for more consideration on that.

Heard. And we definitely took that into consideration when we were going through and trying to see where we apply that. We're trying to make business easier and more accessible in town for sure. Um, we did go through and eliminate um certain requirements for that registered landscape architect. So, it's really mostly limited to new commercial developments and um everywhere else that a landscape plan would actually be required. But that's not what this says. What are you referencing? Um it says that a single family home needs a landscape architect. Did I read that wrong?

On which page? We might be able to I don't have my page here. Oh, okay. But so I'm mistaken. Okay. Yeah. Mhm. Okay. Perfect. Commissioner Griffith, I think it said multifamily. I thought required a landscape, right? Yes. We are trying to not residential, not do multif family. You're right.

And I don't then I don't believe in that either because the multifamily that we're developing, there's hardly any landscape zones or room on those lots that we're building. I I'm asking for more consideration, please, for further conversation, and I'll be happy to engage with you with a couple landscape architects. Thank you, Britney. Um, you did great in the parking reductions. I was happy to see that and totally support it. And I particularly loved the work live in smaller commercial buildings. So, thank you for that. That was a great change. And then you made another comment earlier. You said the next round of considerations. At what point in time will there be another round of considerations?

Um it's kind of driven by desire and amount. If we find that it's a priority to take just one or two items forward, then we absolutely can. With this one, we kind of waited for a considerable amount to bring forward. So, this is going to be what I would call a living document. Absolutely.

Uh chair, vice chair, um commission, I just wanted to add that um the next session that we have in July, we're bringing forward a three-year long range strategic plan to you. And within that plan, we'll have a lot of different elements, including when we anticipate bringing other different chapters forward for updates. So, we want to be mindful that we're not doing a lot of one-offs, that we're trying to do this comprehensively and sort of annually or bianually or whatever that looks like. But, in that plan, we'll talk a little bit more about what that looks like. But, um, keep the information coming. We're going to keep track of it all, um, as we do those things going forward. So, that's coming in July.

Thank you, Stacy. And Miss Britney, one last question. Um, page 13-17, I believe it was item 183, there was a definition for zoning map. And I don't know what that means. And there's no proposed amendment to the definition of zoning map. So I feel we need to work on that. I believe it was 1317183. I didn't know what that meant. Yeah. Zoning map. The official zoning map of the town.

I didn't know there was an official zoning map. I could uh I could have invite Frank to speak on that since he's more familiar with

Mr. Mayor. And I'm sorry I keep saying that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. And uh commission members, I could tell you historically that there used to actually be on a wall a big paper map that used to be the town zoning map. Uh as things became more electronic, that map went away and we still think of it as the map, but it's an electronic document now on our GIS system. So maybe under the definition we could say map electronically under GIS or something. I mean I didn't know where to find it or what it was or even what it looked like.

Is it a historic map? I don't know. I'm sorry. Is it considered historic or is it something that's No, it is the current map and it's on the GIS system. So it's on the server and it exists. It is a an actual document so to speak. Um but it is electronic not not paper. Okay. Mine heard good. Thank you Britney. You were amazing. Thank you Sandy for all of your input.

All right commissioners. Any remaining comments from anyone? If not, uh, I'll close the public hearing on item Z O A26001, town code chapter 13 text amendments. Mr. Griffith, I'm going to ask for some assistance on this. Would we need to do a vote on this or is this just to accept those changes? Mr. Chair, perhaps I could help you. Yes, indeed. It's similar to other actions you've taken as a commission.

So, you've been presented what is essentially an ordinance, so to speak, and you'll be recommending, you'll be taking a vote on a recommendation to the town council as to whether to adopt it, accept and adopt that. So, the motion will either be for or against recommending adoption. Thank you. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion uh to recommend to town council the approval of ZA26-001. Do I have a second? A second.

Clerk, could you call a vote? Commissioner Graci, yes. Commissioner Colosso, yes. Commissioner Evans, yes. Commissioner Griffith, yes. Vice Chairperson Hiwatt, yes. Chairperson Herb, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Um, moving to the next agenda item. Any action items? Uh, seeing none on the agenda. Uh, so we'll move to nine. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

I can make a wish to adjurnn. Second or do I have a second? I'll second. So adjourned.