Planning & Zoning Approves Windmill Farms Commercial Rezoning Amid Neighbor Access Concerns and Fire Safety Debate

Heat. Heat. [music] down. Down. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] [music] Heat. [music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] Heat. Heat. Start it, Good evening. I'd like to call to order the June 8th, 2026 planning and zoning meeting to order. Commissioner King, would you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Hands over your heart. Ready? Begin.

To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Clerk, could you please call the role? Commissioner Bruce Evans here. Commissioner Brianna King here. Commissioner Kaden Graci. I'm here. Commissioner Joe Colossimo present. Commissioner Sandra Griffith present. Comm uh Vice Chairperson Joe Huat here. And chairperson Ted Herb here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ted.

and the chairperson for the planning and zoning commission as I will be presiding over the commission's deliberations on the hearing item this evening. The planning and zoning commission sits in a voluntary voluntary capacity to the town council. As such, the commission reviews planning and zoning issues and forwards recommendations regarding these important issues to town council. All members are appointed by council and are and volunteer their time.

If you wish to speak this evening during the comment period regarding the hearing item or wish to speak during the call to the public or on any matter, you must have pre-registered with your name with the clerk in order to speak this evening. When you're recognized by the clerk, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

I ask that you direct your pertinent comments to the commission through the chairperson and not to staff or to individuals within the audience. A strict threeinut time limit will be imposed. As such, I ask that the speakers tonight adhere to this three-minut time limit when speaking. At the end of your three minutes, you will be asked to finish your sentence and be seated to allow for the next speaker.

Regarding the public hearing item on the agenda this evening, proceedings will be conducted as follows. First, I will read the excuse me, First, I will read the public hearing item into the record. Second, staff will then present the agenda item. And then third, the commission will have the opportunity to speak, ask questions of staff. At the end of that, the applicant may be invited to address the commission and answer questions from the commission.

The floor will then will be open for comments from the public regarding the hearing item. After all pre-registered individuals have spoken, the chair will close the comment period of the hearing. After the public comment has closed and on the hearing item, the hearing item will return to the applicant for any clarification or comment. Then the commission will comment and make a decision. So call to the public.

At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the planning and zoning commission on any issue within the jurisdiction of the commission. The the commission respectfully asks that the individual wishes to speak on a public hearing item on this evening's agenda that they hold those comments until the public comment period during that agenda item. Comments will be held to a threeminut rule. Do we have anybody registered to for open public comment this evening? We do not chair.

All right. Do we have any announcements? Commissioners, vice chair, any announcements this evening. Hearing none, we'll move on to item six, approval of minutes for the May 11th, 2026 Planning Zoning Commission. Do I have a motion? I move that uh we approve the minutes of May 11th, 2026 as amended. I have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second that, Mr. Chair. Clerk, could you call the vote? Commissioner Graci, yes. Commissioner King, yes. Commissioner Colossimo, yes.

Commissioner Evans, yes. Commissioner Griffith, yes. Vice Chairperson Huitt, yes. And Chairperson Herb, yes. Thank you. Right, we're open public hearing item ZNC 26001 Windmill Farms consideration and possible action to present urban planner 3 Chris Norlock. Mr. Norlock, how are you this evening? Doing well. How about yourself? Good. Good. Thank you, chair, vice chair, commission. Um, and thank you for your time on this. I appreciate that.

Um, tonight we're here for a zone map change for Windmill Farms at parcel 402-2-048E. Norlock, I don't think your microphone's working. Apologies. Is that better? I think it's working. How about now? Better. Thank you. See this is a zone map change for windmill farms at parcel 402-02-048e. The uh the parcel is located north of state route 169 on the east side of 69 uh just south of the Kachina Place intersection there.

The request is to reszone approximately 2.2 acres of vacant land from RL70 to CGPD, commercial general sales and services planned area development. As you can see, the properties just to the north are also CGPD. The uses proposed are retail A, retail B, service A, and service B. The site plan provided is a buildout of two spec buildings. The buildings will be built in phases with the uh one closer to 69 there being built first.

Each building will be approximately 9,000 square ft under roof area and a total of 85 parking spaces will be provided with this. This is uh an exhibit that was provided by the applicant of the uses that they will allow and that is kind of driven by the site and by the the parking standards required in chapter 13 of the zoning code. This area in the general plan is designated as pad pad 5-2.

The character of the PAD 5-2 from the general plan states that it offers diverse housing, commercial, office, and employment opportunities for people working or living in the vicinity of the state route 69 corridor and to serve the neighborhoods and surrounding communities. The land uses are low density, medium density, medium high density, regional, community and neighborhood commercial. The general plan designation does align with this reszone request.

The reasoning is that for these uses in the pad 5-2 is a proximity to the state route 69 and state route 169. These are just a few of the goals and policies that align with the proposed reszone um enhance and promote the state route 69 corridor um and maintain a variety of commercial uses to meet the shopping needs of residents or visitors. Um staff recommends approval of ZMC 26-00001 Woodmill Farms and I will take any questions if you have any and the applicants here as well.

I do have this in a PDF version if we need to zoom in on the site plan as well. So let me know. Thank you Mr. Narlock. Um commissioners, anybody? Yeah, Mr. Nurlock, um there's an existing APS easement that that runs across the the parcel. Has the applicant obtained a no conflict from the utility here? Uh they had asked if you had gotten a known no conflict from utility on that for the APS easement that is in the parcel. No, not at this time. Anyone else? Just one or two general comments.

If if this was farther down the line and we're approving an actual uh sight specific plan, I'd be very worried about left turning traffic as it's heading down out of Prescuit Valley. Uh but that's something that's a bridge to be crossed much later as are many of them. I I look at this as a conceptual thing right now and it's commercial. I live in Quailwood and we need more commercial down in that end of Prescat Valley. So I'll be voting for this suggestion. Mr. Chair and Mr.

Norlock, please share the um how the pad 5-2 combines and marries with the general plan when we're calling this a um going to a commercial general zoning, but we also call out a pad 5-2. So marry those two statements. So the PAD the PAD 5 is really just a general plan uh designation. Um and then the the CG is the actual land use that is allowed which is allowed in the PAD 5 um that's stated in the general plan. So we're reszoning to um a zone that is allowed in the pad 5 by the general plan.

Thank you sir. You're welcome. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I have one more question. You go right ahead. So in the package there was no landscape plan. I'm assuming that that will be forthcoming. Yes, that's something we require on all commercial projects. So I would like that to be put in the stipulations that a landscape plan be officially reviewed and ensure that it meets all compliance with our local codes. Absolutely. We'll do. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, chair.

I I kind of want to extrapolate off of my earlier question. Uh because I'm I'm navigating a potential conflict uh as I am the land supervisor for APS. Uh I'd love to have this come back forward with a successful no conflict. Uh being that my sister department manages that, uh I'd like to kind of understand where I can and cannot sit in this agenda item. But it's highly encouraged that they do receive a no conflict from APS. Understood. Understood. We'll make sure we track that in the minutes.

Mr. Norlock, is that something that we can put forward in the packet that they present that the next Yeah, we can make sure that you can put as a condition that we get that uh no conflict with APS um prior to going to is either permits or council, whatever your preference is. And chair, on that same note, is it worth me recusing myself because of my involvement? We don't have legal here tonight, do we? Um, can we table this?

And will we will we see this again or is this once our decisions made tonight goes front of council if approved, will we see anything on this again relative to planning and zoning? This would not come back to planning and zoning. This would go to town council. I think to be fair to the applicant and to the town of Prescuit Valley, I I think I'm going to recuse myself from this agenda item. Again, my recommendation still stands highly encouraged for the applicant success. Understood. Understood.

Uh chairman, I have a Go ahead. Question. Mr. No, like won't won't this come back with a you know I know we have a site plan but with the final use won't it come back or it will not come back? No, we're we're reszoning to this site specific. So this site plan in front of you is what we're resoning basically to and if they differ from that site plan um then it would come back. Okay. But as far as the uses, we we just look at those internally. Yeah. Okay. All right. Got it. Yeah. Mr.

Nor, we received this information from Dale and Diane Johnson regarding that they would like to be a part of this. Can you elaborate a little bit more on why we're not doing this all together? Um, so for for reasons, um, they would have to come in sight specific. So even if they were all to come in at once, they'd be two separate hearing items. Um, and so the Johnson's haven't brought forth an application to us at this point. Um, and if they were, it would be um, if I could go back.

So, they couldn't come in first because if you see that the red is the CGPD, which is now what um, this property owner is looking at doing, and they're actually south of them. So, if this were to get reszoned, then they potentially could come in and ask for that reszone. But, if they were to come in on their own, it would be spotzoning. And so, we would recommend denial, but um I know there's a lot of history in that that I wasn't a part of.

So, I can't answer a lot of those questions that they have in there. Um but at this point, we we just don't have an application from the Johnson's would be Yeah. Because when I read this, it kind of looks like, and I hate to put it this way, but it looks like people just aren't playing nice together. You know what I mean? Um, it seems like they've been trying to make an effort to be a part of this and they're being pushed out.

And yet, when I'm reading what they're what they're trying to do to to be a part of this, it seems like they could all work this together for one, you know, achieve the same goal here. So, um, that's what I'm trying to kind of comprehend with all of what I've read with with their statements here. Yeah. And I I can't really elaborate more than than that. Um, I wasn't in those conversations with either either of the owners or applicants.

Um, I don't know if maybe the applicant wanted to come up and speak about that. That's up to them. Um, but I wasn't part of those conversations, so I'm I'm unsure exactly what happened there. Mr. Norlock. It's my understanding that um if those folks were to come in say tomorrow with a plan, most likely outcome would be a shared easement for approach for both parcels as one potential.

Without them being here, without them putting in an application doesn't preclude or or put the brakes on essentially development of the parcel adjacent. even if there is some easement issue to address. I'm sure I I don't want to speak for AOT, but I I know they don't like to put too many drives. Um they try to limit the amount of drives. So, I don't know if John maybe you want to speak to that as a town engineer and being former with AOT if you could answer [clears throat] that.

I appreciate that. Might be able to offer a little bit of input. Um commission and chair. Uh those are good questions. Um, a project like this would will require a traffic impact analysis or traffic impact statement which will go to ADOT for review. When ADOT reviews that and if they're aware of another development in that area, they may request a joint use access. Understood. I have a question for John while while we're on that topic chair.

Um, so yeah, it's my understanding though, doesn't look at this even though there isn't a proposed development. Uh, I mean, they do those corridor studies and and wouldn't they want to make sure if the joint use access was possible, they might want to initiate that, especially in in this area, you know, it's getting kind of crowded in there as it is for access. Yeah, they they may mention that we do have regularly scheduled coordination meetings with ADOT.

We do discuss projects that are coming up so they are aware of of what could be coming. We do discuss that with them. A project like this, anytime there's a change in ownership or a change in use, that requires an updated permit with ADOP because they're accessing the state highway. And we are aware as the town, we do coordinate with them on our projects. We are aware of their concerns with access control on the state highway.

So, we try to work with them to coordinate our projects the best we can. Thanks, John. Anyone else before I address my comments? All right. I have a couple Mr. Norlock for you this evening. Um, I read through CAFMA's I I'll call generic letter of of conditions for development and two things came to my concern.

Um, first, uh, when we look at the, if you can go back to the site plan, the proposed site plan, it's kind of hard to see on here, but the the site plan identifies a private ser fire service line coming in off of the highway, which it will be, at least on the plan, is designated private. So, it will be separated by a backflow prevention device at the property line.

Also on this line is a single fire hydrant and CAFMA has identified that just that the fire hydrant and fire hydrant spacing um comply. They don't really give any direction on what that fireflow requirement is. Um so I think it's important uh for our for the applicant to understand what that would be for a single building.

um depending on the construction type of that building at a bare minimum they need to provide 1500 gallons per minute of water out of that single hydrant on a deadend main that's going to be most unlikely.

Um, I don't I'm not familiar enough with the water supply and what it is here in the town of Prescat Valley, but in my engineering experience and having done this kind of work for several decades, a single hydrant on a dead end, it will be questionable whether we can achieve that 1500 gpm or not. I would highly recommend with the addition of certainly potential for building B on the back of this parcel or this property to to be built at a later date that this would certainly warrant two things.

More than one hydrant on the property and it would warrant that that fire line instead of being a dead end main be looped back to the city town main. That would give them optimal water supply and it would provide all the infrastructure in at this time so that when they build if building becomes later there's no tearing up of of existing right away or any of that stuff to add or loop back this main and add additional hydrants. Any any thoughts to that?

Um is a client or I I don't know from the client side. I I can just see what KAFMA and Kevin have provided us. Um they are the experts and I believe our utilities department will be be in coordination with them as they are with all fire lines. Yeah. My my worry is that if we strictly go off the generic approach that both CAFMA has given and the site plan shows that it might be fine for now and for lot A I'll call lot A or building A andor the expansion of building A at a future date.

But I can with pretty good assurance say that for building B it it will not suffice. It it it would require that um if the fire flow is not met for building B and hydrant spacing would exceed the 500 ft to the far backside and corner of that building, they would have to put in another hydrant. So it would be optimal to do it now than later is all I'm saying. Yeah. Yeah, and that's definitely something you could condition if you'd like in there to see.

I would if we could if we could put that in as a condition and um see what CAFMA has to say about that. I would imagine they're going to agree. Mr. Chair, I um am going along with your concern about the additional hydrant. That was one of my concerns and um I do want it to go on record that we have a letter from CAFMA that I would like to have in the stipulations. Mr. Norlock dated June 1st, 2026. And Mr.

Chair, maybe you can come up with this stipulation that the additional fire line and hydrant in additional infrastructure could be reviewed by CAFMA pending the future agreed things and maybe make that part of the stipulations. I think would be the best way to do that. Agreed. We'll do let's we'll make that a condition Mr. Norlock for review by Kathma for the proposed building B. I just want to be sure we I think we've talked about a couple conditions.

I just want to make sure when the motion is made we get those in the motion as well. So I'm sorry there's so much echo I can't hear. I know. Uh I I just want there's been a couple conditions tossed out there. I just want to make sure that we make the motion with those conditions when the motion is made. Just have a quick question. Um, and I totally agree with the chairman's concerns about fire safety and and adequate water.

Uh, but is that something that CAFMA would review in the normal course anyway with or without a stipulation at this stage of the game from PNZ? Wouldn't it just be part of their normal review that once they know what buildings are going in, what everything looks like, that would be the time for them to decide flow rates and adequacy and stuff. I'm just I agree with your concern, but I just don't know if it's a valid stipulation where we are now or if that's a bridge for later.

I from my perspective, I mean, I don't disagree, Commissioner Evans, but you know, they've looked at this site plan. They obviously have identified or approved or or you know, I wouldn't say approved. That's maybe not the right choice of words, but their letter just simply states based after review of this site plan that they just need to meet required fire flow and hydrant spacing and that's all it says. Um I think you're right. I would imagine I mean I don't know CAFMA's process and Mr.

General, you certainly probably could speak to this better than I can, but my experience is that they would look at this again when building plans are submitted. They're going to review those for things such as, you know, fire code requirements, whether or not the building's required to be sprinkler to have a fire alarm system or this or that. I would hope they would revisit the issue of water supply and and hydrant spacing again.

Um, but the fact that they've just given the general statement, I'm more wanted to make the client aware that that's the most likely outcome when Kathma does get to that step that at least letting them know now and potentially if they chose to do those improvements um as part of this with with or without direction from CAFMA, you know, might be prudent. That's that's all I'm stating.

Yeah, I will just say like to your point um when when building permits are submitted, KAFMA and our utilities engineers both look at the those lines in the as well. Chairman, I have a a comment to add.

Um, so yeah, that's a there's a question as you know this are these improvements are going to be constructed as part of of of the overall full buildout even though obviously this appears to be phased going to be phased in future expansion or obviously um and I agree with the chairman that they're going to have to come back and when they come back then uh those requirements will be then amended and and for full buildout. So, is it is it is it the requirement?

It's a little sketchy in the letter from the fire department, but um um I would I would suggest that they're going to look at this and provide what's necessary. And that could be why they're being vague is because there's some um obviously uh this isn't the full buildout that's being proposed. site plan shows what is proposed, but um they're not they're commenting I believe just on on a vague standard to kind of cover themselves when it when it comes time for full build out.

I mean that's what I would suggest. Yeah, that's correct. But we could include it as a step. I don't know. Commissioner Evans make a good point. I feel we should include it as a stipulation and our job is not to be vague. Right. Okay. That's good. And it's my understanding too, Mr. Norlock, that that building A is going to be built as part of just a shell and core. There is no tenant. We don't know whether this is going to be a restaurant or if this is going to be a retail store. That's correct.

Uses would be the ones that we'll look at. Yeah. Okay. That are allowed here. Just a quick question to that respect. Is is the applicant here? Yes, they are. Are are you guys going to build anything spec or you going to wait to build? Are you guys sure that he wants to know if we're sir? Why don't you It's a spec. Can you It will be spec. Okay. Thanks. All right. Anything else from commissioners? No. All right. Like to open for the public comment clerk.

Do we have anybody registered for comment on the hearing item this evening? We do not, Chair. All right. Close the public comment period. Um let's see. So, we need to vote then, Mr. Chair. I would like to hear from the applicant please. All right. Can we have the applicant come to the podium, please? Hello. Hello. There we go. It was hard to hear back there. There's an echo. Um, could I [clears throat] have you, sir? Could I have you state your your name for the record, please? Yes.

Uh, my name is Gordon Bowers. I'm with Dave and Associates in Prescuit, Arizona. Um, on behalf of the applicants I I can answer a few of your questions that you had. Um the first is um we weren't asking for a specific approval of this uh approval of this specific site plan yet. We're only this is only in support of the zoning request, zoning map change request. Um the other thing is there is another fire hydrant on the back side there.

It's hard to see because of the landscaping was added and did notice that the fire hydrant didn't show up, but there is another fire hydrant. We're well aware of the fire codes and uh what we might have to do to make fire uh safety happen. Uh we are committed to put um the um we're going to sprinkler all the buildings as is code and if we do need to loop the system we will find that out when we get further down the line and do the final engineering and uh do the pressure testing and all that.

So we we are aware of all that. We did add the other fire hydrant. There's roughly 200 feet from the corner down to the other end of the building. Well, actually it's more like 180 200 feet. Um so that second fire hydrant does cover the second building. Um in these buildings we basically have thought about building half at a time. So building A is going to first 5,000 square feet of the building we built.

Once the once the uh applicants get a client on board um a user uh the reason we're asking for um um all of the possible uh uses in service A and B and retail A and B is because we don't know what may come down the road to fill this site. So, what we're asking for today is to get the zoning changed so we can go out and market the property knowing that we have the zoning in place.

Um, as to the Johnson's, um, we had a meeting with them probably I'm going to say about a year ago, maybe last summer. Um, and we talked with them about their their project and they talked with talked about our project and everyone seemed to be agreeable about the two projects working together. So, I'm not sure that if you're misunders misinterpreting why they're calling in now, and I don't know why they are either, but uh we had a very good meeting.

We met with their engineer and their site plan seemed fine to us and ours seemed signed to them. The access um has to the access uh both properties have um access a dot access to their properties and it's uh it's it's there. So at the moment we are planning to use an in our access which will be split between the the public and the private use private residential use in the back. Uh the cath letter does state about a the gate being wider than 18 ft. That's a misprint on our plan.

I failed to change 18 ft to basically 22 feet to accommodate the 20ft road. Um, I don't even know at this point if we need the gate, but the residential property, a single resident in the back will probably need their gate next to it. So, that's how that that's how we envisioned that. Um, the Oh, yeah. The landscaping plan.

Yes, we plan to uh bring in a landscape architect to do it once we have a a user identified and we need to basically work with them to see what they would like to see as well. So that's why we don't have a formal one yet. U that comes down when we apply for the final development plans. That's that was our thinking on that. So I hopefully I've answered most of those questions. If there's still more questions that I missed, um feel free. Well, I'll go down the line here and we'll check with each.

So, let's start with um Commissioner Griffith. Do you have any additional comments for the client? Thank you, Chair Gordon. It's nice to see you, sir. Thank you for being here. I um am impressed with the general sales and service listing that you put together for all the potential businesses. It's a nice list and I think it's varied and can bring a lot of retail to that area. Yeah, we hope so too. Yes. Um, and so you did get the revised CAFMA letter dated June the 1st. I read that today.

It was the first time I seen it. Um, and the last one was the March 10th, I believe, letter, which was even more vague. Um, and I went back and looked at the site plan and noted that there are uh well yeah the 18 foot gate I meant to change. Um, that was that was mine. Um, the other one the the outside radiuses of being 50 ft. I assume they're looking at this 40ft radius on the outside. If I made them 50 ft, it actually narrows the road.

By using these 40 foot outsides, we're actually widening the road by another five to six feet. So it actually helps the turning races. These are put in there to allow a basically a um a very long semi to actually circulate the site. So it will it'll handle a a fire fire engine. So that's uh so it looks like it the outside radius is 40, but and we could put them at 50 and still make it work, but we kind of want a little extra room in there.

What is your vision, Gordon, for the drive surface going through that project? It'll be asphalt. Totally asphalt. Will it be asphalt per the town standards? Yes, it will be. Oh, wonderful. Thank you. Um, and then thank you for calling out the third hydrant that none of us saw. It's on there. I see it. So, I think that's great. Thank you. So that relieves I think some of the stipulation about CAFMA having to look for a future hydrant because chair it's there and I think we're fine with it.

I would agree. I think we'll remove that as a condition. I just the point my blindness I can't see it. So that's that's all right. Yeah, I apologize for that. I added some landscaping and didn't know it obscured the second fire hydrant. Thank you. And then I do have a question for Mr. McFaten. Yes, ma'am. Sir, if you could state your name for the record, please. My name is Ben McFaden. Thank you, Mr. McFaden.

I was reading the minute meetings from your meeting that you had with the public and the the surrounding property owners. Correct. And there was a statement in there that Diane expressed flooding concerns and you showed her the grading and drainage plan. That plan has not been approved yet. Correct. Can you share what what happened with that? Yeah.

So, kind of at a high level, the residents that's to the south of of that current property right now experiences some flooding when they get heavy monsoon rain. And I think the root of the issue that Gordon has identified is that the existing property owners, the couple older gentlemen regraded and repput some BMS specifically to the north side of our property between the that property so that his wouldn't flood and that directed a decent amount of flow out onto the A dots right away.

So AOT had expressed concern, hey, you guys got to quit flowing water out there. And so, um, the discussion and with Gordon's help and everything was is, hey, we're going to we're handling the water here and we got to kind of take care of the problem that was created years ago from from the the current owners.

And so, um, Gordon has put some retention basins in there and settlement basins and and metered the discharge to then flow and and reduce, if not re remove the entire um, uh, concern from the property owner this to the south. So, that that was Yeah, it hasn't been approved, but that was what our discussion was. Okay, perfect. And so, you're aware that that will go through proper channels? Yes. Yeah, Gordon's done a great job and ADOT had expressed a concern.

So, I think everyone's aware of it and we're aware of it that that has to be taken care of. Yes. Thank you, Mr. McFeden. Thank you. All right. Um, Commissioner Evans, any comments for the client or staff? Nope. Commissioner King, comments for staff or the client? I would like a Thank you, Chair. Uh, pardon. Can you please help me understand a little bit about this letter from Dale and Diane Johnson, specifically the major concern related to the ingress egress?

They are asking, respectfully requesting that this be contingent on approval by AOT of a joint ingress egress driveway on the frontage road. What have your conversations been with them with regards to this? I understand that we still need to go get that report. It's up in the air. It's very conceptual. Totally understand. But I'd like to get a little bit more information to address their concerns particularly so that their property does not become landlocked. Uh okay.

Um we had we have done a traffic impact statement on the property based on what we thought was going to go in there about a year ago and that's what drove uh the driveway configuration you see into the property off of Highway 69. Uh when we met with the Johnson's last I think it was last summer, they talked about ADOT requiring a joint access, but they didn't really come out and say that they wanted a joint driveway.

I thought they didn't want that and so we didn't really continue that conversation with them and I haven't seen this letter but um it sounds maybe they've had a change of heart or maybe I misunderstood them but uh it's possible I suppose to do a joint access but we're getting awfully close to the other driveway further to the south um to the uh the [snorts] cabin for the town home things down there.

Um, so we're starting to crowd a little bit, but um, with all the uses coming off one driveway, it might actually stretch that driveway further down. Um, like like I've said, uh, both properties have their own access off the highway and it's and it's ADOT approved, so they're not going to be landlocked. Uh, our project won't force them to do something different. Okay, understood. It was a little confusing for me when I went and drove by the property to try to understand how that works.

So, I wanted to make sure I have visibility. But, I'd like to just encourage uh moving forward that we keep these lines of communication open with the neighboring um constituents that are around there to make sure that we're getting their input and their opinion. Okay. Um yeah, now that there's a concern that I didn't know about, we can go and retouch base with them. Right. Commissioner Clausmo, both my questions were asked. So, thank you. Now, thank you, sir. Vice Chair, you Yeah.

Uh, Chair, thank you. I have a a couple questions. And, uh, Gordon, good to see you. Hi again. Good seeing you. Um, same concerns. Uh, Commissioner King, it's not the ma matter of being legally land got locked, but you know, AOT has a way of saying, hey, you know, we got to combine accesses and it's all based on use. When you guys had submitted the TIS, the traffic impact statement, that was submitted obviously to ADOT, I would imagine. Yes, it was. What kind of comments did you get back?

Did they even indicate anything that would uh prompt some sort of a joint access based on neighboring uses that could potentially not? No, they did not bring that up when with their comments back to us. Um they said we will wait to see the final plan which um we we will develop as things go along.

I know that at that corridor um you know they talk about right in ride outs but you know they want to make sure people aren't going down to the new roundabout at 169 when that gets built and and and having to go all the way down spin around and come back all the way to to get into a development. So we appreciate that. I understand that there'll be a traffic impact analysis potentially either for your use or the neighboring uses. So I think most of those things will be addressed.

Um, you mentioned one thing that kind of caught my ear and you said that we're not here to to approve this site plan and and and although I understand we're not here to approve a use the zoning change, but I think we kind of are in a sense uh here to approve the site plan.

Well, our thought is if u something has to change on of course the site plan comes back for a re review but right um we are I guess I should say I I'm I'm not approving it you guys are but um I didn't think uh like I said we developed this site plan just to support the zoning map change request. Um, there could be a couple other ways this could be worked out and especially if we're going to be working with the Johnson's again, maybe something else comes out of this, but who knows.

I will point out uh to your fir first point, there is the lefthand turn access into the property. Oh, there is. Okay. Yeah. So, they don't have to go down to the roundabout that'll be built very soon, right? Um, but they won't have to go down there to get in. They just do the lefthand turn. And and then that was to my earlier point and my question to Mr. Norlock was that if you have to come back and I would assume a site plan change, you're going to be coming back before us again.

And that's what my comment was earlier. Yeah. And at that point, it'll be a development plan that'll meet all the codes that are um that we need to be. Of course, that's it for me. That's I want to make sure to clarify that that there's a potential for you guys to be back. Um and that was all the point I was trying to make a little bit earlier. So, thank you. All right. Well, thank you, sir. We appreciate your time. All right. Thank you.

Um, do I have a motion regarding the hearing item ZMC 260001 Woodmill Farms? Uh, chairman. Chairman, [clears throat] I'll make a motion uh uh to um forward uh ZMC 260001 to the um town council with a recommendation for approval with uh the stipulations uh stated for a landscape plan uh designed to code. And then uh a condition of approval would be that there'd be a letter of no conflict from APS. Mr.

Chair, I'd als I'd also like to add another stipulation that the CAFMA letter of June 1st be attached to the stipulations. Understood. In the stipulations. I'll amend my motion. Okay. So, amended. Thank you, vice chair. Thank you. Have a second. I'll second. You have a second. Clerk, call the vote. Commissioner Graci recused. Commissioner King. Yes.

I think even though we're in the conceptual stages here, I would like to give uh the team the opportunity to allow for this all to come together and get some commercial spaces done. Yes. From me. Commissioner Colossimo. Yes. Commissioner Evans. Yes. Commissioner Griffith. Yes. I feel that this is a badly needed uh zoning change and is an appropriate uh new land use for this area. So I do support this. Vice Chairperson Huitt. Yes. Chairperson Herb.

I would like to also comment that I think that this is a um a great use of of the property on the highway there. I think as a as as a res speaking as a resident of of the town, I would like I like seeing this. I like to see more of this uh development of the rightway and the frontage areas of of the highway for things that certainly on this end of town folks could certainly benefit from. Um that end of town is hurting for this kind of stuff. So my vote is a yes. The motion passes. Thank you.

Um, let's move on to our next item. Any action items, commissioners? No action items listed on the agenda this evening. Does anyone have anything to add there? If not, uh, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. I move we go home. Have a second. Second. Ajourned.