Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission

Maricopa City Hall

39700 W. Civic Center

Plaza

City of Maricopa

Maricopa, AZ 85138

Ph: (520) 568-9098

Fx: (520) 568-9120

www.maricopa-az.gov

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning & Zoning Commission

Chair Robert Klob

Vice Chair Robert Brems

Commissioner Robert Rowe

Commissioner William Robertson

Commissioner Maurice Thomas Jr.

Commissioner Chad Whittle

Commissioner Ted Yocum

Monday, April 27, 2026

6:00 PM

Council Chambers

Call To Order

Roll Call

Chair Klob called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. The invocation was led by

Commissioner Yocum, and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Rowe.

6 - Commissioner Ted Yocum, Commissioner William Robertson ,

Commissioner Chad Whittle, Chair Robert Klob, Commissioner Robert

Rowe, and Commissioner Robert Rowe

Present

Absent

1 - Vice Chair Robert Brems

Call to the Public

No members of the public approached the podium during the call to the public.

No speaker cards were provided by the public.

Minutes

The Commission shall approve Minutes from the March 23, 2026, meeting.

4.1

MIN 26-29

The Commission reviewed the minutes from the March 23, 2026, meeting. No

comments or questions were raised.

Motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Yocum and

seconded by Commissioner Whittle. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda and Public Hearings

Public Hearing Major General Plan Amendment, GPA26-01 Advancing Maricopa

GPA26-01

5.1

2026 General Plan Update: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall discuss and

take action on the state mandated, Advancing Maricopa, 2026 General Plan Update.

Discussion and Action.

Rick Williams, Planning and Zoning Division Manager, introduced the item, noting

that this was the second of two state-mandated public hearings before the Planning

and Zoning Commission for the Advancing Maricopa 2026 General Plan Update. He

described the effort as approximately 18 months in the making, with the Public

Participation Plan having been adopted by council in early December 2024. Mr.

Williams then turned the presentation over to Matthew Klyszeiko of Michael Baker

International, the project consultant.

Mr. Klyszeiko provided a comprehensive overview of the general plan update. He

began by explaining the foundational purpose of a general plan: it is a

state-mandated policy document, not a law or ordinance, that establishes a

long-range vision, roadmap, and direction for the city through goals and policies. He

clarified that every city and town in Arizona is required to have a general plan,

updated every ten years.

Mr. Klyszeiko outlined the three phases of the update process — Recognize, Enrich,

and Achieve — and noted that the project's extended timeframe was largely driven by

statutory requirements, including a 60-day public review period and a 120-day

window before any election. He confirmed that the Commission was currently in the

Achieve phase, with a recommendation from the Commission needed to move the

plan forward to City Council.

Mr. Klyszeiko then summarized the robust public engagement effort that underpinned

the update, which included three community workshops, a project website, press

releases, community event outreach, and multiple surveys that collected over 700

responses and more than 2,000 individual comments. He outlined the creation of the

General Plan Advisory Committee, a cross-section of residents, business owners,

and agency representatives who contributed over 200 volunteer hours across five

sessions.

Mr. Klyszeiko highlighted the primary themes emerging from community feedback

were implementing transportation solutions, expanding career-advancing

employment options, improving local healthcare services, and developing a wider

range of housing and retail opportunities.

Mr. Klyszeiko noted that, in terms of plan structure, the update refined the prior plan's

83 goals and 363 policies into 44 more focused goals and 242 policies, eliminating

redundancy and siloed chapters, while expanding the implementation action

strategies from 16 to a larger set of actionable items intended to move goals forward

concretely. He explained the plan is organized into six primary chapters addressing

all state-required elements as well as elective elements such as economic

development and arts and culture.

Mr. Klyszeiko briefly described key components of the updated plan, including the

land use plan map, growth area identification, the transportation plan (developed in

coordination with the city's ongoing Transportation Master Plan), housing diversity

goals, economic development objectives, and an updated parks, trails, and open

space section. He clarified that the land use map encompasses both the current

municipal limits and the broader planning area — land that may eventually be

annexed — which is currently under the jurisdiction of Pinal County.

Mr. Klyszeiko concluded by outlining the next steps: with a recommendation from the

Commission that evening, the plan would proceed to a City Council work session on

May 19, followed by a Council public hearing on June 2. He added that if approved by

Council at that hearing, the plan would be positioned for the November 3, 2026,

general election ballot for voter ratification, as required by state law.

Commissioner Thomas inquired about the state-mandated elements reflected in the

plan, and Mr. Klyszeiko clarified that the plan addresses the full complement of

required elements as specified by Arizona statute, noting that the city had proactively

included all elements in its prior update even when not yet required by law due to

population thresholds.

Commissioner Thomas also asked what would happen if the plan did not receive

approval that evening, or if it failed at public ratification. Mr. Klyszeiko explained that

any delay would have a ripple effect on the ability to meet the 120-day statutory

deadline before the November election. He also noted that if the plan were not ratified

by voters, state law requires the city to continue refining and resubmitting the plan

until it is approved. Commissioner Robertson added that continuing to operate under

the existing ten-year-old plan would be problematic given the city's rate of growth and

demographic change.

Chair Klob raised a concern about public misconceptions regarding the scope of the

general plan map, particularly the large planning area shown relative to the city's

actual municipal limits. He suggested that the plan would benefit from maps with a

more focused view of the city proper, and that the digital version of the plan — which

Mr. Klyszeiko confirmed was being developed and would allow users to zoom in and

out — would help address this. Mr. Klyszeiko also clarified that the broader planning

area, including Hidden Valley and Thunderbird Farms, remains under the jurisdiction

of Pinal County, and that the city's general plan only identifies where growth may

occur, not where it is being directed. He clarified that Pinal County's comprehensive

plan governs land use decisions in unincorporated areas.

Chair Klob also raised the topic of housing diversity, noting that as a commission,

they frequently see housing proposals that do not reflect a diverse range of product

types and that having updated plan language would provide a stronger policy tool to

advocate for such diversity. Mr. Klyszeiko agreed and noted that the updated goals

and policies directly support that direction, and that following adoption, the zoning

code would be the next instrument for implementing those goals in a legally binding

way.

Commissioner Yocum, who had participated in the 2015 general plan update

process, acknowledged that no plan is perfect and that some goals will inevitably go

unmet, but expressed confidence in the quality of the document before the

Commission. He affirmed that the plan should be viewed as a living document,

subject to refinement at the next update cycle.

Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Klyszeiko to walk through the annexation

process as it relates to the expanded planning area, particularly to address concerns

raised by residents. Mr. Klyszeiko confirmed that state law requires any annexation to

be contiguous with existing municipal limits, and — critically — that property owners

within an area under consideration for annexation have a say in whether they wish to

be annexed. Chair Klob added that some pre-development agreements are already in

place that include annexation provisions for certain subdivisions within the planning

area.

Commissioner Robertson also expressed concern about the expectation that specific

revised language would need to be crafted at the meeting itself in order to move

forward. He stated he felt "painted into a corner," given that meaningful public

comments had just been received. Tina Vannucci, City Attorney, clarified that the

Commission could recommend approval of the general plan as presented, while

separately directing staff and the consultant to prepare a summary of all public

comments raised that evening for presentation at the May 19 Council work session.

Tina Dugan, a long-time Maricopa resident, acknowledged the considerable work that

went into the plan and offered four areas for potential strengthening: clearer

alignment between growth and infrastructure timing; greater specificity in economic

development strategies; phasing language for mixed-use and village center concepts

to guard against partially developed areas; and continued emphasis on water

resource planning. She also flagged a broken link when searching for the plan online

and asked whether public comments submitted during the process — particularly

those from external agencies — were available for public review.

Ron Angerame expressed concern that the plan, while rhetorically strong at 427

pages, lacked measurable financial targets and timelines for its goals. He used the

example of job creation language supported by a $16 million land acquisition budget

and asked how many jobs could be expected and by when. He also raised a specific

public safety concern about the traffic signal at Casa Blanca and State Route 347,

presenting data suggesting it was the site of more accidents than the three

next-worst intersections in the city combined. Mr. Angerame noted that future

development projections, including large master-planned communities south of

Maricopa, would funnel additional traffic through that intersection and urged that a

specific plan to eliminate the signal be incorporated. He requested that all goals in the

plan include quantifiable, measurable benefit expectations and time frames.

Britney Pisola, a 12.5-year Maricopa resident, expressed concern that the city's

infrastructure and commercial services have not kept pace with housing growth,

citing areas like Tortosa and Sorrento as communities that function as islands without

nearby grocery stores or gas stations. She also raised concerns about the

accessibility of the plan to the public, noting that she had received very little advance

notice of the library community workshop and had been unable to access the meeting

recording. Ms. Pisola asked that the plan more explicitly address pedestrian safety —

particularly the increased rate of accidents involving children in areas such as near

Porter Road — and noted a desire for expanded programming for youth and seniors.

She expressed a broader sentiment, echoed by others on social media, that

residents do not want Maricopa to become a "mini Phoenix" and do not want to see

Hidden Valley or Thunderbird Farms incorporated into the city.

Susan Buonsante, who owns property both within Maricopa and in the Hidden Valley

and Thunderbird Farms area, spoke about transparency concerns regarding the

planning area boundary. She noted that the boundary shown in the proposed plan

appears substantially similar to the one in place for the last ten years. Ms. Buonsante

raised concern that approximately 46 subdivisions had already been approved

between 1997 and approximately 2005 in the planning area south of the city,

representing a potential addition of roughly 240,000 residents, and expressed that

this information had not been made sufficiently transparent to the public. She stated

that the residents of Hidden Valley and Thunderbird Farms do not wish to be

incorporated into Maricopa.

James Singleton, a former Planning and Zoning Commission chair who had prepared

a 32-page written feedback document distributed to council members,

commissioners, and department heads, acknowledged the plan's real strengths —

including the industrial triangle, village center framework, hospital land, and SR 347's

placement on ADOT's five-year plan — and encouraged the Commission to

recommend approval while pushing for greater specificity. He urged the final plan to

be more definitive on five areas: a designated downtown with binding design

standards; a distinct city identity; a publicly reported measurable performance

framework; housing diversity beyond single-family; and a medical district plan treating

the Copper Sky area as a beginning rather than an end point.

Nicholas Andreski, Maricopa resident and Arizona State University student,

commented on the importance of sustainability, suggesting mechanisms to retrofit

older parts of Maricopa with more sustainable design standards. He highlighted the

need to make Maricopa a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly city, noting it is currently

very car-centric in a manner that he attributed to the planning norms of an earlier era.

He also suggested consideration of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as a

framework for the city to adopt going forward.

Mr. Klyszeiko responded to the public comments collectively. He addressed the

concern about goals "canceling each other out," explaining that the general plan

intentionally avoids prioritizing one goal over another because decision-making

bodies — the Planning Commission and City Council — need the flexibility to weigh

competing goals on a case-by-case basis as applications come before them. He

noted that community-identified priority themes will naturally carry greater weight in

those deliberations.

On the topic of specificity regarding dollars, timelines, and programmatic detail, Mr.

Klyszeiko acknowledged the desire for more detail but explained that general plans

are deliberately broad to avoid painting the city into a corner with commitments that

may prove infeasible. He directed residents to the implementation action table in the

plan, which he described as the bridge between broad goals and near-term action.

He also pointed to parallel planning processes — including the Transportation Master

Plan, the CIP, an eventual update to the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan,

and potential village center area plans — as the appropriate venues for the level of

detail requested by public commenters.

On the traffic signal at Casa Blanca and SR 347, Mr. Klyszeiko directed residents to

participate in the Transportation Master Plan process currently underway, noting that

the Green Road Loop is referenced in the general plan but will be analyzed in greater

detail in that document.

Regarding public accessibility of the plan and its associated comment record, Mr.

Klyszeiko confirmed that all public outreach materials, surveys, and comments are

documented on the project website at maricopagp.com, and that the public outreach

summary report would be updated to include comments received through the

Planning Commission process for Council's review.

Motion to recommend approval of the Advancing Maricopa 2026 General Plan

Update (GPA26-01) was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by

Commissioner Yocum. The motion passed by the following vote:

5 - Thomas,Commissioner Yocum,Commissioner Whittle,Chair Klob, and

Commissioner Rowe

Aye,

1 - Commissioner Robertson

Nay,

Reports from Commission and/or Staff

Mr. Williams reported that due to the second Planning and Zoning Commission

meeting in May falling on a holiday weekend, only one meeting is planned for May —

on May 11, 2026. He noted that one item is currently tracking for that meeting and

that commissioners would be notified as soon as it was confirmed whether the item

would meet noticing deadlines.

Executive Session

No executive session was conducted.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 PM.

Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Yocum, seconded by

Commissioner Whittle. The motion passed unanimously.

Certification of the Minutes

I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes

of the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Maricopa, Arizona,

held on the 27th day of April, 2026. I further certify that the meeting was duly called

and held and that a quorum was present.

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2026.