I'd like to call to order this planning zoning commission uh meeting on this Thursday, May seventh, two thousand twenty-eight.

And Sarah, could we please have a roll call?

Commissioner Perry.

Here.

Commissioner Holland.

Here.

Commissioner Leonard.

Here.

Chair Chapman.

Here.

Vice Chair Spa.

Here.

Commissioner Everett.

Here.

Commissioner Bash.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Hey, thank you.

Could you please uh stand and join me in the Pledge of Leave?

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation undervisible with liberty and justice for all you and uh current assistant director Trevor, do we have any current events or staff reports tonight?

Thank you, Chair.

Nothing for me tonight.

Okay, thank you.

If we um go to our consent agenda, item number one, sir.

Consideration and action to approve or disapprove the April twenty third, twenty twenty-six Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minute.

Second.

Motion passes with seven votes in favor.

Okay, thank you.

And we'll move on to our regular agenda items, which require a public hearing and item number two.

Consideration and action regarding a conditional use permit, CUP with site plan for a Chipotle restaurant with drive-through facility on a site generally located on the southwest corner of 163rd Avenue and Pat Tillman Boulevard case FS25-0682.

Okay, we'll have an uh presentation.

Good evening, Chair Commissioners.

The item before you is the Asante Trails Conditional Use Permit for drive-thru.

Case numbers FS250682.

The site's generally located on the southwest corner of Pat Tillman Boulevard and 163rd Avenue in the Asante Trails Commerce Center.

The site is zoned in the Asante Trail in the Asante PAD.

Um and the adjacent parcels are also zoned in the Asante PAD.

There are sites to the east of 163rd Avenue.

They are also commercial parcels.

In general, um two three-quarter access points are provoy provided off of 163rd Avenue, and one full access and one three-quarter access driveway is provided to connect to Pat Tillman Boulevard.

The pedestrian connectivity there is shown in blue dotted lines.

The site is highlighted in yellow.

It's known as the Chipotle.

Pedestrian crossing signs that have been shown here in red.

The proposed proposed landscaping is cohesive with the existing right-of-way landscaping and meets both the Asante PAD and the LDO requirements.

The speco cladding, CMU vineyard, vini pioneer, veneer, excuse me.

Uh seal awnings and neutral color pellet are all cohesive with the existing uh pellet that was approved with the master site plan for this development.

The drive-through facility has been reviewed for conformance with the LDO's uh use specific standards set forth for drive-throughs.

Um they've met all the requirements in addition to meeting the Asante PAD requirements for the drive-through order facility.

Um75 foot distance from residential, and they're actually looking for the speakers and all noise generating equipment to be separated from the residential rather than our um our code that has 75 foot to the actual facility.

They also um have provided a full drive-through canopy, and that was a requirement of the PAD.

Uh neighborhood meeting was held on February 4th.

We had no attendees, and we've received no correspondence from the public or internal uh opposition to this project.

Should the commission wish to approve the subject conditional use permit?

Staff recommends the commission approve offer a recommendation of approval subject to stipulation.

Oh no, recommend um subject to stipulations A3.

Okay, thank you, Leslie.

Uh this calls for a public hearing.

I'd like to open the public hearing.

Is there anyone that'd like to speak?

Sir, do we have anyone?

No, Chair.

Okay, so I close the public hearing and we'll open this up for discussion.

Any discussion?

If not, then I'll entertain a motion.

I move to approve the conditional use permit with site plan for a Chipotle restaurant with drive-through facility case FS25-0682, subject to stipulations A through E as outlined in the staff report.

I'll second.

We're moving seconded.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, then let's please vote.

Motion passes with seven votes in favor.

Okay, thank you.

Move on to item number three.

Consideration and action regarding a conditional use permit to UP with site plan for a farmer boys restaurant with drive-through facility on a site generally located on the southwest corner of 163rd Avenue and Pat Tillman Boulevard.

Case number FS25-0457.

Okay, we have Lisa again.

Yep, let's begin.

Um so this case is FS25047.

It's the farmer boys C UP for the drive-through.

Um also went to Saw Day Trails.

Location is the same, 163rd Avenue and Pat Tillman Boulevard.

Uh same zoning.

Um it's just a few parcels north of the parcel you saw with the Chipotle restaurant.

Again, here's the master site plan, but you can see in the yellow here, this is where the the uh farmer boys restaurant is going to be located.

Uh they're proposing a 27 52 square foot restaurant.

Um, 19 spaces were required.

They are providing 20.

Uh they have a queuing capacity of 10 cars in their double drive through lane, and pedestrian crossing sites were provided.

The landscape is cohesive with right-of-way landscape, and they also meet the requirements in our LDO and the Asante PAD.

The architecture on this restaurant um is very similar to the architecture that was approved throughout this site.

Uh, they used uh very similar architecture style and all of the same materials.

Uh some of those elements elements include again the stucco cladding, the CMU veneer, the steel awnings, and that neutral color palette we've seen throughout the rest of the Sante Trail.

We compared this one with the with the same as the as the last, the LDO section 106 10.17 and the Asante PAD, and they met all those requirements.

They had a meeting, uh neighborhood meeting on February 26th and had no attendees, and we've received no correspondence from community members or internal um concerns with this project.

Should the commission wish to approve the subject conditional use permit site plan?

Staff recommends the commission um approve subjects to stipulations A through E.

Okay, thank you, Lisa.

Uh this also calls for a public hearing.

So I'd like to open the public hearing.

And sir, do we have anyone that would like to speak?

No, Chair.

Okay, then I'll close the uh public hearing and open this up for discussion from our commission seeing none.

Then I'll entertain a motion.

Uh I move to approve the conditional use permit with site plan for a farmer boys restaurant with drive-through facility case number FS25-0457, subject to stipulations A through E as outlined in the staff report.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

And further discussion is seeing none.

Then please vote.

Um is uh acting strange.

Try it again.

And recast your votes.

Go ahead and recast your vote.

Sorry about that.

Okay.

Is everybody here cast their votes?

Yes, yes.

We'll give it a try.

Motion passes with seven votes in favor.

Okay, thank you.

With that, we'll move on to our next item.

Number four, if you could uh please read that for us.

If you could uh please read that for us consideration and action pertaining to a rezone of approximately 10.7 acres from rural residential R to community commercial B2 for property generally located on the southwest corner of 163rd Avenue and Dynamite Boulevard.

Case FS24-1442.

Okay, this uh we have Lisa again.

Yes, um item number three is the Pure Heart Church rezone.

Uh case number FS241442.

We have a new location with this one.

Um the site is located on the southeast corner of Dynamite Boulevard and 163rd Avenue.

Current zoning is rural residential.

Surrounding parcels are rural residential as well.

Um sites to the east is County RU 43 or the west, I'm sorry, uh on the um adjacent opposite side of 163rd Avenue.

The applicants requesting a rezone to C2.

The site lies within the general plans neighborhood character area, neighborhood commercial developments are encouraged along the arterial roadways as a transition to lower density residential developments.

The site is also adjacent to the rural residential overlay.

The overlay also supports neighborhood commercial uses on sites that are 15 acres or less.

This subject site is only 10.7 acres.

This table represents the LDO development standards for C2.

Uh a site plan will be reviewed for conformance with all applicable city codes due to the timing of this application.

This project will not be subject to the increased setback or buffering that are proposed with that desert rural overlay that you're going to hear more about tonight.

As part of their rezone application, um, a conceptual site plan was submitted for the overall uh pure heart campus.

This was to show the phasing and the access to the site.

Uh the first phase of this campus will actually be the uh assembly chapel and all auxiliary proposed uses.

Uh, this was not included in the rezone because they can develop under our current RR development standards for the church and ancillary uses.

So the rezone is just for that parcel to the north with that is going to incorporate some commercial uses that are supporting supporting uses for the church campus.

The commercial site will have access to dynamite boulevard full access and an additional ride in ride out on 163rd Avenue.

It will have right-in, ride out only, but there's additional full access that's going to be provided on that southern parcel and um a ride-in right out as well.

The wash that traverses this site is intended to be preserved and used for um an open space amenity for the overall campus.

And the future phase off to the east of the property um has not been determined uh what the use will be for that at the point.

There's no development plans.

Uh neighborhood meeting was held on February 11th, 2025.

We had five residents in attendance.

Um they were concerned with church operations, wanted to know a little about a little bit about the other locations.

Uh they had a few concerns about building height, traffic, and light pollution.

The applicant did address those concerns, and the city has not received any correspondence um regarding this project.

If the commission wishes to recommend approval of the proposed rezone, the to the mayor and city council staff recommends the commission recommend approval subject to stipulations A and B.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, this also calls for a public hearing, and we'd like to open the public hearing.

And Sarah, do we have anyone that would like to speak?

No, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Close the public hearing, and we'll move on to any discussion from our commission.

Yes, uh, Commissioner Perry.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Chair Chapman.

I went to the uh public meeting that was held at the Asante Preparary Academy, and had spoken to uh a few of the people there.

And then I followed it up uh with a visit uh to Glendale and uh with one of the pastors of Pure Heart in Glendale.

And uh I think we spent about three or four very pleasant hours together up there looking at the facility.

So what I'm going to say is a bit it's troubling to me on the one hand, because I think that Pure Heart uh and uh and what they do for the community up there uh is is first rate.

However, as I started to investigate this whole thing throughout the West Valley in some adjacent cities, I found that there's more than one instance of a religious facility purchasing a fairly large parcel, such as this being 40 acres, developing on five to seven acres of that, which which I think is good.

It's uh it's a rural residential area.

But you know, I I drove up there uh just uh well earlier this week.

It's desert, it's dirt.

It's uh it's not developed.

What I have heard and then have verified with a couple of other municipalities are situations where a church has bought a large parcel, have said that we want part of it zoned commercial for future development, and we will have services within that area for uh that will be consistent uh with the church's mission.

So things such as counseling sessions, psychologies, and things of that nature.

However, that usually doesn't happen concomitant with the church developing, it's for future development.

And there have been several notable cases in the valley where a church has had that land zoned commercial.

Some years later, they sell it to somebody who comes in and does a commercial development there, which was not consistent with the original idea that came in as a commercial auxiliary area uh with services to specifically support the church.

And of course, the argument is from the church, well, we sold the property, and the church was already uh and and the property had a commercial development, so the person that bought us for it had a right to put up whatever was consistent with the zoning that was there.

I'm concerned because we're spending so much time with desert rural and with trying to protect the character of the neighborhoods in that area where there's nothing but there's nothing but but rural.

It's dirt.

Now I'm not a I'm not saying that by making this C2 at this point that this is the plan for Pure Heart to do.

But what I am saying is it has happened with other religious areas in the West Valley, much to the chagrin of the citizens that were uh in residential areas around it.

So this is why I said I I really have mixed feelings about this, because we could turn this into C2 in an area that's totally surrounded by rural residential.

Some of it will have a desert overlay.

And uh and it could be years down the road where there's a development done, and uh, you know, it's out of control.

So that would be my only uh objection to to what's brought forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner Perry.

Anyone else would like to speak?

Yes, Commissioner Holland.

Thank you, Henry.

I think it the applicant is showing up.

Am I correct?

Well, good.

I've got some questions for you.

Come on up and introduce yourself.

You probably want to speak a little bit.

I'll I'll turn that up back over to the chair, but then I've got some questions for him.

Yeah, if you'd please state your name and who you represent or you live.

I see you smiling at me.

You've seen me here a few times in the past, but my name's Adam Baugh.

I'm here on behalf of Pure Heart Church.

Um, and I hope to be able to answer some of your questions and to the ones that I can't answer.

Um, Pastor Mark answer those questions for you.

Um to be clear, we are asking for C2 zoning.

So I'm not hopefully your experience and what you're describing isn't is known here that we are asking for commercial uses on our property.

This is uh both a benefit for the counseling services that come on the campus buildings, but as you've seen from our plan since day one, we've always shown two commercial buildings right there along the street at the intersection.

And part of that is because that helps underwrite and lower your basis on the execution of a church property.

And so the plan was that we'd always have that, and because we've had those other campuses in both Peoria and Glendale and those commercial co-adjacency uses have actually been both a benefit to the users who come to the church services to have that whether it's a pizza or a fact, one of the places has a brush fire taco as part of it, and that becomes an amenity and an attraction for folks to be able to come and stay at it at their services.

But at the same time, we recognize this proposal at the corner of two arterial intersections, does require some significant off-site improvements.

Curb, gutter, street lights, additional um retention and drainage, as well as right-of-way dedications, is a heavy lift to make on a property that has that much frontage on two sides.

And so one of the ways you help underwrite that is the opportunity for commercial, which would be appropriate at the corner of an arterial to arterial intersection.

Even though this is, I guess, the the edge of the city, at some point the city will grow beyond this point.

And so we sort of have to plan for those commercial uses today.

Doesn't mean they all be built today, but it's it's how we help the city grow and have services near the residents that live in that area over time.

Um they've been a pretty good operator with their other locations.

They haven't had any issues or concerns, but I can appreciate um what your experience might be.

I just hope I can clarify that it's always been clear from the beginning that there would be two commercial buildings right there on the property in addition to their uh supportive services like counseling and therapy and daycare and other stuff.

So Commissioner Holland, uh you may have more questions, but I just want to provide a little bit of background so you can appreciate the why.

Appreciate that.

Chair, is that okay?

Yes, thank you.

Um so I I do have some questions, and it's and it's really uh I I don't mind doing bartering here while I'm sitting here with you, and that's exactly what I'm gonna try and do.

And and what I'm gonna try and do is is get some commitments out of you regarding this C2 zoning, because uh personally I'm I am not opposed to having even third parties come in and provide uh commercial services.

I think this this area can do with some amenities.

I think with the zoning that's already there, uh it would be beneficial to have that uh those amenities available, but but what the concern would be is monstrosities coming out there uh that are commercial in nature, where we're building a five and four and five story building uh right next to what would be desert residential and what we're trying to preserve out there in that area.

So uh I guess the the question now would be with regard to these these facilities, and I I know this is a conceptual site plan, and I'm not not saying we can tie you down to it, uh that that it was provided to us in the packet here, but um with regard to these two front commercial buildings.

It can are you willing to make a stipulation that those buildings not exceed uh at least two stories.

Yeah, I think the zoning code won't allow me to go above two, I think it's 30 feet, Trevor.

Yeah, so that would be an easy concession to make, but your code already puts that regulation in place.

40.

Building height 40 feet.

40 feet.

Yeah, we we have no concern whatsoever to limiting the height as described.

Okay, and these are gonna be these are gonna be uh single, I guess, two buildings.

They're not gonna be separate pads that people are going to uh that separate uh entities are gonna build on with drive-throughs and so forth, they're gonna be a the two commercial buildings, correct?

Yes, we have two commercial, but we don't have a concrete specific plan for that.

That'd have to come back then through a site plan process.

It could be a single tenant, it could be a restaurant tenant, it could be a multi-tenant building.

Um, all those services would be expected and allowed in a C2 district.

Okay.

And and uh I'm I'm fine with you know, uh if if Commissioner Smith was still here, he'd look for a place for haircut and and places for uh uh they're not putting in the swimming pool.

We also just think part of it is let's go.

I can appreciate the what ifs.

The compatibility of these uses have to work with the campus.

Sure.

And the church has a higher priority than you might even in the case of making sure this lands correctly, because it will, if not, people will not come and worship here.

They'll find some place else to go.

And so of their ownership in this, it's not that they're choosing locate next to a commercial, they're they're bringing it to them, which allows them to be picky and choose the folks and the types of tenants and the makeup of uses that could come there.

Um I think the situation being that the church has a both a reputation and a brand to uphold is important to appreciate in the future types of uses and layouts that would come here.

They there's nothing they would do to prejudice themselves, and clearly it would be the same consideration with the neighbors on the other side of the street.

And okay, and and I can agree with that.

I I like that explanation.

Uh, I was I had heard when Leslie was making your presentation that these were intended to be some supporting uses.

I I do see the training center, the counseling center, the preschool.

That seems to be part of the campus in general, but these commercial buildings out here on the uh the frontage there, that is the part, or for that matter, even if nothing gets built here.

I think uh Commissioner Perry to Commissioners Perry's point, this could be sold off after it's C2.

And so we want to make sure that they are they you are you willing to commit that these uh will be supporting uses for the church as well.

The buildings that are along the east side of that, along the wash is the areas that we talked about, the uh the support uses, the counseling, the daycare, the buildings along the front side would simply just be uh commercial uses that would benefit folks from who who might want a coffee uh mill or something like that.

Mark, you might have a better chance to explain a little bit about what you envision in those spaces.

Sure.

Could you please state your name?

For my yeah, Mark Hendrix, I'm the executive pastor or COO of Pure Heart.

And we are big about being involved in the community.

There's a lot of churches around the valley that will go, hey, if we were gone tomorrow, would our community miss us?

And they frame that in the context of the people that are attending their church.

We frame that question in the context of would the people in the neighborhoods around us, in the schools that we serve that we're engaged in, the people that we counsel, all those would those folks miss us.

Yes, we care about the people attending, but we really have an outward focus into the community.

So while I can't sit here and tell you exactly what these buildings are going to be, the conversation we've had is going, what are the services that community is going to need?

Potentially doctor's offices or dentists' office, things like that, resources for the community.

But I mean, I don't know if I can that's kind of the clarity that I can give at this point.

I I appreciate that.

I really do, and I'm I'm trying to keep this open because I I don't have a problem with these commercial properties, uh assisting with the financial burden of of development, uh, for that matter, sustaining your your facility.

And you know, I I would imagine a lot of what you do is nonprofit or you don't make a whole lot of money off of it.

So I'm I'm fine with that.

This is uh still a business venture that needs to keep going.

You need to get paid, and everybody else does as well.

So I'm but I what I'm trying to do is still preserve the the character of this area.

So perhaps maybe we go a little bit more uh that would would you be willing to uh stipulate that that all buildings except for the first these two, and I'll carve those off for a second.

Uh all buildings that would be built on this parcel would be for um uses that support the church only, and then we'll I'll talk about these two in just a minute.

Would that be a stipulation you'd be willing to go towards?

Let me understand.

I'm not sure I understand totally.

So what I'm saying is I'm I'm carving out two buildings here, uh, and I'll talk about them in just a minute.

Okay, size and so forth.

But uh, would you be willing to stipulate that all other buildings that would be built and improvements that would be built on this parcel would be for church supported uses and only for those uses.

I don't know if that's legally something you can do, but is this if the city turns to the city?

We can barter as much as we want to today.

I think the uniformity clause and the state statute prevents you from uh allowing some uses and not allowing other uses unless you are doing a PAD.

And last year the city removed the PAD as a tool to restrict certain uses.

And so as you as you approve this case, you're approving the opportunity for just commercial enterprise that could come on the corner, whether that whether that is um within their campus uh buildings or the two buildings in the front.

So I don't disagree.

If I could make that condition, I would be happy to, I just don't think it's gonna survive the the city attorney's uh review after tonight.

And not not too um not too uh poor um water on the idea, but at the end of the day, we have to trust that the church is going to do what's necessary so that whatever commercial uses come here are compatible with the nature of the church vision and for the overall area.

It's just that we are doing frontage.

I I don't know the math.

I wish I knew the linear length off the top of my head.

When you look at 40 acres, entire frontage on two sites that's never been improved with no infrastructure ever.

That's a heavy lift for a religious organization to bear by themselves.

And so this commercial opportunity in the front is a is one of the ways that you can lower your basis and execute on the plan.

Otherwise, you're just kind of leaning on parishioners to fund, which is one thing when you're coming onto a vacant property where you already have the curb, gutter, street light, sidewalk dedications, all that done.

And oh, I forgot to mention a traffic signal.

So this helps them execute their mission.

Um but for that, I'm not sure that there would be the opportunity to to co-look here.

Oh, and also I forgot to mention that a large majority of this property can't be developed.

There's a wash on it.

And so we're buying 40 acres, but we're not getting, we don't get to develop 40 acres.

Um because of that wash and the improvements that come along that wash.

Uh we don't have the the opportunity to to maximize what that full site can yield, but yet we still have to pay for the full improvements regardless of that wash coming into the property.

And I might a couple things.

I maybe this helps put you at ease.

I I don't know.

You know, our our team, we kick off every year by doing a prayer day.

And this year we took our team, our staff out there to this property and walked and prayed and spent a couple hours out there.

And one of the things we noticed during that time is there was a lot of horse prints, you know, all over the property.

So we came back from that and I talked to our architect who's in the room and said, hey, we want to add an equestrian pathway.

Because again, the community, that seems to be something that's favorable to the community.

So we really try to lean into the community.

Uh and as far as what could happen future, um, we have a uh property in Peoria that we acquired a couple years ago.

Uh church was failing, and they offered it to us, and we we took that over.

It has about seven acres of undeveloped land.

I've been approached three times in the last 18 months by developers wanting to build condos or do something on that property, and we've like, no, this is going to be used for the church purposes as we go forward there.

So I mean, I I can't speak exactly to what's gonna happen here.

I can't, you know, I can't tell the future, but what I can tell you is we're committed to being good partners in the community.

So Commissioner Perry.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh, Pastor and uh counselor, good to see you, counselor.

Uh Pastor and Counselor, as I said, my heart is is heavy on this because there is no question that your campus in Glendale is definitely in that neighborhood, a definite benefit to that neighborhood.

But this is a very different neighborhood.

This is not an urban or a suburban uh neighborhood that has the kind of density that there is around where your existing facility is.

This is a rural area, and the residents clamor to keep it that way.

And I don't believe they'd have a problem with the church.

I really don't.

And I know I don't have a problem with the church.

I think it's gonna be wonderful because we had looked at some plans up there.

But the the issue becomes with a commercial property and a C2, you can do a lot of things that aren't necessarily going to be consistent, assuming that the areas around it stay rural residential.

What is the time frame that you are looking at?

And I understand that time frames fluctuate by 50 to 100%.

But what is the time frame that you are talking about from developing the church property to developing the uh uh the commercial?

Yeah.

So we're at right now is you know, we're we're not gonna invest dollars with our architectural until we know this is all approved, right?

But assuming this goes forward, uh, we're gonna with our architect move forward with plans, getting actual site plans, you know, that whole process, which is my understanding, probably gonna take us 18 months, maybe longer, uh, with the city.

Uh, and then as far as on a financial side, we're we've already presented to our church that we purchased this land.

Um, but we're gonna do what in the church world we call capital campaign.

So we'll be doing that next year, next fall to launch that um to begin raising funds.

So we're probably three years at least before we would do anything.

But are that's gonna be taken up with planning with the city.

Allow me to add something on here.

Whether or not make it like allow me to make this more clear.

For us to work on phase one, which is the um development on the bottom half, we still have to put in the whole streetscape all the way up to the to the intersection.

So we're putting in work, even though we don't have a specific commercial site plan yet and available, but the point is that off-site cost is burdensome.

The other thing that's worth worth noting is Pulti Homes is planning to develop all a subdivisions all around us on our south and our east side, south and east side.

Yes, yeah, yeah.

And so eventually this area will become one of those areas where it'll need some porting services.

Um, I don't think it needs regional shopping centers or malls or anything like that, but a really small um piece of property like this at an arterial intersection.

While it hasn't been built yet, dynamite's relatively rural at this time, it will be built out.

And when it's built out, the last themselves wait, why isn't there a coffee shop or uh great cliffs, you know, or uh um a bank, and they'll need those services in the area.

And the good thing is because we control this site, it really won't be more than a few acres of supportive retail services instead of and if I really was maybe doing a bait and switch, we just would have rezoned the entire parcel, including the bottom half of phase one.

We didn't do that because we have no aspirations to do anything more than just what we need.

And so the only reason why we included the east half of this little top piece was because we weren't sure if the city would consider things like the daycare center and the therapy as you know, religious uses or not.

And so that's why we did the entirety of those nine acres of the city.

The state does require preschools to be on commercial zoning, and we currently have a preschool on our Glendale property, and I'm in process for our Peoria campus to open one there, hopefully by the end of summer.

Yeah, so yeah.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you uh both uh Adam and Mark and uh Leslie.

Any further discussions, Commissioner Bash.

I think this is coming about at a pivotal time when we're discussing the rural overlay.

That area out there is the growth area.

This is a major intersection throughout this entire city, major arterials on all four corners have commercial property for neighborhood commercial.

I don't see this as anything different.

I see it more futuristic, but I see the corner of 163rd and dynamite having four commercial neighborhood commercial areas there, which is typical of what happens in the city.

And I think to your point with the rural overlay, we're dealing with the constituents in that area right now, trying to maintain the ruralness, and this is being plunked in when we're discussing that.

So I think the timing isn't as good, but I don't have a problem with the commercial, and we definitely can't infringe upon the church getting a developer and that developer doing whatever he can do on a C2.

That's it.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak?

Well, see none and I'll entertain a motion.

I move to recommend approval of the rezone for Pure Heart Church case FS24-1442, subject to stipulations A and B as outlined in the staff report.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

See none, and please vote.

Motion passes with six votes in favor.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Leslie.

We'll move on to uh regular agenda item non-public hearing and uh item number five.

Sir Presentation and discussion pertaining to a zoning text amendment, ZTA to the surprise land development ordinances, LDO to establish a new residential zoning district, desert rural DR case FS25-0039.

Okay, we have uh let's see.

Oh, Trevor, are we gonna or China?

Trevor, yes, good evening, Chair members of the commission.

Um, so we are going to uh tackle this presentation similar to phase one of these work sessions for desert rural.

Uh Johnny and I are going to trade off back and forth giving the presentation, and we'll have certain pause points to the uh field any questions or have discussion.

Um just as a as a quick recap, this is our second of two work sessions with you for the desert rural text amendments.

Um we did want to mention that last week we took the first session to city council.

Um we did express some of the concerns that had come up with commission regarding the commercial uses.

Um the council did not have any uh additional input questions or feedback on that topic.

Um and I do also want to point out at the beginning of this um that we do have some members of um the 219th and Deer Valley um rural residential community that we've been working with on this over the past two plus years.

So if at any point um, you know, at the end of this presentation, if you'd like to hear from them on any of these matters, they are here as well.

Awesome.

So we are back for part two.

So just to recap.

So last time we went over the background information uh for this rezoning as well as the community feedback and proposed code changes with regard to permissible uses, development standards, and land use buffer and landscaping slash open space.

So this time our focus is going to be on the community feedback and proposed code changes for design standards, animals, and transportation/slash streets, as well as the cleanup items included in this text amendment.

So I will uh hand that over to Trevor to start off.

So starting off with the design standards, um, these are the standards within our zoning district that um tend to cause the biggest conflict between your typical tract home built-out subdivision and the rural areas.

So under our current code, the way that it's structured and set up, um, the standards apply to all residential, regardless of the location.

So some of these standards um have been identified through previous outreach um with these communities and through code enforcement efforts as being um pain points where applying them doesn't necessarily um make the most sense in some of the rural areas.

So starting with accessory structures, some of the feedback that we received was that they would like to permit storage containers as accessory structures in the desert rural areas.

Um there was some requests to increase the maximum accessory structure size and amend the design standards so that accessory structures don't have to architecturally match with the primary home.

That makes sense in tract home subdivisions, doesn't make as much sense in the rural areas where these are custom homes.

Um they each have their own character and um unique architectural styles, and their accessory structures are along the same lines there as being unique.

Um the driveways and um feedback.

Sorry, the driveway and parking feedback that we got was that they would like to allow more than one driveway.

So in a tract home subdivision, you know, we're trying to manage um smaller lots and and a lot of lots on one street because these are larger lot areas.

Um the request is to have more than one driveway because um uh one they already have them in in most situations, and two because um of the uses that they have, they have a need for additional driveways off the roads.

Um, allow for multiple methods of dust control for these driveway and parking surfaces.

So again, in these rural areas, not requiring everything to be paved, um, and then allowing the parking of work trucks in driveways of residences.

So again, that is another issue where you know we we may um have issues in in built-out subdivisions where you know people are bringing their work trucks home and it's and it's causing parking issues or or sightly issues, but on these larger lot developments, uh not making as much sense.

So the proposed changes that we have uh in response to some of these, we're proposing to add language to allow portable storage containers as accessory structures.

The um cap on the accessory structure size, we are proposing to remove that.

Currently it's 3,000 square feet.

Our proposal was to initially um cap it based off of the lot coverage, but in doing some of the math on that and and calculating that, that can um open the top end pretty significantly.

Um so staff does have concerns um uh having a cap that large.

We presented this in the last neighborhood outreach meeting to the community, trying to get some feedback from them on what exactly the maximum square footage per accessory structure they would like to see.

We were unable to get any sort of concrete feedback or consensus from them.

Um their feedback was just that the current 3,000 square feet was not enough.

And so in doing some research, um, staff feels that 6,000 square feet is appropriate based off of um some of the structures that we see out there in both the county areas and some of the areas within the city, either um they were built, you know, in in under previous codes or um some time ago.

And so this is one of the points that we would like to get your kind of um thoughts and feedback on do we proceed with the current drafted uh limitation by lot coverage, or do we implement that 6,000 square foot maximum accessory structure size?

So at that point, I'd like to kind of request your thoughts and feedback so that we can um implement that.

Commission.

Anyone that's a question, I guess what what structures are you seeing out there that are 6,000 square feet?

Yeah, I think you large shops, large shops, barns, um, garages.

Um a lot of them are um, you know, sometimes they're prefab structures where the the vendor or the manufacturer are are set um square footages, and the 3,000 threshold tends to be like right on that line of where um it's giving them a little extra square footage would would permit some of the structures that they're trying to get permitted.

Um obviously as as staff, we don't want to completely open up that top end and allow 50,000 square foot accessory structures.

Sure.

Are there a lot of them that reach the size of 6,000 square feet?

That seems awfully large, is what I'm saying.

3,000, I understand uh, you know, maybe a little bit bigger uh and so forth, but are do they reach 6,000 square feet?

That seems big.

They can, yeah.

Um, so we we did take a look at some of the structures that are currently out there now.

Um I think the the highest square footage that we could find in some of these rural areas was about 5,500 square feet.

Um I think in our in our kind of research, there there may be a dozen or so structures that are larger than the 3,000 square feet we have under current code.

Um, and again, a lot of the feedback that we got from residents was just that 3,000 isn't big enough.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Go ahead.

I just think that we might want to go with comparing the ratio.

So depending on the size of the lot, depending on how large the structure could be.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Commissioner.

So the limitation via the lot coverage is basically what that's going to do is limit the overall under roof area on the lot in general.

So that can be across multiple structures, including the home.

Um, and so it doesn't, it doesn't provide a per structure cap.

It just limits the amount of under roof area that you can have on the lot.

But you don't you think that capping that for the whole lot helps preserve the rural?

I mean, the more structures you have on the lot, the more it the less it's rural in in my opinion.

Yeah, thank you.

Um that so that is you know a consideration with the individual square footage maximum um on accessory structures, it's it's very clear for for each structure what the standards are for it versus with the just the general lot coverage, you could have a a variety of large and small, as long as overall you're not exceeding that maximum.

Yeah, but if we do implement a specific uh square footage maximum on accessory structures, there is still the existing lot coverage, so it would be both rather than just the one.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir letter.

Having fooled around with the uh barn dominion concept for several years and uh built a few of them, it's pretty easy to get to uh uh 5500 to 6,000 square foot, especially with like Trevor said the prefab.

Um I think the 3,000 square foot is way too small, especially when you're looking at a horse property um and those type of of accessory buildings.

I I would definitely love to see the the 3,000 square foot cap go up.

Okay, anyone else?

Yes, Commissioner Bash.

Trevor, can we um maybe look at a six thousand square foot cap but a uh conditional use permit up to the lot coverage under roof?

Would that provide the ability for somebody to come in?

You said you ran the numbers and on a typical acre or whatever you're looking at, considering the developing and all the accessory units, you have a maximum that you could have under roof so just to clarify.

Do you mean like if you go beyond the six thousand square foot?

Right, that means if somebody wants to come in with a 10,000, 12,000 square foot stable, and they would have to request a conditional use permit, and the cap would then be the maximum allowable square footage on the property under roof.

I think that'll answer both sides of the question.

Yeah, that's all I have, Chair.

She wants to talk.

Yeah, she really does.

Um how far do we have to go?

Where are you in your presentation?

We we have we have some a significant amount more still.

Yeah.

We have I know we have people out here in the audience who are sensitive to mention.

We don't have a public hearing per se, but if there is anyone that would like to speak about this matter in the public, you're welcome.

So when you guys are looking for examples, we have them.

Okay.

Maybe uh if you want to have if you'd like to speak, you're welcome too.

If you'd like to wait and speak later, then I'll provide that opportunity to you.

I'm just gonna provide the example of that, just a simple show barn for 20 horses with 16 stalls or with 10 16 by 16 stalls, that right there is 5500 square feet, and that doesn't even include the account or wash stall for a way to walk up and down.

So you and then you have to think about people leaving a hay barn.

So these I appreciate that, and I think that is kind of we would normally have you come to the mic so you can speak into the mic, and uh, we are being televised.

So I think those are very thoughtful ideas, and maybe Trevor, you'd like to uh respond to her comments.

Yeah, so I I I guess I'd I'd like to get to make sure that we get um some sort of consensus and direction from from you all as to where we should go from here.

So um is everyone in general agreement that we should look into the 6,000 square foot cap with the CUP for anything larger or uh a different approach.

Something that's exactly I think so.

I think that uh the 6,000 foot thing seems to be in favor of looking at people shaking their heads.

Okay, thank you.

But wait, I'm sorry, but like she was saying the structure for the horses is gonna come to 55.

And so if you have the bath stalls and the hay barn, that's gonna be additional.

How can they get that approved if we limit this to the 6,000?

Well, that's where the CUP the but are we certain that something like that is gonna go through is my question.

I mean if we put this cap on it it comes to us.

It comes to Ashes.

I just want to make sure that it can go through because we're we're advising staff to go through and look into the 3,000 square foot and then add the additional pieces.

No six square six six thousand square foot and then add the additional pieces and bring it back to us for C U P so we're not approving or disapproving we're we're adding this in so they have the ability to add that and do more research.

Yes chair commission that's that is correct.

So we will take this feedback we'll take that to our next work session with council um see if they're in agreement with that we'll do research on the possibility of doing this and then when we come back for um the public hearing item for this text amendment we'll update you on on our findings on that.

Okay thank you.

One other request while we're doing that can we get a few just visuals for us visual folk just the pieces and parts because for me conceptually you know a 10 by 10 building makes more sense to me or um some sort of a floor plan would make more sense versus trying to figure out what 3,000 square feet looks like.

So thank you Trevor all right with that will continue so um some of the other um proposed changes are to add language into the planning and engineering design standards so that the structures don't have to match um the primary dwelling unit as far as um architectural styles, colors materials, etc.

And then on driveways and parking um we added in language to allow up to two driveways per street um for the lots we added language to add clarity and flexibility for the um parking areas and the driveway surfaces.

And then we also added language to allow up to two work trucks to park um on the on the properties as long as it's on a dustproof surface and within the building envelope for these properties.

Moving into landscaping so some of the um changes include clarifying the definition of blight to allow for certain um ornamental antique decor to be uh placed on the property without it being considered um uh code violation and then for fencing um the the current code limits the the fencing materials um again this is you know something that is common in built out tract home subdivisions um but doesn't make as much sense for rural areas where there's already um a variety of fencing materials being used and um the feedback that we got was to allow for chain link open wire fencing pipe fencing uh barbed wire things of that nature so then our proposed changes in response to those are to increase the the flexibility for the fence types in desert rural and then we added in that language to allow for those ornamental displays of farmer ranch equipment um as part of their the lots landscaping that they and so that they wouldn't be subject to some of the uh uh code code enforcement violations and with that i'll pass it off to join for the animals all righty so uh continuing with animals the overarching feedback that we receive from the rural community is that our current livestock regulations are too strict so per chapter 10 of the municipal code the city only allows one livestock animal per half acre of lot area and defines livestock as anything from a cow to a goat with no distinction made based off of the size of the livestock animal or the land required to keep that animal so in order to address the feedback um that we received sorry I didn't realize it was split on to or put all in one slide sorry I've changed some things around since then um but in order to address this feedback we're proposing to amend the livestock uh section of the municipal code to create a distinction between large and median livestock animals um as well as amend the ratio of allowable livestock animals to not only increase the overall number of those animals allowed uh per half acre but to also um allow combination of large and medium livestock animals at a rate that is more appropriate to the kind of animal that they are um the other thing that we were looking at changing with that was um in this was just trying to make sure that um regardless that there would be adequate space provided for those animals we initially when we ticked this to the public um this last time that we presented back in March um we ended up uh bringing forward um a ratio of one large and six medium um livestock animals um and we instead of doing it per um half acre of lot area we were attempting to um do it per a half acre of uh space that's like dedicated specifically to the keeping of those animals um

And we instead of doing it per half acre of lot area, we were attempting to do it per a half acre of uh space that's like dedicated specifically to the keeping of those animals.

Um in doing that, while our ratios were a little bit better and we kind of moved the needle closer to the direction that we needed to go, um kind of the overall feedback that we got when we presented that was that you know, even though we were trying to do the right thing of trying to make sure that you know, when you get down to like a one acre lot, for example, um, if you're allowing one large um, you know, livestock animal and six medium on a one acre, um, and you don't define that, you know, at least half of that lot needs to be dedicated to those animals.

There was, you know, some concern regarding, you know, there being a safe amount of space for those animals.

So just to kind of revisit um the uh ratio that we proposed was one large and six medium uh livestock animals uh per half acre of dedicated space.

So if um using that one acre lot as an example, if you dedicated, you know, that half acre to those animals, you could have theoretically one large and six medium.

So that could be one horse and six goats, or um, you could have potentially upwards of you know, eight goats and no horses or four horses and you know, no goats, just depending on the exchange rate we were trying to do, um, allow for a substitution so there's flexibility.

Um, so we were trying to allow um one large livestock animal to be substituted for two medium and vice versa, so that again, we would not just open up um, you know, or just like kind of blanket increase the number of livestock animals so that again, if you wanted to have like all goats, it's still very limited.

We were trying to add in some flexibility, but again, um, I think ultimately it got a little complicated.

So we took that feedback.

We also are still going through the written feedback and kind of working on um how to work through that, how to make it a little bit more understandable, but um kind of in line with how we were, you know, kind of coming to the commission and soliciting feedback from you all um regarding, you know, a potential cap on um accessory structure size, we were also wanting to kind of put the question to you all as well on um, you know, what an acceptable um cap on livestock, you know, an overall uh livestock number would be for um, you know, a home in uh desert rural.

So when we posed this question to the community, um at the meeting, we got a lot of pushback.

What we ended up getting was, you know, the even though we like really like opened up and really worked on um increasing the number of animals and the types of animals allowed on the lot, we got a lot of pushback and feedback that even uh the numbers and you know what we came up with was still not enough.

Um, and there was even push for there to be no cap on animals or or no like real, you know, regulation on that.

Um, when we got the written feedback and went through that, um, we got a little bit more kind of split feedback.

So some uh some of the community, again, we're still pushing and still not wanting, you know, really any amount of like regulation, no cap on animals.

Um, and then there was the other part of the community that says, you know, yes, we're good generally with um the quantities that you are um, you know, kind of proposing, but um, it's not as understandable.

So um, and there should be a cap.

So again, still going through that feedback, still doing some kind of additional research to try to figure out where we can find that kind of happy medium.

But overall, we wanted to kind of bring this along with the accessory structures to kind of um again solicit that feedback from you all of kind of what an acceptable kind of cap on both of those would be.

And I'm gonna skip towards the end of the presentation real quick, just because we included a few slides.

So just to kind of give an overall or add some context for why we're looking for additional guidance on these things and kind of where we're coming from, is that we're not looking to put, you know, overly burdensome restrictions on these neighborhoods.

Um what we're doing is trying to figure out, you know, what's in line with what's already there and trying to put you know something together um that's as close to what exists as possible, um, to try to get everybody into conformance and again put into code what actually exists.

So we want to remove, you know, these restrictions, um, you know, remove these caps and stuff.

But as we've been going through and you know, kind of doing the math on some of this, you know, again, while a cap isn't necessarily something that we really want, it is a little bit necessary um for both accessory structures um and animals, because as you go up in acreage, um, and again, if you're only doing like a flat 25%, or um, if you're like calculating those animals, um, those quantities go up exponentially.

And so what we are really concerned about is trying to figure out what a good number for these areas are so that it's easier for us to draw distinctions between um what is a residential farm versus what is a commercial farm and what is an industrial farm, which we don't allow industrial farming, but depending on where you go in the city, you know, if somebody picks up a 20-acre parcel and you know, they can have up to you know two uh 200,017, you know, square feet, and then there's nothing to tell them, hey, you can't put a 20,000 square foot building.

It's not to say that somebody's gonna come out and do it, but it takes one bad neighbor to then kind of ruin your neighborhood.

Um, and then on top of that, it makes it hard from a code enforcement perspective.

So if somebody goes in there, you know, and you know, tries to put something down in there, you know, like what we're showing kind of on this slide, and they make the argument of like, oh, well, this is my house and I live here, and you don't have a cap on animals, you don't have a cap on individual buildings.

So I'm meeting my 25% lock coverage.

Um, it can get a little hairy.

So again, what we're really looking to do here is again not be overly restrictive on the community, but we're trying to kind of take a temperature and figure out um, you know, if we can quantify a little bit better, you know, what you know, what is that or what of structures and what are the animals in these neighborhoods look like, so we can better draw that line between what is a residential farm, what is a commercial farm, what is an industrial farm, so we don't have to fight that fight later if somebody tries to come in and make the argument that they can have those, you know, all those big buildings or have a bunch of animals.

So just to give uh an example um of like the animal portion of that.

So we have five acres of dedicated space, 10 acres of dedicated space, and 20 acres of dedicated space.

Um that could be as many as 80 animals um or as little as 40 animals on the five-acre side, or if you go to that 20 acres, it could be as uh many as 320 or as many as 160.

And again, it's not to say that like, you know, if we go through this, that somebody is immediately gonna drop a bunch of animals and dump uh and drop a bunch of these large buildings on the slot, but it's about trying to think about the future and make sure that whenever we remove some of these regulations that we're thoughtful that we're not gonna create a problem in the future.

So that's kind of why we're looking to get some of this feedback.

So I'll back up to the animal section and pause there.

Um, so if you have any feedback regarding animal caps, Commissioner Bush.

Um I think that equating this to like fire regulations.

Rooms like this have maximum occupancy, and that's based on national standards.

There has to be some maybe veterinary association or something of that nature that can tell us that you know different types of animals require this much space in order to be healthy.

And I think something like that, if you can get a standard, then you can adapt that to acreage.

And then it's something that you really can't fight because it's a standard.

And you you don't want emaciated animals, horses, or anything like that.

There has to be a certain standard out there for an animal requires this much space for good health feeding, exercise, and everything else.

And I think if we can find something like that, that would definitely backstop us as far as whatever regulation we put in.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Commissioner Bash.

So Johnny did a significant amount of research on this, um, trying to find um examples from other communities, um, trying to find uh national standards.

Um as far as the the space goes, you know, there wasn't anything widely adopted or or clear on that.

Um I think what Johnny has put together here as far as the ratio goes works.

I think our concern mostly is on the cap.

So the the ratio structure seems to work out with as far as the math goes.

But as you saw on those in those tables, once you get up into the much larger lots, the amount of animals can can get into the hundreds.

And we're just curious if we if we really want to make the change that significant to where we're going from a very limited ratio that we heard from the community does not work for them to uh like with the accessory structures completely opening it up on the top end.

Well, I agree with that.

Um I think that the residents need to understand that that they're in a city, and that we're trying our best to give them the quality of life that they would like to have, but still at the same time, there has to be bookends and boundaries on because you surely don't want 300 steers out there butted up next to residents neighborhoods on two sides of the pasture.

I mean, that then degrades my life by having to smell the excrement of all the animals.

So there's got to be a give and play, and I agree with you, there's no business to have 300 animals on 20 acres.

Okay, uh Commissioner Leonard.

And Johnny, I definitely appreciate the the hard work you put it in.

I'm almost gonna qualify this as the impossible task.

Um, because you're you're basically bringing to a bunch of city folk um the uh a rural thing.

And so, much like Commissioner Bash brought up, um my concern is as a city person, um, I I have no interest in living next to a dairy.

Um, on the flip side, as somebody who is in a position to buy rural resident or this rural area, there would have to be an applied understanding that you are going to live next to a dairy.

You are going to live in this area, and that is what you love.

So if I was to apply this to my passion, I love jeeps.

And the worst thing that can happen for a Jeep guy is to have a non-jeep person go in and make regulations and things that says this is what you can do in your Jeep, and this is the areas you can and can't go on.

Um I think two things it would be my request.

One, again, conceptually, when I see 350 animals in a neighborhood, my brain doesn't comprehend that.

I don't know 50 acres, 300 animals, what does that look like?

Um, I know that there are places that we could probably get a pretty good um reasonable expectation of what that would look like.

And then I really think that we need to have somebody that has livestock.

Um, I have a brother-in-law that does cows.

Um, and when I go and look at cows, uh, my brain doesn't understand it.

I just think, oh, here's a lot of cows, and here's a lot of manure, and it really stinks.

Um, and yet it creates a great uh a great living for him and and opportunities and things that that they love and his community loves, and that's what they do.

And so again, I don't want to imply my biases because I have no interest in living next to a dairy.

Well, that's why I bought a track home in a track neighborhood that's not close to a dairy.

Much like I expect to have, you know, some of the association pains and some of the parking restrictions and some of the the building restrictions and the color of my house dictated by an association because that's where I bought.

Um so one, thank you so much for conquering this, because yeah, just just looking at what you've put into this.

It's monumental and looking for uh it's surprising to me, and then not so surprising because it just happens, right?

And and farms are farms, and that's how they're built.

Um, and then you know, a farmer's gonna do what a farmer's gonna do, and they're gonna do their best to maximize what they have and do make a living.

And and I'm not in a position to to even make an intelligent decision on that.

Um, so I'd love to have um one, some visuals again, and I'm not even a visual person.

So this is my second request.

So um and two, um, I would love to have somebody that is a farmer or or represents that community.

And maybe we have them here, and I just don't know, but I would love to hear from them to to explain kind of like much like she did with her her parcel.

It's like as soon as she said that, I'm like, well, that makes perfect sense, right?

A stall, 10 horses.

All right, this is 5500 square feet.

I'm like, all right, that's reasonable.

Whereas 50 acres, 350 animals, I'm like, whoo, I would not move there.

Um, but man, would I buy a cow from there and put it in my freezer?

Absolutely.

So, Commissioner Holland.

Thank you.

Um I'm I'm actually um uh raising concern about the the definition between large and medium livestock.

Uh I I fear that that might be a regulatory nightmare.

Uh because uh defining things and is a calf a large or a medium one.

Well, what about this the scrawny runt?

Or what about uh a large is a we've got a donkey versus a mule versus a horse versus a Clydesdale versus a Shetland pony versus I mean, what are we talking about?

And and I think defining that is going to be really difficult.

We may get a huge calf that's still a calf, and we may have you know a scrawny steer or cow or bull.

I I think that's going to become a very, very difficult thing to regulate.

Uh depending on how you define it.

Maybe you're defining it by by type of animal, maybe you're defining it by uh whatever it may be, but you're gonna have somebody who comes in and I can just see it now.

Somebody who walks in and says, Look, their dog is bigger than my calf.

Why is that fair?

Uh and somebody's walking in with a great dane and and and so forth.

So I I think that that's going to be a very difficult thing uh as far as regulatory uh complaints and compliance is going to be.

Um and I just can see people walking in and saying, wait, wait, wait, that's not fair.

And and I think it's going to be very, very difficult to define and implement.

Uh so I'm I'm wondering if we don't just do something similar to what was proposed as far as the the size of uh auxiliary um uh structures and simply say, look, you get this many livestock, period.

And if you want more, come in for a CUP.

Uh and and that well look, we don't want people coming in with with feedlots, and we don't want people coming in with poultry farms.

Uh that that's that seems to be the nuisance that everybody's worried about.

At the same time, we want people to have, you know, their 10 shore hor show horses if they want to do that, or quarter horses that they're riding in rodeos or whatever they're doing.

Um we want them to be able to have, you know, uh their herds of cattle if if they've got large enough areas to support that and so forth, but we we don't want them in such a concentrated uh nature that it's gonna be problematic and create a nuisance, either public or private, uh, even if people are coming to the nuisance, which is the term if you move next to somebody that has a problem.

Um but I think from a regulatory uh perspective, that's gonna be very, very difficult and cause problems for us if we keep with the large versus medium animals.

Thank you, commissioners.

So um again, thank you for the feedback.

Um, so I don't have a good answer for you today regarding what we're gonna end up doing, but I can tell you that you're exactly right.

We've already gotten comments about, you know, again, what about this?

What about that?

How are you considering calves, that kind of thing?

So I haven't I've collected all of the feedback and I have gleamed through it and I've started kind of putting together a list of things that we need to do some more research on and um other stuff that we need to tackle.

Um so this is kind of coming, you know, while I'm still compiling that list, still doing that research, still going through all that.

So um these additional comments are incredibly helpful for one.

Um, and then for two, I wanted to address as well.

Um, so the two lovely ladies in the audience that you see with uh with us today um are again, as Trevor mentioned from the 219th group, and they have been um monumental as we've been working through this process and have been you just indispensable with giving us feedback and helpful feedback, being able to quantify it, being able to sit down and talk through and go, okay, you know, so this is what you're looking for.

Will this work?

Okay, no, here's how we change it.

What about this?

Okay, now we're closer.

So this has been a very iterative process, and um, we still have a little bit more work left to do.

But um, in this last round of comments that they gave us, uh gave back to us.

Um there was some substantial feedback regarding, you know, some of the other um animal issues as well as like some classification stuff.

So um I do again really appreciate all the feedback that I'm hearing from you all today.

And I just want you to know that um, yes, we're taking feedback from you, but we also still have uh feedback from the community that we're also going to heavily rely on.

So hopefully once we get through um the work sessions for both uh commission and council, I will have plenty of feedback um and a clear um you know outline of where we need to go, what further research we need to do, how how much further we need to go so that we can button everything up and make sure that we have something that first and foremost the community is comfortable with and that something the uh both commission and council uh will also be comfortable with adopting.

So Johnny, we have uh commissioner Evergered like this.

When I attended the neighborhood meeting, animals were definitely the topic.

Um, and I left and I thought when I left, I understood that like a calf is going to be considered a large animal because it will become a cow.

A pony will become a horse.

So is that something that's still you're discussing in or is that what you're going with?

Thank you, Commissioner.

So that was the initial thought, but I also want to make sure that I'm not shutting down other people, especially since I'm not an expert, right?

All I can do is research as much as possible and reach out to the people who I know know their stuff.

So um it's one of those things where again, I've just kind of generally seen all the comments.

I'm starting to get all that through, but I haven't been able to fully vet everything.

Um, and it's one of those things on my list of, you know, just to kind of look at and do we need to rethink something like that?

Um, or is this what we're gonna go with?

And, you know, is this acceptable, you know, with the rest of the community?

Um, and this was just a one-off comment.

So um again, that was the initial thought.

That was my initial explanation.

But um, I want to be open to making sure that again, I've done all the research that I can do.

Um, and make sure that every comment that we've received, regardless of you know, how detailed or how not detailed it is, that I have put forth that effort to see it through and you know, verify whether or not, you know, it was something actionable or we looked into it and this is you know the path that we're gonna take.

And if I'm sorry if I may, just to just to add to that and clarify, what when we were at the neighborhood meeting, we did provide um that current drafted definition and and to kind of answer your question is as well, Commissioner Holland.

Um, in the in the draft right now, we're making the distinction between large and medium based off of type of animal.

So large includes cows, deer, bull, oxen, horses, mules, and donkeys.

Medium includes sheep, goats, llamas, and miniature horses.

And so that's our current draft, but obviously any feedback in the direction that we can get from you and counsel and the and the community is is helpful.

I know this was huge, and you've put in so much time.

I don't want to make it more complicated, but I I just wanted a little clarification.

So thank you.

I appreciate it.

Anyone else?

Those those definitions are broad enough.

Uh you've got a sheep ranges from this big to this big.

Uh a cow, depending on the breed uh and so forth.

I I see that as concerning.

And and I totally understand what people are getting to.

And I'm I'm not trying to say that this is a bad direction.

I just I anticipate this will be a very difficult thing for enforcement purposes.

Uh so I I don't want to, I don't wish to clog either the courts or the city attorneys or the compliance officers' sockets with things that could have been taken care of with just a little bit definition, a little bit not getting so nitty-gritty on the definition, and just saying livestock is livestock.

Commissioner Leonard.

And possibly something to consider as um maybe taking weight into consideration.

I know that's that's I mean, when you're purchasing livestock and things like that, that can be a bearing.

I don't know if that's something we should look into.

Um, that could also be large, medium, and small, maybe that's that scares me too.

You're gonna walk around with a weight uh scale.

I I hear you.

I do it at home, and I put it in a larger category than most.

So I don't know.

Anyway, something to think about.

Yeah, thank you.

We we will definitely look at that.

And just for I think added context, I think our approach to um making that distinction and and providing the ratios accordingly was not as much of a um physical size distinction, but just a way that we can increase the amount of animals with some variety and and clarification.

So we can definitely look at at buttoning that up and making sure that it's it's clear for staff to implement and and enforce and clear for the residents to understand as well.

Um and and share if if uh obviously at your discretion, but um now might be a good time to hear from Willie and Michelle.

If uh either one or both of you ladies would like to speak, could you please come up and uh speak in the microphone and give us your name and where you live.

So can we leave a rastic?

Oh, into the could you pull the microphone?

Um so um I'm just gonna folk first of all, I want to say thank you.

You guys have all had a bunch of great questions, and I know this is a lot to take in, um, especially when you are sitting in a scenario where you're coming from an urban suburban point of view.

Um, and we have spent this has actually been a four-year effort um with Lloyd and the prior city manager, Bob Wingareth, have that correctly.

Um, that we have uh we've been working really hard on this, and then Johnny came on board and took the reins and ran with it, and we've been very grateful to have her here with us.

Um I think everything else is fairly self-explanatory.

There was some concern about some growth, I think, in the last meeting about us wanting to maintain our rural livelihood and not allow for growth.

The reality is growth is surrounding us, right?

We don't have a choice.

All we're trying to do is just try to hold on as long as we can.

Um, and so the city had offered to us to create this desert rural overlay.

The citizens voted that in, and now this is the next step to that to create those restrictions around what does that mean to be in a desert rural zoning district.

Um the biggest thing I think uh with these animal allowances.

First, I want to uh tell everybody that livestock is expensive to buy, to maintain, to keep healthy, to vaccinate.

They're not gonna run it.

People are not gonna run out and buy hundreds and hundreds of cows or horses or whatnot, and stick them on their one-acre property.

It's just not gonna happen.

However, um, some of the caps like there are some of the uh numbers that came out with the ratio that we have are excessive, right?

And we're not looking at agricultural situations here.

We're looking at mostly people that either have hobby farms that are invested in rodeo or roping, or then they might be doing show horse work, um, or they may uh maybe they're doing some ranching.

And even somebody that owns a 300-acre parcel, they're not gonna put more than maybe 30 cattle on that 300-acle parcel if they're eating just off of what the brush and whatnot that that's out there.

But when you put animals on a smaller lot and you are feeding them, supplementing them with hay that you're buying, um, and it's what's called a dry lot, right?

You're not growing grass or pasture that they're eating off of, which is the 99% of what's happening in surprise rural pockets, uh, at least what's left anyway.

Um you can fit more animals comfortably on a smaller acreage space.

So that was basically our request was to make that match kind of what is reality and what's happening and to meet the citizens where they're at today.

Um I think with the last iteration that we did, I did offer some suggestions on doing caps, like for maybe say a max of 15 large and 20 medium for a hobby farm for a personal venture, versus if you have like a commercial ranch or commercial equestrian stable, maybe, or you're doing commercial cattle, right?

Uh you could have something a bit larger, like maybe 100 if you're on 30 acres.

So there's numbers that Johnny has that she's looking through, calculating some of that that makes a lot more sense than that 300 number.

So please don't let that scare you because that's not where we're headed.

Um, as far as the definition of a large versus a medium, I don't know if you're gonna run around with the scale.

Um, but generally the way that we weigh livestock is we use what's called a tape weight.

It's just a long piece of tape.

Um, and we wrap it around the front of their chest and we decide we see what that weight is, and we just then we weigh them from their chest to their tail and we see what that length is, and then we do a nice little algebra calculation and we figure out okay, we think it weighs this much.

But I don't know about you.

I don't think Trevor is gonna go after that 2,000 pound bowl with a tape weight.

But what I will say is if you look at the definition, all of the large are equines and bovines.

They're all breeds of some kind of cattle or horse, mule, donkey situation, right?

Um, if you look at the mediums, they're larger than chickens or turkeys or yeast.

And that's basically your definition.

And so that's really easy to maintain.

It's also exactly what the city of Cave Creek does, which is where we got our ratios from.

Uh, we tweak them a little bit because we have smaller acreage than Cave Creek does.

They start at two and a half is their minimum.

We have one acres as our minimum.

So we had to play around to make things more reasonable.

Um, but that's what they do.

They've been doing it for 20 years and it works.

And we have, we did, we spent four years on this.

We investigated many towns, cities, counties across the US what they were doing, uh, not to mention what everybody around Arizona is doing.

Um, and Cave Creek seemed to have the most reasonable uh example to follow that they've been able to legally uphold um and that has worked for their citizens.

So any questions.

Thank you for your comments.

I think that helps very helpful.

And also, could you fill out a form for us?

Oh, absolutely.

We'll do it.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any further discussions, gentlemen?

I'd just like to say, Trevor, I believe you could do it.

Sounds like Johnny's doing all the heavy lifting tasks.

Johnny, you have a monumental task.

And it might be uh finding all of these.

Uh you've already done a monumental task.

I think you still have a monumental task to complete this and uh appreciate all your hard work.

So both you and Trevor, thank you.

Chair, just real quick before we before we move on to the next item.

I just want to make sure that we have clear direction.

So um would you like is it is it a uh is it fair to say that there's a consensus that there should be a cap um to some degree we can continue working with our partners in the in the rural communities to to figure out exactly what that should look like.

Um, and then we can bring that back with the with the legislative edit.

I think so.

Okay, thank you.

I'd also recommend just using the verbiage that she had, so there's a simple explanation on kind of how things are.

I think that helped a lot for me.

It it might be helpful as well.

Uh Trevor and Johnny, if some of the uh information that these ladies have gathered uh regarding other communities and what they're doing, whether it's Queen Creek or other rural areas, it might be helpful to kind of see what's working for them.

It might give us some good standards.

Okay.

Anything else?

And seeing then we'll move on to uh chair, we do have a few more slides real quick.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Excuse me.

Sorry.

Okay.

So I will wrap this up real quick so that we're not here all night.

Uh so just to touch on some of the last items.

Um, so I did want to bring to your attention that we do have um some cleanup items.

Um I'm not gonna get into the nitty-gritty of it, but it's just more to let you know that um while there are you know some fairly significant content changes um, you know, that we are trying to bring forward with the ledge edit that's going to be brought to you at a public aid hearing at a later date.

Um part of the reason why that 102-page document is so long is you know, yes, we're making changes to the content, but there is also a bunch of cleanup and clerical kind of items that we have to do in order to um you know support those content changes that we're making.

So, yes, some of its content, a lot of it is just cleanup things that we gotta do to make this work.

So uh with that, I will pass it off to Trevor so he can touch on some of the transportation stuff.

Yeah, so on the on this topic, the initial feedback that we got uh from the rural areas with that was that they did not want to see street lights, sidewalk, curb and gutter, paved roads, the full build-out transportation infrastructure in and adjacent to their communities.

Um we went back and discussed with our uh other internal departments, transportation, public safety, engineering, et cetera.

Um we were able to come up with a solution where um a do a new desert rural roadway cross section um would be created in the engineering design standards specifically for local roads in these desert rural areas, and that cross section would include minimal paved width, no curb and gutter, no sidewalks and no street lights.

So that um satisfies their their concerns and their requests within the communities, but then with the major arterial roadways and the and the collectors adjacent to um and traversing through some of these communities for safety purposes and and um state and federal requirements, we did have to keep those um standards the same.

So um we believe that that was a good uh a good compromise with those two topics.

All righty.

So uh again, just to wrap this up, so our um, you know, this is basically gonna complete part two of our presentation as we've talked.

Um, we still have uh fairly significant amount of work to do before this comes back to public hearing.

Um so uh following our uh last work session with city council, we'll again hit rubber will hit the road and we will be working on trying to finalize that third draft of the legislative edit.

Um once that is finalized, um, we'll be posting that draft to the desert role website and then notifying the public um that the draft is on the website to view, as well as uh letting everyone know um basically as soon as possible um the upcoming public hearing uh schedule.

So while we plan to, again, for the sake of the neighborhood, try to get everything scheduled um as fast as we can.

We are gonna be uh picking meeting dates that um have a long enough lead time to give everybody, the community commission, council, everybody plenty of time to be able to go through that monumental document.

Um so we just wanted to give you uh kind of that update.

And with that, if there aren't any remaining questions um or comments, that's gonna be it from us.

Okay, thank commissioner bash.

Thank you.

Trevor, I make one suggestion in your final uh dissertation.

You gave them the word community.

The community is surprised, it's their neighborhood.

Yeah, and you reference them as a community, they're not a separate community, they're surprised neighbors.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, uh Johnny Trevor.

It was like boy, what a job you've done.

That's that's really great.

Uh we're real proud of that.

Hopefully, move on then to our next item, uh, which is anyone uh that would uh like to speak on a non-agenda item.

Uh is there anyone that uh we have, Sarah, that would like to speak on a non-agenda item.

Yes, we have Alex Christ.

Alex.

Please state your name again.

Yes, Alex Christ, uh 175th Avenue model.

Uh as a city slicker, I thought that, you know, uh rural areas was gonna be three horses and you were good.

So uh, but um chair, um, vice chair and commissioners, thank you so much.

If you'll indulge me for one minute, I wanted to address um what had happened at our last city council where um there was disrespect and lack of decorum uh and then that wasn't not just directed to our mayor um or the council.

Uh and then that wasn't not just directed to our mayor um or the council, it was directed to people that were coming up to talk.

And I I'm just glad uh Miss Lisa was the full brunt of it at that time.

And I just want to say that um mayor is is starting to handle it a little bit better.

Um he's really putting a cap on on you know when people, especially when they're outside of our city, when they come and they start um agitating, you know, us when we are coming up here to do city business, and they have one issue, we have multiple of issues, and you know, this desert rural area, it's a great thing for us.

Um, you know, I'm really glad and happy.

Everything that our city um planners are uh Mr.

Trevor and Miss Johnny, how they've been working, it's just great to see.

And it it just I just love living in the city because they've taken that problem and want to narrow it down so that we can live with it, you know.

And and so I just want to say uh thank the mayor for uh at least starting to get that.

And I'm sorry, Miss Lisa, that the disrespect and mistreatment of of that of what happened to you at that time.

But um, yeah, uh Chair, uh, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Um I saw this today, which it just came up on the neighborhood app from AZ Central.

Um, I think that's uh news organization, the website, moving place.com.

Surprise was the number one area where people are moving to in Arizona, specifically, and they broke it down 8538 7.

That's the area that we're talking about today.

Uh Asante, all that growth that's going over there, and um they said nationally surprise is number 10.

So we are growing, we're growing pretty fast.

You know, and I am just happy that I live in this city, and we have uh uh people out here staff that is working to make our city the best city that we can have.

So thank God for them, and thank you all, and I appreciate you allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we'll move on to our next item of any other business or agenda items in the future.

Commissioner Bash.

Can we get a summation?

Uh data centers are big in the news right now, and some cities are basically saying we're not gonna have them.

And I don't think that is technically able to do that since it's a federal security, national security issue.

So if you could have maybe a summary of what is surprise doing, and you know, what is the what's legal for a municipality?

Yeah, we can bring something back for that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other commissioners?

Okay, then seeing none, no other further business, and uh I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Could we have uh voice vote?

All uh those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those of no eyes have it.

Thank you very much.

We are adjourned.

We said we'd never break the three-second rule.

We'd never make a separate dinner and never do that.

We'd never let them sleep in our room.

And never become a mini band mom.

Hey Chris.

Um okay, well, I'm not at my desk right now.

As parents, we say never a lot, but never happens.

So when you say you'd never leave your child in a hot car, no, it can happen.

Before you leave the car, always stop.

Look, lock.

For any athlete, you have to have passion for the game to find success.

And here at Surprise Stadium, it's no different for the team that takes care of these fields where their passion is on full display.

Before there can be a single crack of the bat or cheer from the crowd, there's this.

We're doing work on the mounds and home plates.

There are 14 baseball fields, and everything on each one has a certain length, size, slope.

And here in Surprise, it can be enjoyed by rec teams, college teams, and major league players alike.

The minor league teams are here all year.

We fill that in with tournament seasons in the summer, up to 36 to 38 games a day.

And then we also have rec and Ottawa baseballs here for 10 months.

So we are real busy in the summer and the fall.

Visitors and spectators may marvel at the grass pattern and never know that as much care goes into achieving the perfect dirt.

Next time you watch the professionals take the field, just remember it's the dedication of local hardworking professionals who make that field possible.

We are a very busy place, and we have some of the hardest working employees in the city.

They are the heart and soul of our team.

Early detection and warning can help save a life.

Make sure you have working smoke alarms.

Have a smoke alarm installed inside every bedroom in hallways on each home level, finished attics, basements, and near an attached garage.

Replace the batteries at least once per year or when the alarm chirps.

If the chirp continues after installing a new battery, replace the smoke alarm.

Be sure to clean the alarm when changing the batteries.

Dust buildup is a frequent cause of false alarms.

Properly installed and maintained smoke alarms, give you and your loved ones an early warning so you can escape and reduce your chances of a fire, injury, or death.

Don't wait.

Test or replace your alarms today.

And oftentimes, especially when the fire's already going through the roof or we can't commit firefighter to the roof or whatever reason, it's easier to send the drone up and get that visual.

When I get above it, I'm able to go.

Actually, the reason why it's not going on is because the bulk of your fire is just like two, three feet over here.

If we direct that, we'll get this out pretty quick.

Department leadership sold the advantage of using modern technology for first responders and started a drone program in 2021.

It's since grown to include more than 10 pilots with