Planning & Zoning Commission on 2026-04-27 6:00 PM — Maricopa, AZ
Date: 2026-04-29

Maricopa City Hall
 City of Maricopa 39700 W. Civic Center
 Plaza
 Maricopa, AZ 85138
 Meeting Agenda Ph: (520) 568-9098
 Fx: (520) 568-9120
 Planning & Zoning Commission www.maricopa-az.gov


 Chair Robert Klob
 Vice Chair Robert Brems
 Commissioner William Robertson
 Commissioner Maurice Thomas Jr.
 Commissioner Chad Whittle
 Commissioner Ted Yocum

Monday, April 27, 2026 6:00 PM Council Chambers



1. Call To Order

 Invocation
 Pledge of Allegiance

2. Roll Call


3. Call to the Public

 If you wish to speak, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the Chairman prior
 to the start of the meeting. The procedures to follow if you address the Commission are:
 Commission requests that you express your ideas in three minutes or less and refrain
 from any personal attacks or derogatory statements about any City employee, a fellow
 citizen, or anyone else, whether in the audience or not. The Chairman will limit
 discussion whenever he deems such an action appropriate to the proper conduct of the
 meeting.

4. Minutes


 4.1 MIN 26-29 The Commission shall approve Minutes from the March 23, 2026, meeting.


5. Agenda and Public Hearings


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


6. Reports from Commission and/or Staff


7. Executive Session

 The Planning and Zoning Commission may go into executive session for purpose of
 obtaining legal advice from the City’s Attorney on any of the above agenda items
 pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03 (A)(3).


City of Maricopa Page 1 Printed on 4/20/2026
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda April 27, 2026



8. Adjournment

 Note: This meeting is open to the public. All interested persons are welcome to
 attend. Supporting documents and staff reports, which were furnished to the
 Commission with this Agenda, are available for review. Notice is hereby given of the
 possibility of a quorum of the Maricopa City Council members at this meeting.

 Physical access to the meeting room will be available 15 minutes prior to the meeting
 start time.

 Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation, such as a sign
 language interpreter, by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 520-316-6970. Requests
 should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.




City of Maricopa Page 2 Printed on 4/20/2026

Maricopa City Hall
 City of Maricopa 39700 W. Civic Center
 Plaza
 Maricopa, AZ 85138
 Ph: (520) 568-9098
 Meeting Minutes - Final Fx: (520) 568-9120
 www.maricopa-az.gov
 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



 1. Call To Order
 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.


 2. Roll Call
 Present 6 - Commissioner Ted Yocum, Commissioner William Robertson ,
 Commissioner Chad Whittle, Chair Robert Klob, Commissioner Robert
 Rowe, and Commissioner Robert Rowe
 Absent 1 - Vice Chair Robert Brems



 3. 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.


 4. Minutes

 4.1 MIN 26-29 The Commission shall approve Minutes from the March 23, 2026, meeting.

 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.


 5. Agenda and Public Hearings

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

City of Maricopa Page 1
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final April 27, 2026

 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


City of Maricopa Page 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final April 27, 2026

 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


City of Maricopa Page 3
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final April 27, 2026

 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


City of Maricopa Page 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final April 27, 2026

 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:

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

 Nay, 1- Commissioner Robertson


 6. 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.


 7. Executive Session
 No executive session was conducted.



 8. Adjournment

City of Maricopa Page 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final April 27, 2026


 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.


 __________________________

 James Kamstra
 Assistant Planner




City of Maricopa Page 6