All right. Good evening. I'll 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 Siggoia. Um, this is her first meeting and please introduce yourself. >> Nice to meet you all. My name is Anna Siggoia. I've been living in Victoria for almost four years now. It is really
an honor to be here. I'm very happy to be part of this commission. >> Well, welcome. Thank you for joining us. Um, so not hearing anyone from the uh in the audience. Uh, I'm going 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. >> Second. >> So, we've got a motion by uh Shower and
a second by Cross. Um, all in favor? >> I. >> 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 uh motion made by Commissioner Autoader and a second by Cross. All those in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? hearing any uh 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 staff reientation, 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 three minutes. Uh, and then I will ask that you kindly let anyone else speak. Uh, until everyone has had an opportunity. So, some of this may not matter, but um, I just lost my screen.
Did everyone else? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's 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. >> Okay. Um, please note that the planning
commission and city staff will um not engage in back and forth for the discussion. I'll now turn it over to associate planner Travis Brley 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. There we go. Sorry. New systems still working out a couple little kinks. Um but the zoning tax, like I said, is for fences. This is directly related to the 6-foot fence setback for storm water 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 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 six feet to any city storm water mains, it'll be fence posts is what is projected. The intent of the setback,
just as a reminder, for public works people get access to storm water pipes as well as storm water 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 with inside that storm water main
setback. Um the implementation of the or 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 current 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 the if without the zoning text amendment, this fence and 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 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 uh 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
>> chair. Correct. In 20 in the fall of 2024. Yeah. >> Um, a fence or a new fence ordinance was brought forward to the planning commission and adopted later by the city council. And with that, there was 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 you use a gate you'd be able to cross a pipe. In a lot of our newer developments, say 10, sometimes 15 feet 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 foot wide space for access. And because that access is needed uh such 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. Um, is there anyone in the community that's specifically looking for this to address the current situation? >> The applicant tonight specifically
looking because there's an existing fence on the property line and having the sixoot 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 six foot back or putting in a 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 making making that intent clarified that we're looking at posts. So, the immovable part of the fences. >> Travis, has City Works been already consulted and they're good with this? >> We've talked to public works over the
last year. Yep. About this. Um, there 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. Um, it's doesn't
have any real tangible negligible 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? >> The typ typically your your fences on residential properties, 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 uh of the property owner to see if they can get 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 with inside the city's u purview and legal responsibilities. Any any other questions, comments? Um well, thank you. Uh is there anyone who wish
>> applicant is here? >> 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 Shel62 Corral Port 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 six foot 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 because if if I have to install a parallel fence that runs all along my property line, you know, now 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 six foot gate, now they have the whole yard to have access to. Um, furthermore, you know, I don't think it would, um, you know, 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 house in a few years, um, you know, there's less ac and there's that 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 because there's not many situations where there's already 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, 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 the 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 a public hearing. If there's anyone in the chamber this evening who wishes to con, uh, comment on this item, please do so. And hearing none, um, I I'll uh hearing no public
comments. Uh, commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Okay. Can I get a second? Second. >> Okay. So, we've got uh motion made by Croth and a second by >> clock.
>> Cloth. 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?
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 of the city council whereas section 18-93D 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 that we just >> That was my motion. >> That was your motion. Okay. Can I get a
second? >> Second. Long. Yes, >> you have a second. >> Uh, so we have a motion and a second. All in fa in favor? >> I. >> Any post? 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 historious sketch plan. That's the former mirror site over on seven or excuse me over on five 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 to
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 adjurnn? Make >> a motion to adjurnn. >> May I get a second? Second.
>> Okay, it looks like we uh have a vote. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Hearing none. Uh thank you. The motion carries. We are journ