Prescott Planning & Zoning Expands Hillside Standards to Commercial Projects, Flags Fire-Code Conflicts

Good morning. My name is Don Michaelman and I want to welcome you to the May 28th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh we don't have too many people in the audience here, but if you happen to have a cell phone, if you could check to make sure that's off or on mute, would appreciate it. Uh we'll have the commission members introduce themselves and we'll start off with Michael. Yes. Good morning. Michael Marshand. I'm happy to be here for my um second planning and zoning meeting.

Connie can tell me my second also. Happy to be here. Good morning Tom Davis. Oh good morning James Whiting. Good morning Rick Kimry. Members of the staff will introduce themselves when they make presentations here. Uh this is an open public hearing and is being videotaped by the city. The proceedings are being televised by representatives of the public media, the public, local, cable and or radio stations and may also be rebroadcast. The number of commissioners present is six.

It will require a majority vote of those present to pass a motion. Members of the public when called upon are required to state their name and address for the record so that we may know who is speaking and be able to contact them at a later date if necessary. First item on the agenda is the minutes from the April 9th, 2026 commission meeting. Are there any corrections to these minutes? If there's no corrections, is there a motion concerning the minutes? I move that we approve the minutes.

We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Chairman, I'll second. We have a motion to approve and second. Any further discussion? If not, Karen, would you call the role for people to Alex, you going to do it? Okay, I sure am. Thank you. Commissioner Kimry, approve. Commissioner Commissioner Hutchinson is excused. Commissioner Marshand, approve. Commissioner Davis, approve. Commissioner Kenteli, approve. Vice Chair Whiting, approve. Chair Michael, approve. The motion passes.

Next on the agenda is LDC 26-004. Amendment to the City of Prescuit Land Development Code, Article 6, Section 6.8, 8 hillside development standards to address applicability for single site development of multifamily and commercial projects. The applicant is the city Jacob, you're up. Good morning, chair, vice chair, commissioners. Jacob Lun, community planner for the city of Prescuit.

Uh today we'll be discussing LDC26-004 uh regarding land development code updates to the hillside development standards. Uh so as many of you are probably aware there are not a lot of flat lots left in Prescuit for development. So what staff is seeing lately is more development on lots that have slopes uh containing anything from 0 to 40% slope or greater. Uh so with that we're bringing the hillside development standards before you today.

Uh the intent of the hillside development standards is to allow safe reasonable use of slope properties uh while minimizing environmental damage, protecting public safety and preserving the natural scenic character of the community. So this is our current hillside development standards applicability from section 6.8.2.

Uh with this you can kind of see that it's staff's interpretation that under the current hillside development standards only it only applies to residential lands splits and subdivisions with slopes uh greater than 20%. Uh this this interpretation is part of the reason why this is being brought before you today.

Uh the hillside development standards were brought to city council's attention during an appeal of a written interpretation of the hillside development standards that went before the board of adjustments on September 18th, 2025. Uh at this meeting, the board of adjustments uh upheld the community development director's written interpretation of the hillside development standards.

Uh after that meeting, city council directed staff to research the hillside development standards to see if we can find uh ways that this could be applied to uh increased uh amount of projects. So with that, we decided that we would see how we could apply it to single site development for commercial or multifamily projects instead of just to land splits and subdivisions. So, with that, this is our proposed changes to the applicability section of the land development code.

Uh, as you can see, the first bullet point, uh, number one, proposed residential land splits and subdivisions. We're keeping that in there since the current hillside development standards we were already applying to these types of projects. Uh, the second bullet point you'll see is where we're adding uh, for commercial or multif family development on lots that are 2 acres or greater.

Uh the hillside developments uh will now apply to these types of projects on these lots as long as they're 2 acres or more. Um with that said, for any area or part of the parcel that is less than 20% slope, the hillside development standards do not apply. Uh modifications can be made to the hillside development standards uh in accordance with section 6.8.7.

Uh however with that it can either be modified by the board of adjustments or city council depending on the type of project we're seeing uh requests for modifications to. Aside from that uh this is large. Yes. So I have I have a number of comments. Do you want do you want my comments as you do the presentation or do you want to flow through your presentation and then open it up for comments at the end?

Uh, I would prefer to go through the presentation and open it up for comments, but I'm open to either. Awesome. Cool. All right. Well, aside from the applicability changes, uh, much of the existing code is going to stay in place. It's going to be largely a cleanup of the existing code. Uh, we are moving some things around to different sections, updating some language, but for the most part, uh, it's largely a cleanup.

uh except for our table 6.8.3 which is on page nine of your agenda packet uh which I will be going over here on the next slide. So this is uh table 6.8.3 uh within the hillside development standards. Uh as you can see it correlates with the steep slope categories ranging from zero to 40% or greater. Uh with those slope categories, we have maximum disturbable areas that go uh coincide with each steep slope category.

And there's also minimum lot area requirements based on the slopes within those areas. Uh with this, I wanted to just state that these changes that we're making today are only meant for commercial or multifamily projects. Uh with that, subdivisions and residential land splits will not be changed. Uh same with planned area of developments.

Uh we already apply hillside development standards to those and we're not proposing any changes to those just implementing how we can apply this to commercial development. Uh so with that for single site development the minimum lot area provision from this table will not apply. So largely staff is going to be reviewing the hillside development standards uh based on the maximum disturbable areas of the lots. uh mostly we'll be focusing on anything with slopes from 20 to 40% or greater.

Um with that uh you will see certain lots do have a mixed category of slope categories uh within the actual parcel. So in instances where we do have a combination of different slope categories, we will be requesting that the applicants provide us a slope analysis or a slope category map. uh that way we can determine the maximum sight disturbance that would be allowed on these types of properties for these projects.

Uh I will also have an example of that on the next slide of how that can be implemented and applied to commercial projects. Uh lastly, if you are looking at this table in your agenda packet, you'll see that we have a density transfer bonus option. Uh we're actually removing that from this table and we're going to add it to its own section of the land development code. Um, if you want to see that table, you can find it on page 11 of your agenda packet.

So, this is a hypothetical example that staff and our operations manager has created to give an idea on how the hillside development standards can be applied to single-sight development for commercial or multifamily projects. So, on this you'll see this is roughly a 20 acre parcel. uh they do give us their different slope categories. So we've got 0 to 20% ranging to 40% or greater.

The one thing I want to point out is when we see these types of projects, we are going to require that they provide us a disturbance envelope, which you can see in black here. So anything we will not allow any disturbance outside of this envelope. That way the rest of this lot would be preserved in its natural state. Um, but with the disturbance envelope, we are looking at a couple of things.

So, the different slope categories on this map, we have uh it in yellow, but really it's kind of this more lighter green color. Uh, these are all of your slopes 0 to 20%. Uh, of the entire parcel, this is 7.57 acres. However, in this hypothetical, they're only proposing to disturb 5.42 42 acres, which for 0 to 20%, we allow a maximum disturbance of 100%. So, we're not as worried about the 0 to 20% as we are with the 20 to 30, 30 to 40 or 40% or greater.

Uh, so with this, you'll see the darker green color. Uh, the whole lot has 5.32 acres of these 20 to 30% slopes. However, within this uh disturbance envelope that's proposed, they're only proposing to disturb 1.58 acres of 20 to 30% slopes. So, with that, it comes out to 29.7% of disturbed area. And per the table on page 9 of your packet, uh we would allow up to 30% maximum disturbable area for these types of slopes. Same thing for the 30 to 40%.

this lighter blue uh property or parcel has 3.65 acres within the disturbance envelope. They're proposing to disturb 0.25 acres which correlates to 6.85% and is well under the allowed 15% maximum disturbable area. And then you have the really high slopes 40% or greater in pink which is mostly going to be on the undisturbed undisturbed portion of the property. However, there are a couple of areas in the disturbance envelope where there's going to be 40% slopes.

So, of those that are proposing to disturb.12 acres, which comes out to 2.62% and the maximum disturbable area would be allowed up to 10% for that type of slope category on a project like this. So, if staff were reviewing this project, this is how we would uh implement the hillside development standards.

And based on this, we would be able to determine that this project would be in conformance with the hillside development standards since all of the areas do not exceed the maximum disturbable area allowed per the table. So that would bring me to our recommended action. uh move to recommend to approve or deny LDC26-004 updates to the hillside development standards uh with or without changes. And that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions you might have.

May I Oh, I'm Thank you, Jacob. Before we go to questions, I want to apologize. I didn't acknowledge Councilman Garing attending the meeting here, and I'm sorry about that on that. And now we'll go to questions. Connie and Michael after Connie. Yes. I actually have quite a number of questions if you'll bear with me. Yeah.

So probably probably the the biggest highle question I have with this is this document has has very much a residential feel to it and it's not it's not clear to me what parts of this apply to commercial and which ones apply to residential. Um there there's whole sections uh for example 6.8.3 8.3 um A and B that that mentioned residential. So So by definition that that wouldn't seem to apply to commercial.

And so it's it's not clear to me throughout the document what what the what what applies to residential, what applies to commercial, and what applies to both. Okay. Yeah. So I know it does reference a lot of residential. um mostly uh subdivisions, residential land splits, as I mentioned, those are the two big ones where this is going to apply.

Um, for instance, if someone was going to propose a new subdivision for residential, we're going to be looking at these uh hillside development standards to make sure that they're providing us the one, the approximate or appropriate lot size requirements based on the largest occupying slope within that parcel.

Uh, and two, if they are exceeding these slope categories, we're going to want to make sure they're providing disturbance envelopes so that way we can determine that they're not exceeding the maximum disturbable area to preserve the hillsides. Um, as far as the commercial component, maybe I'll let Alex touch on that. Thank you, Alex Bramblelet. So to kind of reiterate what Jake has said before, over a year ago, the question came up of does this apply to to single site development?

And as staff analyzed the existing code, it was very clear that this is for subdivisions, residential land splits, subdivisions, it kept repeatedly referring to planned area developments, all not related to single-sight development. So that was our interpretation.

That's then what again as Jake mentioned was challenged to the board of adjustment where the board upheld our decision saying yes as written it applies to subdivisions pads not single sight that um is then when we heard concerns from council and the public that we want it to apply to single site. So we looked at our existing code again I I know I mentioned we are trying to do a whole land development code update.

Um so we we will be addressing this very very holistically at that time but we're we can't get to that quite yet. So in the interim this is our proposal to add in um the applicability for single site development. So where we landed and can you go to the applicability the new applicability table. So where we landed is this change for applicability of keeping it as it was before. Residential land split subdivisions, all that is still the same, not changing pads, it still applies.

What we're adding in is number two for commercial multifamily developments on lots 2 acres or greater. So if you have an existing site that's 1 acre, none of this applies. If you want to do a commercial or multif family building on a property 2.5 acres, you're going to have to be you you'll be impacted by the the subdivision the hillside subdivision regulation standard. So, and then as again looking into all the existing codes, it is really applicable to subdivisions and everything.

as we look through that table that we've modified and JCAT up is really what's going to impact is so when we're looking at a single site development wanting to do commercial multif family we're going to be looking at this table and ensuring that on that project they're not exceeding that maximum disturbable area. So that's the largest piece that's changing is this table will apply to single site development and then everything else is still related to residential lands split subdivisions.

It's not changing. We just cleaned it up a little bit. So it's really just this table will now apply to single site and everything else is asis. So that table applies whether it's commercial or or residential anything yeah greater than 2 acres. Um if you if you can go back one slide um that that first sentence which which is which is mimicked in the um write up itself should be should be the following development with slopes greater than or equal to 20%.

Because because there's one clause that says greater than there's another clause that says less than uh neither one includes equal. I think that could be something with your motion. you are more than welcome to uh modify that uh per portion or section with your motion to include that language. We'd be happy to do that. I know that the table as written is 0 to 20% is there. None of this applies and greater than 20% it kicks in.

So we could go that direction just clean up a few things to ensure that if you're at 20% slope it doesn't apply. If you're at 20% 20.5, you know, and above, that's when it starts to kick in. Yeah. I mean, I mean, it's it's it's simple math. Neither one of these includes equal to 20%. I'm just I'm just cleaning up your language, Michael. How many more questions do you have? A lot. A lot. What I'd like to do is allow some other commission members to ask some questions. I can come back to you.

That work okay. That's fine. Uh Connie, did you Thank you very much. Um no, I have I'm also I have a few questions on this too, but just for a practical process matter, um if you have a lot that comes to you for multifamily and it is 2.2 two acres. So, it goes over how would do they are they allowed to apply for a variance if they were able to come in there and if they did apply for a variance who would make that decision? Yeah, they they could apply for a variance.

Uh that's where like I mentioned on this slide, modifications can be made to the hillside development standards and that's largely where it depends on the type of project or what they're asking for. Uh so with that, we could have them apply for a variance. We would take it to the board of adjustments where they could uh have the public hearing. we could get public comment if people come to the meeting. Uh but realistically the board of adjustments could approve a variance for that.

Otherwise, where council kind of comes into play is more with the subdivisions or planned area of development aspect. They would be the ones to uh make modifications or could wave the hillside development standards.

And then another question is under this new um which is just slightly changed, how would a a subdivision uh a multifamily specifically such as the one that's going on right here uh just up up hillside, the name of the road is Hillside, not the Hillside development standards, but if you go up there, uh how how were they allowed to take the whole top of that off? I mean, how did they mean from the street? Yeah, I it looks like maybe two acres.

I'm I'm not really 100% sure how many acres that is, but what was the process to avoid even the old standards and basically scrape the top of that mountain off? Largely that comes into the single site development aspect. We were under the interpretation that hillside development standards didn't apply to single site uh development such as that project. Uh with these proposed changes, that project would now have to adhere to the hillside development standards.

If it were today, they'd be required to to maintain a 25% open space. If that project uh if that project came in today, we would evaluate it based on the maximum disturbable area for the slope categories that they have on that particular lot similar to this. So, so were they uh in a situation like that, were they because it was it predates this, were they uh required to bring in a slope analysis? Um that I'm not sure of. I could go back and get that information for you, but that's okay.

I'm just I'm curious of the process because we have uh two big projects that come to mind right now that would never been able to uh be done under these standards. U and one of them is the Prescat Lakes, I think it's called the bridge or the paragan ridge area. Um and yeah, exactly. So I I looked that up when they first broke ground on it and I couldn't understand how they were able to uh skirt some of that.

So now that we have this, I'm concerned about a variance number one and adhering to the standard. So I was just curious if there was going to be a process on that. And then I do have a couple questions on the WOOI, but we'll go ahead and I'll pass on that and we'll come back around if you want to just have everybody have an opportunity. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have a question or comment? Um Mr. Chairman, I do.

Um and a comment is that um Jacob, thank you for uh allowing us to view the video of the city council. Thank you for looking at it before the meeting. That was very informative. My my point uh and I'm glad this exhibit's up right now. Um question is um do I I'll refer to it as a heat map u u measuring slope which is is a great way to do it. Um but uh is this something you do in house? Does this something that is the responsibility of the applicant?

This would be the responsibility of the applicant. They would have a surveyor or an engineer provide us with this document. Uh we did this inhouse. Luckily we have Will West who used to be the city surveyor. He he helped us put this together so that we could have a example that way when this does come up in the future we can provide examples on what we're looking for to applicants. So I'm I'm not sure this technology is readily available to everybody.

So is it is it something you would require they have this technology to present to to the staff in their application? Um most most surveyors or engineers would have this program I believe. So it it's pretty readily accessible to a surveyor engineer who would have to do this map for them. Okay. So, in other words, this this exact type of an exhibit tech and technology uh would be required of the applicant.

We would be looking for something like this, especially um with a residential lot split or a proposed subdivision, we're going to want to see something like this for the entire subdivision. Um same with the commercial aspect. Yes, if they're 2 acres or greater and we do see that they have these slopes over 20% or greater um we would be looking for a document like this to be submitted. So, um, looking at from the developer st and I like like I like the results here.

Um, but looking at from the developer standpoint, why wouldn't I just want to evaluate my my proposed project for the building envelope and not take into consideration the remaining slope of the undisturbed area? Do you understand my question? I'm not 100% sure I understand the question. Let's take the I'm I'm the developer of this particular property. I've outlined in the black line where I'm going to build. Mhm. Okay.

And the the restrictions applied to that building envelope are based on the amount of slope on the entire parcel. Uh the restrictions are going to be based on the amount of slope that you're disturbing within the envelope. So um largely it correlates with the amount of slope for the entire parcel because you can't exceed a certain percentage of that entire slope within your building uh or disturbance envelope.

Um so yes uh yeah so I I think I would have as an applicant I would have a problem with let's say if I had a large parcel let's say it's 10 acres and I wish to build on an envelope that's within one acre okay uh I'm getting in a way I interpret this I'm getting punished for the slope of the entire parcel or restricted I should say punish you're you are restricted based on the slopes of the entire parcel. Yes. Okay. Um but that that is the downfall to the hillside development.

No, I'm I'm okay with it, but is that it I mean I maybe see challenges in the future to this application in that regard. And that's where we will have the again the variance process or uh city council for these uh different types of subdivisions that come in where they can make modifications or exceptions to this with this example. Excuse me for interrupting the area within the black lines that's pretty much buildable as you want to build it.

And if you need to scrape the land, you can scrape the land. uh pretty much uh so like I was mentioning this lighter green is the 0 to 20% slopes which a large portion of this disturbance envelope in this example is that 0 to 20% where you could essentially disturb 100% of that area. Um but there are other combinations of slope categories which is what we mentioned with the maximum disturbable area from the table on page nine.

uh when you do have those combinations, you do have to take in all the different slope categories into consideration uh for your development. So if you want to build outside of that area that's marked there, then these uh conditions come into effect. Yeah. If if you build within that really you don't have any change in what you can do. Uh not necessarily. As long as you meet the maximum disturbable area, yes, you could develop within this uh envelope the entire thing. Uh but outside of it, no.

Once you have this uh envelope in place, you would have to if you wanted to change it or expand it, they would have to send us a new building envelope with a new slope category showing us that they still meet the maximum disturbable areas with their enlarged disturbance envelope. I may see a problem in the future with variances or adjustments. But anyway, other questions of Jacob. Okay, we'll start through the rotation. Michael, why don't you do your next say three questions?

I'm pairing down my questions just just so you know. Um so um can you explain to me um under 6.8.3 um 2C where it says the minimum lot area provisions listed in the in the table shall not apply to single site development. Can you explain to me why that is?

2.8.3 C or point sorry repeat that 2C 22 C the minimum lot area provisions uh that is largely due to when we took this to the study uh study session for council uh it was determined that this would only apply to the commercial projects of 2 acres or more. Uh, I believe it was under the interpretation that anything under two acres could be considered a taking of their private property rights. So, this isn't this isn't two acres.

This is minimum lot area provisions listed in the table shall not apply to single site development. Yeah, I can add in. Um, so again, these were largely geared towards subdivision. So you're you have a 50 acre site and you're subdividing it down and and based on the hillside can impact your minimum lot size. But with single site development, your lot's already existing. So it doesn't apply because you're not changing your site. It it already is the 5 acres, 2 acres, whatever size it is.

So in a subdivision, it impacts your size. But in a single site, your lot's already created, so it it doesn't apply. Okay. Thank you. Um moving moving to the table under 6.8.4A uh density transfer bonuses and considerations. Um uh two things. Um uh label that table just like just like you labeled the previous table. It's it's unlabeled right now. Um and then it's missing two greater than signs just like the previous table. So, so it's greater than 20% to 30%. And greater than 30% to 40%.

And that's that's that's just following the convention from the other other table and and um um kind of filling in the mathematical blank there. Yeah, we can we can add that in there especially for consistency between the two tables. Thank you. Uh this one, this one wasn't part of the markup, but I think it's it's important to to change. So, if you go to um uh driveway single family, and that's um trying to find the section for that. That must be under 6.8.4 uh D Is that it? Number two. Yeah.

So, so it says a single driveway that serves more than one residence shall be 20 ft in width. And I think what you mean to say it's a minimum of 20 feet in width and not exactly 20 feet in width because the the um a minimum driveway is is 10 ft but then when uh more than one um uh residence it's it's going to be a minimum of 20. So I I don't think you want to restrain people to exactly 20 ft. Yeah, that uh makes sense and we're happy to make that change.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. That actually ties Let's go to Connie now. Okay, that actually ties into the question that I have. How is this going to meld with the WOOI standards and I believe they're from 24 to 26 ft. And if you have a a mountainside build like you're showing up there hypothetically, are they going to be also required for a secondary egress?

So, how does this new hillside uh development standard apply to the WOOI, the width of the driveways um and the egress situation? It seems like it's in direct conflict. Yeah, I I don't think I could speak on the WOOI condition since that's reviewed by the fire department. That wouldn't be a process that planning is involved in. um fire would be a reviewer on these types of projects. Um and that would be something they would have to work with the fire department on.

But so would the fire department review trump the LDC building codes that we're trying to establish now then? Uh yes, potentially. Okay. So if I and Alex you may know this uh with the WOOI standards is it 24 or 26 feet width because of the fire trucks and the new engines that are they just dealt with this in the county. I was at the meeting and uh I can't remember if they established the 24 or the 26 ft width and this is going to be particularly hard on a hillside standard for access for fire.

I I don't offhand know the width requirement for the WOOI, but um as Jake kind of mentioned, it's it's in addition to so this is kind of a planning function, something we're we're reviewing for regulation and and making sure it meets the requirements, but they're they're still going to have to comply with the fire standards, too. If those are more restrictive, they'll have to comply with with those regulations.

You know, I as a builder myself in my past life, I I would like to see that upfront because if I'm hiring an engineer to come in and analyze the slope and I'm moving on to my grading and drainage and I don't, you know, have the understanding up ahead that the WOOI applies here, I think that there needs to be some uh notice of that in this hillside standard changes.

uh just a note to be able to put people um you know investors whoever is invested in this they don't know this stuff inside and out uh to be aware that they're this is just a process and they will have to comply with the WOOI. So I I especially when you're looking at a tight building envelope like you've got there on your hypothetical screen. Um I think it's important to have that there.

So, and everybody in planning needs to know that too because if fire trumps um you know the LDC building codes, this should not be a surprise. It should be upfront. So, I I personally like to see some note of that in this completed process if we get to that point. What um what we could do cuz I know we have over the years referenced different codes kind of in our code, but those codes then change then our codes out of date.

So, what feels like maybe could be a a good avenue is we have our application checklist of everything that someone needs to submit and and maybe it it could be embedded in there as a a forward front. Hey, keep in mind these are these are the things you're going to have to comply with because that's going to capture all you know this is our division and we are like siloed in a way but doing the same thing.

So, I I do hesitate to put other code regulations in our code because then when they change we're out of date and then it becomes hard to track. So, I do think that the application packet and the the checklist could be a good space to to capture that. I agree with you and I and I'd love to see that in there.

Uh, another situation had come up when I was on council about and I'm not sure if you guys were able to do that about adding in that application the just a simple sentence that says, "Have you um complied with your deed restrictions?" Because I know there's been a lot of legal issues where we don't do that. That's up to the the buyer and the owner and potentially the developer, but I would like to see that in the the application also. Um I have should I pass on this?

I do do have one more question on Okay. Are you sure? Okay. Um so this is just a a language situation in here on page 32. Let me grab it. I've seen this repeated in this packet as well. So on page 32, we have a project approval of RPT 26 26-004. Um in the item summary, it says this revision of plat to combine portions of parcel 8 and 9 block 2 and portions of block three of Lincoln Park tract.

If you go down under keep on going down the second to the last paragraph, please note this application when approved and recorded does not create uh create a split or combine parcels. So which is it are we combining parcels and then saying that it doesn't. So how how does this work? Because it's a again it's a contradictory statement if you go down under please note. Yeah.

and maybe we can so th those are the second kind of next agenda items um which I'm happy to touch on those are okay yeah um yeah we can wait on those but you know I'm just grasping the opportunity to speak get this so we don't forget it thank you thank you Don before we go back to Michael anybody else question come up Michael okay two more things and then I'll pass my mark up to to Alex so that you can put it in a file folder for your broader updates updates later on. So two more things.

One is um uh the hillside wall standards um 6.8.5. You have a figure and just two things about the figure. One is one is label it as a figure just like you label your your tables, but then also make sure it's big enough to be readable cuz cuz the actual the actual um uh uh words in there get pretty small. So, um and then the last thing is and this is really a small thing and you can tell me if I'm misinterpreting it, but under 6.8.7 8.7 exceptions to hillside development standards.

Um I think you mean and in the very first sentence and not or. So a city council may modify and approve exceptions to otherwise required minimums. You're not going to I don't think modifi either modify or approve. You're going to do both and that would mean an and we can make those changes. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. I'm sorry. I have one more. Sure, Connie. Okay. This is also a technical question that I think needs to be addressed.

Um, again, let's Can we go back to the map that that one right there? So, if you look, we have the black area that is a hypothetical building envelope. Um, and you noted in here that the remaining areas need to remain natural. What about do we have anything to address reveging? You know, I I know that in some municipalities such as Cave Creek and Carefree, if you were to do this, all of that um heat map area would have to be cordoned off and nobody could drive into it.

So, what do we have when you have a tight building uh space like that and they start bringing up their big, you know, track hose or whatever they're going to use? Are they going to be allowed to revge some areas? And do do you think we need to make a note of that? Uh, we don't necessarily have provisions in our code for that specifically.

Um, I I guess is your question saying if they were to be bringing in their equipment through that area to get to the site, they would need to bring Well, it's just the building envelope is so tight and I I know we've run into that in my company where in a strict area, you're not allowed to pass the barrier that is to remain natural. It is natural. It's not allowed to be rev.

So here again, hypothetically, and I can see where it could apply to this one and also the Paragan Ridge subdivision, if you want this builder to put this back to natural, it's going to be different if he has to revveg it. And I do kind of think we need to have something in there that addresses the difference between natural open space and a reveged area that needs to be put back.

um you know some of those native trees need to be boxed and kept and and they take them they keep a map of that and then after the construction they need to be put back in that identical spot. So how do we address that here with these hillside standards? I'm going to let Alex take the lead on that one. So I think it's a a couple things. The the black line is indicating the maximum disturbable area which is um grading and development.

So that that's the area that can be graded, can be development 100% within that because it doesn't exceed the maximum. So I you know ideally they're they're not going beyond that to reveate beyond that because that that's their limit for development and grading. We don't further really have reveation um currently.

It is something that we've considered as part of kind of the bigger process of of our land development code update because it's it's not really clearly addressed what does that what does reveate look like? what is restoration? What what are those parameters? They're great questions. Um so, but but for now, they have to stay within that space. Um and it is something that we would like to look at moving forward with with our bigger update.

You know, that's something that becomes vague and I think it it has the potential for being a problem. So, if we're going to commit to open space and um you know, protecting our natural landscaping, maybe there should be a note in there if it's something that uh is of particular importance. For example, in the Dells, if if a builder comes in there and moves all those big granite rocks, there needs to be a map of where they were and they need to be put back.

If we're going to leave it open and nobody cares, that's a whole different thing. But I do think that that we have to think that through especially on a hillside um development application. But just give it some thought maybe on down the road with the LDC. I do think that there is some importance in that and we do need to be clear about where we stand you know for the developers that come in. Thank you. Yeah. Like a followup and maybe you know whoever can answer or wants to answer.

Um based on this exhibit for example, um wouldn't it be the case that um the applicant developer applicant whoever would be responsible ahead of time for taking any disturbed areas and remain in that within that building envelope. So in other words to go to your question is is there anticipation that heavy equipment or utility replacements or placement would be outside that building envelope? Yeah. And if so you would need a revitation plan or something like that.

But I would say that if the if I'm the developer, I'm going to come in with the best possible building envelope so that I am free and clear to move in and out and construct and develop and grade in a everybody accepts a recognized building envelope.

If you go outside that building envelope, there got to be another step or process to get a special permit or, you know, to do the to do a mitigation plan uh for exactly what you're talking about, either replacing, having to move outside that building envelope, to do construction, development, whatever the case may be, uh needs to be handled in a some special way uh and and unique and and I would hope that both the applicant and the and planning department and fire or whatever would say, "Look, you need to make sure that your building envelope is where the development stops." And that includes off-site pre-construction, whatever the case may be, which would be the case with these types of projects.

These are disturbance envelopes, not building envelopes. So, they're a little different. Uh building envelope, you can disturb outside of the building envelope. Uh with disturbance envelopes, there is absolutely no disturbance allowed outside of this envelope. So they would be bringing their driveways in through this disturbance area and they would be accessing their property for construction through this disturbance envelope as well.

If that provides any clarity, that's the way I interpret it when I when the presentation was made. Yeah. Any other questions? I have a few. Um, how would this apply to We had brought up already the property at Smoketree and Prescuit Lakes Parkway. There's also a property on Bradshaw where sort of cut the hilltop off. How would this new uh code be applicable to them? So, as far as the smoke tree one goes, I believe the hillside development standards would have been applied to that.

However, Prescat Lakes has a master plan and development agreement that I think was considered before hillside development was even in our code. Um, if they were to do these projects today, this would apply to both of those projects, especially one's a residential subdivision, so we would be looking at that on their platting process.

Um if for a single site we would be looking for something like this uh to show us the slope categories to determine how much of the actual uh parcel they could disturb. So they would both be subject to the hillside development standards if those projects came in once this change was approved. Okay. Uh dealing with a commercial one. Say a project like Lowe's came again. How would this be applicable to that? Uh same thing. We would make sure that the parcel is going to be uh over two acres.

If it is over two acres, the new proposed hillside development standards would apply and they would be subject to the entire section of the hillside development standards with their development. Okay. when uh the applicant brings uh this design or this plot in, is there any verification done to be sure that this is pretty much applicable? Yeah, we we um we have a large review staff on all of our different projects.

So, not only would planning be looking at this, but I'm sure our city surveyor would be looking at these types of documents as well. So um multiple eyes would be looking at these uh during the review process and that'll probably be applicable during construction too to make sure everything is being met that it's supposed to be met. Absolutely. Okay. Any other questions? Con Don, can I just make a comment on what you just said?

Um, generally the process is the the applicant or the owner or the developer uh consults with outside engineers that will actually stamp those sets and they'll set grade and then that goes in front of the review process here to make sure that they're in compliance with all of the requirements. And you know, we just had to deal well let's talk about that Lowe's for a minute. That cut that they did in the mountain by today's standards would have never been allowed.

he would have probably had to climb halfway up that cut in order to start the lows in order to comply with the standard because that as you know was a big deal back in the day. I don't think that'd be allowed today. Uh I would add as well uh prior to any type of development like this uh commercial multifamily uh subdivision residential lot split uh we require what's called a pre-application conference. So they'd submit plans to us and they're going to get comments back from us.

So prior to them ever submitting for their project or permits, they would be well aware that these are going to apply to their project as well. So that would be something that they would be well aware of and hopefully submit to us with their first round of review. Yeah. Going to let's just take Lowe's for an example. if if you're going to apply these new requirements to a large commercial development like that, you're going to stifle commercial development. And I just I have a problem with that.

Okay. I mean, you know, there's a site, you know, right next to Lowe's that we approved some time ago for it's going to be for what is the gas station that's going to go in there? Quick trip. And they're going to Yeah, the quick trip. And they're going to and they're going to just follow along, you know, cuz that's a pretty steep hillside there. So that probably would never have been approved under this, you know.

Now you're you have a major commercial corridor that goes down there that really, you know, people that live in houses near there, you know, are the ones that complain about all this, but you know that they didn't have that commercial corridor when those houses were built. But because it is a commercial corridor and it provides economic opportunity and tax base for the city, I I'm I have a problem stifling that. Yeah, that is understandable.

Uh that's why we were under the interpretation for a while that it only applied to subdivisions, residential land splits, but this is the direction we received from council is how can we provide or apply this to the commercial? So that this is what we were able to come up with. And also don't forget that it's a 2 acre minimum. Most of those individual lots like the gas station, I don't think they'd even meet the 2acre minimum in terms of disturbance.

Um in the in the corridor if you're talking about the setbacks 25 ft. Now that big one that's on the Indian reservation, that's you know the visitor center. Of course, they don't have to listen to us, but um that would be, you know, obviously a large project, but that like that quick trip, I'm not even sure that's going to Do you know what the pad size is of that? I don't think it's 2 acres. I'm not sure the exact parcel size.

Um it's probably around 1 to two acres, but I would have to go back and look for for certainty. Any other comments? We have uh indicated some changes in here, several. Michael's going to be passing his changes. We've had some other ones on this. How do you want to handle this for voting purposes? Do you want to have those changes done and bring back next time or do we have enough information that we can have a motion and list the changes? I I've been writing things down.

So, um, my my my preference I feel like we can make a motion. It sounds like approval with modifications and I have the modifications generally summarized that I think I captured and I can run through them and then we can see if I captured correctly if that sounds okay. If it's okay with the commission, why don't we have Alex list the modifications and then we can make if we want to make a motion based upon that list. that. Okay. All right, Alex.

So, um, consistent with the 20% being clear about the the slope, if it is 20%, um, it it doesn't apply and being really clear about that number, we'll fine-tune it. Um, because sometimes we say less than 20 or greater than 20. So, we'll create consistency there. Um, we're missing some greater than symbols in the table. a table cleanup, table labeling, as well as um uh labeling of the uh the figure. Thank you. Um and then the the driveway length making it minimum instead of shall the Yes.

Did I say l width? Yes, thank you. And then um it not saying or under 6.8.7 8.7 but and for modifications and approval from council. That's generally what I heard. How'd I do, Michael? Uh very good. Um uh the only one that I saw missing and maybe maybe you mentioned it, maybe I I didn't get it, but but the um figure uh labeling that as a figure and making sure that it's that it's big enough to be readable. Does that list of modification meet everybody's thoughts? All right.

Um, is there a motion to be made concerning this agenda? I'm not sure how to word this, but I'm going to start off. move to recommend to approve LDC26-004 hillside development standards with approved modifications. So now that we've done that, will it come back to us for one final sweep to approve your changes or is this it?

Um my thought process is if if we have captured the changes accurately um with the approval with the changes we'll make those changes and then it will move forward to council. Okay. So the uh the WOOI considerations and the uh natural space at all is going to go on a separate time under the application. Yeah. Correct. It won't be changes to the current proposed changes. Um we can address those in other different processes. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second.

We motion and a second. Further discussion, Jim. Are we voting on just the changes or are we voting to approve it with the changes? We're voting to approve the with the changes. Am I correct? Yeah, that's the way I understood the first motion. Yes. The only other option is to table it until the changes are made and that's really up to you. If the commission members are comfortable enough with what Alex read out as that, I would hate to continue this on versus getting in place.

That's my thought on that. Okay. Uh, Alex, want to call the role done? I'd love to. Commissioner Kimry, approve. Commissioner Marshand, approve. Commissioner Davis, approve. Commissioner Kintel, approve. Vice Chair Whiting, approve. Chair Michael, approve. Anything else that we uh need to cover on this? Not on not on this one, but we have a few other things that I'm gonna Okay. O. Okay. So, the other Oh, dang it. Okay. The other component of what we do now, hang on, let me get oriented here.

Okay. This one. So, uh, the next item is, um, as we've talked about before with the changes in the state law, there are additional items that, um, are now administratively reviewed. And as part of that, in terms of maintaining transparency, um, it was direction for us to bring those projects to you all um, once once they are approved. Um, so we do have three revision of plots and one final plot to run through with you. As a just kind of refresher, sometimes it's a little confusing.

Revision of plots and final plats used to not come through planning and zoning. They would just go on um council consent agenda. So if it doesn't look like familiar processes that you used to see, they didn't come through planning and zoning, but we're here just for that for that transparency for for the public to see what we're administratively approving. So this is the first one. It's 1565 Sportsman Court. And this is the existing property here. And they're doing boundary line relocation.

Oh, it went Oh, there it is. Okay. They're doing a boundary line relocation which was here before. This was the original property line and they just relocated it over here. So there wasn't an increase in the parcels. It was just a boundary line relocation um which did require a revision of plot. And so that's the uh that's the first one that we administratively approved. U I can zoom out on the map. So, here's kind of where we are in town. Um, but yeah, are there any questions about this one?

Thank you, Don. What was the reason for that? It looks like there could potentially be a wash. Is that what I'm looking at here? I don't know. Um, usually we, you know, sometimes they let us know what their specific reasons, you know, variety of different things for this one. I don't I don't know the exact reason. Um, we're just making sure that it it complied with setbacks and and everything like that. So, I don't know. I don't know why. Anyone else knows? Is there any other questions? Okay.

The other one. Oh, and Alex, that is the I'm sorry, that is the uh application where there's a contradictory two paragraphs here. So, which is it? Yeah. Okay. That Thank you for bringing that up. So that is our um template language and we have that for all all projects that we do. So we're just letting folks know when they um get that approval letter from us that they still have to go through the county and do additional processes to to finalize what they're doing.

So that's just our sta standard template language, those couple paragraphs letting folks know kind of next steps and how to move forward. Now, you're talking about under the please note paragraph, correct? Where it says this application does not create a split. It does not combine parcels, but we're asking for a combining of the parcels in the item summary. We're trying to let them know that our approval is not actually splitting it.

our approval saying we're good with the split, but you need to then go to the county and they're the ones that are going to actually record and do their county things that make it official and actually split the lot or combine it. Whatever it is they're trying to do, um that's the next step. It doesn't end with us. There's more they have to do and that's us letting them know. Well, could you say that on this maybe as an additional sentence? Yeah, we can add more.

I think that's important because again you're working with people that in some cases just walk in blind. I think there should be a further explanation of that because it is a a contradiction if I'm just reading it for what it is. Yeah, we can add add more for clarification. Thank you. Mhm. Any other questions? Or can I I'm gonna I'm gonna migrate. So, this is the next one off of Inner Coway. Just zooming out a little bit. We're kind of near the airport. I'm coming back in.

Okay, now let me pull the map over. This one's just another takes a second. There we go. This is another boundary line relocation. So, here is where the the boundary line was before. It's two properties. They relocated it over here. It's the new property line. Uh there was again not an increase in lots. They just had two lots with a boundary and they relocated it. And so this is the new the new boundary line. Are there any questions on this one? Okay.

So the next one is off of Norris Road and there excuse me there's a few things. So, this is the the property itself. And there's kind of um when you look at the original plot, which I'll bring over, there's a couple other lots underlying. And so, it was a cleanup of just abandoning some of the lot lines and just kind of cleaning up the whole the whole property. So, you can see there there was a lot line here and there was one over here.

They just abandoned those to make it kind of a general cleanup of of the area. It was going through a shed before, but it's all really one functioning property. So, they were just cleaning that one up a little bit. So, Oh, there we go. That's this one. And the last one is a final plot in Deep Well Ranch for South Ranch 1B, which is near the airport. Hang in. Zooming out more. Okay. And it complied with the Deep Wall Ranch master plan. It complied with their preliminary plot.

So this is kind of all of South Ranch South. There's unit one, two, three, and four. South Ranch South as well as kind of over here. So just the general area being developed out and then this is what their final plat looked like. So it was brought through at the normal hang on the normal process is bringing it through planning and zoning the airport reviewed it. Engineering reviews this. Everyone's reviewing um the the final plot uh when it comes through.

So when we're issuing an approval letter, that's because everyone all the divisions have signed off and said that per each of their own regulations, it complies. And so um this one met all of all of the requirements. And so we went ahead and moved forward and approved their their final plat. This was for 80 lots. Um again, kind of in that South Ranch whole area. This is 1B. So that's this one. Alex, just a quick question on that one. Um, can you go back to that map, the satellite map? Mhm.

Where is that in? Is that the open space right there? Is that the spllay for the airport? The actual spllay, I think, is over here. I think it's this zone, but I So that's a little north of the uh runway, the airport. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, the airport's Yep. Okay. Thought you were saying subdivisions. Any any further questions or comments? If not, Alex. Thank you. And the meeting is adjourn.