Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I call to order this regular meeting of the Show Low Planning and Zoning Commission for Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. Roll call shows that all commissioners are present this evening. Next, we will have the invocation given by Commissioner Adams, followed by the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Clark. 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 represent our citizens and be able to make decisions to benefit them. We ask that We might have thy spirit with us today that we can be inspired and we might know the things that make the best decisions for our community. We're very grateful for the moisture that has fallen on our land and if it be thy will, we ask that you send us more. We're thankful for our educators and we ask a special blessing on them that they might be energized and inspired to teach the youth of our community. We're thankful for the many blessings that we enjoy, including one another. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you, the next item on the agenda is new business. And item A under new business is consideration of conditional use permit 602-04-285 submitted by Colby Cain on behalf of Maverick Group LLC to allow for the expansion of four fueling pumps in a canopy located at 901 North Penrod Road. That being APN 210-61-013D. And I will turn it over to Ms. Saleen for the staff summary report.

Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. At its regular meeting of August 23, 2016, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve Conditional Use Permit 602-04-113B, submitted by Lance Dunkley of Maverick Inc. to allow for the addition of three fueling pumps and a canopy on a portion of the subject property formerly known as APN 210-61-113B. 013A. Condition 2 of CUP 602-04-113B states development shall occur in substantial conformance to the submitted site plan and landscaping plan. Substantial changes require a new CUP. To comply with Condition 2, Colby Cain on behalf of Maverick Group LLC has submitted a CUP application to allow for an additional four fueling pumps and canopy expansion on property located at 901 North Penrod Road, which has been renumbered and is currently identified as APN 210-61-013D. According to the submitted plans, the canopy expansion and additional fuel pumps will be added to the existing northern canopy. Once completed, this canopy will contain a total of seven fuel pumps. Copies of the submitted plans, the previously approved site plan, and the approved conditions for CUP-602-04-113B are attached for review. Finding the facts. On August 23, 2016, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved CUP-602-04-113B, submitted by Lance Dunkley of Maverick Inc. to allow for the addition of three filling pumps and a canopy on a portion of the subject property formerly known as APN 210-61-013A. Since condition two of CUP 602-04-113B states development shall occur in substantial performance to the submitted site plan and landscaping plan, a new CUP is required. To comply with condition two, the current CUP 602-04-113B, Colby Keene, on behalf of Maverick Group LLC, has submitted a CUP application to allow a canopy expansion and four additional fueling pumps. The current zoning of the surrounding properties include north, south, east, C2, general commercial, west, I1, light industrial. The current land uses of the surrounding property includes north, south, east, vacant, west, the home source. Transmittal memos were sent to all effective agencies. No applicable comments were received. The property was posted, and letters were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. No 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 602-04-19 285 submitted by Colby Cain on behalf of Maverick Group LLC to allow four additional fuel pumps and expansion of the canopy located at 901 North Penrod Road, that being APN 210-61-013D, subject to the following conditions. All previous conditions of CUP 602-04113B shall remain in effect. All lighting shall conform to Title 19.110 of City Code, including recessed canopy lighting. The applicant representative, Director Tregaskis, and I are available for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Salin. I'll open it up to the commission for any questions for staff. Vice Chair Wilson.

Is this, so is this the truck and RV canopy pumps that are being expanded? Or the regular pump?

Correct. It's the most recent pumps, which are there on the north side of Maverick. I think most of us would refer to those as the trucks or RV spaces. So it's not the canopy directly in front of the store, but the one that's to the side. And they would expand that canopy and add several more islands to the side of that.

I thought so. I just want to make sure.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, any questions for the applicant? Also none. Then I will open it up if there's any members of the public who would wish to speak on this agenda item, you can do so at this time. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Commission for any further discussion or a motion.

I can make a motion.

Vice Chair Wilson.

I move to approve CUP60204285 submitted by Colby Kane on behalf of Maverick Group LLC to allow for the expansion of four fueling pumps and canopy located at 901 North Penrod Road, that being APM 21061013D subject to staff recommendations.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Wilson. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Clark. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. That passes unanimously. Director Tregaskis.

Thank you, Chair. As with any conditional use permit, there is a seven-day appeal period. If no appeal is received by the city clerk within that time frame, this will be considered effective.

Thank you, Director. We'll move on to item B under new business, consideration of conditional use permit 602-04-286, submitted by Tim, I apologize for the last name here, Siwinski, thank you, to allow for a shipping container on property located at 1231 East Duce of Clubs, identified as APN 210-14-019. And again, I will turn it over to Ms. Saleen for the staff summary report.

Thank you, Chairman. Tim Sewinski has submitted a conditional use permit application to allow for a shipping container on property located at 1231 East, Duce of Clubs, identified as APN 210-14-019. The applicant's property is located within the downtown commercial zone. CITY CODE SECTION 19.25.060 H2 STATES THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS LOCATED IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 100-FOOT DISTANCE FROM ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, HAVE SATISFACTORY SCREEDING, AND RECEIVE A CUP. RECENTLY, CHASE BANK CONSTRUCTED A SIX-FOOT BLOCK WALL ALONG SECTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S SOUTHERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARIES. The applicant intends to use Chase Bank's block wall to screen the shipping container and has proposed painting the unscreened portions to match the existing building. The container is situated approximately 153 feet from Deuce of Clubs and approximately 200 feet from White Mountain Road, thereby meeting the required minimum setback. A site plan has been submitted for review. According to section 19.20.070, the Commission may approve this conditional use permit in accordance with staff's recommendation or approve the CUP and amend the conditions of the approval. Alternatively, the commission may deny, however, must specify the reason for the denial. Finding of facts. Tim Sawinski has submitted a CUP application to allow for a shipping container on property located at 1231 East, Duce of Clubs, identified as APN 210-14-019. The property is in the downtown commercial zone. City Coast section 19.25.060 H2 states the shipping container located in commercial zoning districts must maintain a minimum 100 foot distance from any right of way, have satisfactory screening, and receive a CUP. Chase Bank constructed a six foot block wall along the sections of the subject property. The applicant intends to use Chase Bank's block wall as part of the screening and has proposed painting the shipping container to match the existing building. The shipping container is approximately 153 feet from the Duce of Clubs and approximately 200 feet from White Mountain Road, satisfying the minimum setback requirements. The current zoning of the surrounding properties include north-south downtown commercial, east general commercial, west downtown commercial. The current land uses of the surrounding properties include North Desert Tidal, South Chase Bank, East Wofford Bank, West Birdies. Transmittal memos were sent to all effective agencies. No applicable comments were received. The property was posted and letters were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. No comments were received. After reviewing the standards for review, the finding of facts, discussions with the applicant, and the SHLO General Plan, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves CUP 602-04-286, submitted by Tim Sawinski, to allow for a shipping container on property located at 1231 East Dusick Clubs, identified as APN 210-14-019, subject to the following conditions. All development shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including compliance with section 19.25.060 of city code. The shipping container shall be painted in neutral color that complements the adjacent building and shall be maintained in good condition and repair. The applicant, Director Tregaskis and I, are available for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Salina. I'll open it up to any of the commissioners for questions for staff. Vice Chair Wilson.

I'll ask a question. So the block wall, where is that on here? Like what part of the shipping container is going to be seen?

So Chase Bank recently constructed a block wall around the majority of the back portion of their property. The shipping container here on the aerial approximate location is shown as that yellow box. There is a block wall that was installed by Chase Bank along what would be the west side of that shipping container as well as the south side of the shipping container. We do have some pictures here. So you can see this is taken from Cooley looking towards the shipping container. with cattlemen's there in the background. And you can see the block wall that has been constructed by Chase on both sides of it there. So is there already a shipping container there? Yep. It's existing. So yes, the shipping container is there, has been there for a period of time. We're not exactly sure how long. They're looking to bring it into compliance with the conditional use permit.

Any other questions for staff?

Can that container be seen from the roadway? Because it looks like it's hidden.

So I'll kind of go through these slides that we have here. So this is taken from Coulee looking back to the north. Underneath the existing canopy there at Chase Bank, you can see where the shipping container is kind of through that canopy. It's approximately 150 feet from that shipping container to the pavement here on Coulee. We kind of took a few more just to give a little bit different perspectives there. Obviously, this one's zoomed in. Again, from Coulee there on the sidewalk looking to the north, And then this would be from White Mountain Road out on the sidewalk looking west towards Cattleman's with the shipping container back there in the corner. It's between an existing structure as well as the block wall that's been constructed by Chase. And then there is a wood fence that is in front of it as well. That one probably shows that the best as far as, again, the block wall with the shipping container, with the building, with the wood fence in front of it. So what was discussed was matching the building itself there at Cattleman's. So kind of that tannish beige desert rose, if I can get artistic color. Something similar to that.

Okay, cool, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? I do. Commissioner McGregor.

As it sits right now, it looks like there isn't a way to access or remove that shipping container. So it was something that's been there for a while. We never cited it or got it out of there. So now that block wall went up, which covers 70% of it, 75% of it, but it's still got the shipping container sticking out above. So what would be the plan for removal if it wasn't approved and had to be removed?

So we discussed this with Chase Bank. They are aware of these proceedings. We had requested that they wait to put up the wall until a decision had been made by the commission. They chose to move forward. They also indicated that they would not allow their property to be used for any type of a crane to lift the shipping container over the wall. At this point, there really is no feasible way to either drag or lift that container out, short of cutting it into pieces and removing it a little bit at a time.

So it's safe to say that Chase is opposed to the shipping container being there, and that's probably why the fence went up to begin with?

Chase indicated no opposition at all to that shipping container. So, yeah, we had asked them, you know... If you can wait a couple weeks, we'll have a decision from the commission, and they chose to move forward with that wall regardless. Previous to the wall, there were some bushes there. I think there was a wood fence. They replaced those with that block wall.

I noticed we've got under the general plan that the goal was target redevelopment improvement efforts. So how... In staff's view, this is actively working against improving and elevating standards. So how are we viewing this as true redevelopment efforts?

We look at this as having that block wall in front is an improvement over what was there previously. And having the shipping container painted a complementary color is an improvement to that kind of mustard yellow that it is now.

So would this technically fall under, when we start looking at the code on the land use, it falls under the Section H, as we stated here, 19-25060, Section 2, Section H. And so it talks about those being, it can be in the I-2 or the I-1 zones, and then it says there's temporary storage allowed for the 12 months, which is, I guess, what this would have fallen under. Is that... accurate to say or we're just saying even though it was illegal, we just wanna grandfather it in even though it'll continue to deteriorate over time and not have permanent value and it's not a structure that was site built or improving, we just want it to deteriorate there permanently.

So you can't grandfather something that is not legal, currently legal, cannot be considered grandfathered. At this point, that is not considered currently legal because it doesn't have a conditional use permit. If a conditional use permit is approved by the commission, then this would be considered legal. It could remain on the property. They would be required to maintain it in what do we call it, good condition and repair. So if the paint were to start peeling, if it were to start rusting, exposing that type of thing, they would need to take care of that.

And this is our third review of shipping containers in unpermitted areas. Why isn't it default just allowed to have them in these areas to begin with?

So that was a decision made quite a while ago where The commission and council felt that there were times when shipping containers may be appropriate. And so rather than just flat out denying them, they had an option for that, but they also didn't wanna just leave the barn door open. So by requiring a conditional use permit, it at least allows the neighbors an opportunity to make comments, which we've received none in this case. It also allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to review for potential conditions of approval.

Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Adams.

Yeah, just wanted to see if staff was able to overall view the condition of the storage container. Obviously we can see the top from here, but does it look like it's falling apart or anything along those lines?

We had some other pictures that we did not include in here. For some other reasons, primarily we didn't feel that we had permission of the property owner to take them, so we didn't want to advertise them. The shipping container itself, though, in reviewing, it doesn't look like it's in danger of collapsing in on itself. It seemed to be in fairly decent condition.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Any questions for the applicant? Great. Is there anyone from the public who would wish to speak on this agenda item? Now is your moment. Seeing no brave souls, we will bring it back to the Commission for any further discussion or a motion on this item.

for some discussion. I actually don't have a huge problem with this. Once it's painted, it's kind of in the back and out of sight for the most part. It's also in a largely commercial area. It's not in a residential neighborhood. So for me, it's not a lot of red flags. I think the biggest thing is just making sure it's painted and maintained. The one thing that I would like to recommend for the commission is maybe we do something similar where we say the CUP isn't transferable upon transfer. sale or anything else to that extent. And that way, if it was to be sold, the property was sold or anything along those lines, it would come back before the commission and we could potentially do something there. So for your thoughts, I would like to present that.

I like that additional condition.

By adding this, it is pretty, if we approve it, it's immobile. It's staying as it is, like it's locked in. You can't actually get it out. as it is now, you'd have to cut it apart, like they said, and crane it out, and Chase won't give you permission to come in from that side. So where you would even access, like where it's set up, there's Chase landscaping, there's the wall, and then there's a site-built building in front of the shipping container. It's not even accessible to cut up and, I mean, maybe it could be done, I don't even know. So approving it and putting that condition in place that's gonna pass on to the next owner who takes it and that doesn't, that's a little weighty.

I think my thought on the non-transferable clause is that it would just have to come back to the commission. That's where we can kind of do a double check to make sure that it's in good repair, that they're keeping the paint up, and that if there are new owners, that they can be aware. I think it helps for them to have to come to this, to be aware that, hey, this thing does need to be kept in good repair. The city is keeping an eye on it. And so I think that's helpful in this particular case, or really in all these cases for these shipping containers.

Mr. Chair, if I could interject. It would seem that as we move forward, codes change, codes evolve. I think shipping containers are going to be featured prominently in those types of conversations as we move forward to the point that perhaps they may not even be an option in our commercial zones. If we were to put a condition on saying that this is non-transferable and they would be required to comply with code current when the property transferred, it could be possible that they would not be able to continue to keep the shipping container there. The other option would be to insert wording such as, that the commission shall approve the shipping container upon sale of the property or something like that. So it's not tied to a new conditional use permit, but that you guys have the opportunity to review it for compliance with the conditions of approval at the time that the property was transferred.

Thank you for that clarification. I think we may need a little help on exactly what that language should be if the Commission is on board with that idea. and so if i guess my question to that is if we were to grant this without the transferability clause at all and city code does change say for like hypothetically shipping containers are not allowed in the downtown commercial zone what would happen with this particular case it would be that would continue in perpetuity to be allowed to be there

So at that point, this would be considered grandfathered because it had been legal. I didn't want to use that word. Understood, understood. Because it would have been legally established as long as they maintained the container in accordance with the conditions of approval, meaning they keep it in decent shape, they would be able to maintain the container there on the property.

Thank you, Director.

Any other, Commissioner Whipple? I did have one question. I know you said that it seemed like it would be difficult to crane out, but has it been evaluated as completely impossible to remove through a crane? Like, you know, if the crane parked not on Chase property, but on their property, could it somehow still be removed with the right crane?

So the aerial photo that you have there in front of you shows how the property lines kind of work around the building there. You can see where the southern portion of Cattleman's, that actually extends south with the property line wrapping around it on three sides. Two of the sides, the one directly to the east and the one directly to the west, those are Chase property. And again, that would require Chase's permission to allow. And at this point, they're not willing to give that. There is a small little easement type property here in the back. but you would be going over Chase's property with the shipping container. The other option would be you would bring in a very substantial crane one that was able to reach over the top of Cattleman's in order to reach this back southwest corner. Then you would have to crane it out over the top of Cattleman's and into Cattleman's parking lot. So absolutely impossible, no. Difficult?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah. Any other thoughts from the Commissioner? Vice Chair Wilson.

Honestly, I think it's been there so long and if they paint it where it kind of blends in and really in those pictures you don't have but a couple feet that show over the fence. I don't see any issue with it personally as long as it's kept up.

Would you like to make a motion? Or is there any other discussion?

Yeah, I think we get a little dangerous when we start creating loopholes like that, like falling to the lowest common denominator. Are we endorsing an unmovable, noncompliant structure that we just have zero legal leverage over to address later just because it's been there for a long time? Is that how we're going to do code enforcement going forward, that if it's been there for a really long time, it shouldn't be brought to standard? That seems dangerous to me.

It's not just that it's been there a long time. I mean, it's locked in.

Oh, it's locked in. It should have been done before the walls went up, for sure.

And that's not the property owner's problem. That's Chase Bank doing that.

It's enforcement of the codes we have on.

But isn't it the city's fault that it wasn't enforced sooner?

I would say choosing to put an illegal structure on and choosing to not enforce that has equal sides to it, but Chase has the ability to put a fence up wherever. They may not have stated that they're not fond of the shipping container next door, but the fence also speaks pretty loudly as well as the comments of you're not allowed to remove it through our property. So they may not have sent a formal note on record, which they would probably advise not to, But I think we're creating some really dangerous precedents by just saying, if it's been there a really long time, I'm good with it. Let's paint it.

So, Mr. Chair, if I could add a little bit to that.

Yes, Director.

In conversations with Chase, and these conversations go back over a year, The reason for the wall was they felt like their property was being encroached on. There was, let me see if I can get to it. I need to go back a little bit. So prior to Chase putting that block wall around the perimeter of their property, Here in that back corner where the shipping container was, there was also a garbage dumpster that was utilized by cattlemen. Chase did not like them using their parking lot to access their garbage dumpster, which was a large reason why they put that block wall up. So the reason for the block wall was not because of a shipping container, it was because they felt they needed to enforce their property lines. They also, along this north boundary, there was a wood fence there. There was some drainage issues there. They put the block wall to help solve some of those drainage issues, as opposed to what the wood fence was allowing with water and infiltration and things like that. The purpose for the wall was not because of the shipping container. Again, it was because they felt that they were having encroachments. They felt like they needed to enforce their property line, and that's why they put the fence up. Prior to the block wall, there was a wood fence there, and there was some, to quote Monty Python, some nice shrubbery. that kind of acted as a screen. And again, Chase chose to take those out and replace it with a block wall.

Thank you, director. One additional question. Commissioner Whipple. So we had a prior incident where we made the person actually cover the shipping container so that you wouldn't recognize it as a shipping container. Now, we also realized you can put a fence around it too. This case, we've got a fence around it, but you can still see parts of the shipping containers. Should we consider possibly covering the top part of it with something so it's not recognizable?

I echo that concern that the flat paper compliance versus the reality can vary. A six-foot wall and an eight-foot shipping container doesn't really math out and we have asked other people to come in compliance to make sure the entirety of the structure is covered. A box towering over a wall in plain sight of the Deuce of Clubs corridor does not meet the spirit or letter of our downtown commercial screening.

Any other thoughts on that idea? Does anybody want to make a motion?

So I'll make a motion to deny CUP60204286. The proposal fails to meet the required screening standards under city code section 19.25.060, section H, section two. The reliance upon Chase's left block wall is inadequate for screening. The container is tightly boxed in by an adjacent site built structure. and permanently perimeter walls creating an immovable installation that violates temporary storage intent and leaves no viable path for future removal or maintenance. Approving the unscreened semi-permanent industrial shipping container directly contradicts the city's stated general plan goal to target redevelopment improvement efforts and elevate downtown property standards.

I have a motion for denial by Commissioner McGregor. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Whipple. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. And I have ayes from Commissioner McGregor and Commissioner Whipple. All those opposed, say aye. Aye. And that's the remainder. The motion fails. Any other motions?

I don't think anybody wants to make one because we don't know the sentence that just the director said.

I'm sure whoever chooses to start making a motion could acquire some assistance in the middle.

Just to clarify, if you're looking at that motion, you're wanting to come back to planning and zoning review if there's a transfer of ownership is that what the desire was?

Yes, that's my understanding. Vice Chair Wilson is that? Yes, I think that was that. That was our understanding or my understanding of what Director Tragaskis was discussing where it wouldn't be a new conditional use permit.

Perfect.

So is the language to review

I might suggest that the motion include language that the conditional use permit come back to planning and zoning for review upon the transfer of ownership.

Okay.

One of the other things that he talked about, too, was making it go to current compliance so that if If the city comes out and says shipping containers aren't allowed anymore down in that area, then that would be the compliance they would have to come into compliance with. We just approve it there and just make a rubber stamp every time they come and say, okay, but if the city makes a movement that says we're not allowing these anymore in areas, then we don't want to have them just be grandfathered in forever. It's we're going to get rid of them, then we're going to get rid of them. So we approve it now, but if they sell it and it goes to somebody else and the city's outlawed them, then if it comes before us, we have the approval to make them come to compliance, which is now...

Yes, and I suppose that would be a question for Ms. Atencio. If we did the language of upon sale of the property that the shipping container CUP would come back to the commission for review, would we at that point, regardless of what the... what the code looks like at that point, be allowed to approve or deny? Or is it just like review to make sure that they're in compliance with the conditions of approval at this meeting?

So a conditional use permit will be in place if this commission grants one. And so for you to review it doesn't terminate it. You're just reviewing the conditions at that time. So you're not necessarily terminating it, but you can choose what to do. And if the code changes, you don't necessarily have to terminate it. You can just continue the conditional use permit in place.

think that that makes sense if and so if in in theory the the code stays the same as it is could we then choose to terminate the conditional use permit at a point in the future when the property is sold would that be an option just like we have the option to deny it tonight under the same standards of denial that were held to so if you're granting it now

and you're reviewing in the future, I guess there would have to be something to trigger it to terminate it, so not just the transfer. So, what would be the reasoning?

Yes.

So, they would have to fall out of compliance, not keeping it up or anything like that. But if the city code changes,

And so if it hypothetically started falling apart and the commission believed in five years that it's in substantial disrepair and the property gets sold, we would have the authority to terminate the conditional use permit at that point if we choose to put the non-transferable clause, as we've discussed tonight, in place.

You can always come back and review a conditional use permit if there's noncompliance.

Great. Thank you.

Can I just get a clarification real quick?

So it is illegal currently. It's the conditional use permit that grandfathers it, and we're creating that condition by doing it.

We're making it be legal, correct?

Not permitted now. If you give it a permit, then it will come into compliance. Correct.

That will make it grandfathered. Just a quick definition from Justin. So when we ask for site-built storage and site-built structures, what's the difference between a building and a C container? Why are those valued differently in the eyes of the city?

One is constructed to adopted international building codes. The other is not.

Is there a reason we would not want structures that are adopted to the international building codes in our downtown district?

The international building codes are just kind of a minimum adopted standard. Cities and towns can look at things and say that meets what we want or that doesn't meet what we want. As an example, in the International Residential Code, the IRC, the maximum shed size without a permit is 120 square feet. Our city council, a number of years ago, said that seems really small, and they enlarged that to 144 square feet. They then enlarged it again to 200 square feet. So there's always the option to say these aren't 100% suited to our local area, and so we want to modify them. Is it possible to have a structure that is built that is not necessarily to the international codes that are great and wonderful structures? Certainly. I mean, the Taj Mahal wasn't built to any type of codes, right? So you have the option, if you don't meet the code, as it's specifically written, you've got a stud every 16 inches, you've got a minimum five-eighths roof sheeting on your roof, the different things that go there. You can always come and say, I've got a structural engineer that certifies that this building meets the requirements of the International Building Code. We see people doing that when they want to do something really neat and fantastic with their custom home. They'll get a structural engineer to stamp saying that, yes, this meets the requirements. So that's always an option for a property. That's where we start stepping in with things like building design guidelines. Mm-hmm. where we start stepping in and saying, we need to have some screening, we need to have landscaping. Those are all things that you will not find in the building codes, but the city has said, yeah, we want to go a little bit above and beyond. So that's, again, that's why we're here tonight is for the commission to say, this is what we feel is adequate, whether it's approved, deny, or approve with conditions, and these are the conditions.

So it's fair to say also that when this code was put together, C containers are clearly referenced in it. They weren't included as things that we are just default including in the plan on purpose, meaning intentionally they were left out and they could be put in additionally if they met all these wonderful requirements in it. So that's why it's set up this way to not be allowed. It could be conditional. Like, why isn't it default in there? Since everyone believes it's just part of what it should be like, but it's not that these are new to the market. It's that the use was unapproved and not being used, and now people are using them and we're citing them for not using them properly.

So, again, going back on the history of it, it was determined that sea containers just by themselves put in the middle of a piece of property with... Blue and orange and yellow and whatever different colors they are was not something that we deemed attractive. And so we did also recognize that, hey, there might be a need for them. They serve a purpose. And so the option was given that, yes, they can come in, they can apply, just like we saw for the gas pumps tonight. Maverick can't just go put those gas pumps on their property. They have to get a conditional use permit. Had they put the gas pumps on prior, they would be back here saying, we need to get a conditional use permit. They'd also need a building permit, but that's another story. And so again, it gives the commission the opportunity to review these on a case-by-case basis. If you had somebody that had 1,000 acres of commercial property and they wanted to put one of these right in the very middle of it, the commission may look at it differently than somebody who is right on the main street and they want to put it right out in front of their building. and they want to construct a 35, 45 foot tall structure out of shipping containers. We may take a different look at those.

So why is it generally looked at that a shipping container has no value, but then site-built structures do have value?

I'm not versed in appraisal. My assumption would be that it's similar to a manufactured home when it is not attached to the property. That manufactured home can be moved very easily, which is why, in my understanding, people sometimes have trouble obtaining financing for a manufactured home that is not on a block skirted foundation. In this case, a shipping container is fairly easy to move. So it would be easy for them to say, we're gonna take it with us, just like we're gonna take the curtains. I do know we were joking around today about a property that just came up on Zillow that features shipping containers predominantly as part of the construction of the building. I don't think they're going anywhere when that gets sold. I would imagine that those become part of the value for the property at that point, so.

Yeah, no doubt.

So typically what I've, when I've kind of been studying city planning and what shipping containers tend to lean more on the side of blight, can we explain why they're looked more that direction than increasing property value so They're kept out of downtown commercial areas. They're looked more as industrial use. And so why would that distinction be there?

I think we've already kind of discussed they're not necessarily the most attractive looking storage option for people.

Any other comments from the commission? Or I'll entertain any motions. Or I'll make a motion.

I guess one additional comment.

Commissioner Whipple.

I would just like to see something dealt with on the parts that can be seen besides paint. I would like to see it covered with something more attractive if it's gonna stay. So that's just my two cents.

Any other thoughts from members of the commission? Do you have a motion? You look kind of like you have a motion.

I did the one last. But you're really good at that.

You want me to do the motion? Yeah, you do the motion. All right. I move to amend conditions of approval and approve CUP 602-04-286, submitted by Tim Sawinski, to allow for a shipping container located at 1231 East Deuce of Clubs, identified as APN 210-14-019. with the following amendment to the conditions of approval in addition to the staff recommendations that upon sale or transfer of the property, the commission will review the conditional use permit at that time. Does that get us close enough? isn't painted on the staff recommendations. I said staff recommendations and the following. So that covers us on the painting. I have a motion by Chairman Barlow. Do I have a second? I have a second by Vice Chair Wilson. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? I have two, Commissioner McGregor and Commissioner Whipple oppose, but the motion carries. Director Drogasius.

Thank you, Chair. As previously mentioned, there is a seven-day appeal period on conditional use permits. If no appeal is received by the city clerk in the next seven days, this will be considered 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 not on the agenda this evening, you may do so at this time. Seeing none, we'll move on to item seven, approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion for the approval of the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting of August 25th, 2026? I have a motion by Vice Chair Wilson. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Adams. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, we'll move on to summary of current events and we will begin with Commissioner Whipple.

Nothing for me tonight.

Nothing for me also.

School's back in session.

I know our football team's been doing well. This Thursday they have a home game. And they're also honoring first responders and veterans and stuff. So any first responders in that that want to be there, think they need to be there about 6.30, and they're going to honor them before the game. So it's a really great honor in our community for that. But it is Thursday night, so not Friday. They're having problems with having enough refs. So they did get moved.

It's another beautiful day in Show Low.

I just want to say thank you to the Show Low TV staff behind the scenes. I don't think they get thanked enough for the work that they do. So I just want to say thank you to them.

Thank you, Vice Chair Wilson. I don't have anything to add. Director Gaskis? I have nothing. Great. Seeing no other items on the agenda, I will adjourn this meeting.