Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to the July 23rd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. We'll call this meeting to order at 9.31 a.m. Rosalie, can you do a roll call?

Commissioner Dan Zison. Commissioner Finter. Vice Chair Hernandez.

Here.

Commissioner Lawrence.

Here.

Commissioner Layton.

Here.

Commissioner Lindblom. Chair Milneven. Commissioner Rock-Wallach.

Here.

Commissioner Tomah.

Here.

Commissioner Whitney.

Here.

Chairman, we have a quorum.

Great. Thank you, Rosalie. Now we'll move on to announcements.

This meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in 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 slash planning this staff reports prepared for each agenda item shall become a part of the permanent record for each case with respect to hearing process cases. 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.

Is that it?

Staff will provide the chair with the names of persons who have registered and 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 a 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, great, thank you. Moving on to minutes, the minutes for the June 11th, 2026 meeting have been circulated to the commission. Are there any comments? Hearing no comments, we'll consider those minutes approved. Darren, do we have any adjustments to the agenda today?

Yes, Mr. Chair, agenda item three, z260010 known as broadway auto salvage is continued to august 6 and agenda item 5 su240005 known as cielo by legends is continued to september 10th no actions necessary by the commission at this time all right great thanks uh move on to the consent agenda yes uh mr chair commissioners we have three items that remain on consent Those are CPA 260003 and Z260006, known as Tonopah 75 in District 4. This is a comprehensive plan amendment to the Tonopah Arlington Area Plan to designate 42.5 acres as industrial and an associated rezoning to Industrial II IUPD for 74.5 acres east of the northeast corner of 355th Avenue and McDowell Road. There's no known opposition. The recommendations are for approval of the CPA and in paragraph 22, approval of the zoning case subject to conditions A through J. And the last consent item is Z250025, known as Mariposa Energy Park in District 5. It's an Industrial II IUPD rezoning of 1,944 acres at the southeast corner of Patterson Road and Litchfield Road. in the South Avondale, Goodyear, Mobile area. There's no known opposition. The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions A through I as outlined in paragraph 18. Happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you, Darren. Is there any questions of the staff by the commission? Is there anybody in the public that has interest in speaking about the consent agenda? Do we have anybody online who wants to speak? All right. With no public interest, we'll close the public forum. Is there any discussion among the commission regarding the consent agenda? I will entertain a motion. I move to approve the consent agenda. All right. We have a motion for recommendation of approval by Commissioner Rockwallet.

Second.

We have a second by Commissioner Layton Rosalie.

Chairman Hernandez.

Yes.

Commissioner Lawrence.

Yes.

Commissioner Layton.

Yes.

Commissioner Rockwallick.

Yes.

Commissioner Toma. Commissioner Toma.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney.

Yes.

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

All right, thank you, Rosalie. All right, moving on to the regular agenda, I guess first case will be SU 24007, Wrangler's Roost.

Thank you, acting chair and members of the commission. SU 24007 is a request for a special use permit for a wedding and events venue on approximately 1.7 acres located on the north side of New River Road in the New River area of Supervisory District 3. The site known as Wrangler Zeus is a former stagecoach stop from territorial days and then transforming into a dude ranch with evening programming cookouts until the mid-1990s. The parcel is subject to violations dating back to 2019 for operations of a commercial venue business. The application requests the use of the parcel to lease to individuals to hold events in a manner they see fit as opposed to a full-service banquet-style operation. All portions of events are to be held outdoors, including any potential music or dancing. A new bathroom casita is proposed to accommodate the site. In an attempt to standardize neighbor expectations of the operation, staff has drafted potential conditions of approval to mitigate known issues arising from the venue operation, including limiting events to weekends only, Friday through Sunday, 8 AM to 10 PM. Bistro-style lighting must not exceed 1,000 lumens and must be shut off by 11 PM. No noise exceeding 55 decibels at the property lines. And finally, occupancy is limited to 100 persons on site at any time. Staff has received both letters of support and opposition from members of the community. At this time, staff has received letters of opposition representing 13 parcels who are opposed to the proposal. Staff also has received letters from persons representing 43 parcels in support of the request. Staff would like to note that of the 43 parcels in support, 14 parcels are tied to known applicant interests. All parcels within 300 feet of the subject site are either owned or have financial interest by the applicant. Staff supports the request with adherence to their conditions of approval and recommends the commission adopt a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors with adherence of conditions A through R. Thank you. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you, Andrew. Is there any questions of staff by the commission? Or is the applicant here? Would you like to make a presentation? Thank you for coming down. If you please state your name for the record.

Reed Stewart, 2528 West New River Road. Are you able to display the slides I sent? I have lived at Wrangler's Roost for the past 17 years with my wife and most of our seven children and 18 grandchildren. OK, next slide, please. It's my favorite place, and I hope family members are still living there in 100 years. And I hope we're able to share the property with others. Wrangler's Roost was established because it had reliable water in a flowing spring that provided water for the early ranches, livestock, and travelers. Wrangler's Roost is listed on the state of Arizona as well as the National Register of Historic Places. We've been maintaining a historic building that county shows completed in 1931. Next slide, please. And the next slide. Have you got the commercial building next door? Oh, good. I wanted to point out this building. It's the only one within 300 feet who didn't provide a written letter of support. And it has that eight foot tall razor wire all the way around the property. Of course, our property is classified as commercial. And maybe I could clarify a few of the staff's recommendations on item D. They ask us to be quiet at 10 p.m. and we'd like to move that to 11 or at least 10.30 Friday and Saturday nights. They've allowed us Sunday nights too, but we don't expect to do much on Sunday nights. On item G, I wanted to clarify, and the way Andrew read it seemed like maybe it's okay, but I wanted to clarify, we want some lights in the palm trees above 20 feet that don't necessarily have the shielding, but we will comply with the thousand lumens described in item F that Andrew referenced. On item H, 55 decibel is too low. 55 decibel, of course, is less than a normal conversation. I mean, we're using a microphone here. And for the acoustic measurement, we'd like to clarify that it includes the 125 ms fast L max. Item J is requiring the ADA compliance. In light of their suggesting a temporary five-year term, we'd like to ask that we be allowed to use the portable to meet the ADA compliance. And is there any questions for me?

Yeah, let's back up here real quick. So you want to make some changes to the stipulations that are being recommended. So, so on D, you want to change Friday and Saturday to 11pm?

Yes.

Darren, is this something that we would normally change here at the meeting? Or would we continue this and you guys meet to make these changes?

Mr. Chair, the commission can consider and your motion can include whatever revisions you think necessary.

Okay. So let's just make sure we get everything clear here. So stipulation D, you want to change to 10 p.m. on Sunday and 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday? Right. And then next was stipulation F. Do you want to change that to palm tree up lighting and string style bistro lighting?

Yeah, so we have shielding on most of our string lighting, but some of those light bulbs are so small and it doesn't make sense to us to have such a small light bulb and then a big shield. But we can obviously comply with the thousand lumens.

I would agree with you on the bistro lighting. The bulbs are too small to need shielding. But for the up lights for the palm trees that you're requesting above 20 feet, and I'll look to staff, would that still remain compliant with the dark sky out there? Because I know New River and Anthem, although... Not Anthem, but New River and Anthem both have dark sky expectations.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rockwallock, it will if it does not exceed 1,000 lumens and is shut off by 11 p.m.

Thank you. Okay. And then after F, you had an issue with stipulation H on the decibels. What was your recommendation or what was your request there?

so we didn't want a decibel limitation we'd like to be subject to the existing county ordinance and we're asking for a clear definition on how any acoustic measurement would be taken it would it would include the 125 ms fast l max so for question for staff is how is that um how is that regulated if this special use permit is approved how is this

55 decibel max, how is that regulated?

Mr. Chairman, staff has the ability with a decibel reader to go outside the SUP area and see if it exceeds 55. And we're talking about outside the SUP area, not right next to the person speaking.

So is that measured at his property or is this measured at the limits of the SUP?

Anywhere outside the SUP boundary. So it could be on his property, just outside the SCP, and if it's over 55 decibels, then... Or if we were on the street, we could measure it from the street, or if a neighbor let us onto their property, we could measure it from there. The other standard he's talking about that would have to be through law enforcement. We don't have the ability to make those kind of readings.

But I think what he's asking for is to remain at sort of the county-wide standard of noise. What is that standard?

That standard is at the discretion of the responding officer, is it the level of noise customarily expected from that land use? So it is subjective and at the discretion of the responding officer. And that would be through the MCSO deputies.

Does the county have standard quote unquote quiet hours? So right now his stipulations say 10. He's asking for at least 11 on Friday, Saturday. Is that pretty, if I'm throwing a house party, when do I need to be quiet?

I do not believe we have specific hours. There may be something in the county noise ordinance that the sheriff enforces, but we don't have anything in the zoning ordinance. However, with a special use permit, we can create conditions and we can enforce those conditions.

Understood. Okay, let's get through the rest of these and then we can make a, we have some discussion amongst the commission. So, sorry, I'm just making notes here. Okay, and then after H, what was your other?

ADA compliance, and we are asking to be able to use the temporary facilities to meet that requirement. And our argument there is in light of the short-term temporary five-year term that the staff is recommending.

So is that condition J? So just my personal recommendation here, I think there's a lot of things that you're asking to change here. If it was like one or two stipulations, then I would think we could handle this through modifying it up here. But I think you might be better off if we continue this and get the rest of these details hammered out with the county. Because there's a lot that we're changing and we're asking to change here that To be honest with you, I wasn't prepared for. I would like to do some research on what the county's ordinance is to be able to understand exactly what you're asking for, because I don't, and I'm not sure some of the other commissioners do at this time. Are you open to pushing this to the next meeting? Does the staff have time to work through him?

Perhaps a one-month continuance. I should say, Mr. Chair, I understand his changes to D and F. H, I'm not sure if he just wants to have a higher decibel level, and we could possibly consider that. But in regard to J, the requirement for restrooms, we would not be supportive of temporary restrooms for permanent land use.

And that's exactly why I'm bringing this up, because D and F, to me, is a no-brainer. That's something that's simple that we can handle here that I think we would all be in agreement with, that the county would be in agreement with. I think there's just a little bit more meat on the bone to discuss on H&J and try to be creative and come up with a solution that works for everybody. And I don't think we're going to be able to get to that right here right now is my recommendation. Would you be open to continuing this for a month and we can work with Andrew and the county to get H&J figured out?

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay. So I guess with that, I will, do we have to, Darren, make a motion to continue this? Yes, sir. And when's the next meeting?

Well, unfortunately, August 20th is a zipper meeting. So it would either be September, August 6th in two weeks or September 10th.

September 10th. Okay. Okay.

I'll go ahead and make the motion then. Mr. Chair, I move for a continuance of item six until the September 10th meeting.

All right. We have a recommendation to continue to September 10th by Commissioner Rockwalek. I'll second that. Is that Whitney? Okay. We have a second by Commissioner Whitney. Rosalie?

Chairman Hernandez.

Yes.

Commissioner Lawrence.

Yes.

Commissioner Layton.

Yes.

Commissioner Rock Wallach.

Yes.

Commissioner Thoma.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney.

Yes.

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

Mr. Chairman, sorry to interject. We may want to see if there was anybody online that wished to speak or in the audience to that case.

Even if we're going to continue it and we'll have an option to speak then?

Well, they might want to speak to not continue it.

OK. I don't know if there's any.

I believe there is somebody online.

We didn't have anybody in person, but.

Yeah, I believe there is somebody online.

Can can we let them we speak to them online and see if they have any issues or is it too late, since we already.

I would say procedurally we've already made a motion it's been seconded and voted upon so unfortunately for the individual online it the items continued.

Oh. Okay. Council has indicated we can go on the record that the individual, if we have their name, wanted to make an appearance and just let them know that this case is continued and it's going to be heard on September 10th.

And can we let them, if they're still on, if they come on on September 10th, can we have them speak first?

Okay.

Chair, this is David. Yeah, Mark. uh i don't know if they say his name right his last name is depth savage he had he had um indicated a desire to speak um so i have messaged him also um but it will be on september 10th so okay great thank you uh okay uh number seven z2024019 happy valley commercial joel

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, agenda item seven is Z202419, Happy Valley Commercial. That's a request for zone change from row 43 to C3CPD on 11 1⁄2 acres. That's at the northeast corner of Happy Valley Parkway and 115th Avenue, District 4, which is a Peoria County island. Next slide. The concept includes retail and commercial pads, office space, drive-thru restaurant, convenience store and gas station, car wash and self-storage. No plan development has been filed for the site as of today, but would be filed if and when this item is approved by the Board of Supervisors. Access runs entirely off Happy Valley Parkway, which is in the City of Peoria jurisdiction and off 115th Avenue. City access approval has to happen before plan development is approved. And of course issued will serve letters for water and wastewater but site next slide the proposed C three zoning is how many limited by the CPD overlay. Building hydro cabin 30 feet for most users, except for 40 feet for self storage and auto sales and service perimeter setbacks increase near the residential boundary to the north and along the east property line. That does abut vacant land under a separate pending rezone. I believe that's by the same applicant as well. The applicant proposed a three-foot screen wall instead of the standard six feet at that side. Storage parking ratios are pegged to Peoria's mini storage standard rather than the county's. Next slide. The site carries two different plan designations. The county's White Tank Grand Avenue area plan calls for a single-family transitional lot, and the City of Peoria's 2040 general plan designates it as rural, residential, and park-slash-open space. It does sit right at the Happy Valley and 303 interchange, which is a growth corridor that's already seeing commercial pressure on both sides of that street. Because of that, staff is recommending approval on this item. This is an established and now growing commercial corridor at the freeway interchange. It appears that infrastructure capacity is confirmed, and staff believes that the CUPD's self-imposed limits adequately address the transition to rural residential uses to the north. At this time, I'm happy to answer your questions.

All right, great. Thank you. Is there any questions for staff by the commission? All right, is the applicant here and ready to talk?

Hi, Chair Hernandez, members of the commission. My name is John Gillespie. I'm with the Rose Law Group, 7144 East Dutson. I do have a PowerPoint presentation, and Nadia, are you clicking through that for me? I have some mini clicks in it, so I might be saying click multiple times if that's all right. What we've got here, thank you, Joel, for introducing the item, is a piece of land that is in the county. We're surrounded by county land on the north and the south. Peoria is controlling of Happy Valley Parkway there, so that's within the city. Next slide there. As had been mentioned, this really is a growing commercial area. We're seeing a corridor of interest and there's heavy traffic. There's a lot of movement that's happening here. So if you just click through the next couple of slides here, Nadia, you'll see that starting kind of from the west there, we're seeing RV storage, we're seeing build to rent, we're seeing the North Peoria Gateway PAD, which is a multi-use commercial and residential project that was approved by the city of Peoria. commercial zoning directly south of our site, including a gas station, the QT, some self-storage, and another build-to-rent community. So really growing up in this area and along the Happy Valley Parkway, major arterial. Next slide. And there's some planned RV storage to the east of us as well. I think this is a helpful context that the city of Peoria has been working with. state land regarding a major development project that is directly adjacent to our site to the west. The North Peoria Gateway PAD creates some heights, some standards, and some commercial allowances that are directly to the west of this site. And we've been working with Maricopa County staff in light of this development to integrate and provide fluid development that works with with our site and with the arterial that's south of us.

Next slide.

Certainly there's growing pains as we see in the valley as there's demand for residential growth and we're seeing a boom of business and so All of those things come into, we gotta work together as the community grows. And so we know that there's residential to the north of us, appreciate Craig and Steve who are here today to speak about their properties that are to the north of us. We've really been trying to work directly with our neighbors and with staff to appropriately mitigate the impacts of commercial development. So with that, one of the key things is you look at uses. And so we've looked at the use tables Primarily what we're providing here is a C1 commercial development, although we know that there's demand for some C2 and a single C3 use as well. So that's what our request is for, is for a commercial development, primarily C1, and adding in a couple other uses that we know there's demand and need for these services in this area. So you can click the next one there. I think it's, yeah, go ahead and you go to the next one. So the key thing that we've worked with staff as well is, okay, what are some of the uses that really we know are, I keep thinking deplorable, I don't wanna say that multifamily is deplorable, There's some uses that sometimes have a little bit more of an impact on those transitions with rural residential. And so we specifically looked at that and we've said, okay, these ones are not gonna be allowed in this zoning category and using the CUPD as the tool to restrict out. So that's where you're seeing there's not gonna be multifamily, there's not gonna be auto shop uses, there's not gonna be pawn shops, special events wouldn't be allowed, those type of things. Those are at least compatible uses, and we restricted them out. Next slide. When we talk about building height, that's another aspect that's important for compatibility measures. So what we've said is we've said, okay, commercial zoning, we're going to limit the height at 30 feet for the majority of buildings. We do know that a self-storage user is interested in this site and that they would need 40 feet of height. And so that's the single use that would be allowed to build the 40 feet. Everything else would have a limitation at 30 feet. And just for context, the rural residential zoning that's adjacent to us does allow homes and RV storage, those type of things to be built on those lots up to 35 feet. So just some context there of what our request is and what our proposal is for our building height. Next slide. Another compatibility measure to think about is is setbacks. And so we've looked at the actual building setbacks. If you can go back one more, Nadia just illustrates, we've looked specifically, okay, what uses, and this is still at a conceptual level, but what uses that could come here and can we go above what the Maricopa County standards would typically be? Where Maricopa County typically requires a 25 foot back for, you know, a lot of these uses to get developed their, their menu boards. Those type of things we're looking at, hey, can we increase that a little bit and bring it in in alignment with what would make a good transition. And so that's what you're seeing here where we're requesting 150 foot setbacks for bays and 200 foot setback for a menu board and those aspects that you see in your packet there. So next slide please. Again, we've got this conceptual site plan that we've put together. We are still going to need to come through with a plan of development. That plan of development will be coordinated with the city of Peoria. We engaged early on with the city of Peoria on our proposal. They encouraged us to go through the zoning process and to continue to coordinate with them regarding access. And so no plan of development can get approved by the county until the stipulations that the city of Peoria has for its access because they control the right of way. And so this conceptual site plan that you're seeing here just lays out, hey, if these uses were to get developed on the site, this is how we think they could orient and comply with the increased setbacks that we were proposing. Next slide. So just to highlight a few of those measures that we're taking. So there is a road, Avenida Del Rey, that is where the residential access on the north comes from. We have a lot that fronts onto that That road. But we're, we're explicitly saying there's gonna be no access on to Avenue Del Rey our access will primarily come from Happy Valley Parkway and then as well from 115th Avenue, which is what connects to the intersection right there on the south. Next slide. Just showed the the access points that we're proposing to to the south. Next slide. I can go back one more another just compatibility measure that we've in our talks with the neighbors. There's been a request. Can you put an eight foot wall that's a request for security and for for transition and buffering and so The landowner has agreed that I'm he'll install an eight foot perimeter wall as opposed to a six foot wall along the entirety of our northern stretch and then we have a landscaping buffer that that's will be required there as well that Helps with that transition. Next slide. wanted to just illustrate a little bit. We've got this building on the north that's conceptually placed there and we know that it's up there on the north and that's necessary for the site development to happen. But we really think there's some appropriate buffers there from that building to existing residential that's been built. And so you can see it's 100 foot to the home that's to the north. That's the separation. Sorry about that. That's the separation between building the building. There's a 200 foot separation from building the building on the west. There's 150 foot separation to the building that would be towards the east. I think context-wise, sometimes we were just looking at just the building. We forget that there's some other factors of where existing buildings have been placed and some of those things. When you visit the site, the topography is unique where the homes that are to the east of us, Stephen and Craig's homes, they actually sit higher than the site. And so when this development comes in, when the storage building on the north, for instance, when it comes in, it's gonna be necessary to lower some of the grade and it already sits lower than the homes to the east. And so that assists with buffer because while we may have a 40 foot building there, it's going to actually sit lower than the homes that naturally have been built perched up higher on the ledge to the east. And so that grade kind of separation is going to help with compatibility significantly. I'll put it right here too that in discussing with the neighbors and with the landowner, the landowner has determined and worked with our engineering group that he thinks he can shift that building to orient north to south. And so we haven't proposed, haven't discussed this one with staff. It wasn't required of staff to us for transition, but we think that it's an additional offering that is helpful for the neighbors' concerns that they've shared to us that, hey, We'll reorient this building and we'll stipulate to that. And so the stipulation that we're proposing is 150 foot setback for that self storage building from the property line that would be the east and the south. And so that Mr. Henry's lot that's directly east to us we'd like to self-impose 150 foot building setback for buildings that are over 30 feet. And that would have the effect of reorienting that self-storage building so that it's running north to south.

I jumped in on a question. Yeah, go ahead. Because based on this illustration, 150 feet, you said from the property line?

So it's 150 feet from the building to the the current residence itself. So that's what the proposed building would be 150 feet. So just giving that context that that's the separation in existing conditions of the home against where the currently proposed building on this plan would be at. But what we're proposing is that it would actually be 150 foot setback from the actual property line to the building minimum It likely will end up being more than that just because of the width of that building. It's only 100 foot wide building. So not to get too far in the weeds here, but we should get into the weeds of it. That 150 foot setback would actually add to where it'd be about 250 feet from the building itself to the residence of Mr. Henry. It's his home.

Okay.

I just wanted to confirm that this image does not This is not updated. This is an east-west orientation of that self-sorge building. So we're essentially taking that east-west running building and we're saying completely rotate it so that it's north-south.

Thank you.

Next slide. As had been mentioned, we've coordinated the city of Peoria on this project. They provided some stipulations that they're going to care about in terms of access to the site. And so we're gonna fully comply with those. We've got a condition of approval. It's so faint, I can't actually see it. Hopefully you see it a little bit better on your screen there. The condition that shows that prior to the plan of development, the city of Peoria needs to approve its access, of course. Next slide. With that, I'm happy to take any questions that the commission might have.

Yes, I have one question. You stated several times that the finished grade of the proposed lot is going to be substantially lower than the current residential lots. Do you know what that difference in finished grade is?

I don't have a department map immediately at hand, but it's 5 to 10 feet. I would say conservatively that there's spots where it's, you know, five feet of grade separation between that Eastern lot and the West lot. And Chris can correct me if he thinks that there's more than that, but conservatively, there's about a five feet grade difference.

So at your 40 foot max height, it's, you know, to surrounding grade would max be 35, potentially 30.

Exactly. That's the actual physical look of it will be much, much lower than the 40 feet.

Okay. Thank you. Is there any other... Questions for the applicant and the commission. Oh, Darren. Yes.

Hi, Mr. Chair, commissioners. I need to point out that we failed to include condition D15 in the recommendation, which would be the permitted uses in the C3 CUPD zoning district that were discussed here today. And for the record, I'd read that to say D.15, permitted uses, all uses permitted in the C1 zoning district except for multifamily residential, Honorable laundry drive in restaurants and refreshments, stands, restaurants and cafes, retail stores, self storage facilities, automobile sales service and rental and accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to the above.

But you said it would allow those uses or everything except those uses.

Those are the only uses that would be allowed. I'll defer to the applicant to make sure we're in agreement.

Okay. under the C3. So the C1 use, for instance, a professional office, Darren, would still be permitted, right?

Everything permitted in C1 except for multifamily residential.

Yeah, that matches our understanding in how we see our narrative written.

OK. So you mentioned that you've been working with the city of Peoria and the city of Peoria's planning department, and you continue to work with them. But we've received a few letters from council members in Peoria, two in support and two in opposition, or two in listing concerns. In the two that have listed concerns, they're saying that the proposed use, although still ambiguous aside from the self-storage, is not consistent with their general plan. I don't get what is your response to that I mean if you're working with the planning department i'm confused how. I mean the planning department doesn't really get to say because you're in the county, but I guess, what is your response to being outside of the general plan for the city of peoria.

Yeah, through the chair commissioner, thank you. Um, you will see in your staff report, the letter from the planning department, um, in, uh, city Peoria, uh, and they did not raise in this particular issue that they're concerned about the compatibility with their general plan. Um, I would say that number one from the county's standpoint is single lot transitional, but so is the property to the south of us that has a cutie and so is a lot of property, so the county takes a pragmatic approach of. Looking at using a channel plan as a reference point but also realizing that there is appropriate areas for commercial development and that's kind of built into how the county does it. City of Peoria, like I mentioned, that North Gateway PAD that they just approved directly to the west of us, they also modified their general plan in relation to that to allow those commercial uses. And so while our site that's directly to the east does not currently comply with their land use designation under the city's current map, we do think that it's appropriate given the context of commercial growth in that area. So while technically There's that conflict, I think, with their planning map. I think looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint, we do comply with the intent of their general plan.

Why not annex into the city of Peoria?

Frankly, we talked to the city of Peoria and their direction was go and get your zoning in the county. And so that was the direction that they gave to us is that they thought that was appropriate. And so they gave us that direction. And we think that we've done a good job to comply with kind of the standards of the county and then as well, what Peoria's expectations would be. And so everything north of the road here, like the residential to north, that's all in the county too. So it's kind of what I would call a little bit of an island. That's what the county is.

And I hear that. I think it is concerning when the two council members who represent North Peoria have issued concerns over this proposal. And although the two city council members that you have in support of the proposal are in the southern part of the city and do not represent this northern part, oftentimes staff does not always check in with the electeds that represent this area before making their own decisions. So for me, it is concerning that the two electeds that represent North Peoria have issued concerns.

City Council Chambers, Commissioner, the notes taken absolutely I think you'll see in their their letters that they they appreciate and understand that commercial, this is commercial growing area and we're we're not. City Council Chambers, we're certainly not opposed to to annexing to the city at some point I don't think that those Council members would be opposed to that either, so we think we've set the framework up to make that appropriate to tax in the future, but we're following the direction that was given to us earlier. Thank you.

City Council Chambers, counselor. I I look at this plan and I have no problem with rezoning. The commercial. But I do have a problem. With taking oh for one D. And rezoning it, I feel like you're trying to put a square peg into a round hole, you should going into a residential neighborhood. And putting commercial between two residential properties on acreage I live on an acre, this is my hood. I know this area intimately and I just I just don't see it for over one day I don't mind the rest of it. But I feel like you're intruding into a residential area with a 40 foot build. I've got a neighbor that has a 35-foot man cave. And I mean, it's fine. He has the right to do it. But this is a big building that you're talking about putting on 041D. It would make more sense to me if your client owned 041C, because then it's kind of the whole corner there. But he doesn't. So again, I I will entertain what you guys are talking about, but 041D I have a problem with.

Through Chair, Commissioner Layton, thank you. Again, just given the narrowness of my client's property, the landowner that's directly adjacent to an arterial, we agree, we think commercial is absolutely appropriate for this site. And so as that commercial actually happens, We need to look at the specifics of what are the needs for a building and for fire access and for orientation. And so that's why the engineer looked at it and said, this is the appropriate location. But with the note being taken of, hey, we're hearing concerns, we're hearing that that building feels a little bit stark. And so that's why we're self-imposing. We're saying, let's add another extra 100 feet to what we were already proposing to set that building back. If it pleases the commission, we could increase that. I think 200 feet would actually facilitate that north to south orientation of that building. And for context as well, I think it's helpful to see. So we'd call it a 200 foot building setback to the neighbors to the east who are here with us today. We'd have a 40 foot setback from the future property line on the north, which goes 40 feet, Avenida Del Rey, and then the neighbors to the north. And then on the west, we also have a 40-foot setback on that side. And we have a drainage channel that runs right there that creates that. So it's almost a 200-foot setback to where the home to the west, who hasn't commented on the case, would be located. So given those significant buffers and boundaries, we We really think that it's appropriate that we've mitigated that concern for a building height there. And then again, as had been mentioned of the grade, that we sit lower than the homes to our east. And so it really provides a great differential there. So we think we've made some best efforts and some good concessions to try to address that concern. That that's, but it's a necessary can you know necessary mitigation measures that we we go through in order to really make commercial actually work at this narrow narrow site.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other Comments for the applicant from the commissioners online.

All right. Thank you, sir. Yes, chair, if it's all right, if I reserve just a little bit of time.

Yeah, yeah, we'll proceed with the in-person speakers and allow everybody online and then we'll give you some time to provide some rebuttal afterwards. Thank you. OK, we will move to the in-person speakers. We got Steve Henry. Thank you for this commission. Can you can you guys hear me? Yeah, I can hear you now.

OK, I apologize. I was talking before. I can hold my comments or speak now.

If you want to wait till all the we get public information and when the applicant comes back up, then we can talk. That's okay with you.

That works. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Henry, please state your name for the record. And if you please keep your comments to two minutes or less.

Yes. My name is Stephen Henry. I own the property at 11341 West Avenida Del Rey, which is adjacent on the west side and also on the south side to this new rezoning thing. I understand that the property has to change at some point and it is a really good location for a lot of commercial things. I don't have too much problem with what the use is going to be around my property. The 40 foot high building is really intrusive. There's my house and there's five new houses just to the north of that that weren't showed on their plan. I can't see why they couldn't either go with a two-story building, which would lower it down so it wouldn't be a great big, intrusive box, or put one level underground or something like that. As far as the restaurants and the gas stations on the other side, And the car wash, I would hope that the car wash would not be too noisy because there are always big blowers at a car wash that's going to emanate into the five houses that are right to the north of this property. As far as getting in and out of the property, 115th Avenue, with all the homes that are out in that area now, is a fairly heavily used road. It is too small. If they're going to dump more traffic into that area, The whole intersection is going to have to be rebuilt there in some way. There is no turn lane or anything like that there. There's a tremendous amount of accidents at 115th and Happy Valley. There's seems like there's about one a week over there. Those are my biggest issues with this. I'm done.

Thank you very much for coming down.

Yep.

All right, next, Craig Littlejohn. Thank you for coming down. If you could please say your name for the record and keep your comments to two minutes or less.

All right, thank you. Name is Craig Littlejohn. I live at 11305 West Avenue Delray. There's a lot to unpack here, so I've done my best to consolidate and bulletize in respect of your time. My name is Craig Littlejohn. I'm speaking in opposition on behalf of myself and several neighbors within 300 feet of this zoning request. We all bought or built our homes in this area to enjoy the quiet, peaceful rural lifestyle. It's been tough, but we swallowed the pill that the land behind and beside our homes could be developed commercially. We accept this, but the new uses need to be good neighbors and transition well into an established rural residential neighborhood. What's currently proposed doesn't meet these simple criteria, and I'll go into a few details of why. The car wash has a proposed setback of 75 feet from residential. test noise levels at nearby car wash just to see what this looks like. Measurements were taken at 75 feet with an app from NIOSH, which is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and also used a standalone sound level meter. I measured 84 decibels at one car wash and 86 at another at 75 feet. For reference, NIOSH categorizes a sound level of 80 dB to a freight train 100 feet away. What's proposed could be 4 to 6 dB higher than this. Some interesting context or excerpts from the city of Peoria's car wash requirements are the building must be a minimum of 200 feet from residential property, and the sound level at the street and interior property lines must be no more than 55 dB. Continuous 84 to 86 decibel levels at our property lines is unhealthy and will destroy our backyard sanctuaries. Outdoor amplified music is permitted in C3, I understand that, but like the be live bands outdoor dancing you know who knows going on through the evening this should not be permitted the drive-through restaurants these will bring unwanted noise smells late night drive-through traffic etc into our into our backyards in the conceptual layout i'd be looking at two of them from my back patio and then my last this is my last point onto the three-story storage building i submitted and handed out an aerial view of what it looks like currently We feel storage is a good fit for the property, as you heard Mr. Henry say, but it needs to be executed correctly. What's proposed is a three-story monster tucked in between and next to single-story residential homes. Based on the proposed 40-foot setback, the building as shown could actually go 19 feet closer to the new homes to the north. There's five of them. I researched 65 storage facilities in Metro Phoenix. I provided that data and made some observations. Three-story storage buildings are typically much farther away from residential property than the proposed 40-foot setback. They're also located in areas with lower residential property values or in more industrial areas. On the flip side, the positive side, there's a couple of one-story storage facilities within a few miles of us that are integrated very well into existing rural residential neighborhoods. One of them even built an additional level underground to avoid making the building taller. something like this would be a good fit in our neighborhood. I did want to speak real quick on the grade reduction, the talk of grade reduction. That's awesome. I think that's fantastic. But I think it does need to be locked into what that really is going to look like because I don't want to go down the road and then find out, well, we decided we were only going to go one foot. I think that should be a commitment. And like I mentioned, the property of the north, it's shown vacant here, which was true back when these original plans were drawn up. Um, that now has 5 new beautiful custom homes on 1 acre lots. So, in closing, I ask that you please not approve this result request as submitted and we can continue to work together with the applicant to create a palette of uses that meets their needs and are a good fit in our rural residential neighborhood. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. That was very well done. I appreciate it. All right, um, I think we have some speakers online. no nobody online okay great um i guess we can have the applicant come back up and uh commissioner thoma if you would uh if you can uh hear us if you'd like to state your questions or comments or concerns the applicants back up and answer anything yeah i just wanted to know a little bit of the history behind how the different sites were acquired because i agree with commissioner layton

The properties directly adjacent to Happy Valley Road makes sense to get rezoned as commercial. But where the current U-Haul storage sits, it looks like it was a residential lot that was acquired and kind of packaged together. And I am also having a hard time getting over the fact that it's sandwiched between two residential houses. I'M WONDERING WHAT THE HISTORY WAS BEHIND HOW THESE SITES WERE ACQUIRED.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER THOMAS, IF YOU'RE SEEING ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT HERE, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE THREE LOTS OF MR. HENRY AND LITTLE JOHN TO THE EAST, THOSE ARE PRETTY DEEP LOTS THERE, AND SO I THINK THE prior lot, the current lot, the way it's configured, a lot combination would be needed, of course, but it extends down to where if that lot was built with a home, you're not going to be able to have any commercial access on the 115th Avenue there. And so that's why that's the property owner assembled this entire package to be able to make the entire site work for commercial. So if you develop it with residential directly next to Avenida Del Rey, there's just literally, there's not gonna be access available onto 115th Avenue. And so it erodes the ability to do commercial at this location. So that's why it's a necessary part to have that parcel there. But again, hearing the commission on this, we're agreeable to reorient that building so that it's north to south as opposed to running east to west. And we think that, I looked at Mr. Littlejohn's research that he did. I see some issues. I'd like to see actual pictures of that correspond with the numbers that he shared. 200-foot setback is more than the three-story buildings that he noted on there. There's a few instances that he noted that were less than 200-foot setback. So we think that's a significant offering and makes a lot of sense for the commission to consider, given its stated concern on this.

Does that answer your question, Commissioner Toma?

all right um would you like to spend a few minutes to uh provide some rebuttal for um the public comments or uh yeah sorry this is commissioner toma i was just coming back to i don't see access between 115th avenue and the site the the rest of the site The applicant just said they needed the north lot to have access between those two or did I misunderstand?

Commissioner Toma, what I was pointing out is if you see essentially that our jutting that goes north to Avenue Del Rey, that would be able to facilitate two acre lots. So if it had to get developed as rural residential, you'd have two acre lots right there that would fit, but- Excuse me, sir.

No, you wouldn't. That lot is 1.4. 041D is 1.4.

So it could not be split into two one acre lots note taking control and i'm pointing out that if I agree that it's a the size of it today of that lot is 1.4 but if you were looking to develop it as residential, then you would need to have. two acres right there. And so you would actually need to acquire land to the south and move your southern boundary so that it moved to the south to align with Mr. Henry and Mr. Littlejohn's cutting across there. And that's where I'm saying that that would erode the ability to do commercial on the other parcels. So we can't have rural residential on that jut out to Avenida del Rey and have the commercial development go. City Council Chambers, Are you seeing what i'm illustrating there, so if if the concern is we'd like that we'd like that parcel to develop as rural residential. City Council Chambers, Then, that that wouldn't work because we need to have an acre lot that had depth there and so. City Council Chambers, that's that that explained, I hope to explain to the what the question was was kind of the history of why that parcel would have been purchased and assembled into the commercial and it really is to facilitate that access. And so again, we, we think that we've worked with your staff. We've, we've worked with the neighbors on this this concern and given all the facts of what's been presented. We do think a 200 foot setback. from the property line on the east moves a 40-foot building substantially away from the property line. And it corresponds with what their own research showed of how far away a three-story building has been done next to residential in the valley. And then of course, we've got the drainage floodway to the west that provides that.

May I ask a question of the two gentlemen that were here? Did you know that, until this morning, did you know that they were gonna offer The 200 foot setback. Just this morning, just this morning okay morning and how do you feel about because I hear you say now you're not worried about the storage, but you're concerned about the three story, but if they move it north south does that work better.

It's kind of picking up warm jello squares. You're taking a 40-foot building and shifting it around. It would create more distance, like from Mr. Henry's property, but you're pushing it up and over next to other properties. We're just kind of shifting the problem around. And then also by doing that, what does that now open up for that space that's clear? Does it introduce a new challenge into the area that wasn't there before? And one of the terminology I kind of don't like here, when we're talking setbacks, it's setback from a building to property. I appreciate talking about houses, but we really need to look at... Well, he did clarify that.

You said from the property line. Apologies. Yeah, like a normal setback.

Okay. Apologies. I missed that.

Yeah, that's right. Here's my question. It seems like you guys, and we may not be there yet, but it seems like you guys have been working together to get these details worked out. Counselor, is that correct?

Yeah, the neighbors have been absolutely very good at corresponding with us and working to cordially share on it.

Except for Helene. I'm surprised Helene's not here. She couldn't get through with her gun more than like Would it behoove us all to continue this for another 30 days or until September so you guys could get back together and discuss? Because I'm not hearing that the storage is really a problem, but I'm hearing that the height of the storage is the problem. Is that correct? Is that what I'm hearing?

Commissioner Layton, respectfully, I think we're also hearing from the neighbors that know i maybe i don't know the term the warm jello moving around but i think we're hearing that there's there's going to be discomfort either way whether we're east to west oriented or north to south oriented and in terms of the requirements of our our user with u-haul this is a requirement that they have to develop at the site and so they can facilitate that north to south it it know it causes some changes to their their plan but they've evaluated it and they looked at and they said they can make that make that work and and so uh to also point out it it doesn't further impact any other neighbors to orient it north to south because we own the parcel kind of to that south that southwest and and again there's that significant floodway channel on the west and so um respectfully. I don't know that 30 days is going to change the feelings on that, but I do think that we've done a good job to mitigate that concern. So I would defer to the Commission on whether they feel that 30 more days would help us to get to yes, but I do think we've done a good job on that.

30 more days may not help solve the self-storage 30 days may not help solve the self-storage issue. But what I'm hearing from the neighbors is it may help solve some of the ambiguity that you have if you've already been willing to limit some uses. I've heard you can't eliminate all uses. I mean, as the neighbors are well aware of, this is Happy Valley Road. This is this is this road has exit signs on three different interstates and and highway systems so this is a major throwaway it's going to develop commercially but I've heard concerns over noise related to the car wash again in an ambiguous proposal you don't have a user to the best of my knowledge you mentioned U-Haul but no other users for the site and so perhaps 30 days could solve some of the other neighbourhood concerns with the ambiguity.

And the grade?

There is a meeting on August 6th. I think you have a Planning Commission meeting scheduled on that date. If the Commission is requesting that, we'd be agreeable to continue to discuss that. Again, I know we've been working with staff.

Can you all not...

open to going down one and up two to still get their three stories chair hernandez that that's not how they they do their building so they're um the underground element wouldn't work for so now this is uh commissioner thoma i think for me it's important that the residents are okay with where the u-haul building is located and how it's oriented because i i understand the uh landowners need to acquire this lot but at the end of the day this if if you look at this where it where it currently sits the north lot uh it is it is a residential lot in a residential neighborhood that's being grafted into a commercial site and if for me at least if the residents around that are not okay with that because of the particular type of use which in this case is the three c3 um three three-story u-haul building um then i i would not be supportive of that and so i i think having some time to work with the residents to make sure that they're okay with that use and ultimately if they're not i think the landowner owner needs to find a different use to put on that site that's just my my two cents on it to commissioner thomas point um

That may not be U-Haul's model, but it is other models. There's a, forgive me, I don't know the name of the storage unit, but there is a storage unit on Cape Creek and Tatum within the City of Phoenix that is one down, two up. So it may not be U-Haul's model, but it is a model used consistently among other users.

Through the Chair, Commissioner Tomah, Commissioner Roschewald, Probably should point out as well, self-storage use really is considered to be a little bit more of a benign neighborhood impact. So when we're talking about those building heights, we're seeing, you see many instances of apartment buildings or office buildings or higher use and impact type buildings that are being actually placed closer to property lines than what we're proposing here. And so I think just as we're working through this with the neighbors, I hope the commission will consider that context that a self storage building actually is a little bit more benign than some other uses.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. I think you're close. And I think that the neighbors are willing to work with you guys. I think if you can come up with a solution on The car wash and if maybe we can or you guys can orient the storage facility to come to some common ground with the neighbors. I think this would be an easier pill to swallow for everybody. I'm okay with this use. I'm all for it. I think there's a solution here. I think if you can reorient the storage facility and move it south so that maybe it's not even on that rural or the RU43 parcel at all, and that's landscape or retention or parking or something like that. I think if we had a clear understanding of what the grades are, you know, if your finished grade is going to be at minus 10, then your 40-foot building is now a 30-foot building, which is compatible with RU43, and it may be a moot point for the neighbors, you know. So I would recommend if we continue it for two weeks. I think you guys would get there. The neighbors that came down seemed very reasonable and can work through something. That's just my two cents. So anyways, is there any other public interest? You guys have anything else?

No, thank you. I think a two-week continuance would be a good idea.

All right, thank you. We'll close the public forum. Is there any discussion among the

Mission here.

That's good.

OK. Mr. Toma.

Nothing for me. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

OK. Then do we want to make a motion?

Do I make it to continue, Darren? I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE Z2024019 TO THE AUGUST 6TH MEETING. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 6TH BY COMMISSIONER LAYTON. I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND. AND WE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROCKWELLOCK, ROSA LEE.

CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ.

YES.

COMMISSIONER LAWRENCE.

Yes.

Commissioner Layton.

Yes.

Commissioner Rockwallet.

Yes.

Commissioner Toma.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney.

Yes.

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

Great. Thank you, Rosalie. All right. Item number eight, TU260026.

Good morning, Chairman and members of the Commission. Agenda item number eight is a temporary use permit request for the property located at 14433 West Peoria Avenue in the Weddell area in Supervisor District 4. The temporary offsite construction yard request is for temporary yard complex to support a water line extension project along Peoria Avenue. staff has interpreted this to allow the top to act as the mcp and pod given the temporal nature of the entitlement with a very short duration of only five months and the fact that the temporary use is in support of a public infrastructure improvement project The applicant is proposing to use vacant parcels in the rural 43 military airport and ancillary military facility zoning district. The temporary use is for limited duration construction staging until December 12, 2026, including storage of materials, equipment, employee parking, and related logistical activities necessary to complete the work. The proposed yard complex is requested because the temporary construction easement along the right-of-way does not have the adequate space to store materials. Since this is an off-site construction yard, not on-site of the construction, a TOP is required. staff received three letters of opposition to the application during the posting period however staff supports approval of the tup per the requirement of zoning ordinance article 100227 the request provides an adequate storage area towards the completion of copperwing distribution looping and improvement phase one project Luke Air Force Base has signed off on the TUP in that they found this request to be compatible and consistent with within the high noise and accident potential zone of a military air base and ancillary military facility. Thank you. At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you, Veronica. Is there any questions for staff by the Commission? All right. Is the applicant here? Would you like to speak? Thank you for coming down. Just please state your name for the record.

My name is Jesus. I'm the president of elite civil construction. Just wanted to thank you guys for the opportunity to speak. As the staff mentioned, this project will consist of installing a water line from 151st Avenue to Dysart on Peoria. The purpose of this infrastructure is to improve the water pressure, to be able to feed new businesses in the area that's growing around this particular site. We did reach out to a couple of different properties in the areas that were more agricultural to try to find a facility that would allow us to store our materials temporarily. We were not able to come into any sort of agreement with any other locations. We did reach out to this particular parcel owner to see if we could potentially store the materials. We do want to clarify that this will be a storage facility only. No work will be taking place in this area. The stretch of pipeline that we will be installing is approximately about two and a half miles worth of pipe. Not all the material will be stored here. We will only have the material that we will need momentarily throughout the different phases of construction. So the use of this particular area will be limited. We also will limit the access from Peoria Avenue, so we won't need to impact any any other locations or any other roads leading to this. And we will have a security fence around this area that will prohibit any children or any residents or anything from coming in contact with any of the materials or equipment that we have stored on site.

You get a little bit closer to the microphone. You cut out there for the last part.

I mentioned that we will have a uh, security fence, uh, around the facility, uh, that will prevent any, any children or any, uh, uh, pedestrians or any neighbors from entering the area. So that area will be, uh, it's all the six foot temporary chain link fence. Um, we get it off, uh, hours of operations right now. We're only working Monday through Friday, uh, about 6 AM to about 2 PM. Um, those are current working hours now. Um, so we're not expecting, uh, any work outside of those hours.

Great, thank you. So who's your contract with to install the pipe? Is it with the city?

It's with EPCOR Water.

EPCOR? Okay, so the EPCOR awarded you this project, you needed somewhere to go, you found this site and started using it, and then... received a violation. Is that is that what happened?

Yes, that's absolutely correct. We were not aware that we did require a temporary use permit. That's definitely an oversight on our part. We did reach out to the landowner and in some other instances, we've just been able to have a land use agreement with the owner, pay our lease fees for every single month. So we were completely unaware that we needed a temporary use permit. The owner did receive a violation, sent us the notice immediately, and we acted to get the temporary use permit.

Okay. And then you're projected to be done in early December, correct?

December 31st. It must be completed by December 31st.

What's your schedule showing right now?

It's showing to be completed about December 15th currently.

Okay, that's all the questions I had. Is there any other questions of the applicant by the Commission?

Just to confirm, the temporary use permit is for only for five months. And you're projecting that you should be completed by December?

Yes, that's correct.

You're not worried about any running into maybe any issues and needing an extra month?

I don't believe so. As we start progressing on this project, There'll be less and less need for the storage facility. So in realistic expectations, we expect to probably be out of there in November timeframe. But it's just a temporary location so we can store the materials.

But the materials will get used as progress. And the temporary use permit, would that be valid through December 31st? Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I have.

Is there any other questions of the applicant? All right, great. Thank you. Thank you. We'll let people come up and talk and allow you some time for rebuttal if necessary. All right, we'll move on to in-person speakers. We got Beth Mortensen. Do you wish to speak or you just? OK, if you just come up to the podium, please say your name for the record and please keep your comments to two minutes or less.

My name is Beth Mortensen. I live just adjacent to this property. My address is 14438 West Cochise Drive in Waddell. Our neighborhood has spent years working to preserve its residential character, as many of you know from the Project Bacara situation that we're facing and many others over the years that we've lived there. This is another decision that deeply matters to the families who've invested in this community. We aren't asking for anything special. We know it's temporary, but we're asking for the residential stipulation to protect us. We relied on that when we purchased the land many years ago. When my family chose to build our home there, we did so because it was a residential neighborhood. We understand zoning and deed restrictions and abided by all of those with the expectations that came with living there. Those rules matter because they give homeowners like me confidence that the character of their neighborhood will be protected. What concerns me most about this request isn't simply that it's temporary. It's that the character use that already has begun before this permit was acquired and approved. That puts the county in a difficult position of deciding whether to approve something after the fact instead of evaluating it before the use started. As neighbors, we've already, experienced impacts. This is actually in the front of our whole community. So it's the entrance of our neighborhood. The decisions made about this parcel affect the first impressions of the entire community and the quality of life for the people who live here every day. I understand that businesses need to operate and store equipment, but that's exactly why we have commercial and industrial zoning. Before I conclude, I will just say the fence that he just mentioned, that's the first I've heard about it. Those are actually not allowed with the zoning. You're not allowed to have anything but a block wall. And so that is in direct violation of what the residential stipulations that we've all followed. So we're asking respectfully for you to deny the special use permit and hold the residential protections that the homeowners rely on to invest in their community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right. Next, we have Holly Tomachoff.

Hi, good morning. My name is Holly Tomachoff and I'm a nearby resident, live right next to Beth. I'm here today to respectfully ask the Commission to deny this temporary use permit. Although the permit is described as temporary, it is intended to support this water line project through December 31st. The proposed construction yard is located on residentially zoned property at the entrance of our neighborhood. This is not an appropriate location for commercial equipment storage, construction activity, or the daily traffic that comes with this type of use. The impacts are not theoretical. We've already experienced increased commercial traffic. There's already outdoor equipment storage. Employees have been parking their vehicles on our private street. And the company vehicles have been using our private roadway to access the property. Vehicles have also driven and parked on surrounding lots that are not included in the permit area. And so the impacts have already extended beyond the property covered by this application. There's also a safety concern for families in the neighborhood. We have children that regularly walk, play, and ride bikes in the area. Introducing construction, air traffic, employee vehicles, and equipment movement onto a private residential roadway creates risks that don't belong in a residential neighborhood. I'm concerned that the use began before the permit was approved. The permitting process is supposed to allow the county and the residents to evaluate a proposed use before it starts. Approving the permit after the operation is already underway undermines that process and may encourage others to begin unauthorized use first and seek permission after. The fact that a use is temporary does not eliminate the impact on the surrounding residents private road, safety, or the residential character of the area. For this reason, I respectfully ask that you deny this temporary use permit. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Great, thank you. All right.

The temporary use permit, does it strip? It doesn't

does not strip the underlying residential zoning of the site is that accurate that is correct mr chair commissioner rockwall zoning's rule 43 there's a construction project within the right of way the construction yard for the construction project can't fit within the right-of-way So it's off-site. I understand.

And that's why they're here for the temporary use permit. But the temporary use permit, even for the five months, does not strip the fact that it is still residential property.

That is correct. It's Rule 43. Okay.

And then 144th Drive, that's the northwest access road that is to the eastern border of the 020S parcel, 144th Drive. Is that a private road or is that a county road?

Oh, they're all private. Except for Peoria Avenue, they're all private.

Okay, so all those residents pay into the maintenance of 144th?

Yes, the underlying property owners maintain the easement. Thank you.

Do we have anybody online who wishes to speak regarding this case?

I don't think anybody online do.

All right. Question for the applicant. Do you have any other words you want to say in rebuttal?

So I do want to mention regarding the vehicle traffic that has been accessing this area. At the commencement of the project, we were unaware that that was a private road. Um, we have instructed all our employees and, uh, facility, uh, uh, personnel that, uh, access to that location would only be through Peoria Avenue. Uh, we have, uh, uh, we can't unfortunately control all of the other entities that are involved. Uh, we have notified our client at Port Water that, uh, that area is not, uh, to be accessible. Uh, but also there is, uh, Glendale, the City of Glendale, um, City of Surprise. and McDot that is also involved in this project and El Mirage. So we will relay that information to them, make sure they don't access any of the portion through this private area. Also do wanna note that we do have a right-of-way permit that has been issued from McDot, which allows us to basically use the right-of-way easement, which is in between the edge of pavement of Peoria Avenue all the way up to the edge of the parcel. We can move materials there. We have cleared that with the MCDOT inspector. So we can move materials over and not use this facility. We just felt that it would be easier and be able to uh give us a better construction uh process if we were to use this area but uh essentially we will still uh we can move the materials outside of right away and we won't need to uh get a temporary use permit uh that however will still uh have uh uh not necessarily address all the concerns that uh The residents might have in the area, because there will still be materials throughout this entire roadway in the right of way and it's going to be there for you know the next four or five months.

Okay, great Thank you, thank you have a question actually to. There was a dispute about fencing is there fencing or is there not fencing.

No, there's no fencing right now currently installed.

But did you say you were putting a fence?

We will be putting a temporary chain link. Yes, correct.

Okay. And the other entities that are involved in this project, they're not accessing your site. Glendale, Surprise, McDot.

They have in the past just for meetings on site to go over permits and discuss traffic control.

But not to store anything?

Not to store anything, correct.

That's yours solely?

Yes, that's correct.

Do you guys have an office there?

We do, and we don't intend on having an office there. Got it.

Cool. Is there any other questions for the applicant from the Commission? All right. Thank you. I guess we can close the public forum. And is there any discussion by the commission? Commissioner Toma, you have any comments or questions regarding this case?

I don't.

Thank you. All right. With that, we can entertain a motion. this is commissioner toma i sorry go ahead no go ahead i i don't have the case number in front of me but i would motion that we approve uh the case uh before us is circulated great thank you we have a recommendation for approval of the temporary use permit 260026 by commissioner toma do we have a second i will second and we have a second by commissioner layton rosalie

Chairman Hernandez.

Yes.

Commissioner Lawrence.

Yes.

Commissioner Lawrence.

Yes.

Commissioner Layton.

Yes.

Commissioner Rockwallick.

Yes.

Commissioner Tillman.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney. Commissioner Whitney? Okay, his audio must have went out. That's a yes, thumbs up here. All right, Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of six to zero.

Great, thank you, Rosalie.

Hi, Rosalie, I apologize. I got disconnected. This is Commissioner Lawrence. I vote yes.

Okay, thank you very much.

We got it. Thank you. Darren, are there any other matters?

There are not.

All right. Then we will adjourn this meeting at 1101. Thank you.

Thank you.