welcome everybody to the uh July 12 2023 Planning and Zoning meeting a little bit of a change with uh the person that used to sit in this chair so you'll see that a little differently on the agenda but after elections uh I'm the new chair for the boards for this year and uh we'd like to start with kind of seeing who's all here today including our new members so um how do I do that with the yeah and uh chair Ben Ayers and then go through uh Vice chair Jeff pitcher here here board member Troy Peterson here board member geneseeth Montes here board member Jamie Blackman blakeman Jamie blakeman read it quickly and board member Jason Carpenter here all right thank you all right we'd like to start with reading the consent agenda and chair could you also ask for um board member crockets why did I not get you Jeff that's remember okay I'm happy to be anonymous it's a nice change so yeah I am I am here thank you no we do that after this I'll read the consent first oh okay that's fine too so is there we have a blue card for one of uh the items we're going to be discussing for the one item actually we're going to be discussing is there any other uh blue cards that we have at this point or any other comments nope any others all right so with that we're going to be pulling off of uh 3A and 5A the case with that as well off consent and with that we'd like to read the rest of the agenda that will be a part of the consent and Troy Peterson has volunteered to read that for us the consent agenda for July 12 2023 planning and zoning board meeting item 2A minutes from the June 28 2023 study session and regular meeting item 4A zon 22-01298 Red Oak autism Academy within the 5000 to 5100 block of East University Drive located west of Higley Road on the North Saudi University Drive Council use permit and this request will allow for a private school um and the staff recommendation has continued to the July 26 2023 planning zoning board meeting item 4B zon 23-00222 bright path Child Care within the 1200 block of North Val Vista Drive and within the 3500 block of East Brown Road located west of Val Vista Drive North of Brown Road rezone from Office commercial with the bonus intensity Zone overlay to office commercial and major site plan modification this request will allow for the development of a daycare center this item recommendation has also continued continuation to the July 26 2023 planning and zoning board meeting item 4C 0123-00282 Mountain America Credit Union Mesa Branch within the 4900 Block of South Power Road located north of Ray Road on the east side of Power Road major site plan modification and amending the conditions of approval for case number zon 21-00069 this request will allow for a bank with a drive-through and recommendation for this case also has continued to the July 26 2023 planning and zoning board meeting and that completes the consent agenda all right thank you Choice do we read 5A we're good with that okay all right with that would like to vote on the consent agenda so emotion actually I get a motion to vote on consent so moved outside I'll second the motion we have first second all right please vote all right within a unanimous seven eyes and zero no's consent agenda is approved thank you everybody with that we're going to move on to the rest of the agenda items Rachel do we start with you with 3A sure sure board members so our one item off of consent is 3A which is 0 and 23-00276 and it has a companion case for a preliminary plot which is item 5A and Josh is probably making that presentation six great Mike's working now zon23-00276 Higley 202. uh this is for a site plan review as well as preliminary plant review to allow for a contractor's office and Associated contractor's yard uh here's the site located off of the east side of Higley Road on the north side of Thomas just located north of the AZ Loop 202. the current zoning on site is light industrial where this is use is allowed by Wright uh the current General plan designation on this site is employment which allows for a wide variety of employment opportunities ranging in high quality settings which this does meet uh here's the site photo looking from Easton to Higley or from Higley uh here's the overall site plan which includes the overall office which is two stories as well as the workshop located in the rear overall he's the associated landscape plan with that site plan and here's the proposed rendering so you can get a scale of the overall office as part of this uh participation was provided for uh notification within 500 feet as well as HOAs neighborhoods we did receive a comment concern about the drainage in the area and I do have the applicant here to provide additional information on that as well uh but based off of that staff finds that the overall site plan complies with the 2040 General plan complies with the site planner review criteria of chapter 69 of the mzo as well as criteria within section 9-6 for polarity Platt therefore staff recommends approval with conditions thank you Josh any questions from the board on this presentation that's right you wanted to hear from the app again we just got well I think would be good though if we talk about some of the concerns first just just so you you can reply to those do you want me to do that or you have to so Josh um a couple of items that we talked about a little bit in study sessions so with the the property to the east access for that if you would talk about how how that if this property if this cuts off access or how they have Public Access there sure so site off of on the east side of this would require access off of 54th Street which is located on the east side of this image um it's a little hard to tell because of the right-of-way isn't fully taken in that section yet so they would have to make sure the proper right-of-way would be dedicated on that side but access would be from 54th on the east side okay and transportation department was not anticipating the 54 would tie back over to Higley Road to Loop background or not at this time gotcha and then on the the the the the the the grading again and when the applicant comes up if they could talk about there's some significant uh grade differences in the in the north I mean the full North property line but especially up at the North east corner it looks like 22 feet of a vertical difference and so so I I guess I'll I'll uh when the applicant speaks to look to them to to address some of them all right thank you and could you state your uh name and address for us for the record uh my name is David Bonham with bfh group um our address is 3707 East Southern Avenue here in Mesa 85206 um so to answer some of the questions um as far as yeah there's there's definitely significant grade um as of right now with our preliminary design we've just looked at doing our best to balance the site but knowing that there's going to be half there's going to have to be some kind of retaining walls um I know there's a question about drainage we're aware of the off-site that potentially um circumventing the the site which we're working with our hydrologist to ensure that that is not impeded impacting anybody else upstream or down um so I don't know if there's anything specific to the the terrain question um except yeah it's excessive and so it's going to be a challenge to uh to design for it um and we just we've made sure that the client understand there's going to be significant retainage I think it's focused only in one one or two specific areas which is where there's a little bit of a ravine um and so so yeah that poses a little bit of a challenge but fortunately it's not the uh for the duration of the site at least as as far as the perimeter goes um so so yeah there are there are some challenges with the site for sure and to also to help mitigate that I don't know if you guys notice on the site plan but we pushed we pushed some things uh away from both property lines to the north and to the South to to give us some space uh to grade up or down and and uh give us some Liberty to to make some things function a little bit better it not only helps us with the earthwork but it also helps us to tie in a little bit closer now you're talking about you know 10 or 12 feet um you know 25 feet to make that up isn't gonna isn't Gonna Do It um so that's why we're anticipating retaining walls but we're going to help mitigate that and minimize that as much as possible any issues so um you have that whole yard is on the second half of the site correct and that's that's as far as surrounding the workshop that's all that's open yeah it's all over but it's impervious uh no it's it's aggregate I believe you're gonna do okay so that'll help a little bit I think some of the concerns that we have there is just looking at the site plan and you know this is Planning and Zoning we understand that but at the same time when we're looking at it there's just wasn't quite making some sense but yeah you're gonna handle that so that's a concern that we have okay that's understood what else yeah and so on on the backyard area where and the site plan shows that it's asphalt right it shows a Maricopa Edge going around it it's not really real clear actually but if it happens that assumes it's asphalt we're talking about the east no the full back parking area surrounding the workshop um I was anticipating that it's going to be aggregate um Ralph uh do you know that it says recycled asphalt paving and then it has the Maricopa edge around it so it looks like essentially um a recycled asphalt that's improving that yeah I I tend to be asphalt or is that going to be yeah you could just state your name too for us yeah good afternoon this uh private most hobby from us have a Design Group for the architect for the project okay this is yeah so so what is the the surface of the area around the bigger yard around the asphalt the the site plan refers to it looks like it's asphalt and then with a thickened edge around the perimeter of them yes referred to maricopaier which means there's no vertical care around because these are like missionary that uses those area and usually they start messing with those vertical curves so it's better not to have even care up there I have seen it just messes with the curbs so we don't do vertical care around and it's more flexible and more natural and then surrounding is 20-foot Landscaping so okay yeah the the the great implant shows a curb there and then the site plan shows the Maricopa Edge but then so then it is essentially asphalt yes asphalt ending to emphasize the kind of asphalt use on the back it doesn't work very well with the where it's called curved stuff and it starts building up more uh you know debris around the curb so it's better to keep it natural and just glue down to the uh you know ground uh that's basically is the best way to do on the industrial side of the uh yeah yeah and and then on the so so on the from the from the fence that separates the backyard area there's if you run along there there's differences from your pavement grades of 11 feet on the west side to 14 feet to 22 feet on the um on the north east corner and you have a 10-foot landscape tract and your site plan shows a six foot masonry wall where's the the masonry wall goes on the property line and then the slope goes so you have a little wall on the property line and then the 20-foot slope going up from the from the property line it there there's not enough detail to really see what's going on here and it looks like significant enough that unless you're are you proposing to build a 20-foot retaining wall with a six foot masonry wall on top of it well so so I guess the the answer um is we'll have to take a closer look at how we would um mitigate that right now yes he he understands that there's going to be retaining wall and then the the CMU wall block wall would be built on top of that and so it would yeah it would be that's that's the intent right now um but you know if we need to do a tier system or or something of that nature that was going to be determined at final engineering so so I I I guess the the concern is we're approving a site plan here but it sounds like when these these changes you're talking about could are likely going to change what the site plan looks like in that area no I don't think so within 10 feet you're gonna you're gonna go 22 feet vertical plus a six foot wall within your 10 foot tract no not the uh you're talking about the placement of the wall is gonna gonna affect the the overall site now I'm talking about the grade difference on the Northern property line that you show from your parking lot you have your parking lot and then you have a 10 foot tract and then you have the property line and there's a 14 to 22 foot vertical grade difference through there so you're talking about as if we're looking at this on the closer to the West Side the the north property line from property from West all the way to the east all the way across it's 10 foot plus all the way across okay so on uh what the way this Lifeline is on the west side we actually have what is that 25 feet 40 feet yeah okay so we have a significant more than just 10 feet to work with as far as uh as far as grading and tearing that um so yeah I'm not sure what the 10 feet come from unless it's calling out maybe a setback the the site plan says 10 foot landscape tracked along the north property line that's why I'm getting it seems like there's some details here though that maybe aren't fully worked no we already aware of it pair zoning because we are facing to L1 next to Eli next to us so it's going to require 10 foot uh five foot actually and we are giving Temple landscape there now this preliminary site of course shows six foot Trot because that's the minimum everybody does it but based on the Civil study and civil construction documentation we're going to end up to work on it and if there are limitations on the height then it's going to end up to you know at the wall of still we have room to go back to five foot so I may do double wall you know like one ball Higher One ball lower and between five foot landscape so still we have kept that idea but it all depends because it varies in the height so we have to really go into construction documentation phase understanding exactly what are the you know food by food changes on the heights so we can communicate that throughout the site so the front is going to be six foot but as far as it goes to the height and different elevation will play with natural you know land to maintain that with different type of wall but you could go two walls into that template there's no problem because I need only five foot perisone so so uh final or at least the last question I have is it is there then any any has there been any discussion or agreement with the property owner to the north over easement or ability to build the wall or what that wall will look like because they're they'll certainly be significantly impacted by most definitely we're going to try to stay six foot appearance to the neighbor so if there is more digging or you know coming back next to the neighbor so we're gonna try to eat from our side rather than there so we're gonna stay that six what we're talking at the highest point that they appear six foot then if it gets to our land then be because we want to get access from Hickory and there are some creating there so if you go below then we're gonna create secondary wall if necessary I mean you guys are going to calculate that maybe more towards East Side than this site as we go to West it gets better isn't it so as we go to no it's still 10 feet plus yeah we can go 10 foot wall or if it's 10 plus plus six feet so 16 feet you have to you know we usually do in double wall and do some Landscaping between like everywhere you have seen it yeah when you eat the height you come back in multiple walls with some Landscaping between actually looks more beautiful than just one wall and then you know the vegetation can fall into second world so it looks better actually okay I just say I don't think it's necessarily A worry from us from an aesthetic or anything like that what we're worried about is seeing this and that trying to understand it because we do think it's going to impact the site plan and that's what we're asked to do today well for neighbor's standpoint of you know you're gonna see a fan small now in our point of view we're gonna go low or high we're going to manage that because of certain height perhaps construction document level building is going to ask that you know stay to certain height because of you know barrier and retaining and all those matters and they have I'm sure some limitation on the height then we can double those walls as we necessarily need if we don't need it we don't need it to do that so from for neighbor I don't think it's going to be that much I mean it's just a wall it's a question for Steph but I'll ask you that okay any other questions for that nope nope okay thank you guys so I know you have a question for staff as well but we'll do that during discussion actually we'll do that later so no other questions from the board I do know we we also have one comment card um for this item as well um so I'll go ahead and read this it looks like they're not asking to speak is that true Nicole you are asking to speak no you are not but you'd like to speak okay so should I read the card or just let her speak yeah why don't you come up Nicole and speak them foreign if you could just state your name and your address for us for the record please you guys hear me okay yeah my name is Nicole smell and I live at 3845 North Higley Road where I've lived since 2002. I am here on behalf of Stephen Wright the property owner of the land north of the proposed Bill and I'd like to start by saying that I think it's ridiculous to come to a Planning and Zoning meeting with site plans that aren't correct there are so many lies and mistruths within this that I am about to dive into and I will get through this quickly Josh stated in his staff presentation that this build is in compliance with the city of Mesa 2040 General plan that may be but this does not align with the Falcon Field sub-area plan it doesn't sound like a 40-foot tall building obscuring the view of Red Mountain fits The Narrative of what has been anticipated for the Falcon District the Falcon Field sub-area wanted Aviation related businesses this type of construction belongs in Apache Tonopah Buckeye or even Central Phoenix where the rest of the construction laid down yards are the plans presented today are a revision of previously presented plans that we were quite upset about in the past with the setbacks the sight walls drainage non-completion of 54th Street most of our concerns were ignored we reached out to the architect to voice our concerns and we heard nothing in response stated in Jeff's staff report was that my family and I only had concerns with drainage and that the Architects smoothed that over that's not true no one has contacted us and we have not heard anything the citizen participation report also States we were notified of a neighborhood participation meeting that is not true either but we strongly urge one before this moves forward discussing site setbacks and site walls the setbacks in this plan are incorrect this project is sandwiched between two Residential Properties it is only the front half of our property that is Zone light industrial so this will be 10 feet away from my son's swing set the proposed site walls are unacceptable ideally they should be eight foot tall from a finished floor we do not want to see uncover storage like we are already seeing to the east of us at Jim's water trucks at 3735 North 54th Street photos are attached in this presentation and can be emailed the relevance of Jim's water truck company is he is the same property owner slash applicant and we don't want his storage in our backyard we fear that he's moving it over there drainage as I have pointed out previously the dishonesty in Josh's staff report no one has discussed drainage with any residence and this has not been resolved there needs to be adequate drainage to plan with water retention as I believe you guys agree with that as well the discussion on 54th Street I actually have the project narrative right here they're saying that that's where the access point is going to be the project narrative says that it's all going to be filtered in through Higley Road um so that is not what we were told I don't know why that's being presented to you today but we are aware that 54th Street is an undeveloped Road as it stands today even though it is considered a fronted Street in the project narrative if there's going to be any new construction why is 54th Street being ignored left to look as ratty as it does as can a community we need to look at the whole picture and not slap these new construction Band-Aids to the north and ignore the West this is why we need a neighborhood participation meeting because there is a lot of unconnected Dots here to discuss the whole picture 54th Street needs to be completed with through traffic I know they stated that today but I don't see that in any documents that I have or on the site plan finally we do support the growth of the neighborhood ever since I was a little girl I knew that this land was made for light industrial I know that's what belongs there but a construction lay down yard it does not belong in the Falcon district and it does not align with the Falcon Field sub-area plant there needs to be a neighborhood participation meeting before anything moves forward and I would like to State our concerns so they don't get ignored again which would be the setbacks drainage completion of 54th Street the site walls and excuse me I was going to State again that this project is not ready to move forward but thank you for your time and I have faith that you all respect the Falcon Field sub-area plan more than what's been presented to you today thank you thank you to bring up yet Joshua come back up yes so uh it was provided to me that the I provided the information from Nicole she did provide me emails I did reach out to the applicant to reach out to them uh it was conveyed to me that they did but I I do understand the concern that they might have not have reached out to you um and so I will relate to the I know the concern with 54th um is possible that uh Nicole has an earlier version of The Narrative where they were looking to do the complete site of the whole Li portion uh that is being shown here they have reduced the size of that due to be they had industrial uh spec for the first half of that building and they're looking just to do the uh Allowed by right construction contractors office so that's why since they no longer have Frontage on 54th uh they are no longer have any impact 254th and so they are not acquired all access will be off of Higley as shown on the site plane any questions for Josh guys on this Josh is there for uh what is code limitations for retaining wall height uh maximum Heights or maximum height of tiered walls if if it's a tiered wall conditioned as far as what those look like I do not recall that off the top of my head for retention for Wall height a chair board member Peterson so it follows our typical Wall height standard so typically it's a six foot if it's in a storage Arc or screening outdoor storage it's eight feet but the way that we measure it so if if we have a wall on top of a retaining wall then it's measured from the highest point of where the grade hits the retaining wall if that makes sense on the inside or the outside so if this was the retaining wall and then there was a fence on top of it it would be measured from the top of the retaining wall so is there a maximum for a retaining wall it would just follow our standard six foot no for so so the screen wall is the six feet or the eight oh whatever it ends at the end but then the the retaining wall below that if that's 10 12 20 feet height wise I'm not aware of any of any regulations about that and is there if if a wall is tiered if they take a retainer if they have 10 feet to retain and they go five feet and then a tier and then five feet in a tier is there a code for what that the what the what that tier is so that it can be landscaped or or that type of thing um chair board member Peterson I I've been trying to look while we've been talking about that I haven't found any requirements about that but I'll continue to look okay tonight I don't think that there's anything from retaining woman I know not that I'm aware of okay any other questions for Josh or for the applicant at this time so Josh is there is does staff stand by its recommendation do you have any concerns after you've heard some of the questions that have been brought up today yeah no I I think certainly I based off of kind of our earlier discussions study session I think a condition just to verify if there are any changes to assure that there aren't any impacts to the site plan whether that be fall under a minor or major it would fall I would thing would be concurrent with that um but the use is allowed by right so it's not a usage question on this for staff the general Plan Destination is employment while the sub area is important for this area as well the general plan does dictate that within the zoning that uses Allowed by right so the overall General plan designation of employment would be the one that supports this and allow for that multiple uses of different employment opportunities so well certainly I do understand the more Aviation aspects that we're trying to occur in the Falcon Field area if the use is allowed by right there's no mechanism for me to stop that use so I would add possibly recommend to provide another condition to resolve the concerns with the elevation changes and things like that but overall the recommendation would be the same since they would be meeting the requirements of the use and site plan review thank you Josh and and I guess the follow-up would be do you have specific language that we could that we could I would look too legal for that okay so chair board member Peterson so we did find some regulations or within the subdivision ordinance um and they talk about a wall or a terrorist combination of walls used for retaining should not be more than 18 inches it cannot retain more than 18 inches of birth so you'd have to tear okay okay um I want to bring up the applicant back to respond to anything from a comments as far as from the public or anything if you guys would like to respond um so I guess uh the the best responses a lot of the questions are are questions on engineering and is the site going to work and uh the impacts that it would have and most of this we have to if not all of it we have to be compliant and we go through the whole Rigamortis with the with the city uh City staff again as far as making sure that we're complying with code standards and um and Troy you know the you know the process in and out so we have to do that anyways um that's part of it I we understand that your your concern is it's going to affect the site plan um I I agree with Josh that if it does it changes the site plan let's come back let's talk um if it doesn't then then we we didn't lose time we can continue on um but I I yeah that was just one point that I was I was noticing was um all this is our questions in our final final design that it'll come out there and um and it's it's typical for a site plan that if we've got to change it due to our design we come back so that's that's a normal part of the process for us so I fully agree with that as far as drainage obviously we don't want to flood anybody we don't want the liability we don't want to pass that liability on anybody else so that's that's a a very important part for us um and then the other the other question and I fully understand all the concerns I unfortunately wasn't part of the citizens participation plan or uh anything of that nature so I didn't receive any of these questions myself but the setbacks even though we have minimum setbacks established based by by the zoning code the building is significantly further away and so I and personally I'm more than happy to to speak with them you know on a one-on-one basis so that we can resolve any of the questions uh concerns specific to to the site plan so all right thank you yes oh looks like we have one more question please yeah I just I want to follow up on the public Outreach did uh who who was responsible you said you weren't involved in the citizen participation who was involved in the public Outreach well uh as Joshua zavier and uh he could provide you guys documents we sent three times letters into the Senate now if somebody received or didn't receive I mean it's like personal responsibility but we did it and actually we don't send those letters out so we escape and don't do the one that is lucky against Josh does that so we send all the envelopes to Josh sends that to neighbors we heard some of the neighbors not with the name but especially one perhaps uh was the person it was talking before and we listened to them the building this building used to be on the west side I mean I'm sorry on the east side and we brought it to the West closer to Hickory so we did our tour we brought the building as close as possible to the street and I mean public you know Higley is a very public street it's not a little Street and he kept the 54 non-touched and it's a quiet land between them and our property I'm sure they reside in 50 for not facing Hickory hickley I don't think there is any objection on it but we didn't hear anything even south or north there's some more people are toward 54 and because we listened to them we knew 54 is very private I drove myself there I took a lot of photos and I recommended to owner that you know we developed a more closer to hickley than those area and who knows what we're gonna end up to design there I'm sure at that time they can oppose you know whatever is the correct right there but that's future right now we're doing a you know pair whatever is the proper zoning is and we have a lot of setbacks Landscaping all around on the south side we have 20 foot if you look at it on the North side we have 10 feet we could be five foot on that area and the reason I did Maricopa County Edge and not vertical care because if you don't want to limit with asphalt there in case if you need to push that in it's all flexibility it's not car parking there it's just for the you know Workshop there so the chance that the car is going to park there is like one in million no car goes on that back so mostly it's like inside the building and you know servicing that based on the business need is parking is going to be more under good looking you know office side that's what you're gonna see the standard cars there parked and if there is any problem our lot is going to be lower than everybody else 54 is in height so six foot is going to block most building of us now if you guys require 10 foot we can go 10 foot some cities they don't like to see you know 10 foot wall if you guys are okay they could go 10 foot I'm not against any height of the wall or ants thank you if I just follow up when in the issue of a public or a neighborhood meeting did did you decide not to hold a neighborhood meeting how did you know that how did you receive the comments from the neighbors that you incorporated into your design we it was like one or two and then we thought the answer to Josh and ourselves in our new revised design we were waiting for there to call us back or tell us their point of view we never heard anything I don't know what those people were talking about I mean we didn't hear it we're very friendly I mean I'm always available in our phones so I did not see any resistance there it was just one one time that Josh had it and we did listen and we moved the building further to uh Higley and we because fight plan approved so our design review is approved already 7-0 I mean There Was No Object why these guys were entering I mean I don't understand that part so we've been you know sending letters out to Josh and through City so I don't know him thank you thank you I think just a different purviews right the design reviews looking the building we don't have any issues with the building design uh what we're seeing is some discrepancy on the site that are a little bit worrisome to us that's all the information might be there but it's not clearly provided to us and then we're hearing different things so you know we have to work with what we have so I appreciate it I mean there was a mention of building like doesn't look good for the I mean design Duty was you guys got through the design review that's not our purview we don't and we've had no issues or concerns there just wanted to answer but yeah I mean as David mentioned we are willing to meet with them even in my office or their place and explain to them more in detail okay any other questions at all not for the applicant the only other question I would at some point like to hear some language proposed language I think we'll still close the public meeting for this one we'll have discussions that work okay with that we'll close out with the public and then yeah I'd like to have a discussion as well so do you want to start with that or or is there any other things you guys want to discuss first on the case before we or if there's anybody wants to make a motion I'm good with that too just uh to I I gotta share some thoughts that have that have already been uh shared but to restate is that um where where site plan approval is before us uh I'm I'm all for a typical you know if there's things that can be worked out out of condition or work it through the design process in this case those are significant enough to where it with with what the responses have been it's still not clear that it's not going to have some pretty major changes to the site plan and uh so I I I would not be in favor of the site plan as presented and then to couple on to that the the lack of the the neighborhood communication that has occurred and I think a a high need to have some I mean this the the resonance is literally the the house itself is just a few feet from that North property line and we're talking 15 feet vertical plus the six foot wall on top of that right 15 20 feet from someone's houses at uh yeah I I think there needs to be some more discussion there um I'm not comfortable with with uh proving this as it is and chair board members if I may just lay out a few options it might help guide your discussion a bit so with changes to site plans in our code you may or may not know there's minor and there's major changes so some would stick with staff per our code and some would come back to the board you have the option of adding a condition of approval that would require any changes or modifications or new development plans to come back to this board if you didn't want to leave some of those minor ones with staff so that we could add a condition of approval like that and I can read you exact language um so there so what I'm trying to say is if a change is big enough you wouldn't necessarily need a condition of approval on it it would just be if you want minor changes to also come back to the board that's where you need to add a condition of approval and if I could just follow up on that but it sounds like there will be changes required to the site plan and so I'm I I agree with the comments of board member Peterson on this I'm a little uncomfortable approving a site plan if we think that it will certainly be coming back here for for additional review and when you're so for the approval of a site plan I also want to just point to that you have limited discretion and then there's a various review criteria in the zoning ordinance so if you did if you were going to make a motion to either continue it you have that discretion or you could make a motion to deny approval of it and you would just want to make sure it's based on criteria set forth in the zoning code and it's a section 1169-5 so any sort of denial is within that review criteria it's not full discretion like a rezone it would be okay go yeah go ahead Jeffrey and I'll just tell you what I'm thinking I mean I don't want to deny a site plan on this project but I'm uncomfortable with whether it's fully baked and ready to move forward so I I would be inclined to support maybe a motion to continue this at this time and give the applicant additional time to look at some of these issues uh see if there's any changes that will be required of the site plan and then it also talk to the neighbors a little bit more about the project and then come back that's kind of where I'm at yeah and I I agree with that I think that a continuance would be in order especially you know to talk to the neighbors because then then we can have a you know a discussion about not only the the uh the concerns that you have so to to see if they've talked to the neighbors and recent agreement that way too continuance is certainly within your discretion just wanted to make those options clear would you like so I'd like to hear I guess from board member Peterson you've kind of been leading the charge a little bit on some of these questions how do you feel about a continuance yeah I I I think that's certainly appropriate because we're we're a lack of complete information and lack of complete communication with the neighbors and so time time will give time to both finish the get the design to a point where it's it's more clear what's happening and then also to to have those those uh the communication directly with the the neighbors and to work out something that's a a meaningful resolution because it is I mean there's uh it it's uh I get it that what the the zoning is here with the light industrial but the reality is you're you're next to somebody's house and so we just I mean we have the process because it's meaningful and it's part of code to uh to to work with the neighbors and that's what a city does is to get these things to come together and it sounds like that hasn't happened here so sounds like there needs to be more time to do them chair and board members um just wanted to recommend if you are considering continuing it that you consider continuing it to a date certain just because of the noticing requirements and the delay that it might cause if we do it to a date uncertain and so then I guess it would be what's uh what What's a date for both uh for for the applicant to do their work to have the communication and to come up with something is that yeah what does staff have a recommendation for what that time frame is um I don't have a recommendation but I can tell you our next planning and zoning board meeting is on the 26th and then the ninth is 9th of August like the chair was saying 26 seems really soon right to address some of the stuff so it would be August 9th yeah and if and if neither one of those are enough time the following one would be August 23rd s and just a reminder if you do make a motion to continue make sure you include 5A in that as well so that they're both in the motion that's why you may like to make a motion I think a four-week personally is appropriate foreign gives them enough time to make me do all the reading today what's your pride what's your pleasure on this one you're the you're the more the expert on this but I'll I'll go ahead and make a motion that we continue item 3A and a companion case agenda item 5A the whole thing okay so I would move that we continue item 3A which is case zon 23-00276 Higley 202 industrial Commerce District Five within the 3800 block of North Higley Road East Side located east of Higley Road and North of Thomas Road site plan review this request will allow for an industrial development um the staff recommendation is approval with conditions but I would move that this case as well as item 5A which is zon 23-00276 preliminary plan Higley 202 industrial Commerce District Five within the 3800 block of North Higley Road East Side located east of Higley Road and North of Thomas Road preliminary plant for an industrial development again staff recommendation is approval with conditions both of these items I would move that they be continued to the um August 9th 2023 board meeting you have a second I'll second that with that we have secondary please uh everybody vote on the okay with a unanimous uh everyone voting yes to move this to the August 9th 2023 as far as continuing that anything else from staff that we need to do at this time chair no that's no that's on the agenda all right thank you can I have a motion to adjourn the for me I will move that we adjourn the board meeting second I'll second that again applied and everybody vote all right with that with we are adjourning support me thank