Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It looks like the auditorium's muted for us on GoTo Webinar again. Sorry about that. Can you hear us now?

Yes. Right. We're going to do roll call and we got feedback. Got feedback.

[laughter]

Hernandez. Yeah, we get the feedback every time. Testing. Testing. David, can you hear us now or can you hear me?

Yeah, if it sounds good with limited echup. Okay. Yes. Commissioner Hernandez, can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Hernandez, you can hear us or someone online? Yep, I got you. Let's do roll call. Let's get this going. Commissioner Dan Zeiss. Commissioner Finter.

Yes. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Lawrence here. Commissioner Leighton here. Chairman Lindlam here. Vice Chair Mil Haven here. Commissioner Rockwallik here. Commissioner Toma here. And Commissioner Whitney here. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Awesome. Um, I'll go ahead and do the announcements before we dive into the rest of the stuff, just because I'm going to. All right. This meeting's been noticed in accordance with open meeting laws under Arizona Revised Statute Section 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the planning and development website one week prior to hearing at mar www.mmarcopa.gov/planning. The staff reports prepared for each agenda item shall become a part of the permanent record for each case. With respect to hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the commission. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present. Anyone wishing to speak on a particular case shall fill out a speaker's card for in-person attendance or raise your hand within the goto webinar. And the amount of time allowed for speaking shall be at the discretion of the commission chair. Staff will provide the chairman with the names of persons who have registered and noted a desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chairman will call on each named participant one at a time. The chairman will conduct a hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chairman regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only and the chairman will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds. All right. Um, and then let's just go ahead and do the minutes part as well. Uh, we have the November 6, 2025 minutes and the November 20th, 2025 zipper. Is

there any comments by the commission on any changes needed to be made? Hearing none, we'll put those into the record. All right, this is a good part. Uh we'll go to elections of officers which means um we get a new chairman and vice chair which is great. Uh I I do I do want to say just briefly I appreciate um each of you. This this uh commission has um been really good. One of the best um since I've been on um the commission for many years. And I just appreciate each of you for being here in person. Uh I had to travel quite a bit this year um with the Arizona Commerce Authority uh in some of my other roles as part of a delegation, some economic development delegations and you were great about covering and appreciate that uh Vice Chair Milhaven and others were always willing to step in. So thank you and to staff uh you're rock stars and I love how you work with the community in a dignified and um really respectful way. And so, um, kudos to the county on just being awesome. And I think we accomplished some pretty amazing things this year, especially with some of the amendments on the the codes and like I can't believe you accomplished that this year. It was awesome. So, thank you. Great to be a part of you and um continue. I'm looking forward to just being a normal commissioner next year. So uh with that we can start a discussion around um or I'll take a motion for a chairman on for 2026.

Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Um first of all, thank you for your leadership this past year. It's been an honor to work with you. Thank you. Um congratulations on a very successful year here. Thank you. I would like to uh nominate or make a motion um that we elect Commissioner Milhaven as chair. Do I have a second for that or second? Okay, we have a second. I Let's uh Is there any other motions or hearing none? If any objections, we'll go ahead and vote on that. Let's go ahead and vote on that. Commissioner Finter, yes. Commissioner Hernandez, yes.

Commissioner Lawrence, yes. Commissioner Leighton, yes. Hopefully [laughter] for yourself. Commissioner Limblum. I'm a big yes on that. Commissioner Milhaven, can I abstain? Yes. [laughter] Commissioner Rockwall. Yes. Commissioner Toma, yes. Commissioner Whitney, yes.

Chairman, we have a motion electing Vice Chair Mull Haven to chairman by a vote of that's 8 to zero. Awesome. That's wonderful. Um yeah, you were great this year as vice chair. I love that. Um, do I get to just turn it over to her now and let her do the rest? Yeah, I think I will. I'm going to turn it over. I'm going to give you this gavvel. You can keep this. It's official. Thank you all very much. All right. So, moving on. We need to elect a vice chair. Do we have a motion to nominate a vice chair?

Oh, I'll make one. Uh, I'll make a motion to um elect Commissioner Hernandez as a vice chair if he's willing to do it. Commissioner Hernandez. Yes. Yeah, I'll do it. Great. Be more than happy to. Thank you, Eric. All right, we have uh a motion and a second. All those in favor? Oh. Oh, we need a roll call. Thank you, Commissioner Finter. Yes. Commissioner Hernandez. Yes. Commissioner Lawrence. Yes. Commissioner Leighton.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Limblum. Yes. Chair Mil Haven. Yes. Commissioner Rockwallik. Yes. Commissioner Toma. Yes. Commissioner Whitney. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion electing Commissioner Hernandez to be vice chair by a vote of nine to zero. Thank you. And congratulations, Commissioner Hernand uh Hernandez. Yes. Awesome. Thank you, guys. All right. Next order of business is approval of planning and zoning commission bylaws. Do we need a presentation or do you just need a motion and a second?

Madam Chair, we just need a motion real quickly. The only changes are we have inserted language about temporary use permits which are now coming to you for disposition, but previously they went to the uh board of adjustment, but it's part of the MCO update. We're bringing them to the commission because you you meet twice a month instead of once. And then there's other language updating uh how the chair could call create special committees for special studies. Uh but that is all. All righty. So, do we have a motion? Do you have a motion to approve the uh changes to the commission bylaws? I will make the motion to approve. Second. All right, we'll have a roll call. I'm sorry. U Commissioner Whitney.

Commissioner Finter. Yes. Vice Chair Hernandez. Yes. Commissioner Lawrence. Yes, Commissioner Leighton. Yes, Commissioner Limblum. Yes, Chair Mohaven. Yes, Commissioner Rockwallik. Yes. Commissioner Toma, yes. Commissioner Whitney, yes.

Chair, we have a motion approving the bylaws by a vote of 9 to zero. Thank you. Next item is continuence agenda. Madam Chair, there's a single item Z250021 known as Royal Landscaping District 2. It's a C3 reszoning. The applicants continue that to January 22nd. No actions necessary by the commission. Thank you. And let's move to consent.

Uh madam chair, commissioners, we have five it four items that remain on consent today. They are CPA25009 and Z250027 known as NEC 491st Avenue and Thomas Road in district 5. It's a comp plan amendment to create a utilities land use designation over the site that is also being reszoned to industrial 2 IUPD on 638 acres at the northeast corner of Thomas and 491st Avenue in the Harko Halo Valley. Uh there's no known opposition. The recommendations are for approval of the CPA in paragraph 18 and approval of the zoning in paragraph 19 subject to conditions A through J. And then we have uh case MCP250010 known as all things metal 15acre expansion in district 4. This is expansion of a military compatibility permit for a steel fabrication and storage facility in the rural 43 MAMF zoning district on 15 acres west of the southwest corner of 195th Avenue in Jax in the Whitman area. Uh there's no known opposition at this time. The recommendation is for approval uh subject conditions A through H and paragraph 25. Uh the final consent item is Z25008 known as Calvary Chapel Arise. This was continued from December 4th. It's in district 4. It's a C2 reszoning uh southeast of the southeast corner of 23rd Avenue and Grand Avenue in the Whitman area. Uh it's a one and a half acre site. There's no known opposition. The recommendation is for approval. Uh subject conditions A through H and paragraph 13. Happy to try and answer any questions you have on the consent items.

Thank you. Commissioners have any comments or questions? Hearing none, I'll accept a motion to recommend approval. So moved. Commissioner Toma moves and Commissioner Limb seconds. We'll have a roll call. Commissioner Finter, yes. Vice Chair Hernandez, yes. Commissioner Lawrence, yes. Commissioner Leighton, yes. Commissioner Limblum. Yes. Chair Mil Haven. Yes. Commissioner Rockwallik. Yes. Commissioner Toma. Yes.

Commissioner Whitney. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval of the consent agenda by a vote of 9 to zero.

Thank you very Thank you. We'll move to regular agenda begin with item six. [clears throat] Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and members commission. Uh, this item is a request for a modification of conditions associated with a previously approved R16RUPD zoning case known as Riverwalk, uh, located at the northeast corner of 99th Avenue and Olive Avenue. Next slide. Uh the applicant is requesting primarily to remove condition G uh which requires the subdivision to be age restricted uh with at least one household member being 55 years of age or older. Uh the site was reszoned in 2021 under KC 20213 and was subsequently platted in 2024 for 89 single family lots. Uh the subdivision is currently under active development. Uh while the project was approved with a age restriction condition uh which is that condition G, uh the site is not located within the senior citizen overlay uh as established under MCCO section 1006. Uh importantly, the age restriction condition that was approved with Z2023 uh Z 20213 is not uh the same standard that applies within the senior citizen overlay. As written, it only requires one household member to be over the age of 55 and does not restrict the presence of minors from the development. Uh that condition was added to better align the project with the Sun City uh neighborhoods. Uh next slide. Uh since the original approval, the White Tank Grand Avenue area plan was updated in 2023. As part of that update, the prior retirement community land use designation uh was removed entirely. The site is now designated single family transitional lot and there's no longer a policy basis in the area plan uh requiring age restriction uh housing at this location. Uh removal of this condition would not affect Sun

City senior citizen overlay nor would it undermine age restricted requirements elsewhere. Uh staff also notes that no changes are proposed to the uh prior approved site plan layout or development standards. And for those reasons, staff is recommending the commission make a recommendation of approval to the board of supervisors uh subject to the modified condition A and the removal condition G of the remaining conditions reumbered accordingly. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Commissioners have any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to speak?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Ashley Marsh Gamage and Burnham 40 North Central for your records here on behalf of Lenarm Homes on Broadwalk. I do have a presentation. I'm happy to run through uh a couple sides or respond to um any opposition at your preference. Madam Chair, why don't we hear public comment and then we'll bring you back. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have public comment. Anybody get from the public to speak? No. Is it is there anybody online? Oh, nobody online indicating they'd like to speak. Madam

Chair, yes. Uh, Commissioner Toma, um, could you put the number back up so I can get the case number right? Thank you. Uh, I motion we approve Z250035. uh as circulated. Second motion made by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Rockwall. We'll have a roll call. Commissioner Finter, yes. Vice Chair Hernandez, yes. Commissioner Lawrence, yes.

Commissioner Leighton, yes. Did you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Want to stop second. There's two people with their hands raised. There are. Yeah. And I am sorry we didn't catch this before the vote started. There are two people online that I think wish to speak. Absolutely. Okay. We'll suspend the vote. We'll if we'll make we'll start all over. We'll let uh public speak. Apologies, Commissioner. I think they raised their hand after. That's fine. We'll let let them. Okay. Yeah.

Chairman, I have Caroline Campos available to speak. All righty. Please go ahead. Thank you for joining us. Hello. I am here um representing Brookallo Apartments. Um the owner of the property is also online and I would prefer for him to speak. Donald Berg. Certainly, Mr. Burke, please go ahead. Yeah, I I have Mr. Berg enabled. Uh, he just needs to unmute his mic and he should be able to speak.

Mr. B. It shows I'm connected. Yeah, I I'm not sure why it's his microphone shows disabled. He's connected, but it's not enabled. Um, I'm not sure that I can do anything other than enable his mic and You don't have to talk to me. I can't make it work. I I can actually put you on speaker and they can listen to you right now because I'm unmuted.

You can you can speak for us. Okay. All right. Thank you. Bye.

Hi, this is Caroline Campos and I I'm speaking on behalf of Bcalo Apartments and Donald Berg, the owner of the property. Um our consensus is that we have the adjacent property line to the new project and on um the corner of 99th and Olive on 99th itself there is a huge sign that says welcome to Sun City. And then um east of the property going toward the freeway there is also another sign as you're going westbound on Olive stating the same thing. Um, our complex is a 55 and over complex and the one next door, Sunwood, also is one and we are in opposition to changing the status.

Thank Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wants to speak? Could Madam Chair, could I just ask that person a question? Sure. Is the reason you feel that it'll change the nature of the community or what's the concern? You just said you're opposed to it, but why? Well, we believe that

that when when I'm leasing the apartments, I often get asked if it's 55 and over, if the community is 55 and over, um, a big cell here is that reason is that it's a retirement style community. If there is families on the other side of the fence from us, it will probably hurt our business. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Certainly, Commissioner Rockwell.

Um, and this might actually be for the applicant. Um, the stipulation is just that one home has to be somebody that is 55 or older, or is it that all homes have to be 55 or older? Madame Chair, Commissioner, the stipulation right now, condition G, is that one household resident be 55 or older. So, how many homes are being proposed? 89. There are 89 lots. So, theoretically, 88 homes could still have families.

Theoretically, 89 homes could still have families. Um, as long as one household resident is 55 or older. So, it's unlike other properties in the area. It's not subject to that SC overlay. Um there will be children here. We are just trying to remove that one household member designate. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes. Just to make sure we're on the same page, uh one resident of each household is stipulated to be at least 55. They may have kids. So, there's an age restriction on every house in this zoning district. That's different than the senior citizen overlay which applies to the majority of Sun City to the west and north or to the northwest and north uh where every uh house is expected to have at least one resident of 55 years or greater and no dwellings are to have anyone under 19. Um, so it's a different age restriction because it is a uh date restriction requirement that was a condition of the zoning approval and it's not part of the uh senior citizen overlay zoning district. It's important to note this is the very southeast corner of u what people are calling sun city. If you go to the south or east there's no age restrictions uh for zoning.

No, I I appreciate that um clarification. Um I guess the the [clears throat] opponent's concern was that there would be kids in the community. Um and it sounds like from your explanation and the applicant's uh description that um theoretically 89 homes could be late in life families and kids are still allowed within the community. It could be uh or grandparents serving as right uh that is correct uh madam chair and commissioners commissioner rockqualik there is nothing to prevent children being in this specific zoning district this specific subdivision today madam madam chair done commissioner l

um and just for clarification this is and as far as general the comprehensive plan like this is outside of all the overlays is what you said like and and there hasn't been any This is the only objection we've received. Chair Milheimman, uh, Commissioner Lmbol is correct. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. uh, Madam Chair, commissioners. Yeah. U, this has no bearing on Sun City proper. This does not impact or negate the senior citizen overlay in those neighborhoods to the northwest and north.

Any other comments or questions from commissioners? I I'll just make a comment. I'm very supportive of this at a time where housing is more and more expensive. I love these types of opportunities where we don't put these restrictions where um for whatever reason kids and someone there's a I would even remove the 55, but um I'm if applicant's great with what it is, we'll leave it like it is in my opinion. We are removing. Well, we're leaving 155. No, we're not. Thank you. And I'm still leaving better with that. Yes. [laughter] Yes. Okay. Good. Then we got what I want.

Okay. Should we make another motion and start again or continue? Yeah. Okay. So, we'll uh I'll accept the recommendation. Commissioner Tom, I I move we approve Z250035 as circulated. And I will second again. Motion made by Commissioner Tilman, second by Commissioner Rockwallik. We'll have a roll call. Commissioner Finter. Yes. Vice Chair Hernandez, yes. Commissioner Lawrence, yes. Commissioner Leightton, yes. Commissioner Limblum, yes. Chair Mohaven, yes. Commissioner Rockwallik, yes. Commissioner Toma,

yes. Commissioner Whitney, yes. Chair, we have a motion recommending approval. Thank you. By a vote of 9 to zero.

Thank you. Uh item number seven. Good morning members of the commission. Uh this is case Z250023 Sonor and Serenity. The applicant is requesting a zone change with overlay from rule 43 to R135 RUPD for a future residential subdivision on a 97 acre site located in the Whitman area. The site is impacted by a wash with floodways and a flood plane, making development on the site difficult. The developer will be channelizing the wash, incorporating flood mitigation defenses. According to the applicant, this type of development will greatly improve the flow of storm water and mitigate area flooding, especially with newly added flood retention basins throughout the subdivision, future subdivision. The plan on this site is to subdivide up to 97 single family residential lots for a density of approximately 1 acre, one dwelling unit per acre. Uh the proposed RUPD overlay is to allow for smaller and narrow lots to maintain this density despite a wash traversing the site. The after uh determination of the zone change application, the applicant will start a pulary plat process. During this process, it's going to involve Clomar Lomars which will be processed with FEMA and the county's flood control district. At this time, there is no subdivision layout and the only amenity proposed is

natural open space, which will be the wash area. Water services is provided by a private utility provider, but wastewater will be treated by private septic systems on each lot. Even though the county subdivision regulations mentions that septic systems on individual lots less than one acre is not preferred. Since the uh publishing of the staff report, staff discovered a mapping error for the parcel directly to the north of the site. The true zoning of the site is not rural 43, but in fact is a R16 RUPD and is part of the Walden Ranch future development community that's entitled to place lots with densities of three to five Dolan units per acre. During the public participation process, staff received nine letters of opposition, most of which were were from neighboring residences. Opposition focuses on concern about density on the site, water concerns, flooding concerns, and possible increase of area traffic. Staff are in support of this zone change request. Even though the R135 RUPD zoning district could pragmatically raise the overall residential density of the site, the constraining layouts of the site and the existing floodway flood plane size will limit the density of this site to approximately one acre, one dwelling unit per acre. This density can only be achieved by engineering the natural wash traversing the site and allowing for smaller and narrower lots. The reasonzoning request, while not necessarily inconsistent with planning goals and policies of the county, is arguably not furthering the goals and policies. The reasons for this reasonzoning would seem to be to ensure a certain lot yield on this site. Having said that, the R135 zoning will remain the area's large lot aesthetics. Staff recommends the commission recommend approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. And this concludes uh staff's presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from commissioners? Commissioner Rockwell,

we have a question for staff. You guys um kept saying that with the open space, it is still one dwelling unit per acre. That is correct. Commission. Taking out the the open space, what is the the density? If you remove the open space and remove the wash, theoretically with R135, you could really probably go to about two dwelling units per acre. However, with that wash, I it'd be very it's going to be really restricted. the way the the lot is currently laid out, right? So, so with the current lot sizes, yes,

without So, you're saying without without the the open space, the current lot sizes are two dwelling units per acre. It could potentially be that and going if you go by these plot sizes that are being requested on there, but but due to the wash on the site and due to the way the site is uniquely shaped, it'd be very very hard to actually try to do that in a plat. It would really remain at the one acre one dwelling unit per acre. Okay. And it's 97 acre lot. So are there 97 homes? It would be 97 homes, but due to the lots are going to have 30,000 square ft minimized lot sizes, it would kind of control that.

Okay. So I understand right the current zoning if you build if you did a grid every parcel would be one acre. But what we're saying here is a parcel could be less than one acre but overall it won't be more than one home per acre. Correct. Given the open space which would not be part of anybody's individually owned parcel right and since it is floodway it would not be possible to build. So there'd be designated over space that would belong to nobody or [clears throat] to the committee would belong to way perhaps. Right. No I I I guess I understand that. Um, if there are 97 acres but not all 97 acres are developable, then you're not but and it's one dwelling unit per acre. The individual parcels are not one acre.

I No, I got that. I guess then my question is taking taking out the open space, what is what what would that density be? It's not one dwelling unit per acre because you can't with the open space. you have smaller homes, then theoretically you have a denser product than one dwelling unit per acre. No, Mr. Madam Chair, uh, Commissioner Rockwell, that's correct. Okay. I'm I am really a poor math person, but uh, [laughter] you're how many how many acres are right now are being designated as open space? Can you answer that? We don't have the subdivision plat so I'm not sure we can answer that specifically but it is correct

that the wash the natural wash the flood plane the floodway is undevelopable they're going to engineer to make it smaller correct they're going to call that common open space but it is a wash only it's not a recreational amenity um they are with that they are maintaining the gross one unit per acre u so uh But I will say uh I said gross, I should say net because it's net of roads, right? So uh uh instead of a in in a regular lot split area that's rule 43, you tend to have an acre and a quarter lot, right?

To meet that to meet that size. Uh and these are going to be under 3/4 acre lots. So got it. It is about 50%. It's not double, but it's It's probably 1.5 dwellings to the acre. Okay. If you take away the the wall. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for Thank you, Mr. Gerard, for the clarification. Uh if there are no other comments or questions, we'll hear from the applicant.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. My name is Michael Ripsson, and I represent the applicant for this case. And first off, I have to apologize for my voice. It's pretty raspy this morning, so hopefully you can hear me and understand me. Uh you've just heard staff's report so I won't duplicate their details. I will focus on the key takeaways the emphasize the purpose of this resoning and address neighbors concerns. What this request Oh, can somebody run the slides? Okay. [clears throat] What this request does versus does not do, it restores what's already allowed, 97 homes, one per acre as currently entitled under the Grand Avenue Area Plan. It does not add density, people, traffic, or water demand. What it does do is make the property buildable again by solving the floodway problem and protecting the neighbors. It adds open space and preserves the large lot rural horsefriendly character this community values. Here's the issue. A FEMA floodway now bisects the property diagonally. That's the red area on the map there. A large portion of the site has become unbuildable. Under R U43 zoning, which requires 1 acre lots, this project is not feasible. Houses cannot be built in that floodway. So, this floodway is eaten at least 20% of the original number of houses that was entitled. By reszoning to R135,

we reduced the minimum lot size, but only modestly to 80% of an acre, which are still very large lots. This slightly smaller lot size along with the RUPD flexibility make it possible to fit the original 97 lots. Restoring the lot count makes the project financially feasible. This enables the wash to be channelized which protects both the site and the neighbors and it also creates valuable open space. Now, a handful of neighbors have expressed some concerns about this resoning. We understand those concerns, but the concerns stem from misconceptions. So, we want to clear those up. The biggest concern is that smaller lots won't fit space, won't fit the general area of the site, that they will harm large lot integrity, and will lower property values. However, it is key to remember that we have exactly the same density as the neighbors, one unit per acre. Here's what's going on. Our lot size is only slightly smaller, 80% of an acre versus 1 acre. And that missing 20% is what the neighbors have already lost in their own onl lot retention basins. In the image at the left there, the blue areas at the rear of each of those lots are retention basins. The neighbors cannot build anything in those basins, which are basically unusable gravel pits. Instead of each home having its own retention basin, we create shared open basins and the wash becomes a channelized green corridor, all maintained by an HOA. The result is better flood management, large lot appeal, horse rights are preserved under RU 135

or R1 135 or UPD and open areas that actually look better, work better, and increase visual and recreational value for everyone. Now, we're not the only folks who believe this zoning request fits the area. Two expert planning agencies agree. You just heard staff's report endorsing this and we maintain the rural large lot feel. In addition, in a separate opinion, the planning manager of the city surprise has also said that this resoning is quote consistent with the rural character of the area. Now, let's touch again on that flooding problem for a moment right now. Maybe even today, who knows? stream. Uh neighbors are being flooded by that uncontrolled wash and they think we will make it worse. But in reality, this resoning is the only practical path to fix that flooding problem. And it does so without any cost to the county. Here's why. County engineering staff have told us that the fix is to channelize that wash. The problem is the huge cost to channelize it. And the only way to do it without taxpayer dollars is through private development of this property. Under the existing RU43 zoning, this housing project is just not viable. There are simply not enough houses to justify that cost. R135 RUPD restores the 97 entitled lots which makes housing project viable. The channel can be funded privately and the neighbors benefit directly. their properties are removed from the flood plane, their flood risk is dramatically reduced, and their flood insurance requirements go away. So, we actually

improve the neighbors property values and their peace of mind. Some neighbors have also expressed concern about stress on infrastructure, water, roads, and so forth. But as we have already noted, this resoning does not change the density. There is no change to the comprehensive Grand Avenue area plan. We are not asking for more houses than we're entitled. Therefore, and by definition, this request does not impact the infrastructure. Did I think I hit a wrong button? Sorry. It doesn't look like ours. I'm missing a slide. Uh but this is a this is a summary. Anyhow, uh in summary, this resoning doesn't add density. It simply restores our rights under the area plan. It's it it financially enables the flood channel that will protect the neighbors, turning a recurring problem into a lasting solution. And it creates open space that is actually useful while enhancing the look of the community. The rural lifestyle that people love here stays here. Large lots, open space, and the right to keep horses. And because the flood plane is removed, properties next door become safer, more secure, and more valuable. This is a balanced neighborhood focused plan that fixes flooding, preserves rural character, and adds value. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rickson. Any commissioners have questions for the applicant? No. Do we have any public comment? Is there anyone online?

Madam Chair, I'm not seeing anybody online with their hands raised currently. Thank you, Commissioner Milheim. This is Commissioner Leighton. I' I'd like to make a couple statements.

Thank you. Please go ahead. Um, this project is in district 4, which is Mihi and myself's district. I'm very familiar with Mr. Ribson's build. He's an excellent professional builder. One of the things he did not bring up was that he actually built the development that is next door immediately to the west that has people complaining about this. Um, one of my points early on was that we actually have Walden Ranch in the area, which is going to go directly north of this parcel with three to five houses per acre. So, in the industry, a 35,000 square foot lot is considered a commercial acre. That's the term they use. I'm very familiar with that type of build. I do not see this being a detriment whatsoever to the community.

Thank you, Commissioner Leighton. Any other commissioners have any comments? All right, Commissioner Toma. Yeah, this is Commissioner Toma. Yeah, I I'm also supportive of of uh of this resoning. if I can appreciate the arguments around property values going down, but I think some of the reasons he stated uh as well as just the fact that it's uh 30,000 to 35,000 ft, the likelihood is that it'll actually increase property values, not decrease property values. Um and although I don't find the economic argument around 97 homes particularly um uh convincing, there are many other reasons to approve this.

Thank you, Commissioner Toma. Any other comments? Hearing none, I'll accept a motion. Uh we did we asked on public comment the attorneys. Yeah. And and they there was none. So thank you. Thank you though. I move this commissioner Toma. I move we approve Z250023 as circulated. This is Commissioner Leighton. I second. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Tomat, seconded by Commissioner Leighton. We'll have a roll call, please. Commissioner Finter. Yes. Vice Chair Hernandez.

Yes. [clears throat] Commissioner Lawrence.

Commissioner Leighton. Yes. Commissioner Limblown. Yes. Chair Mil Haven. Yes. Commissioner Rockwallik. Yes. Commissioner Toma, yes. Commissioner Whitney, yes. Chair, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of 8 to zero. Thank you. Thank you very much. Move on to item number eight, Lynn Property Caretaker Quarters.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Case T250049 is a request for a temporary caretaker quarters on the Lynn property located at 7419 East Culver Street in the East Mesa area. According to the property owner, a caretaker is needed to assist a family member with a disability with activities of daily living. Uh per the owner, the caretaker currently requires a separate living arrangement that an RV can provide. However, this request follows three code violations that have been opened on the property since the current owner took possession in January 2021. Shall I keep going? They're leaving. Yeah. Right. Okay.

Okay, we're good. Okay. So, uh the first violation was open in early March of that year and alleged multiple occupied RVs in an occupied garage, implying that either the attached or the detached garage was being used as habitable space. Uh, a second violation was opened in December 2023, uh, which alleged that the owner was running a trailer park on the lot, accumulating junk, trash, and debris, storing inoperable vehicles, and making unpermitted building additions to the detached garage. Uh, now, these first two violations were each closed upon initial inspection. However, the third violation reported last October was verified by code compliance staff. Uh the notice in order to comply confirmed that multiple rental rooms were being added to the home without required permits, that garages were being occupied, that inoperable vehicles were being stored on site, uh and that junk trash and debris were accumulating. Uh this violation was still open when the owner submitted this temporary use permit request, uh but was closed on December 16th upon an inspection showing that the junk trash and debris had been removed and that the RVs on site were not being occupied. Uh, nevertheless, sta staff received four letters of opposition to this temporary use permit during the posting period. Uh, the consensus of the opposition parallels the complaints that were made in the preceding violations and argues that a TUP would be inappropriate for a property with such violations. Uh, based on the complaints received with these opposition letters, staff did open a new code violation for investigation on December 29th. uh as alleged in at least two of the letters, staff research confirmed that at least one room inside the home is being listed for rent online. Uh altogether uh the history of code violations on the property, the photographic evidence showing uh current or recent site conditions as documented in the staff report uh and the online listings for rooms within the within the home being made available for rent are concerning to staff. Uh, one recent complaint alleged that the primary residence included as many as 12 bedrooms that were being illegally made

available for rent. And although site inspections did not confirm the number of bedrooms in the home, there appears to be sufficient evidence that if the use of a site, the use of the site as a lodging space seizes, uh, there will be sufficient room in the primary residence for the owner, the owner's patient, family member, and a caretaker to live. Uh, furthermore, the owner's narrative confirms that a caregiver will be needed for the patient's lifetime. and yet request the caretaker quarters for only a year. Uh to staff, this implies that the circumstances preventing the caregiver from living in the primary residence are avoidable and could be negated by seizing the illegal use of the property for lodging. Uh for these reasons, staff recommends that the commission motion to deny TU250049. Uh however, if the commission chooses to approve the case, staff offers conditions A through D for consideration as outlined in paragraph 32 of the staff report. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any commissioners with comments or questions? The Is the applicant here? Madame Chair, we have a Lein online with her hand raised. Is that the applicant? I believe so.

Yes, I'm Please go ahead. Nin I'm as request a temporary use permit of army request due to a fulltime caretaker is required to assist them in the care of my daughter Allison's son who is handicapped and require an ongoing support to effective perform those duties the caretaker must be resigned on the property and have a separate independent and living space. An ARV is proposed as the caretaker living arrangement provide a self-contained and temporary housing solution. When I am not present, the caretaker Lisa Rush will assist my daughter Alison son with her daily needs as necessary, help supervise and watch over the property. This arrangement ensure continuous care, safety and onsite supervision when maintaining privacy and minimize impact on surrounding area in the house and my daughter arson. Thank you.

Could you could you explain how it is that you could rent out a room at the same time you would be needing additional capacity to house folks? Um, I'm no longer renting the ruin. Uh, only me and my daughter uh living in the house only.

And are you saying there's not sufficient space in your home to accommodate a caregiver? Yes, the caregiver uh Lisa Rush, she request a separate living separate space living to be uh more uh privacy. Thank you. Anything else you'd like to add? No, thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment online? Yes, Madam Chair. We have a Randy Hinckling with his hands raised. Mr. Hank, Mr. Henley, please go ahead.

Mr. Hinckley, um I have Randy unmuted uh for access into the webinar, but um it looks like he unmuted on his end. I but we're not able to hear him, so I'm not sure. What might be the problem? Mr. Hankley, please. Do we have any other public comment online? Nobody else online indicating they'd like to speak. We have anybody here present to speak? No one here present to speak. Mr. Hankley,

it should be working, but the there's some disconnect because it it shows his mic's available, but we're not hearing him, obviously. So, I guess we'll just have to move forward. All right. I actually have a question for Miss L. Yes, Commissioner Rockwallik. Um, Miss Lyn, you said you are currently not renting out any spaces in your house. Is that correct?

Yes. Um, I just did a quick search of your property address and as of January 5th, there is a listing for a cassita rental at your property on Zillow for $1,000 a month. Is your caretaker not able to live in that cassita? Uh, that's old aid. That's old aid. There's no uh I don't So it was taken down in the last 3 days. Uh it's a still there. I just did not take it down. Yeah, I did not take it down. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So it's no longer no longer available.

She didn't ask. Uh, Madam Chair Mil Haven, um, Miss Lynn, couldn't your caretaker live in that cassita or why could they not live in that cassita? Why do you need a RV is I guess the question I'm asking. RV is on the side of the house. So the caretaker, Lisa Rush, she wants to be on the side of the house. Okay,

just for context, the cassita that's being listed um online is listed as a private room with private bath, laundry, and kitchen access. Um so if the caretaker requires private um access, this cassita should suffice. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? My only other comment is Mr. Mr. Hinckley did do a letter of opposition and it it was in our file so we didn't get to hear him today but Mr. Hinkley if you can hear us we we see your letter of opposition and your points. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you Commissioner Limbbo. Thank you that out. All right, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, yes.

Uh this is Commissioner Finter. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Finter.

Yes. I I [clears throat] had the chance to talk with staff at length about this. Um I'm concerned uh one of the um provisions or that kind of went through the process was to move uh one of those RVs or trailers up to the front and questions came to my mind. Is there a sewer connection? Is there an appropriate electrical connection? It's located what I would consider be pretty dangerously close to the house. It just doesn't seem in in my look and I've read all of the opposition from the surrounding neighbors and that uh I I am reluctant to ever suggest a a denial when we're talking about caring for someone with handicap. Uh but it does seem and I think the staff did a good job in their um presentation and in their written uh information that suggests that there's other options. A key phrase I heard today was that uh Mrs. Rush, Miss Rush, prefers to be out in an RV. And I I just feel like um with some of the challenges in the past, maybe some of the uh circumstances with regard to location, how the neighbors have been impacted, I would be supportive of supporting staff's recommendation for denial on this. And so that would be my motion if it's appropriate at this time to deny the current request, hoping that there's some other opportunities and that the person with disabilities isn't going to suffer, that there'll be great opportunities for care that's needed there.

Thank you, Commissioner Fter. Do we have a second? I'll second. Uh motion by Commissioner F uh Finter and second by Commissioner Rockwall. Any additional discussion? We'll have a roll call. Commissioner Finter, yes. Vice Chair Hernandez, yes.

Commissioner Leighton, yes. Commissioner Limpl, yes. Chair Mhaven, yes. Commissioner Ruckwall, yes. Commissioner Toma, yes. Commissioner [clears throat] Whitney, yes. Chair, we have a motion recommending denial by a vote of 8 to zero. Thank you very much. Uh, is there any other business, Mr. Gerard? No, ma'am. There's not. Uh, there are nine commissioners present. Lawrence dropped off. Oh, okay. All right. Seeing that there's no other business or meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much.