Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting to order. Will you stand and join in with me with the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam secretary, will you please take the role?

Chair Burton.

Present.

Commissioner Puppy?

Here.

Commissioner Ragsdale? Here. Commissioner Kupcic? Vice chair Damasio?

Here.

Commissioner Bassler?

Here.

Commissioner Trupiano?

Here online.

Alternate Hester? Here. Alternate Manuel? Alternate Belshey? Alternate McDonald? Here. We have alternate McDonald seated for District 3.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the 10/28/2025 planning and zoning commission regular meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? None. Motion carries.

Item number three, three a, five zero one East Mahoney, rezone case number PLZZDash25Dash0008. Public hearing and request that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval to the city council. Presentation by Patricia Cooley. Thank you, Patricia.

Good evening, chair, members of the commission. I'm Trish Cooley, planner two. And tonight, I have before you case PLZZDashT5Dash0008. This is 501 East Mahoney Street rezone request. The applicant for this project is Amber Newbill on behalf of the property owner, Ricardo Mendez.

This property is approximately 0.75 acres and is located at the Southeast Corner Of 5th Street and Mahoney Avenue in the downtown area of Buckeye. The applicant is requesting to rezone this property from an obsolete zoning district planned residential to downtown residential to accommodate the use of a day care facility. A subject property is surrounded by residential uses on the north, east, south, and west side with a vacant lot on the south side as well. The current land use is activity center indicated by purple on the map there by the general plan. It also falls under the associated downtown specific area plan or DSAP.

DSAP further designates this property and adjacent properties as downtown residential. Downtown residential,

shown

as the lighter orange color there on the map, is intended to accommodate residential neighborhoods along with select uses that are complementary to those neighborhoods. Proposed zoning district as well as the proposed use are consistent with the vision of the DSAP. The existing planned residential district indicated by the light yellow shading here is an obsolete district that the city is currently phasing out. The proposed zoning district, downtown residential, is a mixed use type district that allows for a variety of residential uses, including single family homes, duplexes, a multifamily residential, as well as a tailored list of compatible commercial and office uses. To be eligible for that downtown residential zoning, a property has to be located within the DSAP activity center and be designated as downtown residential by the DSAP.

The applicant did complete all public participation and public noticing. There was one neighborhood attendee at the meeting who expressed concerns regarding the effect the rezone would have on her property taxes. It was explained to her that the rezoning would only apply to the subject property. The applicant has submitted a site plan amendment for a child care facility as in anticipating using existing utility services as well as city fire and police emergency providers. With that, staff recommends approval of p recommend approval to PLZZDash25Dash0008 to the mayor and city council as it furthers the goal of the Buckeye general plan, contributes to a vibrant pedestrian community with uses that are appropriate to the historic downtown residential neighborhood.

It conforms to the Buckeye Development Code, and there are no outstanding issues from reviewing departments. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Trish. Since I always seem to skip you, Sebastian, I'm gonna start with you.

Oh, thank you very much. I know I'm not there, but, I just got one question just for my, education. Will they need to apply for a conditional use permit for the daycare?

Chair, commissioner, no. They will not need a conditional use permit for the daycare.

Okay. That that was one question I had. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Basler. No questions. Mister Di Macio. Just one quick question. Is this gonna be a new build or reusing the building that they already have there?

Chair, commissioner, it will be in an existing structure. It was previously used as a church.

Okay. Nothing further.

No questions. No

questions. Thank you. No questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Following this, at this time, I will open it up for public hearing. Madam secretary, do I have any request to speak? We do not. I will open it, and I will close it.

Alright. May I have a motion to recommend approval to counsel of case number PLZUDash25Dash0008?

I would recommend approval of PLZZDash25Dash0008.

May I have a second?

I'll second that.

It's been moved in second. Thank you, mister Trippiano. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Motion passes. We need those for the kids. Agenda item three b, Grand View, Arizona rezoning to community master plan case number, PLZZDash23Dash00016. Request for continuance to the 02/10/2026 planning and zoning meeting. This item was continued from October 28, 2025 meeting, planning and zoning commission agenda to tonight's meeting.

The applicant has requested a continuance and staff recommends that the commission approve the continuance to the February 10 meeting. Mister Galika, would you like to speak to that, please?

Thank you, chair. I don't have too much to add beyond the the city and the applicant for this project continuing to work on the project's stipulations or conditions of approval associated with the proposed rezoning. This continuance actually has the added benefit of allowing some of the adjacent neighbors that are interested in attending those future hearings. They reached out to me beforehand, before we knew this was going to be another continuance request to request a continuance to a non holiday week because they were gonna have a hard time getting here tonight. So we're fully in support of the continuance request, and I think the adjacent neighbors are as well.

Thank you. Commission, may I have a motion to continue this continue case number PLZZDash23Dash00016 to the 02/10/2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

Chair, I may, motion to continue case PLZZDash23Dash00016 to the 02/10/2026 planning and zoning meeting.

Second that. It's been moved and second. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on. Agenda item number four a, commission to take action on the cancellation of planning and zoning commission regular meeting for December 23. Tossing it to you, Ken. I don't think there's much to say about that.

Chair, I think it's pretty self explanatory. We decided to request the the cancellation for two reasons. We don't have any urgent items that absolutely needed to be heard at that meeting, and it's two days prior to Christmas. So we'd like everybody to to have a a fun holiday week and not feel like they needed to be here.

Commissioners, may I have a motion? Chair, I'd like to make a motion to cancel, the meeting on December 23.

I'll second that.

It's been moved and second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Moving on. Item agenda four b, AT And T Cell Tower conditional use permit case number PLZUDash25Dash0003. Public hearing and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve a conditional use permit for a cell tower within a lease area of approximately 2,500 square feet located south and west of Southwest of the Southwest Corner of Rooks Road and West M C 85, West US Highway 85, subject to conditions a through g. Presentation again. Trish.

Good evening, chair, members of the commission. As I said before, I'm Trish Cooley, planner two. And tonight, I have before you the case PLZUDash25Dash0003, the AT and T cell tower conditional use permit request. The applicant for this project is Misty Hunter, with SmartLeak on behalf of AT AT and T. The lease area for this project is approximately 0.75 acres and is located I'm sorry, the parcel is about 2,500 square feet lease area.

It's located south and west, so the Southwest corner of Rooks Road and MC85 or West Highway 85. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a new multi carrier telecommunications facility, which does include a 90 foot faux elm tower and associated equipment within a 2,500 square foot enclosure with an eight foot screen wall and two inch cap. The subject site, indicated by the red rectangle, is located south and west of Southwest corner of South Brooks Road and West MC85. The lease area is proposed to be located on a parcel that is to be created through a subdivision that is currently in review. Current parcel is primarily residential with agricultural uses to the East, to the North, and to the West.

Further to the East are some existing residential subdivisions of Teravesta and Encantado Estates. To the South is a private airstrip and additional agriculture further to the South. The subject site shown in red and surrounding properties are designated as employment in the general plan. It's highlighted in blue there. Further to the east are some properties that are designated as neighborhood as well as the activity center.

The subject site and areas to the south are within the planned community zoning district shown in yellow here. Light industrial is found to the east, that's the shaded gray, while business park zoning may be found to the west, that's highlighted in blue. Bell towers are permitted with a conditional use permit in the planned community zoning district. Proposed lease area is located on the southern portion of the existing parcel. Access is proposed off of MC 85 via an all weather aggregate based drive on the western side of that parcel.

A private airstrip is located approximately 450 feet south of the proposed cell tower, as you can see on the site plan, and the applicant has provided a determination of no hazard to air navigation from the FAA in regards to that airstrip. The maximum height in PC zoning is 50 feet for cell towers. They are allowed an additional 25 feet for each additional carrier. So the proposed 90 foot cell tower is designed to accommodate two more carriers. So it would have an allowed height of up to 100 feet.

Development code does require cell towers to be set back a distance equal to the height of the cell tower from any residential property line. A proposed subdivision currently in review will place a new property line to allow for a setback of approximately 113 feet from the property with a residential use. This will meet setback and fall distance requirements. Excuse me. As seen on the right, the cell tower is proposed to be camouflaged as a full elm with an eight foot CMU screen wall.

They are also proposing additional landscaping that includes several elm trees on the north side, and that's to provide additional screening and help to camouflage the cell tower even more. Another requirement is for the applicant to demonstrate the need for a cell tower. These images show the difference in signal strength. Red indicates stronger signal strength. This shows that the addition of the proposed cell tower will provide much better signal strength or coverage for the community in that area.

Conditional use permit application was reviewed for consistency with governing documents. It was found that the use is in compliance with the general plan, neighborhood land use as it would support surrounding uses and contribute to the livability of the community, and that a telecommunication facility is permitted in PC zoning with a CUP. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated a need for another cell tower. The associated site plan also shows that the height, setbacks, and design meet development code standards and are consistent with the character of the area. The use is not anticipated to disrupt the surrounding area, and there are no outstanding comments from reviewing departments.

With that, I'll give you staff recommendation is to approve AT and T cell tower conditional use permit, PLZUDash 25Dash003 subject to conditions a through g. With that, I'll take any questions you may have.

Thank you,

Trish. Mister Trippiano, questions?

Just one. I know the FAA has said there's not any problem, but what about the airport operators?

I believe the applicant has a representative here tonight. Bill? Yeah. Bill Koning is here representing the applicant, Misty Hunter.

Bill Koning with SmartLink representing AT and T. What was the question?

What's your address, mister Koning, just for the record?

My address? 241 Congress Avenue, Prescott, Arizona.

Thank you, sir.

Just to paraphrase the question, believe, and correct me if if this is incorrect. But can you summarize any maybe communication you've had to date with the airstrip owner of the property to to the south of this site, if if any?

I I haven't. I'm handling for Misty, so I haven't been involved. I I know there was some communication. I did a community meeting a while ago, I know there were some brief conversations in regards to that. Nobody showed up

I couldn't hear the answer.

From the air traffic or or from the airport.

Is there a microphone button over there?

It's on.

It is on.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yeah. Commissioner mister Trepiano mentioned you're not able to hear, commissioner. Is that correct?

That is correct. Basically, I just wanna make sure that the the airport's aware of it.

It's my understanding they are aware of it. And like I said, nobody, representing them did show up to the community meeting, so I I was not able to discuss it with them myself. Misty did indicate that somebody from there had spoken.

Okay. Because last time there was something nearby there, they showed up. If they're not here for this one then I think we're good.

Okay. I think there may be speakers on this item or no?

There is. There is, mister King.

It is it is possible, commissioner, that, what you anticipated may still occur during the public hearing.

Okay. I'll wait till after public hearing if I got more questions.

Thank you. So is that for it? Is that it for now, mister Trippiano?

Yes, sir. Yes.

Thank you. Mister Bassler.

I also am concerned about the tower being close to an airstrip. Those people fly crop dusters out of there. I've seen them fly in and out of there and there is a lot of traffic going in and out of

that Is someone ordering?

Crop duster. And as a result, I am concerned with a 100 foot tower that close to an airstrip. So I I know what it said about what the FAA said. I'm also more concerned about the the safety of the pilots that are going in and out of that private airstrip. So I would like to hear more, some more about the safety of those pilots going in and out of that airstrip.

I will say Close. Yeah. No. From my standpoint, not being an expert or understand anything about aviation, the airstrip runs east to west and we're 500 feet north. So just for my an expert opinion, they're not coming by there.

Are you a pilot?

No. No. Okay. Right. And but I will say, when we do these sites, whether it be engineering or whatever it may be, we we rely on the experts. And the FAA in this particular case is the experts. And we submit to them for them to tell us what they believe is safe, and they know more than anybody. And in this particular case, they've told us they believe this is safe. So as far as us doing the due diligence, that that's all we can do because none of us in this business are experts at that. So we rely on the FAA to tell us what is safe and not safe.

And I and I understand that. I've also seen the area. I've also seen the pilots going in and out

of there.

Sure. Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bassler. Mr. Bassil?

I have no questions. Yes, sir. One question. So is the tower going to have any illumination for night? I know most of the day ops is the flying, if there would be anything illuminating it, so if someone were to come in there at night, they would see the tower.

From what I saw in the joints, the FAA did not require any kind of illumination on this tower. And and I believe that's from based on my experience to other section of path or in the past because it's not in that landing path. It's directly north, and so they didn't require that on this particular case. They didn't deem it necessary.

No questions. Thank you. No. I I would just like to repeat what commissioner Basler said. I'm I'm concerned that even though it's 500 feet away that, you know, accidents could happen. An accident could happen. It's possible. So I'm not sure why you picked they the AT and T picked that location, but

You know, it's it's what happens is an engineer, an RF engineer, looks this the the map and determines what's gonna best provide coverage.

Right.

You saw there was a coverage map up there. There was a big opening there. And with all the growth that's going on out in Buckeye, they're trying to find the perfect spot, the perfect height. There's gonna be a bunch more of these coming soon, I'm sure, to fill those gaps. And this was determined by AT and T's engineer, the best spot he thought that would provide the best coverage, you know.

They're they're trying to do this with building the least amount of towers as possible. So they're trying to find these spots to fill the gaps the best they can without overlapping. That's what they felt on this one. You know, another thing I will say in regards to the strip there, and again, I'm not an expert. There is some power poles that are just as tall tall, if not taller, that are on I don't remember the name of the road, it's to the east and it's about 1,200 feet away, which is directly in that landing path. And I would think those, from my, again, unexpert opinion, would be more dangerous than being north of there. But again, I'm not sure.

Okay, thank you very much Mr. Koning. Mr. Koning?

Yes sir.

I'm no expert either, I'm not. I just happen to live in Encantada Estates. Okay. And I know exactly where you're talking about and for me, since the planes fly directly over my house, I gotta be honest with you, I'm a little leery. I'm I'm I'm afraid.

Why I'm I'm like my colleagues. Why did you choose that particular spot that close to the airstrip when that entire property is wide open. There's there's a parcel across the street across the Highway 85. There's other places that that could go in. Why? Let's let I wanna drill down

Yeah.

Why you chose that spot because you can get the same results across the street as you can as opposed to where the airstrip is.

I'll say in the future, there's probably gonna be multiple sites across the street there that the ARF engineers are asking for. I I saw on the on the map there, the coverage, there was a gap up there and there was also a gap in the area that we put this tower. And so if you see up there where all the yellowish oranges lighter than the red, those are gaps. And so they're gonna wanna have sites that run through there to provide indoor coverage for those particular areas. So if you look where we're at and you can see the red on the one to your right there, how much it's covered, all that orange there perfectly along with the other sites.

Then you look to the north there, there's that gap and there's going to be probably two, maybe three more sites here in the next five years that are probably gonna be wanting to go somewhere towards the area the best they can to provide coverage there. Now as far as the location on the particular property, you know, that comes out with working with the owner of the property and him determining where it's gonna work best there as far as future value for him and stuff like that. So I'm sure when Misty worked with him, they negotiated. She was trying to get as far away from the airport as possible with also having to meet the setbacks from the North property line, which I think we're pretty close to. I think we're a 113, so we're just right there as far north as we can go on the property.

Yeah, there's these sites are getting closer and closer together and there's more and more because it comes down to capacity now and especially out here. I'm from out here originally. My wife went to Buckeye High, in fact, graduated there in '93. I could not believe the amount of cars that were here when I drove out here and I'm I'm impressed. I've been there for six years and there's gonna be a lot more of these sites over the next ten years to just provide coverage and capacity to all these users that are coming to Buckeye.

I get that. Yeah. But they don't have to it does not have to go there. I have AT and T. I am the expert on AT and T. I have AT and T.

Yeah.

My coverage is great.

Yeah.

So again, and I'm not I don't wanna be the dead horse but I'm just I have concerns and right now you're not answering my concerns.

Yeah, mean, again really I mean it's tough because that's the question of the of the safety of the airport is really, like, the gentleman saying, it's not in my purview. I'm not an expert at that. I I literally rely on the FAA and and they're the ones that are telling us, yes, we would have never went we first thing we do on these sites when you're in airport is submit the FAA. If they tell us this, you know, can't get approved then we look for another place. But since they told us, hey, you're good here, we move forward with it.

We have to rely on them. We we have no AT and T has no other choice but to rely on them to tell us what's safe or not safe because we literally have not a single person that works there that knows anything about aviation. And again, like I said, it's the same with an engineer telling us the tower is not gonna fall with a, you know, person dealing with flooding telling us the grade and drainage and all that kind of stuff. We we have we just have to rely on them from our standpoint. And as far as why we're in that particular location, you're you're right. There are other locations that probably could work there, but there's a lot of factors as far as trying to figure out, you know, will a landowner owner lease to us? Are they willing to do it for a reasonable price? Can we get it passed in zoning? Can we meet the setbacks? And so I I didn't do this particular site.

Misty did did, but I do a lot of sites like this. And there's a million things you're working with to come to a spot that you can make work from a leasing standpoint, from an FAA standpoint, from a zoning standpoint, and Misty determined that this was the one for this. I I I don't know which owner she talked to. I don't know what conversations she had with the city as far as, you know, what wouldn't work in zoning. But at the end of the day, after a lot of hours of looking at this, she decided this is our best shot.

Okay. I'd like to also go on the record by asking you this question. You can answer it or you don't because neither one of us are experts. But. Would you put that tower out by Buckeye Municipal Airport?

If the because

that's that's it's it's it's. The dots, there's a lot of horns out there.

If the FAA would approve it, yeah, we certainly would. I mean, like I said, we can only rely on them. We we yeah. We we have sites at Sky Harbor Airport. I've done it for all the carriers that are actually at that particular airport. So if the FAA approves it and they feel it's safe, then then yeah, can tell you that any one of the carriers would put up in there. Because like I said, we have to rely on those people. Gotcha. Yeah.

Thank you, mister.

And chair, if I may address the Commission briefly, please. This is Toscanary, assistant city attorney. We've heard some discussion about an expert in aviation matters. And I'm not an aviation attorney, but for the matter at hand, I'm not aware of any legal authority for the city to override an FAA determination in this case. Even if the city did have legal authority, I'm not aware of any objective evidence to support an air safety concern in this case.

Generalized objections or vague or hypothetical concerns are not lawful grounds to deny a conditional use permit. So your scope of review and authority in this case is as outlined in our city code and in the staff packet. If there are any questions about the scope of authority or review, I would be happy to review those with the commission as well.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Sure. I could add to I don't not I don't know. What am I trying to say? What I'm trying to say is if it would make the commission feel more comfortable to have additional information, we can certainly and I'll only gauging that based on the comments that you've made to date, but if the Commission's purview is they want more information before they're comfortable with this, we could certainly look at a continuance of providing you that kind of the background of what FAA looks at and why they consider this safe, those types of things at a future meeting. Of course, we would like the applicant or the applicant's representative in this case to kind of give us the informal okay to do that, but that could be an option as well.

For me myself, what the motion on this or do I

have to This matter is agendized as a public hearing.

Correct.

We still have not held the public hearing. We are at the part of the public hearing where the applicant or representative may speak in support of the application. I don't know if there were any additional comments from either staff or the applicant before moving to the next part of opening the public hearing.

Gotcha. Miss Comey, is there anything else? Thank you. I'm going to, at this time, open it up for the public hearing. I have two requests. I have Burl Shears, if you would come to the podium please.

Is the microphone on? Chairman, members of the commission, thank you for allowing me to speak. I'll try to be absolutely as brief as possible, answer a couple of those questions. Number one, that power line that's as tall as his cell phone is me, not

Could you just please repeat your name and address for the record? Thank you.

Burrell Shears. I represent Western Pilot Service. I'm the President and my wife and I are the sole stockholders. Our company is in Buckeye, Arizona. I live in Goodyear.

Okay. That power line he's talking about that's due east of the airport is within the FAA 20 to one glide slope that this commission and the city council approved and reserved for that airport. That power line is 60 feet, and it is below that 20 to one glide slope. It is perfectly fine. The cell phone tower is 90 feet, and on the side of that airport, it is recommended a seven to one glide slope, which would mean for a 100 foot tower, and it's as close to a 100 as it is 90, because if you look at their own diagram, it shows the top of the little palm fronds at 95 feet.

So you can either call it a 100 or 90, either way, it needs to be 700 feet away. The reason the FAA made no safety determination is a private airport is not under the mandate that they have to submit and get that safety finding from the FAA. It's not mandatory on a private airport because we don't take public funds. Buckeye Municipal, same airport, absolutely, no control tower, more than 3,200 feet long, no requirement to even have a radio in your airplane, so you can take off and land at Buckeye Municipal or 10AZ, Farm Ag, without a radio. Therefore, you could get two airplanes coming at the same time to land.

They look up, they see each other. Oh, my goodness. What do you do? You offset to the right, you go around, you sort it out, you come back around and land. It's not a huge safety issue unless you fly into a cell phone tower that's 400 feet away. Should have been 700 feet away at minimum. So that's the very first issue. There is objective data to speak to the lady here that shows the seven to one glide slope on the side of airports that is recommended. So it would not be allowed at Buckeye Municipal at 300 or 400 feet away. It just wouldn't.

The other issue that's not shown here is that Parcel Number 2 has a little boot heel of a half acre hanging down right on the end of the runway. Western Pilot Service has a twenty five year lease. You can just see part of that little piece hanging down there. I have a twenty five year lease with a twenty five year option that reverts to a sale that's fully paid for with the property owner as soon as they subdivide it. So once this subdivision is brought before planning and zoning, that should trigger the transfer of that half acre to Western Pilot Service.

So for that alone, this is not correct, and I would urge at least a sixty day postponement, if not outright rejection of that tower. It doesn't need to be by an airport. So I I urge you to either reject it, postpone it, let me get our attorneys involved, and both aviation attorneys and our land use attorneys, that's a recorded lease. It's notarized with the the property owner there. So there's a number of issues. Thank you very much.

Thank you, mister

Sheeran. Any questions?

No. We can't ask you

any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Speaker number two, mister Hal Haydn. If you could state your name and your address for the record, please.

Name is Hal or Harold Heiden. Address is 23308 West Hilton Avenue, Buckeye, Arizona. Anything else?

No, sir. That's it.

He kinda covered everything I was looking at, but I own the airport, the runway, majority of the airport. And my main concern is, like Burrow was talking about, is strictly safety issue. In case we have two it can be somebody coming in on final from the East over your house, dropping down on the runway. Another aircraft coming. They don't see each other.

They see each other at the last minute. You know, the first guy guy coming from the East has to go to the right. That's common knowledge. The other guy in the opposite direction goes to the right to the south. That tower's gonna be sitting right there.

I mean, it's it's or there could be something a dog or something on the runway, and they have to go around and peel out or whatever. It's just it's just I think it's in a bad place. And if they could move it north, I know I understand the seven seven to one. Deal on the it's inside of that. I think it would be a good idea if they can move it move it further north.

Now I talked to a gal that sent me a letter, don't know, six months ago. I think she was from AT and T. It might have been a real estate broker or something. And I asked her about why can't they move that up toward the highway? And it'll be a lot better deal for us as far as safety issue.

And, she just stated, well, we're working on subdividing it right now. We wanna put it where where it is on the map now. And so I'm really concerned. You know, we have traffic going in and out of there every day. It's not like Sky Harbor, but we have, you know, several aircraft working out of there.

And and I just like you people brought up earlier, I just can't understand why just in a two mile radius around the property, airport property, they they couldn't find better spot with this tower at 400 feet from from my runway. And so other than that, that's all I really have to say. Anybody have any questions?

We can't ask you questions, miss Tide.

Pardon me, chair, if I may. During the public hearing, know, do you there is the ability to have a discussion on items that are raised. Operates differently from the call to the public.

Thank you. Well, since you're there, miss Tide, where would you suggest that they would should move the the tower? If it's Well, I not there, then then where?

David doesn't want that thing right by his house, but just farther north, maybe on the south side of his house, x amount of feet, you know, where it's not buttered right up against him, but it's it's a little far farther away than where they plan to put it now. You know, I I wouldn't be so against that. They can move it up further. Again, it's just strictly a safety issue for for everybody. And for people that come in there that never been in there before, If they have to shoot a missed approach and go around and peel off the right, you know, that thing's right there, close vicinity to an airplane wrapped around it and somebody killed or hurt or or what have you, and that's that's my main concern.

So

anyway.

The other commissioners have questions for Mr. Hyden? Mr. Basler?

Well, I think we've heard enough that we need to have more information. And I would certainly be in favor of looking at a postponement of this so that we can gather some more information. There's a question about who owns the property. There's a question about the FAA and and what that whole thing is. I just think we need to have a little bit more information. So I would certainly like to see a postponement of this and do a later date.

Mr. DiBasio, any other questions? No questions. I'm sorry.

Were there any other requests to speak? I know this is neighbor south of the property but were there any other public hearing comment cards received?

That was it. I'd like to close the public hearing. Okay. Ken?

Yeah, chair. Just one piece of additional information. We would be more than happy to provide additional information, have further discussions. Issue with the property transferring when it's subdivided, that's, as far as I know, new to us. So we'll have to dig in and learn more about what that means.

I do want to say that the reason that tower or one of the reasons that the tower is proposed in this location is because our code requires a separation of a tower from a residential property line. So putting it too close to the house would be difficult from that standpoint. So in that case, it's possible that a different property altogether could work better. So these are things that we need to discuss and have additional conversation. And then we'll present more information to the commission on that topic at a future meeting.

So do I need to make a motion or should there

Yes. A motion will be needed, neither, Tosca, I remember if you've closed the public hearing.

I did. Okay. I'm sorry.

Pardon though, we do need to use our microphones. If there is any other discussion you may go ahead and have that at this time and if not, if the desire is to continue the matter then you could discuss whether the applicant has a desire to continue it to date certain or if there is just a general direction to continue it to bring back more information after any other discussion items among the commissioners are addressed.

Yes, ma'am.

Can I speak?

Please go ahead, miss Poppe.

Ken and Tosca, I just wanted to ask, do we need to set a date or can we just leave it open right now for the if we do decide to vote on a continuance?

Yeah. Either are an option. Tosca's going to confer with with the applicant to see what what maybe their preference is. The difference is when you continue to a date certain, no additional notification is required because the thought is that the people that are interested are hearing the date at that meeting that they need to come back. If we continue to an open ended, the applicant will be required to do the re noticing. Know, send new letters out, update the sign, and put a new ad in the newspaper. So that's the only real difference between those two. We tend to prefer the date certain just because it does reduce the cost to the applicant.

Thank you, Ken.

This is Commissioner. Chair,

if I can. I'm sorry. Commissioner, real quick, just to inter interrupt. It looks like a date certain is the preferred approach. I know one of the surrounding owners, the speaker the first speaker tonight requested sixty days. That would put us the closest meeting at at January 27.

Does that work for you, mister Comey?

That's a no. That's sixty days. That's the twenty the next meeting would be two weeks from today. I'm not sure if that gives us enough time. There would be a January 13 option as well.

That would be forty five days if everybody's satisfied with that.

Chair, Ken, and mister Koning, I just wanna mention that I think we're gonna need the sixty days for this. There's no need to rush this.

Ultimately, is, the commission's decision.

I'm apt to agree with my colleague.

So I would like

to make a motion or

Chair, I think I interrupted commissioner Trupiano when he wanted to say something, so maybe we should give him another opportunity.

Yes. Thank you. So right now, my concerns are there's a difference of opinion on the FAA, public versus private. That's something we need to clarify. If they the FAA hasn't even looked at this, well, then that's a mute thing. That's why we need to clarify that. Plus the the who actually is gonna own the land eventually with the lease not stuff, which you guy which you said is new to you. We need to get that clarified.

Yes. Okay. Thank you, mister Trippiano. Commission, I need a motion for January 27 that we continue this to January 27.

Chair, I would like to make a motion to continue number PLZUDash25Dash0003 conditional use permit for the 01/27/2026 meeting.

I'll second.

Planning and zoning meeting.

I'll second that. It's been moved and second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. We are moving on to agenda item four c, Coyote Crest. Planned area development case number PLZZDash25Dash0001. Public hearing and request that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval to the city council subject to conditions a through r. Mister Banda, it's been a long time.

It has. Good evening, chair, members of the planning commission. I'm thankful you are here this evening, and that is a pun. That is a father joke. I gotta get it out there. I am grateful for you guys being here tonight for this case, Coyote Crest. Last time I did a presentation it was for a substantial master plan community. This evening we have ourselves a a p 80. So before we've done a recent change to our development code and PADs is the way we're going with as we're doing master plan communities with everything or CMP as we used to call them. A PAD back in the day up until recently was anything under six forty acres.

So that still met this threshold regardless. So it is basically a small master plan or planned area development as we call it. The applicant is Alan Bodwin of Norris Design on behalf of Skyline sixty two. The applicant and the owner are here this evening. Their quest is to rezone the property from the obsolete zoning district of planned community to the new planned area development. So that's what we're gonna discuss this evening. It is located let me kinda show you on our little fancy dancy map here. It is located on the Southwest Corner. Let me see if I can it to go here. Oh, I love this thing.

It's not working. Oh it's skipping but it's not pointing. Now look at the recommendation. You gotta close your eyes before you see that. It's located on the Southwest Corner Of Roosevelt or future McDowell Parkway and the Rainbow Road alignment. It is approximately 64 acres that is planned for there. So the area currently is in the general plan to be neighborhood shown in yellow over there in that little exhibit I created right there in the corner. And then below, it's currently zoned as we mentioned before, planned community. So the request is to rezone this property. The current access to this property actually comes off Watson Road and Roosevelt that's currently a dirt road.

It's surrounded everywhere on the South and everywhere on the East by public lands to some degree. It's state land. It's BLM. It's an ADOT piece. The northern property, however, is all private properties. It's we know it as Phoenix Skylane West Unit 2, or as people know in that area as the one acre lots that people are always inquiring about here in the city of Buckeye. And you can see it little zoomed in. What we have before us this evening is the PAD itself. So it is the Coyote Crest PAD. This is a land use plan.

It is a multi phase development of three development units. And what they are doing is they're creating a unified designed multifamily

project.

It has a multifamily, multi multiple housing development. And that's what's kind of the uniqueness of this. So when they met with us at a pre app, the discussion was instead of doing hard zoning for everything, it's to create something under an umbrella that creates something that links everything together. And they have Coyote Crest. So you're gonna look in your packets and it shows unified concepts on signage and landscaping and trails and all this stuff that brings it together.

But part of the thing that brings it all together and so doing three separate zoning is still the underlying zoning concept. So development in Unit 1, which is shown in the and we're going to call it the orange on the northwest section of that is approximately 25 acres and it is a cottage style development also known as BTRs. I don't like that name built to rent. Really cottage style development is that one story individual type units that's planned to be there to create approximately two seventy five cottages on that area right there. It's zoning that is kind of the guideline for is multiple family one.

What's unique about this here is instead of actually having a height allowance of 50 feet, they actually ask to reduce that height. And they're taking into consideration the property to the north. And that is because it's one acre development. What they're proposing this evening is allowed by right within the general plan. So they're within that allowance.

They're allowed to rezone to this property. The next property is that yellow one and that's on the East side, that's Development Unit 2. It's approximately my mind is blinking on me, approximately 18.5 acres and it is a development creating 170 units of duplexes and townhomes. So the duplex townhomes is what you see, and I'm going show you here in a second on an illustrative that we show here, is creating two homes together and sometimes they're three packs or four packs. So they're creating the townhome type units through there.

Now, what you have seen over and over in the area and what we've been talking about over and over is taking advantage of the landing. We call this area the landing that we've been developing and it's the area on Verado Way, Interstate 10. This is in the realm of that area. What's going on in that whole area is a lot of development. We have industrial proposals, we have some jobs, we have commercial proposals, we have more job opportunities and people going back and forth, as well as multi family housing and different concepts that have been coming in and out you guys have been seeing over the past couple years.

As part of that, there's a need being created. And that need is creating more diverse housing. This proposal is showing that. Now in those proposals in the landing itself, we've been pushing the homes through the street. The applicant has worked with us and has shown us a garden style apartment and that's the darker orange right there.

And that's approximately the remainder about I want to say just over 20 acres of land. And what they're doing is they're creating garden style apartments. So it's got an underlying zoning of multiple family too and they are taking instead of having unlimited height they're actually restricting themselves to 50 feet. Typically when we do a PAD, I call it give and take. In this particular situation they've been giving us a lot of it.

It's more they've been giving us and we've been it's not been going both ways. And the reason why they've been doing that is they're trying to create something and showing the city that they're creating a unique project as unified moving forward with the vision that's been adopted. So they're creating a density project but they're doing it in the vision that's adopted by the city with general plan and creating something that is unique and fun. And I'm gonna show you the fun part. These illustrious came straight from their plan and I don't want to steal their thunder because they have a presentation as well if you would like to see it.

This is showing how it kind of lives and breathes. My favorite drawing, I can't point to it, is actually the guy right here. See if I can it to work this time. Ah, there. This is the perspective on McDowell Parkway kind of showing how you have the single story line up on McDowell Parkway.

This side over here would be the one acre homes and they pushed the apartments with more height towards the rear. So, and this is showing you a little bit of each one and you can't quite see it but it's in your packet. I call it DU1, it's not dwelling unit, but it's Development Unit 1 is attached cottages, which is going to be here. Development Unit 2, right here is the duplex townhomes, and Development Unit 3 is more of your garden style apartments. As part of the PAD they're creating design guidelines as well.

So they show us what kind of materials they're doing as well as a guideline and explain what the design is going look like. So it provides assurances to the city when they move forward with a site plan that will be required. So each of these as they move forward are required to do site plans. And that will be done administratively. But as part of that allowance is they show us hey this is how it's going to live.

This is how it's going to be on the site. And creating and adopting this vision is what we're doing here this evening. That being said, as part of doing this, we actually overall have over 900 units over the 64 acres at a density of about 14 dwelling units per acre overall. That's the aggregate for the three different types of projects that are being provided this evening. So it's lower than some of the other garden style apartments you've seen that have been in over 20s because they've ticked the average of all of them.

And it comes out to about 14 dwelling units per acre. As part of that, they've actually had preliminary discussions with both Buckeye Union's high school district and the elementary school district to discuss that there may be potential projects coming here and here with 900 different units and there will be additional families coming to the city of Buckeye. There were two different things I wanted to show. There is a scrivener's error in my staff report. The recommendation actually says A through, okay I think it was A through Q, it's actually A through R and there was actually a recommendation to change one of the conditions.

The condition is all meetings required for controlling restricted site access shall be constructed with this development. The new one worked with Will, not John Will, worked with Anissa or Doctor. Gerard to create the new condition and the applicant has agreed to it, is that site accesses if restricted to in, right out, or three quarter access shall be designed and constructed with all necessary medians, pork chops, etcetera with this development. And they were just wanting more of a clarification on the development of the McDowell Parkway area as they get their access. So that being said, the applicant is here this evening.

I didn't want to steal their thunder. They actually showed a lot more of the cool things. I didn't want to take that away from them. I added them after in case you wanted to see them. But they are here this evening. And they pay them by the hour. So you know, you want to help Jeff Blyley can come up and share with you what they have before we do the recommendation.

Mister come on down.

Hi. Jeff Bliley. 701 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Hi. Here on behalf of the applicant tonight, I just wanna add a few things. And I don't have a big presentation, but I I did want to just go over the site itself and just a few clarifications in case you didn't know. The site's located between I-ten, basically, the south, separated by the Flood Control District property. And then what's going to be located on the north side is what they call McDowell Parkway. That's gonna be a 200 foot wide corridor that's gonna function much like an interstate. It's gonna have controlled access, not exactly like an interstate, but it's gonna have controlled access on it.

It's gonna have indirect lefts. It's gonna have 60 foot wide median and three travel lanes. So it's going to be a a quite a thoroughfare once completed, and it's gonna function as basically the I 10 reliever. And the plan is that would go all the way from Dean Road over to, I believe, Sun Valley Parkway. It it would parallel.

So this piece of property is basically situated between two very large roadway corridors that are gonna carry a lot of traffic in the future. So we think that the zoning we're asking for is very appropriate for the area given what's coming in the future. Sean brought up the Skyland Ranch properties or whatever the one acre lots. As you'll you'll see as the the city's plans develop in the future, there's gonna have to be and my client actually owns about half of those lots. And they have no intent to change them from the one acre, but there's gonna have to be some reworking of what had been platted previously given this McDowell Parkway and how wide it's gonna be in the future.

I also wanted to add that we've been working with the city on all of the infrastructure issues for this property. As you probably are well aware, it's it's there's nothing really up here yet. You've got, I believe, Sundance Parcel 7 north of the I 10 over there on Watson. There's another product called Shadow Canyon just west of them that has come in, but hasn't been developed yet. So we've worked with the city on the water and the sewer.

We'll be working with the city right now that the Sunlands Parcel 7 actually has some water pressure issues. So we'll be assisting, putting in some more booster pumps, extending water lines up. We'll be extending sewer new parallel sewer lines that would then serve this entire region. There has been some preliminary interest to the north of this property, to the north of the skyline properties for potential resort or some type of of use like that. So, this will really be kind of the impetus for development in the area.

Again, working with the water, the sewer, the transportation. We've had discussions, about that McDowell Corridor continuing over to Dean and working with that and trying to see whatever we can do to help with that because that'll that'll be a very important connection in the future. I know the city is working right now on a, I believe, a concept design report to for the Dean Road interchange that everybody's gonna need, including myself since I live in Verrado. So just wanted to add a few things that we've been doing with staff and and here to just happy to answer any questions if you had them.

Thank you, sir. Start from the other side this time.

Puppy? No questions. Thank you.

If I may.

I'm sorry.

I'm supplement. I apologize. Alan Bodwin. I'm with Norris Design. I'm the land planner in the project. And we do have a presentation, as Sean indicated, that we'll give you more detail with regards to the plan. But we suspect there is no cards of opposition here this evening. And if that's the case, we don't need to take your time with regards to the additional detail unless you would like to hear it. So there is a presentation, but did wanted to thank staff for a solid evaluation and in particular the last minute adjustment by this regarding one of the conditions which was in Sean's presentation. So we're here to give that presentation if you'd like to see it.

Sir, I I hate for you to have done homework and then not show it. So if you'd like to show your homework, we'd love to see it.

Okay. Let's go. So Sean is running the sideshow, and and I'll slip over some of these slides as it relates to the redundancy in terms of what Sean presented. So, of course, he told you what the, the request is. It's it's from PC, plant community, to PAD, and we're thrilled to be one of the users of the PAD ordinance, which has not been in place here in Buckeye for very often. And and so we welcome the opportunity to utilize that in this project. Next, Sean. And so he provided the context. What's most important with this is the extension of the McDowell Parkway, which will come from the Verrado area. And then eventually, if if you don't know, I presume you do in the planning that's been done.

That parkway will make its way south of the White Tank Mountains and then over to the Western North Western portions of Buckeye. So it's it's going to be an important, conduit for transportation in the future as as it develops, and we will be contributing to the to the construction of that. And then, of course, being having some close proximity to the Landing Activity Center. We understand the vision there. It's a great vision that you all put in place with regards to a mixed use area, and Sean talked about that employment retail. We wanna provide some some housing and some buying power that helps sustain that retail. So, we have a number of units here. Those households will

have

purchasing power, and, hopefully, you patronize well, we'll patronize that area. Next, Sean. And then you you saw the three pieces of this. I won't repeat that. Next. And then the overall, you saw this plan. We can get to any questions you might have with regards to the details of this plan, where the designers of the plan. And then we created this illustrative perspective to show what the future might look like, including the operations of the McDowell Parkway. So pretty significant piece of infrastructure that's planned and we express that here in this image in a graphic in terms of what's coming ahead with regards to that transportation facility. Next.

Then some images as Sean talked about. We have some design guidelines and we give you some character images here in terms of how we envision the development of this property. We see a lot of articulation and architecture that that would take place. Next. And then one of the things that we do, we're a land planning, landscape architecture, and branding company.

Well, this is our branding team that went in and created the name Coyote Crest, and there's a whole story behind that, which is expressed in the PAD. And so we had a little fun with regards to the three components of the community, coyote, component there, and you can see the the entry monumentation as we see it. We use three different pieces of coyote, a howling coyote, the ears of coyote, and the paws of a coyote with regards to the three communities. As Sean said, we work to get everything integrated in terms of design, and that's how it would play out is that common theme that would that would take place as as this project is developed. Next.

And then some images. We also created some illustrative perspective of each of the product types the way we see it and the entry monumentation and the arrival to the community. This is the cottages. Next. And then this is the duplex townhomes as Sean referred to it.

And the entry there in the monumentation. And then last is this is the entry to the garden apartment component which is on the south side. And as he indicated, we we mindfully put that in the place that we think would be, most appropriate for the community. One of the things that wasn't discussed is immediately to the south of this is Flood Control District property, which will be permanent open space. It's there to hold storm water, after a storm and and behind the the a berm that protects the I 10, from flooding.

So, our immediate neighbor is gonna be permanent open space to the south adjacent to this. And next, John. And then, again, some more materials and color and form that we see in terms of playing out with the community. Next. And then in terms of the process, I think you heard a little bit of this from Sean. We had a neighborhood meeting on July 9. We had very light participation. We did do a proper notice. And then, we worked through the the resubmittal of the application, the public hearing notices, all of that, which is required. We're standing before you tonight, November 25, to ask for your favorable recommendation.

And then if we get that, our plan is to be at city council on December that's it. So thank you. If you have any questions, I'll I'll be nearby. Otherwise, thanks for your attention.

Thank you, sir. Miss Puppy.

No questions. Thank you, mister chairman.

Miss Ragsdale?

No questions. Thank you.

Two quick questions. One, are the townhouses gonna be for rent or are they gonna be for sale?

The answer to that question is yet to be determined. We're gonna see how it plays out. It it could go either way.

Okay. And did fire do a study on the WUI? Is Nate around? Wildland urban interface, sorry. You know, if fire did anything about the wildland urban interface, you know, all the trees and stuff that's north of all the wild land for fire.

Okay. Yes. Chair, Commissioner McDonald, as part of the approval tonight, fire was part of the reviews on doing this. They actually did approve it on first review actually on this particular case taking a look at this. So keep in mind that part of their approval is that this is a zoning thing allowing this density and they will look at it closer as they develop a site plan for each one of these to make sure they have proper access in and out and around this. But they looked at it purely from the zoning access too. So and as part of that clarification too, they have access in the west, east, north, they have two points of access. And that's how they looked at it, to make sure they had sufficient fire access.

Thank you. Mister Mascio?

Oh, chair.

I don't have any questions. Mister Basler? I have two questions.

You you touched on one briefly, and that is the borough just north of Highway 10, which is intended to keep water off of Highway 10 and not flooding. So where is that water going if you're building houses there? How how have you compensated for that water buildup on on the north side of that borough?

Yeah. Commissioner, that's a great question, and I think the image on the screen will help me explain that. So you can see everything to our south is owned and controlled by the flood control district, and everything to the south is accommodating the current floodplain. So none of this property is in the floodplain that's created by that berm. There are some drainage challenges that we have with water coming off the White Tank Mountains that will be managed through infrastructure that we will construct. So so we are adjacent to that, but not within it, in terms of impact from those floodwaters.

So you are not in a floodplain?

Correct. Okay.

Right. Now

let me let me correct Currently, we are because there's water that's coming off the White Tank Mountains. If we were to display the, floodplain map, on the screen right now, what you'd see is the ponding that's up against the dam, and you'd see water that's coming off the White Tank Mountains. Our plan, if if you saw it, is to to work toward the construction in the McDowell Parkway, and as a part of that, to create a drainage interceptor that would take this property out of the floodplain as it relates to the waters coming off the White Tank Mountain.

Okay. Okay. You've thought about it. That's all I'm talking about. My other is an editorial comment. We always hear that the Buckeye Public Schools have plenty of room for all these people that are coming in, and they send a certificate that says they can accommodate. Our schools are over currently overcrowded. We didn't pass a bond issue. I don't know how the the Buckeye School District can continue to say they can accommodate all of this growth in this population. That's an editorial comment.

It has nothing to do with your project. It has to do with documentation that comes in that says we can accommodate all the people that are coming into our community. Your plan is fine. I like your plan. I'm gonna vote for your plan. I think it looks nice. You've done a lot of work on it. It's just I was concerned about the flood district. And, again, just an editorial comment about we continue to bring in kids, but we don't build schools. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister Bassler. At this time oh, I'm mister Trippiano, I'm sorry.

Yes. I'm actually the I'm actually one of the neighbors to this development over in Sienna Hills, world's largest cul de sac. But I did I miss anything about interim roads? Because McDowell Parkway is gonna be a long way ways.

Chair commissioner Tropeano, I heard you don't wanna guess what I heard. I heard something completely different. My wife says, never guess what people say, just ask. What do they say? Interim roads. Will

Interim roads. Yes. Sorry.

Not even close. I wasn't even close. Okay. I the applicant, well, is here to answer that question.

Yes, commissioner. With regards to interim roads, we worked very carefully with your transportation team. From the get go, John Willett will, hopefully state that, we were in early to talk about McDowell Parkway knowing and understanding the significance of that, as it relates to this property in the greater region. And so we we embrace that from from day one, you know, with regards to that. As it relates to interim, we work closely with ANISSA on that component. And, yes, we have to make a connection that gets over to Watson. And, so we we came up with a a tentative design and interim roadway. The ultimate parkway is significant. It's 200 feet of right away or or more. It's a 60 foot wide median, and it's three lanes in each direction.

And so the interim construction to support this project will be the southern three lanes that get over to Washington and make a connection down to to the Interstate 10 Interchange and beyond down into the Buckeye Greater region.

Okay. That's that that was a concern. It'd be nice if we could go, east and connect to existing McDowell, but that that's pushing it.

Thank you, mister Trippiato. I'm calling you first next time. Alright. At this time, I will open up a public hearing. Madam secretary, are there any comment sheets?

Chair, we do not.

Thank you. At this time, I will close the public hearing, and I will ask for a motion. May I have a motion?

Chair I motion. Chair I motion that we approve the recommended approval of the PAD for Coyote Crest PLZZ-twenty five-one with conditions A through P. R. R. A through R, sorry.

To the mayor and city council.

Commissioner McDonald with the proposed change to condition p.

Oh, with the proposed change to condition p to the mayor and city council. I will second that.

It's been moved and second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next agenda item is 4 D 120 South 4th Street, rezone case number PLZZ25Dash0009. Public hearing and request that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval to the city council. Presentation, first time by Joseph Mueller. First time in the city of Buckeye.

There you go. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Very happy to be in front of you presenting. Joseph Miller, senior planner, here with City of Buckeye. Hopefully, first of many presentations I bring before you.

This specific case, it's the one twenty South and fourteen South fourth Street proposed rezoning. Case number PLZZ250009. The applicant is Joshua Oller of Arkon Associates. The proposal before you today is a proposed rezoning from the obsolete commercial center or CC, zoning designation to the downtown commercial or DC zoning designation. The subject site, it is two properties, located, just north of the Northeast corner of Jackson Avenue and 4th Street.

The aggregate square footage of both properties combined is 8,124 square feet approximately thereof. The purpose of the proposal is to accommodate a proposed commercial building. The proposed commercial building will be approximately 6,000 square feet and will accommodate four separate suites with kind of the intention that each suite will be like a professional office of some sort. So think like a real estate office. A good opportunity to bring some business to the downtown area.

The general location, as you can see here, I mentioned previously, is on 4th Street in between Monroe Avenue and Jackson Avenue. It is located on the East Side Of 4th. The two properties are in between the exist in Napa a la carte store and the Buckeye Valley Newspaper Building. It will provide a good opportunity for, infill development, within the downtown area. The general plan designates this area as an activity center.

It is specifically within the downtown specific area plan. That plan gives us these two properties the future land use designation of downtown core. Now the downtown core calls for one of the specific zoning designations that calls for for this area happens to be the downtown commercial. And additionally, the city of Buckeye development code stipulates that the downtown commercial zoning shall only be used in property with this specific future land use destination. So that's all consistent with both the with both what the development code calls for and also the road map provided by our general plan and the downtown specific area plan.

The existing zoning, as I mentioned, is commercial center. The specific proposed use is something that could potentially be accommodated by the existing zoning. The benefit of, rezoning the property, both for the applicant property owner and also for, the city is that it will allow the property to develop in a manner that is more consistent with the city's vision for downtown. It will allow for greater lap coverage, reduce setbacks to promote that kind of downtown pedestrian oriented feel that we want to see develop within this area. Next steps after if zoning should be approved would be a site plan and also a minor subdivision to combine the two properties into one.

Both those steps are administrative, so you will not be seeing this application or request again assuming that it does go through approval here and also at city council. The staff recommendation this evening is to recommend approval to city council, and that is because of the conformance with the general plan, the downtown specific area plan, and also the opportunity for a infill development that will be consistent with current land use patterns within the area. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Joseph. Mister Trippiato, questions?

I have no questions. This seems good.

Thank you. Mister Bassler? I have no questions. Mister DiMaggio? I have no questions here.

Mister McDonald? No questions, sir.

Stragsdale. No

questions. Poppy. No questions.

I have no questions either. Let me open this up for a public hearing. Madam secretary, are there any sheets on this one?

There are not, chair.

Thank you. I will close it. Commission, may I have a motion?

I move that we approve the rezone case PLZZDash25Dash0009. I'll second.

It's been moved and second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you Joseph, you did good on your first one, man.

Appreciate it.

You can come back.

I'll hold you to that.

Item Alright. Number five, comments from the public. Do I have any sheets? Any comment cards?

We do not, chair.

Thank you. Planning manager report. Mister Galica, wake up.

I'm here. Thank you, chair. Very minimal report this evening. We will have our next scheduled meeting on December 9, I believe. And we will have at least one item on that agenda, if not more. So plan on being here for that. Otherwise, I just wanna wish the commission a happy Thanksgiving. We're, shoot, I think twenty nine hours away or so. So this is gonna be my last opportunity to thank you guys before the commission for the service that you do for the city. So we really appreciate that.

Ask a lot of very good questions, and we we really think that contributes to development being better than if it weren't going before you. So I also want to thank my staff. And really everybody at the city beyond the planning department, Tosca is essential to what we do as well. But our planners are awesome. I couldn't have a better team of folks. We keep getting lucky with the new ones too. Joe did a great job tonight. So despite him wearing the Miami Vice suit coat. But other than that, everything was spot on.

That's all

I have, Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Trippiano, do you have anything to contribute to our meeting? Anything else?

I just wanna wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving, and, don't forget all the events downtown, over the next couple weeks.

Thank you, sir. Miss Puppy.

Happy happy Thanksgiving.

Dragsdale.

I agree. Happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Mister Mazzio, are you waiting for me to call your name? No. I was just thinking if I could think of anything. I have nothing to add to this meeting. Thank you. Mister Basler.

Nothing to add. Just happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy being on the committee.

Well, I too am thankful. I'm thankful for all of you, and I'm thankful that this meeting is adjourned. Good night.