Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the June 11th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. I'll call this meeting to order at 9.31 a.m. Rosalie, would you like to do roll call?

Commissioner Dan Zison. Commissioner Finter.

Present.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

Here.

Commissioner Lawrence. Commissioner Layton.

Here.

Commissioner Lindblom. Chair Millhaven?

She's here, but she's muted.

Chair Millhaven, can you hear us?

Yes, I can hear you.

Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Commissioner Rockwallet? Commissioner Tomah?

I'm here.

Commissioner Whitney?

Here.

Chairman, we have a quorum.

Wonderful. Thank you, Rosalie. All right, this meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS 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 www.maricopa.gov forward slash planning. The staff reports prepared for each agenda item shall become a part of the permanent record for each case. With respect to the 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 GoToWebinar. The amount of time allowed for speaking shall be at the discretion of the Commission Chair. Staff will provide the chair with the names of persons who have registered a noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each named participant one at a time. The chair will conduct the hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds. All right, moving on to the minutes. We have the minutes from April 23rd and May 7th, 2026 hearings. Need to make a note that there's a correction to the May 7th regarding condition J of case SU250022. Condition J shall read, there shall be no more than 52 dogs on site at any given time, including no more than 40 dogs for grooming or daycare services and no more than 12 dogs for boarding. Besides that, is there any other comments or questions from the commissioners? All right, hearing none, we will consider the minutes approved. Darren, I know we have some changes to the agenda. Would you like to get started with the continuance agenda?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Items.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, we have agenda item 10, SU 24005, CLO by Legends in District 5. And item, I'm sorry, that's agenda item 12 and 13. Item 13 is SU 24007, Wrangler's Roost in District 3. Both those cases are being continued to July 23rd. No actions necessary by the Commission.

Great.

Thank you.

Before we get started with the consent agenda, I believe Commissioner Layton needs to make a statement.

Just for the sake of transparency, I do know someone that is on the consent agenda, Dave Dunch. He's done work on my own cars over the years, but it's been so long since I've seen him. If he's in the room, I don't recognize him. So just, and I have no financial interest in the rezoning for him.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Layton. Darren, I guess we can move on to the consent agenda. or any other changes regarding the consent agenda?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I believe items 3, sorry, item 3, 8, and 10 are to be pulled from consent for discussion. Thank you. Interchangeable Chair, I'll present the remainder. Yes, sir. I believe there are eight remaining consent items. They include Z-2022-077, Mi Hacienda in District 5. This is a special use permit for an outdoor event venue in Rural 43 zoning on approximately a five-acre site south of the southwest corner of Baseline Road and Old 27th Avenue in the Levine-South Phoenix area. There's no known opposition. The recommendation in paragraph 18 is for approval subject to conditions A through M. SU250040, known as Dunch Automobile Repair in District 4, the special use permit for a home-based automotive repair business in the rural 43 zoning district on an acre west of 107th Avenue, south of Pinnacle Peak Road. There's no known opposition. There's three letters of support. And in paragraph 15, the recommendations for approval of subject conditions A through I. We are pulling Z20250029 for discussion. Case Z250040, known as Elite Civil Office Park HQ in District 5, is a C2 CUPD rezone of 4.4 acres at the northeast corner of Southern Avenue and 43rd Avenue. There's no known opposition. The recommendation in paragraph 19 is for approval, subject to conditions A through I. We are pulling SU26005 for discussion. Case Z260005, known as Dove Valley RV, in District 4 is an 8.7 acre site at the southwest corner of Grand Avenue and Dove Valley Road for C3CPD rezoning. There's no known opposition. One item of support, the recommendation is for approval in paragraph 19 subject to conditions A through K. And I'll note there is a handout today revising stipulation Q so that it reads a public water system, a public sewer system shall be required prior to establishment of any use at the determination of MCESD per condition E.3 above. That can remain on consent. We have case SU 260006, known as Northwest Valley RV Storage Amendment. It's in District 4. It's an amendment to a special use permit for an RV and boat storage facility in the rural 43 zoning. District on 2.6 acres east of the southeast corner of Harmony Lane and 119th Avenue in the Sun City Peoria area. There's no known opposition. The recommendation of paragraph 12 is for approval subject to conditions A through I. We're pulling SU 260009 for discussion. Item 10 is Z260009, luxury garage condominiums in District 4. This is a C2CPD rezoning of approximately 10 acres north of the northwest corner of Campbell Avenue and Perryville Road in the Goodyear-Buckeye area. There's no known opposition. Recommendations for approval of subject conditions A through I in paragraph 15. I did note... We did have a conversation with Buckeye Planning staff who would like stipulation F.2 to simply permit the proposed garage condominiums, but that is not the staff recommendation. Case Z260015 is pulled for discussion. And the final consent item is Z260017, 67th Avenue Rezone in District 5. It's a Industrial III IEPD rezoning for 2.8 acres north of the northwest corner of 67th Avenue and Southern Avenue. There's no known opposition. The recommendation in paragraph 12 is for approval subject to conditions A through I. So I'm happy to try and answer any questions you may have on those items. Great. Thank you, Darren.

Is there any questions from the Commission for the staff? All right. Don't believe we have anybody here in the auditorium. David, is there anybody online who would wish to speak regarding the consent agenda? There are no raised hands. All right. Since we have no public interest, we'll close the public forum. Is there any discussion by the commission? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. Commissioner Millhaven seconds.

All right. We have a recommendation for approval by Commissioner Layton, and we have a second by Chair Millhaven. Rosalie.

Commissioner Finter.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

Yes.

Commissioner Layton.

Yes.

Chair Millhaven.

Yes.

Commissioner Tomah.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney.

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval of the consent agenda by a vote of six to zero.

Great, thank you, Rosalie. All right, I guess we'll move on to regular agenda. I don't know. I believe the first item is going to be SU250029.

Thank you, Acting Chair and members of the Commission. SU250029 is a special use permit for, special use permit request for a wireless communications facility generally located at the southeast corner of 115th Avenue and Pine Hollow Drive in the Sun City area. The request is for an 80-foot tall tower that is approximately 40 feet from the southern parcel boundary. The WCF is planned to be in the middle of a large existing RV post storage complex. The pool does not meet the one to two foot setback to height requirement, which would require the pool to be 160 feet away from the lot line. The SUP additionally requests additional size for the antenna array and pool diameter. That's commensurate with today's wireless industry standards, as well as a chain link compound fence as the facility is already inside of a fenced complex. There is no known opposition. Staff did speak with the Sun City Homeowners Association, who has no issue and declined to comment on the matter. The recommendation of the staff report is for approval, subject to conditions A through F. Thank you. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thanks, Andrew. Is there any questions of the staff by the commission?

Yes, this is Commissioner Calma. I just have a, if staff could clarify why there was no requirement to camouflage this cell tower?

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Toma, this is Darren. In general, staff will seek a stealth design when it seems appropriate for the site, if it can make an aesthetic difference. This is an 80-foot-high monopole. It's not proximate to any other monopole. elevated features, there's no palm trees or pine trees that would be of similar height. And we didn't have it wasn't proposed for self designed by the applicant, nor was there any public comment requesting self design, there's no known opposition. So staff did not think that a stealth design meaning a faux palm tree or faux pine tree or flagpole would make much difference. But we're happy to defer to your conversation.

Thank you, Darren. So I've been thinking about these cell towers for since I joined the since I joined the commission and I just. I would take the position obviously can't speak for the rest of the commission. Um, that if it's in a, if it's in a metropolitan area like this, or a growing area, that's going to be a metropolitan. Area likely in the in the near future. that we would require stealth designs and i understand it's very tall but every single one that i've driven by they just look a lot better when they're when they have some some stealth on them so i don't know how the rest of the commission feels but i would ask that we approve it with the requirement that if we can do that that they put some kind of stealth on the cell tower And I would say the same thing for the next one, which is on grant. It has a lot of visibility. So I don't waste everybody's time by asking the same question and making the same comments again.

I believe the applicant's here if you want to have him present.

Great. Is the applicant available and would like to speak?

Good morning. Yeah, I'm David Klutschnig with Pinnacle Consulting here representing Verizon Wireless Sunstate Towers for the conditional use permit. Is it possible for you guys to add camouflaging to this tower? So to the original point, I mean, it is applicable to be camouflaged. I mean, these towers can be camouflaged. But to the original speaker, the only existing verticality over in the area is the lattice towers for power lines. you put an 80-foot tower that's stealth, whether it's a monopalm, whether it's a tree, whether it's any sort of stealthing, that's going to stick out in the existing verticality. There is nothing there in the surrounding area other than power lines. So in the case of blending in and being the least intrusive as possible to their surrounding area, a monopole in this case is going to stick out the least due to the existing verticality of the lattice towers that are already there. to the chairman that spoke about, you know, in other areas, I mean, agreed, right? I mean, you're in other commercial or residential areas that have existing verticality, such as palm trees, such as other vegetation. Those type of stealth options do make sense, but in terms of where we are locating, being the least intrusive as possible on the southern portion of that or the surrounding area, there is no existing verticality other than the lattice tower power lines.

I mean, the closest what's the access to this site? Is it from the north?

Yeah. So it's going to be so the three parcels are all directly owned by the same property owner. So we're going to be coming in off North Irish Gold Road directly through Sun City RVs compound directly to the south to the facility.

So there's a significant distance from the north. And do you have any idea to the east on how far it is from those houses to the east?

I mean, to the property line alone is four hundred and seventy five feet. And then you have. I mean, they're not even within the 300 foot notification radius, right? So the closest is the property owned by the power company, which is basically just the wash, which is the power lines that run north and south along the east side of the property itself. And then those do run to the west as well on the west side of the property running north and south. Got it.

Mr. Chairman, staff estimates the nearest housing to the east is about 1,000 foot from the tower.

OK. So that's on the other side of the power lines that are existing. Got it. Commissioner Thoma, does that change your feelings at all, being that this is rather far from any road or any other dwellings?

Uh, not the distance, but the pictures they just put up are worth a 1000 words. I think, uh. I think it's definitely more appropriate not to have stealth. Based on the images that I just saw. Okay, I didn't see those in the packet.

Great. Thank you. Commissioner Toma. Thank you, sir. I think we're thank you. Okay. For now. Uh, is there any other, um. Comments from the commission regarding this case. Is there anybody here in the auditorium that would like to speak regarding this case? David, is anybody online? There's no one online. All right, great. Since there's no public interest, we'll close the public forum. Is there any other discussion by the Commission? I will entertain a motion. I make a motion.

I make a motion to approve case SU250029.

All right, I will second that. All right, we have a motion to recommend approval of SU250029 by Commissioner Layton and a second by Vice Chair Hernandez. Rosalie?

Commissioner Finter?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

Yes.

Commissioner Layton. Yes. Chair Millhaven.

Yes.

Commissioner Toma. Yes. Commissioner Whitney.

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of six to zero.

Great. Thank you, Rosalie. All right, is the next one SU260005, commercial public storage? Is that next? Or that's the unconsent?

That was unconsent. Okay, I'm sorry. I believe the next one is case item nine, luxury garage condominium Z260009.

No, that was unconsent. I got SU260009, AnthemNet. Okay, sorry. Yep, another cell tower, okay.

Thank you, Acting Chair and members of the Commission. SU 260009 is a special use permit request for a wireless communications facility generally located at the southwest corner of Dove Valley Road and Crozer Road on an otherwise vacant lot in the Whitman area. The request is for an 80 foot tall tower, which is set approximately 97 feet from the parcel boundaries. The pole does not meet the one to two setback to height requirement that would require a pole to be 160 feet from any lot line. The SCP additionally requests additional size for antenna array diameter and pull diameter as it commensurate with today's wireless industry standards. The parcel is split zoned, both C2 and Rural 43, with the tower being located in the Rural 43 area. There is no noon opposition, and the recommendation on the staff report is for approval subject to conditions A through F. Thank you. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you, Andrew. I believe I know what Commissioner Toma is thinking. Is the applicant here that would like to give a presentation or speak about if camouflaging this array is possible?

Sure. Good morning, Acting Chair and Commission members. For your record, my name is Todd Doust. I'm with CommScapes here on behalf of Anthunet and Verizon Wireless. I want to share with you, if I could, a couple of factors that led us to the design as currently proposed. First, the split zoning of the site that staff mentioned was a factor that we considered in the design of the site and the surrounding commercial zoning to the southeast as well. Secondly, there is no mature vegetation in the area of which to mimic or try and blend the facility into. Lastly, it's my understanding and through property research that APS does own property in the area and is planning on constructing a substation in the near future. That being said, my client would be willing to entertain stealth applications as long as they did support colocation. And for that matter, we prefer a pine tree or broadleaf tree if the Planning Commission were to stipulate.

Great, thank you. Commissioner Thoma, do you have some discussion on this?

yeah i'm just my thought is that this is a rapidly growing area and it's very visible um but i i'm just i i think and i understand this is subjective it'll look it'll look better long term as a palm tree as things develop around it mr chair just to clarify i believe commissioner thomas said palm tree and

The proposal is an 80-foot monopole with three cellular antenna arrays. And so the applicant says if they're to do a stealth design, they would prefer to be a pine or deciduous tree.

Okay. Or broadly. Is that just because it has three arrays on it instead of just one? That is correct. Correct. Commissioner Toma, is that sufficient to you?

Um, I was just looking at what a broadly. Looks like, uh, I, I, I. Yeah, I think both of those are probably stick out worse than just the model. So if those are the only two things that would work for the applicant, then I think it's better to just leave it the way that they have it now, if a palm tree is not possible.

Okay, great. Thank you, Commissioner Thoma. Thank you, sir. Is there any other comments or questions from the staff? I mean, from the commission for the staff or the applicant? Is there anybody here in the auditorium who'd like to speak regarding this case? David, do we have anybody online?

There's no one raised their hand online.

All right, great. Since there's no public interest, we'll close the public forum. If there's no other discussion by this commission, then I'll entertain a motion.

Make a motion to approve SU 260009 as read.

Chair Millhaven seconds.

All right. We have recommending approval by Commissioner Layton and a second by Chair Millhaven. Rosalie?

Commissioner Finter?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Layton? Yes. Chair Millhaven?

Yes.

Commissioner Tomah?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of six to zero.

Great, thank you, Rosalie. All right, I believe next is case number 10Z260015, the Shrew Leave Dispensary, Half Valley.

Good morning, Chair. I'm pinch hitting for one of the planners this morning. So this is a case that is modifying existing conditions for an approved zoning case Z2022151. The purpose for the request is to modify the condition to add a use. marijuana dispensary establishment as allowed in the C2 CUPD zoning district. The site is approximately two acres and is located about 400 feet south of the southwest corner of 115th Avenue in Happy Valley in the Peoria area. The current conditions of C2CUPD approval allow for C1 uses, but in addition to that, car washes, drive-in restaurants, restaurants with outdoor patios, retail stores, self-storage facilities, and accessory uses. The current zoning that was approved does not include a dispensary as one of the permitted uses. The zoning that was approved, it was approved by the board on February 8th of 2023. The original conditions when this was brought in front of the board do not explicitly list uses that are prohibited under that PUD zoning, but simply list which of the uses are allowed. Those include the C2 uses that I read off. Since dispensaries were not among the uses that were intended for this site, this request is being made to add that as a condition of approval. In this request, the applicant is only requesting to modify the conditions, and that's condition D.1, to allow for medical marijuana or marijuana establishment dispensary. although a dispensary or establishment was not among the uses that were considered in the original zoning staff has determined that this use is consistent with some of the commercial uses that are permitted under this pud zoning the nearest residential units are more than 400 feet to the east of the site across 115th Avenue. Homes located farther away are located across 115th Avenue to the south or Happy Valley Parkway to the north. I might also point out that there are some requirements on our zoning ordinance, distance of 1500 feet from churches, elementary schools, secondary schools, kindergartens, nurseries, preschools, daycare centers, public parks, playgrounds, existing dispensaries, and adult-oriented uses. Since the request does not include a POD, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to submit that for administrative review and approval prior to obtaining permits and a certificate of occupancy. Staff does recommend that the Commission make a motion to forward this to the Board of Supervisors with an approval. subject to conditions A through H, as outlined in the staff report. We did receive 40 letters of opposition to this application, which we included in a handout memo. And we also received a letter more recently from the mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for the city of Peoria, which we also included in a handout memo. With that, that concludes the presentation. Be glad to try to answer any questions.

Great.

Mr. Chair, sorry to interrupt.

If I could, I'll just real briefly add, you know, we received some opposition, including a letter from some of the council and vice mayor of the city of Peoria that came in last night to hand out today. One of the items noted was that they would like to see us, I believe they would like us to adhere to the city separation requirements, which we do not. At the county, we have a 1,500-foot separation from certain critical uses, schools, houses of worship, public parks, other marijuana establishments, and from adult businesses, and that's a 1,500-foot separation. The only statutory requirement is a 500-foot separation from schools. City Peoria's requirements in general are a 1,000-foot separation, so less restrictive than the county. However, there are some exceptions. My understanding, I'm not well-versed in their requirement, but my understanding is they have a – half mile separation from other marijuana establishments. They have a thousand foot separation from liquor stores or taverns, a thousand foot separation from substance abuse treatment centers. And they have a 500 foot separation from residential zones. I do not know if they would consider rural 43 residential because they do not have rural zoning. The closest zoning they have is SR 43, which would allow similar type uses. And I believe that would be considered residential under their requirements. So we, just to be clear, we apply our separation requirements regardless of whether the territory in that buffer zone is city, town, or county. But we apply our separation requirements. And... Marijuana establishments are permitted in all C2, C3, industrial 2, industrial 3 zoning districts in the county and less specifically prohibited by a UPD overlay. So it could be prohibited with this UPD overlay. But every C2 or greater intensity zoning district in the county in those Peoria County Islands would permit marijuana establishments today. And what's before you today is an amendment to the zoning to say C2 CPD zoning allows certain specific uses. It's limited in entitlement, and they want to add marijuana establishments to that list. It's not on there today, so it couldn't occur today. If it's added, it would bring it more in alignment with other C2-based zoning districts in the county. But we are not approving a marijuana establishment today. This is still just the zoning case. There will be a subsequent and separate plan of development for administrative review and approval. And at that time, that's when we check against whatever conditions are set to the zoning if this use can be permitted at this site. So we would check to see if there is a school within a thousand feet, et cetera. We don't do that time of zoning, we do that time of POD, but we could apply different standards for your consideration.

So then the second step of this is approved this round is purely administrative. It doesn't go to a public forum. That is correct. And then you said that city of Peoria is more restrictive than the county, but it doesn't appear that there's any of those uses anywhere near this site as far as schools, churches.

Other than the rural 43, which would be within 500 feet. Is that correct?

There is church property that is located within 1,500 feet. However, it's being transferred for commercial development. It's under review right now for commercial development.

Yeah, because I think that case came up a couple hearings ago.

So we have Rule 43, but it's largely riverbed. But it is Rule 43. It is residential.

Got it. Okay, so this would not be approving a dispensary. This is just adding the language to an allow a dispensary on this zoning.

Yes, Mr. Reitinger, that's correct. We do expect, though, to have a subsequent POD come in pretty quickly.

Okay. So, question. If we choose to not approve it, that would be for this case, correct? In other words, we're not establishing a precedent for that zoning, are we?

No, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Layton, this is a legislative item. If you think expanding the list of entitled uses on this site is not appropriate, you do not have to, you can deny it. If you deny it, they still have the C2CPD zoning. It's just more limited than the uses that are permitted. That is all.

Okay.

Okay, great. Thank you, staff. Is there any other questions from the Commission for staff? All right. Is the applicant here and would like to present?

I'll get there. Take your time.

Thank you.

Andrew Baller, It's summertime in a suit. I can't breathe. It's fine. It's Phoenix. Good morning, Commissioners. Andrew Baller, Thank you for your time today. My name is Andrew Baller. I represent Trulieve, the dispensary that would hopefully go into this site. Andrew Baller, I first want to thank county staff for their thorough and comprehensive report. Staff has done an excellent job analyzing the request, looking at the sensitive uses. So I'll do my best not to repeat what they've already said. Before addressing a few of the common topics that usually pertain to marijuana use or dispensary, I do want to take a moment on the acknowledging the community outreach side of it. We did our posting, we did the mailing, and it was radio silence until about a week ago. So that's when we started seeing some of the letters come in from those neighbors that were a little bit further away. directly towards the Peoria City Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem. We are already scheduled to meet with them next Thursday to continue this dialogue, have the conversation with them, kind of educate them a little bit on Trulia, the dispensary, get rid of some of the myths that are related to it. With that, I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the most commonly raised concerns when it comes to a dispensary. The first being odor. This property is being asked to rezone to a dispensary only. There is no cultivation, there's no manufacturing, there's no production. All products that are received at that dispensary come from a licensed facility in sealed containers, child resistant packaging, really limiting any odor. On top of that, we also use charcoal filters and some air scrubbers as well to help ensure that none of the odor escapes the building. As staff probably would agree, there are odor mitigation rules in the plan of development that will be included. Second, security. Dispensaries are some of the most secure retail businesses in Arizona, partly because of all the state regulations that are attached to it. We have 24-7 camera coverage that covers both our internal building, of course, as well as exterior. And we've honestly had times where we've worked with law enforcement to help them on cases where somebody broke into the store next door, came across the dispensary, and we were able to provide them with that footage. So that's super important to us. The safety of our patients and our staff. So all the building is secure access, limited access. with panic buttons throughout, all the standard security things that truly make it one of the safer retail sites. If you look at the azcentral recently, there's been a lot more break-ins to card shops for people looking for Pokemon than there have been to cannabis dispensaries because of the camera coverage, because of the security. Lastly, I do want to speak on youth access because that's always a concern. People are always worried that you bring in a dispensary, we're serving the kids. It just, that's just not the case. This is one of the most highly regulated spaces in the state. All of the product is behind the counter. When you enter into a dispensary, your ID is checked. Before you're even into a counter or a sales floor area, you must be 21 to be in our building. The only exception to that is medical patients that have a severe debilitating condition that they have a prescription from their recommendation from their doctor. But for all intents and purposes, it's 21 plus. ID verified at the door. And then we kind of go a step further is before you start working with your sales associate, they're going to check your ID again. So if it's one of those cases where three people come in and they think that they're going to sneak behind and get to the floor and throw some stuff in their pocket, it's just not the case at a dispensary. Everything's, again, locked doors, behind counters, age verified before it goes out. Uh, lastly, I do want to speak just a moment on the stigma that is related to marijuana and cannabis dispensaries. I've been in the industry five years now, and there's still a lot of fear and unknowns around cannabis. Sadly. Um, I know youth assets is a point. I'm a dad. I got a four, seven and 10 year old. They know what cannabis is. We have cannabis in the house. It's in sealed containers. high away from their reach. It's my job as a parent to educate them on what the product is, that it's an adult-only product that's similar to liquor. And so it's that fear and stigma that I hope continues to go away. I live pretty close to a dispensary on a county island, honestly, in Chandler called the Dispensary Sticky Saguaro. It's right next to a gas station storage unit and housing behind. And other than a thriving business, I've seen no issues related to it. So all that to say, this is a highly regulated retail use operating under some of the strictest rules in Arizona. It's important to note we're not requesting to change the underlining zoning. This is commercial zone. This is a C2 use that we're just looking to add to that UPD that just wasn't considered at the time. To staff's point, it wasn't prohibited. It just wasn't considered at the time of the overlay. And with that, I thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Is there any questions from the commission for the applicant? All right. We'll probably have you come back up for a rebuttal. Thank you. After we have some.

I'll stay closer by so I don't have to waddle.

Thank you. All right. Do we have anybody here that would like to speak regarding this case? I have one for William Kozlov. You don't want to. OK, great. David, do we have anybody online?

No one online has expressed interest in this case.

Great. All right. Do we have any other discussion from the commission regarding this case? Yes, this is Commissioner Toma. Yes, Commissioner Toma, go ahead.

Yeah, I'd like to address a couple of things. First of all, just for the benefit of the rest of the Commission, I live in this area and I drive by this site all the time. I know very well. That's not unique. Every Peoria resident that lives in North Peoria drives by this site all the time. This is one of the busiest intersections. It's highly visible to the whole community. What's interesting about this site is that because of where it is, it's far, far is the wrong word. There's some distance between a lot of where the residential neighborhoods are, although there is a residential neighborhood that's very close to it that's been built that you guys can see. In the presentation, I think 1 of the reasons the opposition for this site just recently came in is because people are just now realizing. But this is a proposed use for this site. i think as this gets out the opposition will only increase significantly for this site and that's for the reasons that i just mentioned it's a highly visible site there's a lot of activity on this intersection and it's a rapidly growing area. I mean, I know of a church that's trying to acquire land in that immediate area. And those rural 43 sites, they can be built on. In Peoria, I built my house on an R43 site. um and i didn't rezone it also um the a lot of those sites the zoning will change it could change to a church um which i think would be a better land use for that uh intersection but i just remember living there there was a lot of interest when the The storage facility went in when the gas station went in. A lot of some West residents drive up that road to access Happy Valley Road. So I'm just adamantly opposed to this land use for this site. I think it's a bad location for this use. And I think I would represent most of North Peoria in that position. and that's i think evidenced by the fact that the mayor and the council uh has come has come out against it so i would just ask the commissioners to consider that

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Thoma. Is there any other discussion coming from the Commission?

Yes. I would just like to say, excuse me. I am not against rezoning for dispensaries. But I find this particular location so visible to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of families that I simply can't agree to it. You've got hundreds of people in Cross River. You've got a rental community to the east. You've got Vistancia up the road. If they lost their minds for cell phone towers, what do you think they're going to do for a dispensary? I just think the opposition, I think you should save some money and go somewhere else. So I'm in opposition.

This is Commissioner Potomac. I just want to add for the commission's benefit, Vistancia is a rapidly growing area. There's a lot of raw desert out there being converted. The main commercial area, it's called the Four Corners, and it's on Lake Pleasant and Happy Valley. It's just a couple miles to the east of this site. The way that North Peoria flows is you go from Vistancia, you cross this intersection, to hit all the retail that's where all the movie theaters ice cream shops everything is there and then even if you don't live uh west of this site you're coming east from like the 67 uh and west to access the 303. um so this site has i mean hundreds and hundreds uh of people is an understatement there are tens of thousands of people passing this site uh every single day

Great, thank you, Commissioner Toma and Commissioner Layton.

Well, this is Chair Milhaven. I have a question.

Yes, Chair Milhaven.

So if I recall correctly, the comments from the Peoria City Council was a request to respect their distancing requirements. Is that right, Darren?

Mr. Acting Chair, Madam Chair, their letter alluded to that, but it didn't specify what the standards were. And I have only slight knowledge of what those standards might be. And that's what I tried to speak to earlier. In general, we're more restrictive, except they also require separation from liquor stores, bars and taverns, substance recovery, substance abuse recovery centers. And they require a 500 foot separation from residential zoning, which I believe would include the adjacent rural 43 as well. Another thing that is a stricter distance is they require a half mile separation from other marijuana establishments of which I'm not aware of any in this immediate area.

So were they just saying please vote no or were they saying it right because there's a difference between voting no and saying we're going to apply certain distance requirements in order to make sure that the community is protected. So are they asking us just to vote no?

One second. This did come in very late yesterday and I'm having to read it right now. They're clearly opposed to the use. The letter that came in yesterday asked us to make these considerations. But in general, I believe there was a similar letter from an elected official that was specifically opposed.

Okay. I'm just wondering, Commissioner Layton or Commissioner Tomo, how would you feel about imposing more restrictive distance requirements that Peoria has?

Commissioner mill haven where this parcel sits it's not on flat ground, so the reason they've kind of been able to get away from the notification is because the residential areas don't start until you get South or North and it's outside of the restrictive area.

oh so what you're saying was even if even if we had the more restricted even if where peoria's distance requirements were more restrictive it they would still be allowed in this location that would be up to peoria well i would i would point out those sorry that there is a r43 lot next to it which theoretically couldn't be a house and i think that's what what darren's been been pointing out so it would that that that is that is there right now that could be a residential i mean that is zoned to be a residential property i think more than likely that'll turn out to be something else in the future but it could it could be a house and but as i stated i do know a church uh looking for property in this actually i know the number of churches in this location and these are 43 lots a lot of times do end up getting built as churches as well so i don't know that this would like in my opinion i don't i don't think uh because that r43 lot is there i don't think it meets that this is requirement but i also agree with commissioner layton like it's it's just the way the topography is and that there are no houses within that you know build houses within that distance but they are very close and then we're really talking about the heart of north peoria here this intersection

Yeah, I'm sympathetic. I just struggle a little bit with it's a legal use, but we just don't like it. So I'm torn. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, this is Darren. In speaking to Chair Millhaven's comments, the proposal is to add the use to condition D And perhaps it could say in order to try and compromise between city separation and county separation and the fact that they don't have rural zoning, they refer to residential zoning. Perhaps we could say medical marijuana dispensary facilities and or marijuana establishments as defined in Chapter 2 of the zoning ordinance. and subject to all rules adopted by the Arizona Department of Health Services, comma, unless within 500 feet of a parcel zoned rural or residential and developed for residential use. Just a thought for your people. I mean, that would pretty much make it restrictive to where it couldn't. If there was any developed residential in rural or residential zoning, it would prohibit that use.

Yeah, it wouldn't like, I think that what we, what we understand what's clear here. This commissioner Thomas is that their, their intention is to build this right away. We know the, the, the land that's immediately adjacent to it. The are 43 lot will either be built as a house or church or. It would have to be resolved and then obviously we have the state land. That will be developed, so I think what. my my position here is that this is going to end up being in the middle of a residential area and that's not the intent for the zoning i don't think it's a good land use for where this is um i don't i'm not making a statement about i would not approve a dispensary anywhere i just don't believe this is a good place to put one and uh I would just ask the Commission to consider that this is where I live, and I know this area very well.

All right, great. Thank you, Commissioner Toma. Is there any other discussion from the Commission regarding this case? Being that we have no other public interest, is there anybody who would like to make a motion?

This is Commissioner Toma. I would motion that we not approve this, but I don't know if I'm just allowed to vote no or motion that.

Okay. We have a motion to recommend denial of case Z260015 by Commissioner Toma. Is there a second? Second. And we got a second by Commissioner Layton. Rosalie?

Commissioner Finter?

Yes. Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

No.

Commissioner Layton?

If I say, which way am I voting here?

If you say yes, then you are recommending denial of this case. Yes.

Chair Mulhaven?

Yeah. Can you say that again, Chair Mulhaven?

No. Commissioner Tomah?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney.

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending, let's see, did that pass? Four to two.

All right, great. Thank you, Rosalie. All right. Let's see, I believe the next one is case number 14, MCP250004, Stellar on Patton.

Thank you, Acting Chairman, members of the Commission, MCP250004, Stellar on Patent is a request for a military compatibility permit for the first phase of development of an outdoor RV boat and mini storage facility at the approximate rear 15 acres of a 19-acre property. The site is within the high noise accident potential zone and the 6569 LDN noise contour, requiring a use and compatibility and consistency determination and an MCP. The applicant received an affirmative determination of the proposed use from Luke Air Force Base under UCCD case number UC2023-004 on February 15, 2023. The site development proposal includes a six-foot perimeter screening covered canopy parking for RVs and boats, a modular office building overlooking the entrance wash bay and RV dump, and areas of secured mini storage. Access to the site will be provided at the northern end of the parcel at Patton Road with a 360-foot paved driveway crossing over existing drainage wash to the secure entrance gate. Secondary emergency access is proposed near the southwest corner of the property where Blue Sky Drive, a private easement, terminates at the Western property line along the West side of the property offset to the West is a 25 foot wide roadway easement that extends South from white feather lane to the Southern property line. Dedication is provided for an additional 50 foot roadway easement for 229th Avenue alignment finished with milled asphalt for the benefit of emergency vehicle access and neighborhood circulation for the adjacent neighborhood. The applicant proposes the following building development standards. Building setbacks are reduced for the entire perimeter of the site from 40 to 20 feet measured from ultimate street lines. Under RU43, greater setbacks would apply to rural low density development. This initial phase of development is not a land use that would require typical commercial water usage as only one office is proposed. It can be accommodated with the on-site well and septic system. Minimal opposition was received at the time of application submittal and seems to have been addressed by the applicant after the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting to address those concerns. staff recommends the commission adopt a motion recommending that the board of supervisors approve mcp 25004 subject to the following subject to conditions a through i l a through l thank you great thank you daniel uh is there any uh questions of staff by the commission all right is the i have a question yeah go ahead commissioner layton is it my understanding from what i've read that this particular piece of land

has very limited uses because of the military overlay so in other words even though there's homes to the east and west this parcel couldn't have homes on it mr chair um commissioner layton that is correct okay all right and they're going to access this from the east is that what i from the north of patent road commissioner okay but the Will it come straight into the parcel?

Correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Great. Is there any other questions of staff by the Commission? All right. Is the applicant here who would like to present?

Sure. Members of the Commission, my name is Jack Gilmore. Gilmore Planning and Landscape Architecture. I'm here representing Stelter on Patton We did have a neighborhood meeting and the neighbors were quite concerned about the use itself. Some of them understand there is a restriction because of the Luke noise contours, but they would still prefer, of course, residential on this property. We tried to address the concern as best we could by proposing a screen wall and very dense landscape buffer along our west side. And That, I think, has addressed some of the concerns. There will be security lighting with motion cameras, and those will be directed internally and shielded. And that's going to be our kind of requirement. This is a low water user. I think the biggest water demand is going to be the landscape associated with our buffers. There will be a pump station and fire prevention service on site. The north half of the north five acres approximately is being reserved for future potential commercial use, which has to come back before Luke to get approved and back before this board to get a modified VOD. So we've addressed, I believe, all the questions, concerns coming from engineering and planning, and I think we are prepared to move forward with your recommendation to move forward to the Board of Supervisors. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Great.

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Is there any questions of the applicant by the Commission? All right, cool. We'll probably have some, I think we have some public comments, so we'll bring you back up. Thank you. We will proceed with the in-person speakers, which I don't believe we have any. David, do we have anybody online?

Yes, I have James Cooney enabled his mic. James will need to enable his mic and then he can speak. If you're there, James, you'll need to enable the mic on your side.

Can you hear me now?

Yep. Yes, James, we can hear you loud and clear. If you could just keep your comments to two minutes or less, please.

Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. My main opposition, I'm speaking for both my wife and myself, our property is directly east, I'm sorry, directly west of this proposed project. And my number one concern is the rise in criminal activity it'll attract. I've researched these self-storage facilities online, and the one common denominator they all have is the crime increases significantly, not only for the facility, but for the surrounding areas. They attract a criminal element that we don't have out here. The reason we moved out here was for the peace and the quiet and to get away from the crime. And that all seems to be a jeopardy now, as well as our home values, because of the increased crime. Other concerns would be the increased traffic on Patton Road and water usage is kind of questionable. But my number one concern is the criminal activity it's going to create.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Cooney. David, who's next?

I believe that's it. Jane Van Dyke Cooney was the other person that had registered, but I think James said he was speaking for both of them. So Jane didn't reach back to me. So I believe that's the case.

All right. Great. Thank you, David. Is there anybody last chance for public comment regarding this one? All right, we will close the public forum. Is there any discussion? Actually, I'm sorry. Can we get Mr. Gilbert? I guess he talked about two things, crime and traffic. Would you like to rebut on any of those items?

Chair, Commissioners, crime. I guess I'm not going to necessarily accept the rationale there. I think with the security we're putting in place, the night lighting, the cameras, that this will be a secured location. And to the best of our knowledge, we'll be able to protect the neighborhood. So we're not bringing any traffic in through those adjacent properties. All of our access will be to and from West Patton. And that emergency access that we're putting on our southwest corner is strictly for police and fire if there is emergency and for some reason the front access is blocked. We'll have a Knox Gate and it'll be a solid fence so that there's no visibility into the property. So the other concern I think was water? Traffic. Traffic. Yeah. I did talk to Mr. Cooney actually yesterday. I gave him a call because I knew that he was concerned about this. He did send an email to Andrew. So I called him up and said, you know, as a This is not it's as commercial use, of course, in terms of a typical commercial center or even a light industrial. The traffic generated by this kind of use is going to be typically much less than any other commercial light industrial use. So I said, yeah, there's going to be traffic associated with this, but the users are seasonal because they park their boat in RVs and it's not a weekly or even monthly event or they'll come and get them. So I think in terms of traffic generation, it's a low volume use. And that was my response to Mr. Cooney.

Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Is there any other questions for the applicant? All right, great. We'll close the public forum. Is there any discussion from the Commission? I guess I'll get my two cents. I keep my boat in a place very similar to this. And like Mr. Gilmore said, I go pick up my boat once every couple weeks and I take it back. It's not like a constant in and out. And I feel like these are very highly secured with credentials to get in and out. So yeah, I think it's a good use, in my opinion. Any other questions or comments from the Commission?

this is commissioner layton um i understand mr comey's or coney i didn't catch his name concerns but i also understand that this property as much as you would like to have residential behind you this property can't have residential so for highest and best use this seems to be a good solution for this piece of property. And you obviously have recourse to call and complain if something is happening there with the police. And they will take note of it.

Great. At this time, we'll entertain a motion.

I entertain a motion. MCP250004 to move forward as read.

All right. I will second that. So we have a recommendation for approval of MCP250004 by Commissioner Layton and a second by Vice Chair Hernandez. Rosalie.

Commissioner Finter.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Layton? Yes. Chair Millhaven?

No.

Is that a yes?

No, that's a no.

That's a no. Thank you.

A no.

Commissioner Thoma?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of five to one.

Great. Thank you, Rosalie. Moving on, last but not least, Z250009, Carefree Commercial. Ron's the pinch hitter today.

Yeah, I'm pinch hitting again. This one's for Martin Martell. The application may look a little familiar to you. You saw it back in September of last year. At the September 11 hearing, you voted to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors to rezone the property from Rural 43 to C2 CUPD to accommodate future development. At the October 1st Board of Supervisors meeting of 2025, the Board voted to remand this back to the planning zoning commission for further consideration due to community opposition and due to the lack of a development plan that actually showed more precisely what they were proposing to do since that time the applicant has had some time to consider the concerns expressed by the neighboring properties The application that you are considering today includes a CUPD with a conceptual site plan that incorporates additional architectural standards, limits on operations, limits on uses, enhanced façade treatments, heights to no more than 30 feet, lighting controls, landscape buffering, which the applicant is here prepared to present to you. These are incorporated in the conditions of approval. The applicant is also prepared to discuss some of the communication with the adjoining neighbors and with the City of Phoenix. as well as some of its responses to the City of Phoenix and the neighboring properties, although it does not have any intention of asking for annexation into the City of Phoenix. Staff provided some analysis to ensure the consistency with the Carefree Highway scenic corridor. Staff supports the proposed C2 CUPD zoning with the restriction and tailoring of uses to be compatible with the area's rural character. and the new design standards that are incorporated with this application any traffic mitigation will be determined with the site development review process that is administrative process staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions in the staff report and that concludes presentation unless you have any questions

Great. Thank you, Ron. Is there any questions for staff from the Commission? Okay. Is the applicant here who would like to present the case?

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Bill Lally with Tiffany Bosco today representing the applicant. Just a little precursor before we jump into it. We were brought on probably in the last six months after this case was actually remanded. This case generally went through in 2025. They did their outreach in 2025. So a lot of the letters that you see in the staff report really were concerns in 2025 that we have worked very hard and diligently over the last three to four months to add details into The staff report add details and commitments into our own narrative. And those really address a lot of the questions. You know, there were some concerns, but more questions from the community of what is this going to be? What's it going to look like? Where are the access points going to be? Water, sewer, lighting, and all those things. I will quickly just go through a couple slides here. This is the exact same presentation that we did present this last April to the community. In 2025, there was a virtual open house by the applicant. Brad Garcia. Brad Garcia is online today, remote, to answer any questions. So this was a presentation that we modified and put in front of the neighbors in April. I think we had a very good attendance at the meeting and very good back and forth with the neighbors in terms of trying to answer questions. So Rachel, maybe we can go to the next slide. Again, the main issues that we heard in the neighborhood meeting, I think, was conveyed in some of the public letters that you saw was really a limit on the uses. You know, C2 on Carefree Highway seemed to be something, or all the uses in C2 along Carefree Highway did not seem to be something that was supported by the community. Building compatibility, making sure that the building design location of the buildings is more compatible with the surrounding property owners. And that's is accomplished through setbacks, building height restrictions, landscaping, those sorts of things. Traffic management as well. I think there was a lot of questions about where is access going to come off of Carefree Highway. That was a pretty important question. So the conceptual site plan that we show shows the configuration. It shows sort of how access will be actually through the adjacent property to the east, which is actually the phase one already zoned version of this exact development. Um, infrastructure, we'll go through a couple of slides here with infrastructure, uh, and then just kind of making sure that we're sensitive to the carefree highway corridor. So Rachel can go next slide. Um, again, what we ended up doing is in the narrative and you saw in the, in the, in the draft staff report is we restricted many uses and, and, and actually called out allowed uses. So there's very many uses in C2, but really what we did is hone in the uses to just a few. Next slide, Rachel. prohibited uses, we call those out as well to make sure that it was very clear. So there isn't any concern about some of the highly attractive uses that people get concerned about. So that is also added into the narrative as well. And I think it's important to know as we went through this process, there were concerns about outdoor storage that has occurred on Carefree Highway. And I think that some of those concerns sort of made its way into the dialogue here. And so we wanted to make sure that outdoor storage of materials or boats and RVs in this more sensitive area is not allowed. Rachel, next slide. As you can see from this, we went ahead and took the next step of what you would see more in a POD level analysis and did building elevations. In rule 43, the building height allowance in today's code is 35 feet. we are actually requiring buildings not to exceed 30 feet. So lower than the adjacent homes in rule 43. And in fact, if you look at this closely, it shows probably about a 26 foot tall element, which is the majority of the site. We can go to the next slide. This was the most important thing. Everyone wanted to know how this was gonna get laid out, where access points are gonna be, where the building's gonna be, what is the landscape setback look like on Carefree Highway? All of those are sort of built into not only the Carefree Highway scenic corridor policies, but also were part of the comments that came from City of Phoenix. The grayed out section on the right, which is a five acre site that was zoned previously for the exact same luxury auto garage facility, is under construction or under development right now, getting all their permits, water, sewer access, everything going through the process. So we were able to take a lot of that POD plus information, traffic, water access, and really apply it to what's happening here in what we would call kind of a POD light with the zoning case. As you can see, access point will be off of Carefree Highway, but shared with the existing five acre. We'll have one access point off of Central But I think that will be not the main access point. I think that will probably just be a secondary fire access. But phase two is really just the darker area, the 10 acres. So it'll be adjacent to a five acre development that's exactly the same size, type, design. And then obviously east of that is the gas station. Next slide, Rachel. Some of the questions that were asked during the process had to do with trip generation and traffic. And so we took the traffic report that we had produced for the five acres or the client had produced for the five acres and really did a comparison. Let's extrapolate that same traffic generation formula to the extra 10 acres. And so what we tried to do is convey a comparison to the community in terms of Luxury auto garage traffic, you heard it on a couple other cases, and Vice Chairman, you understand sort of the traffic coming in and out of these types of facilities, whether it's boat and RV or even luxury auto, is very minimal. In comparison to existing Rule 43, it's comparable. The next slide, please. Drainage and flood concerns. There were some questions about, hey, there are some washes, there are some drainage. What you'll see, and if you remember in the site planning, you'll see in the last exhibit, there's a very robust setback, landscape setback and drainage along Carefree Highway. And so we are not shoving the buildings right up against Carefree Highway and then having to really work around existing drainages. So we're accommodating a fairly significant drainage along there. And again, these were questions. The community had real specific questions about how this development is going to handle drainage and infrastructure. And we made sure that we used the same technologies on the five acre parcel to the east of us to make sure that we understood the flows and the drainage patterns that we could explain to the community. Next slide, please, Rachel. Water was a big thing. Water's always a big thing. As we're in county, you know, we're not obviously going through, you know, sort of a certificate of assured water supply or other things that you would have to do with the subdivisions. But the community asked, how much water are you using? What is that compared to if this was just 10 homes? So it's 10 acres, could be 10 single, you know, one acre lot homes. If you can see the existing Rule 43 zoning, and we actually took this from ADWR. See, these are their water generation for one acre large lot type units. And you can see if you compare that to what's on this slide, which is the phase two only of the luxury auto garage, our water usage will likely be less. And I think that the water usage on Rule 43 does, does not accommodate or does not anticipate or assume large pools. And I think out in rural 43, you see some folks actually with a nice little backyard with a lot of amenities. So as we explained to that community, I think the community felt a little bit better about it. They asked where the wells are gonna be. We are going to have a shared well between site one and site two, phase one and phase two. Phase one will have the well. So we will tap off of that phase one. So there's not going to be an anticipated second well that would be drilled more adjacent to the neighbors. So I think that was a question people had, and I think that was a question that most people were concerned about. And obviously we did the math to just make sure that we answered that. The next slide. Lighting and noise. Lighting and noise came up as, this is a challenge because we're on Carefree Highway. Carefree Highway is a principal arterial, carries quite a bit of traffic. But then there's rural residential to the south of us. balance you know sort of what we're doing here with lighting and noise the use itself luxury auto garage or the smaller neighborhood commercial that we're proposing or could be allowed really are low impact uses what we have committed to do that we can do at least is to make sure that we're following dark sky ordinances and all of that is articulated not only in our staff in our in our narrative that is stipulated to but staff has called out and pulled a lot of that stuff out and made it in the stipulation Last slide or next slide. Landscape buffers and screening. So City of Phoenix sent a fairly robust list of questions, concerns, links to different standards that they have. It was a 13-page letter, pretty robust. And so we went through that letter and tried to find the things that are applicable that we could do to try to honor sort of their interest in the case. One of the interest in the case was design and design of sort of the frontage along Carefree Highway and whether or not we have robust setbacks. And so the setbacks that's in the staff report that's in the development standards is 120 foot setback from Carefree Highway. So very, very significant. in terms of setbacks. City of Phoenix, one of their main goals is to have kind of a design that honors the area. The Carefree Highway Senior Corridor does the same thing. So you'll see in the narrative, you'll see in the standards that we have a set of standards that meet just the C2s, whether we're modifying or agreeing to or exceeding the C2. Then we have a section in there for the Carefree Highway Scenic Corridor and how we're modifying, meeting and or exceeding those. And then we also did the same thing for building design, which was really more to address some of the City of Phoenix concerns. Next slide, please. Local Serving Commercial. So there is in the Carefree Highway Scenic Corridor some policy statements that drive the need for not regional commercial along Carefree Highway. Desert Hills, New River Desert Hills area is a community in and of itself. They do not want large-scale commercial. They don't want the Home Depots that you'll see over in Cape Creek or in the City of Phoenix. They don't want the large-scale grocers or businesses. And so the luxury auto garage business model really pulls from the area surrounding there. So families that have, let's say, expensive cars, expensive boats, and they want to store them indoors, and they want to have those facilities a little bit more secure, that typically comes from the general area. And so we do believe that this use does meet the scenic corridors policies to have a local serving commercial use. Next slide. Okay, so here's the last slide. This is kind of a rendering from Carefree Highway that gives you a feel. You saw the side plan. This also shows sort of the significant setback from Carefree Highway that will be landscaped and will obviously keep as much natural vegetation out there as well. And so with the improvements to this new case, brand new narrative, brand new set of standards, brand new list of commitments from the community or from the client, the applicant to the community and to the county. I think this is a wholly different case than you saw a year ago. And with that, Mr. Vice Chairman and members be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Mr. Lally.

You mentioned that most of the opposition was old and I was looking at, I didn't pick up on a lot of that's a year plus old. Has there been any new opposition since the case has been remanded back down?

I will defer to staff, but I think there was one letter that did come in or an email that came in and says, Hey, I couldn't make the neighborhood meeting that they had, but I'm still opposed. So that was, What I recall, I would defer to staff to see if there was anything in. But I would tell you we had a neighborhood meeting, and I would say the majority of the folks were supportive of the fact that we came in, answered questions. And I don't think that we had a wholesale group of people walking away adamantly opposed. You will always have people that say nothing should be built here. We're New River Desert Hills. It all should stay very rural. And I understand that sentiment. Okay.

And then I got a question for staff too. When this got remanded back down and we got a new hearing as in today, was there new signage that has to be put up and new reporting and reach out and stuff? Yeah, okay. That was all I had. Thank you. Is there anybody, any other, anyone else from the commission has any questions for the applicant?

This is Commissioner Whitney. Wait with questions until we hear from the public. But I'd just like to thank the applicant for the work that they've done over the past many months. We didn't take it lightly when we recommended denial last time around and really appreciate the work that you've done.

Thank you, Commissioner. And Mr. Vice Chair, just to make one comment. Brad Garcia is registered. He is on the line for this item. He's the applicant. Okay. You don't need to call on him unless you have specific questions. Okay. Thank you.

Great. I don't believe we have anybody here in person. David, do we have anybody online?

There have been no raised hands for this item.

Wonderful. All right, well, since we have no public interest in speaking, we will close the public forum. And is there any discussion for the commission regarding this case?

Mr. Chair, there is one amendment that we did make with a handout memo that corrected the parcel number. So we'd like that as part of the motion.

OK. Great. With that, I will entertain any motions.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, Commissioner Whitney?

I would recommend approval of case Z260017 as recommended with the stipulations that were referenced for approval.

With the updated parcel number?

With the updated parcel number, yes, sir. All right.

Hey, wait a second. Yep, the case number he just named is not the one I have on.

Oh, I'm sorry I read the wrong case number. Thank you very much.

And then of course now I don't have it in front of me. It's a Z25000.

I got it Z. Thank you for catching me on that Z250009.

Alright, so we have a recommendation for approval of case Z250009. with the stipulations and the updated parcel number. Do we have a second? All right, I will second that. We have a recommendation of approval by Commissioner Whitney and the second by Vice Chair Hernandez. Rosalie?

Commissioner Finter?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Layton? Yes. Chair Milhaven? Yes. Commissioner Thoma?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of six to zero.

Wonderful. Thank you, Rosalie. Darren, do we have any other matters?

We do not.

All right. Wonderful. That was pleasantly quick to get through 15 cases. Meeting is adjourned at 1058 a.m.

Thank you. Thank you.