Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

going to call to order the planning and zoning commission meeting on Monday, July 14th, 2025 at 6:02 p.m. Um, we will have the invocation by Commissioner Yokum, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Clo. Please rise. Dear Lord, we beseech you to bless this commission, our city council, and the residents of our community. Look after our soldiers who protect us every day, who give us the opportunity to remain free to do what we Americans do. As this commission gathers, we ask you to guide us in the decisions we are about to make. May we use only our best skills and judgment, keeping ourselves impartial and neutral. As we consider the merits and pitfalls of the matters before us, help us to act in accordance with what is best for our community and our fellow citizens. Father, in your name we pray. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. 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.

Thank you, commissioners. Uh that'll take us to roll call, please. Commissioner Bren here. Commissioner Robertson here. Vice Chair Hores here. Chair Singleton here. Commissioner Yokum here. Commissioner Clo here. Commissioner Thomas. We have a quorum.

Thank you. This will take us to the call to the public. If you wish to speak, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the chairman prior to the start of the meeting. The procedures to follow if you address the commission are commission requests that you express your ideas in three minutes or less and refrain from any personal attacks or derogatory statements about any city employee, a fellow citizen or anyone else whether in the audience or not. The chairman will limit discussion whenever he deems such an action appropriate to the proper conduct of the meeting. I do not have any speaker cards, but if there's anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak, please come forward. Seeing none, I will close the call to the public. That'll take us to agenda item 4.1, minutes 25-43. Commissioners, any questions, comments, concerns. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved. I have a motion by Commissioner Club. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner BMS. All in favor say I. I. All opposed.

That motion passes. This will take us to agenda item 5.1 which is DRP25-10 planning commission update major development review permit case number DRP25-10 legacy at Porter. A request by Scott Poente of Upward Architects on behalf of property owner El Dorado Partners 27 LLC for review of site, landscape, elevation, and phototric plans for a proposed multi-building commercial retail development on approximately 6.61 acres of land within Panol County parcel numbers 50 510-30-002M and 510-30-002K within this city of Maricopa. generally located at the northwest corner or northeast corner of West Applegate Road and North Porter Road. This is for discussion only. Take it away, Derek. Thank you, chairman, members of the commission. Derek Cheer with the planning division of the development services department here to present uh agenda item 5.1 legacy at Porter. Uh this is for DRP25-10. This is anformational item. As read in the applicant is Scott Poente of Upward Architects uh who's submitted the application on behalf of property owners Elorado uh Partners 27 LLC for the site that's uh shown on the screen up there at located at the northeast corner of West Applegate Road and North Porter Road. This is between the Copa Flats and the Home at Maricopa multif family uh developments. The site is approximately 6.62 acres covering uh two uh lots uh lots 510-30- 002M and 510-30-00002K. Uh this is for the review of the site, floor, landscape, elevation and phototric plans. Uh the project here uh is called the uh legacy at Porter. This is a

multi-building uh commercial development uh with over 45,000 square feet of various commercial retail. Um it is going to be developed in two phases. uh on the site plan that you see above the shaded section that'll be phase two. Everything that is not shaded, that will be phase one. In the phase one development, we have a 25,000 foot major tenant building. Uh that tenant will be uh Goodwill. Uh then we have a 200 2,383t drive-through restaurant building known as pad A down in that lower lefthand corner. uh that is going to be a uh drive-through restaurant, but it isn't a drive-thru that's typical with an order menu. It is an online ordering and then you go to the drive-thru to pick up. So, there really isn't that much uh vehicle stacking, waiting uh on people making their order. Uh then we'll have the shops A, which is just below that major A. That's a 6,550T building, multi-unit commercial with a drive-thru. uh phase two. Um we don't know when that'll be developed, but um when it does, uh they're proposing that a 4,80069 foot multi-tenant building similar to the shops A uh with a drive-thru, a 2400 foot drive-through restaurant building, standalone restaurant building, and a 4200 foot commercial building that you see pad C all the way in the top right corner of that site plan. Uh overall the site is going to be landscaped with just over 10% uh open space and landscaping which is a requirement for uh commercial developments. It's 10% they are just about 11%. Uh what this provides is 20,561 ft of open space in phase one. Phase two uh will be determined when that comes in. It'll come in for its own individual DRP reviews per building or it'll come in as uh an amendment to this DRP to get the fine details of how those buildings

and the circulation there will operate. Overall, as proposed, right now 221 parking spaces are being proposed for both phases one and two. Uh here we can see the architectural elevations and the renderings of some of the buildings. These are the buildings in phase one. right here. This is the um multi shops that uh shops B. Sorry, that was shops A. My apology. Uh here we see the major A. This is the 25,000T building that's over in that northwest corner of the site. That will be the Goodwill. The frontage of this faces southward uh towards the parking lot that you saw on the uh site plan that was on your right when looking at the site plan. Here is that uh standalone pad a uh drive-through restaurant that doesn't have a order menu. Um I don't know. The applicant is here uh with the development team to answer any questions. I'll let them get into any possible tenants or anything uh that may have um mine would be just speculation at this point. Uh but this is that restaurant that will be the standalone with a drive-thru without a menu board, outdoor seating. Uh that top elevation that you see that is the front of the building that is facing southward. Uh the proposal is appropriate to the function in the site. Uh it's integrated and existing with future development in the area. Uh staff finds that the elevations and color combinations appear well integrated and complimentary to each other creating a wholesome development that's unified in its design themes and uh its color uh palette. And this is the second middle elevations and site plan that you are looking at. um they're still under review for uh staff. We will be making more comments on these and this will not be approved by staff until it meets all uh zoning ordinance codes. Uh notification letters for this meeting were sent to property owners on June 29th and the site was posted on June

29th as well advertising uh thisformational meeting. Here we are at the planning and zoning commission meeting. Um I did not update this. I did not have time, but there was one letter of opposition. Uh, sorry, wrong case. There is no letters of opposition on this. I'm confusing the next case. My apologies. Uh, happy to answer any questions that uh, the commission may have. And again, the applicant is design team and traffic engineer here to answer any questions that you may have. Awesome. Thank you, Derek. Commission, any questions? Commissioner Robertson.

Derek, can you go back to the slide that shows that one right there? So the looks like the entrances will share the entrance to Copa Flats and Home America. The other development I know. Yes.

So if we go if I can bring you back to the vicinity map there. Um where that top yellow line is for the site that is the driveway that's going into the home of Maricopa. That is that north entrance drive that they're sharing. And then down on the bottom uh the bottom yellow line there, that is uh Google Maps calls it Applegate Road. It's actually a private drive. I'm not aware that it was ever given an official name, but I've had a lot of people say Applegate to me, so I'm saying that to the public so they may recognize what it is, but that is the main drive going into the flats there. Thank you, Commissioner Yoken. I just have a

I just have a question on the parking. uh we had it suggested that 221 spaces were provided as uh compared to the required of 166 and uh I know that we we uh the developer I'm sure has thoughts in mind as to what businesses are going to fall into the uh various sites but that may not necessarily be the case and I'm just concerned that we keep an eye on whatever businesses come in in that they may necessitate more than the parking spaces that are being considered.

Chairman Singleton, uh, Commissioner Yulkum. Yes, the city's uh, zoning requirement only permits over 10% of what the requirement is. However, in a traffic impact statement, a letter from a uh, traffic engineer uh, going into the details of what those uses will be and what those demands are. Uh, it depends also on what store it is. Not every retail store is the exact same uh with demand. Uh not every drive-through restaurant is the same uh with demand and for either parking or uh the drive-throughs in the queuing. Um what the applicant has built in here is a little bit of wiggle room. So say if every one of these developed as a restaurant that would have a rather high uh u parking demand and that's why it's a little bit overparked and uh that has to be justified by the traffic engineer prior to any sort of approval from the planning department.

Thank you commissioner club

through the chair. Thank you. Um I have a couple questions on here regarding kind of the overall you know design idea. Um this development is roughly this phase one is I figured roughly around three acres thereabouts. Um and I'll back up then with the front four buildings phase one and phase two of the front four buildings we have four drive-through bays. I spent several years, as you know, on Chandler's P&Z. And we all, any of us that have been involved in projects for a while, we all have those projects that, "Oh my god, I can't believe we did that." Chandler has two of them that I was involved in that um I vowed to myself that I would never approve another one. Um one of them was on Gilbert and Queen Creek. It's a 9acre site and it has five drive-throughs. Not all of them have developed, but it's already turned into a mess. There's police that are having to control. There's a legacy school next door. There are some compounding issues that are there. However, it's it's been a mess from the city. The developer gave a lot of promises of what would be and what wouldn't be there. And uh a Dutch Bros would never come in there, and Dutch Bros is there right now. Um things like that. So, things evolve, things happen. We can't always control the tenants that are coming into these these units. Um, I also look at uh also in Chandler um on Gilbert Road and the and the 202 the southwest corner there's a Chick-fil-A and an In and Out that are right next to each other. That's a that's a traffic nightmare for anybody that's that's utilizing those those restaurants for people coming and going especially during lunch or or the evening hours coming and going into that center. It it's a nightmare. We have our own issues

here of similar condition of McDonald's and Slim Chickens across the street from here. Um where especially when Slim Chickens first opened, traffic was backed up, you know, on both sides. Um you go in the morning, McDonald's has traffic backed out onto the main main spine road. So that's my concern here. Here we have in this phase one, we have two drive-thru aisles that are that in theory could back right out into this primary spline road that serves as the primary access point for this entire development. And um I realize on on one of them it's supposed to be uh you know call ahead, you know, pickup only, but that changes. You know, that business doesn't sign the lease. our new business comes in, there's a drive-through bay. Any any, you know, fast food restaurant that wanted to come in and sign a lease would take it. So, just because we approve it with that in mind today doesn't mean that's what it's going to be a year from now or five years from now. And I think those are the things that we need to take into consideration. There was no traffic study to review, so there was nothing to really see what traffic is coming and going and and traffic counts. Um, overall, I like the site. I like the development. I live near here. It's a place I'll use. Um I was disappointed to see the brewery is going to be in phase two, but you know, that's a whole different discussion. Um it overall I think it's a great site. Um but Derek, can you talk a little bit more about kind of that parking and those drive-throughs and that mains blind road?

Yes, Commissioner Singleton. Uh Commissioner Clobe, uh when this was first presented to staff, staff had the exact same concerns and thank you for raising those concerns here. Uh we have been working with the applicant to address these uh with our zoning code. Uh right now it is pretty limited that the requirement is only three spaces for stacking but we do have a provision that says we need a queuing analysis. There has been a traffic study. Um it's not part of the commissioner's packet with the TIA. It's you know usually a 200 300page document uh that's filled with a lot of numbers and information and stuff. uh in the future if you would like that as a part we can definitely provide that but we withhold that from uh the commission because it is quite meaty to read but the traffic city engineer and our traffic engineer have been going over it and part of the TIA requirement is a queuing analysis for these different businesses possible that could go in there uh because staff does have that concern for backing up uh traffic blocking the parking lot blocking parked cars uh we want this development to succeed Uh number one, we don't want to create a problem, a bottleneck, uh and then have businesses uh fail there because they don't have the access that they need and also to encumber our residents who are trying to go somewhere like you said, maybe they're going to a shop in shop A, but they can't get there because there's backing up. Absolutely. Uh we are highly cognizant of that and diligently working towards that because we do not want that situation to occur. uh we're putting it on to the applicant and their uh traffic engineers to provide us with those queuing analysis that are acceptable by the city engineer and the traffic engineer of the city.

Um I have some other questions but I I'll leave those for the applicant when they they come up and do their presentation. Okay. And the applicants team is here if you have any questions for them. Well, the applicant wants to come up and do a presentation and talk about it or

My name is Scott Pente. I'm with Upward Architects. I'm the applicant on behalf of the owner. Oh, okay. I didn't know if you were going to do any kind of pres presentation. Um, no. Derek did a he did a excellent job kind of explaining the process. Can uh can we flip the slides to the to the elevations? Um, actually go back to the first one real quick. I'd like to take kind of a mental mental picture of this one. So that is that is shops A

shops A. Uh it's multi-tenant building and uh it's been prepared for potential drive-thru application.

Um usually that drive-thru is back in the day would have been maybe a Starbucks uh but now Starbucks are mainly um standalone buildings. So, um, we don't really have a user for that, you know, particular drive-thru application, but it's prepared, we've designed and prepared for, uh, a drive-through operation, uh, if it's becomes needed. Okay. So, my my thoughts on this one overall, I mean, I like the the architecture, I like the the design, like the overall feel of it. Um, I kind of like the the even the drive-thru canopy kind of kicked off at at a slight angle. I think that that offsets really well. And and even the can levered uh canopy covers, you know, over the entrances. If we can uh flip down a couple couple slides to uh I believe it's uh uh pad A.

Okay, this one here. So completely different different architecture elements, roof elements.

It is different architecture. So this is a single tenant building. Um it has a specific use. Um the um this particular pad was designed by the u potential tenant um uh architect and they designed the building to satisfy their how their operation would work. Um, and uh it's intended to be a Chipotle where uh they have a drive-thru operation. Their new Chipotles have a drive-thru operation where it's a mobile order pickup. So, the ordering process is at the far end of the corner of the building and then uh at the um on the at one corner of the building is the entry point. and they've got a patio um they've established a patio and a uh projecting canopy uh to uh facilitate you know eat in patrons and uh that kind of uh operation. So they drove much of the architecture. They they used our color pallet but uh but most of the architecture in terms of um how they screen the mechanical equipment on the building. Uh they wanted to maintain a low profile as you can tell the the perimeter of the building has kind of a low profile. So, it's not really a a a tall building um so to speak relative to like the major A, but uh they do have a an equipment screen that they uh have provided and use the same materials that we have in the overall pallet. And um and then they added uh you know to kind of break up the the linear architecture, they they went with a kind of a sloped parapit look on the front edge of their building. So um and then they added uh a different uh in lie of stucco uh on the

backside they went with brick um brick application on the majority of the um uh drive up operation. And I think that's where my concern comes in a little bit is um you know we have uh you know pad A and the shops shops A um are very complimentary to each other. The architecture it's very similar whereas this is a stark contrast and then you know we have three new buildings that are coming up you know in a phase two of this project. Are those all going to be kind of their own architecture as well? um or are we losing the continuity that we that we have here outside of the materials? And I think that's this building I think stands alone architecturally just fine. But when combined with two other buildings that are quite quite honestly drastically different, is that really the most desirable result for such a small

Well, I I think uh when it comes down to a single tenant building, uh they are looking for a little bit of maybe individuality in terms of their building. Uh so shops building is more um let's see come back for instance a shop building that is right next door

uh it's more established for a multi-tenant individuality so they have the a signage component over each um uh tenant space um with its own individual canopy unit. Um and then you have um um to kind of break that up. Then you have the middle of the um of the entry point where you have maybe two tenants side by side. So, you know, the the shops component is kind of wants to be uh um um create five individual tenants uh and and um that's how we go about that. But um on the but on the Chipotle it's it's really um you know they've got their back of house where their kitchen area uh which is kind of part of that point where they have a uh the like on the front entry area. Um they'll have like a a a solid wall that'll make up where the toilet rooms are. uh maybe the refrigerator component. So it's really a different application. So the architecture uh needs to uh adjust a little bit to facilitate the overall operation of that building and how you know the the overall intent of the building. Um where those other shops buildings, they don't really have like freezers and and things that they need to uh consider. um and their and their uh back of house or stock component on a multi-tenant building like that is generally in the back. Um and uh and the retail component or the the sales component would be up in the front. Um and that's kind of what they're trying to achieve here. Uh they've got uh on the drive-thru side,

they've got the solid wall, so they don't have windows really a whole lot of windows there. Um, and you can't have too many canopy projections because you've got trucks, you know, that are going to be going through there that there's not a whole lot of articul articulation as far as projection that can go on that one drive-thru site. So, um, and that I I fully understand. Um, it just going through this package, it just it's one of those things that just jumped out at me that there's such a there's a dra very drastic difference between the structures and and uh raised a concern. The other concern I have on on this particular one is that entire uh I think it's a north elevation. Um it feels very heavy to me. You very you know the stone or the brick material that's being used um it's kind of like we're going to do the whole thing but we need to break it up. So we put your little you know racing stripes in it. Um, I'm oversimplifying and I'm I'm making Jess, but you know, I just I I don't know that that necessarily meets the intent of our, you know, of our traditional design codes.

We can take a look at that. Uh, you know, one thing that caught my eye on on that particular elevation was the uh the lack of um vertical articulation uh at the parapit line. It's got one straight parapit line and it's not really jogging or going up and down. They have an equipment screen so they can we can probably do play with that elevation a little bit and uh um and create more um interest uh along that side of the wall so it doesn't look like one big you know heavy wall like you're saying. I'd like to see it have it its own identity and I'm great I'm good with that but I'd like to see maybe a little bit more complements to some of the existing buildings and as these buildings evolve into the phase two

my thoughts are you know have each one have be a little have its own identity that's great I have no problems there but just complement each other and not be quite so okay drastic difference. Yeah. Um, I just want to make sure. Yeah, I picked up all my notes. So, thank you for your comments on it. Commissioner Robertson.

Thank you, Chairman. Um, I didn't ponder the uh the drive-throughs backing up into the main spine road as a possibility until until it was brought up. Um, so my only comment is there's good examples out there. It seems like Chick-fil-A and In and Out have that mastered, you know, with double lanes, staging, and all that and Q areas. Uh, just keep that in mind as you go forward. There's options out there rather than a just a single lane that might cause a backup and might consider a double staging type lane going in. And most of your major uh drive-through users already have a prototype or a uh specific um drive-through system in setup that they know, hey, um we need the double lane or they need the additional pullout lane. Um they usually have that as part of their prototype because of problems that they've had, right? because if it's they've got traffic backing up into the parking lot, then uh usually it's hindering

their sales, right? So they they've usually come up with a solution for that and and each pad would depending on what user comes on board, we would be taking into consideration that particular prototype operation and how to make that work with the site. Very good. Thank you,

Vice Chair War. Okay. My my question is for Derek and uh it has to do with the comments we've heard so far regarding the architecture of the buildings and the individuality of certain buildings versus the others and whether those individual architectural buildings complement the others now being because some of these buildings a little bit different. Do do they still comply with the code that we have? They uh chairman Singleton uh Commissioner Wars uh they will before being approved right now. It's still in the review process and uh we're still making comments on uh the submittals that we've seen. Um staff is working on uh the non-residential design guidelines, commercial design guidelines, and uh we're what we're implementing and asking for is what will come in line with what'll be in that document. Uh possibly by the end of the year that uh may be in front of you. Um I defer to uh planning manager Rick Williams uh to give you a more brief on where that stands. But what we do like to see is that there are unifying uh elements between these buildings whether it's conscious or subconscious that will draw your eye and you'll know that this is a cohesive development. This wasn't um individual spotted development. Uh this is coming in as a multi-phase multi-building commercial development and the staff is will be pushing to provide that some sort of cohesiveness uh whether it's through small architectural elements uh uh unifying color themes or even not themes but elements to it. Uh that that's what we're here for and that's what uh we do to defend the ordinance.

Okay. Thank you. Because then that gives Commissioner Globe's comments and some validation there where there's still time to make these adjustments as we move along and before this this project actually finalizes. Correct. Thanks, Eric. I think Commissioner Club had one more comment.

Yeah, thank you. Um if we can go uh back to uh the major A elevations. Yes. Um the east elevation there. Um, I think we're going to need uh just because I've also dealt with the city and and their design guidelines. Uh, personally, uh, there's going to be some some articulations, some uh, acutramont I think on on this side. Uh, there just there really isn't much. So um on the east elevation um we did add a pro for instance the projection uh at the uh left side of the east elevation. Uh we added that um material projection uh along with some window fenestration treatment and a small canopy um that uh would u be up there at the front of the building. and that span from headed from that projection headed uh north. Um go back to the site plan. There's actually that elevation is actually part of the uh receiving operation for that building. So um we did not do much in terms of additional architecture uh from uh grade to parapit. Um but you know we could potentially create something some kind of interest in term uh with where the screening is occurring at the truck area uh and compactor area. Um so beyond

beyond what we have now. Right now we just we're screening with the uh seami wall or stone wall um uh up to 8 foot. Um, so that's kind of what is happening at that elevation and that's a why I guess on on your side it may look a little uh stark compared to the other westside elevation which that's a street frontage elevation and u there's no um issue with u trucks or anything uh running along the side of the building there. And I and I I get that and I understand it. Um I think well two parts to this. This is why I personally dislike 2D static flat elevation renderings. Um we're all doing stuff in 3D anymore. uh you'll never see this view and so you really don't get a good feel for exactly what this building's going to look like whereas a 3D would you know really would I think in a lot of ways show what's complimentary uh you know to the offsets and and the shadows and so on. Um, but I also think that having just because it's not a street frontage, I mean, our goal is forsighted architecture here. Um, other jurisdictions that I'm sure you deal with, every 20, 25 ft, you're going to have to have some type of change in material, change in, you know, profile, articulation, change in roof, something along those lines. We just don't necessarily have that happening here. And I I think it can be done pretty easily. Um, and the fact that it's not a street frontage, but it is adjacent to people's homes. Yeah, there's an apartment community that's right next door to here that I think, you know, we don't want to give them a big ugly warehouse that they got to look at every day.

Okay. I I think that we could we could probably provide uh some additional materials on the that side um to uh maybe break that up, break up the stuckle blades that are along there similar to what we have on the west side. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. This is for discussion only. So, commissioners, any other questions, comments, concerns? If not, we will move on to the next agenda item.

All right. Seeing none, we will move to agenda item 5.2 2 which is DRP25-09 planning commission update major development review permit case DRP25-09 terrible sea store Bolan a request by the Tim Razeneck of Archicon architecture and interiors PC on behalf of Terbles's gas station for review of site landscape elevation and phototric plans for a proposed gas station with convenience store and accessory car wash on approximately 3.55 acres of land within panel county parcel number 510-30-00002D within the city of Maricopa generally located at the southeast corner of West Bullan Road and North Porter Road. This is for discussion only. Derek, take it away.

Thank you, chairman, members of the commission. Um, presenting agenda item 5.2, uh, terrible seas on Boland. Um, previously, uh, the commission heard a, uh, zone change request about this site. Uh there were a number of questions about the um design of the site uh the site layout, how it was going going to operate. Um our apologies that we did not have this DRP in front of you before that zone change came in so you could get a perspective of what will be what is being proposed on the ground here. Again, this is uh an application by Tim Raznik uh Archicon Architecture and Interiors PC on behalf of Terribles Gas Stations and uh the location southeast corner of West Bowling Road, North Porter Road. This is a 3.55 acre site and this is for the review of the site floor landscape elevation and phototric plans for proposed gas station with convenience store and accessory car wash. Um right now uh we are on the second review of this uh proposal. Uh the first review uh uh the applicant had heard the comments from the commission at the uh previous meeting with the uh zone change and uh they have uh changed their layout and I'll get into that in a few moments. Right here before us we have the site plan. This is a second uh submitt site plan. Um access is going to be from two driveways. uh one on the north side of uh West Bolan Road and North and the other on North Porter Road that you see in the top right and the bottom left of that site plan right there. Those entrances will have um deceleration lanes uh that are currently being uh worked out with the city engineer traffic engineer and the applicant. Uh so coming from the light at West Bolan, there'll be a deceleration uh right turn lane into uh that north part of the site and then coming from the south northward on uh North Porter Road. There'll be a uh deceleration lane pulling into that

entrance as well. Uh the development now stands as a 14 pump fuel station with canopy with approximately 6,222 square feet of convenience store parking spaces for 44 vehicles. Uh four of those are for EV charging. Uh there will be internal and external pedestrian connections to the surrounding streets as well as to the EVR Porter multif family development uh that surrounds it on the south and east. The development is going to occur in a single phase. And my apologies at the top on the left we have the first middle and the on the right we have the second middle but it looks like it didn't like the font. We haven't had this issue in a while. Uh a little difficult to see. It's a lot of black and white here, but let me walk through this with you and it's not showing. My apologies. I had a bunch of uh colorized uh popups to highlight the the changes from the first one. So, let me walk you through this. Going from West Bolan Road southward on the first middle that you see on the uh first site plan. That was the first middle. You can see the gas canopies up closer to the street frontage. Uh then the drive lane, parking, the sea store. At the right side of the sea store, what you'll see is a uh 600 foot car wash. Uh staff is aware that in social media and local media, there were some errors that were uh passed around that it was a 600 foot long car wash. This is it's 600 square feet. It's a onecar tunnel. Uh it's not a standalone individual car wash that you would see uh like um on Maricopa Cast Grand Highway or over by the Sprouts. This is accessory to the uh gas station use. It's a rather small one before as you can see as I'm moving south still. So you had the sea store, you had the car wash over on that east side. Stacking for that car wash occurred on the south side of the uh building there. You can see the cars and

they would pull in and pull northward and the exit was facing north. Um, as we moved down, we had a second set of canopies uh for the southside. Uh, the gas pumps were oriented in a parallel parking rather than uh which is a little untypical for here in Maricopa. Uh, it has been done a lot of times before. Um, it kind of helps with larger vehicles being able to pull in. Then you moving southward, you had the landscape buffer. You have a landscape area over on the east side rather large uh that's uh planted with vegetation uh on that east side as well. You can see it's difficult to see but across from the dumpster that's where we have three vacuum stations there. Um on the second submitt after hearing uh the neighbors uh concerns and the commission's concerns the applicant redesigned the site. Uh they took away that southern canopy. They added a few more pumps to that northern one that you can see uh highlighted there. They reoriented that uh accessory car wash. As you can see now, it is on the southern side of the building. It is accessed from the east side coming down from the north on the east side heading west. So the exit for that is now facing west towards uh the Banner uh medical facility. Just south of that, it's hard to see on this, but um there is a sound attenuation wall. If you can see at the bottom of the car wash, two little angled lines coming off of it, that is a uh CMU block wall to attenuate and deflect baffle the sound from the car wash away from the residences to the south. Uh also with that exit with the dryers heading westward, it's now not pointing towards any residential uh development. It's pointing towards more commercial development. Uh the applicant also moved the vacuums from that east side to the west side fronting against North Porter Road. Again, bringing them as far away from the residences as

possible. South of that car wash, that oval that you see that is now a giant landscape island of open space. Uh and when I move forward uh into the landscape plan, you'll can see that has been well landscaped uh there and then also on that southern boundary to create even more baffle for any noise, light, intrusion or anything like that towards those residences to the south. Uh this is also helping for residences to the north and to the northwest uh where a lot of concern for the noise and light pollution uh was raised at the previous meeting. Here we can see the uh landscape plan. As you can see uh they are almost doubling up on their tree requirements on that uh southern buffer to the uh residential and then also that landscape island along West Bolan and uh North Porter. Uh they've put in a number of trees as well. Uh staff has talked with the applicant and we're in agreement that that will be planted with more mature trees at planting. So there'll be larger at planting to help create that buffer and baffle for a light for uh the noise and just the general activity that occurs at a gas station with a convenience store and an accessory car wash. Uh here we have elevations uh architectural elevations. This is uh on the top that is the front of the store facing northward towards uh the residences on Bolan or across the street Bolan. Uh on the bottom there that is the southern side. So where you see ice cold beer and soda, that is the little tunnel for the accessory car wash. On the top we have uh the east and west elevations. On the right side is that east elevation. So that's where you would enter that accessory car wash. And on the left is that west elevation where you'd exit. And then we also have the elevations of the canopy. The canopy that's located north of the building between the building and Bolan. uh the

applicant has uh provided some um relief to the typical canopies that we have. It is articulated. As you can see, it comes up and down, creates some movement rather than having that rather flat canopy roof. On the right hand side, you see that side elevation of what it'll look like from the sides. Uh again this is uh the DRPformational item and staff finds that this uh proposal and the proposed uses are uh appropriate to the function of the site and integrated with the existing and future development in the area. The commercial development that we just discussed with the uh legacy a porter project and then uh the other multif family and commercial projects in the area and in the stonegate area just about half a mile to a mile away. Uh the elevations and color combinations uh appear to us well well integrated and complimentary. Uh and the proposal will meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance prior to approval. This is the second submittal. Uh staff is still uh under review with it. Uh further comments will go out to the applicant. Uh and those changes will need to be made. It'll have to meet the uh code requirements of the zoning ordinance prior to any uh approvals by staff uh for this meeting. uh notification letters were sent out on June 25th to property owners within 600 feet. Uh June 25th, again, this uh site was posted advertising thisformational meeting for the DRP. And here we are at the meeting. This is a slide that I did not update. My apologies. About an hour before this meeting, uh we got a uh letter of opposition. It's in a memo that was handed out to uh the commissioners and uh the city attorney before uh this meeting. Uh that letter of opposition uh was from the property manager of the Oasis uh multif family development that is uh south and west of the site right behind uh Walmart. Uh happy to answer any questions you may have. Um the applicants development team

is here as well answer any questions um you may have. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you Derek. Commissioners questions. Mr. Brims, I have a question that's probably more related to traffic egress out of there. Um, and I hopefully you can just walk me through it. Say you're going there, you get your gas, and your goal is to go south on Porter Road. How do you do that without doing a U-turn on Porter Road? And the only reason I'm concerned about that is the number of schools that we have there and the number of, you know, pedestrian, you know, children that are walking in that area and just the the risk that a lot of U-turns would do during those peak hours when, you know, school's out or when students are in the area.

Chairman Singleton, uh, Commissioner Bram, uh, thank you for that question. Yes, with this development uh and its proximity at this corner uh there the traffic analysis says that there can't be uh full access. So it's right in right out for both of these accesses to be able to head south on Porter. you'd have to exit northward, get into the turn lane at the signal there, uh, and then do a controlled U-turn at that protected signal, not across, uh, Porter Road, which as we know, Porter Road, uh, it is a major arterial. It has a lot of traffic to begin with. Uh, right across from that entrance is the entrance to, um, uh, the U. Banner Medical Facility there. Uh, the ultimate goal on Porter Road is to put a median down uh, prevents that cross traffic uh because it it would be setting up a dangerous situation and this is something that the uh city traffic engineer and the city engineer have been looking at and working with uh the applicant on designing um that includes a right in dedicated right in turn lane heading northward on Porter and then also uh heading uh eastward on Bolan from that light.

Thank you. Commissioner Robertson,

just a comment. Um, I'd actually like to commend the the applicant. Uh, it's been quite a process for them. They held neighborhood meetings. Not only did they listen, but they heard and they came here and they listened and they heard. And I think they've uh brought us a reasonable option to this project. Um I am a little I I like the write in and write out only concept in general. This almost mimics mirror the Circle K up the road. Uh but the Circle K does have a decentralized third um way to get out um to Honeyut going down one lot down and you can come out and when you get out to that turn you can go either way right or left but you can't go right coming out of the the primary uh entrance. they do have that additional land there and I wonder if that could be an option um you know to add a a road that goes along that extra undeveloped partial for a third exit that could be right or left uh further away from the intersection and away from the main traffic. Just a comment. Um but I do want to compliment the uh the the applicant for listening to the community and and bringing us some viable options. If I may address that, uh, Chair Singleton, Commissioner Robertson, yes, this is very similar to that Circle K situation. Uh, the reason for that very eastward, um, drive for Circle K was to be able to get them further enough away from that intersection to have a full access turn and the city has learned many lessons from that development. uh as uh Commissioner Club had mentioned before uh projects that you went what happened here and how can we do better that's what we are trying here with these right in right outs um the

professional term we call it a pork chop the little island right there the islands the pork shops at that circle K uh do not work uh you see people turning left out of them all of the time when they shouldn't be and and they're creating a very dangerous situation and they should not be turning that way but people do what people do. Uh so as a city, we have redesigned our uh design template for these pork chops. Uh we've widened them quite a bit. So instead of just small little triangle, now it's a very obtuse triangle, very wide that guides you completely in that one direction and makes it very difficult for you to hook around, do that U-turn to try and head the other way where you shouldn't be. Um this what you're seeing here does not show that. Uh but they will because that's a requirement that we're putting on them for the safety of uh everyone around there.

We are going to try and work very hard that there people cannot make that left-hand turn out of there and create a dangerous situation. Yes. And one thing is there's a bus bump out right there at that section where you were wondering if they can go east and then up. That's a bumpout for a bus. Chairman, if I may. Yep. Sorry to interrupt.

Um, the applicant has a presentation this evening that uh I think may share a little more information and clarity u to the conversation uh moving forward. It might be beneficial to see that brief presentation and then continue to the the discussion. Sure. Do you need any notes?

No. I got forward back. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, uh, my name is Stephen Anderson, and for your record, my address is 40 North Central in Phoenix. I'm a land use attorney with Gamma Jubern and I am joined this evening by Brian Vicaro who is a land use planner with our firm. Uh and uh Brett Griffin is here from Terables. He's a real estate de uh development manager with the company. Uh you all know Mitchell Mastin who presented at the planning commission uh on the prior hearing that you all had about four weeks ago or so. We're also joined this evening by Colette Frolic uh from Greenlight uh who is our traffic engineer. Um, and I've already warned Colette that uh she may be called to the podium to address some questions for you as well this evening. And hopefully uh she's prepared to assist to the extent that she can do so. Uh again, as staff indicated, uh 3.55 acres at the southeast corner of Porter and Bolan. Uh it does seem worthwhile to talk a little bit about uh the context of the site uh particularly in light of some of the community comments that you've heard previously regarding this case. The reasonzoning of the case uh is consistent with the general plan designation on the property which is already commercial today. And in addition, the site is zoned neighborhood commercial today. Uh as you all discussed at length at your last hearing. I wasn't here but I watched the video. Uh and so I know that you all know that the gas station and convenience store are already permitted by right on the site. Uh it's the car wash that triggers the re separate resoning case. Um and the so the uh car wash that's included in the development review plan that's before you this evening is dependent on a successful approval of the reszone. Um but the gas station and the convenience store, those can happen quote unquote tomorrow. Not tomorrow, but you know what I mean. So, uh I have animation in my presentation, too. I don't know if it's going to work. We're going to find out.

Uh and if it does, hopefully we can see some of the revisions that we made uh when we went back to the drawing board. when you sent us there uh last month uh when you gave us your input and when the folks who were here gave us their input as well, Mr. Mastin uh the project architect uh did direct a letter to the chairman of the commission on June 18 in which he detailed these changes for you all. Uh and then on June 26 uh we also did another neighborhood mailing with in which Mr. Mastin also notified our neighbors uh about these changes that we have made uh to the plan. So, uh, lots of changes to the plan. The biggest of them is the relocation of the car wash. Let's see if the cartoon works. Ah, great. So, uh, as you can see on the original plan, and I'll go back so you can see the arrow pop up. On the original plan, which is on the left hand side of the screen, you see the brown arrow pointing north. One of the primary concerns of the commission uh from the last hearing was that that meant that the drying part of the car wash process which is the most audible part of the process was facing north to the single family homes that are to our north. Uh we have residences to our east and south as well but um uh these are single family ownership homes to on the north side of Bolan from our uh project. Uh so what we did and again I'll go back so you can see the brown arrow now pop up on the right. You can see it there in the lower left hand corner of the right hand drawing. You can see we've completely reversed the flow. So now we've got the cars leaving to the left to the west. And so now the uh noisiest part of the car wash now faces the commercial the banner building across uh the arterial street. So of our four options we've reversed our flow uh so that we are going in the best direction possible for this commercially entitled site. That's the big change that we made. But there are many more. Uh so there you can see the cars uh

reversing direction. So the next uh thing that we have done uh is we have uh put in the abatement walls uh which Derrick mentioned to you. They're now yellow uh inside the green box highlighted on the uh new updated plan on the right hand side of the graphic. Um and so you can see that yellow box. So those are two 8ft tall abatement walls that stretch out at an angle away from the car wash tunnel itself. um and so they provide noise bafflement um to our neighbors to the south um where we have homes to our south. So we wanted to make sure that in relocating the car wash we were also taking solid architectural steps to try and minimize the noise that is coming out of both ends of the car wash tunnel. Next uh we had a comment from one of the commissioners about noise diffusion. Uh and so we have committed to put noise diffusers uh into the uh uh dry dryers at the west end of the tunnel. Uh and so you can see them highlighted on the brown arrow there. Not really much to show you in terms of an architectural drawing. Uh Derek has already mentioned that we relocated the vacuum uh from the east side of the site uh again facing residential to the west side of the site where it will be uh more adjacent to uh banner across the arterial street Porter Road. We've also committed to hours of operation restrictions. Uh we are not primarily a car wash. The car wash is an accessory convenience for our customers and and we know uh from experience when the peak activity and use of the car wash is. It is not at night. So we don't need that. Uh and so we've committed to hours of operation restrictions 7 am to 8 pm so that the residences that are in the area will be able to enjoy peaceful evenings, get their sleep, no worry about any after hours operations of the car wash. We've also made changes to the site that go beyond those changes to the car wash itself. Biggest change we've made here is the

elimination of the south canopy as Derek mentioned in his presentation. So that's the big red X uh on the left hand side of the graphic. Uh on the right hand side, as Derek pointed out, we've replaced that with a landscaped island that is adjacent to the car wash. So in addition to the abatement walls, uh you also get the landscaping opportunity in the landscaped island. As Derek did note, we did add a few pumps on the north side to still make the project financially viable, but we have reduced our total pump count from 20 to 14, which is a we think significant reduction. We hope that you all will agree. We've also uh by eliminating the south canopy been able to move the entirety of the business operations south by six feet. So the canopy on the north side is moved south six feet. The commute store also able to relocate 6 feet further south. So that's further away from the single family homes on the north side of Bolan. We've also added trees on both sides of the store. You can see on the uh original plan, we had no landscaping on the west side of the store at all. Uh and we had some landscaping on the east side. We've been able to add landscaping on the west side of the store that you can see on the island there. In addition, uh we've also upgraded or uh and this has already been mentioned by Derek, uh the crosswalks. So, we do have the colored uh different type of material uh to call out the pedestrian location. And Derek's already reported to you about the plan B uh pork chops. Uh and we are happy uh to um work with the city on the plan B pork chop. Um and I should also note for your record that we are comfortable with the right and write out recommendation. The traffic study here was actually s submitted by green light um in the spring and we got initial staff comments back that called for the del lanes and for the right only movements and we were comfortable with those. We also, as Derek mentioned and as the chair mentioned, uh did uh agree to try to avoid the bus bumpout, at

least for the moment, which is why you don't have that Circle K kind of condition, but we've always anticipated that this would be a ride-in ride out only uh facility, and we are comfortable with that from a business perspective. This is the landscape plan. Uh and I did want to mention for you all that the landscape plan was submitted uh to the neighbors um as part of the mailing package. uh it was uh uh something that they had opportunity to take a look at um if they took the time to do that. The package is pretty significant um in terms of its length, but this was was provided to the community. And with that, uh Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, uh we would be happy to address any questions you have about the design re uh approach here. As you know, you have two other items on your agenda this evening. I'm going to not address those directly until it would be appropriate for me to do so. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioners, Commissioner Yum, I I think you've made extraordinary efforts to do something about the sound abatement, but that discussion will come later. Commissioner Club,

thank you to the chair. Stephen, thank you for your presentation. I share the same uh acknowledgement of the design updates and commend the applicant and and the team for uh you know in a lot of ways step you know really stepping up and uh taking one on the chin a little bit uh to make I think is a a better product for the community. um still have some challenges that I'd like to discuss as it relates to um couple things while we've been talking about these these drive access points. One of the things that I think it's it's worth noting on both drive access points on the off Porter Road straight across to the to the west is a full access drive drive uh for the Banner uh medical facility. Um as we've seen on that the the infamous Circle K little north of this project. Um, people coming and going, they don't pay a lot of attention to the right in, right out. They make their U-turns in the middle of the road. Um, and having it's kind of compounded by having a full drive access straight across. I don't know that there's necessarily an answer here other than maybe moving it forward, but that causes its own, you know, issues and challenges with traffic. Um, it's I have I have reluctance there. I don't know I don't have an answer on how to fix it, but you know there's some there's some big challenges that are happening there. Um and uh I

see the lady from Green Lake coming up. [Laughter] Um, and kind of the same thing is happening with the the drive aisle coming off of of Bolan. Straight across the street is also the act the uh full full access point into uh the residential community to the north. And again, having that conflict, having the opportunity of someone trying to shoot straight across the street to come into here, they're running late for work and got to get gas. I just see problems here. And that one I think we have a little bit of flexibility on. And and before I ask you the specific questions on the drive, what is the future use of that extra space?

Because that's going to tie back into where where I'm going with this. Hello, I'm Brett Griffin. I'm a development manager with Terriables. We do not have any plans at this time to develop the leftover parcel to the east. So no end users in mind and no plans to develop. We're laser focused on our project at the moment.

Well, it's a pretty small area to develop. I think it'd be difficult to sell it off. Um my concerns are to it would be does that get paved over and we add another gas canopy, you know, there at some point in the future uh through a site plan amendment would be my concern. Um, but in doing so, you know, kind of with that in mind, I I realize we have the bus uh the bus lane that's there now, but if those two were swapped, it would kind of pull this drive aisle away from being such a direct access into the housing community and but still give the the the access for, you know, for the bus, you know, nearby where where it is today.

Um, just a thought, Mr. Chairman, uh, Commissioner, I'm going to ask Colette to address this, but first I'm going to be a pretend traffic engineer. So, uh, we're very cognizant of the concerns that you have addressed and and share them. U, my understanding is that generally traffic engineers like to have driveways aligned for visibility purposes that an offset actually creates a greater danger um because you are not actually focused on what you see across the street, even if you're trying to illegally circumvent a pork chop. uh which is the concern that you've rightfully raised here. Am I correct? Don't forget to introduce yourself.

Hi, Colette Frolic with Greenlight Traffic. Um yes, typically we do want driveways aligned and the traffic engineer with Maricopa did um request that those driveways be aligned. Um when you have offset driveways, usually the left turn um you know, if you're like this, you know, usually there's a conflict point um in the center of the road in that way. So, you do want driveways to be aligned for that that purpose. Um, and hopefully with that wider uh pork chop design that Derrick was referring to, hopefully that will help mitigate some of the people trying to make a left in and out of this site um at those two driveways.

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I would like to add one additional thought because of the procedural oddity of what is on your agenda tonight. We do have an item on your agenda tonight that calls for a vote. Um, uh, or two items that call for votes, but this item does not. So, your feedback, please keep it coming because we're not obviously finishing anything tonight. So, everything that you are giving us, we can still work on these particular concerns that you're raising with us this evening. Oh, I have a list.

I thank you. Um, and I see both sides to the to the drive aisle access and and it is a challenge. Uh, I know that there was even discussions at one point, um, not on this project, on another project that I was involved in where we didn't want drive aisles within 600 feet of of a, uh, a primary intersection. So, you know, I get I get the challenges here and and the design, you know, issues. Um, let's talk about the talk about the car wash here. The car wash is for such a small piece, it's the one that I think gives me the most heartache for a couple reasons. one as a design professional that's designed numerous car washes and also my son-in-law is a car wash developer and so I have a lot of uh background information as it relates to these types of products and the concerns I have are these short singlecar bay car wash facilities are typically a lower cost. Uh the equipment is is lower cost. It is it's smaller. It's substantially louder and it typically doesn't get maintained as well as it you know other full service car wash facilities do. And as it doesn't get maintained, it becomes louder yet again. Um, I appreciate what you've done with some of the landscaping and and the flaring of of of the walls, but we still have this tunnel effect that's being created. We're going to have a tunnel effect that's going to happen backwards because sound doesn't

care where it goes. It, you know, once it starts bouncing off of hard surfaces, it goes where it goes. that in mind, I think the housing development, the the the apartments, and and even though they're not for sale units, as as as you mentioned, um these are people's homes that are to the east of here, and they should be dealt with with the exact same level of respect as the people who have purchased their homes to the north. And in some great in some cases, possibly even more so because a lot of them don't feel they have the right to come and speak in in a forum like this because they're not owners. And so sometimes we have to speak for them. I haven't noticed anything from the apartment community uh EVR in regards to any of this. I don't know if anybody's here to speak for them, but uh and if they aren't, I'm disappointed in that aspect because they should be. However, we still have to look out for their best interests. And so, I think that we're going in the right direction. I just think there needs to be more. And and for such a small part of this overall operation of this site, it's it has such a big impact and it has such a big influence on the people around it that are trying to enjoy their peace and prosperity. Um, I did provide at the last meeting, we weren't able to get into the weeds on my comments. Um, and I did provide it to to Rick and I think Rick also gave it to the applicant. Um, on some of my, you know, challenges with the with that noise and the noise abatement and and, you know, I I appreciate you saying that you're going to put in the

baffles and I appreciate the, you know, the walls. I just think that it's still going to have that noise. It's just naturally going to occur. Um, we've now created a funnel effect that we have a a a letter from the apartment community across the street to the west. Um, and if we if we take a line diagonally from the the the flared uh exit wall that you've you've put in, that points directly at those apartments across the street. And you know, it allows that that sound to travel to those people that have balconies that are facing it. Um, again, I don't know that it's necessarily fair to them either. Yes, it's an arterial street and there there's some noise there and and there's some level of expectation of that and I get it. Um, but making making the situation worse, I think is doing them a disservice. Um, again, I I don't necessarily have a lot of great answers for this. Um, one concern or one thought I had, you know, the walls don't appear to be even match the the height of the doors. So, sound is able to escape over the top of the walls in that regard. Um, you know, maybe the the the doors need to be or the walls need to be at least as high as as as high as the door or or you know, preferably even higher. Um, and that'll help push that sound more up rather than to the south. Um, the I think that there needs to be and I also appreciate the applicant saying that they're they're going to, you know, that you're going to only operate the car wash from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Does that include the VAX?

Uh, yes, that include the VX.

All right. I like that and thank you for doing that. um because that's those are another one of those things that and there's really no no way to to soften that. So for someone at 10 o'clock at night when you're trying to put your kids down to bed and someone comes in, you know, vacuum. So thank you for that. Um the the challenge we I have here too is the city doesn't have a really good metric of you know we we do have a noise ordinance but it's it's complaintbased there. It's not there there's there there are not levels that are established you know acceptable levels. It it's very arbitrary um and you know and that's where we run into I think you know potential challenges where and protections quite honestly as you know as the owner of this business if if you are doing everything to comply and people are still complaining you're within you're within the the confines of you know you know, if we establish a certain level of of noise that is acceptable and you're within that, then you're within your right to operate and let them complain. Um, likewise, if you're outside of that, then they then their rights are being infringed as well. So, you know, it's fair for both sides, I think. And and I'm going to come back to to the city. Do I mean, do we have I couldn't find anything in our zoning manual that that related to actual noise. Other jurisdictions have, you know, decimal levels of at the property line, decel levels at the street for different uh different product lines. I don't know if we have that. I couldn't find it if we did.

Chairman Singleton, Commissioner Globe. Uh we do in the zoning ordinance under the performance standards that applies to all businesses, all uses in the city. Uh we have um uh levels of decibel ratings that you cannot exceed. Um, I do not know when that was uh produced, but my just like other things in the ordinance, uh, I would, uh, safely assume that when that was drafted, it was drafted by a professional uh, sound engineer. Uh, then codified. It wasn't arbitrarily uh, made up numbers. Uh, that this was probably a best practices around the country. and coming from the consultant when they redid the ordinance

and and I read the noise ordinance and I didn't and I apologize if I missed something. I did not see anywhere in that ordinance that that mentioned actual decibel levels for different things. So we in it you see that uh use restrictions of uh time restrictions, distance restrictions uh for all of different developments and I have seen where we have for the decibel rating. So if you go down to table 18.110.050G, you have land use receiving the noise, noise level descriptor, exterior noise levels, interior noise levels for daytime and nighttime at decibel levels. And these decibel uh levels will range from anywhere at the very maximum of 70 uh down to uh 35 at night time. 35 and 45 dB.

Okay. And I apologize if I I I missed that. Um what I found it it was um 9.201 010 number one. It just said loud or unusual manner as to be offensive to the senses or or so as to disturb the slumber, peace and quiet or otherwise interfere with or annoy the comfortable enjoyment of life or property or any person. That is extremely vague. That's what I was able to find. So, thank you for clarifying that. Um, I would like to establish a uh and and up for the the discussion of the uh uh the commission a you know a daytime noise ordinance of 65 dB which is typically like what ADOT regulates for arterial streets um at uh at the property line and uh this is going to be operating at at night so you know 45 decibb you know at night is also in my research that those were those were acceptable uh you know operational noise levels that uh I I think could be attained without a lot of effort u by the applicant. Um, the last big one that I have, um, in regards to this is I noticed on the elevations, I don't know if we can pull those up. Able, thank you. Mr. Chairman, while Derrick's pulling

those up, I should have noted for your uh based on your discussion before the south and east elevations are not illuminated. Those are merely signs, no illumination.

That's what that's where my next topic was going. Um, I wanted to ensure and you know, I don't know if we need to add a stipulation that the uh the south and the west signage is, you know, signage I have a problem with and and I think it's probably needed, but the illumination I don't want to those those people in their backyard looking up and seeing a neon red terrible sign um all night. Chairman uh Singleton, Commissioner Globe, that is a code requirement uh that you cannot have the illuminated signs facing the residentially zoned districts and that includes uplighting everything that's the lighting. Yep.

So on that south and east side facing it, it wouldn't they there wouldn't be permitted to be illuminated signs. Uh groundmounted signs, the uh sorry, not ground mounted signs, ground mounted lights uh and then the uh carriage lights that you see on the rear. uh any other sort of attach lighting, those are allowed, but the signs aren't allowed to be illuminated.

So, there's also kind of a a carriage light that's on the side of the building. Um that is also on the the the south and the east side that are u typically facing residential. We want we want that lighting screened. uh the the cut sheet that they provided does not provide any kind of screening. Um but maybe by raising those those walls up because it's it's primarily around the the uh the car wash. Uh so possibly by raising those walls up that'll you know that'll create its own screening. So

Commissioner Singleton uh um Chairman Singleton, Commissioner Globe. Yes. with with those carriage lights, those luminires lighting on the side. Uh we do allow them and we require that in the phototric plan that is a requirement of the DRP submitts that the uh those are attended to in that plan. Uh a lot of times uh the lighting engineers only put the pedestal lights or um exterior lights. We require that they include what is attached to that building and what is coming off of that. And with that, we look at it to make sure that it is not bleeding past their property lines or creating anything. Of course, now someone with the carriage light on their garage, uh, you know, 10 houses down from you, you still see that light when you're outside, but it isn't illuminating the ground in front of you. If you tried to read this piece of paper from that, uh, from that distance, um, you wouldn't be able to do that because it doesn't have enough candle foot light at that location. And when we go back um staff is paying attention to this uh with those lights and the distances to the property uh to the residential property to the east and to the south. If you look to the east it's well over 100 ft away and to the south it's about 100 ft. Um and when we're looking at the photometrics which uh I believe were in the packet to the commission you can see uh where those light levels fall and where they fade. and then as it moves out towards those property lines on the ground uh and that's what we can regulate per code. Okay. And I do have a when we're all done I do have a housekeeping thing kind of regarding this project but it's not relating to this directly. It's more of an indirect question uh I'd like to bring back around towards the end tonight. So that's all I had for now. Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner, you ju just going with with the uh sound situation. Um our code does have some numbers in it. Um and I would think that you folks as as uh building and and using car washes, you must have some fuel for the uh decibbles that are being uh generated by the various equipment involved in the car wash process. I'm wondering uh do we have a source of information? Maybe the manufacturer gives us some numbers on decibel production and how far it would carry. But how can we do we have any kind of a standard or do we have any way that we can kind of anticipate what what it would be and depending on how far it's going 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards, uh how loud would it be when it gets to the apartments or the uh the homes?

Chairman Singleton, uh Commissioner Yokum, I honestly do not know myself personally. um we can uh request that from the uh applicants uh as part of the submitt and say hey we have concerns about this please show us the numbers on what that sound level is going to be how far outside of that tunnel and then at the edge of the property um I'm not sure it would be appropriate to measure beyond the property uh because it must stay like within that boundary uh setting up two three 400 f feet down a thousand yards away from the site but there on that property uh we can ask for that and I I think the applicant would be willing to uh provide that from their manufacturers. Uh it's the same way when with the phototrics we require the uh manufacturer cut sheets to make sure uh what's being installed is what is on that plan and then we back research those luminires to make sure that that is with the wattages and everything and the candle foot lights. We can do that. Would it be asking too much for you folks to do some research bring put some numbers together and present them to us as to how it might affect our our neighbors?

Absolutely.

Thank you. Any other comments from the commissioners? Um, yeah, my only comments are I commend you guys for listening to everything that residents have said, the commission has said, and coming back with solutions. Um, it shows that you guys want to be good neighbors to everybody that's around. You want to be here in Maricopa. Uh, I think we're pretty much there. Uh I I do like, you know, not just the flat canopy for the uh pumps. I like how that, you know, articulates um and breaks things up. Um, and I think with the added landscape and I believe it's mature landscape, whatever that definition ends up being, um, for the sound barrier between the car wash and the apartments to the south, uh, will also help and add to it. U, if no other questions or comments, commissioners, I will move on to

through the chair real quick. Yes. Would we like to have any other discussion about potential stipulations on establishing decel levels at the property lines? This is a discussion only item. So there's no stipulations. I think we can give staff direction, but there's no there's no stipulations on on this item. It's discussion only on the DRP. Great.

Thank you. Um All right. We will move to 5.3 which is Z25- 03 parenthesis 2. Uh motion to reconsider. The planning and zoning commission shall discuss and take action on a motion to reconsider z25-03. a request by Tim Razeneck of Archicon uh architecture and interiors PC on behalf of Terrible Gas Stations to reszone approximately 3.55 acres of land from neighborhood commercial zoning district to the general commercial zoning district located at the southeast corner of West Bullan Road and North Porter Road. This is for discussion and action.

Just as a reminder, um the only two that can make the motion are um Robertson and Clobe because of the way the vote was. A motion to recons consider can only be made by the person on the prevailing side of the original motion. Who made the who made the original motion? You remember? I don't know who made the original motion, but Commissioner Robertson did. Yeah. So, um Mr. Thomas also could have made the motion, but he's not here, so it would have to be one of you two. We're going to have a discussion before the motion, though. Yes, you can. Yeah, we can.

Anything you want to discuss, Commissioner Robertson? Uh, yeah, I'll kick it off. Um, probably my earlier comment is more fitting for this item that I do think some uh viable options have been delivered. I do think that the applicant has made a a concerted effort to address the concerns of both the community and the and the commission. Um, I don't have any further comments beyond that. And uh, when we're ready to make a motion, I'm willing to make a motion. Any other comments from the commission? No. Seeing none, do I have a motion to what is that? Motion to reconsider?

Yes. Like to make a motion to reconsider zoning 25-03. I have a motion to reconsider. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a second by Commissioner Yokum. All in favor say I. I. All opposed.

That motion passes. That takes us to 5.4 Z25-03 parenthesis 3. The planning and zoning commission shall discuss and take action on a request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.55 acres effectively reszoning the site from the neighborhood commercial to the general commercial zoning district. The site is located at the southeast corner of West Bullan Road and North Porter Road. This is for discussion and action. Derek, take it away. Thank you, chairman, members of the commission. Excuse me. I have the uh presentation from the June 9th meeting on the zone change that we previously heard. I can go through that. Uh this is an application by Tim Raznik of Archicon Architecture. as it was just read in. This is for property located at the southeast corner of West Bolan Road and North Porter Road on approximately 3.55 acres. This is a request to reszone uh the site from the existing neighborhood commercial NC to general commercial GC uh on a vacant lot for the development of a gasoline service station with convenience store and accessory car wash. As we can see on the uh zoning maps on the screen, uh the applicant is proposing from the NC neighborhood commercial to the GC. Um the site uh for the general plan is commercial C. So this reszone is consistent with the general plan. um as I just said on the next slide. So with that general plan consideration uh this staff finds that the proposed reszone is would be consistent with the uh zoning ordinance because of that consistency with the general plan. uh the change to the district B boundaries um are desired by the applicant and as this is a uh intersection of two major arterial roads uh staff finds that it is uh appropriate as well to go to a general commercial hard commercial on

that site. Uh the staff believes that the amendment is going to promote growth of the city in an orderly manner, protect the health, public safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare uh for that zone uh application. Notification letters had been sent out to the applicants on May 2nd and the site was posted on May 2nd. That newspaper notice was posted on May 6th. The neighborhood meeting was held on May 22nd. The planning and zoning commission meeting originally was on uh June 9th. This reconsideration is now July 14th. Uh staff had received uh four letters of opposition to the proposed reszone uh prior to the uh June 9th uh planning and zoning commission um meeting. Those were in the packet that were provided to the uh commission. Um the applicant uh provided detailed responses to the opposition as we've seen in the previous DRP presentation. Um they really, you know, addressed a lot of the concerns of the neighborhood and uh also the commission. Uh, as I mentioned in the previous um DRP, uh, today we did get one uh, letter of opposition to the DRP that was uh, handed out to the commission as a memo. Um, staff still maintains its recommendation previously for uh, that the commission move for approval of the reszone map amendment case zone 25-03. And I'm happy to answer any questions. And again, the applicants team is here.

Thank you, Derek. Um, I do have one speaker card uh for Ron Anderami.

Thank you, commissioners. Uh, I appreciate the opportunity to talk again about the terrible gas station. While I do appreciate some of the revisions that were made to the original proposal, I don't believe that the safety issues are addressed, as well as the request for additional landscaping along Boeing, Porter, and Allen Stevens. I have confirmed with the HOA that they are receptive to the idea of additional trees along these roadways. This would seem to be a very minor cost relative to the total cost of the gas station acquisition and installation. They say good fences make good neighbors and this definitely seems to be one of those times. I keep hearing all the time from city council and PNZ members that it's their property. They can do it as they want. We have no right to tell them what they can do. This decision is much much more than just wanting a car wash. In 2021, this area was reszoned to be neighborhood commercial to facilitate the deployment of EVR housing. Prior to that, it was commercial. What did it look like back then? No schools, no apartments, no high density housing, and certainly no traffic congestion like we see now. Back then, it was probably the right call to make it commercial. But that is not the situation we have today. There's been an explosion of residential in both single family highdensity apartments, condos, and three schools. Workers commuting to Phoenix right now conflict with school start times making it dangerous situation for our kids. There's a further explosion of housing off Porter just on the other side of Kasa Grande and along Sonoran Parkway. And you know those people are not going to go to work by traveling to the casino and then heading north on John Wayne. They'll all be coming up porter. These are issues that we should be addressing regarding a resoning. 20 years later, with the knowledge that we have today and plans for the near future, I find it extremely challenging to believe that the changing of the zoning from the limited commercial uh

neighborhood commercial to the more expansive general commercial is the right decision. Let's not worry in the future about the adjoining lot to be sold to another business that is also incompatible with the neighborhood. We appreciate the responsibility you have to allow Maricopa to grow in a way that's beneficial to us all. It's my understanding that Terble has not yet actually purchased a property. Let's help Terble to select a better location that is both beneficial to them while protecting the safety and positive growth of Maricopa. Thank you.

Commissioners, questions, comments, concerns on this. I I just have one concern and I don't know if I'm going in the right direction or not. I'll look to the MA management and council uh on an opinion, but I I I I feel we might want to consider a stipulation on the noise factor that it be monitored, measured to acceptable levels per the zoning code. So, your zoning code does allow an acoustic study. Um, so if you want to ask for that, I think that is something you can do and then it would be subject to the decibb in the zoning code. Is that what you're trying to do? just make sure it meets the requirements of

what I'm trying to do is is establish a a stipulation containing the elements I just described that they comply with the code and the noise ordinances as contained in the code as as it pertains to the uh the noise. Okay. No, I think that's that's permissible. I'm not sure if the applicant has a

concern. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I just uh wanted to make the record clear from the applicant's perspective. We are supportive of the enforcement of the city's noise ordinance. Uh we're supportive of an acoustic study. We've committed to do that. Uh I just wanted to put that on the record for you. Obviously, you have to look to Miss Fenucci for guidance on how to exactly word a stipulation. I will tell you um two other things uh in that regard. One is um u I don't think you have to get it exactly right this evening. uh uh we can work with the Fitzgibbons firm u before the council consideration to make sure that the wording is um kosher. Uh and uh in addition also wanted to again remind you all that the item we just heard the preliminary design uh was anformational item. So we have instruction from you all verbally um uh to do proper acoustical studies um and uh we are certainly committed to do that. Hopefully our good faith gestures that we have made um on our site plan revisions will provide you with some assurance that whether we and Fitz Gibbons get the stipulation wording correctly will provide that acoustic study regardless.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from commission? The chair. Commissioner Globe to kind of follow up on that. if if it's already established in the zoning code, are we codifying something that we don't necessarily need to codify? So, the acoustic study is a may at the discretion of the um planning manager or director. And so, by you doing it tonight, it's directing them that they are asking for an acoustic study, which the applicant doesn't has said that they would comply with. So, I don't have a concern with that. The acoustic study results would just be to comply with the zoning code. So, we're not trying to change that.

So, I I guess I I I don't know that are we gaining anything. It's technically already in in the code unless we want to establish certain minimum or maximum values that they that they cannot exceed that might be outside of that code. You you can't change the code in a stipulation. So, those values are in the code. So, all you can do is ask for an acoustic study that confirms that they comply with the code. What I'm and that's why I suggest that we uh whatever we do, we do it uh within the confines of the existing zoning code. Right. So my my recommendation would be the stipulation is that an acoustic study will be provided to confirm compliance with the code. Right? Fine.

We can work on like we can work on exact language um as suggested earlier, but that would be the Would we want that provided prior to council though? The stipulation the acoustic study. The Say that again. Sorry. The acoustic study. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I I'm comment on that.

Mr. Chairman, you've already got two conditions and I was Well, actually, I wasn't remiss because I didn't get to talk. Um, you have two conditions recommended from your staff already. Um, we are, for your record, uh, going to comply with those two conditions. They address uh traffic del lanes, things like that. To give an example, um in the context of the question that was just asked, obviously we're not going to build the del lanes before the council. That will be something that gets accomplished as the stipulation is enforced by our staff. I believe Miss Venucci's suggestion is to impose a stipulation on us that requires us to provide an acoustic study demonstrating compliance with your ordinance to the staff which can that study could be provided just like the dellians who will be provided after the council action.

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. Yeah. And I think it's a they may provide and I think adding that stipulation is just making sure that they actually do for their down. That's fine. Awesome. and it will have to be provided and confirmed before the site plan or any building permits are issued. So, there will be plenty of time in between to make sure that it is done. I I was just trying to make sure that, you know, if it's if it's if it had to be ready for council, you know, these are things that they take time and getting engineers to mobilize quickly, it might put the

right now, we wouldn't require it for council as a stipulation to the zoning, but it would be something considered at site plan if they're complying with their zoning. Okay. Thank you, commission. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. I would like I would move that we approve Z25-3. I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second by Vice Chair. Chair Singleton, can I just confirm that's a motion to approve with the added stipulation? Oh, yes. with the added stipulation. Sorry. That's okay.

Yeah. Still seconded by the vice chair. All right. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. That motion passes. That takes us to agenda item six, reports from commission andor staff. I do have a housekeeping thing I'd like to just address as it relates to this case. if I could for Yeah, I think you just uh chairman Singleton, Commissioner, I think you just need to direct it to the chair and that's fine. Yeah.

So, one of the things that I noticed on this particular case driving by this lot is they have four signs up on the property, two two facing Porter, two facing bowling. Um, as someone who has purchased those signs before, they're about $1,000 a piece. I would like to see if we can maybe streamline that process to to create less of an incumbrance on the the applicants. Uh, you know, big picture is not a lot of money, but it's that's $4,000. Um, so and I just something I I don't normally see that many signs for a project, so that's why I I bring it up.

Gotcha. Yeah. I I've also noticed that there was a lot of signs. I don't remember the exact need for those. Rick, do you have any comment on that on why? Yeah, I'm chairman, I'm not sure. I I'm crystal clear on on the direction here. My my question is more, you know, could we do on a on you know, what was this? The threeacre site, whatever it is. Uh could could we get by with just one sign that's on the corner? Do we need four signs for future applicants? Is is Got it. Not not so much this case, but going into the future.

So So really you're requesting staff to look into the requirements of signage to determine if it needs to be Those are the words I was looking for. Okay. That I understand. Thank you. Words are hard.

Uh chairman, uh as you recall, we're going to come back and have a conversation in August regarding secondary access. Um, possibly I could bring this back in September and we'll talk about signage and and take a look at what others uh are doing around the valley and see how we compare. Be happy to do that. Uh, chairman, just to uh finish up the report from staff, um, just u, we will meet in two weeks. I believe that's the 28th. Uh we've got two or three items for that meeting uh already on the board. So uh I think we're going to be good on that. Um that concludes uh my update this evening and uh just say thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you. Um and I do not think we need to go into e session this time. Um so that'll take us to item eight, adjournment. Do I have a motion? Motion to do have a second. Second. We are adjourned.