Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. I call to order this regular meeting of the Xolo Planning and Zoning Commission for Tuesday, April 28th, 2026. Roll call shows that all commissioners are present this evening.

Next, we'll have an have the invocation given by Commissioner Adams followed by the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner McGregor. If you'd like to join us, please stand. Our father in heaven, we're thankful for the opportunity we have to gather here this day and to be able to represent our community in our city. And as we proceed, we ask thy blessing upon us that we might be able to do the things that we need to do to benefit our citizens and help our community grow. We are thankful for the moisture that we have had and we if it be thy will, we ask that that would send more our way as our forests are in need. We're thankful for the many members of our community who serve, our teachers, our law enforcement officers, our first responders. We're thankful for their many sacrifices and we say these things name Christ. Amen.

Amen.

To the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The next item on the agenda is new business and item A under new business is public hearing and consideration of zone change request 605-3-125 submitted by Aspiritu Loi Incorporated to change the current zoning of the subject property from AR43X single family residential manufactured homes excluded 43,000 ft to PUD planned unit development on property identified as APN2 212-11-102A and I'll turn it over to Miss Selene for the staff summary report.

Thank you chairman and commissioners. Espiritu Loai Incorporated has submitted a zone change request to change the current zoning of the subject property from AR43X single family residential manufactured homes excluded 43,000 ft to PUD planned unit development on property identified as APN 212-11-102A. The subject property is on the southern portion of the recently approved preliminary plat of W's edge and is within the Xolo Lake master plan. The city council approved the master plan through ordinance 2010-03 on February 16th, 2010. The subject property was re recently annexed into the city of Xolo from Pinetop Lakeside. The preliminary plat for W's Edge was approved by city council on February 17th, 2026. Staff notified property owners within 300 ft of the subject property regarding this preliminary plat application and city council meeting date in accordance with condition 12 of ordinance 2010-03. W's Edge covers approximately 47.81 acres that en encompasses a total of 62 residential lots. The subject property contains 6 and a half of those residential lots. The minimum lot size is set to 10,000 square ft with an average size lot size specified as uh 0.55 acres, 23,958 ft. The plans for this development include private gated road access roads. All residences constructed will be sightuilt homes. The plan requires a dedication of public access trail and a 50-foot open space buffer along the western boundary. A zone change for this property will be required to allow the lot sizes indicated for this portion of the project as proposed as required by

city code for zone changes. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 23rd, 2026 and had zero attendance from the invited surrounding property owners. A conceptual layout of the property has been supplied by the applicant and is included in the packet for review. If approved, this property would become part of the Solo Lake PUD and would be subject to all conditions of approval as outlined in ordinance 2010-03. The finding of facts is Spiritu Loai Incorporated has submitted a zone change request to change the current zoning of the subject property from AR43X to PUB on property identified as APN212-11-102A. The subject property is the southern portion of the recently approved preliminary PRA plat of W's edge and is within the Xolo Lake planned development. The city council approved the master plan through ordinance 2010-03 on February 16th, 2010. City account city council approved the preliminary plat for W's edge on February 17th, 2026. It is it has a total of 62 residential lots. The subject property contains 6 and a half of those res residential lots. A zone change for this property is required to allow for the lot sizes indicated for this portion of the project as proposed as required by city code for zone changes. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting March 23rd, 2026 and had zero attendance from the invited surrounding property owners. If approved, this property would become part of the Xolo Lake PUD and would be subject to all conditions of approval outlined in ordinance 2010-3. The current zoning of the surrounding properties include north PUD planned unit development, South AR43X

single family residential manufactured homes excluded 43,000 ft² east Navajo County, West Navajo County. The current land uses of the surrounding properties include North W's Edge, South City of Xolo, East City of Xolo Lake, West Residential Navajo County. Transmittal memos were sent to all effective agencies. No applicable comments were received. Staff mailed letters to all property property owners within 300 ft of the property, posted the property, and published public notice in the newspaper in accordance with all uh applicable requirements. No comments regarding this request have been received since the mailing of these letters and the posting of the property. After reviewing the standards for review, findings of facts, discussions with the applicant, the city of Xolo plan, city of Xolo zoning and land ordinances, and the city of Xolo general plan staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the zone change request 605-03-125 submitted by Espiritu Loai Incorporated to change the current zoning of the subject property from AR43X to PUD. the subject property identified as 212-11-102A and forward this recommendation to the city council subject to the following conditions. All development shall comply with applicable f federal and state and local requirements. Development of the property shall comply with the conditions of approval outlined in ordinance 2010-03, including the 50oot uh buffer and public access trail. Staff, Director Trigasquez, and the applicant are available for questions.

Thank you, Miss Selene. I'll open it up to the commissioners for any questions for staff. Any questions for the applicant? This is a huge win, right? So, it was zoned to have manufacturers and it went to site build only. director, do you want to address that?

So, this specific uh portion of the development has um an interesting history. Let's just put it that way. It was included on the original master plan for this Xolo Lake PUD. And the portion uh this area was shown as like condos and uh with a very high density. I think approximately 150 condominiums plus additional houses as well. The subject property that we're discussing tonight, even though it was shown on the master plan for the uh Xolo Lake development, was not actually in the city limits. So, it was not subject to that ordinance 2010 that was approved by city council. Uh recently the uh owner of the prop the previous owner of the property they were able to coordinate with Pinetop Lakeside uh and had this property as well as the property directly to the south which is actually owned by the city of Xolo but was in the town of Pinetop Lakeside. Uh both of those properties were deanexed by uh the town of Pinetop Lakeside so that they could be annexed into the city of Xolo. Uh the whole purpose of that was so that this entire project would be under one jurisdiction and not under two. Uh we wouldn't want the police department saying, "Wait a minute, what lot are you? you need to call the other

police department or animal control or any other number of things.

Um so we appreciate Pinetop Lakeside working to get that taken care of. The um current developer of the property has basically said you know what was approved before that was too much and it's not what we want to do. and they have come back with instead of 150 condos and all the other things with a plat showing um 62 I think uh lots for the entire property. So that's a pretty big reduction. Uh they are um custom home lots. They will be custom homes. They're not going to be manufactured homes. Uh we're not going to see any like section 8 housing or anything like that. So from that perspective, um we believe that this is a much more compatible use with the area than what was originally proposed.

So real quick, so the only portion of this I'm looking at this slide and I don't know, but the only portion we're talking about is the southern parts 173. The rest of the plan is already that's that's already but we're just talking about this last little piece

but correct. So they have already submitted the preliminary plat which was approved by council that shows what you see here on the overhead with a lot more technical data. This is the userfriendly version. Um approval of that was contingent upon this zone change. If this zone change is not approved, they would have to reduce the total number of lots on that bottom tail by about two lots or so. But they also would not be held to the same standard of a 50-foot setback from the adjacent properties to the west or the public trail requirement. So, yeah, they're picking up two extra lots versus what they would get under the existing zoning, but the neighbors are getting a 50-foot setback. Um, that's a no build setback. So, they can't have a road in there. They can't have anything else other than the required public trail that was required as part of the ordinance.

Where's that public trail going to? So, at this location, the public trail is proposed along the west side. Um, in most places, it will go around just the shoreline of the lake, kind of hug that. However, in this location, there's some pretty steep topography that's right up against the lake. Uh, that's extremely rocky, which makes it very difficult to build a trail through that portion. So at this location, it was decided that in favor of practicality that that trail be moved to the west side versus the east side. Any other questions for staff or questions for the applicant? Since this is a zone change request, we will now open the public hearing uh portion of this zone change request um for this agenda item. So, if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on this agenda item, uh you may come to the podium uh and do so at this time. Just make sure you state your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing portion of this zone change request and bring it back to the commission for any further discussion or a motion.

Make a motion. Vice Chair Wilson,

I move to recommend approval of a zone change request 60503125 submitted by Espirito Loai Incorporated. I don't know if I said that wrong. um to change the current zoning of the subject property from AR43X single family residential manufactured homes excluded 43,000 square feet to PUB planned unit development on property identified as APN2121102A subject to staff recommendations and and forward this recommendation to the city council. I have a motion by Vice Chair Wilson. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Clark. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Seeing none, that passes unanimously. Uh, moving on to item B under new business, consideration of conditional use permit 602-04-281 submitted by David Owens to allow for shipping containers on property identified as APN210-16-004-047-170B.

Commissioner Whipple.

Yes, Commissioner to declare a conflict of interest here. The applicant is a cousin and the subject property is also within 300 feet of my mother's house. I will excuse myself. Thank you, Commissioner Whipple. I'll turn it over to uh Miss Selene for the staff summary report. Uh thank you, chairman, commissioners. Uh David Owens has submitted a conditional use permit application to allow shipping containers on properties identified as APN's 21-16-044-047-170B. The subject properties are within the downtown commercial zone. There are a total of eight shipping containers on the subject properties. The city of Shello adopted ordinance 20 2003-03 on May 20th, 2023. I'm sorry, 20 2003. This ordinance updated uh existing zoning code and allowed property owners to place shipping containers on commercial property subject to the specific conditions. Uh currently, city code section 19.25.060H2 060H2 specifies that shipping containers located in commercial zoning districts must maintain a minimum of 100t distance from any ride ofway, have satis satisfactory screening, and receive a conditional use permit. Uh, a side note on this, I need to make a correction on the next sentence. After confirming with the applicant, it's uh 6 feet instead of uh 8 or I mean it's 8t instead of 6 feet. So to adhere to these recommendations, the applicant has proposed installing a wide 8- ft tall corrugated metal fence to provide suitable screening and has repositioned the shipping containers to achieve the

necessary minimum setback. A conceptual site plan has been included for review. The finding of facts. David Owens has submitted a conditional use permit to allow shipping containers on properties identified as APN's 2110-16-044-047-170B. The subject properties are within the downtown commercial zone. There are a total of eight shipping containers on the property subject properties. The owner has proposed a wide 8-ft tall corrugated metal fence for proper screening and the containers meet the required setbacks. The current zoning of the surrounding properties include north,southeast, and west downtown commercial. The current lands uses of the surrounding properties includes north city of Xolo library, south residential, east vacant commercial, city of Xolo, uh, west residential. Transmittal memos were sent to all effective agencies. No applicable comments were received. The property was posted and the letter and letters were sent to all property owners within 300 ft of the subject property. One general inquiry was received. After reviewing the standards for review, the findings of facts, discussions with the applicant, and the Xolo general plan staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission approve subject to the following conditions. The all development shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including compliance with section 19.25. 25.060H2 of city code. The containers shall be in uniform in color on all four sides. The containers shall not be used for public rent public rental or storage. Director Tradascus, staff and the applicant are available for questions.

Thank you, Miss Selene. I'll open up to the commission for any questions for staff. Wilson. Yeah, I guess I'm I know where this area is and I guess I'm a little confused on what the shipping containers are being used for if they're not storage. And

so the and and the applicant can can uh expand on this if needed. So the shipping containers are being used for storage, but it's by family members. Um the condition number three as recommended by staff uh would not prohibit the use of them by family members. It would just mean that they could not open a commercial mini storage facility on the property. And this is only commercial then or is this opening it up so people can in residential areas can then start putting shipping containers?

No. So the way the code is written, there's really three categories. Uh one is residentially zoned properties. Uh on a residentially zoned property, you can have a shipping container for up to 12 months in conjunction with a valid building permit. So let's just as an example, uh your basement floods and you need a place to put your furniture while you're fixing the drywall and getting new carpet. You could put a shipping container there to store those materials. Once either the 12 months is up or the building permit has been final out, whichever comes first, that shipping container would have to be removed. That's the only way a shipping container is allowed on residential property. In commercial properties, including downtown commercial, which is where this property is, uh shipping containers are allowed by conditional use permit. Uh minimum standards are they need to be at least 100 ft from any uh right ofway. So any street. Uh these containers are approximately 150 and 170 ft from the rights of way. so they meet those requirements and they need to have some type of uh screening around them so that when you're driving through the parking lot or whatever you don't see the exterior of the shipping container you see a fence or a wall or or some other similar type um facility. In this case we are asking um that the shipping containers be painted a uniform color. the um several sides of them have been painted a uniform color. You know, when you look at it from the street, you don't see, you know, a big blue or bright orange shipping container. Um they've been painted, however, on at least one side. They were not painted.

Uh that's the side that backs up right here to this solid block wall. And so the different colors of shipping containers are visible. Uh, and so we are recommending that that side be painted also just to match. All right. Thank you, Commissioner McGregor. Is this property located in the DC zone? It is. Yes.

Okay. So, I was reading through and I noticed where it talks about like property development standards in the code uh 196540. On item four, it talks specifically no metal setting, no metal sighting utilizing vertical seam shall be allowed. So in this district in the zoning, it specifically outlines we do not want that whatsoever, which would be the uh conx boxes or the shipping containers. And then it feels like the um fencing is the same material. So, we're we're covering the non-allowable material with the same material in as bright a white of a color as we can possibly do, which highlights and accentuates and pops.

So, um the requirement for the no metal sighting, that's for building design requirements. You can't have a giant metal warehouse in the downtown commercial.

Yeah. Um the requirement for screening um is meant to basically cover that up so you don't see the side of the shipping container. The city has recognized that metal panels are allowable as a fencing type material. We have it around some subdivisions. Uh we have some commercial businesses out in the auto mall. Um certainly the commission could uh discuss with the applicant and whether or not there is another u material that would be available for that.

So I have a question about that as well. So a a shipping container is large. Eight seems like a lot. I'm curious how that like what the necessity of eight shipping containers in our downtown pedestrian walking district is that necessary? Could it be approached another way or is this this is the only way we can do it? We have to grant a conditional use permit. We couldn't conform to the actual standards that the zone is designed is designed to have. And I would defer that one to the applicant. Yeah, it sounds like we've got maybe a couple questions for the applicant. Um, but if there's any other questions for staff,

this was also pre-existing. It's not granting that these are going to be able to be brought in. It's been pre-existing. They're here on site and we're just asking. I visited the site today and I was honestly pretty appalled that there's the eight shipping containers, there's abandoned um semi-trailers, there's um abandoned vehicles, a big white bus, and all of this is visible from every corner of all sides of it's outside our doors here. And so if we're going to be enforcing the code in in this downtown district, shouldn't it start here? If we're not going to enforce it here, do we just shrug our shoulders and say the codes don't apply? We just

Right. So, the reason they're here tonight is because we've been enforcing the codes. Um, they these shipping containers were placed on the property. Uh, I don't believe by the applicant that's here tonight. Um, however, they were placed there. Um, city staff then uh after some time initiated the enforcement proceedings. Essentially the option was remove the shipping containers or apply for a conditional use permit and the conditions of approval. So

uh I have an additional question for staff um on the fencing requirements. I was looking at the the little layout sketch that was provided and it looks like the only additional fence being required is one 60 ft section on the east side of the property. I think I'm looking at that the right way and a 40ft section on the west side of the subject property where the shipping containers are being are being located. Is that correct? because there's already a am I correct in understanding that there's already that block wall behind there and so the only additional fencing is just on the side of the shipping containers being proposed here.

Correct. So, uh this group of containers there already is a block wall um on the north side and on the east side. Uh they would need to put the fencing or the screening along the west side. The south side is where the doors are. So, there's not a whole lot you can do there, uh, and still have access. The other shipping container is located, it's kind of isolated over here. Um, this aerial photo is a little bit misleading. You can see that the, uh, red lines, those are the property lines. We know that they don't match up 100%. However, in this case, that shipping container was actually placed on the opposite side of the property line originally, which is what you see in this photo here. Uh, since this photo was taken, that container was moved and is now on the uh actually on the subject property, they would need to put a solid material fence along that east side. Um, generally when you have neighbors next to each other and one of them's putting up a fence, uh, the two neighbors kind of work together to see if they can get that taken care of. And, uh, if approved, the city would actually like to, you know, discuss with Mr. Owens. Uh, because we do plan on putting a fence along our property line. It doesn't make sense to have two fences right next to each other. you know, I think we could probably cooperate and share a little bit of cost for both of us on that. So, um, we didn't make that a condition. Um, but we would like to be able to have that conversation with him in the future. Any other questions for staff at this point? If the applicant would come forward, it sounds like there's a couple questions for the applicant. If you just come to the microphone and set your name and

address for the record, please.

Sure. I'm David Owens. Uh 980 East Huning here in Xolo. I was born and raised here. This has been the family property ever since I was a kid. And I inherited this property and the containers were on the property when I inherited it. uh the one that was on the the wrong side of the property was placed uh where the original survey was. So it wasn't illegal at the time, but then there was a new survey which showed that it was not on the right property. And so we had that moved. And also uh the screening material would not be a corrugated metal. It would be a white flat metal. So it wouldn't be wouldn't be um it would look better.

And is it paint? So it's white metal. It's painted white. Yes. Uh any are there any other options that we we have? So, are there any other options for what this storage I understand it's family storage, so it's not necessarily there's a residence on the property, there's a business on the property, there's the shipping containers, and then a variety of salvage yard items is what it looks like. Is the intention to maintain

just family storage on there forever? That's the intention, but I plan on taking these vehicles that are not being used out of there. Uh there's one van that's there that I have no idea who it belongs to. I would like I'm planning on getting that out. It's the school bus needs to get out. Uh there is a an a train car. If somebody wants train car, there's a train car that's been there since since I was a kid, but uh I would like to get it cleaned up. Yes.

Is there an option for instead of So why shipping containers versus on-site storage that is site built or um tough sheds of a varieties? Like I'm not sure what's in the contents of the eight units. Um could it be done another way? that was the the best way for us to do it. In fact, they're they don't belong to me. They're my brothers, but he's not in town. Uh but that was uh they were placed there when my mother was alive and she allowed that to to happen and and that's where they are and that's what they're being used for. So, for family storage. Okay,

Vice Chair Wilson, I just want to say thank you for working to clean up the property. I go to that little store right there a lot and I have seen some of those vehicles that were broken down and and I'm I just thank you for cleaning it up. Well, I'm sorry I'm slow. I

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Uh, next I'll open it up to the public. If there's anyone from the public who has um a comment on this agenda item, you could come forward and do so at this time. Uh, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for any further discussion or a motion. I have some thoughts. I'd love to hear anybody else's.

So, in reviewing in reviewing the application and reviewing the code and reviewing everything that we're looking at here, this clearly does not meet the city plan. It doesn't meet the goals or objectives that are stated. Um, we could do the 8-oot screening. I think you're covering that. That seems so pointless to me to cover up the metal with the metal. It could be done. And I think that's the point. It could be granted. should it be granted? This is our downtown district. Like this is being revitalized. The property values are being maintained. In my line of work, I know that ConX storage boxes are the lowest value you can possibly add to a property. And so preserving that value is what we're here to do. That's why the code exists. This doesn't if even if it was a warehouse that the code allows for, it'd have to be in a fully contained building, not in a storage box. So, I absolutely appreciate the efforts and I think that we need to keep going in that direction. That momentum has to move. And I don't think like, well, this has got to be done in 30 days or else there's no deal. But this has to be cleaned up. This is clearly there's over 15 violations on this one property alone. By granting this use permit, we're in essence saying we're good with this. We'll we there's it doesn't expire within a year. I thought it expired within a year. It runs with the land. So, we've been dealing with and working on getting this cleaned up for 20 years while this code has been in place. I don't where do we go from here? We have to start moving in the right direction if we're going to uphold codes whatsoever. My thoughts Any other thoughts from the commission member? Commissioner Adams.

Yeah. U couple of thoughts. Uh certainly appreciate Commissioner McGregor's thoughts on the matter and I don't disagree on on every point. Um just a couple of thoughts. Uh the first is uh we are here to make sure that we are enforcing the city code. We're not responsible for making city code. And so from what we heard from staff, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, this actually meets the criteria for city code based on different criteria and adding the fence. So that's what we're here to discuss as opposed to whether it looks good. And I I get that it could look better. And so I I appreciate the comments there. Um and so that we're really here to determine whether or not they're following the rules and um to make sure that that that happens. So, I just kind of wanted to clarify that's my interpretation of what we're here and what the actual issue is.

Any other thoughts from the commissioners? So, could staff address that? So, so if if this is not granted, the code stays as it is and the shipping containers must be removed and the property is brought into compliance. Um, yeah, that's fair statement. Um, if this conditional use permit is not granted, then they will have to remove the shipping containers from the property. So, a conditional use permit can be granted on any property, any parcel for almost any purpose. And so, almost any property could meet these standards. My home could meet the standards of allowing a shipping container with a certain fence. Like, all show applicants could.

So, this one can't because it's in the downtown district. So, so again there there's three there's three categories, right? There's residential, there's commercial, and there's industrial. Uh residential, again, the only way a shipping container is allowed in residential is in conjunction with a valid building permit and for a maximum of 12 months. That's the flooded basement scenario, right?

Um you cannot just put a shipping container on a residential piece. In fact, we've been enforcing that fairly actively on quite a few. Um, it's amazing how quickly these show up on the commercial. The way our code is written, uh, there's no distinction between downtown commercial. We have we have three commercial zoning districts. We have downtown commercial, we have C1, which is neighborhood commercial, and we have C2, which is our general commercial. Uh there is no distinction between those three to say that you can have a shipping container in one of them but not in the other two. For example, uh the wording that you referenced as far as metal buildings that exists in all of our commercial zones almost exactly word for word in the three different. So um understand there's a little bit of a conflict there. We do not in our code, and this may be something that we want to address in the future, we don't say on a commercial piece of property, you can only have one shipping container or you can have two shipping containers. We don't say you can have any limit. Theoretically, I would say this is the first time we've run into somebody who's put in eight. Um, typically changes to code are in response to situations that arise. Um so in this case it is zoned commercial. Um we allow the shipping containers in the commercial zone through a conditional use permit. The commission can put conditions on uh the approval provided they are um tied to and reasonable. Uh for example, you can't tell somebody they got to put a solid gold elk statue in the front yard. It doesn't tie to anything. It might

look nice, right? Um it might become a very big tourist attraction and a uh a thievery situation. Um but you know any condition you have to be able to say this is the logical tie to that. Um so in in response to the questions, yeah, this is not a situation we've had before. Um, but based on the requirements of code, they show that they meet the minimum requirements. Do we maybe need to look at changing code? Possibly.

I agree. And that I I will not argue that the minimum requirements are there. Can we grant the permit? 100% we could. Should we? I think that's the question that if we don't, they must be removed per the code that exists currently. So, we are in effect by granting this shrugging our shoulders at the code.

I wouldn't say we're shrugging our shoulders because they are showing that they comply with it. Um, I think shrugging the shoulders of the code would be saying they're there and we're not going to do anything about it. Um, they've been served a notice of violation. the uh violation is currently stayed because of these proceedings. If the commission elects to not approve this, uh you would need to state the reason why for denial. Um and then we would have to move forward with enforcing the removal of these shipping containers. So, does the city believe that this cup um meets the city's plan overall in the in the future?

Um I believe it meets the code. Can the code be strengthened to uh perhaps um address some of these concerns? I believe so. Um we have to be careful that we don't just impose our own will on something. Um we have to show that the code works both ways. Uh if you're follow it's like a stop sign. If I stop at a stop sign completely and look both ways and then go, I can't get pulled over for running a stop sign. Um, if I choose to run the stop sign, then that protection goes away. Uh, so the code works both ways for property owners. If they're complying with it, then it it it's a protection form. We can't just walk in and say, "You can't do that." Um, if they're not following the code, then yes, we can we can go and enforce that. Right now, they are electing to apply for the conditional use permit, which is an option under the code. Uh again, if it's not approved, then they don't have that protection and we move forward with the enforcement.

If I may, just to reference, on page 58 of 87 of the packet has the standards of review, excuse me, on page 58 of 87 of your packet, it has the standards of review for the conditional use permits, the 19.200050. So that sets out the standards of review. It does talking about there being consistency with the general plan. Um, but it also if you find that it doesn't meet the requirements, it would be based on this criteria that you would utilize for the basis of of voting against the conditional use permit.

And and that would be my exact argument is that in section A where it says it conforms to the general plan, I disagree that it does. I don't see how shipping containers and abandoned semi-trailers can form that you can see from up on the church from down on Huning from every angle of this property. I don't see how that conforms to our general plan. So for me it's super clear. Do you have a comment? Um if you don't want to

you go ahead. Uh I have a quick question for staff on uh the fence height uh requirement of 8 ft that's in the staff recommendations. Is that consistent with the height of that block wall or was there some other reasoning for the 8ft height requirement?

So the 8 foot height requirement is actually what was proposed by the applicant. Uh they are required to screen the block wall kind of steps down along there. In some places it's pretty tall. In other places it's a little bit shorter than what these shipping containers are. Um again code for uh fences and walls. This was a change that we had made a little while back. I thought I remembered something about that.

It was one of those things that seemed counterintuitive. So in a commercial zone we would allow a six foot tall fence with two feet of barb wire on top. That was a permitted use previously. If uh somebody wanted to just do an 8- foot tall fence or wall, they had to come to the planning and zoning commission to get approval for that. We felt that was backwards. Um fences with barb wire on top are not nearly as uh I guess visually unobtrusive as just a solid 8 foot tall. So, we flipped that. uh an 8 foot tall fence or wall is now considered a permitted use in commercial zones. If you want barb wire, you have to come to to the planning and zoning commission. Great. Thank you, director, for the clarification on that. I knew we had talked about 6' 8ft fences, so but I just couldn't remember exactly the details. Uh some of my sorry some of my thoughts on uh this agenda item are definitely that shipping containers on this part of the property and kind of the downtown commercial central area of Xolo is not my uh wouldn't be my first choice of what I'd like to see on this property. Um but at the same time it's I don't own this property and I don't get to uh make that choice. Um, you know, I do think that when things come before the commission, uh, through the conditional use permit process, we do kind of get to look at what's being proposed in the the context of the surrounding area. And I want to be respectful of all the investment that the city of Xolo has put in, is continuing to put in um in this area with the, you know, uh parking improvements, access improvements, um sidewalk improvements, um along most recently along 11th there. and you know

as part of that and I so I really appreciate the the city of Xolo for all the effort that they're putting in and the taxpayer money that they're spending on that and the effort that they're putting in to find grants and um other funding sources uh for those improvements. I think they're great for the city. Um, so I I want to be mindful of of that issue and and the investment that the particularly the city of Xolo in this case since they're the neighboring property owner has put in um and is continuing to put in when we're we're thinking about this agenda item. Um so as as part of that um I think kind of the fencing is a little bit in question to me. Um, when I look at what the schematic is for only including uh 60 ft of fencing on um on that east side um where that kind of current construction and the city's doing some improvements over there uh toward 11th Street, I would like to see um that fence be extended um at least through that northern property. And I know not everyone has the benefit of a map in front of them, but it's um the Thank you, director. Yes, that whole length of property there. Uh just to help screen kind of from the angle of being able to see kind of along 11 Street, the angle of the shipping containers and try to screen a little bit of the front of them. Um, so I'd like to see that as um kind of an altered condition from uh what the city's uh recommended conditions are to to extend that fence down. You know, in my opinion, it doesn't necessarily need to go all the way down to to Huning there. Uh but just across that um property that the the shipping container uh abuts. Um my thoughts also on the fencing are regarding the color of the fencing. I don't necessarily dislike the idea of uh white, but I think that over time as if that paint chips and starts to rust from

a long-term perspective, I'm nervous about how that's going to look. I would prefer a more neutral earth tone color or even kind of like those I know they have them over it on like Eagle Mountain area. There's some of those kind of uh bare metal rusted fences that I think blend into the surroundings a little bit more. And so I'd be interested in the applicant's perspective on flexibility on color for the fence. Um because I think having something that that blends in a little bit more uh may be helpful in this area. And those are kind of my general thoughts on that. But Wilson, yeah, cut you off so many times. So

yeah, no, it's okay. I also had some thoughts on this. And while I I like Commissioner Adams, I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said, Commissioner McGregor, but I also want to look at the fact that we have a gentleman here who did not place these these containers on the property. He inherited the property and um he's he's now been contacted, you know, saying there's violations. And then our planning and zoning has looked at the standards for review, the findings of fact, had discussions with him. um looked at the Xolo general plan and they're recommending, you know, how this can be fixed. If we were to not approve this, are we placing an undue burden of a financial burden on this gentleman who has to then remove these, you know, containers? He's already said, "Look, I'm going to remove the the other vehicles that are abandoned in the bus and things like that." He's working with the city to clean this up. And so, you know, that's the other side of the coin. I just don't know if if we're placing a burden on him by not approving this either when he's cooperating with the city. That's just my two thoughts.

Any other thoughts from uh commission members? Commissioner Schnef. So, what's the current fencing along the north side right here? And then I guess it'd be the east side of the the six or seven and then jocks back down next to the parking lot. Is it block fence there? So anywhere adjacent to the city property, it is a block wall. Yes. So that would be along the north side, the east side, and again along the north side there. East side. How high is that? Is it enough to cover that? Like cover the conx or is it

uh there's probably about a foot of the conx that sticks up above the block. Again, that was the reason for the consistent color. It's a nice blue, I think, right now.

Any other uh comments from the commission? I guess my other question would be go back to what Intensio said reference that is there is there a plan like when you go back to that is it says that like to conform to the general plan I know what we want in downtown but is there a plan that says this is what we're looking to do this what we want this is this cuz if he's meeting all the requirements that's set forth by the city currently then I don't see how I mean whether whether we like it or not he's meeting all the rights he's doing everything the city has said he's supposed to do. So, if if we don't like it, then we got to change the code. But tonight, he's before us and he's meeting all of the codes that are currently on the books and he's meeting everything. So, I guess that's where I'm at is he he's the land owner. He's meeting like he's doing everything the city's asked. The codes are on the books and if we don't like it, then the coach should have been changed ahead of time. And that's not where we're at. We're we're at the point where he's doing everything the city's asked. And is there actually a plan like, hey, this is the downtown. Here's the plan that the city has. Well, to to not approve it, there has to be some type of plan that we're not adopting to or that he's not adhering to. So,

so he's not really meeting the code. He's not meeting the code. He's here to get a conditional use permit so that he does he will then comply with the code. So the property that he inherited doesn't does not meet the code because it doesn't it didn't get a conditional use permit prior to the placement of the shipping containers. He is trying to rectify the situation by coming into compliance by getting a conditional use permit and adhering to what the city is requesting in order to get that conditional use permit. But he is in violation right now. Okay. And is it because he didn't previously get a condition? The property owner at the time did not get a conditional use permit when the shipping containers were placed.

Commissioner McGregor. And and maybe I'm misunderstanding. So the the code doesn't allow for the shipping containers. It's the special use permit that allows for the shipping containers. It doesn't default. They're it's not just supposed to be placed there. And I see that it's landscaping and it's um technically the check boxes are for a variance of or a for the special use permit. The check boxes have been met. Technically, we can grant it, but by doing so, it's creating something different than the intended use of this property as it's written in our city code currently. It can be granted.

Containers are not permitted uses, correct? in the zone. That's why you're allowed to get a conditional use permit to allow you to have them. And I think I would just add that, you know, the shipping containers are part of city code in the downtown commercial area subject to a conditional use permit. So all that is encompassed under city code. There's just different processes that allow that use.

Yeah. Mr. chair. So, in any zoning district, there's what we call a permitted use, right? Um permitted use is something that you come in, you get a building permit or a business permit, and you're off and running. Uh some examples of those in the downtown commercial zone, somebody wanted to open an art gallery, a candy shop, a florist. I mean, those are some of the things that we have listed. Um then there's things that we call a conditional use. And and the purpose of a conditional use is, you know, these are things that we feel need a little bit more attention. Um perhaps there might be some concerns that the neighbors might have. Um perhaps there might be some things that can be done to make them more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. in the downtown commercial. Some of those examples are a daycare center, uh hotel or motel, uh music studio, nursing home, uh and then not specifically listed here, but in the general provisions would be shipping containers as well. So um typically the the intent of a conditional use permit is are there things that can be done so that that use can be accomplished. I'll give an example. We had uh this was a number of years ago a restaurant that was opening that had a bar attached to it and the bar was going to be open a little bit later than what the restaurant was. Um, it required a conditional use permit. It was adj adjacent to residentially zoned property. The neighbors were concerned that the bar would have uh outdoor music late at night and that would keep them from being able to sleep. The owner of

the property, the owner of the restaurant stipulated that no, we will not have any outdoor music at this facility, therefore alleviating the concern of the neighbors. So if there are ways to accomplish to say yes, we can do it. Um that's where the conditions come in. You know, the conditions of we think you'd be compatible, but we need to see A, B, and C. So it gives it gives the commission a little bit more latitude than if it was a straight permitted use.

Any other comments from the commission? I am interested uh Mr. Owens uh in your perspective on the color of the fence and why white was chosen and what your perspective how what your amendability is to alternative colors. Yeah. Come up to the microphone just so that picks up.

The white is the permanent permanent white. It's like the color of your car. It's It's permanent. If you want to color it over, you can color it over. That's the color. It's a permanent white that's on the the screening. Okay. Uh may I comment on on the use of the property? For sure. Yes.

Uh no, I this isn't a permanent state. I don't plan on leaving those containers there permanently. It's not It doesn't enhance the value of the property. I don't want to do that. It's just that they're there now and I can't remove them right now. U I just I will do it when the when the time is right and when I'm able to. But for the time being, that's that's the way it is. Yeah. I just um just from my perspective, I'm not in love with the white fence idea and would prefer it to be painted a different color.

Sure. Um and so I think my suggested condition will reflect that. And so I just want you to be aware of that. Sure. And I'd be glad to work with the city to do whatever needs to be done there. Right. Mr. Owen, you said that you you don't want to leave them there. Do you have a time frame when you're I don't I a year, five years.

I have so many things going. I don't I I don't have a time frame. It's not top of my list right now. But I would like to I mean the property property value would increase if they were not on there. And so I do plan in time getting rid of them. May I ask a Commissioner McGregor? Um, are there any plans to remove the abandoned semi-trailers also being used as site storage? President,

I'm going to get rid of everything that is not of use right now. That's the everything the the bus, the van, and I would like to get rid of the the semi-trailers, too. I don't have a time period.

I guess that's my is there a realistic solution that you have in mind? So to me there's there's a lot of flaws in in the way that this is um submitted right now. there are some ways that we can kind of work through and I think if we were allowed to grant that permit temporarily for a certain amount of time to allow you to get things in into compliance but just an open maybe someday we'll get to it is is 12 months realistic is 24 months realistic like what what could so and if I'm understanding correctly if we don't grant it they do need to be removed moved pretty quickly. So, what is the plan for compliance at that point if it's not granted?

Removing what? What? The semi-trailers or the Well, I'm not sure or what? Technically, I think we're only discussing the shipping containers. I bring it up because visiting it on site, that's what that's what I the the shipping containers were actually pretty minimal in comparison to the massive um that green and yellow all over the whole block that you can see on that huge white abandoned um semi-tra.

So, and and 8 ft fence would not cover. It's a little so my concern is is as a whole what is the plan for conforming to the surrounding use. I think we do want to work with you and everyone is inclined to do so but we also can't just leave it open to well someday we'll we'll see you know well there's a limit to what I can do. I get that I'll I'll do as much as I can. Okay. Any other comments from the commission?

Commissioner Adams? Yeah. Can I ask another uh question from staff, I guess, just for clarification. Um, I'm under the impression, and it was my logic that uh a fence puts the applicant in uh compliance with the city code. That was sort of my thought process and my mentality. this is that accurate or is that not so much a true fact as the uh CP does?

So the two require well the three requirements for shipping containers uh in this situation one it has to be located in a commercial zone which this is. Uh the second would be that they need to be at least 100 ft from the road which these are. Uh the third would be that they are adequately screened. Um which has been a uh point of discussion this evening. Um and those are the three criteria that they would need to meet in order to be eligible for a conditional use permit. So yes, if we put in the fence, then they they got the third

they they would meet the underlying requirements. Yes. If there's not any other comments from the commission, uh I will go ahead and make a motion and we can have any discussion on the motion uh to see what folks thoughts are on that. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Owens. You can have a seat. Um, I move to approve CUP 602-04-281 submitted by David Owens to allow for shipping containers on properties identified as APN210-16-044-047 and 170B subject to staff recommendations um with a modification on staff recommendation number two um that the uniform color be a neutral or natural color and that all shipping containers be painted the same color. uh an additional condition that the screening fence on the east side of the property uh be extended to encompass the entire western boundary of APN210-16-048D and the fence color be painted a natural or neutral And that is my motion.

I'd like to amend it if we can. Am I allowed to amend or um so you can have discussion at this point?

The motion maker is who can amend the motion. Uh otherwise you would either need a second enabled to in order to vote for the motion uh or if there is no second then the motion would die and it would come back for a new motion and a new second and and a vote. Commissioner McGregor, if I added a item on my motion that this commission revisit this item in 3 years. Not that not necessarily an expiration on it cuz I just I want to make sure that it's not on the uh applicant to come back in 3 years. that it would be on city staff to put this back on a rotation in 3 years to reconsider the conditional use permit to uh you know revisit if there's any issues with the screening that's been put up if they're in compliance with the uh conditions that are part of that would that be amendable to you

I think 12 months would be fairly reasonable um I I do understand that it seems to be the impression that they're well within their rights to use this land exactly this way and they would be should we grant this but the way it's um default set this isn't the the use that the city has designed. So I agree with you that receding color has to be there. You have to use like a a go away green or something that doesn't catch the eye because right now it is a downtown eyesore. Completely agree with that. I think we'd have to have a timeline. Why couldn't we revisit and and review it every 12 months to ensure compliance is taking place? While I appreciate I really hope to move the containers at some point. That's not really what the code's designed to do. We do have to seize steps forward and three years is an extraordinary amount of time. Although I realize it took years and years and years and years to do this and this was not overnight. We still have to put the momentum in the right direction and for this property the removing of those code violations by just granting this without any kind of deadline. I mean even with the three-year deadline without without that deadline and having it run with the land. Um, like I know what that means in real estate and that is not a wise choice on behalf of what this it means the ability to have the permit, not necessarily that we should do that. That's why we're here to council about it.

12 months. Any other thoughts on the time frame? I I you know, the applicant said he's going to do this when he can, that he's got a lot of things going. I just don't know that 12 months is long enough time for him to to do that. Um it Well, and are you saying 12 months to remove the containers or 12 months?

Well, I'm saying we revisit and talk about it in 12 months. He's obviously going to put toward effort, but I mean, if it when timelines are in place, things tend to get done. If 12 months from now we move forward and nothing has been done, nothing has moved, and we're looking at exactly the same salvage yard that we're looking at today, I think we need to consider that as a council, we're making him pay for a fence that's going to surround this property that he wouldn't need if he didn't have the containers. I believe the city is contributing to and and so I I'm not sure that the fence is too

like I do understand the fence long term and I don't think we have to put necessarily a super short timeline on the fence. The fence isn't my concern and even like covering up the shipping container isn't my concern. The removal of the debris, the cleaning up of the area, the shipping containers should not be there. I realize it's hard to move them. We have to see some kind of progress. If in 12 months there's no progress, should we just grant this for a decade? You know, uh do you mind if I ask a question for staff on the transferability of the conditional use permit? Does it transfer with the property if it's sold? Uh generally they do unless a specific condition is put on saying that it is not transferable which the commission has done in the past on uh several conditional use permits.

It says it runs with the land currently but we can amend that. And I I'm very much fine to amend my motion to add a nontranserability clause um so that this only runs with the current property owner.

Any discussion on the revisiting? Is that something the commission's interested in? Is there an time frame? Obviously, we know Miss McGregor's perspective and um Bisher Wilson's also weighed in on that. Any other thoughts on that? The time frame time frame for that.

So, the fence would need to be put up. I We didn't spell out a specific time frame, but it would have to be put up fairly quickly. I mean, I would think 30 days. uh the fence along the east side if that's something where he's going to cooperate with the city and we're going to cooperate with him that timeline's going to have to kind of reflect that. You know, we may not be ready to do our part of that fence for a little bit of time. Um, so if uh if if that's what's going to take place is we're going to partner with him, then we probably need a little bit of time to fl to work that out. Uh it could be something where either he puts it up within a certain period of time or there's an agreement in place with the city to cooperate with it within a period of time. is at a minimum that piece for me is to come into compiance with that additional use. So because you said there's three things he's got to block he's got and he's already met two he's got to meet the third which is to block the view which so that one's got to be I think the timeline needs to be put on that

to agree upon like meeting with the city and come to an agreement so we know that's moving forward and then the other clean up side that's a little different but I think compiance with this additional use I think that's

okay uh so I will what's the process for officially amending my motion I believe you can just state that uh you you can either withdraw your motion and state a new motion or you can say I will amend my motion um with the following. It might be cleaner just to withdraw and make a new motion.

I will withdraw my motion and I will make a uh new motion. Uh, I move to approve CUP 602-04-281 submitted by David Owens to allow shipping containers on properties identified as APN's 210-16-044-047 and -170B subject to staff recommendations um with the addition of an adjustment to staff recommendation recommended condition number two uh that all the shipping containers be painted a uniform neutral or natural color on all four sides and all shipping containers be painted the same color. uh an additional uh condition that the fencing along the east side of the property be extended um to encompass the entire western boundary of APN210-16-048D that the fence uh color will be a neutral or natural uh color not white. Uh an additional condition that this uh conditional use permit is not transferable to other property owners if the property is sold and that the commission will re have this put on the schedule to revisit in uh 3 years and that the fence uh needs to be erected uh within uh 60 days. um with the exception that upon agreement and discussions with uh city of Xolo staff, the timeline on the

eastern fence can be extended uh based on a mutual partnership with the city of Xolo regarding future plan development on uh parcels to uh the east of the subject property. Is there a second? I have a second by Vice Chair Wilson. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed. One opposition from Commissioner McGregor. Uh but that passes uh six 5 to one. Apologies. 5 to one. Um one uh conflict. Uh Director Trigasquez.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. As with any conditional use permit, there is a 7-day appeal period. If no appeal is received by the city clerk from a qualified individual, this will become effective. Thank you, director. Let me find my agenda. Uh, next item on the agenda is called to the public. If there's any citizen wishing to speak on a matter within the jurisdiction of the planning and zoning commission that's not on the agenda this evening, uh, you may do so at this time. Seeing none, we'll move on to approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? He's got his hand raised. Oh, can I say something about this?

No, the call to the public is only for uh not related to the items on the agenda. Uh next up on the agenda is approval of minutes. Do I have a motion on the approval of the minutes from the planning and zoning commission regular meeting of Tuesday, February the 10th, 2026? I have a motion by Commissioner Adams. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Clark. All those in favor say I. I. And that passes unanimously. Uh moving on to item eight, summary of current events. And we will begin with Commissioner McGregor.

So, uh current events right now the um the high school is putting on a fantastic musical that the kids have worked so hard. And when I say they've spent hours and months putting it together and putting together an incredible show, I really do mean that. If you guys haven't been able to see it, it's The Prince of Egypt. They're continuing this Thursday, Friday, and Saturday with two shows. Our community needs support. Miss Whipple has been fantastic in in getting these kids to where they are, and they just put on a phenomenal show. So, if you haven't seen it, go see it. Everybody, go see it. It's awesome. Ditto. Ditto.

I got nothing. No, summer's time is coming. So, it's kids. I think my wife said 12 days 12 and a half days left of till summer. So, the kids will be out and we'll see what that brings. So, but that also brings uh all the traffic and all the things out of the valley up here. So, just be safe. So, uh yeah, like to echo uh Commissioner McGregor's comments about the musical. Go and support him. It's great. Um and it's a beautiful day in show.

Somebody had to say that. Um, I want to thank the people who came to watch some of you that I haven't seen in a while. It's so nice to have you in person and those online. Also, if you didn't get to attend the Arizona Business Expo that the city put on um on last Friday and Saturday, it was amazing. I'm still waiting for them to call me to say that I won, you know, one of those baskets. But if you didn't get to go, go next year because it really is great. You get to meet a lot of business owners and see what they do. It's a wonderful event.

And I'll just echo uh Commissioner Clark's uh point to just uh enjoy these last few days before uh uh summer starts. I guess you can enjoy the last few days that we can still turn left onto the highway. Director Tasquez, I have no report. Thank you, director. Uh seeing no other items on the agenda for this evening, I will adjourn us. Heat. Heat.