Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to call to order the Monday, October 27th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 6:03 p.m. We will have the invocation by Commissioner Yokum and the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Club. Please stand if you're able to. Please join me in prayer. Dear Lord, thank you for the gift of life and the opportunity to serve the people of Maricopa. Help us to act with character and conviction. Help us to listen with understanding and goodwill. Help us to speak with charity and restraint. Remind us that we are stewards of your authority. Guide us to be the leader our people need. Help us to treat all persons with reverence and understanding. Protect our soldiers around the world as they defend our liberty. Finally, Father, renew us with the strength of your presence and the joy of your helping to build our community. Confident in your goodness and love, we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty justice for all.

That'll take us to roll call, please. Commissioner BS, Commissioner Robertson, here. Commissioner Singlesen here. Commissioner Yok here, Commissioner Clo here, and Commissioner Thomas. Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you. That'll 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 commissioner 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. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak? Seeing none, I will close the call to the public. That'll take us to agenda item 4.1, minutes. The commission shall approve minutes from the October 13, 2025 meeting. Do I have a motion for approval

through the chair? I need to abstain from the vote. I was I didn't attend last week's meeting or last meeting. Okay. So, so moved. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All there. All those in favor say I.

I. All opposed. That motion passes. That'll take us to the regular agenda. DRP24-12. This is a planning commission update. Major development review permit. Case number DRP24-12. Buffalo Wild Wings. They request Peter Veski on behalf of Vespro for review of site, floor, elevation, landscape, and phototric plans for a proposed restaurant building on approximately 1.47 acres of land within the city of Maricopa generally located north of the northeast corner of West Maricopa Kasa Grande Highway and North Stonegate Road. This is for discussion only. Derek, take it away.

Thank you, Commissioner Singleton. Uh, Chairman Comm Chairman Singleton, sorry. Commissioners, Derek Sheer with the plan division of the development services department here to present the next item. This is for uh Buffalo Wild Wings uh DRP24-12. Uh the applicant for this project is Peter Viski for Vespro Professional Services Incorporated. Uh the location is just north of the norththeast corner of West Maricopa Cas Grand Highway and North Stonegate Road. Sorry, a little typo there. Project area is approximately 1.47 47 uh acres in size. And this is a development review permit uh for a proposed sitdown restaurant. As we can see here on the site plan uh that's also in the commissioner's packet. The applicant is proposing a uh 7,8 sorry 7,644T Buffalo Wild Wing restaurant uh on the uh site with approximately 120 off- streetet parking spaces. uh two full access points along the southern private driveway that you see on the screen that says exit uh example private road and this development will not be phased. Uh here we see some of the elevations. Uh on the top we have the east elevation. That east elevation is going to be facing the uh pardon me little bit of technical here. I got another uh site plan in here to show you, but facing east where you see the the doors there on the Buffalo Wild Wing Building, that will be the front of the building. Uh then on the U north elevation that's facing the parking lot to the north. And then here we have the west elevation that's facing Stonegate Road and the south elevation that's facing that private drive. Uh this is the second submitt that we've had on

this project. Uh this is a 2024 uh DRP. uh staff has worked for almost the last year with the applicants on refining the site um finding being able to incorporate all of the parking that is needed for the Buffalo Wild Wings. It does exceed our requirements. However, a traffic uh impact letter from the applicant's traffic engineer uh has called out that this level of parking 120 spaces is needed for the demand of uh uh this use. Um so with that the access points uh really needed to be concentrated on on how we could put that much parking on this 1.47 47 acre site, but then also working with the development to the south. If uh the commission can remember, it's a Circle K that was presented about uh in July to the commission, I believe. And we needed to line up these driveways so there was no cross conflicts when anyone is entering or exiting either site that these driveways line up together. and then also uh create enough space for the Circle K to the south with their turnarounds for their fuel trucks and their deliveries to be able to make that wide turn that they need to to get through the driveways. Then also be able to stack enough vehicles at that uh intersection of the private road and Stonegate Road to create a safe uh vehicular environment. uh staff believes uh that we have uh after working this past year with the uh the applicant uh their engineer, our city engineer, our traffic engineer, all hands on deck kind of how do we fit this peg into this hole? Uh and this is what we've come up with. This is the technical second review of this. Uh there are still some outstanding comments especially on the elevations that we see. Um staff has uh some concerns on that west elevation. Uh those comments have been given to the applicant. The applicant is in the process of addressing those to create a more front-facing uh building on that

west side that fronts on Stonegate that'll better match what that front elevation is on that east side. This is the one side that actually faces a public rightway uh Stonegate Road. So, we'd like more attention on it. Thank you. And I went through all of them. My apologies. And this is why and I'm missing that one site plan and it's slipped in here and it's under one of those little stars to bounce in. My apologies. I will do better next time. Uh with that being said, uh prior to any approvals uh for this uh the application will conform to all aspects of the zoning ordinance and our uh design codes. Uh the zoning for the site is compliant for this use and so is a general plan future land use map designation. Uh notific notification letters of this meeting were sent out on October 9th and the site was posted on October 10th. Staff has not received any public uh comment on the proposal and I'm happy to answer any questions that uh the commission may have and also Peter Viski is here uh to answer any questions you may have of him. Thank you.

Thank you Derek. Commission questions, comments, concerns. Commissioner Club,

the chair. Thank you. Um to share kind of the concern on the west elevation. Um and this is one of the challenges that I run into with the renderings that cities have been receiving for years. Not I'm not picking on Maropa. I'm picking on pretty much everybody. These static two-dimensional, they just don't tell the story. And I think that if if we saw an actual three-dimensional, you know, view with shadow lines and so on, that this elevation would look completely different. Um, does it need a little more pizzazz because it's on a on a on it fronts a an arterial street? I think it does. Um, and then being such a high traffic with Home Depot and so on. So, I think that needs a little bit of work. Uh, overall, I I really like the concept. I like what they're doing. Like their change of materials. Um, the the other comment I had is on the parking lot, and this is a really minor nitpicking thing, and I'm sure that as it kind of digs down a little bit, it'll uh it'll probably work its way out up in the upper leftand corner, the north uh northwest corner, there's that little wedge where the 90° parking connects to the angle parking, and that's just asking for someone to back into each other and cause a problem. And I drive a big truck, so it, you know, um I think that if if that whole line of parking just went at a an obtuse angle to the property line, that would probably solve that entire problem. Um but I just that's just kind of a funky spot that I that I think that's going to be a a potential conflict area uh in the future for uh for our residents and for, you know, police that are going to come out come out and have to resolve those issues.

Um the other the last one I had was a is more of a it's a comment of thanking the applicant for putting the patio on the west side so that everyone can sit out there and watch games and have a cold beverage uh in the summer um and not be hit with the the blaring summer heat. Let the building shield that. Uh so uh so often I see that where they don't take that into consideration. So I Thank the applicant on that one. Um the and I apologize, director, did you have any comments to make on that on that site plan, that parking thing?

Uh Chairman Singleton, uh Commissioner Clo, yes. uh in agreement with the comments uh that you've made so far that that west elevation if there were 3D renderings I think it would pop a bit better because when you look at this if you look at the north elevation you look at that left side you sorry the right side see how the building comes steps down everything like that but when we get to that west elevation there it looks like a solid black box it looks flush it doesn't show that that is actually protruding out of the building that we do have all of this movement on that roof line. Uh we do have the differences in in the the color palette there that I I do believe you are correct in a 3D rendering it would look a lot different uh and may not need as much extra detail as uh you would think just looking at this uh staff has taken that in account uh with their comments to the applicant that are currently being addressed.

And then for the parking uh

that is a funky corner. It was uh a herculean effort to be able to fit all of this inside this space here. Uh they were very limited. Uh they're limited also that uh with neighboring properties uh not being able to have uh shared parking or cross access parking or anything like that. So, this needed to stand on its own uh within its confines and pulling everything in uh angling everything right, utilizing our compact car spacing uh where appropriate and fullsize car spacing everywhere else. Um it did take quite a trial and effort and then also lining that up with the driveways to make sure the driveways are wide enough that uh for safe vehicular uh travel through there and then also for fire services. Yeah, it's it's a challenge. I I recognize that and I think the applicants done a a good job with, you know, trying to coordinate everything. And the last little piece I have is just as more of a comment as a person who lives within walking distance of this location. It can't get built fast enough. So [laughter] with that, I'll turn it back over. Thank you,

Mr. Yeah, I I agree with the parking comments that were made and also I I want to make sure We have mentioned here that the the two ways in and out are going to be on a private road which is going to be adapted to 36 feet. And I think we have to keep a very very close watch on that because I don't know what uh what condition that road is in right now. I didn't have a chance to drive by it. That's it. Thank you, Commissioner Robertson.

Thank you, Derek, for the presentation. Um great great project. Um you guys have been working on a long time. Appreciate the efforts for everybody. Um along with what uh Commissioner Yokam said, the existing private road, also known as Roller Coaster Road, um is there an opportunity as this stretch develops to get that road corrected? Chair Singleton uh and uh Chairman uh Commissioner, you can get air on that road.

Yes. Uh as the developments are occurring on the north side of this road, uh the road will be um I don't want to say fixed, but uh will be addressed that it'll be able to handle the volumes that uh the new businesses here will see the increase of. Um that will be worked out with uh the city engineer and the engineering division uh for the city working with the property owners there and the developers to uh make that road better than it is now. Okay. It's it's it's going to face some widening on that half of the road.

Yes, correct. So, right here to the south of the building, the road is widening a little to be able to uh create enough space so that uh these large delivery trucks will be able to turn out without going into opposing lanes and creating a uh a traffic hazard. Okay. Thank you.

I agree with Commissioner Club. This can't get built fast enough. Um, my only comment is, and I don't know how feasible or if there's uh if the development to the north isn't wanting this, but there is a driveway cutout already in that north west corner. Um, and that could have potentially been used for those large delivery vehicles that you're mentioning. um and connecting to that versus two points of ingress and egress on the south side of it. Um just a comment um because I drive by it all the time. I'm like, who's going to attach into that? It's just sitting there um already built um in the northwest corner um and would give a point of entrance and exit um there. But maybe the development of the north said no. I don't know. Um but that's really my only comment.

Thank you, Chair Singleton. Yes. Uh staff in the applicant uh reviewed that. As you can see on the vicinity map here, you can see those dotted lines with those streets. Uh a while back, a townhouse subdivision had been approved on that lot. Uh actually two lots. Uh it never got to recordation. uh that uh DRP and then the the proposal for that um is I don't want to say gone by the wayside at this point but it's treading water. Uh we don't know the status of it whether it'll be coming in as a full revision or a partial revision and staff uh looked at making access along North Stonegate Road or possibly if there could be any sort of cross access opportunities from this property to the other. uh they were uh the property owners in this area were engaged together doing a um a replplat of the area. Uh number of these lots were sold by meets and bounds which then we had to replplat and uh staff with uh planning staff and the engineering staff along with the applicants and the property owners here went back through all the property records to correct all the uh replplatting of it. The owners of the property to the north I don't believe were very interested in having that cross traffic. They already have that a dedicated curb cut that you can see right north of where it says site uh that lines up with the curb cut for the Home Depot for their entrance. Uh so putting one there would have created difficulties because you can if you can barely see that there is a turn lane already installed for that. Uh so they would have been entering and exiting already in a turn lane. Then there is also some drainage concerns right there. So it was very difficult to try and put one there. We did try, but ultimately they all had to go on the south.

Cool. Commissioner, any other questions, comments, concern? All right. Uh, we will move on to 7.2 DRP2-18. This is also a planning commission update. Major development review permit case number DRP2-18, South Bridge Marketplace North. A request by John Barlay of Upward Architects for review of site, landscape, elevation, and utility plans for a proposed multi-building commercial development on an approximately 5.78 acres of land within the city of Maricopa, generally located at the northeast corner of West Hanukkah AB and North John Wayne Parkway. This is for discussion only. Take it away again, Derek.

Thank you, Chairman Singleton. Uh the applicant, as he said, for this project is John Barlay of Upward Architects. This is the phase two portion of the Southbridge marketplace. Uh that includes shops B, pads A and B. Uh what you see there where it says site and it's uh highlighted. This is more of the western side. The second phase uh I'll get to um other portion in a moment. The overall entire site is 8.48 acres. This is just a portion of it. Uh this is uh development for a 10,000 square foot multi- uh tenant commercial building, a 6,500 foot multi-tenant commercial building with a restaurant, and a 3200 ft² building with a restaurant. As you can see here on the splash, I've highlighted uh the three buildings in the areas that are under consideration right now. The previous ones on the east side, Aldi, Shops A, Pad C, and Pad D. those have already uh gone through uh the development review process and have obtained their uh DRP approvals and are under uh uh construction drawing review right now. Uh this is the DRP for the other half of it. Uh the applicant at the time did not know who or what was happening on this side. Didn't have it dialed in exactly. So they came in with this as a phase two that was part of the original DRP uh that this would be a phase two and now we have it uh very shortly after the original one. Uh as we can see here uh without that splash zoomed in a little bit more on the uh buildings of concern. So we have shop B uh all the way at the top the 10,000 square foot um multi-tenant building that'll have uh multiple tenant spaces in it. uh it can be divided in many different ways to accommodate uh any commercial uses. Uh we have parking behind and then also the drainage basin that's landscaped. Uh going south of that which is right at the uh northeast corner of uh West Honeyut Avenue and

John Wayne Parkway, we have pad A and pad B. Pad A is going to be the larger 6,500 foot building that is going to have a commercial retail space and then also a restaurant component. The design of the building um for its footprint is if you can think of the mod building uh or crumble cookie building uh where uh Ono Hawaiian is going in with their drive-thru. Same similar concept while the building to the south pad B that is a pure standalone uh drive-through restaurant. Uh here we have the elevations. This is pad A. Uh these elevations may look familiar because they are following what was already approved before with not Aldi but the shops A pad C pad D. So we're following the same architectural theme for all these buildings creating a concise uh unified development theme. Uh we can see here the south and north elevations. This is all for the pad A, which is that larger uh uh uh sorry, excuse me, 6,500 square foot multi-tenant building. Pad B is a standalone restaurant and then shop speed B that are attached to Aldi. Uh why you see on that east elevation on the top right corner, you just see the brick wall because that's what's uh up against Aldi. Um they are uh being built separately, but they will be unified and fire rated between each other. Uh prior to uh any approval of this DRP, uh the applicant will meet all of the uh applicable uh regulations of the zoning ordinance. Uh the site is uh currently zoned shopping center, which is appropriate for the proposed uh uses. Uh and the general plan future land use map is appropriate for uh the development. Notification letters for this meeting were sent out to property owners within 600 feet on October 10th. on October 10th as well. The site was posted uh advertising this meeting. Staff has not

received any public comment uh on the proposal and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Also for the commission, the uh developers are uh present. So if you have any specific questions, you may ask them. Awesome. Thank you, Derek.

Commissioner Club through the chair. Thank you, Derek. Um, couple things that I have on this one. Yeah, that's good one to stop on. Uh, behind shops B. Looks like there's a retention area to behind it. Is that I know we're going to have kind of a an access road that's going to go back under the the the overpass and is that any future planning for that spot or is it always going to be retention landscape? What?

Uh, Sheriff Singleton. Commissioner Globe. No, I believe this is needed retention. Uh there is a retention basin that you see sort of in that top left. Uh you see all the the lines going down. It's a rather large retention basin right there. This one was needed to be picked up. And then behind that, you can see the two arrows pointing this way and that way. That is the extension of Edwards Avenue that is going under the overpass. And then behind these buildings and then connecting to there we can see the private drive coming up separating between shops A and Lowe's. It'll connect to that Edwards Avenue extension going behind. Edwards Avenue rightway will end at the uh bridge and not continue behind here. This will be more of a private drive. Uh but it'll still provide access for everyone that is living over by the high school or all the future developments uh for Hoen's Farms uh Palamino uh Ridge and all of that that they'll have two opportunities whether to continue through Edwards Avenue under the bridge to come shopping here or to go through Honeyut Avenue uh go in front of the high school and then the hospital and the street light there that you'll see coming in right there on the bottom with Honeyut Avenue. Okay. So, no plans for any development in that in that corner then. Okay.

Um, if we can go to the elevations real quick. Uh, that so the only and I and I realize we're kind of following what we already have. And so, this is more just a comment. Uh, the north elevation there, the proportions just seem a little off. Um it seemed it with with the columns and and the kind of the the pediment above um just just kind of to me throws the proportions off a little bit, but overall I think it's I think it works. I think it's fine. Um the other one, the last one is if we can go back to the site plan. Um actually uh ju just show the the pad A and pad B that one. Thank you. Um as a as planners and and as you know planning and zoning and and you know I've been doing this a long time and we all have those cases where we regret letting go forward and and moving forward. Um I'm not saying this is a regret on this project. I think it's a very needed project. I think it's a very good project. The challenge I have is we did a project when I was in Chandler that um there were five drive-throughs that came through on one site and we were assured by the developer, oh don't worry, they won't be anything of high intensity. Guess what? [laughter] That one site was a Dutch Bros. one site, you know, and then there's the other sites that are already in Chandler that I think there's a Chick-fil-A, there's a In-N-Out, you know, that share the same, you know, drive lanes right on Gilbert and and and the 202. And it's just a mess, uh, especially at lunch. Um, and I see kind of that happening here a little bit as these two drive aisles

converge. Um, you know, there's been speculation uh on on on who they are that nobody's saying here, so I'll leave it alone. But if one of the one of the sites is true on who it is, then the the reality is highly because everywhere else they're successful, you know, there'd be a lot of traffic here. And we combine that with the two drive-throughs plus possibly one or two more restaurants in in this same little area. And I my challenge is with the congestion that is going to happen here. I don't see a an alternative to it, but I'm just raising a red flag that I think this is going to be a problem child uh going forward. And uh as much as I like this project and I really want it to go forward, I just hear people screaming and yelling like they do about those sites in Gilbert and Chandler uh today and including Chandler's, you know, staff and and and what have you. So, I'll throw that one back out for a discussion, but I like it. I just my crystal ball saying it's cloudy.

Chair Singleton, uh, Commissioner Club, thank you. Yes. Uh, staff worked with the developers on this and we had the exact same concerns of, uh, what it could be now or what it could transfer, uh, transition to in the future. Uh, and we worked hard to get those drive-throughs pushed over to that west side to create as much stacking space as we could. Uh, and the limitations that they had, uh, going back to the site plan, you see how it sort of necks down like a funnel. And this is the bottom of the funnel. Uh, as you can see, uh, east of pad B, uh, west of pad D there. Originally that was uh proposed to be a full access intersection and it was no that would not fly right here. When we go back to the original site plan and look where the intersection is there. So this is a right in right out only uh with a very large uh pork chop there. That'll prevent anyone from turning left right into there to uh go against any sort of these conflicts of the exiting from there. So it'll drive traffic from Honeyut Avenue up through that split road between the Lowe's and this development. then to pull in either between pad C and pad D or go all the way up to the shops A coming in and around and get the traffic out of uh the Honeyut Avenue rightway. Uh try and take it off of the private drives, keep it internalized and try and lengthen those drive-throughs as much as we could. uh because we all know um as you said those are those are the heavy hitters uh the top three uh I don't want to say like usual suspects of you need some extremely long uh queuing for those uses and we tried in this to be able to put as many spaces as we could. Um and then it'll be up to the operations of the site to make sure that it's it's flowing smoothly. If there are issues with that or if there are any code violations, our code department will be out there and they'll have to adjust their traffic plans on how they deal with uh how people are stacking and not blocking any

parked vehicles, not blocking any travel lanes, not blocking the fire lane access all around.

Yeah. Yeah, I look back at some of like and I'll just pick on the the development I already mentioned that has the the In-N-Out and the Chick-fil-A right next to each other and and you go there at lunch and even even some of the other businesses that are in that little shopping center when I was with Chandler, the feedback that we got from them was we can't get our customers here. So, they're getting all their customers, but we can't get ours. And um like I said, it it's turned into a problem child. And I I try and avoid it wherever possible. I think you guys have done a great job of of you know bringing in more queuing space and and and longer lines they pro than we probably see anywhere else in the in the in the city. But yeah, this is this is a prime location for you know some of the big guys heavy hitters to come come play. So, um, the last little one that I just noticed is coming out of pad B, the the drive-thru there. As someone who drives a fullsize pickup, um, trying to turn right to go on to Honey Honeyut Road, that's that's going to be a tight turn.

Yes, we worked on that. Uh, originally it elbowed up a little bit more. Uh, it was very tight. Uh, I think we went through at least two iterations, maybe a third iteration before we settled on that curve there because it was too tight to do a full U-turn in a large vehicle. Not a typical large vehicle, a typical Ford one, F-150, F250 kind of vehicle, uh, to be able to safely make that without jumping the curb, damaging the curb or any landscaping and then still be able to get out safely uh, through that pork chop. Yeah.

Um, we did uh, have the building slightly shifted over and that really looked at uh we had uh the traffic engineers, we had our uh fire plans reviewers also looking at that, making sure that that angle there uh would be able uh to be met by u all the EMS vehicles and uh the fire trucks. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Yokum.

Derek, my only comment is on the elevations. The uh illustrated elevations that you gave us are very very plain. Nothing on them. And uh I know this is an early presentation that that we're looking at right now, but I I would assume that those elevations would be somewhat dressed up when the in when the different occupants come in, they'll be putting their signage and displays on them. And uh we want to make sure that they're compatible with whatever the design is that the developer puts on it.

Chair Singleton. Uh Commissioner Yokum. Yes. Uh the applicant is proposing a uh comprehensive sign plan uh that'll unify the signage already has for the site. Uh where you see sort of like in the gray where it's dashed out. Uh we had them put where the potential signage is over there. You can't really see it over the wood. The colors that were used on the elevation, they don't really translate as well as the color board and the material board that um they're proposing. Uh the colors are a lot deeper, a lot richer. Uh these seem a little washed out. Uh and going back to what Commissioner Clobe has said about these 2D renderings, uh sometimes they are difficult to tell exactly what's going on with it. Uh to watch the the full shadow lines of where these columns are uh and the move the horizontal and the vertical movements on the building. Um but from following what was proposed previously uh under the DRP, these are matching it and with the other ones, we did have a set of those uh 3D renderings. Um and staff is confident that this is going to follow those and um we at the staff level pleased with it. Uh it just doesn't translate as well on these uh images that you're seeing right now.

Thank you, Derek. I I just have one other comment. I I I get questioned comments whatever about all these probably two or three times a week and everybody is asking when is all these first of all it was is all these coming because it was on again off again it was back and forth and now it looks like they are coming and at least I can give all of these folks some kind of a a definitive answer thanks for your efforts

all all these I believe is coming they have their construction drawings in um they've either are are imminent approval or have just been approved. I'm not quite sure on the status of it, but they're in and they've been reviewed. Um, and you know that that that's the best information I can give on that. Thanks, Jerry.

So, I kind of echo Commissioner Clob's comment on this rendering right here. The columns aren't symmetrical for, you know, north versus south elevation. And for me, it kind of does throw my OCD off a little bit. Um, but can we go back to the site plan? Yeah. Right. So, pad B, that exit reminds me of the Taco Bell exit near Bashes where every single time I am forced to go left because my F-150 will not make that turn. And the amount of people I've seen hop the curb and either pop their tire or destroy the landscaping. um is way too much. I I don't know the solution. Um I don't think the one that's presented right now is the solution for it. Uh because everybody's going to just go left because making that right out, you know, for somebody in an SUV or a truck, which is a majority of Maricopa it seems like these days, is going to be difficult. And then you're going to get stuck in the queue of either pad B or pad A or any other, you know, patron coming to pad D or C, right? Um I would like to potentially see something different. Um and yeah, during lunchtime, this is going to be a hot mess. Uh, I've seen In-N-Outs, not saying that this is going here, but I've seen In-N-Outs where they've closed off access you like coming right in and oh, they've chained it off because their queue is now going through the parking lot and wrapping around. And so now I can't get to another shop because, you know, that drive-thru is 30 cars deep and is and I

can't back out of a parking spot because I'm blocked in by the drive-thru line. Um, that could potentially happen here with pad B, right? Uh, I don't know how we mitigate that, but I've seen that quite often with a lot of the heavy hitters. Uh, as we keep saying, uh, I just don't know a solution. But I certainly know that when that does happen, Facebook will be blowing up complaining about this even though they asked that they want these heavy hitter restaurants here. Um but yeah, I don't know of a good solution. We can't flip it. Um, yeah, just something to be aware of that it's most likely going to happen because as we saw when Slim Chickens opened up, they did record sales the first like week and that's probably what will happen here, right? Um, and we'll probably have 50 to 60 cars deep in each drive-thru. Um, but it does concern me that these drive-throughs are just going to overflow all the time. So yeah, that's my comment commission. Any other All right, you're off the hook, Derek. Uh, that'll take us to 7.3 TXT25-01. This is a public hearing. TXT25-01 text amendment, a request by the city of Maricopa for review and approval of proposed miscellaneous text amendments to the city to the Maricopa City Code section 17.20- 20-050 plenary plenary plots section 17-20- o0060 do I have to read this entire thing because this is a mouthful uh final blad section 17-30-040

recreation and tot requirements section 18.40 commercial districts 7 18.75 food courts 18.79-030 mixed to use heritage development standards section 18.80.110 80.110 screening section 18.90 landscape section 18.120.240 group homes section 18.120.260 temporary uses section 18.120300 food court mixeduse heritage section 18.130 or 135.020 city council section 18.135.030 planning commission section 18.35.050 050 development services director section 35-060 should that be an 18.35

18.35 okay 18.3560 Hearing officer section 18.18.135.070 zoning administrator section 18.135.110 review authorities section 18.140.050 050 neighborhood meeting notification. Section 18140-060 public hearing notification. And last but not least, section 18.205.020 list of definitions. And this is for discussion and action.

Thank you, chairman. Uh if it's any consolation, it wasn't a whole lot of fun typing all that either. Um y'all um throughout the years we've come to y'all with with multiple text amendments and I just wanted to touch base real quick on you know why we do these uh you know they're necessary from time to time to you know bring the the the code into you know a current status not only with Arizona revised statutes but also you know as we work through these we work through the site plans plans and the different applications we come through um you know we we find errors in the code things that don't work. So again, this is an opportunity to come in, you know, revise the different sections of it, bring it up to uh current status, uh address things that don't work in it, make them better. Uh and then u occasionally we also have some scrier errors, you know, that are identified in the code that, you know, u pass through the uh system and and as we notice. And so we come in and try and clean all that up at once, do them all as a one amend or one application for the year so that we, you know, are able to address them all in one shot. Um, and that's really the the uh the directive behind this is, you know, to bring ourselves into concurrent with with ARS and and state legislation that's come down, fix a few things that don't work right, uh, and then address any errors that we might see. So, first thing I want, we're going to talk about a couple of different House bills tonight. Now, House Bill 2547 was actually um passed a few years ago. Uh and it is directed at uh city council and states that with you know any with certain types of

applications coming through we have to provide a housing impact study. And that housing impact study really is a general estimate of the probable impact the average cost to construct uh description of any data reference materials in which the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment applies. um and less costly alternatives. Now, in the past, uh when I've brought text amendments before y'all, uh we would we would present that text amendment without the housing impact statement. Um because it's clear that it needs to go to council that way. Um so, as I was putting this presentation together, you know, the first thought I had was why am I separating it? you know, why shouldn't why shouldn't planning and zoning commission see exactly what it is I'm sending to um uh up to council with the housing statement? So, having thought about that, I decided to go ahead and include that in this. And I just wanted to address it quickly because in the other text amendments I sent uh to the PNZ board uh in the past have not had the housing statement in it, you know. Um so that's why you're seeing that in this. That's why I created that summary that went through all the different amendments that we have in here and I included the impact summary with that. So, I just wanted to address for a moment why that's in there and why you haven't seen it before. As I said, there there's another House bill that we're going to talk about. Um, well, we might as well talk about it right now because it's starting to get into that that sec or no, I'm going to hold up on that for just a moment. So, what I tried to do when putting this together, instead of having the 21 different and just go right down the road, what I thought I would break it into is text revisions um and and Scriber errors, then we would also look at new text coming in based on

the House bills uh and then any other changes that we had made to this. So, let's start with the recreation and tot lot design requirements. This is also going to you're going to see this again in section 18, but essentially all the tot requirements with respect to shade were all housed in our subdivision regulations. Well, the reality of it is we now have um multif family developments coming in that have these playgrounds associated with them. We also have some commercial development possibilities that might be daycare facilities uh you know with outdoor recreation for uh school kids. Um and then we also have it u you know the the uh subdivision regulations that govern house uh open space development moving forward. So the issue with this was with it housed in seven in section 17 in our subdivision regs. uh if you were any one of the other developments, there were no requirements. And so we were running into walls and and battles with uh different developments coming in um you know and and and we would we would impose these requirements and the the thought process and the response back to us, well, it doesn't say that in your ordinance anywhere. So we took we're taking it out of section 17, moving it to section 18. We'll talk about that here in a couple of slides. so that we get an overall effect for it. So it's now applicable in a in a in a housing development, it's applicable in a multif family setting and it's also applicable in a commercial setting if if uh that type of development is what's coming through. Uh with respect to the mixeduse heritage overlay, um as you know, we we have um self-approved plans. All right, those self-approved plans were were designed specifically for the

uh for the heritage district. Um when we went through that, we developed those. We we brought them to council. We brought them to planning and zoning commission. And in those requirements, we had that it meet the the uh required um city of Maricopa parking standards, which requires two covered parking spots for every house. you know, for every dwelling unit, minimum two covered parking spots. Well, as you may recall, we've already kind of deviated from that with some other developments in the city, more specifically Anderson Farms, where we have homes that are being built without garages. Um, so when we took a look at that and in the uh heritage district, you know, those homes were designed without uh garages. Uh so to have that requirement then if somebody came in and wanted to actually build one of those you know previously approved uh plans they'd run into they would have to go get an engineer and and divi um design a garage and and it defeated the whole purpose of why we created those plans anyway. Now, the one thing I would say is that without specifics to a planned area development or in the mixeduse heritage district, that requirement doesn't apply anywhere else in the city. So, it's derived just for those pre-approved homes that we had previously approved. Uh the screening section, we added just a couple of uh we wanted to codify the downspouts in the SE SCES cabinets. Now, we're going to have a set of design guidelines for non-residential and commercial um coming to y'all probably in the next 60 90 days somewhere in there. We're trying to finish it up now. You know, um we're asking folks to internalize those. We have been asking folks to internalize. Um Commissioner Globe, you can testify that we are asking, you

know, future development, but again, we didn't have it codified anywhere. We don't have the design guidelines yet. We didn't have it in our code. So we added it to the screening sections now requiring developments coming in to have to internalize those downspouts and the SEC cabinets. They can no longer have those sticking on the back of building. They'll have to build a cabinet around it or internalize it to the building. If you think about it and you consider it from the day you start to design the building, it's not a big deal. Um and then group homes. Uh it was there are specific requirements with respect to 7 to 10 type homes and and and one to six. The 7 to 10 residents have to meet a separation requirement u in the code and you can see by the uh the proposed draft that we said it was not crystal clear in there that what it was. It it lumped them both together made it sound like both are require the same separation and we got a lot of questions and concerns on that. So, we decided just to clean that up a little bit. All right. List of terms and definitions. We added the single room occupant and we or and we also added the food court to the list of terms and definitions. Uh temporary uses u clarify seasonal sales Christmas trees, fireworks, pumping patch as a temporary use and increases allowable signage for the events. Um, just kind of make a little note of that because we're going to come back to that in just a second. Um, because I have some additional information for you. Uh, section 18140, the neighborhood meeting notification rectifies a typographical error in AT140502. Uh, one of the questions that came up earlier and essentially what we're doing is we're removing development review permit signage uh, from the public hearing section of that. Um, I want to make it crystal clear that in the the

development review process or permit section of the code, it still requires um um anformational meeting like we just did for the two and it still requires that the post be that the site be posted. Um the inaccuracy in the public hearing notification portion of it was it listed the DRP as a public hearing notification and it's not. So, nothing changes in that. It's still the same requirement, still the same signage. Uh, we just pulled it out of the um public hearing portion of that because it was not applicable. So, let's talk I want to talk about temporary uses for just a moment. Uh, I said in when I when I read the summary to you, I said we clarified that that the seasonal sales for Christmas trees, fireworks, and things like that required a um a temporary use permit and we increased the signage for them. We looked at that. However, once I had sent this out to y'all, I realized I'd never included the text clarifying that it needed the temporary use permit. So, we've made those revisions. uh the um recommendation that we're going to ask you to consider this evening will recognize this text in here. So, we just cleared it up a little bit. Uh as you can see, it states there and here's where the confusion was an administrative an approved administrative use permit is required. And that's right under the temporary and seasonal outdoor sales. So, it became confusing, you know, and we would come in and request the T and they'd say, "Well, wait a second. It says administrator permit. And the difference here is Lowe's, Home Depot, Ace Hardware is the one that comes to mind. They will do uh occasional seasonal sales for example.

Uh Ace Hardware does the u uh the NASCAR race where they bring a they bring a car down, they park it out front, they have a guy, you know, making hot dogs. That's what this temporary and seasonal outdoor sales was intended for. It's not intended for the guy that's coming in and spending six weeks setting up a big tent selling fireworks or Christmas trees or, you know, where they're having a tremendous impact on the circulation around and where businesses need to be notified. The biggest difference between the two is now that Christmas tree guy coming in or that fireworks guy coming in has to notify businesses around him that they're going to be there. prior to they would just come in. We would it would be a zoning permit. We wouldn't notify anyone. And that's not what the the the intent of the code was. You know, we just put an extra sentence in there that that made it a little cloudy. So, we cleared that up. Um under the temporary uh it gets through the general requirements of the outdoor sales. Uh except for the seasonal sales, temporary, those are part of an existing business, you know. So again, it's the Ace Hardware that's bringing the car down, you know, for a Saturday, Sunday event over a weekend. Uh, and we made it crystal clear in there. Approval of a zoning permit by the city of Maricopa is required prior to commencement of the proposed event. So again, it just strengthened that language. And this is for the seasonal sales, the annual sale of Christmas trees, fireworks, pumpkins, and similar items. Um, again, it's it was never meant to be part of that other section, you know. So we cleared that out. We also looked at it and thought, you know, under the temporary uh sign permit requirements, they got one banner, they got one A-frame sign, and they got one feather flag. That banner was 32 square foot, which is essentially an 8 by4 8 by six, I'm sorry. No, 8x4. Had a little trouble with the math right

now. So, in looking that and and and taking into account the feedback we've gotten from, you know, those those different vendors that are putting that up, they all said the same thing that um you know, that's just not enough signage. So, we went and looked at the other cities and we agreed that in other cities, if you're in Tempi, you know, Chandler, Gilbert, um you got about twice what we were offering. Uh so, we took a look at that and we said, "Okay, fine. We can we can go to a maximum of two banners. we can increase it to 40 square foot a per um a banner. Uh they can hang one on the front of their their tent and they can also hang one that's facing an arterial arterial road. And we thought that was u uh uh not only adequate but appropriate based on what the other cities are doing. So again, I apologize for leaving that front section out of uh the exhibit that I sent y'all, but again, when we get down to the recommendation this evening, we're going to want to include this uh in that recommendation compliance with ARS. Now,

hey Rick, do the chair. Are we going to ask questions at the end of this or should we do it as we go? What do you prefer? Uh you know what? Let's just get through this. I've I've got uh bookmarked portions of this so I can get back to it and figure it and if we need to go back to a slide we will. Cool. Thanks.

Um so we talked about House Bill 2547. Well, there's another House bill that's very close to it. Uh and that's House Bill 2447. And and House Bill 2447 essentially removes specific powers from Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. more specifically to final plats and preliminary plats. Now, this is Nick can explain this, you know, much more thorough and and precise than I can, but essentially state legislation coming down that's requiring us to amend our code to be able to administratively approve final plats and and preliminary plat. And that's what section 1720 uh 50 60 uh section 1820 and and 18135 O2 are essentially doing. Um and that takes that final plat um approval in and essentially places it with the development services department director. um future extensions of those preliminary plat uh development services director uh preliminary plat will be staff approved uh essentially u provides the zoning administrator the authority to approve the preliminary plat um extend any future plat uh also um revises the um um the hearing officer and and replaces them with the I've lost the word the um in the event of a protest, pardon me, appeal. Thank you very much. Um and and

so the requirements that you see here and the changes that we've made here uh essentially are complying with with the House Bill 2447. uh development the hearing officer and the zoning administrator. So that's just the rest of that coming through there. Uh new text uh section 1840 commercial districts. Um there's a big push art push throughout the city. Um you know we're trying to beautify the area. Uh, and I think we're making progress with that. And this provision requires commercial development with a minimum minimum of square footage of 50,000 square foot to incorporate incorporate pedestrianoriented forms of art. First question, you know, I typically get asked is, okay, what does that mean? You know, don't know yet. You know, uh, haven't seen it yet. When we get to the site plan design stage and we get to the u pre-application meetings, we'll start to have those discussions. It could be some form of sculpture out front. It could be a mural on the side of a building. You know, art takes many different shapes. Um so we will have to essentially review that uh and evaluate that as we move forward. But anything so the Lowe's, the Home Depots, those guys coming in would have to have some kind of art component associated with their development. Uh mixeduse heritage overlay district section 1875. This adds food courts to table uh 187502 uh in the mixeduse heritage district uh as a permitted use in the overlay. Um this is specific to the mixeduse heritage district. This is this

provision um comes to us based on on feedback from uh local city owners uh that have reached out to council um and u staff was directed to create a set of standards uh for a food truck court. You know, they're very there's a great one over in um uh Cassagrand. There's there's one up in Prescat right down to from um uh town square. uh Austin, Texas, Tucson, San Diego, Maui, Hawaii. I mean, they're they're very common. Uh I don't know if you know, y'all were out at u uh stage coach days this weekend. U but I'm telling you, the food from the food trucks was outstanding. It was really good. So, that's where the direction from that comes. As we talked about the top lot design requirements uh in in the subdivision regs, we've now located that in section 1890 of the landscape ordinance. And essentially what we did, we did refine it a little bit, but we took that whole section, moved it out and are housing it here in um in the landscape section. Uh section 1812300 are the actual development standards for the food courts. Um and that establishes uh you know um those development standards for which they can now create that food court environment. Um and then once again the list of terms and definitions we added the single room occupant and the food court to uh to the list of terms and definitions. So, the proposed text amendments are in conformance with the following goals and objectives outlined in the general plan. I'm not going to read these to y'all, but there are several sections uh that it is appropriate and applicable.

With respect to notification, um we've had we've had these out on our website really since before the September 8th, but that was kind of the official date that I got them all in there. Uh it was it was mid August when we actually put the first round of these out there. Uh we did run a ad in the in the newspaper October 9th um in the Cassag Grand Dispatch and I would just point out that I've had no public comment received from any of the the city postings or the u or the newspaper ad once we ran that. So with that being said, we are recommending that the commission approve the text 251 tonight, the miscellaneous amendments to chapter 17 and chapter 18 as outlined in exhibit B and exhibit D of the staff report dated October 27th and with the amended um section for the temporary use uh uses. So uh chairman that concludes my presentation. Uh, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Uh, and we can go back in slides however you all want to do it.

Awesome. Thank you, Rick. Commissioner Club. Okay, Commissioner Robertson. Somehow I felt like it just set up. [laughter] Thank you, Rick, for the presentation. Uh, very comprehensive information. Um, House Bill 2447, does it explicitly require the removal of authority of this commission of this process?

Uh, Chairman, uh, Commissioner Robertson, I I believe it does, but I'm going to defer to Nick because he can give you probably a much more technical answer than than I would.

Do you understand the question? I I do, Commissioner Robertson. Uh uh Chair Singleton, Commissioner Robertson. Technically, what it does is it requires cities to adopt an ordinance that requires administrative rep uh approval without a public hearing. So, we cannot say, well, we're going to do an administrative approval, but we're going to say you have to have a public hearing for a pre-plat, a final plat, a land division, a lot tie. Um it it really does bring it all in house

from House Bill 2447 [clears throat] 9-500-49 notwithstanding other law or legislative body the city or town shall by ordinance do the following authorize administrative personnel to review and approve the plans development plans land division lot line adjustments, lot size, preliminary plat, final plat, and plat amendments without a public hearing. What it doesn't say is remove your planning and zoning commission from the process. What I hear is we're being removed from the process. Okay, Commissioner Robertson, I guess my my question would be the state is saying staff these certain you adopted these standards site uh site specific standards, subdivision standards. If your applicant has hit those standards, why are you making them apply again, go back before a public body where it seems that they are not or they're possible uh it's possible to get denied or condition something else. And that's what the state's saying no. The state is saying you adopt the standards through a zoning change, a subdivision change. Once you have those standards set, your staff is then tasked with approval. So, you're still in the process. The process is now on the front end adopting text amendments, adopting uh Rick

mentioned um design standards that are going to come back before PNZ. That's now where the process is for this commission is height restrictions, setbacks, um top lot requirements on the front end so that staff knows this has to be in this subdivision or in this commercial zone or whatever the standard is. Staff can then approve it.

Okay. Um I don't read it that way um because there's no mention in any of 2447 that eliminates the planning and zoning commission or explicitly requires. So, I guess I'm asking, will there still be a public element involved where the public can come here and hear the sausage being made, see the renderings, make comment, even if we don't vote on it like we do DRP, right? Two years ago, we had DRP removed from our venue of authority for up or down vote. That was removed. I see that same thing happening here. I cannot support this if we remove the public element. I know they can publicly send in a letter, they can publicly call you and make their comments, but it does remove the element of public influence in a public setting. So will that remain or will that be removed as a result of approval of this text amendment?

This is a Commission Robertson. This is after the property has already been granted its by right, whatever it can be. If it's a subdivision, if it's uh commercial uh subdivision, the up or down vote would then be at the land use, whether it's a pad for this massive master plan community that's going to include commercial, it's going to include residential. That's the up or down vote. This is saying after you've already, you know, had the resoning where they came in and gave you some, you know, the conceptual site plan, the traffic analysis of how this, you know, uh, master plan community is going to fit, that's your vote. Once you've already had that vote, when they go to apply for a plat based on what they've submitted to you, that's going in house because those are then all technical standards that you've already adopted. Thank you.

So, chairman, if I could just add to that, and this goes back to what um Nick was saying about managing the document and the tools that we work with and and ways to still achieve the the same. So for example, um technically in our ordinance right now there's not a notification process for preliminary plats and final plats. So as an example and and and certainly you know y'all have the ability to uh direct us in that manner uh maybe we need to go back and take a look at the notification process for those two applications. you know, there maybe there are other ways we can get the um word out to the community that this is happening. You know, um those are the types of of of improvements we can make to the tools that we have to work with and the requirements that we have for the applicant coming in uh that has a more robust um uh notification process. You know, I I think that's an That's a legitimate, you know, question. That's a legitimate directive. You know, what is it? I mean, because you're right, you it is coming out of the out of the public realm. So, how do we keep it in there? You know, those are the avenues at which and and I'll be honest with you, uh you know, we're in the middle of um um the general plan update. Soon as we get done with that, we're going after the ordinance, you know, and and it's probably going to be a rewrite on that. We're already setting aside funds to do that. So there are other ways we can accomplish that commissioner uh with a robust notification process. you know, that goes state says, "Hey, you you know, there's a minimum 600 foot radius,

you know, and and uh you got to send out a notice. You know, we can go above and beyond that if if um if if letting the public, you know, getting the word out to the public, those that are impacted by it. Um that's how we sir, that's how we get around that. And that's probably probably more effective than just coming here.

I actually think we do a good job getting the word out. But if there's no place for them to come to speak, if it's not on the agenda and it's done behind an administrative office door, we have removed an element of public transparency. we have further damaged the trust of the community in government and transparency and openness is of utmost importance. So I'll ask um maybe council when it comes up for a um a motion is it appropriate that a motion could be made that approves the text amendment but eliminates this element of it for further discussion and consideration. Is that an appropriate motion when the time comes?

It's an appropriate motion. What I would say is this statute requires it's effective December 31st of 2025. So we are up against a clock to get this uh reviewed recommended by recommended by uh this body and then to council to be then effective 30 days after an adoption.

I understand the time frame. Um, honestly, that's not our problem up here. That the time frame is crunched. Almost feels deliberate. I'm being very honest and emotional. It almost feels deliberate. And it almost feels like this inundation of changes that could have been incremental all year long as they arose wind up in front of us with a very short window. I cannot I cannot um support this text amendment change. So, if I may, um, just kind of a clarifying question slashdefinition between a preliminary plat and a final plat because I wanted to use an example of let let's take terribles off of um, Porter and Bolan that got a lot of push back from residents, from us, and they took that and they they adjust it accordingly. Just to clarify, that process is not being taken away.

This text amendment does not modify the current DRP uh process that's in place. Okay? This is dealing solely with preliminary platit uh a subdivision. Got it. I'll let other commissioners go before I keep going. Commissioner Yokum, I

I just I just have two things and I out of curiosity more than anything else. The the group home the 7 to 10 10 residents that's this is 18120-240. Uh they're spaced 1,200 feet minimum 1,200 feet apart. And I'm wondering what what is the philosophy behind that 1,200 feet? I mean, why, 1200 feet? Why not,400 or 900? It's a chairman. It's a commissioner. It's a state requirement. Uh I I do not know the That's my answer then. Thank you. Okay. Uh

concern the food court. Have Have we ever had an applicant looking for a food court in their application? Uh, chairman, uh, Commissioner Yokum, really good question. Um, these standards in this direction really is, um, it's a it's a byproduct of of the folks that have come in. Uh, we've had over the years, the four and a half years I've been here, we've had numerous food court folks come in and try and do this. But the way the ordinance and and the code is written right now, there are a list of significant improvements, you know, that are non-negotiable uh that have to be performed for anybody coming in on one of those on one of those, you know, two or three acre parcels. Um it essentially was pricing everybody out of it. Um, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent between engineering and actual construction costs, probably more. In the four and a half years I've been here, I think we've had four different pre-application meetings with folks trying to do this. And as soon as we get to what it's going to cost to do it to meet minimal city requirements, kills it.

So, this was this was necessitated by uh being uh being able to accommodate applicants under a less strict guideline.

Well, yes, sir. and and you know the folks that were trying to do these you know reached out to you know council members and had conversations with them you know so council came back leadership gave us a directive take a look at what other folks are doing you know uh the first biggie that you come across is you know in these other cities that we've looked at the surface requirements are are probably the biggest one right off the bat where everybody else is allowing a dust proof surface technically we require paving you know whether it be concrete or asphalt fault, you know, that just exponentially drives the cost of the development up and and eliminated it. Either the property owners, you know, he's he's he's not willing to make that investment, you know, and certainly the the folks that wanted to operate the food trucks, they don't, you know, it just those kind of construction costs. Uh, which most of them were on site and and it, you know, if there were any off-site requirements, then it really accelerated. So, we've come up with a a a a set of standards that that meets minimum development stand it meets PM10 standards it meets dust control standards uh still meets safety they still have to have a ADA parking space you know so it doesn't eliminate that but what it does is is minimize the impact of significant improvements on the site

Rick looking at the requirements as as written I think it's streamlined very well and it's limited to the point thank you that's that's all I have Rick thank Thank you, Commissioner Club.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll start with the big the big one and then we'll we'll work backwards to the to the easy ones. I share Commissioner uh Robertson's challenge with removing removing this from the purview of of PNZ. Um, and as as someone who has the the rare the rare occasion that we have to be on both sides of this equation numerous times over the years. Um, we can create all the standards and guidelines and everything that we want. We don't live in a black and white world and projects evolve. Projects look at the two the two sites we had tonight. Um, you know, I'll go back and even talk about the the Buffalo Wild Wings, the that thing with the little funky triangle and the parking and

but it's the only way to get all the parking that we need in and and it just that doesn't fit in a nice fancy little box with a little red ribbon on top. Um, it needs to evolve. It it it needs finesse. It needs, you know, to work through uh different aspects. And that's where because I've been on on projects that we brought in what we brought into to PNZ and council is great and it looks great and it's eyewashed and it's pretty and it's fancy and and it was in the papers and it was on the news and it was on whatever and it it looks awesome and then what actually gets approved after we go through all the iterations and bring costs in and we get the engineers involved and what it evolved to can be completely different And that's where I think that and and and I get that, you know, we're being led down this path by legislatively and I I I get that and and and understand it completely, but removing the transparency, removing the ability um to have, you know, second, third looks at some of these projects that, you know, could be is it the term I used earlier, the problem child. Um, to put that back inside just the purview of, you know, a a staff decision. Um, you know, what happens? We, you know, we have a situation that's got to get a plat approved and and I'm going to pick on you, Rick, just because you're standing here, [laughter]

right? you're off on a dive trip and it's got to get approved and you know an underling you know we'll say Derek signs off it but he's doesn't know all the ins and outs of it and it gets signed off and gets approved and and you come back from your trip and it's like oh crap what you know this didn't get changed um and I think that the extra sets of eyes I've had it on my projects where having those extra eyes look at it and say yeah these are these are some of the challenges that that I see it. I didn't see it that way, but now I do. And I've gone and back I've gone back and redesigned to meet some of that. And sometimes it is an evolutionary process, right?

So, I'm really reluctant on on pulling more. We've already had so much, you know, pulled legislatively from the purview of of PNZ and and even and even council. Um, this is just one more erosion of of that and we have more coming. I have no doubt. Um, some of the players that didn't get what they wanted last year are coming back around, I'm sure, in January. It's just the beginning.

It's just the beginning. and the developers, you know, for my clients professionally, I see because it is a process and it is a timeconuming process. And when I have to go through a a reasonzoning and a replat and things like that on a on a on a on a on a design project, I tell my clients, figure a year, sometimes two years or some of our valley cities sometimes three or four um to go through all those process. So streamlining that I think is good. But I think that there's ways to to still meet that common balance.

Yeah. Chairman, Commissioner Clobe, I I understand, you know, I understand 100% where you're coming from, you know, and and we're having this conversation and and Commissioner Robertson, I agree with you, you know, but the one thing that all of, you know, each of us has said and Nick has talked about it. This is a state legislative mandate. We don't have the ability to decide, well, we don't like it in this form. We're going to make something else. You know, we don't have that ability. You know, we can vote against it tonight, but the reality of it is the state is requiring us to do this. They've given us a date. We have to do this. All right. I implore there are other ways around this. And it's through the ordinance and the requirements and the tools that we have. If we're worried about the transparency and and the eliminating the the the the uh general public from this, then we have to go back and figure out a way to include the general public. They can steal a app a peel of preliminary plat. It goes to the hearing officer. If it's not settled there, it goes to the city council. So, there are processes in place. They've just never been used before, you know. So, we need to take a look at how are we letting the public know. You know, for I'll just give you another example. We have we know who all the um HOAs are around the city, but you know what? We don't notify. You know, there's an avenue to get to even more people, but we need to go back and and and now we need to go back and strengthen that zoning ordinance to help support those things because it's not coming to this environment anymore. You know, we don't have the ability say, "No, we're not going to approve this. We have to do this. You know, it's statemandated. It's it's not a it's not a choice, you know. So, work with me to, you know, I I came before you two weeks

ago and gave you an update on some information that y'all asked. Send me back again. Let's make it better. Let's address how we can still maintain the transparency of this, how we can get out to even more of our residents, you know, informing them of these natures and and also give them the ability to protest it if they don't like it. You know, the other aspect of this is it really become zoning becomes so much more important. those PA ADS coming through here, those what are establishing the criteria set forth in in how we're going to review this moving forward. You know, if it's in the PA, we don't have the ability to say, hey, you know what? You don't have to do that. They have to come back before you again with a an amendment to it to be able to do that. So, it places a greater emphasis on the overall process, the entitlement of it. you know, as we're going through it changes the questions that we ask at a reasonzoning or planned area development. I believe there are ways that we can work together to still accomplish what y'all are talking about here tonight. But again, all it takes is us willing to work together. Give me the direction. I'll go out and take a look at what the other cities are doing it and how they're, you know, because they're all doing it. We're not the only one. Most of them have already done it. Some are running these through like we're we're doing right now. So, you know, the the reality of it is we need to think outside the box, you know, and how we maintain this public trust, this transparency, and we and we notify as many folks as we can, but what we don't have the ability to do is say, "Well, we'll approve this all, but without this." This is we're going we're moving forward, statemandated, you know. Um, so again, I go back to uh I I agree with you. I understand where you're coming. feel the same way. I'm not thrilled about it, but it is a requirement and there are ways to to work through this

and accomplish the same task just going through a different route to do it. And I I would agree with that and I think that there's ways that we can strengthen our ordinance to to fine-tune that. Um, and I think, you know, as a as a commission and and you know, your team and we'll even let legal get in every every once in a while [laughter] um on on how we can, you know, bring some of that back and and keep that transparent. Absolutely. And and I'm here to work with y'all on that.

Um, you know, there are, you know, there are cities in the valley um that were on this plan long the state mandated it. You know, there there are numerous cities out there that u preliminary plats don't go to P&Zs, you know. Um, but I think, you know, for those that, you know, there's there's nothing wrong with taking a look at what their notification and and uh that process is and how it looks and how it works. I think I think that's that's very valid. Yeah. And I think I look at cities like Chandler that's down to 5% open space to develop,

they can do a lot of this internally, it's not a big deal, right? Whereas a community like ours that we have lots of open space, we have lots of land available, we have lots of growth potential, um it it it puts a different burden on us than some of these other cities. And the other challenge is it puts a burden on your staff. Absolutely. Who's already, you know, tight as it is. So it's just one more thing that um and now you guys become the bad guys, but right, you know, developers already. Well, and and and we touched on this a little bit, uh, chairman, commissioners, this is just the first,

you know, we we've seen, uh, and and Nick could probably speak to this a little clearer than I could, but, this is just the tip of the iceberg. You know, there are, you know, there are other requirements coming down that, you know, are going to be mandated that, you know, we're not going to be happy about. Um, you know, so we're going to have to learn to, you know, how do we deal with this? It's coming. We don't have a choice, you know. So, you know, we have to get our heads together and think about this. We have to have study sessions. You know, we got to come up with some, you know, good requirements in our ordinance that that still protect the public and serve the public. Um, but that's how we're going to get we're going to get around this to, you know, we're not going to be able to say no,

you know, so we're going to have to really work together and put our collective, you know, thoughts together and come up with some ways to continue to achieve what makes us, you know, so great in what we're doing here. So, that's the challenge coming. I'm my myself and my my staff are up to it. Um, you know, I enjoyed going out and looking at the other cities and bringing that information back to y'all. We're going to do more of that. Um, but that's the task before us now. Um, because these changes are coming and we don't have a choice. Yeah. Couple other little comments. Got commission. Easy ones.

Before you go, Commissioner Robertson had a question uh along the same vein as yours. Go ahead. approval of this text amendment pretty much codifies it after it goes through council recommendation this is a recommending body to council and then 30 days after that and then once council passes it it's codified correct

okay I'm still going to disagree with the premise that removing public participation at any level is a requirement of 2447. I don't see it in there. The only language is in there is you don't have to have a public hearing. It's explicitly says that you say we can work together, Rick. Well, that's not going to happen tonight, but yet we have to vote tonight. Correct. [clears throat] Thank you, Commissioner Club. All right. Um, we'll start from the very beginning. The heritage parking, two two spaces, two um, the only concern I have with that is is we have lots of weird lot sizes in in the heritage district. We have some very narrow lots. I'm working on a project now in there that's a 50- foot wide lot. 50 by 300. Um, it's kind of strange. uh platted in 1906, I think. It was kind of crazy. Um anyway, but we also have some pretty goodiz lots in there.

We do.

Um and my concern, just because I've been on the other side, is we get a developer in and and they're on a, you know, 10,000 square foot lot that can easily accommodate two cars and probably should. Um hey, it's cheaper. I can I can just do I can do one. Would there be would be advantageous at all to set a a size or a like a lot size or building size. Uh if if you're up to so many square feet, you only need one one space. Greater than that, you need you need two spaces. Just making a quick note here, sir. Um um yeah, I I think that's a very good point. Um we did not discuss that in the you know in in the deliberations uh moving through this. Um let me take it back to him and and see what the thought and I'll get with Rudy tomorrow. you know, we were typically, you know, this was more specifically aimed at the pre-approved home um uh developments, uh which typically, you know, we're not going to see that on the 10,000 foot lot. We're seeing that on the, you know, on the smaller lot. So,

but we could though. We could. Yeah, absolutely. No question about it. Um Yeah, I I think it's an interesting uh point. Let me uh take it back and and um uh probably can get some kind of thought back on that or uh and and I can share the results with you um uh via email or I'll give you a call. But I I think it's a a valid question. Um on the temporary sign uh for the you know events, pumpkin patch, whatever. Um, I didn't notice it, but I didn't dig deep into it. Um, is there anything anything in there as it relates to lighting?

I'm sorry, sir. Lighting. Uh, Chairman, uh, Commissioner Clobe, at this point, we don't have any requirements in there except what would be our normal um, uh, nuisance requirements. Can't have light flashing, you know, directed out on arterials. Uh it is a temporary use. Um there are some if there are safety concerns or there are trip hazards uh through the temporary use, we can always come in and and require them to um add additional lighting if we thought it was an issue. I I know in like in our regular sign code, we're very specific on sign lighting and and and things like that.

And so we we don't have that here, but I'm sure that they're going to want some level of lighting. um you know, especially Christmas time, uh our our our days are shorter. Um and so I just think it might be something that we want we may want to at least investigate to codify uh a so it doesn't get abused. Um we don't want the the space station to comment that, oh, Maropa is selling Christmas trees. [laughter]

Yeah. Um, chairman, uh, commissioners, um, currently there are no requirements for that. With this specific use, they get the banners, the A-frame sign, and the feather, and and that's the limits of, uh, the signage that's allowed. If they tried to illuminate any of that signage, um, then, uh, from a code standpoint, we would have an issue with that. Um and that is uh totally separate than um you know some uh illuminations underneath the u tent that you know for example um you know the emergency exit has to be elimin illuminated. So that's a battery operated device that they hang above um the the uh emergency exit. Um and then obviously if there like I said if there are any trip hazards or there are any safety concerns you know then u building chief uh or or the fire chief you know during their inspections can come in and and require additional lighting.

Okay. Um two quick ones. Food truck thing I think it's great. I actually was contacted initially for one of the sites to to do across from um we're on Honeyut across from where in Maricopa is um and just trying to get everything to work out feasibly financially just didn't make sense. Um so with respect to that uh chairman commissioners um Da Castillo our project manager is sitting right behind me. She's the one that's not Derek. Um, is he still standing? Yeah, he's uh she's really the one without the beard. [laughter]

The one without There you go. Um, she's really championed this cause. She's the one that did all the u research on it, put this thing together. It's been her baby. Yeah. Uh, from uh the beginning and she's done an outstanding job with it. Uh, she's really championed it. and gone out. She's talked to the, you know, potential food court folks and uh she's done a great job and and just u you know, kudos to her.

Well, a lot of our trucks go down to Cassa Collective down in Casa Grand and uh let's keep them here and keep keep the sales tax here. So, um the last one is I didn't you know I I know it's probably coming I would imagine. Uh, are we going to be making any more updates regarding the ADU and and the new laws that also just came into play? Uh, chairman, U commissioners, um, I'm going to defer to Nick on that one. [laughter] Timing wise, I'm not I can't speak to that, but yeah, there will be likely additional changes coming down the pipeline because that too has the same end ofear deadline. Otherwise, it just codifies itself.

But I thought there was a population. There's a population of No, the new one they No, the new one they dropped the population. It's all all jurisdictions. The the what was approved in September. It now covers cities and counties, all jurisdictions. And she was there an emergency clause to get it to the end of the year? I because usually would be syn but I believe it did but I can't sit here and say 100%. I can I can look at that and follow up with a uh email to the commission about deadlines. I know in two weeks we're seeing it at the county. So

and there there you know numerous cities over you know the 70,000 population that have already enacted it. Um um I don't know the exact timing on it and we'll take a look at the um what that uh bill that states but it's it will be coming at some point. Okay, that's all I had. Thank you. Yeah, I think the previous one where there was a like resident threshold I think codified it at like if we didn't know do something by the end of the year but yeah I'm not sure if because it got updated in September to remove that if it got pushed

the previous one if I remember correctly it was um you had to had a population 75,000 y based on the last census. Yes. So, we were still under it in the last census, even though we're over it now. We probably wouldn't be hit with it, you know, until the next major census, right, in 2030. But this new one removed it. I I think pulled a lot of those exemptions out. You're you're absolutely right on those on the previous requirements that you were talking about. Um I'm not aware of the of the new one.

I just Yeah, I can Rick, I can I pulled up what's currently there. It still has a 75,000 population uh uh restriction. I'll double check though to see if that's changed. But if it's the same one I'm thinking about, they had moved the population requirement from earlier in the statute to a lower section because it made it look like only subsection A applied to the population requirement when it's the entirety of the statute. But I'll I'll double check. Okay, cool. Commissioner Robertson, don't get mad at me. I'm going to digress a little bit. [laughter] When did 2447 go into effect?

Is the question when was it adopted or when does it go into effect? When does it go when was both? Thank you. I'd have to get the specific date um when it was passed and signed by the governor, but it is effective December 31st, 2025. December 31st. March 31st, 2025. Just That's when it was signed by the governor. I will defer to the chair on that date. That sounds right. And what is the penalty for non-compliance? Speaking on

past I'd have to look at it more, but it is unlikely that the city would be able to enforce its code. Thank you. All right. And the only thing I'll add to that, I think it actually might have been signed off by the governor, but I don't think it actually went into I'm gonna don't know the actual terminology here. Was it September 19th when all the laws that is the that was the general effective date this year but this one had a specific provision making it the end of the year. Okay.

So that was yeah that's general effectiveness is 70 70 something days after the close of the session. Um but this one had a specific date. Yeah. Sorry I meant it was like approved by the governor March 31st. I'm just looking at on my phone so that's why I was like okay. All right. Now, my questions. Um,

sometimes [laughter] now, now we're gonna be here an extra hour because he said that. Um, food courts. I like the idea. I like the premise. Um, I know there's been a couple of residents that have come forward during council meetings and been like, "This is my idea that I want." I think it was actually the location that you were discussing. Um, and I know it's to help get things off the ground, right? It's to help not have an astronomical $100,000 plus price tag. Um, my one thing that raised an eyebrow was the required permanent power pedestals for each vendor stall um is required. Um, one, how are we going to know how many vendors will show up, right? I I feel like saying each vendor stall needs to have a required, you know, permanent power pedestal. uh while that would be ideal and great and I know and we were discussing earlier it's to reduce noise by having generators for every you know food truck but that that was one thing that you know kind of caught my eye of if we're trying to reduce the price tag so that these can be created this is an additional cost that they have to bring you electrical for every single potential vendor that is going to be there, right? Um, yeah, that's my one thing with food courts. And I don't know if I necessarily agree with the wording of food courts if it's really food trucks. Um,

because I like like some people I think of food courts at an airport or a mall or something like that. And so that was the other thing when I read food courts. I'm like, why are we mandating this inside of a mall? We don't have a mall to, you know, have a food court. Um, but yeah, just

chairman, um, commissioners, um, two things. one with the number of stalls and the um and the required pedestals. There's there's a a couple of motivating factors here, you know, that we're trying to certainly trying to minimize uh uh nuisance intrusion, you know, uh with sound. So, if you're running off a pedestal, you're not running generators uh or things of that nature. Uh the other thing it does is is it It really kind of caps the nor the number of trucks you can have in in a location, you know. So, it eliminates the guy that, you know, the overcrowding, the pulling up, you know, not meeting the separation requirements because there are some other, you know, public safety requirements from a fire standpoint that, you know, that these trucks have to uh meet. So, I think that was the intention behind that, you know, uh those requirements. But um uh what I can do uh chairman I I think it's a valid question. Uh what I can do is uh DA and I can uh have a chat with the um chief building official tomorrow and see if maybe there is a um a better way to do that accomplish it. you know, uh the one thing I would say is that um you know, um uh it's we looked around at the different cities and it was a requirement that we found consistent with other cities. Um you know, more specifically, uh the one I'm most familiar with is the one up in Prescuit. Uh and and that way they kept it once, you know, once those spots are filled up and those pedestals are taken, you know, more trucks can't come in. So, uh I think um u I'll raise the question uh tomorrow. U again be happy to get back to u you tomorrow with an email

response. Is there anything else we want to add on that da? Yeah. So, um yeah, let me let me run it up the flag pole. um you know um and be happy to share with you what I can find out about it and and if there's more information behind that. Gotcha. And another question before going I just want to tag on to that just a little bit.

I actually think it's a it's a a great uh option for these trucks to have, you know, then they're not paying for for gas to run the generators and the noise and so on. Um and I think the pedestals really aren't the expense. There's probably 1,500 bucks to run run a ped depending on how how long the line is and so on. you know, to bring a 30 amp certainly compared to paving the parking lot. Yeah. You know, I think the bigger expense is actually there's going to have to be a power pole set somewhere. That's going to be the bigger expense. Um, and you know, have have that central, you know, power distribution point. From there, it just branches out. It's like bringing, you know, power back to your pool.

Yeah. Um, it wasn't necessarily like the pedestals themselves being the cost it was bringing that electrical there and the power pull and the distribute like as a whole just this line item is the thing I could key off of. So that's why I was my my only other thought on that because I agree with you. I mean these costs especially trying to get something running and helping you know talking to some of the people that were trying to do this year or so year or two ago. Um I don't know if there's a way to do a phased approach to it or like a percentage of you know stalls or something

almost like a temporary use permit and then within you know 180 days and you have to you have to meet this criteria and hopefully over the course of two or three years maybe it gets into like the cost of collective you know it's turned into a really nice thriving you know right you know focal point for the city um but it's not like I got to come up with 100 grand to even open the doors and these guys they only want to pay pay me 50 bucks a night to park my park my truck. Um it's it's hard to recoup your money on that you know that way. Um maybe there's some options there. So

well again chairman uh commissioners uh all good feedback you know um can take it back. We we've got a development re development review team meeting tomorrow morning. Um, we can run this up to flag pole and and and see what we can come up with. Um, I have no issue um um u writing up a summation of that and sending it to the four of you. Um it it may be yes, we're going to recommend this change. Um it may be we're going to leave it as is. I just don't know the answer to that yet. Commissioner Robertson,

I like hearing that, but I don't understand the mechanics of it. If we have to vote tonight on the language that's presented before us, and then you go back to your meetings and you come up with some changes, how does that how do the mechanics of that work? Do we you change it between us and city council and they see the final version?

Chairman, uh, members of the commission, that's exactly right, sir. Um now, um and and Nick, I would defer to Nick on this, but you know, we can go back and make some minor changes to this because in in general, it's it's conceptually what we're voting on here tonight. You know, obviously, if it were a major change to it or or some kind of significant uh uh revision to it, then we wouldn't be able to do that. Uh we would need to bring that back to you, you know, and and say, "Hey, we made some wholesale changes." That's why, you know, I'll get this information if we're going to make any subtle changes in that, you know, and I would consider if we, you know, if we just change the language a little bit on the pedestal requirement, you know, that may not be applicable in every in every location, you know, for example, if they go to the, you know, the Panal County courthouse where it's all paved and all, you're not going to be able to put, you know, Panal County might be open to that on a Sunday or a Friday. I'm just giving that as an example. Um, so let me go back run it, you know, run it back up flag pole, talk about it tomorrow, and if we're going to make some subtle revisions to that, then I will communicate with all of y'all uh via email letting you know what we do. But anything that were significant or major changes to it, then that would need to come back before you, sir.

Okay. Um for me, you've got two things on your list to go talk about. One is keeping the public transparency open in some portion and this thing about maybe changing the pedestal requirement. So I see two things that you should be talking about internally and then should it change between now tonight and it reaches council, council will know that there's been some modifications made based on input from the last council uh commission meeting.

Yeah. uh chairman uh members of the commission. Um when I put that that um uh council report together for them, there will be a planning and zoning commission section of that and it will capture not word for word but in general it'll capture all the conversation that we're having here tonight. Uh so it's going to be a big section for this one. Um, and so they will be fully aware of everything we've discussed here tonight. And if we make any changes to it, it will be in the planning zoning commission section of that staff report. Bill, also the parking for the heritage, I'm sorry, parking for the heritage district. That's right.

Now, the real question is, does that get put on council's consent agenda, which does not ever get discussed, but I digress. Um, one more question about food courts. Um, what was the thought process of no overnight parking um, for vendors? And the reason why I asked that is there's always been, oh, where do I park my food truck? I have like CAC thankfully allows people to park their food trucks, but you know, let's say the owner of a food truck wants to take it there the night before a food truck event. This is saying they can't park there. Um, so what's the thought process on limiting vendors parking their food trucks there overnight?

Uh, chairman, members of the commission, I think that there are I think there are a couple of factors in here. You know, one obviously there's an aesthetic value to um not parking the trucks there. You know, some folks are going to look at it, you know, um, we want to keep it nice and clean. We don't allow that type of outdoor storage anywhere else in the city. All right. Uh, CAC is under a different they're a different animal. They're a school. You know, there are specific regulations that we can't impose there. The other thing that I think you have to consider is is is local business. you know, the um you know, the the food truck was meant to and we authorized it and and permitted it on the premise that it's going to move, you know. So, if you know, you get a food truck that stays in one place all the time, you know, what is the impact that's having on your brickandmortar businesses, your restaurants that are already, you know, uh that weren't allowed to go in that and build in that residential area. they couldn't build their, you know, their commercial restaurant, you know. So there are, you know, unintended consequences of, you know, and and consequences to everything that we do. Um, so I think you have to take into consider it it's accumulation of all of those. You know, it's it's it's the outdoor storage issue. You know, where do you start to draw the line once you cross that line? Um, so we're just eliminating it from from day one. You can come in here on a Friday and Saturday night from six o'clock to essentially 10 o'clock, serve your meal, drive your truck home and park it in your backyard. you know, that's what the food truck, you know, court is intended to be, not a storage for your food truck, you know, and and we realize there is a is is a need for this, but you know, if we allow them to start, you

know, accumulating days and days and day, at what point do you become a restaurant, you know, or or a stationary if you don't move, then, you know, what's the impact that has on the brickandmortar guy, you know, that that's built his restaurant right down the street or or is, you renting a suite in a in a retail center to u you know serve his customers and I think so it's accumulation of all of that and I I think that's um again would you add anything to that um you know and and then the other thing I would I would just point out is again we looked at a lot of different cities you know and that was certainly not a common theme that we found in any of the others

I'd like to tag on that if I don't don't mean to step on your toes. Go ahead. See, I see it a little differently, right? Okay. Um I I've been to a couple different food truck parks, Austin, um Portland, San Diego, and these trucks are there. Yep. They parked there. This is their restaurant. is I think it's for two reasons. You know, one affordability and and and for us locally, you know, here in the city of Maricopa, we don't we're not Cassag Grand. We don't have an abundance of commercial space saying, "Hey, come build out, come tir our space, make it a restaurant." We don't have that here,

right?

This may help. You know, if having a, you know, a couple things here. Having a spot where a truck is there day in and day out. They can operate five days a week. They're always there. There's some advantages to that. It also allows them the ability to, you know, so the owner of this, you know, food food truck park, it allows them to say, "Okay, I'm going to rent this to you for for a month, for a six-month lease, for a one-year lease, whatever." And it's a it's a it's a financial generation for them to to reinvest into their park, hopefully. It's also a a set area for, you know, my truck to be able to sit there and I could put a a park bench there and I could put a little cover there and I can maybe beautify it a little bit to draw more customers,

right? One of my biggest challenges is, you know, I don't think anybody noticed, but I'm a bigger guy and uh, you know, I like to eat. [laughter] My big challenge with Maricopa is and I and I love to support small businesses here in our city. Yes.

Food trucks in our town do a terrible job of advertising where they are, when they're open, what they're serving, whether it be at the CAC, at in fries, and anywhere else. And I hate drive. I'm hungry. I want a hamburger. I want to go find and oh damn, they're not open. Okay, go try the next one. Go try the next one. Go try the next one. And there's a few food food trucks. You know, I look at the the hot sauce truck that's in front of the the uh uh the the the ammo place right there on on they're there every night. They're pretty much five, six days a week. They're in the exact same spot. My wife loves her tacos. She's having a craving. I know they're going to be there. And so I think there's some point of of having that ability to, you know, and maybe we don't do it on the whole park. Maybe it's limited to a certain number of spaces or a percentage or something. Maybe there's a happy medium here. I don't know. But I think there's some advantage and help these b these businesses grow and invest to hopefully then take that and then invest into a you know a future store or

u chairman uh commissioners. Excellent observation you know excellent point on there too. I would just point out a couple of things and I think that you know um this is our first crack at it. You know, u the other thing I'd point out is the majority of the heritage district are residential homes, you know, and not commercial entities. Uh if we're talking about the same food court in Austin, Texas on Barton Springs Boulevard right there by Zilker Park, you know, you've got commercial all the way around it. The one in Maui, commercial all the way around it. You know, the one I was talking about the one on Congress, but yeah, same same idea.

Yeah. I mean, it's in a it's in a commercial uh business park. um little bit different scenario. I think there's an apprehension uh with this initial code coming out to allow overnight parking where you know you you've got food trucks parked out there overnight every day next to folks you know who are living in their homes you know so I I would fully anticipate uh Commissioner Clobe that that this uh food court will you know uh organically evolve you know that I I think we're going to figure out what works here, what doesn't work here, and we're going to come back and we'll make minor amendments to it to, you know, to make it better and tweak it because I think there are some um uh locations possibly in the heritage district um and maybe even throughout the city, you know, that you know, maybe we need to reconsider this. But what we wanted to do was create a a situation where they could they could start doing business, you know, today with minimal improvements. uh but yet protective measures, you know, baked into the uh code that, you know, that protect the surrounding um uh residences that are existing. Um so I would fully anticipate that we'll, you know, this thing will evolve over time. Uh and it wouldn't surprise, we know they're popular. We know people want them. Uh and I I would see us making changes to this somewhere down the road in probably the not too distant future. Yeah, because this is kind of th this code is there to help the people develop a food court of trucks, right? And you're you mentioned, oh, why couldn't I build my, you know, restaurant, you know, in this area? Um, and to be honest, there's really nothing stopping anybody from parking their car

in a parking lot here and leaving it overnight. I see it all the time. Um, but I I do agree like Portland has areas where their food trucks there constantly and I know this is under the heritage, you know, section, but like you said, this could evolve to apply across the board, right?

Um, and we could come back and evolve it. Just, you know, something to consider when you have your meeting tomorrow because yes, I do agree. It's a pain to know, hey, where are these food trucks going to be? Oh, I don't know. I They're not at CAC tonight. They're over by CVS or they're in the fries parking lot. Being able to know for sure that, hey, food truck, you know, XYZ is always at this location and potentially another revenue generating aspect for the the management, I think would be a win-win across the board. Um, also, you know, oh, it's meant to go, you know, and they're move around and then go park your food truck in your backyard. HOAs don't allow that, right? And that's what every, you know, subdivision here is. They either are paying CAC or, you know, there for free or another storage unit. So I I don't agree with that comment of, you know, take it home with you afterwards and because then the HOA is after you. So and there's storage in the heritage district for that. I see food trucks parked there all the time right across the street from housing. So, I don't see this any different than that other than I can go get a taco from the food truck instead of you it just being parked under an awning

for I I think it's a interesting perspective. I understand 100% where you're coming from. I think the issue that we have right now today that that doesn't meet any of our outdoor storage requirements throughout the city, you know, and there is, you know, this is our first go at it. You know, there, you know, there are going to be some learning lessons. There's some apprehension that's coming with this. Um, you know, so we're trying to create something that's fair and enforceable. Sure.

You know, so I think this is a really good start and and I believe that we're going to learn from this. We're going to see how it evolves, you know, and we'll make the changes to this that we need to as we move forward, but I think it I think it's a again I think it's a fair set of standards to start with, you know, and let's see what happens. Cool. Any other questions, comments, concerns about the text amendments? Okay, so I do have a question on moving forward since this is an action item. There have been many things proposed including a notification system of sorts for pl prelim plats and final plats. Um, is that something we just have to say in the motion that there is some sort of notification about that to residents or how does that uh mr chairman as I understand from the discussion everyone gave Rick direction to have his meetings and then follow up after that and then specifically say if a section changes, he would identify it in the staff report. This is the change. Um, after discussion with PNZ, they had these recommendations. We talked about it with staff. This is now the new language because of that change. That I that's my understanding of it, which didn't need to be in a motion because that was direction given to Rick. Um, so we never actually directed notification distance or anything like that. We just said there needs to be notification. I think the minimum for us is 600 feet.

Chairman, um what I was going to and I agree with what Nick said. I mean, we didn't specifically get into it, but I think just for clarity, um, I think chair should direct staff, you know, to take a look at these other cities and how they're handling the notification requirements as a whole, you know, uh, for all the different applications and and what their requirements, how they're doing it, how are they effectively reaching uh, you know, their their their citizens. and I'll come back to you in in uh a few weeks and and and I'll share exactly what I find. You know, here's our process, here's other city processes, uh here's how they're going. I think that with respect to uh preliminary plats and final plats, I think it's a very valid question that, you know, how are we going to let people know, you know, and what is the process, you know, to um you know, protesting a plat uh moving forward? uh I can go look at the other cities uh because I know we're different already. I mean I you know in the cities I've worked in you know I know we had different requirements. So let me bring those to you know and and we'll you know we'll we'll create another text amendment if that's what we need to do and we'll fix that.

I I would add to that um social media. Yes. Having

good point. Um, and I I do want to commend I know we had some discussions on on the sign thing. Um, and I'm not trying to go off topic here, but as we're talking about about notifications, the the Buffalo Wild Wings sign, it popped up month or so ago on the site. I I live right down the street. I drive by there almost on a daily basis. And I loved having the ability, and this is recorded, so I hope I don't get a ticket, but being able to drive by and great big QR code that's about this big. I could hit it with my phone as I drove by, and I was like, "Oh, cool." [laughter] Um, it much better than little tiny text. And and, you know, I think that that maybe not for all of our, you know, maybe less technically savvy, you know, residents, but uh, I use QR codes all the time, and I really like that ability. And also ha here's what the other part that I like about it is that QR code then can be this living breathing document that is you know once you have access to that you can log in you can here's my email here's my whatever and as things change as things evolve as you know maybe it gets pushed back and maybe it gets you know continued to another date you can just keep updating that and then the email goes out goes out automatically to people. Yeah, I I I think you're absolutely right on that. And you know that um that QR code and that bigger sign came as a result of a text amendment wanting to reach, you know, more people. When I first got here, that was a 24 by 36 inch sign that we used for everything with no QR codes, you know. So, you know, that's what I'm Let's continue to work together. Let's identify these, you know, areas that we can improve and we can get better and and put staff to work for you, you know. Um, we are here. We need your help. We're here to work with you and and I will go research anything y'all want me to within reason. But, um,

so I guess one concern that I have and I don't know if others share it is what if you come back and go, "Nah, we're doing the same thing that every other city's doing." Not saying that we are, right? And then we want that's cool. We're doing everything that the city other cities are doing, but we want to be better, right? Because once we vote on this, this is our recommendation to city council. And then if city council approves it, it's kind of set in stone. There's no incentive, I'll say, for staff to come back and be like, "Oh, let's actually add some additional requirements, you know, for us to or the developer or whoever to send out, you know, the notifications." Uh I I feel like we're in a weird scenario where we have are kind of put in a position due to time constraints, not our fault. Um to approve this so that city council can approve it with enough time before the deadline with no guarantee in a sense that the notification process is going to be put in place. I guess is

Mr. Chair I I can answer that question. So if you let's just say right now you say Rick I want you to go give me bring back a study in 30 60 days about what other cities are doing for notification. He comes back and says here's what we're doing something consistent with what everyone else is doing 600 feet whatever the standard is you could say understood I want 900 feet bring back an amendment for 900 ft. the commission can rec and can put an agenda item on the next meeting. Well, it probably have to be a little bit delayed because you have to publicize and all that, but you could bring back an amendment to then forward to council.

Perfect. Rick, I would like you to do that. [laughter]

No, you know, and and chairman, I would my staff me and my staff, we we work for the residents here in the city of Maricopa. you know, you're all residents here in the city of Maricopa and we are directed by you. I'm the liaison to the planning and zoning commission, you know, so if you're going to direct me to go do that, I'm not going to mail it in. I'm not going to blow smoke. You know, I didn't do that with, you know, the u you know, we're just not built that way. We're here to make things better. We're here to serve the residents uh in the city of Maricopa, and that's what we're going to do. So whether it's we're consistent with everybody else, which I can already tell you we're not, you know, because the state requires a 300 foot radius. We went to six. Maybe we need to go to nine, you know, maybe we need to require uh social media. We've got a we've got a Facebook page, you know, and we've got every HOA's address in here. Maybe we need to bake into the, you know, the notification requirements, you know, that we that we notify all those. You know, we can do that working through you. It's, you know, That's what we're here to do. That's what we do. Um, so yeah, I'll take your direction. I'll go back and I'll start doing some research on this and I'll come back to you and and we'll make it better. The only thing that counts results and if it makes it better for the the citizens of Maricopa, then that's what we're going to do. Ultimately, you know, council's going to, you know, uh, vote approve, but we will will send something that's, you know, hard you know, it's hard to not support.

Yeah. Um, could I add on to that directive of I would kind of like to see what our notification process require requirements for kind of each step of the development process, whether that's a prelim, final plat, DRP, just so that it's kind of out there. I would also include general plan. Yep. Yeah. Sure. I'm going to chairman I'm going to bring you every application we have and what the requirement is for it and I'm going to go look at all the different cities and see what their requirements are for it. Awesome. You know, and what methods they're using to notify their residents.

Yeah. I I I know that there are going to be some variables out there um because I've worked in four other cities and I know we what those you know just those do, you know. So, I'll I'll gather that up. I'll make it legible so we can all read it and let's sit down and talk about it, you know, and figure out what's best for the residents of Maricopa and we'll move forward with that. Perfect. real quick on since we're kind of on this subject of uh directing staff. I it came up tonight when we were talking about the the Buffalo Wild Wings and and I brought it up before

in in as a design professional in this day and age, everybody's doing everything in 3D. I don't know of any any of their larger firms that are doing the static two-dimensional stuff except for when it comes to these, you know, these submissions, you know, front elevation, side elevation, whatever. I would, and that's fine, you know, having those in there. I would I would like staff to look at what other cities are doing and or maybe even we amend our requirements to require three-dimensional views. It doesn't have to be fully landscape renderings, but some level of threedimensional views that capture could just be two views. One from the, you know, southwest corner from one from the northeast corner. You pick up both all four sides of a building with those two views and it really puts the the building in perspective of what's really being built and and it, you know, it it doesn't get lost in the shuffle and and we're not asking for something that they're not already they're not they're already creating for their their clients. Um they want it for marketing, for funding, for whatever. Um I I think that would give a much better look and feel for the projects that are coming here you know for our residents the transparency thing again and I think even from us as a you know on the dis here just to to really get a big picture of what this building is going to look like and uh I think that might even you know solve some of the challenges that some of these projects have had.

Yeah. U chairman commissioners um we've had some preliminary discussions about that already. you know, uh I know we've in-house, you know, thought about, uh, you know, that being a requirement. Um, obviously there's a cost associated with that request. Um, you know, and a a cost by who? By the applicant.

See, I I would disagree with that. most most of the firms that that that I work and consult for and even my own projects um the Revit is the big thing, you know, if you're already if you're already doing your floor plans in Revit, you're already creating your models, right?

And so they're they're it takes just as long to do a threedimensional view as it is to do a static two-dimensional view. Uh so uh just out of curiosity, would you require that at the preapp stage or would you require that at at an actual submitt stage? And where I'm going with this is is that um you know I agree with you 100% that the you know um the targets and some of the you know the the Wendy's and pandas and all that you know they can but you know we did uh we've done uh 60 pre-application meetings this year

and I would say at least a third of those are mom and pop coming in off the street wanting to do something you know. Uh, so to get a 3D rendering for mom and pop coming in, you know, that that's not as easy as the Wendy's and the Starbucks and some of these others, you know, I mean, and you know, they have they'd have to go hire a professional to be able to do that. Um, so again, you know, it's we've talked about it. We've started, you know, looking at at, you know, the ability to require that. When do we require it? Do we do we need it at preapp or do we need it at at first submitt? Uh, because we all like the way they look. uh commissioner, there's no question about it. So, um

I don't I don't know that it's needed a preapp. Um I know all the pre-apps that I've done with the city, I've always included it. I got one coming probably next week that will include it. Um but it it's because I want to make sure that that you know, my design intent is is is driven home. Um but it preapp I think it's so preliminary anyway. I don't I don't see it requirement there. I think that if we're coming through as a major development review process, you know, basically like where we came in tonight with, you know, with both both projects that came in tonight, I I think that'd be an appropriate time because professionals should be, you know, involved at that point anyway, especially if it's commercial.

Okay. No, I I made a note of it, uh, Commissioner, and u I'll bring the subject up again with, you know, my team and and the development services department, and we'll see where it goes. All right. So, based on the fact that we are recommending staff to one look into notifications, looking into the Heritage District parking, what were your items? It's been so long. Okay. Public. Okay. And then there was one power pedestals, right? Those are the power pedestals. And then I just asked for the 3D renderings

and 3D renderings. That's not really for text 25-01. I'm just saying I'm just saying for 25 more like Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think that's all the recommendations that we had for 25-01. Right. Correct. Okay. That being said, do I have a motion to approve TXT 25-01 with those recommendations to staff? I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a second. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Nay. That motion passes 3 to one.

That takes us to agenda item eight, reports from commission and/or staff. Talk a little bit about future uh planning commission meetings. Um uh today was the deadline for the notification process um to make the November 10th meeting. So we will not be having a meeting um uh on November 10th. Uh the next scheduled meeting is uh November 24th. That's the week of Thanksgiving. Um you notice I I put no meeting though subject to change. uh if something comes in and we need to get to that meeting, then you know, we've essentially got three weeks from today to be able to meet that notification requirement. Um you know, I don't like going a month without having a meeting. Um but right now, um you um I don't have anything for the 10th and we're, you know, we're three weeks out on on the 24th. Uh we're coming back to you on December 8th. Uh we have regular zoning items and we also have a legislative update uh from Rudy that's coming your way on uh December 8th. Uh the December 22nd meeting obviously because of the proximity to Christmas and and the unavailability of city staff typically that week. Uh we will not be meeting um in December. Uh just a couple of things on the horizon that I don't have on this sheet. Uh we've got a new planning commissioner that's being sworn in uh next week, I believe it is. Uh, so I hope to have him um or she, I'm I'm not sure, um, available at that December 8th meeting. Um, and then we will start coming back to y'all uh, in January. We're going to start a quarterly process bringingformational

items to you similar to what we did a couple of weeks ago. uh not only from a legislative standpoint but um um just from a educational standpoint not for staff for you uh and for the general public as well. So I'm really looking forward to um uh 2026. Uh obviously in January we'll have a chair and vice chair uh election. Uh and we're going to do a few other things in January that I'll share with you all later. But um that just kind of gets you up to So, no meeting on the 10th. Uh, we're moving towards November 24th. We'll see if that what we have come in for that. If I get anything in the next three weeks, then we'll have the meeting on the November 24th. I know for a fact I've got December 8th locked up now. So, with that, that concludes my reports from staff. And, um, thank you, sir.

Awesome. And I don't think we need an executive session. No. All right. No. Okay. Uh okay. on legisar today when you for this meeting when you opened up the agenda it was parks and recreation commission agenda not ours just FYI on legisar when you open up today you go to our meeting and you'll go to details and go to agenda and you click that agenda it opened for me it opened up the parks and recreation agenda so it didn't have any of our stuff on it All

no, under details, it had everything, but the there's a separate details and agenda. When you open the agenda, it took you to the park and recreation agenda. Just FYI. Yeah, I I've just opened it. It It might have been a earlier thing. So, they've at least corrected any issues. So, it does open now as planning and zoning commission because I opened it at 5:00 501. Thank you, fellas. Did we We adjourn. Nope, not yet. Uh, all right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? A motion. All right. I have a motion to have a second. Second. All right. We are adjourned.