I'd like to call this Planning Zoning Commission meeting to order on this Thursday, April 23rd, 2026.

And could we please have roll call?

Commissioner Perry.

Here.

Commissioner Holland.

Here.

Commissioner Leonard.

Here.

Chair Chapman.

Here.

Vice Chair Spada.

Here.

Commissioner Everett.

Here.

Commissioner Bash.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

Could you please stand join me in the Pledge?

Through the flag of the United States of America.

Indivisible for all.

Thank you.

And uh we would uh Sitten's director.

Uh Ferrari, do we have any current events or reports tonight?

Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.

So a few meetings ago, I mentioned that we were going to bring forward a uh discussion item for battery energy storage systems.

Um we are still working on some final tweaks to that draft, so we are not quite ready yet, but we are targeting the May 21st meeting to bring that forward to you to discuss.

Okay, thank you.

Second.

We move on to item number two.

Regular agenda item is a non-public hearing.

Good evening, Chair, Commission.

Uh, we are here tonight to present information, answer questions, and solicit feedback regarding FS twenty-five-zero zero three nine, a zoning text amendment to establish a new residential zoning district, desert rural.

So as there are numerous sections of code involved in this amendment, in order to make this presentation more digestible, we've broken it into two parts.

So the first part, which we're going to be covering tonight, is going to be going over the background information of the zoning text amendment as well as the community feedback and proposed code changes associated with permissible uses, development standards, and land use buffer and landscape slash open space subjects.

In the second part, which we will cover at the work session on May 7th, we will go over the community feedback and the proposed code changes associated with the remaining topics of interest.

That's going to be for the design standards, animals, and transportation/slash street sections of the code.

We will also be addressing the many cleanup items that we are including in this proposed amendment.

And in order to foster more fruitful conversation as we go through each topic of interest, we're going to be presenting the relevant information and then stopping to answer questions because it's kind of a lot to be able to get through.

So with that, I'll pass it over to Trevor.

Thank you, Chair and Commission.

We're going to pass back and forth the presentation tonight.

So with the ratification of the 2040 general plan, we included the rural residential overlay that identified areas of this of the overall planning area that are long-standing rural communities.

That we received feedback from residents on wanting to be protected from encroaching development, as well as preserving their existing way of life.

And so this slide here shows that overall rural residential overlay within the general plan.

So to help explain this exhibit a little bit, the combination of the blue and red is the overall boundaries of the overlay as is it as it exists in the general plan.

The areas in red are not currently incorporated within city boundaries.

Those are currently counting, but in our planning area.

All righty.

So with that out of the way, we'll go ahead and jump into the background for this project.

So as I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the zoning text amendment is to revise sections of the surprise land development ordinance to establish a new residential zoning district desert rule.

And the intent behind creating this new zoning district is like Trevor was mentioning earlier to preserve the character of the city's long-established rural residential neighborhoods by creating a unique set of development standards for these areas.

So in order to accomplish this, there are a couple things that we got to do.

So we're overall looking at adding a new zoning designation to the land development ordinance first and foremost.

But there are also going to be supporting revisions that are required for the development standards, design standards, and engineering standards as well.

So that we're looking at changes to not only the LDO but the municipal code and the EDS, which you guys won't vote on it, but we wanted to include those changes just for transparency so you could see kind of how all of that is going to be affected.

Something I wanted to note is that a significant significant portion of the changes that we're proposing are actually more kind of like clerical in nature and are more kind of a cleanup.

So, you know, we're trying to like add new standards, but in order for us to do that in a way that's you know both easy and understandable, there's some kind of like foundational things that we need to fix before we do that or kind of at the same time.

So it's not only easy to see what it is, but it's also easy to understand the changes that we're looking at making.

So why create a whole new zoning district?

So first and foremost, we're creating the zoning district to implement the vision of the rural residential overlay as outlined in the surprise 2040 general plan while conducting outreach for the surprise 2040 general plans.

Um we received significant feedback from the rural residential communities centered around preserving the character of their communities.

So as a part of that, it not only adopted that new kind of land use character sub-area there, outlining the boundaries of those different neighborhoods that are affected, but it also established a vision for that area.

And in order to implement that vision, you know, which includes things like transitions and density and land use buffers between those existing rural residential neighborhoods and incoming development.

It also specifically calls for the desert rural zoning district in order to implement that.

So how have we ensured that this text amendment kind of is in support of and helps to implement the overlay of the general plan?

So we wanted to make sure that this was a effort that we did in concert with the community that it most greatly impacts.

You know, this is something that came about to us through feedback from these rural residents that was implemented into the general plan and then voted on by them.

So we wanted to make sure that throughout the process that they were heavily involved.

So you can see that this has been a long process with a lot of outreach and communication with those groups.

So it's been about two years.

We've had a total of 12 outreach meetings.

Six of those have been with the rural community off of 219th and Deer Valley, and four of them have been with the overall greater rural residential community.

Two of the meetings actually presented iterations of the draft, and some of the other ones were to go over very specific topics to gather feedback, present ideas, work through some of the issues and feedback that we're receiving.

You can see here the meeting attendance that we've had throughout the process.

I would say that we've had a tremendous amount of public input and participation and feedback, which is always positive for us, especially when we're creating something for these residents.

And so it's been a very fruitful process thus far.

So as a result of all of those meetings and the feedback that we've gathered and the conversation that we've had, um, all of that information can for the most part be truncated down into these main topics that we've focused on for the text amendment.

So that's permissible uses within the desert rural areas, development standards that we would be applied to these properties, land use buffers to help protect them from encroaching developments, different design standards.

So that's you know, accessory uses or sex food structures, driveway and parking allowances and surfaces, fencing material, landscaping requirements.

We've also animals was a big thing for them because they're in these rural areas.

Um existing codes were a little too restrictive for what they uh either currently do or would like to do, and then um transportation and street improvement requirements.

Okay.

So starting with permissible uses, the overarching feedback we receive from the community is that there is a desire for certain commercial uses and desert rural, but in accessory to a single family home as a home occupation, as opposed to having a standalone kind of brick and mortar um development.

So from this feedback that we received, um, the following uses were initially proposed by the community to be allowed as uh home occupations and desert rural, specifically with CUP approval renewed every 24 months.

So that's small farms and plant nurseries, motor vehicle repair, uh vet clinics and animal boarding, horse and livestock boarding, storage of vehicles, materials and equipment, and temporary RV parking.

So in order to address those comments, we are proposing the following changes to the LDO.

So, firstly, we're gonna be um or we're proposing to add uh desert rural as a zoning district to the land use matrix with permissible uses largely mirroring what's already currently allowed in RR, minus standalone commercial uses uh which are being removed and you know they'll be per uh prohibited in desert rural.

Um, and then the other feedback that we received was that um the community wanted uh community facilities, public facilities, and bed and breakfast establishments uh to require a CUP as opposed to being either permitted by right or requiring an AUP.

Um the other thing that we were looking at doing is uh moving the home occupation section into its own chapter and establishing a classification system as well as uh following adding the following uses as permissible home occupations in desert rule, uh specifically that would be uh a class three use.

So we were specifically looking at adding animal clinics and vet offices, cottage food, um, ranch and residential farm.

So part of the reason why we weren't able to incorporate or why it looks like we're not incorporating all of the specific uses that were kind of requested was um we were either able to incorporate them in different ways.

So for example, there were like nursery uses and stuff that were requested, those can kind of go under farming.

So they may kind of you know look a little different, or we were able to incorporate it a different way.

Um for some of those other uses, for example, like the motor vehicle repair, um, while the community initially or we got some initial feedback, you know, wanting those kinds of uses, whenever we, you know, posed that um question to the community later and we got more feedback, we kind of got mixed reviews on some people wanted motor vehicle repair in their neighborhoods, some people didn't.

So that's kind of where we ended up, you know, kind of soliciting feedback, you know, doing some research, and then kind of ultimately landing on, you know, there's kind of a reason why some of these um are not incorporated or aren't traditionally allowed as home occupations.

So we'll leave those alone and you know, leave them off.

Um, the last thing that we were looking at amending is uh amending the use specific standards section to be more specifically regarding like the general standards for ranch and residential farm uses and making sure that whenever we were um you know adding those uh new uses to the class three, you know, home occupation that's specifically for desert role, um, that the general standards and uh stuff that we were putting in for that kind of matched across the board so that whenever you know more for like consistency sake, so that you know, if we are requiring certain things in the home occupation, that those base standards kind of match whether or not you are doing it as a home occupation or you're doing it, you know, just for your own personal use, for example, if you have a farm.

Really, where that gets more important, or part of the reason why we have that distinction between you know, listing specifically uh ranch uses and uh farm uses in use specific standards and then listing them again in the home occupation section is because one of the things that was really communicated to us that people really wanted to have was their farm stands.

So, you know, they have their you know, uh farm that's an accessory to their home, and they want to be able to sell you know their eggs, their vegetables, whatever have you kind of in the front of their home.

And kind of the best way that we could figure how to do that would be to again uh create standards for you know, in the use specific standards section.

So if you just wanted to have like a farm for your personal use, but you were going to be again selling those eggs off site and not having that farm stand kind of component, then you could do that and you wouldn't be burdened with having to go through you know, perming and stuff with us.

Um you wouldn't have to go through and get an AUP or anything like that.

Um, so we wanted to be able to again make sure that if we were allowing these uses, so again, specifically wanting to regulate people again selling uh their goods and stuff, or again, specifically like their vegetables and eggs and their um you know, front yard, that we were able to allow that use without putting an overly you know burdensome requirement on people who again just wanted to have a farm or ranch but not have that business component.

So I realized that was kind of a lot.

So I'll kind of stop there for right now.

If we have any questions, um I can get into a little bit more of the minutiae of you know, kind of some of the structural changes as well as some of the other uh kind of things that we were looking at changing within the home occupation section specifically, because what ended up happening was we you know, we wanted to be able to add these uses specifically for desert role, but with the way that our you know, home occupation section is currently set up is kind of a one-size-fits-all situation.

So it has a bunch of standards that are kind of all listed together, and it's kind of on um both like the citizen and staff to kind of like read through that list, see what that person is proposing, and then kind of figure out like what generally applies to them, what doesn't.

So kind of like the easiest way that we were kind, you know, thinking that we could be able to add those home occupations, you know, with those use specific standards to make sure that you know those uses would be compatible, um, and then be able to, you know, add in those requirements for like an AUP or a CUP that would be renewal uh renewable every you know one to two years or something like that.

The easiest way for us to be able to do that was kind of revamp that whole home occupation section and kind of add structure back in there and set up a classification system so that it's really super clear, you know, not only to citizens and staff, um, you know, what kind of use is allowed and which classification and what specific standards and requirements go with each of those classes because again, right now it's kind of all just like mushed together into one area and it requires a determination pretty much every time you're looking at that.

Um so again, there are some other um things that we were looking at changing as a part of the cleanup, you know, in order to address some of the um code complaints and like parking issues, because specifically um, and you can answer some questions later if we need to.

Um, but we've been getting a lot of code complaints in the last however many years regarding um not only like traffic, but parking specifically in relation to these home occupations.

So one of the general things that we were looking at doing, in addition to adding those uses in specifically for resid uh for desert rule, and then amending the structure so that it'd be easier to like read and follow exactly what's required.

There were some other minor content things that we were looking at to address those parking issues.

For example, um like limiting the employees that are um allowed, you know, outside uh of the dwelling.

I think currently, right now we allow the people who are currently um residing in the dwelling, as well as immediate family members and two non-residents of that dwelling to be, you know, employed and kind of operate out of that you know, home occupation.

So we would be looking at limiting, you know, basically removing that requirement, except for desert rural where they have, you know, those larger lots to be able to kind of accommodate the parking of you know, employees and stuff that they have coming in and out.

Um we will we were also looking at um adding additional language or changing some language around so that it's very clear that when you are using your accessory structures or you know, your garage, you know, for your home occupation, that if you're using that space, that you're not going to be reducing the amount of parking that you would have otherwise.

So if you have a garage and it has two parking spaces on the inside, you're more than welcome to use it, but make sure that you're using it in a way where you're not removing those two parking spaces.

Um the other thing that we were looking at is kind of that restriction of you know uh if you have employees and there are um very specific uses where you'd have um sorry, customers, where you'd have customers coming to the home, um trying to uh amend that section so that instead of um you know us permitting um parking on that um off-street or sorry, on the street um uh home occupations would be required to have that parking as much as possible, you know, accommodated on their lot.

Um, and then the other thing that we were looking to clarify um in we have this in our code currently, um, and a lot of other cities in the area, you know, also kind of address it in a vague way.

But in terms of talking about um traffic and again, customers visiting and kind of how that alters, you know, or the fact that it's not supposed to alter the character of the neighborhood.

Um, we have tried to kind of quantify um how many trips, you know, it would be or would be permitted before you start to get into the range where it starts to really kind of affect the character of the neighborhood.

Our transportation department um was able to give us a trip estimate, and it's uh 16 trips, a trip being one uh one one way and one back.

Um total of 16 trips is about what they estimate uh on average for a single family home.

So we have tried to, again, to make it a little bit more clear and to try to quantify that instead of addressing it as hey, um, you know, you can't have uh enough customers or whatever that's gonna you know create that you know, kind of like character changing issue.

We are um you know proposing to uh limit for those specific uses that's gonna be like tutoring, swim lessons, um firearm sales that's required by federal law to take place, you know, at the home daycares, um, those specific uses would have um limited customer interaction at the home.

Um they'd be limited uh by appointment and it would be limited to eight appointments a day in order to not exceed that um you know, kind of 16 trips or you know, eight total people.

So um again, sorry if that's a lot, but if you have any questions, you know, shoot away.

You know, I uh it doesn't call for public hearing, but I would like to know uh sorry, Chair.

Just just to clarify, we're just pausing um at this point.

We're not done with our full presentation.

Uh just to see if there was any questions that the commission might have right now.

Just a second.

I how much further do we need to go here?

We have uh about the same amount left.

We're about halfway through.

Okay.

Go ahead, uh commissioner.

Two questions.

Um how are we going to be able to enforce this limit on the trips?

Just curious.

I'm sure there's a plan.

I just don't know.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Commissioner.

So part of um our business license review for home occupations is they have to um explain their operations as um and and we compare that to being in compliance with whatever the um with the whatever the codes are.

They also the applicant is required to sign um a form that states that they've read and understand uh the requirements.

And then at that point, if the business license is approved and issued and they operate, um, if we get a complaint and we find out that you know they're exceeding the amount of trips that they stated that they would be, then uh we would proceed from there.

Okay, that makes sense.

I was just curious.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thanks.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh three questions that are administrative.

And if you're gonna cover them later, uh just tell me and and I'll let you do it.

So one is what if there's somebody who's now in a county area that uh that wants to be annexed into the city of surprise, but is within these limits.

Um is this going to be mandatory?

Is it up to them?

Is it a one-time offer or is it something that they can get through a period of time?

Yeah, thank you, Chair Commissioner.

So um there is some additional research um that we do need to do on that, but essentially when property gets annexed at the time of annexation, it gets assigned a like-for-like zoning.

So there's um some comparisons that we need to do um between rural residential and desert rural, comparing that to county R U 43 zoning to determine what is the most like for like zoning designation.

So upon annexation, um they would be assigned that like for like um they could at the at that time um do a rezone request as well to choose being under the overlay gives them the option of you know, sticking with rural residential or going to the desert rural.

Commissioner Perry.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, second question has to do with much of this overlay is not in the city limits.

In fact, I don't know what percentage, but it looks just by eye to be over 80% of it would not be within city limits.

And the reason that I asked this question is is there going to be any restrictions if someone buys a piece of property that's uh currently county, for example, wants to be annexed into the city, they would be annexed in as the rural desert overlay, but that isn't what they wanted.

Um would the annexation process be different than it would be today for that type of thing.

Thank you.

So their annexation would just need to be accompanied by a rezone to request the zoning district that they would want if it is different than what would be automatically assigned upon annexation.

And then the the third question of an administrative nature would be someone in the middle of this area buys 200 acres, and it's zoned desert rural, and it is surrounded on uh at least uh 75% of the boundaries by other uh desert rural overlays, but they want to do something like commercial.

Are there any restrictions or uh in terms of getting that zoning change, or would it be like any other that they'd have to come to planning and zoning and then go to city council and that would be the the end of the process?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner.

So when we created the desert rural overlay within the general plan, we assigned it to existing uh rural communities.

So there shouldn't be a lot of undeveloped acreage um that's in that overlay.

Um for the most part, it's already been developed with rural residential communities.

Um but if there were an instance where you know someone wanted to come in and rezone to commercial and they were within the desert rural overlay, it would go through the rezone process.

We would obviously, as staff evaluate it against the general plan and the and the intent of the general plan and then bring it forward to commission and council.

And and you know, as the commission and as the council, they would have to determine whether or not to approve that if it's within the desert rural overlay, you could argue that that is not um in compliance with the general plan, being that it's meant to be uh rural residential, essentially.

But um if there is an adjacent property that's not within the overlay that wants to rezone to commercial, it would be the standard rezone process, but they would have to understand that there's some implications on their on their zoning and their um eventual development being adjacent to that overlay.

That answers my question.

Thank you, Trevor.

Yes, or so I I have a little a comment as I was reading through this and thinking about it, uh, and you went through the permissible uses.

Uh specifically, I I I note and totally understand why it's requested there be no standalone commercial uses uh in in this area.

Uh that said, I I wonder if cutting off all standalone commercial uses would truly be desirable.

Uh for instance, one of the one of the allowed home occupation uh um uses includes animal clinics and vet offices.

Uh to have a vet office that's that's by itself might be desirable.

You can have more equipment there, you can have more accessibility uh to get your animal in and out, as opposed to taking somebody's house and putting in their barn or whatever's happening and ancillary uh building, it might be desirable that way.

Uh additionally, with um residential farms.

Uh if you look at like the East Valley, the orange orchards, they have quite the orchard stands out there, and they're still family run, but they look more like uh a family-run but commercial style and sized uh entity.

And because of that, they can they can bring in commercial equipment, they have more uh they can get a larger um uh electricity and and so forth utilities out there to to make it more desirable to come to that stand.

Uh where I grew up, there was I grew up in Southeast Arizona.

out there and they're still family run, but they look more like uh uh a family run but commercial style and sized uh entity and because of that they can they can bring in commercial equipment they have more uh they can get a larger um uh electricity and and so forth utilities out there to to make it more desirable to come to that stand uh where I grew up there was I grew up in Southeast Arizona there's a uh place where they sell apples and uh apples are a big deal and those apple stands they sure start looking like stores and they're desirable they're they they still are very hometown very homey very uh personalized and family run uh there's also pumpkin patches and things like that that are out there that I that I I wonder if cutting out all standalone commercial uses is truly what's wanted now I know that there isn't necessarily that sort of stuff going on right now and I recognize that everybody's looking for their small stand but I could also uh see that that someone might want to have something a little bit larger a little bit nicer um I'm we're not talking about huge and so perhaps limiting size and I I know devil is in the details when we write these things and bless you for the bohemuth task that that you have undertaken for doing this but uh I'm I'm wondering if truly carving out and getting rid of all commercial uses standalone uses would truly be desirable and fit what would be a really fun kind of uh community uh um style uh location where they can they can sell their their wares and so forth so perhaps limiting in the size uh limiting the the uh the gross output something along those lines uh to to limit it but not necessarily to do away with them in in its entirety so that was my thought as I was going through this additionally um another thought along those lines would be signage for these these stands and so forth I don't know if we're getting to uh sign requirements and signage you know somebody spray paints a a board and puts it on the side of the road well that that wouldn't necessarily fly within the city limits uh perhaps in the county they they don't necessarily enforce that sort of stuff uh when it's way out there but uh I I wonder if signage has been taken into account or thought I I didn't see it I'm sure you guys are on it I'm just throwing it out there as as I think about the different signs that I've seen for those those type of home uses so uh at the same time I also see you know vehicle repair those things can get noisy and big and and I don't want to say that nobody can work on cars or help their buddy out or even repair a car for uh for uh profit but at the same time i I've I've seen some pretty large uh sheds out there or or uh garages where they can put hydraulic lifts and so forth and in uh a location like that and do some real work out there so if that's just attached to the home you might have a commercial use that's already there and so if you just say anything goes that's already existing without kind of limiting the size of it I mean you can have a fairly sizable uh commercial essentially commercial garage out there that's being run which is what they were trying to limit and get rid of to begin with so I I think in the sizing might be the way to go as opposed to prohibiting all commercial uses.

So those are my thoughts Commissioner Bash.

Chairman I get a feeling that surprise this is a unique zoning district that there really isn't a whole lot of chartered waters out there to follow and I commend you with the behemoth process you're taking on and he just added more to it sorry but I the signage is a a very good point.

Yeah I mean this is going to trickle down to probably a lot of the ordinances both of you commissioners um so just to quickly answer some of your questions um we have thought about the signage as it relates to to farm stands so when we come back for the the official public hearing and you receive the full um text amendment you'll see that that that is addressed in there um as part of this meeting tonight you know it's it's for presentation and discussion purposes so so no action but we would like to to get your um you know concurrence and and direction so um I guess my question to you as as a body is um while the the feedback that we started with um from the community was not to have standalone commercial um maybe to dive in that a little bit more they they wanted to make sure that they're preserving the existing character other communities they didn't want it to turn into commercial um businesses where you know you don't know your neighbor or the owner of the business they wanted to keep it very community oriented um you know you know you know all your neighbors you know what they do what they're up to that sort of thing um so that is why we wrote this in that fashion of not opening it up to um commercial development um especially since it's also a residential zoning district um but if if there is some feedback or direction that um you all would like to provide to us to to maybe look into some of the specifically allowed home occupation uses as it relates to commercial we can certainly do that.

Especially since it's also a residential zoning district.

But if there is some feedback or direction that you all would like to provide to us to maybe look into some of the specifically allowed home occupation uses as it relates to commercial, we can certainly do that.

Yes, I have a question about uh I guess the boundaries, you know, if you have let's say somebody bought a nine acre piece of property, three acreed by three by three, and you've got anywhere from 50 to 150 feet if it's a commercial, I imagine, or residential span there.

That's uh out of that first 300 feet.

If it's just one side, that's like two acres out of three that that person would not basically not be able to utilize.

How is this gonna work with like an acre or two acres or whatever it is when you have another piece of property like commercial or residential?

How's that gonna work?

And I was thinking of the farm stand.

It may start out real small, and then pretty soon they've got a you know, a piece of property there where you know they decided to build on, would that be permissible?

In other words, how how's this gonna work?

Chair, yeah, thank you.

So I I guess to your first question, are you referencing the the buffer setback requirements?

Yeah.

So um if a development is um coming in adjacent to desert rural after um desert rural has been established and the rezone has taken place, um, staff would obviously make them aware of those setback requirements and those implications of being adjacent to these areas, and they would have to um accommodate for that.

Now, if there's existing entitlements out there today um or that are done prior to um the rezoning happening, they'd obviously be able to uh develop under their existing entitlements.

But as you as you know through some of the um zoning actions that have come um before you all um in recent years, knowing that this is happening, some of those developers have have already incorporated some of that buffering and setback into their development plans already.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Just a comment.

Um I I sat in on the meetings with uh the citizens.

And when you're speaking of a smaller commercial type situation, um I don't think the citizens are gonna go for it.

And that's putting it mildly.

Um I think that they are very concerned about keeping the character that they have, and it would be frowned upon by those current citizens.

Future, who knows?

But those current citizens, they would not stand for it.

They they really want to keep the character that they have now.

Um they're not interested in even a little bit changing and growing.

They want to maintain their rural character.

So I don't know if maybe something down the road could be looked at, but I just think there that you guys are gonna get a lot of pushback.

If if that gets mentioned, it doesn't hurt to mention it, but I think be prepared for the pushback.

Well, I if I might, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh, you know, I I think the idea and and what I'm uh suggesting isn't this isn't necessarily to change the character of what they have right now, so much as the language incorporates or or at least captures the the essence and idea that they're looking to have.

For example, if somebody's repairing cars and they build, because on my land out there, I can build a 300-foot shed if I want to, metal building, and have five or ten bays.

Well, I'm just as much a commercial entity as anybody down the street, is probably I'm I'm bigger than that.

And I'm allowed to do that out there today.

Now, if on the other hand I um go next door and build that same shed, but but by itself, that's prohibited.

But if I build it next next door to my house on my same lot, it's allowed.

Uh I I think that's what they're looking to avoid is that big bohemoth commercial entity or commercial enterprise coming in.

On the other hand, as I mentioned, a farm uh stand, uh, sometimes those can grow.

You if if you have chickens, uh they lay eggs, you get a rooster, you have chicks, more chickens lay more eggs, you have more eggs to sell.

We can get into all sorts of fun stuff.

But uh now you have more eggs, you need more space on your your cart.

And so you build a little bit more and you build a little bit more.

It doesn't mean that you're gonna open up a safe way or a fries.

It means that you want a larger stand.

And we want to encourage them to have larger stands.

And perhaps my lot, because I have a mobile home on it, isn't sufficient, but the lot next door, I can go ahead and put that uh on on the lot next door and and have it stand alone.

Well, uh, technically that's a commercial enterprise that's standing alone by itself, even though it's the lot adjacent to mine.

So it wouldn't be permissible under this, even though that's what they're looking for.

So my suggestion is that that we not take away uh the standalone commercial uses so much as we limit the size of those things.

That will keep the big box stores out, which is really what they're looking for.

Uh that will keep uh the large uh um franchised uh groups from coming in and and uh establishing and and recreating what's already there, or I mean just changing what's there to something different, and but still allow the citizenry that's out there to to grow their their small mom and pop business that they want to run from their house.

And so that's that's all I'm suggesting, and and I think uh limiting the size, perhaps is probably the better bet than simply saying this use is permitted.

Because you come to me, I can say, hey, the use is permitted.

Let's build that 50 bay garage out there, and we're gonna run a massive semi-truck uh diesel repair truck uh station out there, but it's permitted.

Yeah, just uh follow up on that is there gonna be a residency requirement means the owner must be there and not somebody a commercial piece of let's say property wants to buy this, so they buy the house and they rent it out, and then they have their 16 bay or 50 bay you know thing.

So I was just wondering how would that work?

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

So um as long as we keep it the way it's currently structured, where these commercial type uses are allowed as accessory to a single family residence under the home occupation section, or home occupations do require them to be owner occupied.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

A brief comment that's obvious, but sometimes we forget.

And the only reason I'm bringing it up is because I I went through this at a meeting that I was presiding at uh for a different organization earlier this week.

In 2000, the City of Surprise had under 35,000 people in it.

In 2026, we estimate that we're just under 180,000.

Phoenix in 2000 was not in the top five cities in its size in the United States.

Today it's the fifth largest city in the United States.

People who bought here 20 and 30 years ago want to keep their lifestyle.

But the reality is 30 miles down the road is the fifth biggest city in the United States.

And managing that is a Scythian task because I don't know how we are going to grow as we need to grow as a city and do this.

Right now, we have a transportation problem, and we have a transportation problem because we do not have a core in this city, especially for good paying jobs.

Peoria does, Buckeye does, Goodyear does.

All of those cities have several thousand acres that they have dedicated to industrial development.

We don't have that here.

So we have to face a transportation issue because our citizens have to go there to work, which means we need more roads.

And at the same point in time, we're dealing with the reality of keeping a rural lifestyle.

So I'm not saying this because I have a solution.

I'm just saying, as a planning and zoning commissioner, this is something that I really struggle with in saying how does this city progress because we will be 220,000 people unless something happens in the economy in the next five or 10 years.

And at the same time, by the nature, we're going to have a different character in 2030 than we had in 2020, and then that we had in 2000.

And I think that that's a big balancing act for us as commissioners, and for you in our development committee to deal with.

And I'll just end my comments at that, but that's a reality that I think we all have to keep in mind as we move forward on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other commercial?

I guess we could move on, then sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So moving on to development standards.

Um this was actually probably one of the easier sections to accommodate.

Um, knowing that the existing rural areas um were happy with their minimum one acre lot size requirements, minimum or or maximum one dwelling unit per acre, maximum um two stories.

So the the feedback that we got was from a development standard standpoint, they are good with what they have.

So our proposal um essentially just mirrors the existing rural residential development standards assigned to that zoning district, pulling those over into the desert rural zoning district.

The land use buffers was one of the larger um uh topics of conversation as as we we discussed a little bit previously.

So the feedback that we initially got was they wanted to see a hundred to a hundred and fifty foot buffer between desert rural and any new neighborhoods encroaching in or on them.

Um they wanted to see a transition in density from desert rural um with that lower density abutting them and then going into higher density as the the farther away that the developments get, and then um within those buffer areas, keeping it natural desert.

So the changes that we're proposing um establish a series of setbacks associated with each of the zoning districts within the code.

Um they they range from 50 feet to 150 feet, but within each zoning district, it specifically talks about how and and where that would be to be applied.

So, for example, in R1, if R1 was coming in adjacent to desert rural, based off of the lot size that they're abutting that um existing community with would dictate their setbacks.

So we have uh an exhibit here that kind of shows so on the left there.

Um sorry, John.

Go ahead.

You can see my mouse here.

Um, if the development was proposing one acre lots adjacent to the existing desert rural community, then there wouldn't have that um uh buffer or setback requirement associated with it because it's a a like for like lot size.

The smaller the lot that they're providing at that nexus, the larger the setback would be.

Um, and then going into some of the more intense uses like commercial, industrial, mixed use, those would just have the standard 150-foot setback that they would have to provide.

Any questions on any of those two topics before I move on to the next?

Okay.

Awesome.

So that's gonna conclude part one of our presentation.

So part two is gonna be, like we said, um on May 7th.

Uh, we are going to be starting conversations kind of similarly with council on the fifth to also get their feedback.

Um, that's basically where we're at right now.

Is we're going through the last of the community feedback that we received um at our neighborhood meeting that was held in March.

Now we're coming to you guys for uh your comments and feedback.

We're also coming to city council for comments and feedback.

So um, as of right now, we don't have any um public hearing dates set for the near future.

We're gonna work through what we got first, and then uh once we get through some of that extra work that we still have to do, um, then we will be bringing this back to you.

And uh when we do schedule those public hearings, you will have a ledge edit in front of you, even though it's monstrous.

Um, but we will make sure that everybody has plenty of time to be able to um look through that thoroughly.

Um so just again as a reminder, um, part two, we're gonna be looking at the design standards, animals, um, transportation streets will also be again uh covering some of the other cleanup items that we're gonna be including.

Um if anybody has any remaining questions, um we're here for this.

And if I could, Chair, real quick, one more thing.

Um a few of you alluded to the amount of work that this um undertaking has been, and I just want to make sure that you all know that Johnny has been the project manager on this the whole way through.

So the the credit goes to her.

She has been working with all the residents, um, going through all the feedback, writing all the code.

So it has been quite an undertaking over the past two years.

Um we think we're in a good spot.

Um, but obviously, you know, we're here to get your feedback and direction and consensus going forward.

Thank you.

And I'm gonna have you stay for a second.

And I will uh once again ask uh for anyone that would like to speak from the public at this about these particular issue.

If you have uh if so, if you've had anybody that has turned in.

Yes, Chair, I have Alex Christ.

Alex, could you please state your name and where you live, sir?

Uh pardon me.

Uh Alex Christ at uh 175th in Wadell.

Um, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners, uh, thank you so much.

This is why I love living in the city of surprise, because you put our residents first.

And I appreciate all the hard work that they're doing, especially in this area.

I have been an advocate for this area because um, as I put it one time, this is for the people who love living in the boonies.

They want to be as far away from the city, but close enough to get some of the benefits.

And uh uh Commissioner Perry, Commissioner Hall Holland, uh, thank you so much for raising those those questions as well.

And I want the map that I saw, as much as I appreciate it.

I just wish that we had more.

I just wish that some of these developers would see the benefit of not this urban sprawl, but especially out there in such beautiful deserty areas that we can have two, three, maybe four acres for those that that can afford that much, you know.

But it it's so beautiful out there, and it's so peaceful.

And as you have these little islands of desert rural, you're still gonna have the development.

You're still gonna have the issues of the traffic that's gonna be coming around, you know.

But uh I do appreciate all the hard work that um that has been going through and the residents up there too.

I've been to some of the council meetings where uh many of these residents have have come up and and and um just want to be heard, want you know, they want their lifestyle uh not totally not to change because we know change is coming, but to at least keep it to where they can continue to enjoy it.

And so uh chair, vice chair, commissioners, thank you so much.

I I I always love coming to meetings like this because it proves to me that the city of surprise is managing what is coming.

As as Commissioner Perry had said, 180,000 from 30,000.

I've seen that growth.

So I I know what's what's coming and what's happening.

So I just hope that you continue to ask those questions that you continue um, you know, to to advocate for them, especially the the people that have horses and goats and things like that.

I love them.

Yeah, I I love seeing that, especially somebody writing down, uh, and most of these are streets that are not even paved.

There, they're still you know, dirt roads.

I love seeing that.

That is our Western heritage, and I just hope that that doesn't change.

But thank you so much, and and thank you to Mr.

Abrams and everybody that is working on this, and I appreciate you allowing me to speak even when it's not open to the public.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Sir, do we have anyone else?

No, Chair.

Okay.

I'd like to uh open it up for public for a oh first any other questions.

Okay, thank you.

Gee, what a great job you guys are doing.

It's very complex doing a very fine job, and you got a ways to go, yeah.

It looks like to.

So you're moving the right direction.

Thank you very much for the hard work.

have anyone else no chair okay and i'd like to uh open it up public for a oh first any other questions okay thank you gee what a great job you guys are doing i it's very complex doing a very fine job and you got a ways to go yeah it looks like two so you're moving the right direction thank you very much for your hard work also like to open up this uh for a non-agenda item is there anyone that'd like to speak on a non-agenda item sir do we have yes chair we have received two uh emails to the PNZ inbox both in opposition of the DHS facility they have been passed on to management and to the commission we also do have one here in person Matthew Ragsdale okay if you please uh state your name and where you live yes thank you chair I'm Matthew Ragstall at 2636 Grand Avenue San Diego California I'm with key capture energy we are a Battergy energy storage developer uh and operator and I'm joined by a few of my colleagues Chris and Norm uh we understand that and I and I lead uh development of projects in Arizona including one here in surprise we understand that the best ordinance is no longer on the agenda for tonight but uh we we thought it would be nice to come introduce ourselves talk about key capture if you have any questions answer any questions and also uh make ourselves and I'll offer ourselves as a resource as a company in the industry to to the to the commission if that's if that's desired and so going forward we understand that there will be workshops upcoming for for the best ordinance and much more to come there and so we'll likely be seeing you'll be seeing more of us in the future and and we'll be around and so what that looks like tonight we we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about best the industry hear any concerns for example Norm is uh an expert on the best technology and can answer anything about that and then also going forward with uh some of these upcoming workshops uh I think Trevor mentioned potentially one on May 21st we'd like to offer ourselves uh as a resource um you know we have a lot of expertise both within key capture engineers best experts and also third party consultants and organizations that uh that we work with on fire safety uh and everything to do everything to do with best and so it we we'd invite the opportunity to to present and and bring some of those people along uh but really just in general answer any questions that you may have hear any concerns and uh make ourselves available just to mention that it's a non-agenda item we can't really discuss with you the item that you're talking about sure but we will be appreciative of you coming next the next meeting two meetings two meetings okay and uh so we'll be ready for you then great well we appreciate it and thank you guys for the time tonight and the opportunity to to speak with you all faith thanks thank you thank you now is there any other business that the commission's interested in any future agenda item if not then I will uh ask for a motion to adjourn so move second so movement second could please voice vote all those in favor say aye aye those no and the ayes have it and we will adjourn