Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. See him over here. [Music] Why do you think that thing happened? Oh, really? Yeah. An F. Answer. What font is that? Really? That's weird. Okay. years ago. I started having issues

Oh, here it is. We're gonna change them all to discuss it. That's me. They're not five displays. No, I know. No, I'm first. I'm No, I'm ready. James You already just laid the [Music] hour is upon us. I'd like to call the April 3rd meeting of the Cash Grand Planning and Zoning Commission to order. If you would please rise and join me for the pledge. I pledge algiance 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. This is This is why I have anger issues because nothing's working this week.

I'll just look on. I know. I'll have to move to Celeste. My screen's not working. Mine is out too now. [Laughter] Yeah. Is there a power button over there or something? Did you hit the switch over there? He's coming up. What did you hit? No, I'm not up. Oh, there it goes. What did you hit? It's a touch power. Give it Give it a second. She didn't. Sorry. She can move over here, right? ever move over here. Yeah, you're going to have to just leave. She can move over here. Chris, Celestea is not here. Oh, she's not. Okay. Is it okay by see? Yeah, it's okay by me. Anybody care? Thanks. Come. Come. Come over to our neighborhood. Okay. Uh, could call the role. Member Smith. No. I. Member Alderret. I. Member Vander Hayden here. Member Huard here. Member Peters here. And Chairman Benedict here. Okay. Okay. Any changes to the agenda,

Mr. Chair? Uh items H4, H5, and H6 will be uh not public hearings. No action will be taken on those. We would just be discussing those items this evening, but no action will be taken and no public hearings held. So four, five and six. Yes. H7 will be Yes. All right. Thank you. Commissioners, we have two sets of minutes to approve. Mr. Chair, I make make a motion to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2025 regular meeting. Okay, a second. Motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2025 special meeting. I'll second those two. Thank you. Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none on in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Good. That's passed. Okay. Next up is our consent agenda. And as I recall, there's one item on the consent agenda. Um that particular item DSA 2400198. The one thing on our consent agenda. Um these this item F1 uh will be enacted by one motion, one roll call vote of the commission and there wouldn't be any separate discussion for that item unless

a commission member or somebody from the public would would uh request to hear that presentation. Um, so if you're here for that that particular uh concern, please let us know so we can pull it and have the present full presentation done. Okay, seeing none [Music] commissioners make a motion that uh we approve the um consent agenda agenda item F1. Okay. Second. All right. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. Let's go ahead and call the role. Member Smith. I. Member Alderret. I. Member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Okay. That's passed. Next on our agenda is the uh public comments portion of the meeting. Anybody from the public that would like to address the commission for matters that are not on our agenda, welcome to come up. We'd love to hear from you. We not can't respond to any of those comments directly and would appreciate if you could keep your comments to three minutes. Good evening members of the commission and chairman Benedict. I'm John Magcguire from 5088 West Buckskin Drive in Eloy, Arizona these days. Uh been a while since I've been at this thus in front of this board. So, I'm happy to be here tonight and I'm here really just for one reason to speak tonight and and uh as it's I don't know how totally public it is, but I don't think it's a

secret either that this is uh director Ty's last planning and zoning meeting tonight. And I wanted to uh take a moment and thank him for all his work for the city over the last it's got to be 10 years plus at least uh 12 I think maybe 15 years. I was only around for maybe 13 or 14 of those. But from the beginning, uh Mr. Ty has had a good vision for the city, I think, and he's done a good job presenting both sides of every item that comes before this commission. Uh there's been a lot of different people in the chairs, but Mr. Ty has worked with all of them well and done a great job and and he's always been extremely open and helpful to me for the things that I do that most of you are aware of that uh I need public access to things and he's always been extremely helpful and open with me and uh help me get information out to people and that's that's an important thing and and I I'm going to miss him. I know he's going to take a little break from my understanding and then uh we don't know what he's going to do. So, I'm not sure when we'll see him next, but uh I just wanted to take a minute tonight and make sure that the publicly came in and acknowledged him and thanked him for his service to the city. Thank you, [Music] John. Thank you for that. Anybody else? Yes. Thank you so much. Thanks, Mike. Very good. Anybody else? Doesn't have to be powder and him anymore. We can talk about something

else if you'd like. Okay, Mr. Se, Mr. Chair. Yes. I just want to state for the minutes that Vice Chair Garza is now present. Thank you. Stole my seat. No problem. We're good. Uh, all right. That in mind, I'll close the uh public comments portion of the meeting. Get to new business. Number H1, we'll have a public hearing. Consider forwarding a recommendation to city council for Brian Great House, Burch, and some other names I'm going to mispronounce for uh Quick Trip Corporation zone change from UR to P A P A on Tucker Road DSA 2500. And Jim It's moving everywhere today. I'm going to get started in just a second. We're trying to address some technical difficulties. M Mr. Chair, we're gonna try to we're gonna have this Commissioner come over here to use this monitor. Okay. So she can she loves moving around I don't know anyway I'm not the tech guy so [Music]

[Music] All right. So, this item in front of you is for a zone change from urban ranch to planned area development to accommodate a proposed QuickTrip convenience store and fuel station. All right. Um, this may seem familiar to you because a very similar request was in front of planning commission last year, but there have been some changes and I'll walk through those with you this evening. As I was mentioning, this is a zone change request involving approximately 5 acres and the subject area is at the southeast corner of McCartney and Tucker and the request is for a planned area development zone to accommodate the convenience store and auto fueling. Now, a little bit of background. In October of 2024, there was also a request to change the zoning of the property to a planned area development zone, but it was specifically for a convenience store and auto fueling as well as diesel truck fueling. on the plan that was being considered at that time. As you can see highlighted on the screen there, there was an area for diesel truck fueling to the south of the store, as well as an area for truck

parking. City council denied the zone change at its October 7th meeting because of concerns that the truck element would change the character of the area. And then there was concerns about the um additional traffic on McCartney. Now the zoning request that is in front of you this evening is for just a traditional convenience store and fuel station. There is no truck accommodations proposed. And not only is it not proposed, but within the planned area development zoning document, it specifically prohibits it. Essentially, what this zoning document is for is to allow by a convenience store and fuel station. The remaining area to the south of the store is reserved for future commercial development with B2, which is the city code's general business uses. Within the P A guide, it does specifically allow for convenience store with auto fueling as a byite use, but it specifically prohibits fueling in any accommodations for diesel trucks and specifically convenience stores and fuel stations are prohibited from providing showers, truck repair services, laundry services, truck washing, and customer parking longer than one hour. Otherwise, B2 general businesses are permitted and other uses just like within our city's B2 zoning code, uses such as drive-thru restaurants, car washes, self storage would be subject to the consideration of a conditional use permit. Another thing that this P A does

is it limits freestanding signage to be monument style only, not taller than 15 feet. In an ordinary B2 zone, the sign height would be allowed to be 30 feet. So, as a P A, it builds in certain restrictions such as sign height and such as specific prohibitions like no truck accommodations. There is a major site plan that is also currently under review. It has not yet been scheduled for planning commission consideration. Should this P A be considered for approval this evening, the P A zoning document would find its way to council. Uh and council would be asked to be the they would be the final authority on this zoning request. It is scheduled for um their April 21st meeting. Meanwhile, the major site plan component for the north half of the P A is under review. And this is an excerpt from it. And what it shows is a 5300 square foot, 20 foot tall convenience store with brick masonry elevations on all four sides. And then a 7200 square foot fuel canopy for the auto fueling approximately 22 feet tall. And this shows the elevation on its four sides. There is a technical modification that staff is recommending that planning commission consider which is to revise the conceptual elevations and add text within the P A stating that the maximum height of this fuel canopy is 22 feet.

When reviewing zone changes and specifically for planned area development zones, this is the list of review criteria that the code suggests or the code requires have to be addressed. And the staff report goes into all of these criteria in greater detail. But I want to specifically talk about the three highlighted items because they're the most pertinent to the review of this. The first criteria that I want to talk about is conformance to the city's general plan. So within the 2030 general plan, this site sits within the commerce and business land use category. As you can see, between I 10 and Tucker is the commerce and business category. West of Tucker, the yellow area is the neighborhoods land use category. The neighborhoods category is more accommodating for residential. You'll find a lot more single family residential development in that area. It does allow commercial sites on limited site sizes, but it's more of a neighborhood commercial type use. Whereas within the commerce and business general plan category, they're designed to promote uses that um focus on their locations being next to interstates. And it identifies that um ideally it should be along major arterial roadways where autooriented uses are dominant. So, McCartney Road is designed as a principal arterial or not designed but it's it's um it is identified as a principal arterial road and as development occurs along that road there's roadway dedication and roadway improvements to the standard of principal arterial design.

The commerce and business category represents an effort to place autooriented uses in appropriate environments, ensuring that the location of office, commercial, and light industrial uses complements the community's urban design goals. So, this area is right next to the neighborhood area and it is in a prominent location right by I 10 and right off of McCartney. So design features are looked at, although it's more specific to the major site plan when we dive into the specific nuances regarding architecture and landscaping. However, this peed guide is embedded with a lot of conceptual detail that demonstrates that they are going to be designing it to help meet those goals. further into the general plan for commerce and business. It does identify commercial as an appropriate land use. And as I was mentioning over in neighborhoods, um the the type of businesses that are more supported there are neighborhood, commercial, and office. It could still theoretically allow gas stations. I mean there there is the circle K that sits within the neighborhoods category but um quick trip being caddyy corner that location is more appropriately suited because it's in the commerce and business area also with regard to the general plan we look at conformance to goals policies and applicable elements so I want to talk about goal CB-4 it talks about creating visibility without compromising ing attractive streetscapes or community character. And one of the action steps to achieve that is to site autooriented businesses to appropriate locations along interstates and/or select arterial corridors. So, as

you can tell, the site does propose that adjacent to McCartney, it's heavily landscaped, and they're proposing to site the fuel canopy to the side of the convenience store. So, between the convenience store and the southerntherly extension of Tucker, you know, typically when I think of gas stations, you'll see the um fuel canopy sitting in between the primary street and the store. So, that's that's a subtle design element that gives it more visual interest because you're you're able to see the actual building, the store more front and center than the than the fuel canopy. Within the general plan, we also have a a future trail corridor and identified is the McCartney Trail that is shown to in the future run between Palamino Parkway and then continue east on the other side of I 10 to Overfield. And this Ped also accommodates for that. they are um showing a DG path paralleling the public sidewalk along McCartney. So that's just another amenity that will help soften the site um with regard to this being a a gas station and convenience store and and what you see along the cartney. Another criteria that I want to talk about is the relationship of the plan elements to conditions both on and off the property. So where the subject ped area is in relation to other uses or other designated uses, there's really a hodge podge to the north as well as to

the east and caddy corner are all programmed for commercial uses. And all three of those areas can technically allow gas stations. Um, so this area, which is currently zoned Urban Ranch, is basically asking for a zone change to a zone district that will allow a gas station. Currently, Urban Ranch, the the the zoning that it presently is, is intended for very low density development. Um, the density is one house per 1.25 25 acres and that's not a realistic development in that location for that type of use given its location to I 10 and along McCartney and an urban ranch by the way is not considered an an appropriate zone district for the commerce and business general plan category. So, it it is kind of a holding zone that's intended to ultimately be reszoned to accommodate a more intense use. I drew that arrow in there between the interchange of I 10 and Tucker because it does segue into the next criteria, but it also talks about conditions both on and off the property in that Tucker sits about a quarter mile from the interstate and ADOT, Arizona Department of Transportation has advised that Tucker would be the first intersection from the interstate state that would be allowed full access. And by full access, I mean all turning movements. So you can turn left, you can turn right, you can turn in, you can turn out. And there wouldn't be the opportunity for a full access intersection anywhere between Tucker and I 10. So when looking at the surrounding

land uses and the fact that that urban ranch area that sits to the west and south of the site is more than likely going to be eventually reinvisioned for something more intense and the fact that there is zoning to the east of the site that allows commercial uses. there's a need to um look at circulation so that it too is not a detriment. And so this does segue into our traffic vehicular ingress and egress review criteria. And a lot of the conversation will probably center around traffic because that was a concern with the previous PA AD request when there was the trucking element. So this is a layout of the 5 acre P AD where the north half of the site would would accommodate the quick trip or any type of convenience store. The south half half of the development is reserved for future commercial development. But as part of the P A and as this site goes to develop the following things would occur. There would be ride-of-way dedication for Tucker to the west. So that would be a southerntherly extension of Tucker. Currently it sits to the north of McCartney and that's where it dead ends, but Tucker would be extended south. And with the development of the QuickTrip site, Tucker would be improved to the southern edge of the QuickTrip site, but the ride-of-way dedication would continue all the way to the south end of the P A. It also identifies a future east west road on the south end of the pad which allows connections to properties both to the west east and south so that as those properties all

develop they have right-of-way ability to get to Tucker at McCartney. There will also be additional right-of-way dedication for McCartney Road. Currently, McCartney from the center line south only exists as a 50- foot wide roadway easement. And so, additional rideway dedication will occur with the development of this site to allow for roadway improvements that meet the principal arterial design intent. This is my drawing to show all the turning movements that are going to happen at Tucker. Um there there would be the construction of a left turn lane going westbound on McCartney to go southbound Tucker. There would be a right turn lane going eastbound on McCartney to go on southbound Tucker. And of course there would be north and south traffic. And so this would necessitate a traffic signal. Um the TIA that is currently under review for the major site plan um would suggest that a traffic signal is needed. And so as a technical modification, we are asking that the peed guide be updated to state that the developer shall be required to construct a traffic signal at this intersection and it would need to be constructed and accepted by the city and operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first development within this P A. However, the cost of the construction for this traffic signal is eligible for reimbursement through the issuance of traffic impact credits as set forth in

um a specific city code section. within that city code section. It also allows for a development agreement so that there's some options for reimbursement that um for the traffic signal that would exceed this developer's fair share for the need for that for that light. What's highlighted on the screen now, I feel like I needed to point it out because it's kind of subtle, but along the east end of the site in yellow, um, that's important to talk about because that is an access easement 30 ft wide, 15 ft on the on this P AD's property and 15 ft on the adjacent sites property to the east to allow access um, another way, not just to Tucker, But this access would only be allowed to be a threearter turn. It wouldn't be full access. And by three quarter, I mean you can do right in and right out. And you can also do left in with the construction of a turn lane to go left, but there wouldn't be the ability for it to be full access. The city is planning to do a McCartney road improvement project. It's been funded and it's currently in design. And I'll walk you through some um slides here that show those improvements. But essentially from the edge of the A dot property at the interchange of I 10 west to panel. The plan is for McCartney to be two lanes in each direction with a center median and sidewalks on both sides. And of course as development occurs prior to those city improvements, the developer will also have to to

contribute to some half streetet improvements ahead of that. Um, however, what this drawing shows is basically the plan for the various turn lanes and the traffic signal um at Tucker and McCartney. This here shows the full expanse of the city improvement project for McCartney to to show you the the the wide segment that is planned. And specifically when you look at the closeup for the McCartney crosssection, it gives you a better idea of the various roadway improvements that will um that are planned and of course with the traffic signal there at Tucker. And then further to the west, I just wanted to to highlight that adjacent more adjacent to the McCartney Center neighborhood. Um these this shows some improvements that will be put in by the city of course cuz there currently isn't that many lanes but some of those improvements are are about to be put in right now with the development of the apartment complex at the northeast corner of Palamino and Hennis. One of the improvements that that apartment complex is going to be making um prior to them being able to occupy that building is the construction of a traffic signal there. So in summary, and I know that was a lot of information, but basically the traffic impact analysis, a traffic impact analysis for the first PAD proposal and the first major site plan that had the trucking element had previously been accepted by both ADOT and the then city traffic engineer.

There's a new traffic impact analysis without the trucking element. I almost said elephant under review by the city traffic engineer consultant. And while that is being reviewed, we do know that as as ordinarily accustomed with any development, there would be dedication to be made for McCartney and Tucker and the new east west road to the south of the site. And then there are going to be roadway improvements associated with this development made for McCartney as well as Tucker. In conformance with House Bill 2574, um staff is required to talk about um how a zone change affects housing and affordable housing. And so I don't want to take too much time on this. However, I should point out that its current zoning, urban ranch, does allow residential. This PAD um is a commercial PAD, so it would not allow residential. And so that could have an impact on a grand scale for home affordability, but this is by choice a request by the applicant to change the zoning. They believe that the zoning to a commercial designation is more appropriate here. Quick trip is the one who is prompting the zoning and it's can be assumed that they have cited this location as an ideal location for their business and it's not as of interest for it to have a residential component. Um and the commerce and business general plan designation although does allow

highdensity residential development, we find that this proposal is more suitable than residential highdensity residential development primarily due to the fact of a lot of other existing multifamily designated land nearby. Um, the area to the east of this site, although it is a commercial PA AD, has a component to it that does allow multifamily and there's multifamily designated properties within close proximity. So, um, we feel that that this zoning is appropriate. Regarding the public notification and outreach process, we did send out notification initially in February to owners of property including the McCartney Center HOA within a,000 ft of the subject's site advertising for a neighborhood meeting that was held on the 10th of March. And then about a week later, we sent out notice to the same group of people um and posted in the Kasa Grande dispatch announcing for this meeting as well as not mail notification for the planned April 21st city council meeting. and then a sign was posted on the subject site on March 19th. Regarding um inquiries and comments and the neighborhood meeting, there was about a dozen attendees. Most were from the McCartney Center neighborhood. They did express concerns about traffic and curious about the scheduling of the McCartney Center improvements. Most expressed the sentiment that although they were happy to see that the trucking element was removed, they really feel that the full breath of the roadway improvements to McCartney should

occur before any additional development is approved along McCartney. I will say that um with the development of quick trip and staff's requirement or recommendation to add the traffic signal element, there will be some some interim improvements done adjacent to the store, turn lanes, etc. that will help mitigate the added traffic to that area for this business. And the the trucking element has been removed. So that will help further reduce that impact. There were some positive comments that were received via email. One made it into your packet. The other was handed out just this evening. And then there was also a comment received um recently that didn't make it into your packet but was handed out this evening that was um not in favor of the project. the it was from a resident of McCartney Center, as you'll see, who who just believes that this area should stay residential and um they they don't think that a gas station is appropriate along McCartney. Staff does make a recommendation, however, that planning commission move to forward to city council a recommendation to approve this zone change from urban ranch to to P A subject to the following condition of record and technical modifications. Another document that was passed out to you this evening was a refined list. I know the staff report had very raw comments um because the planned area development submitt had just completed its review. But the bulk of the comments were ensuring that the

PD adequately addressed the development standards for this zone district. The condition of record is specifically with reg regarding um rightway dedication. Uh ordinarily we would seek rightway dedication associated with a building permit. That's that's really our opportunity to ask for right away because at that point they're going to be actually increasing traffic on rightway and so that's our opportunity to ask for it. But this condition would enable us to seek it prior to a building permit if it is needed for the McCartney Road improvement project, for example. And it would also enable us to potentially get Tucker Road dedicated um ahead of development as well. And then the technical modifications. I won't go through each of these, but there are 11 um which like I say are primarily to ensure that the development standards are clarified within the P A guide. However, if you have any questions about any of these or if any of these catches your eye, I'd be happy to talk about it with you in more detail. And that concludes my presentation. and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Very good. I have one commissioners. Yes. I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Um Jim, you mentioned ADOT's involvement with the uh with the road project and also the uh exit coming off of the southbound I 10. Has any has there been any discussion about

the uh uh northbound exit onto McCartney as to the uh maybe a signal involved over there? Because when this was going to be a a truck project, I mean, that was a big contentious issue that the traffic coming off of the off of the 10 and then heading to the uh west on McCartney with those cars flying over the I 10. I mean, there's not a lot of room for error out there. So, it would almost seem like if ADOT is looking at the other exit that perhaps maybe they ought to take a look at at this exit also because it's it's not going to change. There's still going to be traffic coming that way. Yeah. Chair member Peters, that exit that you're talking about is under ADOT control. So, any improvements that are done would would come with their I realize that, but I'm just wondering if if they had mentioned anything with these plans or anything. No. and and we do have our traffic consultant who may be able to weigh in on that a little bit more. Um, however, the the TIA that was done also did not find that to be a necessary recommendation. Okay. Although I think everyone would agree that that that would most definitely help mitigate traffic. It was just found that it wasn't um directly immediately due to just adding the quick trip. That was kind of a greater concern for for you know larger development. Okay. Okay. Do you want to hear from Oh, Clark, do you have anything to add on that? Uh, no, not at this point. Okay. Very good. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions for staff? Yes. Yeah, I have one. Just a clarification.

You had mentioned that there was going to be a widening project in regards to McCartney adding I guess an additional lane going in both directions. Is that correct? Yes. So would that be an actual a separate lane as far as turning and concerned in addition to those other lanes? Yes, Chair Member Smith. There would not only be an additional through lane in each direction, but wherever there are intersections with roads and driveways, it's our policy now to have dedicated turn lanes for those. So, it would be its own turn lane in addition to through lanes. Thank you. Anything else for staff? Chairman, I have a question. Yes. Um, this one's for Clark. So the the widening project for Interstate 10, does it come as far south as McCartney Road that ADAT's working on today? If it's a two-lane section there today, it will go it'll match up with the existing threelane section to the south. Okay. So I think it is if I can remember this late in the evening. Okay. So then that means that interchange will be look a lot different once the widening construction's done. Correct. Okay. Which would include a traffic signal perhaps. It is currently three lanes in each direction right there though. Unfortunately it it doesn't narrow to two until closer to the panel interchange. Yeah. Okay. Oh yeah, it is between those two. Okay. I know because I remember when my headache starts to happen. Another question. Uh Jim, the the widening construction at McCartney that the city's doing, what would be the time frame for the installation of the

improvements through here? Clark would be able to better speak to the timing for that. Yeah, I I know that they're going through the capital improvement program right now and uh I was told this afternoon that the decisions have not been made for the CIP projects yet. So they haven't been established yet what's going to be built in fiscal year 26. Okay. So I know what is being built on this corridor. It's starting at panel and going to TKLE. That is scheduled to be constructed. This segment is phase two and I'm not aware that has been inserted into a fiscal year um 27 or beyond at this point. Okay. And then just finally, one last question is um in the future um the TIA and the P A are those normally approved before they get to the commission? It just seems like things are in flux right now with the way the documents are lining out. So, Commissioner Garza, you are right to assume that major site plans should I know they don't always and that's why you're asking the question. should have an approved P A before we present it to you. Um because it is important to understand if the driveway locations are adequate, if the if there needs to be additional mitigation for the proposed trip generation. But this is specifically why you were also not considering the major site plan this evening. It's for that very reason because um although it was submitted at the same time as the zoning

document, there were more comments that needed to be addressed and worked on and resolved prior to it being planning commission ready. So instead, what's in front of you this evening is the zoning document that really the the primary focus of it is to determine whether the the use is appropriate for this location as well as the specific development standards within the PAD. Although there is a traffic element to the review of PADDs because one would have to ask is is the use appropriate given the traffic conditions etc. I would say that um it it's a little bit further along than some zoning documents where a major site plan may not even be contemplated yet. It could be a speculative zone where it's like we'd like to in the future put a gas station, but we we have no idea what traffic implications are to be had. And ordinarily we would say, well, we would get that with the major site plan. we would get the a more specific um traffic report at that time. So typically it's more of the highlevel review of traffic at at the zoning stage. Makes sense. So we'll see this again for major site. Okay, sounds good. Good. Great. Commissioners, any other questions for staff? Okay, at this time I'd like the uh owner of their representative to come forward address the commission. Please give us your name and address for the record. Yeah, thank you chairman and members of the commission. My name is Brian Great House here tonight on behalf of Quicktrip or QT as a lot of people know them as. I am going to forego a full presentation because Jim just gave a great one. Um, thank you Jim. That was

out outstanding. Uh, as Jim mentioned, we have been to this commission before on the same site and this commission voted 52 to recommend approval to the city council and at that time we had seven semi-truck fueling bays on that plan. Uh, we went to city council, we were asked by the council to have a neighborhood meeting. We had the neighborhood meeting, we reduced those fuel stations down to three. Then we went back to council and we didn't have the votes to get the approval and we were told many times by some of the council members and other neighbors that if you got rid of the semi-truck fueling stations that we would support the case. Um we had a great neighborhood meeting. Uh there are traffic concerns, but the traffic study that Jim was mentioning actually shows a 56.2% 2% reduction in trips just by removing those those semi-truck fueling bays. So, in accordance with your prior approval and getting rid of those semi-truck fueling bays, we request your recommendation of approval here tonight. Again, thank you and happy to answer your questions. Okay, I've got some questions. Questions? Yes. Um on the the diesel fuel type thing, is it going to be like this the quick trip that's on um uh Florence now? the same setup as far as two diesel on each one each bay or something like that or what's what what are you going to have for I like diesel so I got to talk about diesel I wanted the other one so uh thank you chairman commissioners my name is Daniel Chambers I work for a quick trip um um to answer your question yes it's going to be just like the one that's on Florence we will have diesel but it's not for the over the road trucks it's for the semiis and your your cars that take diesel so we'll have diesel um for uh cars and and light trucks. Yeah. Not over the road trucks, not the big semis. All right. Well, thank you. Well, I I was for obviously

the first time around because I've got a a fifth wheel and I know I've only got one gas station I can go to in town and put fuel in. If I'm hooked up, I can't fit. And so I was and the horse trailers and everybody else that's out there off McCartney Road, I'm sure they would have appreciated that, too. But we'll we'll go with what you have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, now I'd like to open to for the public portion of the meeting. Uh for this subject, anybody from the public like to address this subject? Uh please come forward and give us your name and address for the record, please keep your comments to the three minutes and um try not to repeat if somebody else has already said it. um try to keep the repetition down a little bit. We we'd all appreciate it for the time. So, anybody from the public like to address this issue? Please come forward. Hello, my name is Denise Wilder. I live behind the Circle K 1797 East Chapperel. My only question I'm glad they got rid of the diesel pumping stuff. My only thing is the zoning change urban to the pad. I just have a question about that. I'm not understanding if you can still build on the urban part. Why do we need to change it to a commercial pad? So that's my really the only issue. But I'm glad with the regular stuff and but so I just need a clarification on the zoning change before I can be a 100%. So let me let me repeat real quickly the comment that that the staff had made that that that zoning is a kind of a holding pattern. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's kind of a holding

pattern because we're not, you know, there's a lot of land out out there that's that's zoned very similarly that we don't know what's going to go there. We don't know what's going to be best for it at the time. And so it's a hangover from, you know, from previous previous years when there wasn't we had no idea what was going to what was going to happen there. So staff want to make any comment to that? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that urban ranch doesn't allow commercial development. It it um allows for agriculture development. By that I mean you could have you could have like a barn or hay processing. So that like a like an agricultural commercial would be okay when it's in conjunction with farming operations, but otherwise it's more of like a residential estate type development where the minimum lot size is an acre and a quarter. Gotcha. So right as it is even housing that went in, it still have to be an acre and a quarter. Right. It's more like the types of homes you see on the east side of I 10 in the county. That isn't technically urban ranch zoned. It's probably general rural, which is the county zoning, but it's very similar that that that if that were in the city, I would I would say, yeah, that looks like an urban ranch development pattern. Okay, great. Hope that helped. Anybody else from the public like to address this issue? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to commissioners. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. That would be great. I'd like to make a motion to forward a recommendation to city council to approve DSA 250020 uh subject to the following condition of record and technical modifications. Okay, very good. I have a motion. I

second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith. I. Member Aldrich. I. Member Vanderhayden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. Hi. Vice Chair Garza. Hi. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with the project. Whole row. Okay. Next on our agenda, we will have a public hearing and consider recommendation to for city council for DSA 25 00009 and 000010 uh for Collier's engineering and this is Jacqueline. Yes. Good evening commission. This is uh DSA 25009 and DSA 250010 Grande Valley minor general plan amendment and zone change. Oops, there we go. Uh the site is located along Cast Grand Maropa Highway in the UPPR and Indian Valley Road. It's approximately 2,250 acres. Uh this was before you um last fall for a major general plan amendment. So, the two requests tonight are a minor general plan amendment to change the growth area from phase two to phase one and a zone change from urban ranch, Grande Valley North Plary development and Grande Valley PD. Um, both of these PADs included um commercial and single family residential and the I the zone change is to I2 general industrial. Uh regarding the review criteria for criteria for the minor general plan uh amendment for growth

areas. Here are the five categories. Um they are covered in the staff report and staff finds that this criteria has been met. Again this is the site um for indust for industrial site um that um can be met by growth area phase one. Regarding the zone change review criteria, here are the three um review criteria covered in the staff report. I'll go be going into detail on a few of these all these. Uh the first one is that the action is consistent with the city's general plan including goals, policies, and other applicable elements. Um goals and actions of manufacturing industry. Uh goal number one is to provide and expand the manufacturing industry land uses and to accommodate a variety of industrial industries. Act sub uh 111 is to identify locations where it would be beneficial to increase the manufacturing industry areas within the city. So again, as you can see from the general plan map, uh this area has a lot a lot of frontage along the upper and this makes industrial zoning appropriate in this area. An applical element, land use element number two, guiding principle, excuse me, guiding principle number two is that community growth should be driven by industrial, corporate office, professional services, financial services, research and development, other similar developments which offer opportunity for higher paying quality jobs. Regarding review criteria number two that a reszoning conforms to the general plan if it proposes land uses densities or intensities within a range of identified uses of the general plan. And while the I2 is appropriate zoning in the manufacturing industry general plan land use category uh we do not have specific densities nor intensities for these um properties within this land use category that pertains to general industrial. However, I2 is appropriate in the manufacturing and industry land use category and any um compatibility

that's needed can be achieved through the uh major site plan um stage if needed. And finally, the proposed action is uh proposed zone change is necessary and proper at this time to meet the land use needs of the city residents of the city. City's current demand for general industrial is significant. This reszone would expand that area. uh just to the south um recently reszoned PAD for the Santa Cruz mine and again we're seeing a trend uh to change the existing PADs in this area that were done in the early 2000s um for housing and commercial to manufacturing industry uh this site this area being adjacent to the UPR and there's flood plane issues make this um more conducive regarding the stakeholder process um staff sent out applications in review in February to property owners within 1,000 ft and um staff and and the applicant met all the other requirements for publishing and notices and I did not receive any comments or inquiries. So staff's recommendations to a recommendation of approval to city council for minor general plan amendment to change the growth area from phase two to phase one and to forward a recommendation of approval to city council for the zone change request from Urban Ranch, Grande Valley North Pad and Grande Valley P A with the following condition of record. I just want to note that um this this is our typical rightaway um requirement, but it has been updated from the staff report to include language that was um done in a text amendment in in 2024 in 1768 550. So just wanted to highlight that there for you commission happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Okay, commissioners any question? I have a quick question. Thank you. The Jacqueline, what is that small triangle that remains that is not included in this P A that right there? This tiny

little green space. That's a rectangle. See? Boy, I worked all day. Long day, huh? Okay, that's good. We're good. We're good. We all do it. We all do. We may have the applicant address that, but it is looks like it's probably a parcel that is not owned by um this property owner. So, it will say urban ranch. Urban ranch. Okay. For someone to buy something and put a large home on it in the middle of a bunch of industrial with a sprinkler system going right across it. That's the round circles are sprinkler cell tower. Oh, I like it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I wish I had one. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Okay. Seeing none, would the applicant there representative please come forward to address the commission? Good evening, chair and commission members. Cindy Paddock, Calers Engineering and Design, 2141 East Highland Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Um Jacqueline is correct. That little tiny parcel is an out parcel that's not owned by the applicant tonight, so it's not included in the application. Good eyes. Um Jacqueline did a good job. Um as she noted, this is just worth just following up to the general plan amendment that was done last year. Um this is just to follow up with there's a lot of demand for industrially in this area along the up railroad and the uh cow town road uh I mean the Maricopa Kasak highway and we're just trying to make land available for interest in development. and I'm happy to answer no other questions. Okay, commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Now, we'll open the public portion of the meeting for this issue. Anybody from the public like to address this issue, please come

forward. Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting and bring it back to the commission. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. That would be great. I'd like to make a motion to forward a recommendation to city council uh for a minor general plan amendment to amend the growth area from phase 2 to phase 1 DSA 25009. Second. Very good. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith. I member Alderette. I member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza. I. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Okay. Chair. I'd like to make a motion. I'd love it. I'd like to make a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to city council for the zone zone change request DSA250010 from Urban Ranch Grande Valley North P A and Grande Valley P A uh with the following condition of record. Second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the RO. Member Smith. I. Member Alderit. I member Vanderhayden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. Hi. Vice Chair Garza. Hi. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Next. H3. Yep. Still hold a public hearing. Consider foreign recommendation to city council for request by Rick Miller for a zone change from I1 to I2 DSA

2500 Z5 and it's the Jacqueline show again. Good evening. The site is located at the southeast corner of Thornton Road and Ash Avenue. It's approximately 36 acres. The request is to change the zoning from I1 Garden and Light Industrial to I2 general industrial. Here's the review criteria. Again, um I'm just going to go covering one and three um on this one because I'm going to go into a little more detail on number three. Uh again, regarding the action is consistent with the general plans um including the goals, policies and other applicable elements. Um again, goals and actions is to provide and expand the industrial uh land use areas to accommodate a variety of industries. And again, um, while we are generally supportive of expanding the industrial uses east of Thornton, we do want to ensure compatibility. So, I'll be addressing um, that on the next slide. Just want to give you a little note on that. Uh, regarding number three, that the pro proposed zone change is necessary and proper at this time to meet the land use needs of the city. Um, again, while it's uh, current demand for general industrial is significant, uh, this resone would expand this area. Again, while staff is supportive of I2 zoning, uh this would include um an island of I2 within I1 zoning. It is adjacent uh to a food processing plant to the north and is relative proximity to city's downtown land use category and existing and proposed residential development um to the east. So through conditions of record that I'll be showing on um shortly uh associated with the zone change and during the major uh site plan process staff will ensure that appropriate buffers and mitigation measures will be incorporated into the final design to expand ensure development is compatible with existing and future development adjacent to the site and the downtown area. So those proposed conditions are that any storage

of volatile or explosive materials shall be limited to to no more than 10% of the floor area and no outdoor storage of explosive or volatile material that would propose a potential public safety hazard as determined by fire and or building code and that all outdoor storage shall be screened by decorative masonry block wall matching and or complementing the principal architecture of the site along Thornton Road. Number three is um because Thornton is considered a gateway to the city. So, we do want to make sure that um it it is screened from anything um that would make it ugly. And um the applicant uh I did work with the applicant on these uh conditions and they are um in agreement to them as well. Regarding the stakeholder process, um applications in review were sent out to property owners within a th00and feet in January and um staff and the applicant met all the other requirements. I did not receive inquiries or comments on this request. Um so again, uh staff recommends for a recommendation of approval to city council for the zone change from garden and light industrial I1 to general industrial I2 with the following conditions of record as noted. And again, I just want to show the highlighted item um changes to number four. So happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Okay. Uh commissioners, questions for staff. I guess I um I'm interested I anyway I'm concerned about this moving that you know continuing to move more industry closer heavier industries closer in. I appreciate what you've done with that, you know, with those additional

requirements. Um, yeah, it's just concerning to me. I don't know that I have a question. General comment. Anyone done from staff? Okay. The applicant or their representative, please come forward. Give us your name and address for the record. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Rick Miller, 1559 East Brenda Drive in Kasa Grande. here representing tonight uh Orchard CG Investors LLC. With me tonight are Mike Bigger and DJ Brown, uh the property owners. First of all, I'd like to compliment uh Jacqueline and the thorough review and communications that she's had with us through our application process. Um also like to say congratulations to Paul Ty. It was 15 years ago I drove you around town, I believe, and showed you the town when you took my job here. It never gets out of your system, Paul. So, don't think about retirement. But anyway, um representing the uh owners of the property this evening, they are making a request to reszone the property from I1 Light and Garden Industrial to I2 General Industrial. Uh we agree with the conditions. We believe that, you know, that these conditions are necessary to mitigate any potential uh concerns with the adjacent properties, especially the Daisy brand food to the north. And as you're getting a little closer to the downtown area, you know, the general industrial uh zoning classification does open up some additional opportunity to allow the city to expand its industrial base here. The community has been extremely successful in in uh landing some very uh high quality industrial users uh in this particular region. This location is ideal for industrial development with the uh available infrastructure readily in place there along the Thornton Ash area. Um, you know, the the I1 does allow for, if you

look at the two districts side by side, the I1 light uh manufacturing does allow a little more for commercial activities. And I think they you where you'd see more maybe customer traffic coming to and from a facility where the I2 wouldn't allow as much of the commercially um designated activities, but it does open it up for the uh for my um client to market the property for uh users that may take raw product or raw materials and manufacture product from raw materials. That's really the biggest difference between the general industrial and the I1 zoning which the I1 you have to take material that's been previously assembled and assemble it into some kind of a product where in this case you can take raw material and assemble it into products. Again, uh we we uh are not objecting to any of the conditions. No intentions to to have any industry that would be um you know, a potential hazard to the area within the way of explosives or volatile materials. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. The only other thing I'd like to mention is through the conversations in the past, you I know the uh your interim traffic engineer Clark uh and the applicant here and and others have had discussions about future major site plans and access to this parcel. That will be addressed in future site plans. This applicant doesn't have a prospect in mind right now. uh they will uh eventually if they are successful in finding a a prospect on this property, they'll be in for a major site plan review. But one of the issues that's really important for them is to have ingress egress um off of Ash Avenue. And I believe the traffic engineer previously said that they could have up to three on a Ash Avenue and then a right in right out only onto Thornton Road. And uh I'll leave it with that at this point and happy to answer any other questions you might have.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Um Rick, I appreciate you good good start and explaining why, you know, this is needed. Um well, requested anyway. Um and you know, I'm sitting there, well, just looking at the picture, there's you know, several users in that area. So, it's it's not, you know, it's not stopping folks from using the area. Uh and uh you know, the concept was that you know, you've done it more years than I have that the concept of that buffer zone is concerning. Um but they don't have a specific user at this point. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Not at this point in time. They uh if they had a user that's going to potentially produce uh noise, smoke, glare, or other things that you're concerned about for the area, they would have to come through a conditional use permit process separate from this application gun there. And and I know that the property immediately to the west is all I general industrial. If you look north of Highway 84, Diamond Plastics is uh uh General Industrial. So there's, you know, there's um it's not making an, you know, the first attempt to come across Thornton Road and and I think the um safeguards are there are built into the ordinance for the conditional use and with the safeguards that they put into the conditions, I think we're uh we're okay with this. Okay. All right. No other. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Anybody from the public like to address this issue, please come

forward. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting and bring it back to commission. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. Okay. I'd like to uh consider forwarding a recommendation to city council for request to change from I1 to I2 for DSA 25005. Okay. Second with the Did I hear with the conditions? Yeah, the conditions of record. Sorry. Add the conditions of record. Okay. And I don't know if I missed but I just want to make sure with the condition of record for favorable recidation with the conditions of record. Yes. Favorable. Yes. Right. For approval. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We're good. Second. Second. All right. Okay. Uh I've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? So my discussion, you guys heard my concerns. Um we keep pushing for um you know for more of these industry more employment which is you know that's hard to disagree with. Um it does concern me that we are pushing heavier and heavier and and I don't know what this is. So you know I don't know what this is going to be and and we don't know you know what the applicant's going to be like. And to me, until that point, we just will leave the little bit of safeguard we have in place. Guess what my vote is? So, any other comments? Any other discussion? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith, I. Member Alderette, I. Member Vanderhden, yes. Member Huard, yes. Member Peters, I. Vice Chair Garza, I. Chairman Benedict, no. Motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. Good luck with the project. Okay. Okay. Next. Oh, we're not holding

a public hearing for this. We'll consider it consider forwarding a recommendation to city council uh for DSA 2400171 for a change text amendment to the citizen review process. Right. Okay. have a screen. So, I'm going to talk. Okay, there we go. I'm going to talk about is it H4, five and six? What are my numbers? Yeah, H4, five, and six together. And as I mentioned, we're just going to have a bit of a discussion. We're not going to hold a public hearing. We're not going to have a vote. Um, and so, as you know, um, the materials I provided to you was were some pretty extensive zoning code text amendments. We had a brand new chapter that we authored called citizen review process. Changed kind of the uh community engagement process that we might engage use to process various uh of our various development applications. We modified our administrative procedures a bit um and we revised our permitted use in cups. Um, and those were those were the uh the three items that we were prepared

to discuss tonight until this morning when I uh read that the governor signed a new piece of legislation into law called HB 2447, which I just gave to you. and uh HP 2447 uh makes significant uh changes to how we are going to process applications. So I'm going to take a second and read it to you. It's really short. And actually, this was a a statute that was passed last year, but it was passed in a way that was um optional for communities, but now it's mandatory. So, here's what it says. It's uh in 9-500- uh point.49 49 of the ARS says not withstanding any other law. The legislative body of a city or town shall not may any longer by ordinance do the following. Authorize administrative personnel to review and approve site plans, development plans, land divisions, lot adjustments, lot ties, preliminary plat, final plat amendments without a public hearing. So what does that mean? As you know with the study session, we talked about the administrative procedures the 17 chapter 1768 kind of making some of our site plan reviews administrative, right? We had limited buildings of 16,000 square feet or smaller could be administrative. Ones that were larger were going to go could go to planning commission. We we had drafted provisions that those uh

minor site plans that could be reviewed administratively by staff. There were appeal rights to planning commission to get hearings by both the public and the applicant. But uh the larger major site plans, the more complex, the more controversial would still come to planning commission as major site plans for a public hearing. My initial read of this is that every site plan in the community now has to be reviewed administratively that the planning commission will not be seeing any site plans. The next thing that is questionable, and I've talked to the city attorneys about this today a little bit, and we need to do some more research, is okay, so staff makes reviews the site plans and makes a decision to either approve or deny. Is that decision appealable to planning commission? And if so, what does that appeal look like? Is it a public hearing appeal, an appeal with no hearing? What happens there? Don't know the answer to that question. We need to sort that out. Um so clearly we need to revise 1768 now to comply with these new rules. Uh we need to kind of think about the new rules and dive into them a little bit and talk to our peers and because it's it's pretty earthshattering from a planning perspective really probably for you too. I mean, you had a lot of debate about what level of plans you wanted to see and what ones you were comfortable uh letting staff see, and the legislature has now made that decision for you. Uh so, we're going to uh to revise that. Now the good news is is that you know on that citizen review process chapter 1766 we had already expanded that to allow a lot more public engagement and stakeholder process during the internal review stage right

which now all the stakeholder process for at least site plans and plants and those other documents those other applications that are referenced all that public engagement will happen at the uh internal review stage preapp stage because there won't be any public hearings? Looks like, you know, we'll still hold public hearings on general plans, uh, general plan adoptions, general plan amendments, zone changes, zoning, text amendments, conditional uses, all of those. We'll continue to have public hearings, uh, but not site plans on m minor or major site plans. We probably won't even have minor and major. We'll probably just have site plans because there's no reason to have a differential between them any longer. So, um, so that's what we were trying to do, but I guess we didn't go far enough. The, uh, um, and so we talked about citizen review process. I mean, that's not really going to change. We just need to we you know 1768 and 1766 and the other permitted uses and conditional use changes they're all so interwined that we can't move forward with one of them without moving them all as a package because they reference to each other. So we're just going to ask that uh um that we not vote on any of those this evening. Um, but we'll review HB 2447 the staff level, talk to our peers, um, determine the modifications that need to be made to our application review process to comply. We'll modify uh, 1768. That's where all the modifications will occur, mostly in the um, site plan uh, section. And um, we'll bring it all back

to the planning commission. Somebody will bring it back to the planning commission, but it'll come back. Um, it's good. I, you know, we we kind of got this thing to the, uh, to the one yard line. Uh, but, uh, we got sacked in the end. Got sacked, so we, uh, we have to regroup and, uh, and take another run at it. But, um, it'll be back. Um, I'm actually scheduled to I was scheduled to brief city council on Monday night on these zone change, on these text amendments. I'll have the same convers conversation with council on Monday night that I'm having with you tonight. And uh we'll just give them sort of the overview and then we'll go back to the drawing board a little bit and uh and take another run at it. So I know you've had some time to review the the the code changes that we did draft. If you have any questions or comments on those, I can entertain those for you tonight and try to answer them. Other than that, we'll uh we'll just come back uh when this uh when we've regrouped. Okay. So, I probably misspoke. We're not taking any action. We're not making any recommendations for Nope. Four, five, and six. You are not. Um per uh per Paul's question commissioners is there anything comment you want to make about as per his his request his question I guess I do have a question but I guess it's kind of how it's being interpreted and the way I read it is not that it has to be approved administratively but that it opens up that avenue for a jurisdiction to approve it administratively, but we can still require a public hearing for those items if it was originally required by state statute to have a public hearing. And so now it's saying you don't need to

do a public hearing. You can do it administratively if you would like, but we still have an option as a municipality to require a public hearing for these and require them to come to planning commission because where I'm saying is authorize administrative personnel to review and approve. It's not saying require administrative and that's where it's just authorizing the city to go a different route administratively for some of these items rather than requiring a public hearing for some of them like is currently or was currently or had been required by state statute. That that's how I read this. You know, Commissioner Edirect Alderette, I I I understand that the question is is it authorized or is it required? Right? that first word. But if they weren't going to require, they didn't have to change the may to a shale because the may exactly what you said, right? Cities may do it. Now we have now it says shall do it. So I don't know. It's a great question. I'm sure our city attorney is going to go consult with other city attorneys on what the legislative intent was here and how they're interpreting it. Go to Arizona city of leagues and town, cities of leagues and towns and talk about it. So, you know, I hope you're right. I really do. But if you're not, then you know, but we need to take a pause, figure it out, and and then regroup. After all, you guys weren't doing anything else, right? Everything else going on. Holy cra. Paul, I have a quick question. Who um I guess who brought House Bill 2447 to the floor? What legislator can we appreciate for that? Well, I want it for the minutes because I the public needs to know that that particular person didn't want their involvement in the development process. So, it this isn't a commission. You know, I think

whether we're here or we're not here, this is they didn't want the public's input about what was happening within the cities and towns. You know, I just read that tonight. It was co-sponsored by two Republican legislators. Uh Mark, do you know who it is? I think it's Carbone maybe. No, I didn't I didn't look at who sponsor. It would be nice. But you can find you can find it on easy ledge. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's just it's just hard. It's not even just that. It's the fact that you you know down further it talks about the inspections and the construction of the development are to be done by their own services. Right? So there is no city or town oversight in the development process of what they build or what they plan for. So it's a little scary. I agree. Wow. Okay. Oh, one more comment. actually uh on the permitted uses for the industrial zones. Um this is kind of a late thought by me, but something that I didn't see while going through all those uses that has become a much more recent technology and use that has come online in Arizona particularly is battery energy storage systems. And we currently don't say where that would be permitted or at least what umbrella use that would fall under. Um, so just a thought that maybe that's something we could add and provide some standards for because I know a lot of jurisdictions have been caught off guard by people coming in asking to do these things. So it'd be probably a good idea to have those in place. No, I agree. That's a good point. Battery battery uh storage, we'll add that. We did add data center if you'd noticed that because we thought the same thing. We're going to get some data center proposals and we don't have that listed as a use. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Good point. Thank you. Thank

you. Okay. So, anything else on this subject that's not our issue? I guess. Wow. Okay. So, I take it we are to H7. You are. Okay. Very good. So, we will have a public hearing and consider forwarding recommendation to city council for requests from the planning department for some zoning text amendments. And Sams, good evening uh chair and commissioners. Uh I've got a a little bit lighter uh subject matter. Um, we are going to try to to help out our community here by cleaning up some uh code that just needs a little bit of uh finetuning. So, I'm here to present DSA 250031. This is a zoning code text amendment. Um, DSA 250031. Uh we're here to hold a public hearing and consider forwarding a recommendation to city council for a request by the city of Kasa Grande planning department for the following zoning code text amendments and you can see them listed there. Um so the overview the revisions to the above reference code sections are being made in two parts. The first set of revisions is to remove the corner lot width exception that requires 200 feet of lot width for corner lots in the B2, B4 and commercial office zone districts. So if I go back to that initial picture, currently that uh tealish blue square there is what we require for corner lots. Uh that green square there is what we would require for any um like midblock lot, something that was not on a corner. Um so what we're what we're

doing is we're saying we're getting rid of that additional um 50 foot requirement for corner lots so that it's uniform across the board. Um, and we have the same or in our I1, I2 and other uh commercial zone districts, we do not have that uh extra width requirement on corner lots. So, this will bring all of our commercial and industrial zoning districts into the same uh requirements for uh lot grids. not the same lot width requirement but the same standard of requirements without the exception for um larger lots on corners. And then the second um amendment uh is to remove the languages or the language within the B1, B2, B3, B4, I1 and I2 zone districts uh referencing zoning codes 175690 and 1756100. as these two sections were removed with the recent rewrite of chapter 17.56 parking and access. These provisions were removed as section 1756080 of code references the current driveway access requirements and that the provisions of the access uh management standards apply. Um so we had initially three sections of code that this was referencing. We rewrote that code. Only one section remains. So we're just removing the reference to the two now um superfluous uh zoning sections. Um so specific provisions to code um 1724 160 1728070 and 173505. This is the lot width exception. Uh we want to remove the exception that corner lots shall have a minimum width of 200 ft. um 150

foot lot will allow for greater flexibility when developing many of our existing infill businesses and commercial office zoned lots. Um it also like I said earlier brings these districts in line with other business and industrial zoning districts none of which have that corner lot with exception. So, as we as we make these lot um requirements um more standardized and smaller um it's going to allow more development in that um especially with our infill lots which many of them are already more narrow than they should be um as they were built or platted before we uh pass these zoning codes. Um, so we've got some lots that would like to do something different, but they're restricted by not having quite the um lot width requirement. So, this is going to free up um some availability for development. Um, so then the specific uh revisions proposed the following code sections. Um, you can see them there. This is that removal of the uh superfluous uh code reference. Um, and this, uh, for your reading is the access standards that currently exist within the 175680. Um, I have it here. It is also in the staff report. Um, so that you can see that all of that was rewritten into 080 and that nothing that we're no reference that we're removing still contains any of that text. There wasn't a change specifically to the all of it. It was just kind of put into a single section with some revisions. So, that still exists. The code still references the important bits. We're just getting rid of the extra. Um, with any zoning uh changes, we look at conformance with House Bill 2547. Um, the three standards are there.

Um the proposed text amendment uh don't impact development applications for residential developments. Um so accordingly uh the impact of this zoning code text amendment uh should be neutral um have no effect one way or the other on the cost of housing. Um uh the public hearing notification for this uh meets the requirements set out by city code. uh a publication of a display ad in the Kasak Grand Dispatch was done. Uh mailed we did not mail out any mailers. I do apologize and a sign was not required for this application. So we did not post assign. Um my apologies. Um but we have received no inquiries about this proposal. So at this time, staff recommends that the planning commission forward a favorable recommendation to city council for requests by the city of Kasa Grande planning department for the following zoning code text amendments and you can see them there. Are there any questions at this time? Commissioners, any questions for staff? Okay. and planning and zoning is the applicant. Do we get to skip that part? And so we will open the public portion of this hearing. Anybody from the public like to address this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting and bring it back to commission. Chairman, I'll make a motion. Thank you. to forward a favorable me recommendation to city council for the CA Grand Planning Department for the following zoning code text amend amendments listed

A through I. Okay, I have a motion. Second and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, please call the role. Member Smith, I. Member Aldrret, I. Member Vender Hayden, yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. Hi. Vice Chair Garza. Hi. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. Playing director. One last time. Yes. One last. Let's see. Is this on? [Laughter] Now we're we're good. Battery might have been dead. All right, let's see what we have here. Do we have anything to report? Um minor site plan. Couple of those. Extension of a structure at Christ Assembly Church. An ice machine. Uh, board of adjustment did approve a variance for a sign at New Island Liquor because their other sign got hit by a car, knocked over, and was so they uh needed a variance to reconstruct one. And they denied a variance by uh um for um a property on 1566 North Desert Willow where they had a um what was that James? A mikvah. A mikvah. A large mikvah in the backyard that was permitted that was built without any permits. Didn't meet our code. Which means it now has to be torn down, rebuilt. What is a mikvah? What is

a mikvah? James, tell them what a mikvah is. It's a ceremonial bath that is used as part of a religious practice for the religious faith of Judaism. Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. U so a couple other quick reports. Uh first off, um my replacement has been hired. um gentleman by the name of Dan Coxworth. Dan is the current um planning director for Coochis County. So he's going to and worked prior to that for the city of Sierra Vista for a number of years as a senior planner in Sierra Vista. So, I'm sure Dan's, you know, g he's a very talented planner, gonna do a great job, uh, provide you with, uh, good guidance and, uh, support, planning support. So, um, I'm sure I'm leaving you in good hands. Uh, you know, this morning as I was uh thinking about this meeting and my retirement, I realized that I have attended over 500 planning commission meetings in my career. So, I've been a planner for 46 years, so it's definitely time to retire. But I'm going to tell you that uh I've had the pleasure of uh of working with a lot of commissions, but uh this commission is one of the best that I've ever worked with. So I want to thank you for all your all your service to the community and your good work. So thank you. That's very kind of you to say that. You didn't have to anymore. So I guess it really guess it really meant it, right? I may have written something down too for Paul. Did you now? Yes. because I knew I would be tired. Be the time to say it. To say it. All right.

Unless someone disagrees. We can we can share that. Thank you. Thank you for your service to the city of Cassandra, Paul. Um, one of Paul's greatest strengths has been his ability to explain complex planning concepts in a way that are clear and understandable. Whether guiding his team, working with stakeholders, or helping the commission navigate some difficult decisions, he's always taken the time to ensure that we understand not just the details, but the bigger picture. His patience and willingness to educate others has been invaluable in shaping sound policies that will benefit the community for years to come. Kudos to you for being a public servant, even on the hardest days. When you've given more than you have left, when the praise is quiet and the criticism is loud, when the winds are small and the burdens are heavy, you still show up. We wish you all the best in the next chapter. Whether that means more time for travel or enjoying some time off, congratulations on your retirement. [Applause] I know it's a hard job. Thank you very much. Yes. Well, I was fortunate enough I started a project many years ago with Rick who was here and Paul's the one that signed off on our project. So, so you were fortunate that he came to say it. I'm not They're both good to work with. Wow. Really well said. I I know what I know what it takes to be one of and that you know really well said. You you are very you are very much appreciated and have meant a lot for a lot of us and um certainly your handholding has made a lot of difference for us for a lot of us and and u I would say that was for our

effectiveness and your friendship has been highly valued. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, commissioners, anything else? Okay, with that I think we're adjourned. Don't forget our special meeting. Our special meeting. Come on.