All right. >> Good evening. I will now call this meeting to order. Our first agenda item is this evening is the open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for anyone to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda or in application form that will be coming to the commission at a future date. Uh is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the planning commission on an item that is not on the agenda or an application? >> Chair commissioners, uh we do have a new alternate planning commissioner, uh Commissioner Segovia. Um this is her first meeting and please introduce yourself. >> Nice to meet you all. My name is Anna Segovia. I've been living in Victoria for almost 4 years now. It is really an honor to be here. I'm very happy to be part of this commission. >> Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Um to not hearing anyone from the uh in the audience? uh I can get to move on to adopting the final agenda. So, commissioners, our next item is to adopt the final agenda. May I have a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> Motion to adopt. >> Second. >> So, we've got a motion by Shower and second by Crofts. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? No. So, the motion carries. Um our first item is item 4.1, the approval of the to approve the planning commission meeting minutes from the May 5th, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> So moved. >> May I get a second? >> Second. >> So, we've got motion made by Commissioner Otterstatter and a second by Crofts. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Not hearing any, we will move on. So, our next item for discussion is item 4.2. It's a zoning text amendment related to fence setbacks. After the the staff reads the presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak. And then I will open it up to the public hearing for those in the chamber this evening that wish to speak on the request. Um Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed 3 minutes, uh and then I will ask you kindly let anyone else speak uh until everyone has had an opportunity. Some of this may not matter, but um I just lost my screen. Did everyone else? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's okay. Then I will ask the planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please It does seem like I got out of order here with the I was going for the second motion, but I'm actually in the public hearing. So, this was a little out of sorts. What should I do in this case? Do we have an open forum? And we didn't have it. Okay, I'm going to just move on. My apologies. >> It's okay. >> Um please note that the planning commission city staff will um not engage in back and forth for the discussion. I'll now turn turn to associate planner Travis Brierly for the staff presentation. >> Good evening, chairs and commissioners. Tonight we have a zoning text amendment being uh in front of us tonight uh regarding fences. Here we go. Sorry, new systems. Still working out a couple little kinks. Um but the zoning text amendment like I said is for fences. This is directly related to the 6-ft fence setback for stormwater pipes, uh which is our current ordinance. The request tonight uh would be to change that measurement to be from the fence post rather than the fence. Uh the application was submitted earlier back in May. Our 60-day rule is just after the 4th of July. And then with this we did public notice uh through the paper, our website, Mailchimp email, and at city hall. The proposed language in front of you is just a couple word changes. Like I said, instead of fence post shall be no closer than 6 ft to any city stormwater mains, it'll be fence posts is what is projected. The intent of the setback, just as reminders for public works people can access the stormwater pipes as well as stormwater infrastructure. Um So, the effect that we're looking at right now is that the current zoning code would not allow fence material to be within side that stormwater main setback. Um the implementation of the order of the proposed ordinance tonight would allow gates to be able to cross within that setback because they can still be removed and there's still access. Uh we would still allow stakes and pins to secure the gate, but the idea is that one person could just easily open them. Uh the language also clarifies the original intent of making sure that that uh was or that area was free and able to allow equipment and staff to get inside. The other part to this is that this language does not change current fences or intensify any current legal non-conforming fences which were installed prior to the ordinance change in 2024. On the screen in front of you, there's a lot of things going on, but the big thing to look at is the top symbol up here where you have the purple fence. That fence is a currently existing fence. And that was put in underneath the old ordinance. And if you notice, the fence goes right over the storm water pipe and inlet highlighted in green. The current proposal or if that if without the zoning text amendment, this fence on the middle property here, which is the applicant's property, would be required to have a 6-ft setback. The proposed ordinance would allow a gate to be used for the last 6 ft to connect in uh to the front and back, which provides flexibility for the property owner, but still does not change the ability for public works to get in there currently compared to if the ordinance is passed. Um additionally, when we look at the southern part of this area, there's another inlet on the southern part. The current ordinance would require that fence to jog around that inlet to allow for that. In this case, the with the the ordinance if it gets passed, the fence would be able to cross that with a gate as long as it doesn't interfere with uh the function of that, and thus the public works or contractors would be able to open that up easily to perform maintenance. Uh so, those are a couple of things that we're looking at uh and the purpose for this. Um Overall, like I Overall, like I said, the the intent is to still allow access to these areas uh easily by our public works contractors while also not creating anything that intensifies or creates other issues. Um, with that, I stand for any questions. >> First question, so we recently did change the fence amendment. >> To chair, correct. In 20 in the fall of 2024. >> Yeah. >> Um, a fence a new fence ordinance was brought forward to the planning commission and adopted later by the city council. And with that, there was a there were questions in there with fence placement especially as it comes to infrastructure, sidewalk and sidewalks and trails and getting clarification on what would be needed. So, after a few months of staff discussion and making sure that we figured out what those setbacks were, we put this in place. What we didn't foresee was the language talking about the fence material would prohibit a fence from being able to get close enough though if used in gate, you'd be able to cross a pipe. In a lot of our newer developments, say 10 sometimes 15 ft off the rear of the property, there's actually a storm water pipe running parallel to the rear property line. This amendment would allow for a gate to be used to cross over that while still meeting the intent of creating a 12-ft wide space for access. And because that access is needed uh, with such infrequency, it also allows property owners to have greater use of their property when they fence it in. >> Sure. So, this yeah, this was kind of a learn it's a niche. >> Correct. >> Is there anyone in the community that's specifically looking for this to address >> Um, that >> current situation? >> The applicant tonight specifically looking because there's an existing fence on the property line and having the 6-ft setback creates a gap so there's the aesthetic part of it which shouldn't play into the decision making tonight, but what it does do is that by allowing a gate in there, it doesn't change the access which should be available between putting in the fence underneath the current rule 6-ft back or putting in the gate. Additionally, we've had other residents that we've talked to that have to cross storm water pipes and there has been a practice to allow for that gate meeting the intent. However, clarity of the ordinance is always important. And that's what we would be doing tonight is we'd making making that intent clarified that we're looking at posts so the immovable part of the fence. >> Travis, has city [clears throat] works been already consulted and they're good with this? >> We've talked to public works over the last year and about this. There's no issues as long as the gate can be easily opened and it doesn't create any hazardous impacts to the storm water systems nor does it prohibit public works from being able to get into those systems. It doesn't have any real tangible negative effects unless it's installed incorrectly. >> Does public works care if there's a lock on it and if the lock is openable by them or by the owner or both? >> Typically your your fence is on residential property especially in the rear yard, you wouldn't have a lock on it, you just have a latch. If there was a lock on it, public works would likely knock on the door of the property owner to see if they can get it unlocked. These fences are placed within drainage and utility easements. With that being said, if public works need to get in there and there was a lock and the homeowner wasn't available cutting the lock would be well within inside the city's purview and legal responsibilities. >> Any Any other questions, comments? Well, thank you. Uh Is there anyone who wishes >> is here tonight, chair. >> Yeah. Would you be interested in speaking to this issue at all? Sure. Just come up, give us your name, address and uh >> Um Matt Scholl, uh uh 10062 Laurel Court, um Victoria. Um so yeah, thanks for letting me speak tonight. I appreciate you guys taking the time to review this. Um So yeah, basically the issue, as Travis said, um and you probably can't see this, but basically looking at our backyard, our neighbor's fence runs along that storm water pipe. Um and so if we were to add a fence, we basically just couldn't finish it with that 6-ft kind of extra gate. Um So yeah, we've been working with Travis. Um I think a few things to me that come to mind, you know, with a gate, that's going to provide much better access to whoever needs to work on it, cuz if if I have to install a parallel fence that runs all along my property line, you don't know, it's going to be hard to fit machinery in there, it's going to be a harder, tighter space to work with. Um whereas, you know, if they can just get through that 6-ft gate, now they have the whole yard to have access to. Um furthermore, you know, I don't think it would um you know, a gate having that there, it wouldn't interfere with like drainage or any sort of issues with that storm water pipe. Um and then a couple other things, I think um you know, just from like a neighborhood aspect and having talked to my neighbors, obviously there would be that, you know, unsightly aspect. Something I worry about is just with property value, too, is just, you know, if we were to sell a house in a few years, um you know, if there's less usable acreage and there's that awkward space, then certainly I think, you know, from a buyer's perspective, they'd say, "Well, that house kind of has a weird setup in the backyard." Um so that's something that's just been a little bit more concerning. Um but yeah, I think Travis made a good point as far as what we're trying to accomplish. Um I do think it's a pretty narrow um kind of thing that we're trying to accomplish, cuz there's not many situations where there's already a fence present. So, we're not looking to install like fence posts or any permanent structures there. It's just more so connecting the structures already there. So, um yeah, that's kind of all I have. >> Okay, well, thank you. Yeah, thank you for coming up and sharing. Um So, I guess, you know, could we have them motion pulled up if there's >> Chair, uh we do need to open up a public hearing. >> Oh, okay. So, um thank you. I'll open up to public hearing. If there's anyone in the chamber this evening who wishes to comment on this item, please do so. And hearing none, um I'll I'll uh hearing no public comments, uh commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> Second it. >> Okay. So, we've got uh motion made by Croth and a second by >> Clod. >> Clod. Um all those in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, thank you. The motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will open the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? And I think we've already talked that through. Um If there's nothing more, I'll ask for a motion. >> Make a motion to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment request to the city council where a section 18-9-3D be amended be amendment to define fence setbacks from storm water pipes to be the fence post. >> All right. Um May I get a motion? For that? >> I already just did. >> That was my motion. >> It was your motion. Okay, can I get a second? >> Second. >> Long-winded, but yes. >> You have a second. >> Uh so we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. Thank you. We'll move on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda. Um Are there any reports from staff? >> Uh chair and commissioners, there uh the city planner asked me to inform everybody that on June 16th uh Hotel Victoria uh shared parking CUP will be coming forward, as well as the Astoria sketch plan, that's the former Mirror site over on 7, or excuse me, over on 5 to the west of town. And then uh he'll also be presenting uh some development maps and updates to get the planning commission back up to speed where everything's at. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Any questions or comments on that before we move on? Okay, um any reports from any commissioners tonight? Any updates? Hearing none. Um I guess we're moving towards adjournment. So, commissioners, uh there are no more items on this evening's agenda. Can I get a motion to adjourn? >> I make a motion to adjourn. >> May I get a second? >> Second. >> Okay, it looks like we uh have a vote. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, uh thank you, the motion carries. We adjourn. >> Good