Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the August 7th meeting of the CAS Grand Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Would you all please rise and join me in the

pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nationice for all. Okay, Erica, would you let the record show where all the commissioners are present? And commissioners, nope. First, any changes to the agenda? Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. There has been no changes to the agenda.

Thank you. And now, commissioners, we have a set of minutes. Make a motion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Like to uh the consider the approval of the minutes for the July 3rd, 2025 meeting. Second. All right. Motion to approve and second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.

Good. Okay. Next up is our consent agenda. And these items are listed with the asterct. They are all numbered E on the agenda. They uh will be enacted by one motion and one roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a commission member or of the or a member of the public so request in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in the normal sequence of the agenda. So that's items E1 through E2 and E3. Anybody from the public like to have those considered separately? Commissioners,

I'd like to have E1. Okay, we're going to pull E1.

Um, yeah, very good. Okay. Any others? Okay. So, commissioners, chairman, I'll make a motion. Thank you. To approve consent items E2 and E3. Okay. Great. Second. And a second. Motion in a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, please call the role. Yes. Member Alderette. I. Member Vander Hayden. Yes. Member Huard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza.

I. Chairman Benedict. Yes.

Okay. Next on our agenda is a moment for uh public comments. If anybody from the audience would like to address the commission on things that aren't on the agenda, just thing other things in general, the ones that are on the agenda, all of the G items, you will have an opportunity to address the commission. Anyone like to address the commission? Okay, seeing none, close the public comment portion of the meeting and get to new business. Um, I think we're good to take E1 first, the one that we pulled.

Very good. Jacqueline, are you ready? Do you have a specific question or do you want to go through? I just had some questions about it. I didn't know um if this where it's located. Is it going to um is the builder building for affordable rent to own or rent? They're going to be market based part. It's not a LISC project. They're what now? It's not a low income housing tax. Yeah. Tax credit. Their market rate because it's in a low mark. It's it's in a low to moderate income housing area. And I was just wondering if we were, you know, trying to help out with that situation.

Okay, that was my question. Oh, I had more questions with it, but never mind. Okay, that's it. Okay. Do you want me to go through the presentation or just go to the I was just wanting to know how Okay. Because it's a low, you know, a low housing area and I was just trying to figure out if that's if we were if that's where they were aiming towards or not, right? So, and they're not. So, there's my answer. Very good. Thank you. Okay. So, we have to act on this or is there more discussion? Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Thank you.

Like to make a motion to approve the preliminary plat for the element to create one lot DSA 220066. I'll second that. Okay, got a motion in the second. Any discussion? Commissioners. Um, seeing none, please call the RO. Member Smith, yes. Member Alderret, I. Member Vender Hayden, yes. Member Hubard, no. Member Peters, I. Vice Chair Garza, I. Chairman Benedict. Yes. Okay. And we have a chair. I'd like to make a motion. Thank you. To approve the major site plan request for build to rent development with the following condition of approval DSA 220067.

I'll second that one. Okay. Second. Second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. Seeing none, please call the RO. Member Smith. Yes. Member Aldrret. Hi. Member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Hubard. No. Member Peters. Hi. Vice Chair Garza. I. Chairman Benedict.

Yes. Okay. That one passes. Very good. Next is item G1. will consider this request um for I1 zoning property a conditional use permit and a minor amendment to an approved major site plan. I'm holding a public hearing during our consideration and um Jim.

Good evening chairman, members of the planning commission. So, this request in front of you is for a conditional use permit to accommodate a wireless telecommunication facility at the city's north operations center in the airport industrial park. The proposed cell tower would be a height of 65 ft. The location of the proposed cell tower is provided on this aerial image here. It is being brought to you by Anthemnet. Um they are proposing a 2500 square foot lease area. The north operation center is just under 20 acres in size and as you see on the screen the um proposed lease area would be towards the southern portion of the site. Also requested is a minor amendment to the site's approved major site plan. Typically, minor amendments are matters that are reviewed among staff and the planning commission chair. However, since they were submitted at the same time, I am just forwarding both for planning commission's consideration when reviewing conditional use permits and specifically for wireless telecommunication facilities. This is the criteria that have to be addressed and the staff report goes into each of these in greater detail. Um but with regard to wireless telecommunication facilities, there's some additional standards that are looked at. Um specifically within this area, the airport industrial park, the

property is zoned I1. And so it would not need a conditional use permit if the facility was not greater than 35 ft in height. certain zone districts that maximum height is less. Um, however, in the I1 it could be as tall as 35, but anything over that height would be subject to a conditional use permit. So, at 65 ft, one is required. Um, but they are obligated to meet certain setback requirements. Basically, it's a one foot of height to one foot of setback ratio. And then there's other um requirements that we look at sub s such as um the facility would have to comply with FCC and FAA regulations. Staff feels that this site is in a good location for the proposed request because it is within an area that is industrial in major. Um, as such, we're not requiring that this facility be camouflaged or of stealth design. Um, and it does meet the setbacks that are required from the north property boundary. It's 331 ft away. And then in terms of the airport, it's 1330 feet. Um, and then it it meets all of the other required setbacks. And I'm not sure if the planning commission is aware, but the airport industrial park is also subject to a um review committee for requests. And this did go in front of that review committee. Um, and it's made up of other property owners within the air park. and

uh they were okay with this request so long as it does meet with FAA approval which they would have to um obtain and then they would also need to enter into a lease agreement with the city and they have been in discussion with the city about that. Um although it is very close to the airport, the um result of the review committee discussing this revealed that where this facilities proposed is not affecting the flight path. That I'm I'm not sure how that works, but apparently that's not it's not in in harm's way, so to speak, but it may have to have some type of light on it or whatnot if that's recommended by FAA. The notification efforts included the typical procedures. Um there was a sign posted on the site and mailing went out to owners of property within 300 ft. And we did not receive any comments as a result of the public notification efforts. Staff does recommend that planning commission approve this conditional use permit and its associated resolution with the following specific 11 conditions. A lot of these are um associated with what's typically required for wireless telecommunication facilities. The the only thing that may be additional to what would typically be provided is that we are stating that it is subject to a lease agreement between the city of Kasa Grande and the applicant which if you were to approve it this evening that would be the um applicant's next step and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I have a question Jim. I'm not familiar with an anthem net and is this for uh the city and airport use or is it for public internet service or what's their product? Do you know? So, Anthemet acts more like a landlord for wireless telecommunication facilities. They put infrastructure in and then they lease their infrastructure to carriers. But no, it would actually be I believe for Verizon. It would be for it would be for a benefit of consumer users in that area. Okay. Questions.

I was surprised. What do you call stealth design? Stealth. Yeah. Or camouflage. Yeah. I was a little surprised particularly given what the last meeting we approved one that was quite a ways away from current. Um, you know, and in the middle of a of a of an industrial site and um I can't wait to see that one. It'll be great to see that. And so I was a little surprised that this one wasn't we didn't request that for this one. Um, anything else? Any other comments you can make to help me feel better about that part?

I I'll try. So, I I do want to point out that I that that it is at your leisure as planning commission to suggest stealth or camouflage elements if you think that' be appropriate. But, um the airport industrial park review committee meets to talk about proposals within the airport industrial park and often it has to do with the design of the proposal. um they they do often make recommendations on buildings architecture and that's what leads to buildings in that area having some type of facade other than aluminum sighting or sheet metal etc. Um but as a result of that meeting they they did not recommend any sort of special stealthing or camouflage. I think by and large that since it is on the city of Kasa Grande's uh north operation center property and so close to the airport um perhaps that you know stealthing measures or camouflage measures may make it um less I mean in a way it's kind of ironic but they want it to be visibly a cell tower so that it can be identified by planes as such. Um but also because it is on city property, there's there's maybe the sense of simplicity. Um you know, we would be willing to lease an area to them, but it would make it more complex perhaps for the terms of the lease agreement to add those um elements. But I think by and large I didn't stipulate anything because it's just an area that's rather industrial in nature and it's not

surrounding any planned residential uses. Oh, good point. The other one was, wasn't it? Yeah. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant or their representative like to address the commission? Please give us your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh members of the commission. Uh my name is Declan Murphy representing Antonet and Verizon. Um I don't really have a whole lot to add to Jim's presentation and um just to thank him for his time and effort on this. Um, just to give you some context, um, with the the stealth versus monopole type of design, um, you know, there's no hiding a 65 ft tower regardless. Um, there are decent stealth options and there's not so decent stealth options, agree,

but, you know, a site like this in an industrial area, we would typically not opt for any stealth. And in fact, there's quite a few jurisdictions that that would prefer a monopole, believe it or not. And Town of Gilbert is a great example. They will push for a monopole versus any type of stealth site typically, even if it's not in an industrial zone. But you know there there's a lot of practicality um with the monopole because and and to give you some some further context um Anthemet is what's known as a BTS company and you know I've been working on wireless sites in Arizona for over 20 years. So you know work uh involved at many many sites all different carriers different jurisdictions. And what has happened in the last few years is that the the carriers don't don't own real estate anymore. They don't they've gotten out of the the tower business, the infrastructure side of things. And so what they do is they rely I guess it's a an accounting Wall Street thing maybe. But anyhow they partner with um BTS companies like Antimet and they have national agreements and basically in this case Verizon has identified there's a gap in service in this area and so you know Verizon will provide all the technical information and they'll say you know we need to address this gap go out and and um you know find us a a location now typically if you can colllocate on an existing structure that's what you do because that's the least expensive fastest way speed to market etc. But in this area there isn't really a colo option. So you know and I also like the fact that we partner with a jurisdiction because I see that now in the last number of years where you know most jurisdictions have a healthy size real estate portfolio and if there's revenue generated by a site why not have it go to the municipality which is always you know a good thing. And we

actually have I've worked on other sites here in the city of Kasag Grand and it's a really a great um city to work with as far as this type of project. And you know it's basically this is for Verizon but it will accommodate um other carriers AT&T T-Mobile which I expect at some point would go on here. So you know the appetite for wireless is only going one way. It has never slowed down ever in the 20 odd years. You know, Verizon, for example, does an at home service now for 50 bucks a month, which is very popular because once you leave the big metro areas, you know, getting high-speed data for 50 bucks a month is really attractive and it's caught on from a marketing standpoint in a big way. So, you'll see Verizon, you know, really um having to step up and you'll see a lot more sites coming in because of that, the success of that product. But anyhow, with um with this particular site, we think it's a great location because um you know, we're far removed from from any residential. It's an industrial area. We have a high standard when it comes to FAA. So, we have to do our own due diligence, which we did up front. And so, because we're not on the approach to this and I heard Jim mention lighting, um there won't be any lighting required on this. Anything under 200 feet, typically you don't have to light unless it's a very unique scenario. So, um I'm not giving you quite a bit of information there, but uh but anyhow, with that, if you have any other questions, I would be happy to.

Very good. Mers questions for All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time. So, now I'd like to open the public portion of the meeting for this agenda item. Would anybody from the public like to address this item? Please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public portion of the meeting, bring it back to the commission. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Great. I'd like to make a motion uh to approve the conditional use permit DSA 250063 and his associated resolution with following conditions. All right. Second. Okay, I got a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Okay, seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith. Yes, member Aldrret. I member Vanderhden. Yes, member Hubard. Yes, member Peters. I vice chair Garza. I chairman Benedict. Yes. Okay. Got another piece. Who's doing it? Chair. Let's make a motion. Go for it, buddy. uh to approve the minor amendment to an approved major site plan DSA 250065. Second. Okay. And there's no conditions on that.

No. Cool. All right. Got a motion to second. Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith. Yes. Member Alret. I. Member Vender Hayden. Yes. Member Huard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza. I. Chairman Benedict. Yes.

Thank you. Good luck with the project. Okay. Next is item G2. Um, we will consider a request from Travis Taylor for Cottonwood Place LLC for a conditional use permit for self- storage use in a B2 zone. We'll have a public hearing as part of our considerations and James again.

All right. So, back in February of this year, city council finalized a zone change for this property that you see located near the southwest corner of Cottonwood and Pier. The zone change um revised the property zoning from commercial office to B2 general business. There were certain conditions of record placed on that B2 zoning. So now the applicant has gone forward with the next step of developing this property which is nearly five acres in size. The request in front of you this evening is the conditional use permit to accommodate self storage. They have provided a conceptual plan um denoting how the layout of the site could function within this property while meeting the required development standards for self storage. Um, as you can see, the buildings are laid out in a manner that much of the um well, or actually all of the um access to the storage units will not be seen from the roadway. You would enter the site towards the east side of the property and then um the the garage bays are all internal to one another. This is another perspective looking north. Um you you will I will point out that there is a single family neighborhood to the south um which is known as Ironwood Commons. But then to the east and west are both currently undeveloped properties. And then to the north is the canopy which is the bill to rent development at the northwest corner of Pier and Cottonwood.

When reviewing self storage facilities within the B2 zone, uh there are a set of requirements that have to be addressed. And I'll walk through these um requirements and how these have been met. So the the first um criteria or requirement to to develop self storage is um fencing. You can you either have to provide fencing or you're welcome to use the back of the building for your perimeter wall. Um and if and oftent times the building itself can't be placed on the property line. In certain cases it can, but if it's if it's going to have to meet a certain required setback, then there are um certain landscaping requirements as well as design requirements for that wall that is exposed to the adjacent property. So, the only fence that um would be in existence is one that's already there. It's along the south side of the property and it's the perimeter wall that's a part of Ironwood Commons. Um otherwise with looking at this conceptual plan, there wouldn't be the need for any um additional fencing because the back of the walls for the storage facility form that perimeter. There's a zero foot setback with the property to the east because that property is also designated for commercial. But if you notice to the south and to the west there's a greater setback where you see the landscaping. Um and that is also another requirement uh with regard to the conditional use

permit criteria. it does meet that there's there's a need for a minimum of a 15 foot landscape buffer and then trees are to be spaced uh a minimum of 30 ft apart and their um conceptual landscape detail does show how that can be met with regard to setbacks. I mentioned that just a moment ago, but um there is a requirement for a minimum of a 15 foot front setback. It actually the conceptual plan shows it a little bit further than that. I think it sits at 16 feet and some change. And then there's a minimum of a 45 foot setback from residentially zoned areas. And so that's why you see that large um gap there between the building and the west and south property lines. This is a um snapshot of their conceptual building elevations. As you can tell um they're using a mixture of materials. It's primarily stucco. And then along the um exterior, they have a change of materials. They almost emulate openings or doors, but it's just a solid um mixture of material that changes from the stucco design. With regard to the facade requirements, they may not have blank uninterrupted wall lengths. when the wall exceeds a 50 foot expanse without including at least two of these. Um so a change in texture or masonry pattern would be required or

windows or trellus with vines. Um architectural embellishments and detailing and so we feel that based on the conceptual elevations it does meet u these requirements. And then the same is true for side or rear walls. Um it's essentially to have the same type of design. Um so that where seen from adjacent properties it has these elements. With regard to parking, there is a requirement of at least four spaces for self storage. And then um the conceptual plan does not show uh interior accessed storage units. It they would all be exterior accessed. Um so there there wouldn't otherwise be a requirement of one space per 20,000 square foot of building. However, there is a requirement for um office which is one parking space per 400 square ft of office. They're proposing a 600 square foot office area. So that would ultimately result in the need for six parking spaces on the site and the conceptual plan does identify those six spaces. One of the review criteria that we look at is that the proposed use shall be in conformance with the general plan. This area is within the um community corridor land use designation of the general plan and it um self storage is a good fit for the area considering that you have um a growing multifamily community to the to the

north of here. they'll probably have some potential storage needs and it can also be a service for the um single family neighborhood to the south. With regard to um adequacy of adjacent streets, um there is an existing access easement to the east of the property. And so that access easement is shared with the planned Sedora Village commercial P A to the east. And so it would be that access point that would be used. Um we do not have a major site plan. That would be the next step of the submittal process. Um however, we would evaluate traffic matters in more detail at that time. But it would be likely that that access point would be a ride in ride out. Namely because there's a raised median in Cottonwood. Regarding the um public notification procedures, we met that which is required by code. There were no um comments or inquiries received with this request. Staff does recommend that planning commission approve this conditional use permit and its associated resolution subject to the following subject or special condition, which is that a site plan that's in conformance with 1724 170B shall be required for this development and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, very good. Commissioners, any questions for staff? I have one. Yes, sir. In regards to lighting on the building, especially on the residential size, is there any sort of restriction on that? There is a light control ordinance that with the submittal of their site plan, we would require a phototric plan.

Okay. What we would look at at that time is that there's not a glare or bleed of light from from the commercial site onto the residential property. Their conceptual site plan shows that that there is nothing but landscaping between the back of the site and the building. So the only reason in my mind why there would be lighting is for security purposes, but it would have to have it would have to be designed in a way where any wall-mounted light lighting would be full would be shielded. Um and then if if there happens to be a light pole, it would have to have a full cut off fixture to it.

Okay. Thank you. Good. Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant or their representative like to address the commission. Please give us your name and address for the record.

Uh Travis Taylor, 1950 North 2200 West Sweet 9 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Uh you know, happy to be back here and as usual, Jim does a very comprehensive job of of everything. Um this was really an interesting process. I don't know in in reviewing the ordinance Some of the things like the 45 foot setback, it was just interesting the choices that we had. One was to build a wall on the property line and then we could do open storage like boats or RVs or something like that 15t away from the wall, but if we build a building, it has to be 45 feet away. So, it's just everybody everybody has their own code, you know, it's just interesting working your way through it. So, uh we're excited to be there. Um, we ask for your uh support in this and and look forward to moving ahead. So, thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners, for applicant? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Now, open the public portion of this meeting for this item. Anybody from the public like to address this issue, please come forward. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the commission. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Oh, it's going to take your day. I'd like to make a motion to approve DSA 250082 and its associated resolution resolution subject to the following special condition. Okay,

I'll second that. All right. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Uh, any discussion? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith, yes. Member Alderret, I. Member Vender Hayden, yes. Member Hubard, yes. Member Peters, I. Vice Chair Garza, I. Chairman Benedict, yes. Thank you. Good luck with the project. Okay.

Next is G3. We'll have a public hearing and consider request from Kevin Peterson for Post Ranch 589 LLC for approximately 50 567 acres R2 and CR zone property. Um yeah, we got a zoning amendment, subdivision variant, and a preliminary plat. Here we go. Dings all night long. All right. Third times the charm.

Yeah. There you go. So, as you introduce this item, this is for Post Ranch in early 2003. The property did go through a zone change. Um, everything that you see on the screen here was originally part of an area known as Post Ranch Planned Area Development Zone. Um, just for those who aren't completely familiar with where Post Ranch is is, it sits east of I 10 about a mile east of Mission Royale between Overfield and Toltech Butes on the south side of Florence Boulevard, State Route 287 and north of Early Road. Now, what the zone change did back in early 2003 is um 567.71 acres was revised to R2 with conditions of record that's been highlighted in yellow here. And then there was a 22 acre area that was zoned to R3. Um when it was part of the P A that was a multifamily area, but it it changed to a standard R3 zone. um as did the single family area change to an R2 zone with conditions of record um stipulating that it has to be developed for single family development. Um then there were some remnants to the post ranch PA AD totaling about 57 acres that's actually under different ownership. So, those are the post-ranch PA AD orphans um that are currently still zoned P AD and they are um they have an approved land use for commercial development.

the R2 property, the 567.71 acres um went to R2 to accommodate the master plan that was provided um in the R2 zone. Single family residential development is permitted with 45 foot minimum lot widths and 5,000 square foot minimum lot sizes and 5- foot minimum sideyard setbacks. And that tended to gel more with the master plan that was presented. had a P AED zone been pursued, they would be subject to a minimum of 50 foot minimum lot widths with 5,500 square foot minimum lot sizes and a requirement of at least 25% of those lots to have a lot size of at least 6,500 square feet. So, as a result of the request at the time back in late 2022, early 2023, there were um a list of conditions placed on the R2 approval that um provided some standards that were more restrictive than the R2. It was a little bit of a marriage between R2 and what you would get with a planned area development zone, such as a condition of record stipulating that the minimum open space be 20%. It also obligates this development to submitting housing product for for design review of the homes, which ordinarily wouldn't be a requirement in the R2, but it is a requirement for planned area development zone districts. But there were two specific conditions of record among the conditions that we're going to be talking about later in

the presentation. And one of those conditions uh stated that the minimum dimension shall be 45 ft by 120 ft. And up to 71% of the lots may meet this minimum. And then at least 29% of the lots shall have the minimum dimensions of 50 feet by 120. So that's really it's kind of similar to the P A requirement that you see above where you have to have 25% of the lots be at least 6,500 square ft. Um, I think those those conditions were done to somewhat uh mimic and be similar to what would otherwise be provided in a PAD zoning scenario. Once the zoning was approved, um the next step for the applicant is to submit a preliminary plat for the single family area. and the applicant has presented a preliminary plat for the north portion of the R2 zone. So it starts basically at the just north of the mid midsection line about a half mile of the of the development from Florence to the to the half mile point. Um and the preliminary plat for the first area is known as Post Ranch North and it's about um 275.54 acres is what's reflected in the preliminary plat. 253 and a half of those acres are in R2 and then um the 22 acre area in the R3 was also included in the pre-plat boundaries. But this um preliminary plat for Post Ranch North is to accommodate 938 single family lots

and there's 11 internal parks within including most of the planned 20 acre grand park which serves as post ranch central imu amenity feature. When reviewing the preliminary plat, staff identified that there's 11 blocks having longer block lengths than what the subdivision code requires. And so, um, in conjunction with the preliminary plat, the applicant has submitted for consideration this evening a subdivision variance to allow those blocks to exceed the minimum block length. Upon review of the um preliminary plat, we also noticed that some of the lots didn't comply with the two specific conditions of record I referenced on the slide before um associated with the area's R2 zoning. there was a fundamental problem because when you think about the minimum dimension shall be 45 by 120 um and similarly at least 29% shall have the minimum dimensions of 50 by 120 you actually end up with a minimum lot area unknowingly R2 zoning ordinarily allows for lots as small as 5,000 square ft but when applying the minimum dimensions that were stipul ated, you end up with a um lot that cannot be smaller than 5400 square ft. Um and it was identified within the review of the pre-plat that there were 24 lots that were um smaller than 5,400, the smallest being 5,287 square ft.

While the this proposed plat does provide for a minimum of of 29% of the lots being at least 6,000 square feet, staff um is recommending along with the applicant's request a revision to the those conditions of record so that it is more in line with the master plan that's been presented um and to accommodate the lots as proposed. So instead of the two conditions worded the way they are, they would be removed and replaced with a condition that, you know, I'd like to think is a little simpler, but it in all reality, maybe it's it's still confusing, but I think it it more captures what the intent was at the time, which is no lot within this R2 zone district shall be smaller. smaller than 5,000 square ft nor narrower than 45 ft in width nor less than 110 ft in depth. However, at least 29% of the lots contained within this R2 zone district shall have a minimum lot area of 6,000 square ft and a minimum lot width of 50. And with that, it cleans up the discrepancy that was seen when um and was and discovered when the preliminary plaque was submitted. But I do want to note that one of the specific conditions of this R2 zoning was that this area be in compliance with the master plan, which is what you're seeing on this screen. So the detail was already there, but it wasn't until they started to do the engineering for this site and submitting the preliminary plat that it was discovered that they really couldn't

meet um these conditions to a te. There were 24 lots that that were in conflict. So that is why there is also a zoning amendment that has been submitted. And so basically this presentation is going to cover three applications. The first one is the zoning amendment to clear up those conditions of record. And it's very similar to a a zone change except the the zoning really isn't changing. It stays R2 and the conditions of record that were that that were placed on that zoning continue to to remain except there will be the redaction of those two specific conditions replaced with the verbiage that I was suggesting but it's processed as a zone change and when considering zone changes there has to be compliance with these three criteria staff feels that these three criteria have been met. Um, specifically when looking at general plan goals, there is a goal within the neighborhood's land use that um encourages developments to include ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and parks. And their master plan that was provided accommodates that. And that's not changing with this zoning revision. Everything's staying the same. Um it's just helps um fine-tune the lots as presented. And then one of the goals also is to encourage a variety in neighborhood design and development patterns. The fact that a master plan

was provided does help show that they are meeting that intent. Um they are providing in both Post Ranch North and what will be submitted at a later time, Post Ranch South, uh multiple open spaces, all highlighted in yellow, providing unique um development areas. They're kind of uh laid out in squares. Um and and so it is a very wellthoughtout and considered design. Um and so this zone change will help or or zoning revision will help uh meet these master plan goals. The other criteria is that um we can support a zoning or a reszoning if it is if it maintains the densities and intensities identified within the general plan. So, this area does fall within the neighborhood's land use designation, which allows single family developments on individual lots to have a maximum gross density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre. But the zoning uh that exists and will remain the conditions of record stipulate the density to be 3.76 dwelling units per acre. So, even though we are recommending that the lot sizes go smaller, there wouldn't be a way to increase density with this zoning revision because it's still capped at the 3.76 dwelling units per acre. Um, and then there is an R3 component of the pre-plat, but the R3 isn't subject to this zoning revision. Um so in terms of

multifamily with regard to um what we're reviewing here for modifying that R2 zone isn't applicable. And then the third criteria is that the zone change is necessary and proper at this time to meet the land use needs of the city. This development offers 938 single family home sites in a master plan setting. And as I mentioned, the zone change is only to amend the minimum dimensions and it doesn't propose a new use and it doesn't propose an increase in density um than which was already approved by city council in January of 2023. The next um application that we will be discussing um in terms of whether it meets the associated um criteria is the preliminary plat itself. These are the items that staff looks at to ensure that the preliminary plat is um providing an adequacy accommodate an an adequate accommodation for these things. Um I already talked about the general plan conformance and the zoning but a little bit more on the zoning is that they are when in reviewing the preliminary plat they are meeting the conditioned 20% minimum open space. They are accommodating for the 3.76 dwelling units per acre density. And should this pre-plat be approved and zoning and subdivision variance, um their next step would be to submit for a final plat and then submit for housing product which would have to meet the requirements for the same housing product that's in place

for planned area developments which helps ensure a variety of exterior designs and floor plans. with regard to um drainage pattern and and accommodation and develop flows with the pre-plat. They did provide a preliminary drainage and grading report and plan and that was met with the approval of the um development center engineer. But I do want to specifically talk about utilities. So, in order for this subdivision to function, they will have to construct a wastewater treatment facility. The area of Post Ranch to the south of this um area to be platted does identify a 6.75 acre area to be developed for a wastewater treatment facility. And so there is a condition that staff is recommending be associated with this pre-plat, which is that um a plat for the wastewater treatment facility would have to be submitted along with um other appropriate submittals such as a conditional use permit as is a requirement for wastewater facilities in the R2 and a site plan for the facility at the time or before the submitt of an approval of Post Ranch North's final plat with regard to access to public roads. Um there is a u hoocom irrigation canal

that lies right in the middle of the acorage right between Florence and early along the midpoint. And so the south boundary of Post Ranch North actually lies just north of that canal where there is a um planned road that meets up with Overfield to the west and Toltech but to the east. And so in the review of that um our traffic consultant had a concern because that east west road isn't aligned at the midpoint. It's it's ideal typically to line up um midpoint roads at the midpoint because if those roads were to be extended further to the west and extended further to the east ordinarily um that's ideal for a couple of reasons. One, it ensures there isn't some jog in the alignment of the road. If if the developer to the east or west were to plan a road exactly at the midsection, it doesn't create this weird jog. But that canal runs continually to the west and east. So it's very likely that there won't be a proposed road at the midsection. But the other reason um for for planning it to be along that midsection is then it's more equitable to be developed because to the west of Overfield, the property north of the midsection line is a different ownership than the property south of the midsection line. Same thing when you go on the east side of Toltech but it's much more equitable to have the respective developers to the north and south of the midsection line to dedicate their half for the ride ofway and to

make their respective half streetet improvements. However, um staff is okay with the city planning staff is okay with the um access point to Overfield and Toltech but being shown where they're proposing because there have been existing approvals to the west of Overfield that did not plan for a road. Um all of these areas Post Ranch and the development that you see between Overfield and Mission Royale there have certificates of assured water supply. And these developments between Overfield and Hosienda um have approved planned area development zones that did not contemplate a road and so they never were intending to construct a midsection road. Um the property north of this area is zoned urban ranch and there's an opportunity when they come in for development and reszoning etc that there will be a circulation plan provided that does ensure that their access point does line up with post ranches. Um to the east of Toltech but is actually within panel county but toolte but rideway is within the city. So to a great degree we do have the ability to control um to some regard where those development access points to tooltech but will be because it is our rideway. Here's a closeup of where that canal lies. Um it isn't owned fe simple. It isn't owned it isn't a separate parcel. It's an easement that encumbers um the Post Ranch property and so they are planning Post Ranch is planning to amenitize that area to some degree. The

Grand Park will straddle it. Um however that east west road, as you can see, lies just north of that canal. But you can also see that there's planned access to the areas to the south. The applicant indicated that they are planning to dedicate those areas as public rights of way with the final plat associated for this area to ensure that there is connection across the canal to um post Ranch South. But staff is recommending a condition that either maps of dedication accomplish those irrigation crossings for the ride ofway or that they be included within the respective final plat post Ranch North. And then that brings me to the third application being discussed this evening which is the subdivision variance. as I noted that there are 11 um blocks that exceed the minimum requirement. So section 1616160 of the subdivision code state that block lengths within residential areas are required to be no greater than 600 ft or no more than 12 times the minimum lot width required in the zone district. So that's technically no wider than 540 ft. But there's 11 blocks within Post Ranch that are longer than that requirement and they range from 680 feet to 1,0. This actually isn't um abnormal. Um within the last several years, staff has presented a number of pre-plats with longer than normal um block lengths. Um and we have processed subdivision

variances to accommodate those. Um ultimately what should happen is the city should look at those code requirements and and possibly amend the subdivision code to not be as restrictive or place certain performance standards to stipulate when those longer blocks may be acceptable. But for now, we do require this variance process which is first considered by planning commission and then city council would have to consider it ahead of their consideration of the final plat based on planning commission's recommendation. Those are the 11 blocks in question. Um so the subdivision variance review criteria contains these six criteria which I which I won't dive into but essentially it talks about um demonstrating that even though the lots are or the blocks are longer than normal how can it otherwise allay concerns that are the result of long blocks which is why there's probably this rule to begin with. What the concerns usually are is that the longer the block, the faster the speed. You have kind of the straightaway effect where cars start to speed up when you go too long without some kind of stop sign or intersecting street. The other concern that often takes place is the department or the the need for um utility access or fire department access because a block can be so long. There may need to be some type of cutthrough for emergency vehicles or some type of road that ordinarily utility

infrastructure falls into. So in this case, this was reviewed by both the fire department and um engineering departments that look at the the utilities and there wasn't a need for shorter blocks. But the other thing that I want to point out is that even on the long blocks, there tends to be a park amenity provided which is contributing to that block length. So if but not for that park, it's possible that the block might meet the code requirement. But unfortunately, the open space in and of itself doesn't negate the um requirement for it to be uh limited to the 540 ft. But what the applicant is proposing to address the speeding concern on staff's recommendation is to provide traffic calming devices mid block. And so as you'll note on their pre-plat they are proposing a traffic calming chicane. And that's essentially just a pro protrusion of the curb on both sides of the street a little bit offset from one another. So that creates a subtle S in the traffic flow and so it it results in traffic slowing down to negotiate that forced narrowing of the road as you can see in the picture below. I'm sure that when Post Ranch develops it won't be that green, but that's the best picture I could find. Um, with regard to um that's that is a leftover slide, so we can skip that. Um, I was going to read it though and that would have probably thrown you all off. Um, but with regard to Post Ranch, um,

staff did provide the notification that is required by code. We included notification to the city of Eloy and Panel County because they are adjacent jurisdictions. Um there was not any um comments received. However, staff did receive one inquiry by the property ownership to the um southwest of Florence and Toltech but the commercial designated property but they didn't provide any specific comments at this time. And with that, staff is recommending um that you consider these three applications specifically that you forward to city council a recommend a recommendation to approve the zoning revision um subject to those conditions stipulated. We are also asking that you forward a recommendation to council to approve the subdivision variance. And we're also asking that you approve the pre-plat for post Ranch North subject to the technical modification and conditions. And I would be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Commissioners, questions for staff. Yes, sir. You have a question in regards to the traffic flow. I think it's on Overland overfield rather and also to uh the toll tech roads. Are there any plans to widen those given that it's going to be 900 units in those areas?

So both overfield and tooltech butes are identified in our um transportation map as arterial roadways. And so with the improvement of this area at the time of the final plat, the applicant will have to provide um public improvement plans for those roadways. Okay.

And it will also dedicate the the half streetet rideway in the area that's ab budding the development to um accommodate that arterial designation. But we will have a half street on both Overfield and Toltech but until property to the on the west side of Overfield and on the east side of Toltech but develops. So you you won't have the true cross-section of the arterial road until you have development on both sides, but it will be developed to the extent that will safely and adequately accommodate two-way traffic on half or in some cases a little bit more than half if necessary of the ultimate rideway to accommodate the two-way traffic. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? I got some questions. Yes. Okay, bear with me, Jim. No problem. Let me start with the the planning questions. So, the there's some there's property between see the gr the grand park those lots that run in the U shape. Yes. What is the space that's between those lots and the lots adjacent? There's like an open space. Are you talking about that lies um to the like it's uh Yes. This white line. Oh, that what is that? That is um It looks like an alleyway.

Yeah, that it is an alley corridor. Okay. So, so there'll there are only alleys around those lots and not the rest of the subdivision. Correct. It's kind of it's intended to be a little bit more of a unique product and it although they haven't provided the product, it would lend itself potentially to rear accessed garages. Okay. So, it be like a oneway driveway around the backside, right?

Strange. Um, my second question is the crossings across the canal, the blue areas, please tell me who pays for those. Who's responsible to pay those? Because the property owner on the south won't own the property anymore, right? Those will be dedications to the city, but are they responsible to pay for those? So, all of the roads that you see on this pre-plat would be required to be improved and constructed by the developer. But if if they're going to be dedicated as public rideway, they would then be maintained by the city after the um recording of the final plat which establishes those as rights of way. No, what I'm asking is so this Post Ranch North is going to build all of these crossings across the canal to nowhere for a while.

What would what is likely to happen is they would at least have to dedicate it as public rideway. Um I don't believe that they would build the crossing to nowhere, but they do own both the north side and south side of the development. So when we do see The next phases for post ranch south, they would then finish that connection with they would they would tie into rightway dedication that lines up with the rightway dedication established and and they would probably make those improvements seamlessly at that time.

Okay? Because if the property ownership changes, right, changes hands, maybe they don't they're not the same owner in the future is why I'm asking the question of maybe that should be identified somewhere saying that the property owner to the south is responsible for improving those connections because I hate for that to be left to the right that has happened where ownership ends up changing but at least we would have it dedicated as public right away. So there's a known connection, right? But we would

we would ensure that the improvement be put in by the developer. But in terms of well which one the north half or the south half we would we would work out at that respective time. It is h it is hard to do improvement to the midpoint of a canal. But but um I totally get it. I was just wondering if there's a way to denote that responsibility in the platting process so that it's easy for the next person that comes along and buys post ranch south that this is their responsibility. That's where I'm coming from.

Well, yeah. And I guess your statement I mean if if North gets finished that developer will be gone. There won't be he will not be sharing the cost of those bridges and their bridges. Those crossings. Yeah. They're I mean either either you're gonna have to cover the canal which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for the public but it's costly. I get all that. So I Yeah, it's a challenge. Yeah, it's a challenge that I just it would be easier to figure out before we begin. You know, think

what I have been seeing, although this isn't guaranteed, but what's been happening lately is that a um the very first person to the scene takes the property all the way through platting and entitlements and including the engineering for the platting. So all the improvement plans, utilities, and then right before the plat is to be recorded, they sell to a home builder and then the home builder has an arm of their organization that does the physical improvements. Um so although that that may not be how this happens, um that is one scenario where all the engineering would be done in and then it would be up to the respective home builder on the north and south side if they happen to be different to make that connection. But at least we would have the rights of way and the approved improvement plans for those rights of way. And um you know there would be we would have to work out who does what at that time.

Seems like the developer wants to address. Yeah. Well we'll we'll have him in just a minute. Um I interrupted you. Was there

I have one more question. So there's there's a lot of back and forth in the staff report about the traffic engineers review and the planners review and it's I wish that that situation would be resolved before it gets to the commission for a decision because ultimately I would assume that this is the licensed engineers's responsibility to approve in the end and this preliminary plaque could change if those situations don't get resolved. So, that bothers me that there's like here's Clark's recommendation as the city's consultant, traffic engineer, and then there's what planning suggests that you should do and they don't agree, right? which I I comp I I I understand that they're not going to tile the canal and put it on the midsection line, but it would be nice because there's another situation where there's access on um overfield or there was some other question about that he wanted changed and I've just those situations really need to be resolved or a stipulation of this this preliminary plat needs to be an approval of the traffic impact analysis. So that's

then there's the canal people too. George Cairo and company. Yes. Oh boy. They have to be involved in that agreement also. Oh boy. There's a lot there's a lot to that. There is. So any other other questions for No, just one comment though. I'm glad I'm glad you addressed the uh the long streets because that was going to be one of my questions because there's been previous developments that we've gone round and round and talking about these chicanees which a lot of us never even heard that term before but we learned what it is and learned something.

Yeah. and uh but they seem to be an adequate answer for it as long as the developer is in agreement with you about you know because these long blocks you're absolutely right you know they become just like a like a a racetrack you know just going especially with teenagers and whatever you know coming down there so if that can be addressed by chicanees perfect just a comment so to that point do we have a requirement that there be chicanees in those roads there is as part of it in it's not specifically stipulated but the reason is is because on the pre-plat they've identified them. Okay.

And so development has to be in compliance with the um pre-plat. So we we would look for that then on the final plat or more specifically the improvement plans that are provided with the final plat to ensure they're still including traffic calling. Great. Thank you. Anything else for staff? No. Would the owner of their representative please like to come forward and address the commission?

Kevin, did you need the clicker? Um, I don't think so. So, I'm I'm Dave West. I'm with Atwell, uh, formerly Teroscopes. I'm the civil engineer on the project. And that's why I stood up a minute ago because I I know some of these answers. Um, we can't wait for you to hear. So the can't wait to hear

the the big discussion with the the crossing of the irrigation canal um is in our in our discussions with George Cairo and the Hokcom irrigation district and and also the San Carlos irrigation district which comes in just on the east half of the property is that they are um stipulating that we have to underground the the canals there. So, um that's that's one of the reasons that we were so sensitive um when when the traffic study said, "Hey, and also you have to shift the road down there." We can do that, but we didn't want to do that to our neighbors. Um because the it's not inexpensive. And if their development doesn't need a road there, um there's no reason to saddle them with with that expense to force a section line road when um it, you know, for for the for this project, it's hundreds of thousands of dollars in addition to the actual construction of that undergrounding process process. So, um I think that all those the the the utility crossings will have to be extended as part of this project and we intend to um include them on the final plat because they're part of the preliminary plat. So they'll have to be included and then at that point um there would have to be a stipulation um to do some kind of payment in lie of actually constructing those improvements because I've I've never seen somebody give up a road that the developer is supposed to pay for. So they're they're shown as as platted roads. it makes sense to build them later, but because they'll be shown on this set of plats, the responsibility in my mind from an you from an engineering standpoint always runs with that plat. So there would have to be some stipulation um to either construct them at a later date, maybe at the end of the development process, or do some payment

in lie of of that construction. Um, in in the event that the the process is split up, there's there's also a possibility that the ownership will will stay the same for portions of this north and south and and it'll just continue to roll. But, um, the development game is is always uncertain. So, it does make sense to be aware of the the timing. So, okay. I don't know if there's any other of your questions you want to bring up while you've got me or any other questions. Good. All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks.

Now, I'd like to open up to the public. Anybody from the public like to address this issue, please come forward. It's been a while. Gloria Johnson's story. 1245 East Laurel Drive, Kasa Grande, Arizona. I'm still trying to wrap my head around 1,200 more build for rent units, but I have a question and I guess commissioners, I'm going to direct it probably to James, but um on the wastewater treatment, responsible for building that.

So, it it's a good question. It's going to be potentially uh a combined effort between the developer Arizona Water Company and the city of Kasa Grande, the taxpayers possibly. Okay. So, that's kind of up in the air right now. It hasn't been completely confirmed yet. And and when will we know? And to be clear, this is not a build to rent. Oh, I'm sorry. It's a they're they're selling lots. Okay. They're selling houses like Okay, that's even scarier. Do they have water certificates? Yes.

7:21 p.m. I just worry about our water. Okay. So, we really won't know until it's finalized. I I think that more details will be known when they move on to the next phase of their development, which would be the final plat. Um there's been a lot of meetings held between the city and Arizona water company and the applicant with regard to how that's going to be financed, but um any development on the east side of I 10 is so far away from the city's one wastewater treatment facility that's at Well, isn't there something going in on Hosianda Road?

That's been looked at as an option for wastewater. Um, right now the there was there was the possibility of it being accommodated for on North Hosienda near Courtzson, but the because of where the area that has certificates of assured water supply are is what's on the screen. It's all south of Florence Boulevard. The idea is to place it in an area that's a little bit more central to where all of those certificates of assured water supply property are going to um dis potentially discharge into in a more practical location.

Okay. Okay. I was just curious because that's a major expense. Thank you. Thank you. Good. Just want to let you know I'm still around. Good decision. Great. Anybody else like to address this issue? Thank you. Come on forward. Give us your name and address for the record.

Well, first off, thank you. I represent the um the ownership group. My name is Tanner Peterson, um 3369 East Queen Creek Road out there in Gilbert. And it was Glor Gloria, I believe, that just came up. And you know, she obviously brings up some valid concerns. I know with the wastewater. Um, you know, we've been discussions with Arizona Water and also with the city. Um, it seems like the past little bit there's been kind of a a stalemate from my understanding on kind of where that's going. Um, and I noticed in one of the previous slides, one of the recommendations was during final plat included that wastewater site and that we need to include the site plan. and uh not not so much a I'm not asking for a stance on this but more just kind of a help us get some direction is the one thing I just want to be aware of is I believe we're at the 28 208 amendment phase right now and we were kind of under the impression that that was going to be a 68 possibly year-long period and I think we're you know over a year now still going through that whole process so the Last thing I want to see is us hopefully get approved today and get approved with council and moving forward with final plat and then we get to a point to where we're ready to submit in six months and we're still kind of in limbo, you know, up in the air on, you know, is it going to be city is going to be Arizona waters. So, uh I don't know if you've got any additional information on kind of where that's at. Again, I can talk to you later on this, but um in in uh Commissioner Celeste brought up the little alleyway. Uh I don't know if the diagram can be shown up there, but uh one train of thought on that, just so you guys are aware, is in Gilbert, there's a lot of those backloaded

alleyways uh where the garage is in the back of the home. In the front is a nice step up porch. And uh the reason for that is we want to try to do a different product there, especially around the Grand Park. We know there's gonna be a lot of kids there, a lot of traffic. And so one thought was, hey, let's get as many cars off that road as possible. And so let's have cars park in the back instead of always backing up in that main road and, you know, potentially, you know, hitting somebody or hitting another vehicle. So uh that that's one train of thought with that Grand Park is we want to make it a little bit a better ambiance and not just what you typically see out here. We want to make it the aesthetic a little bit nicer where you're at the park and you just see no cars, no garages. It's just the front of the home. So anyway, well, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. That was helpful. Yeah. Anybody else from the public like to address this issue? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of meeting and bring it back to the commission. I have one more question for staff. There you go, Clark. On the the TIA, the traffic signals, it didn't warrant traffic signal at Overfield and Florence.

Jimmy, as I recall, that did not warrant the signals at this time. I I would agree. I don't remember seeing that being a requirement. And it was also reviewed by A DOT, right? Oh, it was. And so that's an AOT facility. Keep in mind that in addition to those are two, there's one coming out of the center of the parcel, too. So there's three points of access. And the one in the center would be fully developed. Okay. Street. Just a lot of people making a left-hand turn, having to wait on a 65 mph to there. doesn't to there got to go out over doesn't me but

okay I'd really like to add add a condition about the crossings I think their share should be 50% of that cost but I don't know how to quantify that in any way I don't know however you'd like to word it we can listen to the motion No, we have an attorney. I just feel like mess it all up. I think Mark has some ideas.

Yeah, like the um the representative for the applicant said, we can put in there that a payment in le of construction um shall be in place for the crossings over the canal. Something to that effect can make that a condition to the preliminary plat. And then uh then council will decide what to do at the final plat. But if you guys want to recommend that condition, you can do that. So, so can I ask with the information that the two irrigation districts are requiring them to bury it to pay to bury the canal? He was saying the entire length. Yes. Oh,

unfortunately. Yeah, that's we asked that they allow us to do it differently offer to the canal for them and they had no interest in the liability of leaving it open. Yeah. So, it's it's a challenge because So, you have that cost regardless. Wow. Well, we can't require it. I mean, if if to to be fair, if Hook or St. Carlos, if they change their mind, then we're back to building crossings. Does that make sense where I'm getting at? And I have no idea whether it cost more once it's covered up to cross it with a road or not. I have no clue. But

but but be glad to hear your verbiage on how you would like to make the motion. Uh I don't know. I should have never said anything. [Music] Um, Jim, would you bring up the uh the last slide?

Well, no. I just I want to move quick because I know we got a long agenda here. All right. First one is the zoning. Right. We're doing all these individually. Okay. Let's do it. All right. I um chairman I'll make a motion to forge city council recommendation to approve DSA 250057 reszoning a zoning revision to the conditions of record 6B6C and associated with ordinance number 1178-2252 to read as shown. There you go. I second that.

Very good. All right. Okay. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the roll. Member Smith, yes. Member Alderret, I. Member Vender Hayden, yes. Member Hubard, yes. Member Peters, I. Vice Chair Garza, I. Chairman Benedict, yes. And next

and to I'll make a motion to uh forward a uh favorable recommendation to approve DSC 250038, a subdivision variance allowing 11 block lots to exceed the block length as reflected in post Ranch North's preliminary plat subject to the following condition. Nope. No, nothing. No conditioning any just approved. Okay. No conditions. All right. We got a motion to approve without conditions. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Just to be clear, it's this is a motion to forward a recommendation to council. Yes. Not to approve. Okay.

Oh, I I apologize. Okay. We good. Please call the RO. Member Smith. Yes. Member Aldrat. I. Member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. Hi, Vice Chair Garza. Hi, Chairman Benedict.

Yes. And finally, um, a motion to approve the preliminary PL plat for Post Ranch North DSA 240052 subject to the following conditions and the addition of condition number four, which requires the Post Ranch North property to provide a payment in lie of improvements across the Hokum Canal if and when the current conditions of the canal are not covered. Does that sound right? I'm trying to say they only pay if the canal is not tiled.

Gotcha. Any suggestions in saying it different or Sounds good to me. Yeah. All right. I just wanted to make sure that we got it on the record because There you go. Eric has got it. Eric will make it sound better. You go, girl. We're going to have to put it in as as it's spoken. So that's why I just want to make sure. So,

yeah. So condition four is just a payment in lie um for the north to south crossings of the Hokum canal in the event that the current canal is not required to be tiled by the Hokum Irrigation District. Good. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Very good. Okay. Any discussion? No. Seeing none, please call the RO. Member Smith. Yes. Member Alderret. Hi. Member Vanderhden. Yes. Member Huard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza. I.

Chairman Benedict. Yes. Nice job. Yeah. Well done. Wow. Well done, James. Okay. Before we take up this next one, uh commission gonna take a five minute break. Um hour and a half in. Take a minute. Thank you. [Music]

I'll call the meeting back to order and we're on G4. Uh public hearing and consideration of a request Justice Hust for Hutchinson's Wow. for conditional use permit and associated resolution to allow for a group home at 1112 North Center Avenue DSA250087. Sam is up. All right. Uh good evening chairman, commissioners. So before you I have two applications and two requests by the uh same Justin Hutchinson. um they are for the same use conditional use permits and associated resolutions. It is going to be DSA 250083 and DSA 250087. Uh the reason I'm running these as the same presentation although they did have separate resolutions, separate staff reports, separate reviews. Um presentation wise, I'm going to run them together um because the requests are essentially identical.

Perfect. We're just looking at two different ad addresses, two different neighborhoods. Perfect.

Okay. So, this is to hold a public hearing and consider two separate requests, both by Justin Hutchkins, for conditional use permits and associated resolutions to allow for group homes for up to 10 residents at the following locations. As I said, DSA 250083 will be the Opal Home and it is at 1668 East Melissa Avenue. And the second one is going to be DSA 250087. This is the Diamond House and it is at 1112 North Center Avenue. Um so our applicant is Empowerment Life Services. They are a licensed child welfare group home provider. Uh both these properties will be used as group homes licensed by the state of Arizona for the care and supervision of children who have been removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect or other family challenges. Uh the group homes will be staffed with qualified professionals including residential managers, child care workers, counselors, and support staff. All staff members will go through a thorough background check and receive ongoing training in child care, conflict resolution, traumainformed care, and emergency preparedness. The home will operate 24/7 with staff available to support the children at all times. At no time will the number of residents exceed the capacity permitted by the zoning code for a group home in these areas. Um, and to kind of talk on the number of residents, there's kind of three deciding factors. So, the first is going to be this conditional use permit. Staff is recommending, you know, up to 12 as a group home or I'm sorry, up to 10 residents in this group home. Now, the state licensing agencies may choose a different number. uh they may say seven, they might say 12, they might say some number in between. Um and even if uh

they're licensed for 12, they'll still only be limited to 10 per this conditional use permit. Another factor is going to be um building standards um and fire code. So, it may be that building says, "Hey, you're allowed seven under these um building codes or you're allowed 11 under this building code." And depending on how they make those adjustments might depend on from a building perspective, what that occupancy load would look like. Um, so it's probably going to be whichever agency has the lowest number, that will be the number of residents allowed. If the other two agencies decide that, hey, we're both good with more than 10. Planning is still limiting that to 10. So, it will remain 10. So, it could be less, but it can't be more than 10 with this conditional use permit. So, real quick, this is an overview of their general locations and uh some locations of the local schools. Um because this is intended to keep kids kind of in their neighborhoods that they came from and to keep them in their social circles. Um these these homes are located in our neighborhoods. Um so that they can try to keep these kids in schools that really has a huge benefit on their education um not bouncing around schools more than they need to. So here are those two locations, Oklahoma to the southeast and the Diamond House there to the north. Um, here is the Opal home at 1668 Melissa Avenue. There's the front of the home. Here it is from the top down. Uh, fenced yard, large lot. Um, and here it is looking south. Um, from the rear of the home, the home is there in the middle. And then that is Mosqu Elementary School across the street.

And then um this is Diamond House over on North Center Avenue. Again, from the front, large fenced in yard. Um here it is from the top. Um and here that home is, you know, looking east um from Center Avenue. So, as with conditional use permits, we have our five criteria that we review um these requests through. Um I'm going to look at um two of these. So all of these commission all of these conditions or our or criteria have been met. I want to focus on numbers three and number five. Um number three that the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abudding property. Um the proposed group homes should have no appreciable adverse effect on abuing properties. Um, the proposed use will also provide a safe and supportive environment for children in crisis. It will enhance our community's overall well-being by offering support uh family offering services that support family stability and reunification and engage with local resources including our schools, community centers, and local agencies to provide children um with opportunities for success and growth. And then uh this is the the fifth criteria that the conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Um so at this time, staff is recommending that a condition be added that will limit the group home to the care and supervision of children who have been removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, or other family challenges who are in the care of Arizona Department of Child Safety. uh this condition will limit the type of care provided by this group home to a well-defined set of parameters. Uh these parameters were pulled directly from the initial narrative provided by the uh applicant. They said, "Hey, this is what we're doing." And uh staff said, "Great,

that's the condition. You're allowed to do that." Um a new conditional use permit however will be required in the event that the type of care provided changes or if the uh care recipients change um i.e. elderly care, drug rehab, any other type of use. Um so this this is a very narrow very strict um condition and I believe that the applicants representatives are going to come here. Um, we've talked with the community. I've talked with the applicant. They've come back with another uh solution to say, "Hey, can we get that lightened up?" Um, that's really doesn't leave us much room to, you know, grow or change with the market or with the needs of the children in the community. Um, and I'll let them present that, but I believe that, um, there is room to change this condition and kind of broaden those. Um, but as this is what was put in the initial agenda, what was put in the staff report and the original resolution, I went ahead and left it the way that it was, uh, initially presented. Um, with that public hearing notification effort for this request, um, we did do the publication in the Grande Kasa Grande dispatch. Uh, we mailed out mailers, um, to everybody within 300 ft of this property. Um, and a sign was required and posted with this application. And this does apply to both locations and both DSA numbers. Um, staff has received feedback from a number of our community members. Um, most of them have been in reference to the Opal Home on Melissa Avenue. Um, but I think that the concerns are while they were mostly for the one address and the one neighborhood, I think they're good concerns and I think that it applies to to to both.

Um so the primary concerns that were discussed um are as follows but in no specific order. Uh safety. Safety was the first thing that I heard from our community members. Um they're concerned about the type of residents they're that'll be living here. Um they have concerns about of course felons, sex offenders, drug recovery, um and other types of violent offenders. Um that's I think that's understandable. Um the applicant has agreed. Um so even I think they're going to come up here and propose um a different condition a different uses allowed uses um but they have agreed to say hey if you do give us other uses that are allowed um that they can um expressly prohibit um these types of uses that are of the most concern to our community members. Um and I can show that um later or if our applicant can bring those up. But um uh the second concern is is we hear a lot here is uh property values. Uh community members are are worried about their that a group home is going to lower their property values or make it difficult to sell their home in the future. Um property value is one of those things that is so nebulous and so market driven. um and there's so many moving parts to it that it is difficult to say one way or the other that this will in fact lower your property values or this won't have any effect whatsoever. Um so we kind of just yeah it's it's it's valid. Um I just don't know where to go from there with that. Um it's a consideration for every development that we approve here. Um and then quality and professionalism. Uh we've had community members that are worried about in the future or have had negative issues with living next to a group home type setting. Uh especially ones run poorly or by unprofessional groups. Um and these are valid concerns. Nobody likes

bad neighbors and if you're uncomfortable in your own home, that's that's really we don't want that um either from the city. Um so the specificity of staff's initial um condition proposal that narrow definition um would require any change in use or type of resident uh to go through a new public hearing. And with that if they know that three years down the road whatever they are going to have to go back through a public hearing. It could that be that this encourages our applicant to um maintain a positive relationship with their neighbors um as to build that community to support. So when they do go to um ask for uh additional uses that those community me their neighbors will come in and say, "Hey, these they've been great. We absolutely adore them. We hardly know they're there. Give them the thumbs up." And if they're bad neighbors, then it gives that them opportunity to come in and say, "Hey, look, it's been a nightmare for three." Um, so keeping this very specific, very narrow, might have some follow-on effects to kind of um keep honest people honest. So what I would like to do because these are two separate applications, two separate requests, if it's possible, I would like to run these as instead of normally we would run them. If we could do the recommendation and then the public hearing bit and then do it again for the second one because I want people to have an opportunity to speak to the specific address that their concerns are for. Or we could if

and I think the um the way the agenda is written, the next item is for 1112 North Center. So I think we can go forward with the public hearing on 1112 North Center, make the recommendation, you guys make your motion, vote, and then go back do the public hearing for the and then call G5 to order and then the 1668 East Melissa one will go through the public hearing. Okay. So So are you You are you essentially done with your presentation to staff? Yes.

Okay. So, let me go ahead and open up for commissioners to ask staff questions about actually about both if that's that's all right with Yep. So, do you have questions for staff commissioners? Yes, sir. What constitutes a child under 18? Correct. It would be a juvenile under the age of 18. Any age up to 18. Correct. And how many bedrooms are in each of these houses? I believe they are both four bedroomedroom homes.

And are they going to have are they going to be like one house has all males all one house has all females? I are they going to be mixed? I do not know the makeup of the specific children and I think that's going to be one of those things um that is fluid as children come into the city and I will let our applicant discuss it but I believe as as the children come into need they'll be placed and then as that child transitions back into preferably a safe home that they belong to um or some other arrangement that that's going to be uh back and forth on a case-by case basis. So, these are just shortterm, you're saying? I mean,

they could be they could be long-term. Um, again, that's another I'll let my applicant speak to the the specifics of And then how long has this applicant been doing this? How long and how many homes has he had already? They are a wellestablished uh group home. They have other group homes here in Casag. I'm not sure if they've got more in this in in Kasa Grand. Um, we'll get them up here. I hope they're here. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff? No, I'm not shutting you down. That's okay. Questions? No, that's fine.

Okay. Okay. Now, um now if we can with the applicant or their representative, please come forward and um well, we can address both issues if if that fits with what you have.

Oh, yeah, sure. Good evening. Uh my name is Sam Richardson. Um I am an attorney and I represent Empowerment Life Services. My address for my office in Phoenix is 7600 North uh 16th Street. Sweet number 100, Phoenix, Arizona 85020. Empowerment Life Services address is 5564 East Garnet um Mesa, Arizona 85206. Um so first off uh we do we are uh interested in expanding the use from simply uh DCS placements to also um placements from uh the Toono Odum tribe and the Achin tribe as well. Uh and other uh acceptable uses for the group home property would also include de developmentally disabled residential services for housing individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities who require supervision or supportive services in a home environment. Youth transitional uh living program which is for residential support uh for youth aging out of foster care or experiencing homelessness with emphasis on life skills, education, employment readiness. um emergency shelter for children, which would include temporary licensed housing for minors requiring immediate placement due to unsafe or unstable living conditions. Uh licensed behavioral health uh children's facility, which would entail residential treatment and support for children or teens with behavioral health needs. Noncriminal uh they're not part of the uh the criminal system. U pregnant and parenting team home which would include licensed care for pregnant or parenting teens often still under state care or supervision. Providing a stable environment and life skills education. Uh specialized education support housing which would include housing for youth enrolled in therapeutic day programs or special education services requiring structured residential support. faith-based

residential programs which would in include licensed group home offering structure biblical mentorship life skills in a spiritually supportive setting for adults and minors who are dealing with difficult life events such as life such as divorce loss of spouse loss of child unplanned pregnancies etc. And then finally, elderly assisted living home, um, which would include licensed residential care for elderly individuals who need help with daily living activities but do not require full-time medical care. This includes personal care, meals, and supervision in a homelike environment. Each of those is would be a separate use that we would seek if you to broaden the the use of this particular properties. What we're not seeking, we are definitely not seeking any housing for registered or unregistered sex offenders. We're not seeking any form of drug or alcohol rehabilitation for adults. We're not seeking re-entry housing or traditional programs or transitional, sorry, transitional programs for individuals with convictions. And we're not seeking halfway houses or diversion housing for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. So, these are not people with a history of uh criminal activity. These are generally teens u but they they do range in age from uh typically six years of age to 17 years of age. Um they're often siblings who are housed together. Uh so there are boys and girls. Uh we're trying to keep siblings together as much as possible. Keep those family units uh in as stable an environment as we can. Um their typical stay is six months, some some longer, some shorter. Um and the uh the other question that went unanswered was how many other sites does Empowerment Life Services operate? They operate two other homes in the Phoenix

area. Um they have been doing this for I think about 10 years. um and they've had hundreds of kids go through their system successfully and um achieve they they do certain metrics of achievement and they have a 95% success rate on those metrics. Um, and then they they have what they call uh life they're like checkpoints but like life um achievements where they have they boast an 88% success rate on those uh kind of checkpoints those grading checkpoints. Um, the reason why they they are coming to Catherine is bec because they have people from your community already in those homes in the Phoenix area and they're not they're wanting to because they see that need. They're wanting to keep them in the community so that they can have that continuity of lifestyle here uh in your wonderful city. So with that, any questions?

I have a question. Uh the um the homes that are in in Mesa right now, they're male and female together. Yes. And ages six to seven. Yeah. They're generally siblings that they're trying to keep together. Mhm. Okay. I Okay. Well, I I have a little problem with that. Just especially with the ages of 6 to 17 because a 11year-old boy has got different thoughts than a 10year-old girl and I'm just I got some problems with that. That's true. It's also not Lord of the Flies. They do have staff that are present at all times. I still have problem with that though.

And the staff, I do want to mention the staff is certified in CPR training, in a lot of counseling. Um, they are also level one fingerprint cleared, background check. Um, and they have to continue their certification,

right? I'm sure of that. But, um, because I live in a neighborhood on the next street over, we have a group home. It's been there for a long time, but it's strictly males. And, um, I just I don't know this concept that's a little different for me. So anyway, that's just me. I get to keep them together. I get that 100%. I get them being in our own community. I get that, too. But um I just it's it's there's too many opportunities for things that Well, never mind. Never mind. Okay.

Yep. um variety of uses proposed and and some of those don't work together, you know. Well, yeah, we're not proposing that they all be done at the same time. Okay, that's what I was wondering. You're the house would be functioning as a emergency shelter for children if that's the intended use of the time. Okay. Will the kids be leaving the home every day attending school? Generally, yes. Yeah. Tell me about the staffing. So, how does the staffing work?

So, there's various shifts, but this the staff um are on site. Um they're not they don't no one none of the staff is there 247 individually, but they have shifts that cover the 247 period.

Um so, that there's always somebody on site monitoring uh the activities there. And I uh I do want to kind of go over the the uh certifications of the staff too. So they are residential managers, childcare workers, counselors, and support staff. They're all thoroughly background checked, receive ongoing training in child care, conflict resolution, trauma trauma-informed care, and emergency preparedness. um they have uh there's no time when the number of residents exceeds the capacity. Uh they it's the 10 the 10 residents plus the staff. So that's that's what we're looking at.

So how many bedrooms to each house? I mean that's a lot of kids in one house. 10. Uh yes, there's four bedrooms. Uh okay. Believe Mr. uh Mr. Leonard mentioned, okay, I say I chuckle because I have seven kids of my own and and everyone says that's a lot of kids. I know, but that's your family. This is this is these are people that don't may not No, I understand. I understand. That's a different scenario. I I I don't I wouldn't care if I had seven kids in one house either if they were my own, but these are,

you know, youth who've have had issues. So I I don't think you'd want, you know, it's a lot of kids. Any other questions for for the applicant? Yes. I just have one. Yeah. Uh so the condition wouldn't cover all of the uses you're suggesting. Correct. The Go ahead. the condition that staff recommends only covers that single very narrow allowance. Do you do you have that do you have that on your presentation that pop it up and see that language?

The condition in the application only covers placements by DCS. our our real hangup with this particular condition. It doesn't include the tribal placements, which is what we would also that's what we're really seeking. Um that's number one. Um if if we can't get this, we would be seeking one of those other types of uses that we that I described a moment ago. So, have you created any language to offer us as to what that would look like? So right now what we want is yeah he did that whole list that whole list

group home would be limited to care and supervision of children who have been removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect or other family challenges who are in the care of Arizona Department of Child Services or tribal entities that provide a similar service. It's okay. And and that list is in that packet that I've provided you along with some of the community comments.

And like I said, staff is amendable to loosening some of that to include some of those other uses on this list. We we understand that um that restriction is is significantly narrow. And then who monitors the group home to make sure they're following these guidelines once they're already taken place? As in what what governmental entity or what licensing entity

that plus making sure that you do have kids between under 17 and under, making sure that you're following the guidelines, you know. Yeah. Yeah, it's the state of Arizona department of uh child safety DCS and they're DCS. Yes. But there I was just going to say right given giving given this limited one it would be DCS if we expand it to the list that you have. Yeah. It would also include a whole different group. Yeah. Oh, and I'll introduce Cindy. Cindy Preszetti, who's our program director, she has some additional comments that to answer the licensing.

Okay. Can you be sure you can hear you on the microphone?

To answer the licensing question, we are licensed through Department of Economic Security, child safety. Um, we are monitored by not only them and we are monitored quarterly and then we renew annually. We also have the fire marshal that comes out yearly for an inspection. We have department of health that comes out yearly for an inspection. So even though we are licensed just by one entity, we're monitored by many. Um financially we have to supply yearly a financial audit um to the state to make sure we're handling our finances in a fiscal manner. Um, your question about staffing, we staff two people to a house. So, even though you may have 10 kids, you have two adults there all the time with them and they are trained and I think that um you've explained the extensive training they go through. So, the two people that are there at all times, 24 hours a day, are they just counselors or they just what's their certification?

Well, they wouldn't have a necessarily a license, but they are certified to be um direct care workers. So, they go through not only the extensive fingerprint clearance, they go through multiple trainings. Um the state requires it. So, not only is our agency requiring it, we're also mandated by the state for and they give us a list. They must do these things or they can't work with the agency or work with the children.

Any other Do you have anything that shows your past history like that we can go online to look up like? Yes, there is a website for uh the agency. And what's the website? It is um Empowerment Life Services LLC. Yes, I forgot my password. You're Are you ready or I I mean I don't know if we're are we able to take into account what you're doing elsewhere in this Well, I just want to know a past record. I just wanted to see Okay. Okay.

I mean, performance. Yeah. I mean, I can go by what they say, but I want to see what they actually do before we say yes, come into our community. Plus, we we've proven to be a good neighbor. We're currently we have two locations in Mesa. Okay. And yeah, I thought maybe we should bring our neighbors because they vouch for us. They're, you know, we it's important to us to be a good neighbor. Um, we do keep an extremely low profile, okay? Because often people react in a negative way to think that we're going to have juvenile delinquents. We do not have juvenile delinquents. We take care of the abused and neglected children. Okay.

Exactly. Does it What's the Oh, here it is. Invite people into our neighborhoods. No, I think just personally, you know, I think I feel more comfortable with what planning staff's recommending, including the tribal entities as a

more specific end user, I guess, so to speak. I don't know. I just it feels too wide open for me with all the other to me this makes more sense. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Now, I'd like to open the public portion of the meeting. Anybody from the public like to address this issue? One second. Yes. Let's just make sure. So, the we're opening up the public meeting for for G4, which is 1112 North Center Avenue. Yes, sir. Oh, okay. Thank you. Appreciate you specifying that. I'm just going to go in order of the agenda.

Yeah. No, appreciate you specifying that. Thank you, Mark. Okay. Anybody like to address it for the one on Center Avenue? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting for that issue and then we want to vote on it. Yes, we need to vote and then then we'll open it back up. Okay. Yeah, we need to hear. Sorry, they're revolting.

Mark, is there any way we can hear the the open the other public hearing to you or No, we got to vote. Well, we should go in order first. I mean, it's it's the way it is on the agenda is that's the way it was put on the agenda. So, Okay. Can I interrupt for a second? But I can answer all of your questions as a resident because I asked them all. I have the standing report here. Okay. Maybe somebody was looking for but hang on. Okay. Now we have to go in order. It's the public portion is still open. So you're welcome.

But I'm not I'm not 300 ft away from the house. It doesn't matter. Anybody can speak. Come on. Come on forward and and tell us what you think about it. So, my name is Kevin Dvau and I live at 1674 East Valerie Street and I am 300 ft away from what I think you're calling the Opal House. It's the first time I saw it referred to as Melissa Avenue. Okay.

Okay. I've been retired for 25 years and I'm a busy body. So when I got the when I got the thing in the mail, I ran around to all the neighbors to see what they knew and what they didn't know. And I called Samuel and Samuel was tremendous in sharing information. I also called the applicant and spoke to him at great length and he emailed me everything I asked him for. So, with regard to your question about bedrooms and kids, it was explained to me that the house that's going to be close to me is four bedrooms and the Department of Services says four kids in the master, two kids in every other bed, and they're all in bunk beds. Okay, just to answer that question, you asked the question about boys and girls. I'm a divorced parent and my children were moved a thousand miles away from me and the idea of splitting up se uh splitting up siblings is a horrible idea and I don't care what their sex is. They're already losing their parents. Take them out of their school and their friends and their family and you might as well just shoot them.

Okay, my kids had everything available to them and they're still traumatized. Okay. So, kids that don't have that behind them now, and I'm one of the neighbors, right? I'm affected by this. Second thing, I'm a retired technology guy, so I ran AI since that's the new thing that everybody wants to talk about. And I used two different ones, and I asked it to write a report for me about the effect on property values for for licensed children's homes. And despite the fact that there's a lot of emotional responses, um the actual data does not show that there's any decrease in it. And what's interesting is I used Gro 3 and I used Microsoft Copilot and they gave me the same answer. Okay. So I'm confident that it's not going to do the property value. My reservation was I didn't like the definition of group home. It's too amorphous. Okay. Licensed children home I'm fine with. Okay. Some of the ones that were up there I do have an issue with elderly because we have uh couple hundred bed um assisted living center at the end of Valerie Street.

So I don't think we have the pressing need for that kind of stuff. For halfway houses and that stuff I would have an issue. I do have some experience with those in past lives. So, uh, one of the other questions was the supervision. They had to respond to an RFP. I have to shut up now. No, go ahead for a minute. We'll give you another minute because that's really hard for me. Well, we'll go ahead.

I wasn't kidding about being a busy body. So, they had to respond to an RFP that came out from Child Protective Services. Do you know that they have to have a Swahili interpreter accessible to them? Farsy, um, Swahili, Arabic. I mean, the the stuff that I mean, the RFP was just so restrictive. And um I also downloaded from the child protective services that said that the home that they operate, Jasper House, which is um in Mesa I believe, um was in good standing as of 52724. That was the most recent thing that was on the website that I could find. Um, so all I can say is as a neighbor, I'm supportive of it. I am actually going to, if they're approved, I'm going to donate a bunch of furniture for them. Um, because I think I've got stuff that will help create a community environment. Um, and I think that kids deserve every chance they can possibly get, especially when their parents are fuckups, not them.

Okay? Pardon my French. Okay. But kids are kids are all too often the victim and we need to be behind them. Thank you for the opportunity. Awesome. Thank you. We appreciate your busy bodiness. Yes, we do. Anybody else from public like to address this issue? Great. Good deal.

Please give us your name and address for the record.

Uh Marcus Marcus Romero. My home of record is uh 1678 East Melissa Street. It's where I grew up. Two houses down. I've currently moved, but my retired parents still live there. And a lot of the neighborhood I know that neighborhood. I grew up there. And a lot of the residents are concerned about the type of people. I get it. We all want to help kids. I had a business helping kids in this city myself. The road to hell is paid with good intentions. And even if the perceived property value doesn't go down, sometimes the quality of life for those people who worked 30 plus years in this town, bought a house there, raised a family there, and retired there, who just want to retire in peace, want to keep that peace. And it's great idea. I'm all about helping kids, but I don't think a family residential era is the place to do it. I'm sure there's plenty of places for them, but single family homes should go to single families, not out of town businesses for financial gain. I struggled buying a house here. I'm a vet. I would have loved to buy a house two doors down for my parents to so I could watch them and aid them in their retirement. Unfortunately, the market goes to the highest bidder. But the neighbors that I spoke to want to see families in those homes. They don't want businesses in and out of there. They don't want different residents in and out of there. Growing up, there was two special needs homes. We got knocks in the middle of the night. We got police up and down the street. We got firefighters, first responders, all in that area. The same house, 10 kids with, you know, no family with two people watching them. To me, that just doesn't seem safe. You know, we grew up with four, six people in that house and it was crammed. And it it is a concern. It's a good cause, but I don't think it should go in a family residential area. We were told promises when the Walmart went up there

that there wouldn't be graffiti, there wouldn't be pan handlers, there wouldn't be tents in the back of it. That's all you see when you go down there. All those stuff came to fruition. Everything those people were concerned about. This the cities, the streets are tagged. There's shopping carts everywhere, tents in the where there used to be parks where we used to play. things happen, you know, like I get it. People are down on their luck and kids shouldn't suffer, but neither should single family residents who retired, work for this town, who want their a lot of them don't even think their voice could be heard anymore. They just feel like something goes up and whoever has the most money, they get the yeses. And so, I'm concerned for the safety and the well-being of my parents and the parents next to me who grew up there. and I don't want to see them either be forced to sell or move or feel uncomfortable in their own neighborhood. And I just hope you guys consider that in your judging. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that a lot. Anybody else like to address this issue? here. Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting for G4 and bring it back to commission.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Thank you, G. Like to make a motion to approve the conditional use permit associated resolution DSA 20. Okay. Don't take it away. Wait. Z8600 DSA 2500 0087. Okay. With the following conditions. Okay. I think we want to modify one of those. Can we modify? Did you want to add the tribal entities? Uh how should we go about whatever else you want modifying that condition? I think we need to modify.

Just make a motion with the condition. Okay. Uh, and make a motion to modify. Well, your motion is to approve the cup with the condition number one and condition number two to read and then just read what you want the condition to say. So, have the language if you need it. Okay, that'd be perfect. The language I have is this group home will be limited to the care and supervision of children who have been removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, or other family challenges who are in the care of Arizona Department of Child Services or Arizona Department of Child Safety or tribal entities that provide similar services.

Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve the conditional use permit and associated resolution DSA 250087 with the following conditions. Number one, the group home is to be limited to no more than 10 care recipients. And two, this group home will be limited to the care and supervision of children who have been removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, or other family challenges who are in the care of the Arizona Department of Child Safety or or tribal entities providing similar services. Very good. I'll second. Oh, you got a second.

Okay. Okay, we have a motion to second. Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the role. Member Smith, yes. Member Alret, I. Member Venderhayden, no. Member Hubard, I do see that we need a need for this and I'm going to say yes. Member Peters, nay. Vice Chair Garza, I. Chairman Benedict.

Yeah, I mean it's passed anyway. Um yeah, we need we need it. No question. Um I like the that we've restricted it. The others were certainly too much ocean. Um and enough of enough of my talking. Um I vote I motion passes. So we're on to G5. We have had uh the presentation for G5 DSA2500083 and um let's see I would just ask the applicant if they want to come. Yeah, I was going to say should the applicant or their representative like to address this issue?

Uh thank you council will just reiterate what we've already stated. Okay. All right. So any So the applicant's done. Um no questions for him and now I open the public portion of the meeting. Would anybody like to address this issue? Please come forward. Marquez, 1678 East Melissa Street. I would like to reiterate what I previously said.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Appreciate that. Govern 1674 Valerie Street. And I want to amend one thing that I said. I talked to Valerie Street residents. I did not talk to Melissa Street residents. So can't he's he represents them, not me. I did not talk to them and get their opinion. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Anybody else from the public like to address this issue? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting and bring it back to the commission. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Thank you, G.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the conditional use permit and associated resolution DSA 250083 to allow for a group home up to 10 residents at 1668 East Melissa Avenue, Cassag Grande, Arizona 85122 with the following conditions. One, the group home is to be limited to no more than 10 care recipients. Two, this group home will be limited to the care and supervision of children who have been removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, or other family challenges who are in the care of the Arizona Department of Child Safety or tribal entities who provide similar services. Yeah, very good. Second. Okay, second.

Okay, we have motion second. Any discussion? Okay, please call the RO. Member Smith, yes. Member Alderret, I. Member Vender Hayden, no. Member Huard, yes. Member Peters, nay. Vice Chair Garza, I. Chairman Benedict, yes. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Uh, no, we're not done.

Get your agenda here. Dan's got to talk to us, I guess. Okay. We're going to have a public hearing and consider re forwarding recommendation. City council uh yeah request by the planning department for zoning code text amendments. Director talk to us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Um, thank you for the opportunity to present this evening. I'm going to walk you through the proposed code amendments under DSA-25-000029. [Music] This code amendment package is structured around three key objectives which is listed on the screen. Replacing chapter 17.68 to update the administrative procedures and other related code sections to ensure consistency. creating a new chapter 17.66 to formalize the citizen review process and making revisions to the residential, business, and industrial use tables. Uh the proposed chapter 17.68 68 improves clarity and organization by considering all administrative procedures into 10 articles, including site plans, conditional use permits, pads, zoning amendments, and more. Importantly, we're incorporating the requirements of House Bill 2447. This means that site plans will now be reviewed and approved administratively by staff, not by the commission. The change aligns with state law and streamlines the review process. We've also consolidated development standards for certain conditional uses which are listed on your screen. This consolidation ensures consistency and enhances the clarity for applicants and staff. Under the new structure, there is no longer a distinction between major and minor site plans. All site plan reviews will be conducted administratively. We've included a clear process for site plan amendments, distinguishing between major and minor amendments to ensure the

appropriate level of review in support of the code changes for administrative procedures. Can you hang on just a second? Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry. We're having trouble hearing what's going on over here. Don't want to interrupt the conversation. Please continue on, but we're having trouble here. Go ahead.

In support of co-changes for administrative procedures, we're also amending several other chapters uh listed on your screen. Nothing of real substance, simply aligning the language with chapter 1768. However, the specifics could be found in your memorandum. So, we'll first cover 1768 with any questions. that you may have before we move on to 1766

question. So the changes this is the changes for um site plans that match the state legislation mostly mostly there's a lot of movement in the changes that we've made in 1768. So that's why we're doing essentially a repeal and replace because of all the changes, but that is the the most important change that is before you tonight to reflect the new state law that was signed by the governor. Right. So this board or any board, the city council too doesn't review um site plans, major site plans, preliminary block plans, any of that.

That is correct. That will now be done administratively because we are no longer allowed to subject those to a public hearing. And when does this take place? This will take place after the city council reviews and approves and 30 days after that. Um what when does the legislation say that we have to it has to be in effect by January 1st and we anticipate under our current it'll be in effect by November, December. So we'll we'll be close. We just want to make sure we get into a place before January 1st. Yeah. Fight that. Don't want to fight that battle there. So, we will just see land use changes.

You'll see condition public hearing items, conditional use permits, resonings primarily. Changes to the general plan. Yeah. Nothing to do. I don't think it needs anymore. the right time. We're not doing anything. I like activity, man. I don't we'll be out of here by seven every night. Let's look at the bright side. I mean, I guess it doesn't matter how we vote. There's nothing we can do about it. It's already been made, but I'd love to 1766 will help us keep moving. Go ahead. Any other questions? I'm sorry. got lost on my

176 on my soap box but okay please proceed.

So moving on turning to chapter 17.66 the citizen review process. This new chapter aims to enhance transparency and foster early meaningful public input. It ensures the community is informed and engaged before applications advance too far in the review process. The purpose of chapter 17.66 66 is to enhance transparency, encourage early public input, mitigate potential negative impacts, and support community character. Pre-application notices will be mailed to property owners within 300 ft of the site, and may be expanded at the director's discretion. This facil facilitates early dialogue between applicants and neighbors. Some examples of design changes that might result from early public engagement include lower building heights, increased setbacks, changes to lighting or uh or access points, and enhanced landscaping or wall treatments. Uh we've outlined various types of notification under this new process including a pre-application notification for public hearing for resonings and cups. Uh this will be mandatory prior to application submitt. Currently it is not mandatory. Um this is basically our our public hearing notification requirements which is currently in place. Not much is really changing here. Administrative re review notices for site plans and plats to inform the surrounding property owners that the city has received an application for development that will be reviewed administratively. This will give the the neighbors really an opportunity to provide comments to staff in order for us to try to mitigate any potential negative off-site impacts

that the surrounding neighbors have. So although we're reviewing projects administratively, it still provides an opportunity to include the public and uh which is always very helpful. We don't have all the right answers as to what's better for what's good and what's best for a neighborhood. So the public will still be involved and that's very important uh to us as staff, but I also think to our elected officials. Sure. And as we've experienced, the public comes up with some good ideas. They do. They do. there's been some some that would have been very helpful to us. So before we move on to the changes to the um zoning

use tables, any questions you may have? To me, this is not robust enough. It doesn't require the applicant to conduct a public meeting. It does not. But there is um it does require them. Well, we would be doing the the uh notifications which 300 feet just doesn't get to enough people. Sorry, but no, 300 feet is the minimum. If there is a more impactful use, we will extend that as necessary as we currently do now. Currently, the the minimum is 300 feet, but we often extend that much further if we think that this is much more impactful to a neighborhood than just the people within 300 feet.

So, we do have that discretion. It's just whether your judgment is our judgment, right, of what's impactful because I I think this review process should require the applicant to conduct a public meeting and provide that feedback in the form of a public, you know, public response, right? So, we received this feedback and here is how we responded to those comments. and that's not really documented in this text that you've provided me. So, I think it needs work.

I'll say just in my experience doing planning as far as public participation, neighborhood meetings, and all of that, yes, they are important. They bring out a lot of good things. But I will trust that our director has the experience to understand when a project is going to have that impact that the neighbors are going to want to be notified to a larger extent. For example, a project I was working on in Panel County. Panel County has a requirement 600 or 1,200 ft. I notified 1,200 just to be safe. I had two people show up to my neighborhood meeting and that was it. And so I don't think we need to ownorously put it on an applicant to meet with a larger area if it's not necessary for their project. And I'm going to trust that the director will have that discretion and experience and knowledge to make that decision. Um, and so that's where I think this is is perfect because there are many times in the jurisdictions I do work in, they do require a neighborhood meeting before you submit your application. and we hold that neighborhood meeting and I show up at 6 and nobody shows up and so I then I leave at 6:30 and so it's kind of like why are we holding a neighborhood meeting for something that is a no-brainer to a lot of people or something that just doesn't make sense to hold a neighborhood meeting. So not requiring a neighborhood meeting unless again the director sees it as as a necessity I think is is a good way to go about this because it it helps streamline the process for the applicant and for staff so that there's less things that they have to do themselves because does staff attend neighborhood meetings when they're held? We we do attend neighborhood meetings um because these are being reviewed administratively. What can be challenging sometimes even with the comment period is we receive conflicting wants from the neighbors and which neighbor do we listen to. So this will create challenges by itself just by reaching out. If an applicant is meeting

the development standards of our zoning code as staff, which neighbor do we listen to? When we've had neighborhood meetings, sometimes neighbors could get frustrated because they feel under the new administrative review process, they would say, "Well, what are we doing here if there's not much that we can really do for it?" So, it's really about tempering expectations. Currently, right now, we don't have a requirement for a neighborhood meeting for the citizen review process that's done administratively. It's basically just a mailed notice from staff to gather input and comments from the surrounding neighborhood and phone calls and we would happy to be meet meet with those as well. If we felt there was a situation where a neighborhood meeting is justified, we would request that of the applicant to do that in order to try to address some of the concerns that the neighbors may have.

Does it spec does it say that in here? because it really talks about the neighborhood meeting relating to a public hearing, not necessarily anything outside of that. It does not um specifically say for the administrative review, a uh neighborhood meeting. Well, notification may be me notice, neighborhood meeting, or both at the director's discretion. So, yes, it does say that.

I don't know. It's a lot to shoulder, you know. I don't know. I just feel like you're going to have the public on your back with every decision made because they don't have a voice. They're not going to have an outlet. And if it's not documented, the the questions they ask and the response or no response that needs to be provided, it's very hard to understand that they've being heard, right? so that they're, you know, I did get to say what I wanted to say and it's documented and maybe they couldn't provide exactly what I wanted or whatever. I just think it's very important to just hear them.

Absolutely. And that is the goal of this department and really at the direction of our uh city management team and elected officials. Yeah. Yeah, because they're definitely going to be a city council called to the public's

if if we don't do it and something's going up and we haven't done it where there's I don't want to be put in that position. So, we have a tendency to do more than what we think is necessary in order to prevent us being put in a position where we we should have had u in this case we have to do the not we have to s we must let the surrounding neighborhood know that this application is coming in and then from there listen to their comments. So there's no discretion there on my part whether we do that mailing or not to notify the neighbors. It's just that maybe that neighborhood meeting would it be useful to the process or not? And again tempering tempering expectations of the public by having that neighborhood meeting. This is th this notification is is it more than we're doing now? I mean because we send out the mailers, we put up the sign say we yeah we

um that's where I was like I would say it's mostly and I'll defer to you know Jim who's been here a lot longer than I than I have. I think we're not draw taking anything away except we're not going before the planning and zoning commission, right? Um we're still notifying the surrounding it's the same except right just doesn't come before this body the same notification as as it is now. I know that's what I was trying to say. It needs to be a little more robust and because you know because we're out now you know they don't have this meeting to come to

cry

the the code currently um is silent with regard to some of the notification. So we've just by practice have standardized the notification. So it's always 300 ft, it's always 15 days. But when you look at the code, a major site plan um and a preliminary plat and some of the other processes are actually 10day notice and 200 ft. So if anything, this implements what we already have done by policy, but it puts it into the code to make it consistent at 300 minimum. Well, we we'll have a we'll have a public portion before we before we vote on it. We'll have a public hearing.

This is very near and dear. Yeah, I we'll have we'll have that just same process as the others.

Okay. Any more on All right. And so I I provided a handout before the meeting of the use tables for commercial and residential highlighting in yellow what's changing there. Um we are reclassify conditional uses to permit permitted uses were appropriate, expand allowable uses and remove outdated land uses. So if you have any questions about any of those changes, please let me know. Okay. So, public building and quasi public, which I always love that term because what is that? Um, okay. So, they can go in any zoning is what you're telling me. basically matching uh case law that essential government services case law says they're exempt from zoning, but as a matter of policy, we would subject any essential government service to the zoning regulations. Um, and this is, uh, basically in your residential zoning, um, it per permits them, um, all by right.

Okay. And um and it permits them in business and industrial zones as well. Yeah, it was added to in everything. And it's permitted. So, yep. Correct. It's not a conditional use for and there was one in here. Oh, I hope we're at the point asking questions. Did we interrupt your presentation? I'm done. I'm ready. Yeah, I'm ready for you. So, uh what's an S building? That is per the building code. Um it's I'm not sure what the S stands for, but it's it's not an A. Are you talking about a data center? Says battery storage building occupancy.

The S relates to the building code. So those are allowed by by right as a permitted use. The H is a for hazard. We would require them to go through a conditional use permit process and approval by the planning and zoning commission. So I guess so there's just two different types of building code uh categories that these battery storage plants could fall in. The H is more hazardous. So it has more that requires additional use where the S

is more standard. I don't know what the S stands for either, but it's more standard. So that's why they're permitted in those zones. So would it be the type of battery that decided what kind of building it went in or what what would the building code we determine what the occupancy whatever they're putting in the building determines what the occupancy of that building is and and so we would rely on that for you know because everybody's afraid of batteries now it says uh sometimes they catch on we have these mobile devices here it says

the S building code S1 or building storing combustible materials and S2 buildings storing non-combustible materials. So depending on the S that is it is there's an S1 and an S2 in Arizona. Just says S. So there could be combustible material. So the S is Thank you, Jim. The S stands for storage. Yes. That's why you get paid the big bucks. So, so what's an H? Hazard. Hazardous materials. If the occupancy is

these are just some but it's already combustible in an okay hazardous is like chemicals, right? Okay. It sounds like most of them will come in as an H is probably what you're getting at, Mr. Chair, but we'll see. It's possible. I'm not I'm not sure. Yeah. I mean, we've all seen the news about, right, you know, the the batteries that's starting on fire and and and I assure you the utilities I'm aware of are very aware that that's an issue because hurts them as much or more than it hurts anybody else. But, uh, but it makes you a little bit nervous just to cart blanch approve them, although it is in the industrial zonings only. So,

and they've come a long way. Uh, typically those videos are legacy systems, but they've improved the safety of these battery systems by by Yeah, I'm aware because it hurts the utility as much more than Yeah. than than the public when those batteries go off because they're depending on them. So, u but I was just what the heck is that? And how does that make the public feel better about the whole issue? Okay, any other discussion, questions for Dan? Okay,

actually I just One question, I didn't really realize this, but battery storage with an S building is this assumption that all battery storage will have to have a building because there are battery stoages that don't have buildings and so can one without a building go in there cuz they have cabinets. Mhm. And those flood themselves so fires like that don't happen and it's all outside and they have like a substation that's part of it sometimes and it connects right to that without a building really. That's a good question. And I don't know if I have um an accurate answer for you, but I would assume that the type of storage facility, and I know what you mean. I've seen the outdoor where they're in cabinets. Yeah.

And we would just rely on the building official and the building code as how he's treating the occupancy. Okay. Of the site and if it's an S or an H and Okay. And run it accordingly. Thank you. I assume the building was that it was shows what Okay. bad assumptions. Okay, that's all I have. Um, that's and then I have some sample motions for you after the public has spoken. We'll have three motions this evening. Okay, so you are the applicant. So, you had your chance. Thank you.

And now, uh, open the public portion of the meeting. Anybody from the public like to address this issue? Please come forward. You're on, Gloria. I don't like this new system.

Gloria Johnson's story. 1245 East Laurel Drive, Kasa Grande, Arizona. I'm speaking to the notification portion and the prior director was supposed to be they said they were trying to revise it to at least 500 ft. Um the last time I was notified, uh it was Rodeo Road and they only hit the first two streets. And as you know, I went around and did a petition and the third row did not even have a clue. And this upsets people. And we I don't know where they are, but there's a lot of citizens and they come to me and they complain about what's going on, but where are they?

Um, and especially now where um you guys can't even say anything uh and it's all up to your discretion. that makes a big difference. And uh I know it's the state that did this to you, but I really feel more notification and not everybody gets the dispatch like I do. Um and I don't read the um publicized information always. I do stop and look at yellow signs and a lot of people are getting restless and upset with the way things are going in the city right now. you know, the growth is just unbelievable.

And it's very hard. Uh, and the older you get, the harder the changes are, but just to let people know that you care, even if they don't get their way, they should get a voice. And 300 feet isn't very much. Um, and I know I argued for a few few more feet and I did get it. But if if the citizens don't have the input, um it gets it gets pretty sad because people get very angry. That's thank you for that point. Uh we are having the 300 feet just because it's the minimum requirement by state law. I will say that um through our through experience

to do 500 at least. I didn't see that with what he left me, but yeah, he had talked to me. Believe me, I had a few talks with Paul and uh we had talked about extending it because not enough people get notices and and we may extend it as as necessary.

It's a courtesy to the citizens because people get very angry. Um, none of you are elected, but um, I heard some people that wouldn't have voted for you. Um, the last time there was a problem here, and I thought, okay, then are you going to be on the commission or are you going to step forward? No, they're just upset because something has bothered their community. And they talk about the developers and developers come in and make zone changes. When you buy a house, you're stuck. You cannot change your zone to protect yourself. Thank you. Thank you, Gloria.

To to add to our uh public outreach, we are also implementing a a web page with what's going up in in Kasa Grand. It's a web map for for more public basically notification. But nice our experience if if it's something people don't want it uh it spreads much further than 300 feet all by itself. Um, we are we are going to hear from people and we do want to hear from people. The ASU tool that's being created will help us with that. You're going to be the long guard. You're going to use that wonder dial.

I just think it still needs more work. So, it's not going to go down positively with me if we have to vote on all of them together. Just so you know. Um, so I I do have the first of three motions um for uh your reference. Okay, chair. I'd like to make a motion. Okay,

Mr. Mr. Chair, I move to recommend city council approval of DSA250029, a zoning text amendment to revise and replace in its entirety chapter 17.68 administrative procedures, title 17, zoning, and amendments to the following codes to ensure continuity with the amendments of chapter 17.68. And I'm not going to read all those. Not going to read everyone else. I'll second that. Stated on the screen. I'll second that. Okay.

We have a motion in a second that uh voting ourselves out of a job. I'm sorry that wasn't appropriate. Any discussion? No. This is just changing the fact that it uniforms the requirements and talks about the citizen review process, right? This one does not address 1766, which is the citizen review process. This is just the administrative procedures. Okay. That's when you need to make the motion to extend the 300 to something. Oh, no. I'm just gonna say no. Yeah. There's going to be three separate motions. The next motion will be 1766. Got it. I'm a yes for this. Okay.

All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, please uh call the role. Member Smith. Yes. Member Alderette. I. Member Vender Hayden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. I. Vice Chair Garza. I. Chairman Benedict. Well, I I have somewhere to to put down my objection to the legislation, so I'm voting no. Okay. Oh dear. I didn't know we could vote. No. The second one is the easiest. I'm impressed. [Music]

Well, that's important to me that you're impressed. That that means something. There you go. Well, what else you going to do? Okay. Next up is number two. There. Yeah. 00029. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I move to recommend city council approval of DSA 250029 zoning text amendment to create a new chapter 17.66 citizen review process of title 17 zoning. Okay. Second. I have a motion and a second.

Okay. Any discussion? Okay, hearing none, please call the RO. Member Smith, yes. Member Alderret, I. Member Vanderhden, yes. Member Hubard, yes. Member Peters, I. Vice Chair Garza, I think it needs more work. I'm a no. Chairman Benedict, one of the few times I completely agree with you. Oh, and I vote no. And it passes. Next number three. Mr. Chair. Yes.

I move to recommend to city council approval of DSA 250029 zoning text amendment to revise the following sections of title 17 zoning residential use table 17.6.030.A. Business and industrial use table 17.16.030 point. B 17.24.030. conditional uses allowed in the B1 zone district 17 list the list of presented items the list of presented items thank you very much okay so let me jump back that's the same DSA number as the one previous it's all one DSA number three of them it's all one

it'll be three separate ordinances so we're need needing three separate motions for city council show shows what I notice okay here we go we got a motion I hear a Second. Second. Okay. Motion with a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, call the role. Member Smith. Yes. Member Alderret. I. Member Vender Hayden. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Member Peters. Hi. Vice Chair Garza. Hi. Chairman Benedict.

Yes. Okay, next is reports from the director. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm not sure if Commissioner Peters has told everybody, but this is his last meeting. Um, so we I was going there. I was going to go there, but go ahead. We were We do have a vacancy um on our commission. It's being advertised and I believe it closes August 22nd, I believe. And so, we'll review applications. The goal is to try to seat a new commissioner uh before your September meeting. Member Peters, we thank you for your service. Your service, not only on this commission, but to the city of Cassagran. You did a lot of work for

a local utility here. Absolutely. And he put a lot of infrastructure in the ground that provided service to a lot of folks in the community. So, I appreciate you. Thank you. And your work here. Absolutely. We're going to miss you. you you will be greatly missed and and thank you for noting the years of lifetime of service and that benefited our community.

Thank you. Five years ago when I came on to this commission, Brett and I were part of a old white-haired, gray-haired group of old men. And since then, the commission has greatly improved because of the diversity of us now. I mean, you look at us now and we represent everybody in this community. So, you know, it's it's been an honor and uh I'm going to miss, you know, this commission mostly, but it's time for another chapter in my life. I've had several chapters in my life, but this is moving to Buckeye. Gonna be with some old people out in the Verado community. So be with my own kind. So but thank you for the opportunity for the city. I just

just appreciate it so much. You absolututely. Okay, I got to carry on with my job. Uh minor site plans director. He's turned off his mic. I have I'm sorry. I have nothing I have nothing to report. Okay. Nothing for the besides what's in your agenda. And you guys see what the city council did to us? No. What did they do? They approved everything we sent to them. Oh, okay.

Um Okay. And you have development reports, which is my favorite things. So, um, yes, with thank yous to Commissioner Peters, our meeting is adjourned. All right, last one. Thank you all.