Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I call to order this regular meeting of the Show Low Planning and Zoning Commission for Tuesday, August the 25th, 2026. Roll call shows that all commissioners except for Commissioner Schneff and Clark are present this evening, so we do have a quorum. Next item is the invocation, which will be given by Chairman Barlow, followed by the pledge by Vice Chair Wilson. If you'd like to join us, please stand. Lord God, we just thank you for the opportunity that we have to gather together here to make decisions for this community that we get to be a part of. We thank you for the blessing of this place that we get to live, and we thank you for the rain that we have gotten recently, and we just ask that you would continue to bless us with that. We just... I ask that you would give us wisdom in the decisions and the discussion that we have tonight. In the name of Jesus, we pray.

Amen. If you'll join me 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.

The next item on the agenda is new business. And first item under new business is item A, consideration of conditional use permit 602-04-283, submitted by Calvin Clines to allow for a shipping container on property located at 1180 East Owens, identified as APN 210-16-089. And I will turn it over to Director Tregaskis for the staff summary report.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to recognize Planner Saline was originally to present this. However, we've got some issues with our exterior doors. To sum it up, they don't work. And so to help avoid confusion and to help address open meeting law, we've asked her to stay outside to direct people to the doors that are functioning. So I'll be able to answer your questions and I'll also be presenting the staff report. A little bit of background on this. Calvin Klein has submitted a conditional use permit or CUP application to allow for a shipping container located at 1180 East Owens, identified as APN 210-16089. The applicant's property is located within the C1 or neighborhood commercial zone. City Code Section 19.25.060H2 specifies that shipping containers located in a commercial zoning district must maintain a minimum 100-foot distance from any right-of-way, have satisfactory screening, and receive a conditional use permit. To adhere to these requirements, the applicant has proposed installing wood siding or similar material subject to the Commission's approval to provide suitable screening. The shipping container is approximately 101 feet from the public roadway, which meets the necessary minimum setback. A site plan and four separate treatment options have been included for review. According to Title 19.20.070, the Commission may approve this conditional use permit in accordance with staff's recommendation or approve this conditional use permit and amend the conditions of approval. Alternatively, the Commission may deny this conditional use permit. However, they must specify the reason for denial as part of their motion. Findings of factor as follows. Calvin Clines has submitted a conditional use permit application to allow for a shipping container located at 1180 East Owens, identified as APN 210-16089. The subject property is in the neighborhood commercial zone. City code section 19.25.060H2 states that shipping containers in commercial zones require a minimum 100 foot distance from any right of way, have satisfactory screening, and receive a conditional use permit. The owner has proposed wood siding or similar material for proper screening. The container is approximately 101 feet from the right of way and meets the required setback. The current zoning of the surrounding properties includes on all sides, C1 or neighborhood commercial, The current land uses of the surrounding properties includes on all sides residential. Transmittal memos were sent to all affected agencies. No applicable comments were received. And the property was posted and letters were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and no comments were received. After reviewing the standards for review, the findings of fact, discussions with the applicant and the SHOLO general plan, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve conditional use permit 60204283 submitted by Calvin Clines to allow for a shipping container on property located at 1180 East Owens, identified as APN 21016089, subject to the following conditions. Number one, all development shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. including compliance with Section 19.25.060H2 of City Code, and the screening shall be maintained and kept in good repair. With that, staff as well as the applicant are available for questions.

Thank you, Director Tregaskis. I'll open it up to the Commission for any questions for staff.

Commissioner Adams. So just to clarify that this container's been there for 22 years? Is that what we're seeing?

Been there for a very substantial period of time.

Okay. Another question.

So the screening, is it going to be attached to the container or are we talking about fence screening?

So the screening as proposed by the applicant, we did present those options here on the slides. They're also included in the material presented to the commission. You can see four different options. Screening option number one looks like it consists of perhaps like some two-by-sixes or something running around the perimeter of the container on a horizontal plane. Screening option two is very similar, only instead of horizontal, they're vertical, almost like a fence picket all around the perimeter. Screening option four, it appears that they have some wood around both the base as well as the top of the shipping container, with the center of the shipping container exposed and painted kind of a flat black color. And then screening option four really kind of just looks like a straight wood wall, even has maybe some dormer-type false windows along the side there. So those are the four options that were presented by the applicant. Those are not the only options. If the commission feels that there's something else that would be more suitable, or they could go with one of these four options.

Any other questions for staff?

Possibly. So... In just reviewing the general plan, there's three land use goals that we have. And I understand under the application here, one of those is used that this would be improving visual standards and enforcing, oh, sorry, it's reuse of old buildings is what the application says. But it seems directly misaligned with our other stated goals for the city plan. It says the principles of our general plan should coordinate rather than conflict with the aims of the others. So does it seem like we should be approving something so directly in conflict with the other stated goals of the general city plan?

So when you're looking at the different provisions of the general plan, it's not very often that every single project aligns with every single portion of the general plan. There are bits and pieces that it seems to align with, Sometimes it's a little more of a stretch than others when we're saying it aligns with the general plan. What you see in the staff report are the things that would support the commission in making a decision to approve this. There could be other portions of the general plan that if the commission felt did not support the application, you could certainly cite that in the motion if you were going to deny the request.

So to clarify, is it just the application that said that this was the reuse of old buildings or is that staff's belief as well? That's what we're...

So the building has been there for a while. They're going to be touching it up, making it look better. So we do believe that it would fall under that description.

Okay.

And then what about, I mean, yeah. So this is just used for personal storage?

I would defer that to the applicant.

Okay. Could we...

Yes, it's just personal storage. So, yeah, go ahead.

Let's just finish up. Any other questions for staff? And then we can get the applicant up here just so we get everything on the record and the microphone and make Katie's job easier. I do have a quick question for staff. Did the shipping container just happen to be 101 feet from the roadway, or did the applicant... Did you request the applicant move it so that it met that 100-foot setback?

So there is a little bit of history here as far as the container kind of being shifted around. I think it's really more of a fortuitous event that it happened to meet that 100-foot setback. I don't know that it was specifically moved to the location it is with that in anticipation. But again, the applicant could clarify that a little bit better.

Great. Thank you. No other questions for staff will if the applicant could come forward And if you can just state your name and address for the record and then I'll turn it over to Commissioner McGregor My name is Calvin clients.

I live at 1180 East Owens Street in Cholo So the it's just for personal storage and it's about a it's a 20-foot storage container is that right?

That's 40.

It's a 40-foot And so I guess my question would be other residents in the city of Show Low, when they need private storage, they use the commercial storage facilities. Why would we want to approve this when we're asking everybody else to store their things offsite?

Last time I looked at storing it offsite, there was no storage available.

Okay.

And I would rather keep it on my personal property where I can get to it.

Okay.

Is there anything preventing you from building an actual storage, so like if there was a storage building on-site, the shipping container obviously is personal property that's not part of, it doesn't improve the residential value at all. Is there anything preventing you from building on-site storage? You guys, I guess. Us?

Yeah.

Why would that be?

I'm gonna have to go through this all over again, right?

I'm not sure, I don't.

That's the way I read it.

So if a property owner wishes to build like a shed or something along those lines, sheds that are under 200 square feet do not require a building permit. We do offer what we call a complimentary shed permit, which allows us to take a look and just make sure there's no kind of red flags that pop up with that. If... If this shipping container was, if this application is not approved, then the only recourse for Mr. Clines would be to remove the shipping container and either place his storage at an off-site facility or construct an on-site storage type building.

And I'm not sure what the expenses would be to do the siting, and it kind of seems like it'd be a lot to kind of dress up the shipping container. Would that be a potential option for you to build on-site storage that actually increases the property's value?

I could get that done cheaper to screen that shipping container than I could to build something or buy something else.

Okay.

Vice Chair Wilson.

So have you owned this property then for like 22 years?

I rented it for a year or two and then bought it after that.

And the shipping container, was it on there before you took over?

Yes.

Okay.

And it's been on there all these years?

It was there when I moved in there.

Okay. And so you – I guess why now? It's been on there for 22 years. Now is it just the city? I mean, the city says you need to do something.

That's it. Yes.

Okay. I was just thinking because –

Yeah, and I'll just add shipping containers have become more on our radar in just the recent past. And so the requirements have been in place, but this is kind of part of a larger enforcement effort.

We saw all those options, the four options that you had. Is there one in particular that you're leaning towards?

No. That's just what I... Just Googled that and kind of came up with that. Okay.

Thank you.

And just to clarify, you included those different options just kind of your own volition or did the city staff suggest?

They said make a proposal. I can't remember who I talked to said make a proposal, so that was it.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. I'll open it up to if there's any members of the public that wish to speak on this agenda item, you may do so at this time. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for any further discussion on this agenda item or a motion.

I have a question for staff.

Yes.

So I noticed in your recommendation, you guys are recommending that we approve it. Is it you're comfortable with that if he encloses it, you know, put something around it, makes it look more beautiful, I guess.

So the purpose of a conditional use permit essentially is to allow the commission a little bit higher level of scrutiny than something that falls under a permitted use permit. The kind of the purpose of that scrutiny is to determine are there things that need to happen in order for that request, that application to fit in with the neighborhood, to lessen the impacts, different things like that. If there are conditions that can be included, that would be able to resolve any concerns that are made, then the intent of the code is that yes, it should be approved. So our recommendation is to approve. We feel that the treatment options that are being presented, that those seem reasonable. However, I will throw in the asterisk, right? If the commission feels like there is something that would prevent this from being able to be resolved, being able to be treated, addressed, right? They could make the motion to deny. And again, any motion to deny would have to state the reason why. Just because we don't like it's not a good enough reason, so.

Is there a time period in which it would have to be done?

So typically on a conditional use permit, unless otherwise specified by the commission, they have 12 months to start and 18 months to finish. So if the commission chose to approve this, Mr. Clines would have basically until August of next year to start whatever treatment and he would have until after Christmas to complete it. Now the commission could say that's a really long period of time and we would like to see that shortened. You could say things like we'd like to see the treatment completed within 90 days. For example, that would be reasonable. That's not out of line with other types of requirements that the commission has placed.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGregor.

I just, I'm not sure if everybody is aware. So we did approve a shipping container, just our most recent meeting. And then that got appealed and went to the city council. And the results of that were that they denied the shipping containers remaining on site and that they're there to be removed.

So the... The most recent action on shipping containers, the commission did approve with a number of conditions that was appealed by the property owner to the city council. The city council essentially removed the conditions that the commission had placed and the property owner voluntarily said he would have them removed within three years. So he stipulated to that, which is a big reason why the council was able to put that condition on there. Without a stipulation, it becomes difficult to place an automatic removal of personal property, particularly if there's a way to get that property to comply with the underlying city code. Things that have been placed in the past are things like this conditional use permit is non-transferable. So if Mr. Clines was to sell the home sometime in the future and the shipping container remained on the property, the new owner would have to come back through this process to whichever commission is in place at that point.

Commissioner Adams?

Yeah, so I guess for a discussion for the council, or the commission rather, sorry. In looking at our options here, there's kind of a wide variety of options that we don't normally see laid out this way. My concern with the denying is the reason for denying. And so, like Steph said, we can't just say we don't like having a shipping container there. The other component is if it's been there for 22 years, it's been there for a while and that's kind of been grandfathered in up to this point. Now, the thing that kind of triggered a thought for me was if we put a condition on it where it's not transferable, it basically grandfathers him in while he's in here and then when it transfers, whether he sells it or someone inherits it or whatever, then that could potentially be another issue that maybe we have a different city code at that time. There could be a lot of other scenarios, and I kind of like that option because that puts a condition on it to where it's not transferring, we're not kicking the can down the road, and it's always going to be there. A thought for the commission to consider.

If I may.

We'll turn it over to Anna for a brief comment.

Sorry, just to clarify, grandfather kind of has a legal term, and so it's not really grandfathered, and so I just want to clarify, legally, it's not grandfathered.

Okay, noted. Apologize for the wrong.

No, no, I just want to make sure that the record is clear. We're not saying it's grandfathered.

It's not grandfathered. Got it. Thank you, Commissioner Adams. Commissioner Whipple. I just had a quick question. If you were to put a stipulation that he were to sell the property, could you add a stipulation that upon doing so, he would have to have it removed at that time and it wouldn't be transferred to a new owner? Is that a possibility?

I believe it would be.

So that's something else to think about then. Is there a siting type that we like? No.

I have a clarifying question for staff. On staff recommendation condition two for the screening shall be maintained and kept in good repair, is it stipulating that this type of screening is required of one of the options that he suggested? No.

So essentially what condition two, the intent there is whatever type of treatment that the commission determines is appropriate. This particular section of code is fairly unique. Because generally we spell out this is what needs to happen for screening. It needs to be a solid material fence. If you've got commercial backing up to residential, for example. In this case, it doesn't specifically say that. It says that the screening shall be acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So it's really up to you guys to say we're okay with one of the four options that he presented, or we think there's another option that would be more appropriate. Whichever of the options, whether it's one of these four or something different, it's condition two is he needs to keep it looking nice. If it's painted and the paint starts peeling, the paint needs to be reapplied if it's you know, a stain or boards that start splitting, they need to be maintained. So yeah, it's the intent there is that, you know, this isn't a one and done type situation.

So alternatively to the options presented, we could have a condition to meet the screening requirement under section 1925, the one that you have in condition one there. and have them put like a solid six foot solid material fence between the somewhere between the shipping container and the road in lieu of doing some type of applied screening to the shipping container itself so that would be an option for you one thing to keep in mind is you know fences are normally six foot and i believe this is eight foot so Commissioner McGregor.

So if we were to deny and we were to cite the city plan and say that it's well I mean I would argue reducing negative impacts on a residential area I would say that shipping containers which give zero value to a property rather than preserving property values were actually taking from it so if we were to cite that or that removal of it would improve visual standards Is that a reason for denial, is that it's non-compliant with the city code standards?

I'll defer that to our attorney.

Thank you.

So in your packet, we have referenced the 19.20.050, which has the standard for reviews, which covers the basis for the conditional use permits. So the standards, the application shall be consistent and conform with the general plan or any other adopted plans. So you're mentioning that a general plan. The general plan. Then B is there should be no significant adverse or intrusive effect on property within 300 feet. And then C is the proposed changes would not be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare of the persons or property in the surrounding area. So if you're referencing the value to his property, that's really not the reason. If you're referencing the value to neighboring or adjoining property, then you may be able to make that argument that it is detrimental to the property values of others.

I definitely would say that.

Vice Chair Wilson.

But not one single person that was sent a letter responded back, correct?

So we sent letters to all property owners within 300 feet. If you're renting a property, you don't get the letter because you're not an owner, but we also post the property. So we did post the property out along Owens. So people who drove by who didn't get a letter would still have the opportunity to see what was going on, when the meeting was, what the request is. We did not receive any comment from either the letters or the posting.

Commissioner McGregor.

There are additional residences within 300 feet of the shipping container presently, aren't there? On the left side.

So aerial photo here, the subject property, you can see the approximate location of the shipping container there in yellow. The home that's on the property is directly in front. The two properties to the west are used as residences. They are zoned commercial. We also have the property kind of in the northwest, I guess, of the home that has also used at least a portion of it for a residence. Again, all these properties are zoned commercial with residential uses that predate our zoning code and zoning ordinance.

Mm-hmm.

Any other comments or questions from the commission? Sorry. Go ahead. You know, I don't, I'll just kind of state my thoughts on it. I don't love shipping containers. I don't like, it's not my favorite thing. I understand that this is commercially zoned property. And I think there could be some more flexibility for shipping containers and commercially zoned property. Obviously, this commercially zoned property is primarily used as residential, so I know that kind of makes it a bit of a weird situation that we're dealing with on this particular one. As far as shipping containers go, I've seen shipping containers that look a lot worse than the one that we're seeing in the picture here. I would like to give my props to Mr. Clines on keeping that looking decent in the condition that it is. When I saw the packet and knew we were coming up on a shipping container, I was expecting worse from an appearance standpoint. I appreciate his thought into what the screening items look like. I personally am a little bit nervous about the screening directly attached to the shipping container. I just think over time, the chances that that starts to look dilapidated and starts falling off and actually looks worse than what the shipping container currently looks like, I think the chances of that are pretty high in my personal opinion. And so, you know, obviously we need to make sure that we're staying in alignment with city code as far as what, you know, screening is. And so, you know, I think my preference might be to look more at something like a separated fence that does block the view of the shipping container more from the road, maybe even like applying a new coat of paint to the shipping container and we can specify the color. We tried that last time, I guess, but... Commissioner McGregor.

Is just painting it a different color an option? My understanding was that wasn't allowed.

Not really. It would need to be in conjunction with something else. As far as the screening? As far as screening, yes.

Would a composite material that's more durable be suitable instead of wood? Like a composite type siding or something like that?

Yeah, I think that's a good thought. I don't know how expensive that gets. But that is a consideration, I guess. Any other thoughts from the...

When we start building brick walls and it might be a little easier just to build that on-site storage. I mean just overall I think I'm pretty clear on my view. I think that the plan's pretty clear that we're step-by-step carrying out community aspirations over time. We're supposed to be cleaning up districts Shipping containers are permitted in I-1 and I-2 zones without any conditional use permits. I think when you start mixing the industrial with the residential, that's where we're going to start running into these problems. If I'm not mistaken, we have another one on the agenda for the next meeting. So I think this is going to become more common of a occurrence than less common just due to the popularity of them. The intent of a CUP is designed or developed in a manner which assumes maximum compatibility with adjoining uses. We do have a lot of residential uses around there. So while, yes, we can say technically it is in a commercial zone, the surrounding properties are residential and are used that way. There's no businesses running directly along that street. I absolutely, talking with an appraiser in preparation for this meeting, I asked him what the shipping container adds to the appraised value of the property. Zero, absolutely nothing. It is personal property where a site-built structure would build community wealth. The metal box takes it away. So from my view, we ask other residents of Show Low to use commercial storage facilities. I don't see a conditional use permit as a shortcut for cheap, convenient storage. And I think our general plan demands that our land use elements coordinate and not conflict. It also explicitly champions neighborhood housing and standards and property values. So for me, I am opposed to it. However, if everyone is inclined to approve, I think a non-transferable timeline, putting a 90-day completion date on it, making sure it's 100% screened, not 80% screened with a six-foot fence or whatever we choose there. I liked option three of all the materials provided best. I like the breakup of that, but my vote would be to not have it entirely.

Option two, you said? Three. Three.

I just want to give my opinion too.

I sure was.

And no, I agree with a lot of what you've said too. We're also looking at a resident who didn't put the shipping container on his land. And this is a lot similar to that other one. Somebody who didn't put it on there and now he has the burden of either moving it or covering it, putting up a fence, whatever. But when you look at the pictures and some of the siding on these containers, some of them are very nice. And if it's done that way, I don't know if you could even tell that it is a shipping container when it's done. And although I know we're trying to clean up shipping containers, this 22 years has been sitting on this property and nobody said anything until now. So that's just my opinion on it.

Commissioner McGregor.

Is there a reason that it's coming to a forefront right now? So we haven't really said anything about shipping containers or blight in the community as a whole, and now it seems those codes are starting to be enforced more intensely. Is there a reason behind it?

So in this situation, we had an individual with a shipping container that we received a complaint on, and... What happens when you go talk to one person about what they're doing, they point out everybody else. So this is kind of the snowball effect of everybody else kind of getting looped into the same issue.

Well, and maybe on that thought, if we've given 36 months for the other shipping containers to be removed, I'd like to see 12 months, obviously, but maybe we should follow suit here.

Am I correct, Director, that that was something the owner stipulated to in the city council meeting as far as the removal?

The owner did stipulate to removal within three years on that, yes.

But that wasn't a condition of the city council's decision? I understand that it was a condition of the city council's decision, but it wasn't the council putting that on necessarily. It was more from the property owner.

the property owner was asked by the come by the council if they would accept a three-year date and the Property owner did agree to that great.

Thank you Commissioner apps yeah, I guess since we're all weighing in I'm gonna go ahead and state my opinion to I also don't care for shipping containers, so I very much agree with Commissioner McGregor's stance on that. However, based on what I understand the city code to be, if he puts up the fencing, he's 100 feet back, we can approve that and he's within the code. I don't love the idea of having these things permanently in our community. And I feel like with the code the way that it is, I don't feel like we have enough room to deny it. However, I really like the idea of putting the conditions on, including making it non-transferable. To Commissioner Wilson's point, this guy just bought the house and he inherited this thing. It's been there for 22 years. So if we make him move it, that could be challenging for him, and I don't necessarily want to do that, but I also want to set the tone that we don't like these, and I feel like that's kind of a fair compromise. So for the commission, I mean, consider those facts.

Commissioner McGregor.

Is putting up a fence making something more temporary or making something more permanent?

You're asking me?

Well, a little. In response to your, like, you're saying that it's temporary and we don't want to keep them forever. However, let's put up a fence. And so to me, like, that's establishing, like, this is staying. And I suppose I must have missed the part that you just purchased this house recently and this is something that you inherited. Is that? I've been there for 22 years. And you placed the shipping container? It was there before. Okay. So you inherited it.

It's actually been there.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. Commissioner. I guess just in response, when I made the comment about being temporary, I meant the CUP and not the fence. So I don't particularly like the fence that much more than the shipping container, again, but if it's been there for 22 years, it's kind of where my mindset is.

Would you like to make a motion?

with that thought. Wordsmithing on this might be challenging. So if I mess it up, staff correct me or make necessary adjustments.

We will assist if needed.

Okay, I'm probably gonna need it. Okay, motion to amend conditions of approval and approve CUP 60204283 submitted by Calvin Clines to allow for a shipping container on property located at 1180 East Owens, identified as APN 21016089, with amendments and conditions to the CUP not being transferable. in addition to the recommendation of citing option three. And the rest subject to staff recommendations.

Am I allowed to say something in the middle of his?

So you need a motion and then you need a second, and then you can debate the motion and discuss. If the motion maker would like to amend his motion following that discussion, he can do so.

I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a second by Vice Chair Wilson. I would be interested if you would entertain an amendment to add the 90-day stipulation for getting the screening put up for option three, 90, 120, and to make it non-transferable.

When you say non-transferable, are you referring to that a new owner could come in and file for a new CUP, or are you saying it must be removed?

No, I would say that the new owner could come in and they wouldn't be required to apply for a new CUP, so we'd have to go through this process again if the property is sold.

Would there be anything against requiring it be removed if the property were transferred?

I'll leave that to the motion maker.

I do like that. I do like that more. Can I make that change? Is that okay?

Yes, so you just state, I'd like to amend my motion and state how you would amend it.

Gosh.

All right, so anyone else want to amend my motion? That if the property were to transfer to a new owner, the container would be required to be removed before transfer.

Okay, I'd like to amend my motion to, sorry, if the property owner were to sell the property. Sell the property.

that the container would be removed prior to sale. Prior to sale, there we go. Boy, I hobbled through that.

Do we want to put a timeframe on it? Yes.

Did we do a 90-day completion already? Or timeframe on what?

Yeah, I was talking about the 90-day completion. I don't think that was officially in the amendment.

And a 90-day completion? That's my amendment. Is that good? Okay, so if I understand correctly, we would be adding The motion would add a condition number three that states the conditional use permit is not transferable and that the container would be required to be removed prior to sale of the property. Condition number four, that the container shall be treated in accordance with option three as included in the application. and condition five all improvement shall be completed within 90 days of the effective date of this conditional use permit that's correct yes i have an amended motion by commissioner uh adams do i have do i have to have another second do i have a second can i clarify that we did get it a hundred percent screened the entire thing not just six feet the whole thing is screened so out citing option three That shows the treatment both at the base as well as at the top. So it would need to be substantially similar to that.

Is 90 days enough time? Can I say something about that?

Yes, you may. Just come up to the microphone so we can get it in the record.

I'm working out of town, so I'm usually here maybe on the weekends. 90 days might be a little tight for me. What is reasonable? Give me the 12 months. Once I know what you guys want. Is that going to be 90 days from now or from when?

It's a week from now, yeah.

And I don't know what you guys want for materials or whatever. There's been a lot talked about the materials.

Yeah, so it would be in substantial conformance with option three in the packet you submitted.

Is it on the TV right there?

Top left.

So like that.

Would six months be possible?

And then, so I do it like that, and then paint the middle. Yeah, I can do that.

Six months?

Six months, yeah.

Six months. Good. Would you like to amend?

Yes. Your motion? I would like to amend my motion. Boy, which condition was it? Condition five. Condition five, I would like to amend it from 90 days to six months.

I have an amended motion by Commissioner Adams, so I have a second. I have a second by Commissioner Whipple. All those in favor of the amended motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, that passes unanimously. Director Tragaskis.

Thank you. So as with any conditional use permit, this will become effective in seven days unless there is an appeal received by the city clerk within that seven-day period. Gotcha. Thank you.

Thank you, Director. We'll move on to item B, consideration of conditional use permits. 602-04-284 submitted by Stephen Hare on behalf of Maranatha Bible Church to allow for the construction of a church on property located at 900 South Central, that being APN 210-30-013. And Commissioner McGregor?

I need to declare a conflict. An individual on the application is my father-in-law.

Thank you, Commissioner McGregor. I will turn it over to Director Tregaskis for the staff summary report. Okay.

During a scheduled meeting on August 22nd, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved CUP 60204-262 permitting grading of the subject property prior to obtaining a building permit. Condition eight of that CUP specified that a new conditional use permit should be obtained prior to the commencement of construction of the church building. As a result, Stephen Hare, on behalf of Maranatha Bible Church, has submitted the ACUP to allow for the construction of a church. The proposed site will be located at 900 South Central, identified as APN 210-30013, and falls under the MH Manufactured Housing Zone. Churches and similar places of worship are considered a conditional use in the MH Zoning District. The applicant has submitted plans for one building that is approximately 29 feet in height and spans 6,318 square feet. A total of 71 parking spaces will be provided, including six ADA-designated spaces. The building elevations indicate the design consists of board and batten siding with a stone facade and a metal roof. Landscaping plan was not provided but will be required when the applicant applies for the building permit. Currently, access to the property will remain at the current entrance of South Central. No other access points are proposed. On February 14, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a CUP to build a church on property located at 201 East Whipple. That's the area here on the right side of the subject property map. That was located in the R17 single-family residential 7,000 square feet zone. That church is approximately 400 feet to the east of the subject property. Conditions of that CUP are provided in the packet. Additionally, the conceptual layout of the lot and building plans have been supplied by the applicant and are included for review. Findings of factor as follows. During a scheduled meeting on August 22nd, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved CUP 60204-262, which permitted grading of the subject property without a building permit. Condition 8 of that CUP specified that a new CUP should be obtained prior to the commencement of construction of the church building. Stephen Hare, on behalf of Maranatha Bible Church, has submitted the CUP application to allow for the construction of a church. The proposed site will be located at 900 South Central, identified by APN 21030-013, and falls under the MH Manufactured Housing Zone. Submitted plans indicate the church building will be approximately 29 feet in height and is 6,318 square feet in size, with a total of 71 parking spaces, including six ADA-designated spaces. According to the plans, the building design consists of board and batten with a stone facade and a metal roof. Planning and Zoning Commission approved another church building located at 201 East Whipple on February 14, 2006. This property is approximately 400 feet to the east of the subject property. Current zoning of the surrounding properties includes to the north R17, to the south MH, to the east R115 single family residential manufactured homes excluded 15,000 square feet, and to the west MH. Current land uses of the surrounding properties includes to the north residential, to the south vacant future public park for the city of Show Low, and then to the east and west residential. Transmittal memos were sent to all affected agencies. No applicable comments were received. Property was posted and letters were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. No applicable comments were received. After reviewing the standards for review, the zoning ordinance, discussions with the applicant, and because the request is consistent with the City of Show Low General Plan, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 60204284, submitted by Stephen Hare on behalf of Maranatha Bible Church, to allow the construction of a church on property located at 900 South Central, that being APN 2103013, subject to the following conditions. Number one, all development shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Number two, this conditional use permit authorizes only the specified use. Separate approvals shall be obtained for the site plan, landscaping, engineering, and building permits. Project must substantially conform to the submitted conceptual plans. And three, expanding the use beyond those specified would require the applicant to appear again before the Planning and Zoning Commission. With that, staff as well as the applicant are available for questions.

Thank you, Director. Any questions for staff from the Commission? Vice Chair Wilson.

If we approve this, how long do they have to get this church started and finished?

So again, with any conditional use permit, you have 12 months to start the project and 18 months to finish. START is defined as getting a building permit. So they would have until September of 2027 to obtain a building permit. They would then have six months after that to actually complete the building. Again, those timelines are flexible. If the commission said, hey, 12 and 18 seems a little tight, let's give them a little more leeway. You guys have the opportunity and the ability to do that.

Any other questions for staff? Any questions for the applicant?

Not a question, but just thank you. Finally, I want to see a church go up. You know, it's just an empty lot right now. I'm excited about seeing it go up.

Commissioner Adams, question for the applicant. So if the applicant can come forward, just state your name and address for the record, please.

And then I'll turn it over to Commissioner Adams. Stephen here, 260 South First Drive, Cholo. Awesome. Representing Maranatha Bible Church.

Yeah, Co-Chair, I'm curious about the 71 parking spots there. And the reason why I bring it up is because this is sort of a high traffic intersection. Can you comment on... if you can actually fit 71 parking spots in there, and if you think there'll be a lot of overflow parking on Sundays.

Great question. Of course, every pastor in church likes the idea of overflow parking, but this was engineered by Painted Sky. And so everything, matter of fact, the dirt that you see there has all been fulfilled by Perkins to Painted Skies requirements, you know, what they engineered, which included the 71 parking spots. And so there is a minimum of that already engineered. and planned for, if that's your question.

Yeah, that was question one. Number two is, I know you said that you wouldn't have overflow parking, but do you think that that would be sufficient for your congregation? Yes, yeah.

That's it from you then. We're always hopeful for more, but it will get us started.

Any other questions for the applicant? I do have one, Mr. Hare. What is kind of your anticipated timeframe? Like, are you just waiting to get through this meeting so you can submit your building permit? Or are you still working on getting the final plans? Like, where are you kind of at in the development stage?

Pretty. So this is what we anticipate we have after submitting plans to the city. We have an architect. Luska will be our contractor. And we anticipate as soon as four weeks later, Maybe up to eight weeks max, but I think four or five weeks is reasonable to have plans ready to submit to the city. And we're ready to build as soon as the city allows us the privilege of buying a building permit. So I would anticipate and we hope that within two months we'll be digging up that expensive dirt and pouring a slab and building, building.

Nice job, Wilson.

So the 12 to 18 months, is that feasible?

I believe so. You know, we, in meeting with our project manager, and we believe that we have enough funds. So the whole issue is we want to pay for it as we go, and God's provided that. So it's been fun, amazing. And so we have enough funds, we believe, to build it, to dry it in, to build it out. And then the final phase will be whatever the city requires with regard to parking and landscape. We do have a landscape architect. That we're working with and we do have a rough idea besides 90 trees and shrubs. We've already planted the septics in City water is connected. We've already been conversing Extensively with the gas company with the electric company and all of them are kind of in line so we think and we're optimistic that soon we can submit plans and and by the end of the year, hopefully see dirt fly and

Great. Yeah, appreciate how it's looking out there now with the landscaping that you have done and the fence out there. I think it looks pretty good. It took you a little while to start getting it out there after the last conditional use permit, but I'm glad we eventually got there. Any other questions for the applicant while he's up here?

Thank you very much. I did want to, may I say something? Anyway, we're grateful to be before the commissioners, and I did want to offer Commissioner Whipple, I see that maybe your clothing is a little bit lacking lately, and if you come and see me, I can get you fixed up in some wonderful red and blue clothing if you like. Bear down. Thank you.

Thank you.

That could be grounds for denial.

I will open it up to if there's any members of the public who would wish to speak on this agenda item, you can come forward and do so at this time. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for any further discussion. Commissioner Whipple.

One thought. Is there any concern on the city's behalf regarding maybe turn lanes or things that might help with, you know, getting out onto the road from this if it's a busy time, things like that?

So we held a pre-application meeting with the applicant several months ago as a precursor to this process. That was discussed. We did send transmittal memos to our public works director and city engineer. I followed up with a verbal conversation. I just wanted to make sure that I understood. They did not have any concerns at this time with that. So they felt the proximity to that existing intersection people would already be slowing down, hopefully. And that would help avoid any accidents or things there.

And I'll add to that, the nice thing about churches is that their peak hour traffic doesn't really align with what our city's peak hour traffic is. So there usually isn't as many conflicts as with different types of developments.

All right, I'll make a motion.

Vice Chair Wilson.

I move to approve CUP 602-04284, submitted by Stephen Hare on behalf of, I'm going to say this wrong, Maranatha Bible Church, to allow the construction of a church on property located at 900 South Central, that being APN 210-30013, subject to staff recommendations.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Wilson. I have a second by Commissioner Adams. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Do you abstain? I think I'm not supposed to, right? You're not supposed to. I'm not supposed to. Does she have to abstain or nothing?

She declared a conflict, so.

Great. So that passes unanimously. That passes unanimously. Director Tregaskis. Sorry, tripping over my words here.

Again, with any conditional use permit, there is a seven-day appeal period. If no appeal is received by the city clerk within seven days, this will become effective.

Thank you, Director. We'll move on to item six, call to the public. If there's any citizen wishing to speak on a matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is not on the agenda this evening, you may do so at this time. Seeing none, we'll move on to item seven, approval of minutes. Do I have a motion on the approval of the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting of Tuesday, April 28th, 2026? Well, he'd be chow. I'll take a motion by Commissioner Whipple. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Adams. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. Next, we'll have summary of current events, and we'll begin with Commissioner Whipple.

I don't have anything tonight.

I HAVE A COUPLE.

So just a couple of brief updates for the public. First, on the downtown business district front, we're seeing a lot of grassroot collaboration among our local merchants working together to strengthen and support our core retail environment, which is really encouraging. We've got lots of members joining there. Second, regarding our local post office, I'm continuing to monitor the follow through on the facility maintenance commitments and congressional inquiry response. Accountability is moving down the line, and we expect to see some direct oversight and movement on the mandated upkeep upkeep items that have been sent very soon. So I'll keep the community updated on those details as they shake out. And then finally, I just want to give a sincere thank you to staff. I know you guys work so much on putting these packets together, the late hours and the research preparing for these meetings. So you do a really incredible job on our behalf and we appreciate you. Thank you.

Yeah, so I guess I'll go ahead and say it's a beautiful day in Shiloh.

Someone's got to say it. Someone's got to say it.

Keep the tradition going. Just a reminder that school's back in session, so be careful when you're driving during school hours. Also, there's a lot of sports programs, high school and junior high, that need our support. So football, volleyball, junior high softball, and if anything, soccer. Yes. Soccer. Anything else maybe that I may have missed. So please go and support our local athletes.

So one of the things I do on a daily basis is help to get people services. So imagine my excitement when I came across this Summit for Service, Connecting Veterans to Care. This is in partnership with the Phoenix VA Healthcare System to expand access and strengthen care for veterans. So this is actually tomorrow. So if you're a veteran, drop what you're doing from 10 to 2, go to Summit Healthcare Conference Center and learn about the available resources, benefits, and care options here in our White Mountains. from VA enrollment, disability claims, toxic exposure screening. But remember to bring your DD-214, your military ID, along with any medical documentation for claims. But this is from 10 to 2 tomorrow at Summit. And it's a really good thing. So if you know a veteran, tell them about it. Awesome.

Thank you, Vice Chair Wilson. I'll just add to Commissioner McGregor's comment on appreciation for staff and all they do, and especially for Ms. Saleen for standing out in the dark this entire meeting, making sure people can find the way into the building. Director Tregaskis.

Thank you, Chair. Just one item. This Saturday, we will be hosting our annual e-waste and waste tire recycling event. This is free for residential customers. People who use our existing trash service are eligible for this. You can bring your old electronics and use tires to recycle. That includes computers, laptops, servers, hard drives, printers, scanners, routers, modems, mouse, keyboards, cables, cords, and power strips. DVDs and VCRs, does anybody have any of those anymore? You're welcome to bring them. Stereos, speakers, projectors, copy machines, digital cable boxes, phones, chargers, and power cords. TVs and monitors, we do ask that we limit that to one per household. Also video game consoles or any old or unwanted tires, all sizes accepted, but must be dismounted. So don't bring them on the rims. No household appliances, no batteries, no light bulbs, smoke detectors, or hazardous or dangerous material, please. And that will be this Saturday from 8 to 1 at the Navajo County Penrod Facility, located at 251 North Penrod Road in Show Low. Again, this is a free event that is brought to you by the City of Show Low. It's been very popular in the past, and we really encourage people to go ahead and use that if possible.

That's it. Thank you director. Seeing no other items on the agenda, I will adjourn us for this evening.