Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Oh, [Music]

heat, heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] I had a lot of time not Good evening. I'd like to call the August 11th, 2025 planning and zoning

meeting to order. Commissioner Huat, will you please lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Commissioner Huitt.

Good evening. My name is Sandy Griffith and I'm the chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm presiding over the commission's deliberations on hearing items this evening. The planning and zoning commission sits in an advisory capacity to the town council. As such, the commission reviews planning and zoning issues and forwards recommendations regarding these important issues to the council. All members are appointed by town council and volunteer their time. If you wish to speak during the call to the public or on the public hearing items on tonight's agenda, please make sure you have pre-registered your name with the clerk. When you are recognized by the clerk, please come to the microphone and state your name and address. I ask that you direct your pertinent comments to the commission through the chairperson and not the staff or individuals within the audience. A threeinut time limit will be imposed. I would like to express in advance the commission's appreciation for fostering an atmosphere of respect and cordiality this evening. This evening's proceedings will be conducted as follows. First, I will read the public hearing item into record. Staff will then present the agenda item and their recommendations to the commission. The commission will question staff. The applicant will be invited to address the commission and answer questions from the commission. The floor will then be open to comments from the public regarding the hearing item. Clerk, will you please call the role? Chairperson Griffith.

Yes. Here. Commissioner Bordon here. Commissioner Rutherford here. Commissioner King here. Commissioner Huat here. Vice Chair Ted Herb here. Commissioner Laney is absent tonight. We have

Thank you, clerk. At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the planning and zoning commission on any issue within the jurisdiction of the commission except for those items scheduled for a public hearing item on the agenda this evening. Those wishing to address the commission must register their name with the clerk. The commission's response is limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon, or asking that a matter be put on a future agenda. Again, public comment is limited to three minutes and unless unless additional time is granted by the chair. Clerk, do we have any public comment? No. Chair, is there anyone in the audience who did not pre-register and would like to make public comment? Thank you. Item five, announcements. Do we have any announcements from the commission? Thank you. Approval of the minutes. Regular meeting minutes dated May 12th, 2025. Are there any corrections to the minutes andor a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve the May 12th, 2025 minutes. A second. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Bordon and Commissioner Huat. Clerk, please call for the vote. Commissioner Rutherford. Yes. Commissioner Huat, yes. Commissioner Bordon, yes. Vice Chair Herb, yes. Commissioner King, yes. Chair Griffith,

yes. Approval of the minutes. Thank you. Public hearing item 7A ZMC25-00002 Robert Road duplex consideration and possible action to recommend approval to town council. Mr. Ernest Ruby, Development Services Deputy Director, making the presentation.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the commission. Uh the two items 7A and 7B are related. They're side byside uh zone map changes. So I'm going to do the staff report uh as if they were both combined. Uh they will both need a separate motion because they were advertised that way. So it asks for your indulgence and uh when you make your motion, if you make the motion at that point. Thank you. Uh, Madame Chair, vice chair, members of the commission, the item before you, as was stated, was a zone map change 25002 uh for a duplex on Robert Road. Uh, consideration and possible action to recommend approval or denial to town council. Um, the project is Okay, here we go. Here we go. Here's the location of the project. As you can see, it's south of Spouse Drive off of Robert Road. Uh directly south of Domino's. If you've driven Robert's Road, you see where that Domino's is at. Uh it's been there for about 25 years. These are two properties to the south of that existing uh Domino's. West of this is multifamily zoning. Uh and there's actually a forplex across the street from these properties. uh north uh there's some vacant lots to the south and actually a portion of this parcel cuts through the uh the zoning or the flood zoning and will be avoided at all costs. Um the general plan lists this area as the community commercial and in the community commercial zone uh various commercial activities can take place. Uh here's some of the goals and policies from our general plan that promote uh not only commercial in this area but uh residential RS and and other words. Now

this is a zone map change but it's not really a zone map change and let me explain that if I may. Back in November of uh 2000, these three parcels, as you can see on the board, uh 963, 962, and 961 were a part of an ordinance allowing that zoning map designation. The zoning on 963 was commercial, and that allowed the Domino's Pizza to be built. The zoning on lots 962 and 961, as you can see, were zoned RS4 pad. And the reason we're here tonight to verify this zoning is that there was a condition of approval uh back in 2000 that showed a site plan for this for the two existing properties 962 and 961. Those showed professional offices to be built in that area and the condition of that ordinance stated that whatever was built there happened to be in uh significant conformance to the approval. Hence, we're back before you because the duplexes are a different issue than the office professional office would have been. And just one thing to note, uh, today, if the proponents had come in with an application to build those duplexes in an RS zone, which we have here, they would already have had their building permits and probably be under construction. And the reason for that is that today in our zoning code, those duplexes are allowed as a right of use in that district. And the ironic part of it is that the office, professional office is a conditional use in that district. So things have kind of swapped in the last 25 years or so, and that's why we're here tonight. Um, so let's see. Moving right along. This is the project

overview. As you can see, there's two separate parcels, 962 and 961. Each one would have a separate duplex built upon it, meeting all the setback requirements. Uh, actually, each uh livable unit would be a little over,400 square ft. The maximum height would be 25 ft for these two-story buildings. 35 ft is allowed throughout the town in any zoning district. Uh, the color palette will be a modern color palette. The uh applicants are working with staff to make sure that uh those color uh pallets are acceptable. There's a 7- foot landscape border along Robert Road. Uh and we were a little bit concerned, as you can see to the rear of the properties, there is a single family residential zone. So, we were a little bit concerned about impacts uh particularly from two-story buildings into that neighborhood. So, one of the things the applicant and staff talked about was a six-foot solid screen wall between the uh duplex uses and the single family directly behind it. And that's what kind of what you see on the project overview slide. Now, these are some elevations uh of the project itself. The photographs are actually projects that have been built by this developer, by this team of developers. As you can see, they're modern, nice, and uh they fit into what we call an affordable range. And uh that affordability is actually spelled out um in this slide here. This is an affordable housing slide that shows single family detached on one side and a mid-rise apartment complex on the other. in between is what is being referred to as the missing middle. In other words, things that don't uh necessarily uh or places where people don't necessarily want to live in a in a high-rise

building or can afford maybe a single family dwelling. So, this middle missing includes things like duplexes, courtyard buildings, cottages, town houses, etc. You can see from the slide. Uh and that's what's called the missing middle. And one of the reasons that we looked at this project is this is an analysis that was performed for the town by the Elliot Pollock Group and they looked at our housing needs assessment. They looked at where we had single family dwellings, multif family dwellings, housing complexes, things of that nature. And as you can see from the slide, the assessment identifies duplexes as a positive influence on affordable housing. As you can see from the slide, we actually have a prepoundonderance of duplexes and triplexes, more so than Yavapai County uh and more so than the state of Arizona. However, according to the Pollock study, it indicates that these are an affordable option for our residents. So, all that being said, I wanted to just reflect upon you that the neighborhood meeting was held for this project. no one showed up. Uh and that the uh the zoning summary on it indicates that multif family dwellings are allowed in this district in the RS zone. Uh some of the comments that we received particularly from our uh traffic engineer talked about the layout of the of the site. And if I can go back there, I wanted to go over that with you in terms of the placement of the driveways. As you can see here, this has two separate driveways, one for each building. Initially, it was proposed as one driveway to service both parcels, but uh our traffic engineer felt it would be better served with individual driveways. And as you can see from the

from the overhead or in front of you, the screen in front of you, the two driveways allow for straightin traffic, but it also has kind of hammerheads to the side to allow for potentially additional parking on site as well as for turnaround for fire. Now, fire department has reviewed the plans and they're okay with them as it as they exist. They will review the plans once again uh after they're submitted for building permit. uh because of the size of the buildings, they're under the size that requires fire sprinklers. So, those won't be provided, although fire alarms and CO2 detectors and things of that nature will be provided. Um, this development actually has setbacks of 25 ft in the front, as you can see, 20 foot in the rear, and uh 3-foot uh setbacks on the side. All town requirements for landscaping, uh, screening, lighting will be met, uh, including our dark sky ordinance where the lights have to shine downward. Um, all planting material will be off of the Prescuit uh, AMA list or our own town planting list. They're all drought tolerant uh, uh, mostly native plants to this area. Uh as I mentioned earlier, there's a corner of this piece and you can see this in the bottom left corner uh that just there's a small bit of flood zone in that area. Uh the flood zone administrator indicated that if they stay out of that area, there shouldn't be any problem. So she gave the authority to move forward on that. Um I'd like to go over some proposed conditions that staff has come up with for this project. Uh, number one is a barrier to block access from the Domino's Pizza to the north. Initially,

if you looked at that site plan, there was only one driveway back in 2000 that allowed for entrance into the Domino's Pizza and a left turn into the professional offices. Uh, I think that's one of the reasons that our traffic engineer determined that they should have their own separate driveways. So anyway, that being said, if you if you look at that initial site plan, uh staff is proposing a barrier, block wall, ballards, whatever the developer comes up with for that area to separate the uses from the dominoes and then these residential uses. So that's the first condition of approval. Uh I mentioned to you earlier the color palette uh that's going to be submitted to staff. It'll be reviewed by the zoning administrator and uh will be evaluated and reviewed at that time. Uh there's a couple of pees, public utility easements that are on the property. There's actually a 12-oot PUE to the west and a 5-ft public utility easement to the east of the property. Those will have to be maintained. Uh in addition, each unit will have its own water meter and will be separately sewered. Uh that was one of the requirements from our utilities department. Um as I mentioned earlier, any fire plans will be submitted to the town and in turn uh sent over to Cap for their review and approval. Um and the last thing and I think there was a question at one point, what is substantial conformity? Well, our last condition of approval says that this project will mean remain in substantial conformity to the site plan that you are reviewing and potentially recommending. As we go back to the 2000 approval, we had to identify substantial conformity to the professional offices that were proposed there. It did not meet did not meet that criteria and hence we're

before you today. One of the things we cannot do as staff uh even with the recent legislation legislative uh changes is we cannot overrule a council condition. Uh legal department has told us if it was approved by council even 25 years ago, we are to come back and make sure that you all know what's going on, make that recommendation so eventually it can go to council for their decision. Yay or nay on that change. And it kind of brings us to where we're at. Um the motion is to recommend approval to town council for the zone map changes for both of these uh ZMC 25002 and for ZMC25-00003. And that is the recommendation on that. I'd be glad to answer any questions if you have them. The applicants are here and they're willing to answer any questions you may have as well.

Thank you, Mr. Ruby. I will now open public hearing item ZMC25-00002. And just for clarification, Mr. Ruby, these two public hearing items on the Robert Road duplex are for approval or denial. Yes, ma'am. That's correct. Thank you, sir. Commission, do you have any questions for Mr. Ruby? Uh I have a few. Of course you do, my friend.

Sorry. Um and actually maybe uh John could help answer some of these questions with regard to our our thinking be behind the idea of two separate driveways. Um certainly respect your uh authority and position and knowledge. John, we've worked together for many years. Um, I'm curious, do we require the applicant to get a traffic impact analysis or traffic study uh to support or is the town uh the one making the decision with regard to access? Um, thank you commissioner and chair. Um, this project did not require a TIA. We we can um handle the project just internally with discussions.

Okay. Yeah. The reason why I'm asking is um you know we're talking about uh I think you guys probably have Robert RH classified as a collector. Yes.

Uh a north south main access through town. Um generally uh when when I looked at the previous uh site plan that was approved uh for this uh other offices um you know generally on a collector you try to reduce the number of access points as opposed to increase the number of access. So with with this they'll they'll have not only the access in and out of the gas station but dominoes and then both uh two two more for the in a relatively short distance from its proximity to its the signal there at at spouse. So, um, I drive the ride a lot, uh, you know, and I I'm wondering what was the thought process between between creating more access points on a collector as opposed to reducing the number of access points.

In in this case, the number of driveway locations has to do with the number of turning movements at each location. If more movements are are located at the driveway entrance that goes into the dominoes, right now, we're just adding that many more turning movements at that location. So in this case, it helps to spread those out a little bit. Each driveway will have a lot less traffic than the combined turning movements at the one driveway at the Domino's. Okay. And the the proximity to the signalized intersection had a little bit to do with that.

Okay. Yeah, that was my question. Um because I mean and I can understand that argument if the the driveway access were further apart, right? But they're closer together. So don't you think there is going to be potential backup at the signal? Um not necessarily. Um, Robert Road has two lanes in each direction and it's developed right now as an urban section. So, driver expectancy and it is consistent in the area to have drive driveways uh throughout that area. So, it it worked a little better to have it identified that each each duplex would have its own driveway.

Right. I appreciate the hammerheads. I mean, in in the inside because on the other some of the other duplexes are being constructed, one under construction now, I think it could be the same applicant. Um I I don't know if they have the same layout for that one, but some of them aren't and they you'll see they'll back up onto Robert Road. It's quite dangerous. So, right there there is an additional element that um I don't know if it was discussed here, there's a slight vertical curve in the profile of the road at that location. So, one of the requirements we do have for this development is to check sight distances for those turning movements. So, we'll be taking a look at that as well. Okay. Yeah, that that actually is that's good. That's good. Okay. I was going to ask about the vertical curve next. So, thank you. Yeah. Thanks, John. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner Huat. Commissioner King, any questions of staff?

Uh, yes, ma'am. I have a question for you um regarding ordinance number 489 number eight where one of the conditions there says that no building shall exceed one story in height. If you go and check out that area, a lot of the buildings there are one story in height. I know we're going back 25 years, right? But do we have any uh commentary or feedback as to why that one story in height implication was put into place? Uh, chair, Commissioner King, I I can't go back 25 years and try to guesstimate what uh the council was looking at at that point, but I believe it was because office professional typically is done in a one-story building. Uh, there's not a twostory office professional uh in the town that I know of. So I think that was probably the reason for that and that was the reason the staff looked at this project made sure that the rear distance setback was that 20 feet to the single family singlestory on the on the flip side of that and that's why uh we requested that screen wall and dense landscaping to protect the transition from the multif family to the single family.

Okay, thank you. Understood. Understood. Um so this one yes is is the the request is for two stories and so most um buildings in that area are one story. There is a small restaurant across the street that is two stories. So I think that you know as to maintaining the character of the neighborhood and some of the other issues to be considered when making a decision right they they it it does conform. I'm not disagreeing with that. I was just trying to understand what the deviation there between the one height and the two stories and if there was any more information for background on that. Okay. Can you talk to me a little bit more about that flood plane and how that's going to work and that this might be better for um the applicant themselves, but if you go and look at the property, I mean there's a significant drop there on the side. So, what are the plans to make sure that that's safe?

Thank you for asking. Uh Commissioner Kane count uh Commission. Uh let me see. I don't believe I had the flood plane analysis on here, but uh John town engineer can probably speak to that. There's a portion a corner of the southwest corner probably five or six feet that actually falls into the flood zone. And as I mentioned, uh, the flood phone flood plane administrator Heather Ru Ruer had said that typically they would, uh, not need a lomar clomar process for that because they were staying out of that, weren't doing any dirt work or anything. There will be landscaping in that corner. Did we have one? By the way, I wanted to introduce Brittany Cleveland. I meant to do it at our introductions earlier on. Uh Britney is one of our newest and one of our best planners. Uh she comes to us with a lot of background in architecture and urban planning. uh we're happy to have her on staff and she is uh doing a meteorotic meteorotic rising like a meteor and uh to become one of our very very prominent staff members. So anyway, this does show thank you Britney for pointing that out. If you can see on the left hand side where these two parcels are located, it does show a portion of that corner uh in the flood zone. Again, if uh they stay away from that with no uh drainage, well, with no grading on that site, it it has been deemed to be just fine by the flood plane administrator.

Hopefully, it answers your question. It is. It looks good. Thank you. No more questions for me at the moment. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner King. Mr. Ruby, I do have a question to um tag on to Commissioner King about the flood plane. You just made a statement that there's no grading in the flood plane. Correct. Correct. But that's where the driveway goes. So, they're going to have to do some grading.

I think uh Mr. Latir can respond to that probably better than I can. And the engineers on the on the commission as well. I believe that uh you're allowed to uh to fill in a flood zone, but you can't cut in a fill zone without a Lomar Clomar. Uh Commissioner Bordon, is that correct? [Laughter]

All I was going to say is I believe it's in the flood fringe. The engineer can confirm that. And you can fill in the flood fringe. And so I I I went out and I researched it and I went online to check where the flood plane was and I was more concerned about the three lots. Those are impacted and obviously um are going to have significant building issues, but I felt that these two lots are not a concern when they'll they'll have to go through the flood plan administrator and again I'm speaking as a commissioner. Um, but they'll they'll be able to fill in some areas because I believe it's in the flood fringe. It's not in the flood way. There's a difference when you're in the flood way. It's a considerable exercise as they mentioned about going through a map revision with the with FEMA. Uh, but when I looked at it, I felt this is in the flood fringe. It's in outside of the floodway. It's typically what they'll go through and get permission from their flood plane administrator to do that fill operation.

My point. Sorry to jump in, but you asked. Thank you, Commissioner Bordo, for the explanation. Uh, John, do you want to speak to that at all or is that a good Mr. Herb or I'm sorry, Mr. Ruby? Did you see Good question. CAFMA has reviewed the project but there were no comments in the package about their review. Should there be

not commission or chairman vice chair uh CAFMA typically reviews these projects at the inter inter uh initial project review stage. Uh if they have no comments at that stage when we send out for like the zone map change uh if they have no comments they'll just say refer to our previous comments. So, I don't believe we had a letter uh from CAFMA on the zone map changes themselves. Thank you, Commissioner. Any more questions from staff? If not, we'll welcome up the applicant.

Hi, I'm Mark Stanley. I'm sorry. Say your name again. Mark Stanley. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Commission. Any questions of the applicant? Well, I'm not going to let you get off that easy. Please. Of course.

Of course, he says. So, on your site plan that has the landscaping all detailed, the landscaping calls for six mill visine. And I am adamant that this queen should not be used in landscaping projects.

Okay. Well, and to kind of go back to my discussions with John and Ernest and everybody else, uh, we went back and forth quite a bit on all the landscaping requirements that they were kind of wanting to see. And my comment to them was whatever you want. So, you know, if you guys have a particular issue with the plant, it's out of here. We'll put in whatever you want. So, so you will remove the vis and put in the bill landscaping fabric. Thank you.

Yeah. And that's a good catch. Thank you. Um I didn't catch that vis Yeah, you shouldn't use that. It should be a landscaping fabric so that water can transmit through not run adjacent. Is this a fabric covering that you're talking about? I don't know what this queen is. So this queen is plastic. Plastic plastic. Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry, I thought you were talking about a tree. Good catch.

And then I have one more. I think good catch. It says rocklined swell selected by owner. Swells are should always have larger rock and swells are normally um installed with something in the 4 to 68 in range. So I'd like to make sure that you do put in the proper rock to manage that swale. Are you talking about the yellow outlines that were on the site plan? Yeah. Yes.

Yeah. The draftsman that we worked with, he kind of plugged those in just looking at the topography and seeing that there might have been some slope there, but it's very flat. So, we can do pretty much anything. But I know when we've done the swailes before, we've always used the larger rock to those because we don't know what and how much water these swells are going to collect. So, for all good practical purposes from your end as a developer, larger swale rock would be the way to go. Yeah, I think the ones that we've used before, they they've been pretty good size. So,

and then I just have one more little comment on the um one duplex on the left. Your landscape architect has um situated a plant right in the middle of the driveway. So you'll correct all of that. It was specifically asked that we put that there. So you guys specifically asked that it's out of there. It's out of there. Okay. Okay. That poor little plant doesn't have a chance. Yeah. No, that's no problem. You know, we're willing to work with whoever or whatever you guys want. So perfect. Perfect. Any other questions of the applicant?

Madam Chair, can I just clarify? I'm so sorry. Just a couple things. Uh yeah, I'm sure that would the site visibility analysis or what you guys do for that for the access points could pick up on that plant maybe not being in a good spot or whatever. So I'm sure they'll resolve it there. And then on the ra on the rock four to six angular face, a lot of times they'll put the round stuff and it just rolls all over the place. So yeah, the ones we usually use are pretty sharp. They've got a lot of sharp cuts on them. Yeah. Get that going. So yeah, yep. That's it. Commissioner Herb, Vice Chair Herb.

Yes. I' I'd I'd like to make um a comment for consideration on your part. And if you bear with me, I'll I'll give some explanation, some background for the reason for my comment. In reading the information and understanding CAFMA's code requirements, the duplexes would not be required to have residential sprinklers in them. They are not over four stories in height. They don't exceed the square footage allowment for an R2 occupancy to require that. With that said, I'm the one person on this dasis spent 35 years in the fire service, and I've seen more than my fair share of multifamily and single family structure fires that unfortunately have cost people their lives and and everything they own. Knowing that the installation of fire sprinklers in a residential setting such as this is not very expensive, on average $4 a square foot added to the cost. Um I would strongly encourage that maybe that be looked at just from a perspective that you know residential and and multif family uh structure fires are the leading cause of death and injury in this country by a long shot and I I was would strongly recommend we just look at that to see you know how much would that affect your build and your cost to do that on a voluntary basis. It it reduces insurance premiums and costs to the owners and andor residents for residential renters's insurance is reduced for those sort of things that are sprinklered and of course have fire alarm in them like we'll have in both of these duplexes. So my comment for what it's worth um not suggesting that it's mandatory. Um as far as I understand it would not be unless KAFMA has some other requirement I'm not aware of. Um as far as I know we have hydrants within close enough proximity. We've got more than one access to the site, but certainly something I think that should be considered.

Well, and I don't think it shows it on there, but one of those two round circles uh on the northeast corner of the northern lot, there's actually a fire hydrant right there. So, but yeah, we'll take your cons, you know, your suggestion and consideration. Yeah. Thank you,

commission. At this time, I I would like to talk to the applicant about the potential barrier wall between this project and the domino site. What does the commission feel should be installed for some sort of barrier? Commissioner King, do you have any thoughts? I'm open to recommendations, but um looking in the area, we'd want to keep it keep it with the character of the neighborhood. I want to say is it Versa Block? Maybe you can help me with that.

Well, I might be able to add to that. Also, at current time, all along the northern border of the northern lot that borders uh with dominoes there, there's actually a center block wall that follows all the way uh east and west. And the only opening is actually right next to Robert Road. So, if you turn into the dominoes there and you make an immediate left, you go right past where the existing wall is. So, my understanding was that we would simply continue that block wall and keep it looking the same. Uh, unless there's something else you guys would like to see, but that's what we were kind of envisioning.

Yeah, I was on site and I thought there was an existing wall up for a majority of that parking lot that will block a majority of the traffic that's pulling in there and blocking Headlights headlights throw over I didn't just my opinion I didn't really flag that as a concern because I I felt that's kind of already there the barrier from domos that at least what I saw there is there's a barrier there it just doesn't go far enough right

um and and you know I know you mentioned ballards those are um I don't know they're just not as aesthetic you know and and I guess it just depends on what you guys want uh to uh uh accomplish. Is this a kind of a security thing? Because people can get through ballers. Of course, a person could jump a wall as well, but um it just really depends on what you accomplish. But I would I strongly encourage you to continue what's there uh to keep in line with with u and and it'll provide some security aspect to it. Yeah, that's we kind of wanted to make it look like it conform to what was originally intended and just continue that wall. I think it's about 4 ft high, but it's a standard green block. Thank you. So, a continuation of the existing wall.

Yeah. Perfect. Thank you so much. Yeah. Thank you, applicant. I'll now open it up. Or is there anybody clerk? Do we have public comment on this agenda item? No, we do not, Madam Chair. Is there anyone else in the audience that did not register for public comment that would like to speak? Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. Chair, vice chair, commission, if I may, would you like to condition the this queen cloth uh issue? And if so, would you please put in condition?

I I would and I would like to also condition the continuation of the existing wall. Yes, ma'am. That would be fine. That'll be a clarification of the one condition we had for separation. And I have one more question. Under the conditions, it says the project shall remain in substantial conformance. We've already discussed that with approved site plan. Do is it important that we state and give this site plan a date?

Yes. Uh chair, that would be a good idea. as we move forward to council. That'd be a great idea. Thank you. So, who commissioners would like to make a motion um to approve andor deny zoning map change 25-002 with our revised stipulations? Madam Chair, I move to approve both ZMC 25002 and 003 for the Roberts Road duplex with set conditions. We need to call out our conditions.

Well, I think this has to be handled on two separate approvals. Do we have to do them both? Okay. 002 correct with the conditions of extending the existing wall separating the dominoes and the duplex off Robert's road. The second condition was to um remove the vis queen and use the fabric cloth and to ensure that the swale rock is 4 to 8 in. And Commissioner Huitt, you called it pointed, sharp, angled, angled. So, thank you for your motion, Vice Chair Herb.

Second. Thank you. Clerk, will you please call for the vote? Commissioner Huat, yes. Commissioner Rutherford, yes. Commissioner Bordon, yes. Commissioner King, yes. Vice Chair Herb, yes. Chair Griffith. Yes, that passes. Thank you. Thank you, clerk. Mr. Ruby, item will 7B ZMC 25-00003.

Same presentation. Uh, same dynamics. I would ask you if you uh are of the favor to approve recommend approval of this that you add the conditions that you had for the previous zone map change. Please chairman, I'm going to make a recommendation to a motion to forward this with a recommendation for approval for ZMC 24-003 with the same stipulations that we just did in 002. 25. Yeah, 25. No, no. It says 24, but it's really 25. Sorry, just reading right from it. 25-003. Thank you very much. A second.

Thank you. Clerk, will you please call? Do we have any public comment on ZMC 25-003? Carmela, public comment. Madam Chair, if I may, uh, that particular zone map changed 25- Z003 does not have the wall adjacent to it. So, I would beg your indulgence to take a look at that, please. I'll amend. Let me amend that motion for the MC25-003. Thank you very much for the catch. with the same provision same stipulations that we added minus the wall stipulation. Thank you.

Second. Thank you. Clerk, will you please call the vote? Commissioner Huat, yes. Commissioner Bordeau, yes. Commissioner Bethford, yes. Vice Chair Herb, yes. Commissioner King, yes. Chair Griffith, yes.

That passes. Thank you, Mr. Ruby. Thank you, gentlemen. Public hearing item 7C, zoning ordinance amendment 25-00001, amending town code article 13-07 regarding fence materials consideration and possible action making the presentation. Mr. Ernest Ruby, Development Services Deputy Director. Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the commission. As you recall, we recently adopted update to chapter 13, our zoning ordinance, uh went into effect January of this year. One of the things that we've encountered through our uh code enforcement uh team is that they were having problems with interpretation of that segment of the code. And that segment of the code is actually article 1307, the fence materials. So what this zoning ordinance amendment attempts to do is to clear uh clear up some of that language to specify what is not allowed as screening. Now the ba the basis for this is people uh will erect chain link or cyclone fences and then uh apply like a fabric to it. The fabric is not UV resistant. It rips in the wind and it causes a lot of aesthetic problems. So when code enforcement was being called out on these particular types of cases, they were having a problem in the code finding specifically what could or could not be allowed as a screen. And as you see in the uh in the ordinance uh and

the language in the in the uh staff report, it talks about numerous things that are not allowed. And that includes things like uh plastic tarps, fabric mesh, barb wire, razor wire, tarpollins, embedded glass shards, ultra barrier, wood pallets, plywood, press board, particle board, chipboard, masonite, electrified, and other hazardous fencing. Uh so this would be types of screening materials in a residential neighborhood. uh we don't want concertina wire, we don't want barb wire, we don't want things of that nature, although I don't think they're good screen, but in particular, it was about the the fabric flexible materials that weren't uh suitable over long periods of time as a barrier for fences and for security. So, that was the basis for this code amendment. Um I don't believe what any of our neighborhood services folks, our code enforcement folks are here today. So on their behalf in discussions with them, uh they were very much in favor of this. Actually, they uh actually promoted it and wanted this because it would make their uh enforcement job much easier by by showing what was not allowed. Now, what is allowed as a as a screen, you might ask? Well, could be a solid wall, could be a block wall, could be a wooden fence. It could even be a chain link or cyclone fence with the strips in it, with the added strips in it. Now, that's not 100% opaque, but it it is about the 85 90% range. And that would allow people to still do something with those cyclone fences and not have to go to the expense of doing a CMU wall or wooden fence and still be able to utilize the uh fences that are in a lot of uh places in town. Uh that's the cyclone fences. Um be glad to answer any questions if

you have them. It it was kind of a house cleaning measure that we were asked to perform. I'll open the public hearing item for 7Z zoning ordinance amendment ZOA25-00001. Commission, any questions for Mr. Ruby? I just have one. Certainly. Thank you, Commissioner Huitt.

Is this uh retroactive? I mean, is this going to like because there are properties there uh that I know of. when I walk around the town that have this already in place that quite frankly are like vis uh kind of falling apart. Thank you, Commissioner Hwitt. Uh members of the commission, no, it would not be uh retroactive. It would be from this point on when the ordinance was adopted so that the code enforcement folks could then uh find out when those issues were happening and whether they were prior to or moving forward. Okay. I would imagine

that's my understanding. I imagine if if if the if the covering falls in such disrepair that it is really a public nuisance then they could probably pursue that. I would imagine. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner King, any questions? And Mr. Ruby? I do. And uh God bless these code enforcement humans. They they have a very hard job and we really appreciate them to keep our community beautiful. It says here that there are separate enforcement processes and you did say we don't have staff on here today regarding what such enforcement processes are but you know property rights are very important rights. Correct.

Do you have any idea of what the difference is with the enforcement processes for the difference between the fencing and the screening? I I Commissioner King, I don't necessarily have the exact answer for you. I can give you what my interpretation is in conversations with our code enforcement folks. Um the problem with the flexible material, as Commissioner Huitt stated, it has a tendency to rip in the wind, to make it unsightly, un aesthetically not pleasing to the town. So, moving forward, if our code enforcement folks get a complaint on a fence that has this type of material in it, they'll be able to go in and and uh let those folks know that as of the date of the ordinance, that wouldn't be allowed. Uh, prior to that, there's not much enforcement action they can do. So and hence the reason for asking us to amend this so they would make their job a little bit easier in terms of enforcement whether a fence or a barrier which can be both and can be separate but in this case it was uh mostly for the types of materials that are being utilized to cover uh cyclone fences if you will.

Understood. And very good question about retroactivity and and how that is going to be addressed. So you're saying that if that screen is currently up as of now that is okay that is approved and then moving forward then there we are not allowed to do it and we will be able to bring code enforcement and put citations in order at that point in time.

Commissioner King, it's my understanding that uh code enforcement will not be out actively looking for people with the flex fabric unless it becomes a problem unless it becomes torn. unless it becomes an unsightly nuisance on the community. But they won't go out. For example, let's say you had a nice screening on your fence. Unless it was in disrepair, I don't believe they'd go out and enforce on you. Okay, understood. Thank you. And then I'm going to assume here, but I'd like to ask, so has this uh additional information here that were added, it's been ran past legal? Yes, they wrote it actually.

That's wonderful. Thank you. No more questions for me. Thank you, Commissioner King. I do have two. So, at what point in time, Mr. Ruby, does this become enforcable? How many days after council approval? And are there public hearing items at with council, I'm sorry, public comment periods? Uh chairman uh Griffith uh commission this is an ordinance so it will become effective 30 days after the second reading. Okay. So after the second reading there are two readings. Second reading at council. Yes ma'am. So it what it be 60 days then?

Uh well it uh I believe this is scheduled for the September 28th uh town council meeting. after that date. I don't have my listings with me, but it'll be 30 days after the second reading. Okay, perfect. when it becomes a

then just for clarification under staff recommendation it says staff recommends the commission to recommend amending town code 13-07 regarding fence materials applicable within the entire Prescat Valley area shouldn't applicable be maybe prohibited or nonapp approved. I mean, that makes it sound like it's they're all approved.

Madame Chair, vice chair, members of the commission, I I'm going to defer to our legal counsel, but I believe that that meant that within the town limits of Prescuit Valley, the way it was written. I'm just questioning the word applicable versus maybe a new word prohibited. I ask where you're where your under staff recommendation. I was just word smithing. That's just uh you can word it differently if you'd like. That's just the recommended wording. So

yeah, I I would stay away from I get what you're saying, but I think in the motion just the motion to approve it because that's just something I I saw what you're saying is double negative. Yeah, making a positive. So yeah, I got it. I think if we're recommending approval, it's got it. It's the ordinance. Thank you. Any other questions of staff commission? Madame Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Ruby.

It's possible that some beautiful, durable, fantastic plastic not yet invented will come along. I mean we everything hasn't been invented yet. Is it possible to make the code such that when a new material not available at the time of this passage can be considered on a case-bycase basis by the uh department?

Thank you for the question commissioner Rutherford. Uh very good question. one we actually had conversations with with the code enforcement uh team and one of our first suggestions when they brought it to our attention was well is there a material out there that is UV and windresistant? If so, could we consider that uh by looking at their spec sheets, their specification sheets to see what the lifetime is of a material like that? uh and it was determined at that time that there wasn't anything that was suitable to be included. Now, I'm sure if some uh are invented uh in the future that we'd be willing to sit down, take a look at those and see if there was an exception. But that would depend on the zoning administrator to review that and make a recommendation.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Rutherford. Clerk, do we have any public comment? No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that did not register for public comment that was just to speak? Thank you. I'll bring it back to the commission for a motion on ZA25-00001 amending town code article 13-07. Madam Chair, I'd be happy to make a motion, but I have to have one question first if you don't mind.

Yes, sir. Um, so I u Commissioner Rutherford brought up a good point about some new material on the future. Um, does this uh I'm not concerned about the new material in the future. Often times when I've seen this myself, it's not the material that's at at issue, it's the way they've installed it and it's just broken loose. Um, I know this wouldn't allow for that type of material. So, there wouldn't be an installation method, but did you guys consider that when you were looking at this? if you do allow a waiver or something that that you have the right also to look at the way it's installed.

Commissioner Hwitt uh uh Commission uh we had initial conversations with code enforcement team uh they in turn uh uh requested that the ordinance be written to their specifications. We did have input into it uh but no we didn't have that conversation. just if you guys consider something in the future on a different type of material that you might want to marry that you know if you use this okay we're going to look at this now as a potential material that could be used provided that you use this sort of method for installation so that way

thank you for bringing that up that was one of our early conversations was can we get a spec sheet that identifies what the longevity might be pursuant to UV rays or wind resistance or things of that nature and at that time oh probably six months ago or so, it was determined there was nothing on the market. In fact, we had some research done to see if there was anything out there and there wasn't at the time. And that was one of the uh questions I was going to ask on your condition if you would like to include this future material or we can do it as we come back and evaluate whenever something comes forward or somebody has an issue. uh just as we're amending the code now uh six months into seven months into adoption, we can always come back and relook at something if the materials become available.

Yeah. And I I would make a suggestion that we'd hesitate to do that because again, even if you had this great material that's not going to fade away, it could still break. You know, you're not going to see a block wall or a wood fence generally start blowing in the wind, right? But if this isn't, you know, you got a material that's, you know, better and stronger, you know, uh, faster, whatever you want to, you know, that it won't, you know, it could still potentially create a nuisance because it's still flapping in the wind because it's not properly installed. So I I would suggest making the motion as it exists. If there's any objection though,

first, let me close the public hearing. Thank you. Sorry. No, my fault. So, I I would be happy to make as it as it exists, as it stands, make a motion to forward a recommendation of approval uh to the town council for ZOA25-001. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Vice Chair. We have a motion by Commissioner Huitt and a second by Vice Chair Herb. Clerk, please call for the vote.

Oh, I think we got a comment. I'm so sorry. Madame Chair, uh, Commissioner, if I may, um, first of all, we want to acknowledge Donna. This is her last meeting before you, so we wanted to give her a hand and tell her thank you for her two plus years here leading the department. So, I'd like to do that. But upon Donna's uh recommendation, we talked about manufacturer specifications and if the manufacturer specs could guarantee that this thing had longevity, had either from UV or wind resistance or things of that nature, we might be able to consider that on a case-by case basis.

So, should we add that into our motion? So, that goes before council. Uh, Madam Chair, I I would say yes. And it would also depend on the installation uh as you know if it was installed per the specifications or if it was done differently. Thank you. Okay. So, Madam Chair, I'd like to amend my uh recommendation to forward uh ZOA25-001 to the town council for approval with the condition that alternative materials may be considered provided that the materials uh uh spec sheet and installation methods are acceptable to the town

zoning administrator or the zoning uh right. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Vice Chair. Clerk, please call for the vote. Commissioner Bordon, yes. Commissioner Rutherford, yes. Commissioner Hwatt, yes. Vice Chair Herb, yes. Commissioner King, yes. Chair Griffith, yes. That passes unanimously. Agenda item eight. Any action items commission? Any other business? Then we are adjourned. Thank you.