Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Madam secretary, will you please call call roll?

Chair Burton? Commissioner Puppy? Commissioner Ragsdale? Here. Commissioner Kupcic? Here. Vice Chair Di Macio?

Here.

Commissioner Bassler?

Here.

Commissioner Trupiano?

Here on video.

Alternate Hester? Alternate manual? We have alternate Hester seated for District 1.

Alright, thank you. Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the January 27 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Do have a motion?

I move that we accept the minutes as presented. I'll second that.

It's been moved and second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

All right, next up is item three a, the Grand View Arizona rezoning committee master plan committee. Plan, yeah, committee master plan, there you go. Case number PLZZDash23Dash0016 as a public hearing request that the planning and zoning commission recommends approval to city council mister Glica

As the vice chair mentioned, this is the rezoning for Grand View, Arizona to community master plan. Just wanna point out real quickly, we've since retitled the CMP District to planned area developments. This was in progress kinda before we made that change. So we're still sticking with the old lingo here, but essentially the the same thing. You likely remember this showing up on three prior agendas.

The the commission has continued this item three previous previous times. We're not asking for a continuance this evening. We are asking for a recommendation. We have worked out the the stipulations. So the applicant tonight is Alan Bodman with Norris Design on behalf of the Grand View Buckeye LLC. The request is to rezone the property from a combination of r one forty three rural rural residential, light industrial I one, and the obsolete rural residential zoning district to community master plan. I'll

show you

a map in just a second, but the area is generally bounded by Broadway, Jackrabbit, MC85 and Dean, and totals just under 2,300 acres. There is a related request to annex most of this site, the portion that's not within the city currently. That is in process. It had its first city council hearing a few months back. And when everything is ready to go forward, it will go forward for approval at the same time as this rezoning.

So I mentioned just under 2,300 acres. Take these a little bit out of order. The the middle map, the zoning map shows that, of course, the zoning districts that are applied to the property, but the white shows the area that is currently located within Maricopa County that's subject to the annexation. So you can see most of the site currently in the county with the gray color being light industrial, green rural residential, and then a small segment of s f or excuse me, the the rest of it when it is annexed would would be coming in as single family rural residential. Going to now to the area on the left hand side of your screen, you can see the site is relatively remote with regard to existing development.

It's primarily agriculture on almost all sides. There are some isolated residential, smaller kind of county residential pockets in and around the area as well. And the general plan land use map, property is designated as employment. A few years ago, a major general plan amendment was processed for the property that changed this to employment with the thought that the city could attract a large mega user industrial employment generating type of development to the site, and that reflects that. We just recently, within the last few months, had the general plan text amendment approved that did allow for council to consider other uses within employment such as residential.

So the vision for this project is a rail served regional industrial hub with complementary, secondary, commercial, as well as residential uses both single family and multi families. And to do that, it identifies three distinct land use districts. Number one being regional employment, which is shown here, and I'll get into each of these in a little bit more detail, the purple. Residential village, shown here in the yellow, and the commercial district shown there in the red. So again, the overall vision is for this to be an employment focused development.

With that being the case, the CMP would allow for the entire site minus 32 acres to be developed with industrial uses. That would include a range of light industrial, some heavy industrial, but there are conditions associated with that and other employment generating uses such as manufacturing, logistics, research development, data centers and the like. The in staff's view, the objectionable uses such as marijuana related establishments, junkyards, things that have a negative aesthetic impact on the city have been removed. And rail access is prioritized within this CMP. As you can see, the rail runs kinda snakes through the project on an angle here, and then this is the canal that does even more more turning.

So a lot of rail frontage both on the north and south sides for this project. I'll talk about this in a little bit more depth later in my presentation, but heavy industrial uses I mentioned, some are permitted within the PAD, within CMP, excuse me. None of them would be allowed along any arterial street forming a perimeter of the site, so you wouldn't be able to see them from off property as well as adjacent to any residential. The development standards, your setbacks, building heights, etcetera, are based on our I-one and I-two Districts with some modifications and a real heavy focus within this document if you had a chance to look at it on transitions between industrial and residential uses. The Residential Village District, again, here in the yellow on this map, kind of at the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of the project, would accommodate employees, folks that wanna live close to their job potentially.

I do wanna point out that these locations are subject to some modification. There's language within the CMP that allows them to shift around slightly, but in no case would the residential be allowed to kind of create an island where it's surrounded by industrial uses. Excuse me. This could be up to seven fifty acres and a combination of single family and multifamily. So the multifamily would not exceed the 150 acres, so leaving 600 acres for single family potentially with a unit count cap of 6,500.

And the development standards are based on our development code. And then finally, the Commercial District, this is intended to accommodate community, neighborhood serving commercial types of uses, restaurant, retail services for the surrounding residents, not just within this development, but future developments in the area as well. This would be 32 to two thirty five acres. There is a minimum of 32 just to ensure there's at least some commercial service for to support the development and the services and needs of the employees. The development standards are based on our C2 District with some modifications to limit the intensity of some of these.

I mentioned briefly, I'll dive in a little bit more detail land use transitions. Our general plan as you likely remember includes employment transition area expectations that talk about minimizing truck traffic impact on residential, creating a good high quality visual from the perspective of streets, so not seeing loading areas, those types of things, really good screening. So this PAD or CMP gets at that through prohibiting the heavy industrial uses, again, on the perimeter of the site within 500 feet of that perimeter. Also with fairly large setbacks, 75 foot building setback to any industrial building, but a double setback, 150 foot setback to the service side. That's from any residential property.

And then there's a landscape buffer requirement as well. Design is purely conceptual at this point. There's no identified users or buildings for this development. But there will be an expectation that the development will present nicely to folks that are driving by it. Facades that are visible from streets as well as any neighborhoods will feature movement, interest, architectural interest, variety in materials, etcetera.

Landscaping will be drought tolerant, but also be used to screen, buffer, as well as provide shade and enhanced aesthetics. And then lastly, signage. If the future State Route 30 runs through or adjacent to this project, the project would be eligible for billboards in compliance with our code. They would still have to meet all of their other requirements within our code. We're not sure if that will happen.

The alignment hasn't been chosen. This project has doesn't influence, I guess, the the alignment as chosen by ADA. As with most of our our CMPs, the developer will be responsible for street improvements both internal to the project as well as half street improvements on the perimeter of the project. So I would include your improvements to MC85 and to Dean on the perimeter, but also all the streets that run through it. One potential caveat is Southern Avenue potentially could be terminated or discontinued through the site to allow, you know, a 2,000 acre industrial user that that might not want a a street bisecting the project.

Water and wastewater will be provided by the city, but there's no facilities for that currently. So the developer will be constructing a new on-site regional water and wastewater facilities to serve the development, which will have the benefit of also serving some of the surrounding properties. There will be a public safety site to be provided within this development. Specific location will be worked out during the development agreement, which we're currently working on. This does allow phasing.

As I said, there's no current users identified. But if somebody wants to develop a portion of it, will be able to. And again, I mentioned the development agreement. This project has been in for a long time. We started back in 2003 with review.

There's a neighborhood meeting held back in April 2024. And then the applicant had provided notice at that time. There's 13 attendees to that meeting. My understanding, I wasn't there, but primary discussion at that time focused on the State Route 30, the alignment and its impacts on the floodplain, if that would put any adjacent properties into the floodplain. Again, kind of a separate issue from what we're dealing with tonight, but still a good discussion.

We've had additional discussions with some of the owners in the vicinity of the site. They've had questions or wanting to know when this developer brings water and sewer campus to this area, if their properties would benefit from that or or be able to tie into those systems. Again, the item was previously continued three times and all notices have been completed as required. So wrapping up here, we do feel as a staff that approval of this well, certainly approval of the annexation is required first. Not by planning and zoning commission, you guys don't consider the annexation.

But when we go to council, they'll need to approve the annexation before the property can be rezoned. We do feel that the CMP is consistent with the employment land use designation, especially with the September 2025 amendment that allowed for council to consider residential within CMPs and PADs as long as there's criteria to mitigate any impacts. It does further multiple general plan goals from an economic development perspective related to increasing employment opportunities, particularly adjacent to rail. We have worked with the applicant to limit uses as we feel are appropriate heavier industrial uses, as I mentioned, restricted to the interior of the site. The development standards within the CMP are tailored to ensure compatibility between the different uses as well as provide connectivity from a pedestrian standpoint between the residential, potential residential and the commercial.

And again, infrastructure improvements, most notably the water and sewer, but also street improvements will benefit the surrounding properties. So Vice Chair, with that long winded presentation, I am at your beck and call with regard to questions. And this is a public hearing. Alan Bodwin with Norris Design is here on behalf of the property owner.

All right. Does Allen wish to share anything or have any prepared? If you would just state your name and your address for the record, please.

Absolutely. Good evening, vice chair DiBascio and members of the Planning Commission for the record. My name is Alan Bodwin. I'm with Norris Design. My office at 901 East Madison Street in Phoenix.

You like your slides up? Or

Kevin, what I'd like to do, I I I believe, is, we I I don't know if you have any cards here, regarding, speaking tonight, but it would appear that that's probably not the case. There's a lot of redundancy between the presentation that we have prepared and what Ken just delivered. And so, at this time, I think we'll we'll just, suggest that we rely on Ken's presentation. But I I do want to identify our project team and say thanks to them and thanks to the staff for all the hard work. As Ken put in his presentation, we've been at this for quite some time.

It's a pretty complicated plan, but I think we arrived in a a pretty good spot. So as he indicated, Grand View Buckeye LLC is the land ownership and the land ownership group is here tonight. I represented, land planning and landscape architecture, at Norris Design. We had legal representation by Gamage and Burnham. Manjula Voss is here tonight, if anything comes up regarding that.

Civil engineering is represented by Colliers, and they looked at the water and the wastewater. There is a large public facilities campus in the middle of the plan, that's a part of the plan. And then our traffic engineering staff did some, pretty significant work, working with your team, as it relates to the traffic component, and that's CivTech, and and the team at CivTech. So I I wanted to thank them, and I wanted to thank the staff for their hard work to get us to this point tonight. And happy to answer any questions or respond to any public comment.

Fantastic. Thank you. Start down here, mister Esther. No questions? I have no questions.

No questions. Thank you. No questions.

Mr. Trevianna, do you have any questions?

No questions. Just a comment. We're going to have to get more industrial in Buckeye. And I think near Roy Road is a good place for it to go.

Second that motion. I just had one question just for clarification. Ken, on the one of the slides you mentioned that there's a 30 foot landscape buffer. Was that just for the industrial part or the

Yes. So that that would apply when industrial develops next to residential within the CMP or if the in the case that the the industrial is there first, then the residential I believe still has the obligation to provide on that side of the property.

Okay. Thank you. All right. At this time we'll open up the public hearing. Madam Chair, do we have anybody that wish to speak on this?

We do not.

Hearing that, I will close this public hearing. All right, can I get a motion to recommend to cancel case PLZZ-twenty three-sixteen?

I will move that we recommend the approval of Grand View, Arizona CMP PLCZ-twenty three -sixteen with conditions A through J. I second

that.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next up is our regular agenda item 4A project H two o rezone modification specification. Modification of specifications for case number PLZMDash25Dash0107. And that is by Joseph. Welcome, Joseph.

Thank you, chair and members of the connect commission. Project h two o rezone, it's a actually a proposed modification of stipulations of formally adopted ordinance number 18 dash 23.

Alright. I'm glad you're able to say that better than me.

Life cases Benefit of the screen right in front of me here. And I wrote wrote it. Alright. So just just a brief snapshot here. The site is generally located west of the Northwest corner of Paterson Road and 283rd Avenue.

It is in the southern portion of the city's jurisdiction, kind of a ways west of State Route 85. The request is to modify some of those previously approved conditions of ordinance number 18 dash 23. Specifically, they're going to be looking to remove condition a and then modify conditions b and d. The site is approximately a 157 acres. I'll give more information on that in just

a moment

here. Here you can see just kind of a general aerial of the site. As I mentioned, it's Northeast Of Patterson and 283rd Avenue. It's located in an area that has a lot of kind of existing electrical and energy infrastructure either going in or planned Several large solar production facilities are in the general vicinity of the site, and there are several others that are contemplated in the future. The general plan designates this area as employment, which coincides with the existing heavy industrial zoning Both the current land use designation and the current zoning were adapted in May 2023.

The purpose of the existing zoning was initially for a hydrogen gas production facility. The intent was that the site would actually be producing hydrogen for a fuel source. Market conditions have changed, that is no longer a viable kind of option for the use of the property. So the applicant is requesting those modifications primarily to the previous modifications made the use of the property contingent and only hydrogen production. So the modifications will remove that contingency and allow for expanded industrial uses consistent with the general heavy industrial zoning designation.

And it will remain consistent with the employment general plan land use destination as well. The applicant has indicated that the primary objective for the property is for a data center campus. There have not been any formal submittals for a site plan for data centers on the site. However, there is an active site plan application for a EPS substation on the property, which would in turn support either future data center campuses or other industrial uses on the property. As mentioned, it's proposed to delete stipulation A, modify stipulations b and d.

It should be noted that the larger properties surrounding the subject site, which comprises approximately 920 acres, is also owned by the same ownership group. That property was not included in the original rezone or general plan amendment in 2023. It is not proposed to be included in this request. It's not subject to this request, but it should just be noted that in the event that the data center campus is successful, it could eventually be included in future rezoning and a potentially major comprehensive plan amendment to allow expansion of either a data center campus or other industrial uses on the property. Next steps of following today's hearing would be formal adoption of the modifications by mayor and city council.

I did forget to add one step in here. If they do continue with if the applicant continues with their plan for data centers that would require a conditional use permit, which would be brought before the commission for consideration. And then with the approval of both these modifications and a future conditional use permit, they would be able to come in for an administrative site plan approval. Okay. Staff's recommendation is that the commission conduct a public hearing, and they recommend that you recommend approval of PLZM two five zero one zero seven subject to modified stipulations.

Be happy to answer any questions at this time.

No questions.

No questions. Thank you. No questions. Thank you.

No questions. All right, no questions from us. We'll open this for public hearings. Are there any questions

from audience?

There's none.

Questions? I'll close the public hearing. We're ready for a motion. Can I hear a motion to approve that case PLZM-two fifty-one

107

subject to conditions A through L?

I move we approve ELZM-twenty five-one 107 subject to modified stipulations A through L.

Do have a second?

I second it.

Moved and second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All

right, that passes. Moving on to the next thing, comments from the public. Any members of the audience may have comments from the public? Non agenda items?

Sorry. I'm sorry, Vice Chair, we do not.

Hey, I'm learning along the way too, it's okay. All right, no comments from the public. How about claim manager report?

Good evening, Vice Chair.

I

can't get on you guys about not using the microphone if I don't use the microphone. Good evening. I don't have too much tonight. Airfare, as Deanna mentioned before the meeting, is this weekend. So hopefully, I'll see you guys there. I'll confirm I'll be there on Saturday. So I'll come get up here. Probably shouldn't have said that on the record. We also have, as of now, one item for the next P and Z meeting, February 24. That will be a rezoning for a project called Buckeye 83.

So look forward to bringing that forward to you then and have a happy Valentine's Day. I hope if you want to get struck by Cupid Zero, wish you all the best.

All right. Thank you, sir. Planning Zone Commission summary of current events. Do we have any current events we wish to share other than the airfare?

Airfare.

Airfare sounds like it is. Mr. Trevyano, do you have anything to add?

Shout out to John Willis and his group, the the the transportation. They actually took care of a problem here in Sienna Hills. It was really appreciated that they did that and just wanna say good job. I've been mean, tell them for a week or two now. I just got other things going on. So

Alright. Thank you for sharing. Anybody up on the council? The only thing I could address would be I am officially now a great grandfather.

Oh, wow. And Bill's a baby.

Congratulations. It's another girl. Ms. Ragsdale, do you have anything to share?

No, thank you.

All right. Good? No comments. All right. With all that said, this meeting is adjourned.