Extracted text (via pymupdf)
96612 characters
December 11, 2024
MCP2023008
Page 1 of 3
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date:
December 11, 2024
Case #/Title:
MCP2023008 – TK Concrete LLC
Supervisor District:
4
Applicant/Owners:
Brennan Ray, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A./ Juan Mendoza-Sanchez
and Karina Mancilla Bustos
Request:
Military Compatibility Permit (MCP) with Plan of Development
(POD) in the Rural–43 MAAMF zoning district for a concrete
business with outdoor vehicle, equipment, and material storage
Site Location:
Generally located about 1,400’ north of the NWC of Perryville Rd.
and Thomas Rd. in the Buckeye area
Site Size:
Approximately 1.86 acres
County Island Status:
Yes (City of Goodyear, City of Buckeye)
Additional
Comments:
The applicant is seeking entitlement to continue operation of a
concrete contractor business on site. This will remedy a zoning
violation. The proposed use will consist of the storage of trucks,
trailers, equipment, and materials.
Staff received opposition from 16 residents, all of whom reside in
Sarival Farms subdivision to the west of the site. It should be noted
the wall along the southwester perimeter of the subdivision
coincides with the 65 Ldn noise contour of Luke AFB and forms the
boundary of the Miliary Airbase and Ancillary Military Facility
(MAAMF) overlay zoning district. New residential uses are
prohibited inside the MAAMF. The proposed use was reviewed by
Luke AFB via UC2023011 and was deemed to be consistent and
compatible with their operations.
Opposition concerns sited include noise, dust, and light. Staff notes
that many of the concerns raised by the neighbors have been
addressed in the recommended conditions, including prohibiting
diesel commercial trucks, prohibiting the operation, testing, or
maintenance of equipment on site, requiring all lighting to be
compliant with the zoning ordinance within six months, and
requiring landscaping along the western lot line. There are no
outstanding concerns from reviewing agencies
December 11, 2024
MCP2023008
Page 2 of 3
Commission
Recommendation:
On 11/7/24, the Commission voted 7-0 to adopt a motion
recommending the Board of Supervisors approve MCP2023008
subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘k’:
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Plan of Development
entitled “Mendoza-Sanchez Property“, consisting of 1 full-size sheet, dated September 24,
2024 and stamped received September 24, 2024, except as modified by the following
conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled “TK Concrete, LLC”, consisting of 7 pages, dated September 24, 2024, and
stamped received September 24, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering condition shall apply:
1.
Perryville Road is a MCDOT maintained roadway classified as an arterial roadway. The
MCDOT R/W requirement for arterial roadways is 65 feet (half-width). Dedication of
R/W is required across the frontage of the subject premises to provide the required 55
feet of R/W, unless determined otherwise by MCDOT Planning. The dedication must
be done within 6 months of the Board of Supervisor approval or Building Permit
approval, whichever one occurs first.
2.
The site is adjacent to MCDOT Right-of-Way (R/W). A driveway conforming to section
of the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual is required. A concrete or paved driveway
within the County R/W is required. Disturbance within the R/W will require a MCDOT
permit concurrent with building permits. The paved driveway connection must be done
prior to or at the time of the Building Permits.
3.
The plans submitted do not show any new site improvements. Any new land
disturbance in excess of 1,500 square feet will require engineered grading and
drainage plans and retention for the newly disturbed area.
4.
Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only. All
development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of
the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain
Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current
engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of application for
construction.
5.
Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes to the
site layout may be necessitated by the final engineering design of the site’s drainage
infrastructure.
6.
Detailed Plans must be submitted with the application for Building Permits.
7.
The subject site is located within the County’s Urbanized Area. A Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) from the County may be required if the
disturbance area is greater than an acre. The SWPPP would be required prior to
issuance of any construction permits.
d.
The following MCP standards shall apply:
1.
Minimum front yard setback: 20’
2.
Minimum Rear yard setback: 5’
3.
Minimum side yard setback: 20’
4.
Maximum Lot Coverage: 30%
5.
Minimum Parking: 9 stalls (4 standards stalls, 4 tandem parking stalls, and 1 ADA stall)
December 11, 2024
MCP2023008
Page 3 of 3
6.
Sight Visibility Triangle: 25’X10’
7.
Permitted Use: Concrete contractor’s yard including the storage of pickup trucks,
trailers, light equipment, and materials for the concrete business
e.
Maximum of one portable toilet may be stored on site as long as it is empty, clean, and
placed a minimum of 30’ from all lot lines.
f.
Equipment shall not be maintained, tested, or operated on site.
g.
The rear (western) lot line must be landscaped so that leafy vegetation extends a
minimum of one foot above the 6’ block wall and maintains an unbroken vegetative barrier.
This includes minimum 15-gallon xerophytic trees 20’ apart on center from the southern
lot line to the northern extent of the property. The trees must be planted within six months
of Board approval, and maintained (replaced as necessary) for the life of commercial
business activity on site.
h.
Commercial diesel trucks may not be operated or stored on the property.
i.
All existing lighting on site must be modified to be fully compliant with MCZO 1111 and
fully shielded from all lot lines within one month of Board of Supervisors approval.
j.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, written confirmation will be required from the
emergency fire protection jurisdiction having authority that the facility has been designed
in accordance with their regulations and requirements, and that emergency fire protection
service will be provided to the facility. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
local fire protection jurisdiction review and approval will be required.
k.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant,
with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to
enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application,
subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property
shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated
and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does
not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess
the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value
it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the MCP. The MCP enhances
the value of the property above its value as of the date the MCP is granted and reverting
to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the MCP had never been
granted.
Presented by:
Joseph Mueller, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
11/7/24 P&Z Packet (72 pages)
MCP2023008 Handout Memo (2 pages)
Note:
11/7/24 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can be
provided upon request later when available.
MCP2023008
Page 1 of 9
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
MCP2023008 – TK Concrete LLC
Hearing Date:
November 7, 2024
Supervisor District:
4
Applicant:
Brennan Ray, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Owners:
Juan Mendoza-Sanchez and Karina Mancilla Bustos
Request:
Military Compatibility Permit (MCP) with Plan of Development (POD) in the
Rural–43 MAAMF zoning district for outdoor vehicle, equipment, and
material storage for concrete business
Site Location:
Generally located about 1,400’ north of the NWC of Perryville Rd. and
Thomas Rd. in the Buckeye area
Site Size:
Approximately 1.86 acres
Density:
N/A
County Island:
Yes (City of Goodyear, City of Buckeye)
County Plan:
White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan – Military Compatible
Municipal Plan:
City of Buckeye– Luke Compatibility Area
Municipal Comments:
None received to date
Support/Opposition:
16 opposition emails representing 16 residents
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
MCP2023008
Page 2 of 9
Project Summary:
1.
The subject site contains an operating concrete contractor’s yard. The operation does not
currently have proper zoning entitlement and is subject of open violation, V202100681. The
applicant has entered into a compliance agreement to resolve the violation case. The proposed
MCP with POD is the first step for the property owners to move the current operations into
compliance. The proposed MCP largely will maintain operations and conditions on site as is, with
some modifications to ensure the operation will better fit with residential properties to the west.
2.
The site contains an existing, legal non-conforming (LNC) single-family residence (SFR). The
MAAMF prohibits new residential uses. The property owners reside in the SFR. The applicant
proposes intend to maintain the SFR and continue to reside on site. In addition to the SFR the
site contains two shade structures for covered parking and an outdoor storage area. As part of
the POD, the applicant has added nine parking stalls (four parking spaces made available in
tandem parking spaces, four traditional parking spaces, and one ADA compliant stall). The
project narrative states that all existing lighting on site will be modified so that it is fully compliant
with zoning ordinance requirements and as to minimize light trespass off site. (This means the
lighting will be shielded and directed downward or will be unshielded bulbs of 150 watts or fewer.)
The site currently has two driveways onto Perryville Rd., however the narrative states only the
northern driveway will be used in conjunction with the commercial operations. The southern
driveway will be restricted to the SFR.
3.
Operations will include the storage of nine trucks, 11 trailers, two tractors, three excavators, and
three loaders. The narrative states that the trucks on site are similar to consumer-grade pickup
trucks and are not large diesel commercial vehicles. The equipment will be on site for storage
purposes only and will not be run, tested or maintained on site, outside of what is needed to load
and unload before and after off-site jobs. In addition to the vehicles and equipment there will also
be storage of materials including lumber, plastic, nails, and rebar. The narrative state materials
typically stay loaded on the trailers, however there may be some extra material stored on site in
the delineated outdoor storage area. There will also be a portable toilet stored on site. The toilet
will only be utilized at off-site jobs. Typical daily operations consist of four to six employees
arriving between 4:30 am and 6:00 am. The employees will load company trucks and trailers with
necessary materials and equipment and will leave for off-site jobs. No work will be conducted on
site. The employees’ personal vehicles will be stored on site during the day, within delineated
parking stalls. The employees will return to between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm to return company
vehicles and equipment and will leave for the day.
MCP2023008
Page 3 of 9
Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan
Photo from Code Compliance Visit April 11, 2023
MCP2023008
Page 4 of 9
4.
The MCP will deviate several standards from the base Rural-43 base zoning district. The first is
an increase in maximum lot coverage (aggregate area under roof) to 30%, and a decrease in
minimum setbacks to allow a five-foot rear setback, 20-foot front setback, and a 20-foot side yard
setback. The subject parcel is an unorthodox triangle-shape that limits the lot’s depth and
building envelope. The deviations are necessary for the applicant to be able to obtain building
permit approvals for existing unpermitted structures on site. The narrative states these
structures are necessary for the business operations and are not able to be practically relocated
due to the lot morphology. The applicant is also requesting to modify the 25’ x 25’ site visibility
triangle (SVT) to allow for a 25’ x 10’ SVT. The narrative justifies this by stating the site will retain
compliance with the departure site distance lines along Perryville Rd. as required by figure 9.1 in
the Maricopa County Roadway Design Manual.
5.
Recent history of the subject site began with the conveyance of the subject property to the current
property owners on November 3, 2020. Violation V202100681 was opened on April 20, 2021 for
unpermitted construction and operation of a contractor yard without proper entitlement.
UC2023011 received a determination of “compatible” from Luke Air Force Base (LAFB) for the
uses proposed with this entitlement request on May 2, 2023. The requirement for a preapplication
meeting was waived by Maricopa County Planning and Development via an email to the applicant
dated May 2, 2023. The initial submittal for the proposed MCP was received on June 28, 2023.
The initial technical review committee meeting was held on August 1, 2023.
REGULATION
BASE ZONING
DISTRICT
REGULATIONS (Rural
– 43 MAAMF (LDN
65))
PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS
(Rural – 43 MAAMF(LDN 65) MCP)
Height
30’
30’
Min. Front Yard
40’
20’
Min. Side Yard
30’
20’
Min. Rear Yard
40’
5’
Min. Lot Area
43,560 sq ft
43,560 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width
145’
145’
Max. Lot Coverage
25%
30%
Parking
MCZO Article
9 parking stalls (4 standard, 2
two-vehicle tandem stalls, 1 ADA
stall)
Sight Visibility
Triangle
25’ by 25’
25’ by 10’
MCP2023008
Page 5 of 9
2024 Areil Image of Subject Site
Zoning Map
MCP2023008
Page 6 of 9
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
6.
On-site:
Rural–43 MAAMF / LNC single-family residential
North:
Rural-43 / Single-family Residential
South:
Rural–43 MAAMF / Vacant
East:
Perryville Rd. then PAD (City of Goodyear) / Agricultural
West:
Rural- 43/ Single-family Residential
Utilities and Services:
7.
Water:
Arizona Water Company
Wastewater:
On site septic
School Districts:
Litchfield Elementary School District
Agua Fria Union High School District
Fire:
Buckeye Valley Rural Fire District
Police:
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Right-of-Way:
8.
The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future
classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major
Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name
Half-width Existing R/W
Half-width Proposed R/W
Future Classification
Perryville Rd
45’
100’
Parkway
Adopted Plans:
9.
White Tank / Grand Ave Area Plan – Military Compatible (adopted December 6, 2023): This land
use designation is reserved for parcels within the state-statute defined High Noise or Accident
Potential Zone of Luke Air Force Base. Uses are restricted to those that have been deemed
consistent and compatible with Air Force operations. The proposed WCF is subject of such
determination per UC2023011.
10.
Imagine Buckeye 2040 General Plan (adopted August 28, 2018; amended June 7, 2022): The plan
delineates the future land use designation as “Luke Compatibility Area”. The plan notes that new
residential uses are prohibited within this land use designation and calls for uses that are deemed
consistent and compatible with the high noise or accident potential generated by proximity to
Luke Air Force Base.
Public Participation Summary:
11.
The applicant satisfied and exceeded the minimum statutory requirements for public
participation. The site was posted in two places, and photographic evidence of the signs
reflecting the correct hearing dates was provided to staff. The applicant sent notice to all property
owners within 300’ of the subject site via USPS. In addition, the applicant conducted a
neighborhood meeting on August 10, 2023. The sign in sheets from the meeting were provided
to staff and indicate 20 residents attended the meeting. The transcripts from the meeting
provided by the applicant indicate primary concerns over noise and lighting, as well as a concern
if approved entitlement would allow an expansion of operations on site.
MCP2023008
Page 7 of 9
12.
Concerns reported in the applicant’s public participation summary are consistent with the public
comment that staff have received. Most of the public comments have revolved around noise,
dust, and lighting concerns. There were also some concerns over the earliness that employees
arrive on site as well as the type of vehicles that may be used on site. Staff did not receive
comment from City of Buckeye.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
13.
N/A
Staff Analysis:
14.
The proposed use presents a unique situation. The subject site is located on an arterial road, is
within the MAAMF zoning overlay, has received a compatible determination from LAFB, and is
consistent with applicable long-range plans for the area. However, the western lot line of the
subject site runs concurrent with the outer boundary line of the MAAMF zoning overlay, and the
subject site shares a wall with several large lot, single-family residential properties to the west.
These residences are outside of the MAAMF overlay and will remain active residential properties.
This poses a challenge for the site because the proposed use, while conducive to many of the
conditions facing the site, has potential to have adverse impacts on adjacent residential
properties.
15.
The applicant worked extensively with staff to create a plan that allows the subject property to
begin a transition to a non-residential use but is also sensitive to the proximity to residential
properties. One such mitigating factor will be a landscape buffer that the applicant will place
along the western lot line of the subject site. Condition ‘g’ requires landscaping that extends
above the screen wall, will serve to visually screen and soften appearance of the site, create a
noise dampening effect to lessen noise trespass, and may mitigate dust. Many of the other
recommended conditions also work to limit the intensity of the site and reflect the applicant’s
project modifications during review of this case. As such, staff feels the proposed use is
consistent with applicable long-range plans, offers a good transitional use to buffer the existing
residences from an arterial road and higher-intensity non-residential development expected to
occur in the MAAMF east of Perryville Rd., and if is adhering to the recommended conditions it
should prove to be an unobtrusive neighbor to the adjacent residential properties.
Recommendation:
16.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors
approve MCP2023008 subject to the following conditions ‘a’ – ‘k’:
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Plan of Development
entitled “Mendoza-Sanchez Property“, consisting of 1 full-size sheet, dated September 24,
2024 and stamped received September 24, 2024, except as modified by the following
conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled “TK Concrete, LLC”, consisting of 7 pages, dated September 24, 2024, and
stamped received September 24, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering condition shall apply:
MCP2023008
Page 8 of 9
1. Perryville Road is a MCDOT maintained roadway classified as an arterial roadway. The
MCDOT R/W requirement for arterial roadways is 65 feet (half-width). Dedication of
R/W is required across the frontage of the subject premises to provide the required 55
feet of R/W, unless determined otherwise by MCDOT Planning. The dedication must
be done within 6 months of the Board of Supervisor approval or Building Permit
approval, whichever one occurs first.
2. The site is adjacent to MCDOT Right-of-Way (R/W). A driveway conforming to section
of the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual is required. A concrete or paved driveway
within the County R/W is required. Disturbance within the R/W will require a MCDOT
permit concurrent with building permits. The paved driveway connection must be done
prior to or at the time of the Building Permits.
3. The plans submitted do not show any new site improvements. Any new land
disturbance in excess of 1,500 square feet will require engineered grading and
drainage plans and retention for the newly disturbed area.
4. Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only. All
development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of
the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain
Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current
engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of application for
construction.
5. Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes to the
site layout may be necessitated by the final engineering design of the site’s drainage
infrastructure.
6. Detailed Plans must be submitted with the application for Building Permits.
7. The subject site is located within the County’s Urbanized Area. A Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) from the County may be required if the
disturbance area is greater than an acre. The SWPPP would be required prior to
issuance of any construction permits.
d.
The following MCP standards shall apply:
1. Minimum front yard setback: 20’
2. Minimum Rear yard setback: 5’
3. Minimum side yard setback: 20’
4. Maximum Lot Coverage: 30%
5. Minimum Parking: 9 stalls (4 standards stalls, 4 tandem parking stalls, and 1 ADA stall)
6. Sight Visibility Triangle: 25’X10’
7. Permitted Use: Concrete contractor’s yard including the storage of pickup trucks,
trailers, light equipment, and materials for the concrete business
e.
Maximum of one portable toilet may be stored on site as long as it is empty, clean, and
placed a minimum of 30’ from all lot lines.
f.
Equipment shall not be maintained, tested, or operated on site.
g.
The rear (western) lot line must be landscaped so that leafy vegetation extends a
minimum of one foot above the 6’ block wall and maintains an unbroken vegetative barrier.
This includes minimum 15-gallon xerophytic trees 20’ apart on center from the southern
lot line to the northern extent of the property. The trees must be planted within six months
of Board approval, and maintained (replaced as necessary) for the life of commercial
business activity on site.
MCP2023008
Page 9 of 9
h.
Commercial diesel trucks may not be operated or stored on the property.
i.
All existing lighting on site must be modified to be fully compliant with MCZO 1111 and
fully shielded from all lot lines within one month of Board of Supervisors approval.
j.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, written confirmation will be required from the
emergency fire protection jurisdiction having authority that the facility has been designed
in accordance with their regulations and requirements, and that emergency fire protection
service will be provided to the facility. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
local fire protection jurisdiction review and approval will be required.
k.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant,
with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to
enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application,
subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property
shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated
and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does
not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess
the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value
it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the MCP. The MCP enhances
the value of the property above its value as of the date the MCP is granted and reverting
to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the MCP had never been
granted.
Presented by:
Joseph Mueller, Planner
Reviewed by:
Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Site Plan (reduced 8.5”x11”, 1 page)
Narrative Report (7 pages)
Narrative attachments (13 pages)
MCESD comments (1 page)
DPR comments (2 pages)
LAFB Comment (2 pages)
AZGFD Comment (2 Pages)
opposition (33 pages)
Opposition Map (1 page)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated October 16, 2024 2:47 PM
MCP2023008
Application Name:
Legal Description
TK Concrete LLC
Applicant
Case Address
2N 2W 28
Brennan Ray
3220 N Perryville RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:502-64-258
6022348794
bray@bcattorneys.com
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
Map scale 1:1,184
Supervisor District No.
TK Concrete LLC EDR
TK CONCRETE, LLC
3220 N Perryville Road,
Lichfield Park, Arizona
for
Military Compatibility Permit and Plan of Development
Resubmitted:
CASE NO. MCP2023008
i
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
Property Owners:
Juan Mendoza-Sanchez and Karina R Mancilla Bustos
3220 N Perryville Road,
Lichfield Park, 85340
jsanchez@tkconcretellc.com
Phone: (602) 686-1934
Planning:
Andy Baron
Alex Fish
ABLA
310 E. Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Alex.fish@ablastudio.com
Phone: 480-530-0077
Entitlements:
Brennan Ray
Madison Leake
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
1850 N Central Ave #1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
bray@bcattorneys.com
mleake@bcattorneys.com
Phone: (602) 234-8794
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT TEAM ......................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ii
TABLE OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. iii
A. Purpose of Request ................................................................................................ 1
B. Description of Operations and Proposal ............................................................... 1
C. Relationship to Surrounding Properties................................................................ 2
D. Location and Accessibility .................................................................................... 2
E. Relationship to State Statute .................................................................................. 2
F. Community Facilities and Services ...................................................................... 2
G. Public Utilities and Services ................................................................................. 3
H. Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 3
iii
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Number
Exhibit
1
Site Aerial
2
Noise Impact Evaluation
3
Photometric Plan
4
Western Landscape Photos
5
Conceptual Wall Plan
1
TK CONCRETE
Military Compatibility Permit
A.
Purpose of Request
On behalf of TK Concrete, LLC (“TK Concrete” or “TK”), we request a Military
Compatibility Permit (“MCP”) and Plan of Development (“POD”) approval for approximately
1.36 net (1.86 gross) acres located at 3220 N Perryville Road (the “Site”). TK Concrete is a
family-owned business providing a variety of construction services. A regional Aerial Map
identifying the Site is provided at Exhibit 1. The Site is zoned RU-43 with a Military Airport
and Ancillary Military Facility Overlay. TK Concrete seeks to continue utilizing the Site for
their home and a construction yard for their business. Some office work associated with the
business is done in the home by the owners and one other employee. The construction yard
portion of the Site is primarily used for storage. The current land use is appropriate for the Site
and not harmful to neighboring properties. No additional development or uses other than what
is existing today are requested.
As a follow-up to the approval of the Compatibility and Consistency Determination for
TK Concrete, the purpose of this request is to obtain approval so the property owners can
continue their use of the Site. Per the Compatibility and Consistency Determination, Luke AFB
has found that this request is compatible and consistent with the high noise or accident potential
of a military airport or ancillary military facility and therefore will not negatively impact Luke
AFB’s flying and base operations. The Site and current uses are therefore compatible with
Maricopa County’s goals of supporting Military Compatible land uses. Such compatibility was
confirmed in the Site’s approved Compatibility and Consistency Determination. The Site is
subject to violation V202100681 for TK Concrete’s business operations, TK seeks this MCP
to permit their use of the Site.
B.
Description of Operations and Proposal
The property owners have been operating TK Concrete on the Site for approximately
2 years. The Site is utilized as a residential home and as a construction/storage yard. Employees
pick up trailers and equipment in the morning and return it in the afternoon or evening.
Approximately 13 individuals are currently employed by TK Concrete, including the owners
Juan Mendoza-Sanchez and Karina R. Mancilla Bustos. Typical daily operations are as
follows: between approximately 4:30 am and 6:00 am approximately four to six employees
come on Site and take three to five trucks to job sites. The employees and trucks return to the
Site between approximately 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm and the employees leave the Site. The storage
aspect of the business and business operations (picking up trucks, equipment, and trailers when
needed) have no significant impact on the surrounding area and adjacent properties. The
storage and business operations occur primarily adjacent to Perryville Road and further away
from the residential homes west of the Site.
Measures have been taken to ensure there are minimal impacts on the surrounding area
including turning off equipment backup alarms and not performing construction/repairs on site.
A noise impact evaluation was prepared, attached as Exhibit 2, that compared ambient
conditions and projected noise levels of TK Concrete operations to the home interior
2
of the nearest neighbors. The study concluded that the projected noise levels from TK’s
operations are similar to the periodic car and truck noise for Perryville Road traffic. Further,
even the projected noise levels from even the loudest aspects of TK’s operations (which only
last a few minutes) are still within the WHO’s recommended levels for “sleep of good quality.”
When necessary, often during the summer, sprayers are utilized for dust control. The adjacent
farm, across Perryville Road does cause dust to exist in the area. Regarding lighting, shields
will be added where necessary to bring lighting into compliance with County Standards. See
Exhibit 3, Photometric Plan. Further, additional landscaping is going to be installed along
the rear (west) perimeter as an additional buffer. See Exhibit 4, Western Landscape Photos.
No dangerous or items are stored on Site. Items stored on site include lumber, plastic, nails,
rebar, most of the items stay in the equipment. The current equipment list is as follows: 3
excavators, 3 small loaders, 9 trucks, 11 trailers, 2 tractors, and 2 hysters.
Structures on the Site include a residential home, outdoor patio, and two storage
coverings. A CMU wall with some view fence portions screens the Site. See Exhibit 5,
Conceptual Wall Plan. No additional structures are proposed. Both designated parking spaces
and parking areas are provided on Site for employees. The parking areas will be paved.
Development Standards are as follows:
Minimum Front Building Setback
20 feet
Minimum Rear Building Setback
5 feet
Minimum Side Building Setback
20 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
30% of the lot area
Parking
9 spaces provided
(4 standard, 4 tandem, 1 ADA)
Sight Line Standard
25’x10’ SVT1
This irregularly shaped Site requires deviations from Code development standards.
While reduced setbacks and increased lot coverage have been requested, these deviations are
primarily due to the storage coverings—which are less obtrusive than a building and actually
enhance the Site. Based on TK Concrete’s experience the parking provided is more than
sufficient to accommodate their few employees. In order to provide as much parking as
possible, tandem spaces have been incorporated. These spaces work well for TK’s business
given that many employees come and leave at similar times. Overall, 9 parking spaces are
provided. The reduction in parking causes no negative impacts to neighbors or the surrounding
area. The sight visibility triangles are existing conditions that have been present on Site for
many years and have not caused negative impacts or safety issues.
C.
Relationship to Surrounding Properties
The Site is bounded on the east by Perryville Road. Across Perryville Road exists
farmland zoned PAD. To the north and east of the Site are single-family homes zoned RU-
43. To the south of the Site is vacant land and other single-family homes zoned RU-43. TK
Concrete’s uses of the Site are appropriate for the area and proximity to Perryville Road.
1 All sight visibility requirements for the commercial driveway shall be satisfied by providing the Departure Sight
Distance per the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual figure 9.1 standards.
3
D.
Location and Accessibility
The Site has two gated ingress/egress points. The north access point is utilized for
commercial traffic, and the south access point for residential traffic. The Site fronts onto
Perryville Road—a principal arterial. Based on the Traffic Statement prepared by Lokahi, TK’s
operations produce approximately 32 daily trips in a 24-hour period—representing
approximately 0.60% of the existing daily traffic along Perryville Road.
E.
Relationship to State Statute
The existing land uses are consistent and compatible with the land uses approved under
Article 1010.6 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance and ARS §28-8481. As part of this
Military Compatibility Permit Application process, a Use Compatibility and Consistency
Determination request was submitted and approved. Luke AFB has indicated that the existing
uses are compatible and consistent with the high noise or accident potential of a military airport
or ancillary military facility. The Site is on the edge of the 65-decibel noise contour for Luke
Air Force Base. The existing uses of: 1) a single-family residential home subject of zoning
approved on or before December 31, 2000, or on or before December 31 of the year in which
the property became a territory in the vicinity of a military airport, that permits one dwelling
unit per acre or less and 2) contract construction services, are both permitted in the 65-decibel
noise contour in accordance with ARS § 28-8481.
F.
Community Facilities and Services
The continuation of existing uses will have no negative impact on community facilities
and services. The Site is located in Agua Fria Union High School and Litchfield Elementary
School districts. The closest park is Arroyo Seco Park located approximately 1.7 miles from
the Site. Other area amenities include a grocery store and restaurants that are located at
Jackrabbit Trail and Indian School Road, approximately 2 miles away.
G.
Public Utilities and Services
The continuation of existing uses will have no negative impacts on public utilities and
services. Water service is provided by Arizona Water. The Site has a septic tank. Fire
protection is proved by Buckeye Valley Rural Fire District.
H.
Conclusion
The proposed MCP is in accordance with the approved Use Compatibility and
Consistency Determination, ARS §28-8481, Section 1010.6 of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance and all applicable Plans. Approval of this MCP will allow the continuation of
existing uses that do not negatively impact surrounding uses or Luke’s operations. We request
approval of this MCP and POD for existing uses and development.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Burch & Cracchiolo
October 11, 2023
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attn: Madison Leake
ACS has been asked to assess the potential noise impact from TK Concrete (3220 N Perryville Rd,
Litchfield Park) to the residential properties to the west.
TECHNICAL TERMS:
Decibel - A unit for measuring the intensity of sound. The human hearing range is from 0 dB (the
theoretical threshold of audibility) to 130 dB (the average pain threshold). {The sound pressure
level in decibels is equal to 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of the ratio between the
pressure squared divided by the reference pressure squared. The reference pressure used in
acoustics is 20 microPascals.}
dBA - Sound pressure level expressed in decibels, filtered or weighted at the various frequencies to
approximate the response of the human ear.
Changes in Intensity Level, dBA
Changes in Apparent Loudness
1
Almost imperceptible
3
Barely noticeable
5
Clearly noticeable
10
Twice (or half) as loud
NOISE STANDARDS:
Maricopa County
V. Public Disturbances
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to
originate from the property, any noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood if such
noise can be heard from within closed residential structures located within 500 feet of the boundary of
the property from which such noise emanates.
This is an unusual noise ordinance. First, it is uncommon for a noise ordinance to have an interior
noise level limit. Also, it is subjective instead of quantifiable, which makes it much more difficult to
enforce or even determine compliance. Typically, noise ordinances based on audibility are more
descriptive such as
threshold of audibility to be a violation. This would make the noise ordinance the most restrictive in the
entire country - by a factor of 4.
which
requires the following residential noise level limits when measured inside the residence, with the
windows and doors closed:
Zone
Time
dB(A)
Residential
10:00 p.m.--5:00 a.m.
45
5:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m.
55
Basing the ordinance on audibility makes compliance less dependent on the actual noise level and
more dependent on the quality of the residential windows, the hearing ability of the residents/enforcer,
the exterior background noise level of the neighborhood, and the interior background noise level within
the home.
I recommend assessing the noise based on industry standard interior noise level limits. Although not
an ordinance or requirement, The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for community noise
recommend less than 30 A-weighted decibels dBA in bedrooms during the night for a sleep of good
quality. (I am not aware of a quieter bedroom interior noise level recommendation.)
FINDINGS:
Ambient Noise Ambient noise level measurements
were performed at approximately 5:00am on Tuesday 9/19/23. The measurements were taken near
the residential property line. (See attached Ambient and Source Measurement Location exhibit.):
Day/Time
Ambient
Minimum
Maximum
Tuesday (9/19/23) ~5am
42.0 dBA
51.5 Leq
67.2 dBA
Noise Sources and Projected Noise Levels - Source level measurements were performed during
activity in the yard from 4am till approximately 5am on 9/19/23. The maximum measured noise levels
for each source were projected to the home interior of the nearest neighbors. The projections were
calculated based on the distance to the home, the barrier attenuation of the existing residential wall,
and the assumption that the exterior construction of the home (primarily the windows) achieves a Noise
Level Reduction (NLR) of 28*. Using the same methodology, the noise levels from louder vehicles on
Perryville during the ambient test period were also projected to the interior of the home.
*Note: It is assumed by HUD (and other industry standards) that the construction of any home
should easily exceed an isolation rating of Noise Level Reduction (NLR) 20 decibels. Therefore,
if the exterior noise level just outside the home is 65 dBA or less, the interior noise level will
easily be 45 dBA or less. ACS has calculated the NLR for hundreds of residential projects in
the Phoenix Metropolitan area for various home builders. In all cases, the exterior construction
of the various building types achieved an NLR 28 or higher (and almost always NLR 30 or
higher).
The projection results were as follows:
Noise Source
Projected Interior Noise Level1
Hammering2
28.4 dBA
Forklift3
18.6 dBA
Truck/Trailer4
25.3 dBA
Perryville Traffic (louder car)
25.3 dBA
Perryville Traffic (louder truck)
27.7 dBA
Note 1: If the homes have windows that are better than typical dual-pane windows, the
projected noise levels would be lower.
Note 2: The hammering appeared to be an attempt to secure the trailer hitch and occurred
periodically over approximately a 5-minute period.
Note 3: Although exempt from the County noise ordinance, ACS was informed that backup
beepers have been disabled to help protect the neighbors. Depending on the background noise
level in the home, the forklift noise was likely not audible.
Note 4: This was a very short duration noise as a truck/trailer left the yard.
Although none occurred during the test period, aircraft noise from Luke Air Force Base could easily
exceed 55 dBA in the homes.
CONCLUSIONS:
Although the noises from the yard (particularly the hammering and truck noise) could be audible in the
closest neighbors
sleep of
good quality
truck noise from Perryville Road traffic.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Respectfully,
Tony Sola
Acoustical Consulting Services, LLC
Ambient and Source Measurement Location
Source: Occupational Noise Exposure Overview (OSHA)
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
S
S
50'
231'
361'
479'
26'
5'
110'
84'
30'
19'
38'
89'
21'
OPEN STORAGE
OPEN STORAGE
25'x10' SIGHT
TRIANGLE (TYP)
25'x10' SIGHT
TRIANGLE (TYP)
45'
EXIST. R/W
45' R/W
26'
166'
5'
30'
12'
40' DRIVE
37'
24'
58'
34'
24'
30'
10'
58'
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
61'
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
EXIST. SHADE
STRUCTURE
EXIST. SHADE
STRUCTURE
SEPTIC SYSTEM
EXIST. SHED
UTILITY
ESMT.
50'
GATE
GATE
EXIST.
RAMADA
55'
FUTURE R/W
56'
36'
12'
5'
9'
9'
18'
TANDEM PARKING
67'
9'
9'
9'
18'
9'
25'x10' SIGHT
TRIANGLE (TYP)
24'
MENDOZA-SANCHEZ PROPERTY case number: MCP2023008
Conceptual Site Plan
ABLASTUDIO.COM
N
Date:
Plan Scale
30'
60'
90'
30'
1:
09-23-2024
CONSULTANT TEAM:
PLANNER/ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ALEX FISH
310 E. RIO SALADO PARKWAY
TEMPE, AZ 85281
O: 480-530-0077
alex.fish@ablastudio.com
ABLA, LLC
SITE DATA
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43 MAAMF
GROSS ACREAGE: 1.86 AC.
NET ACREAGE: 1.25 AC.
EXISTING & PROPOSED LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL
HOME AND CONSTRUCTION YARD
LEGAL/ APPLICANT
BRENNAN RAY
1850 N. CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1700
PHOENIX, AZ 85004
bray@bcattorneys.com
BURCH AND CRACCHIOLO
D: 602-234-8794
PROPERTY OWNER
JUAN MENDOZA-SANCHEZ/ KARINA R MANCILLA
BUSTOS
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3220 N PERRYVILLE ROAD,
LITCHFIELD PARK, 85340
PROPOSED ZONING: RURAL- 43 MAAMF MCP
REQUEST MILITARY COMPATIBILITY PERMIT TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION YARD USES ON PARCEL.
LOT COVERAGE: 25 %
BUILDING HEIGHT: PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE 22'-24' & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 8'-10'
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: 13,710 S.F. TOTAL
LITCHFIELD FARMS 2
502-64-063
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
LITCHFIELD FARMS 2
502-64-062
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
LITCHFIELD FARMS 2
502-64-061
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
LITCHFIELD FARMS 2
502-64-060
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
N 188TH AVENUE
N PERRYVILLE ROAD
CITY OF GOODYEAR
DUNCAN FAMILY FARMS LLC.
502-30-013R
EXISTING ZONING: PAD
NO CITY/TOWN
KHOSRAVIANI PARVIZ
502-64-259B
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
LITCHFIELD FARMS 2
502-64-079
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
LITCHFIELD FARMS 2
502-64-080
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
LITCHFIELD FARMS 2
502-64-081
EXISTING ZONING: RU-43
EXISITNG
RESIDENCE
VICINITY MAP
W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
PROJECT
SITE
W THOMAS RD
N PERRYVILLE RD
N 191ST AVE
EXISTING CMU
WALL/VIEW FENCE
EXISITNG CMU
WALL
EXISITNG CMU
WALL
EXISTING
POWER POLE
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE, BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 5 OF
AMENDED PARCEL MAP, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 699 OF MAPS, PAGE 41, MARICOPA
COUNTY RECORDS, SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 2 WEST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
COMMENCING AT A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR, TAGGED 34399 AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 5;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 5, A DISTANCE OF 310.00 FEET TO A SET 1/2 INCH REBAR, TAGGED
14216, AT THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 07 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 230.76
FEET, TO A SET NAIL, TAGGED 14216, IN CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ON THE WEST LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 5;
THENCE NORTH 23 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 5, A DISTANCE OF 361.14 FEET TO A FOUND NAIL, TAGGED 34399,
IN CONCRETE BLOCK WALL;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 5, A DISTANCE OF 166.30 FEET, TO A SET NAIL, TAGGED 14216, IN
CONCRETE BLOCK WALL AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 5;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID PARCEL 5, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET, TO A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR,
TAGGED 34399, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 5;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 5, A DISTANCE OF 478.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED MCP STANDARDS:
PARKING CALCULATIONS:
PROVIDED - 4 SPACES (2 TANDEM STALLS) + 1 ADA +
4 SPACES = 9 SPACES
CASE NUMBER: MCP2023008
LEGEND
OPEN STORAGE
ASPHALT MILLINGS
PAVED DRIVEWAY
PAVED PARKING
PARKING AREA
PARKING SPACES
DEPARTURE SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR COMBINATION TRUCK PER FIGURE 9.1C
Page | 1
Subdivision
Infrastructure
& Planning Program
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Subdivis io n@ma rico pa . go v
es d. ma rico pa . go v
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has completed review
for the Military Compatibility Permit and Plan of Development. Continue to use the site for
their home and a construction yard for their business which will be used primarily for storage
planning case(s). Please note the following MCESD requirements for site development:
Onsite Wastewater –
A Minor Plan Review application must be submitted for any existing system(s) if being
utilized and if the applicant believes the existing system(s) are adequate in size to support
the new use; otherwise, a new septic permit/install may be required.
For Onsite Wastewater related questions, please contact the Onsite Program at (602) 506-
6666 or by email at septicquestions@maricopa.gov.
Additional Notes –
Environmental Services does not require these items for condition of approval of MCP2023008,
however these items must be addressed with the development of the site. Environmental Services
does not require additional review of this case.
*It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project. Comments are provided
for the benefit of the applicant for MCESD permit requirements and as an advisory to Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department. Other Maricopa County agencies may have additional
requirements. Final review and approval will be made through Planning and Development Department
procedures. Applicant may need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review of any such
application will be based on current regulations at the time of application.
Project Name: Military Compatibility
Permit and Plan of Development. Continue
to use the site for their home and a
construction yard for their business which
will be used primarily for storage
Primary Contact Name: Brennan Ray
Planning Application Type: Military
Compatibility Permit
APN(s): 502-64-258
Reviewer: Souren Naradikian, P.E.
Email: Souren.Naradikian@maricopa.gov
Phone: 602-372-2907
Planner Name: Joseph Mueller
Planning Case #: MCP2023008
Date: July 19, 2023
Water and Waste Management Division
Jeri Loucks, PECFM
Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: (602) 506-6332
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Email address:
Jeri.Loucks@maricopa.gov
Planning & Development
Engineering Plan Review
Date:
April 23, 2024
Memo To: Joseph Mueller, Planning Manager, Planning & Development
Attn:
Joseph Mueller, Planner, Planning and Development
From:
Jeri Loucks, PECFM, Plans Examiner Engineer, Planning and
Development
cc:
Michael Norris, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and
Development
Subject: MCP2023008 – Construction Yard
(E1 Memo)
Engineering Review has reviewed the first plan and report routed for review on
04/16/2024, for the subject application and has no objections subject to the following
stipulations:
1. Perryville Road is a MCDOT maintained roadway classified as an arterial
roadway. The MCDOT R/W requirement for arterial roadways is 65 feet (half-
width). Dedication of R/W is required across the frontage of the subject
premises to provide the required 55 feet of R/W, unless determined otherwise
by MCDOT Planning. Contact MCDOTPlanning@maricopa.gov for more
information. The dedication must be done within 6 months of the Board of
Supervisor approval or Building Permit approval, whichever one occurs first.
(MCZO 1104)
See https://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/744/Right-of-Way-Dedications for more
information on the dedication process.
2. The site is adjacent to MCDOT Right-of-Way (R/W). A driveway conforming to
sections of the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual is required. A concrete or
paved driveway within the County R/W is required. Disturbance within the R/W
will require a MCDOT permit concurrent with building permits. The paved
driveway connection must be done prior to or at the time of the Building
Permits. The application is at:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/358/Permit-Application-
Form-PDF?bidId=
Page 2 of 2
3. The plans submitted do not show any new site improvements. Any new land
disturbance in excess of 1,500 square feet will require engineered grading and
drainage plans and retention for the newly disturbed area.
4. Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design
only. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and
Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway
Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices
at the time of application for construction.
5. Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes
to the site layout may be necessitated by the final engineering design of the
site’s drainage infrastructure.
6. Detailed Plans must be submitted with the application for Building Permits.
7. The subject site is located within the County’s Urbanized Area. A Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) from the County may be required if the
disturbance area is greater than an acre. The SWPPP would be required prior
to issuance of any construction permits.
PND TRANSPORTATION PLAN REVIEW R/W INFORMATION
1. Perryville Road (MCDOT Jurisdiction)
a. Current Classification: Minor Arterial
b. Future Classification: Minor Arterial
c. Existing R/W:
45 Feet
d. Ultimate R/W:
65 Feet
Please contact me with any questions.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
RAHN, JENNIFER L CIV USAF AETC 56 FW/CVE <jennifer.rahn@us.af.mil>
Sent:
Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11:36 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
56 FW/CIT Community Initiative
Subject:
RE: MCP2023008 - TK Concrete LLC
Attachments:
Construction Yard (UC2023011).pdf
Good afternoon Mr. Mueller,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the final plat on TK Concrete LLC MCP application. The site is
located on approximately 1.36 acres and is located at 3220 N. Perryville Road in unincorporated Maricopa County,
AZ. This proposal is for truck parking and/or contractor storage purposes at an existing residential home. The site is
inside of the Luke AFB 1988 65 Ldn, “high noise or accident potential zone” as identified by A.R.S. § 28-8461 and is
within the “territory in the vicinity of a military airport” also defined by A.R.S. § 28-8461.
This project was previously commented on via “Construction Yard (UC2023011)” (attached) and current information
does not affect our previous input. As described, this project will not negatively impact the flying operations at Luke
AFB. Since the site will be located within the “territory in the vicinity of a military airport,” it will be subjected to
approximately 170 over flights per day. We also recommend a strong notification program on the part of the applicant
to inform any potential tenants about Luke AFB operations.
Thank you,
Jenn Rahn
Senior Planner, Community Initiatives Team
56th Fighter Wing
Luke AFB AZ 85309
Office: 623-856-9981
DSN: 896-9981
From: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 12:22 PM
To: hstumprr@gmail.com; ken.nyman@azag.gov; 56 FW/CIT Community Initiative
<56FW.CIT.CommunityInitiative@us.af.mil>; kokok@mwdaz.com; dhenning@westvalleyview.com; Ken Galica
<kgalica@buckeyeaz.gov>; Jon Lacy <jon.lacy@bvfd.az.gov>; Mark.burdick@bvfd.az.gov; Gehlert, George
<ggehlert@glendaleaz.com>; Alissa.magley@goodyearaz.gov; christopher.baker@goodyearaz.gov;
Katie.wilken@goodyearaz.gov; Teresa Retterbush (PRK) <Teresa.Retterbush@Maricopa.Gov>; Scott Wilken
<swilken@azmag.gov>; kcotner@azmag.gov; pe@azland.gov; bfenske@azdot.gov; jgarcia@azdot.gov;
dkrantz@citytocitycre.com; Frank McWilliams (MCSO) <FrankMcWilliams@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; agarza@azmag.gov;
tsprague@azgfd.gov; Project Evaluation Program - Game and Fish <pep@azgfd.gov>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] MCP2023008 - TK Concrete LLC
Good afternoon,
2
We have received the above request for a Military Compatibility Permit within the Rural – 43 MAAMF (LDN 65 noise
contour) zoning district. The request is for a truck parking and contractor storage yard on APN 502-64-258,
approximately 1.3 acres in size.
I am the planner assigned to the case. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
The technical advisory committee meeting will be held August 1.
Kind Regards,
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
cboucher@azgfd.gov on behalf of Project Evaluation Program - Game and Fish
<pep@azgfd.gov>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 22, 2023 2:45 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Re: MCP2023008 - TK Concrete LLC
Hi Joseph,
As the proposed project is located in a previously disturbed area, with the present habitat providing relatively low value to
wildlife, the Department does not anticipate any significant adverse impacts to wildlife resources would occur as a result
of this project.
This email serves as our official response.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks!
CHERI BOUCHÉR | PROJECT EVALUATION PROGRAM SPECIALIST
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
OFFICE: 623-236-7615
EMAIL: cboucher@azgfd.gov
azgfd.gov | 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086
Join our new Conservation Membership program and ensure a wildlife legacy for the future.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:22 PM Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon,
We have received the above request for a Military Compatibility Permit within the Rural – 43 MAAMF (LDN 65 noise
contour) zoning district. The request is for a truck parking and contractor storage yard on APN 502-64-258,
approximately 1.3 acres in size.
I am the planner assigned to the case. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
The technical advisory committee meeting will be held August 1.
Kind Regards,
2
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Steven D Cochran <sdcart@cox.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 9, 2023 1:20 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Proposal MCP2023008 at 3220 North Perryville Road for change in zoning
Dear Mr. Mueller,
I have several concerns regarding the requested change in zoning for the referenced property.
First, I believe having the construcƟon yard joining my property at the east side will decrease the value of my home.
The changes already made without official authorizaƟon impact my property in several ways.
The lights that have been placed on the new structures that have been built shine directly into my back yard
and toward the back of my home.
There are men working on the site at very early hours making noise, they are usually loading equipment, etc by
4:00 in the morning.
They have placed a port-a-john against my back wall near my swimming pool.
They have equipment parked that is taller than our walls.
We now have to look at tall ugly structures that adjoin our property.
We purchased our home in an area that was zoned residenƟal in a gated community so we wouldn’t have this kind of a
situaƟon. It is destressing that these changes were made without the proper authorizaƟons and input from the people
affected by the changes made.
Please contact me and keep me current on the status of the proposed zoning changes.
Thanks,
Steven D Cochran
3317 North 188th Avenue
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
480-703-1448
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
PATRICK HOWELL <696howell@cox.net>
Sent:
Saturday, August 12, 2023 10:38 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Andy Linton (ENV)
Subject:
Case # MCP2023008
Dear Sir,
We would like to express our complete opposition to the proposed zone change from RU-43
with a Military Airport & Ancillary Military Facility, Military Compatibility Permit with a Plan of
Development at the residence at 3220 N. Perryville Rd. It is understood that the homeowner at
this address has operated a construction yard in violation of Maricopa County regulations for a
period in excess of two years. As nearby neighbors to this property we have witnessed noise
from construction operations, very loud music played by construction workers, a very unpleasant
visual appearance of the stored construction equipment, and of massive metal "lean to" metal
structures constructed at very close proximity to the Litchfield Farms Subdivision wall and
increased in construction equipment traffic entering and exiting the property. Since there is no
turn lanes to provide access into and from the property a safety issue is growing as traffic and
speeds on Perryville are increasing rapidly. The owners have placed high intensity floodlights of
various types on the highest elevation of the metal structures which create intense light pollution
on neighboring homes and back yards as well as creating a driver distraction and safety issue
with traffic on Perryville Rd. The lights create a "football stadium" level of light pollution and are
in violation of Maricopa Counties "dark skies" regulation. There is some question to whether the
metal structures built next to the Litchfield Farms property wall are constructed too close to the
wall and the size and height deprive the homeowners there of privacy and subject them to
unacceptable light and noise pollution. How is it possible such structures, size and height could
have been approved and permitted to be built so close to residential properties? The owner of
this property is reportedly an owner of adjoining undeveloped acreage to the south of the
property extending to Thomas Rd and has a reported relationship to other property owners along
Perryville Rd that are also operating businesses in violation of Maricopa and Luke Air Force base
regulations. The reported relationship to the other property and unapproved businesses being
operated, lead us to believe this request of zoning change and Luke Air Force base restrictions is
the first stage in changing the zoning and restrictions on the additional property that borders
Litchfield Farms Subdivision. Currently the business operates without proper county approval so
it follows the owner does not follow county, state or federal construction, safety and
environmental regulations. As homeowners near these illegal businesses we have legitimate
concerns about type of hazardous materials and substances are being used and stored in the
(possibly un-permited) structures built here, as well as safety related to unknown activities
which may being conducted. At the recent neighborhood meeting it was made known that
several of the Litchfield Farms neighboring property owners have asked the homeowner to
reduce loud music and remove the high intensity lighting and were told they would not comply.
The existing request to facilitate the constuction business at 3220 N. Perryville Rd is
incompatiable with the historically residential use in Litchfield Farms and will negatively impact
the environmental, health and safety of the residents of our community and will downgrade the
quality of life and property values of the homeowners. We request that Maricopa County deny
this request for changes and proceed with legal remedies to the now two year old regulatory
violations by the homeowner.
Respectfully,
2
Patrick & Debbie Howell
3328 N. 188th Ave.
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Kirk Tinsley <ktinman@aol.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:24 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Fwd: Comments on Case MCP2023008
Attachments:
Comments_MCP2023008.pdf
Mr. Mueller, I am resendi ng my letter from August of last year which identified several potential violations of the pr operty’s present zoning requirements at this subject property. It does not appear that any of these have been addressed (at
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from
new senders. Always validate the sender first.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Mr. Mueller,
I am resending my letter from August of last year which identified several potential violations of the property’s present
zoning requirements at this subject property. It does not appear that any of these have been addressed (at least from
driving by the property).
Thank you,
Kirk Tinsley
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kirk Tinsley <ktinman@aol.com>
Date: August 12, 2023 at 4:06:30 PM MST
To: joseph.mueller@maricopa.gov, barbara <plante@us.af.mil>
Cc: lblevan@gmail.com
Subject: Comments on Case MCP2023008
Reply-To: ktinman@aol.com
Ladies & Gentleman,
Please find the attached comments from Kirk and Rosa Tinsley regarding the proposed zoning action
related to the property at 3220 N Perryville Rd (Case #MCP2023008). If you have any questions related
to these comments, please contact me at this email address or at the phone number listed below. We
reside at 3295 N 188th Ave which is within the Litchfield Farms Community down the street from the
subject property.
Thank you,
Kirk Tinsley
(805)264-1030
Hello,
Thank you for your reply to my email to Andy Lipton. I would like the following read into
the documents.
As I was thinking about what I wanted to say about this request, I saw a news report
that an industrial fire was happening. This was the 3rd fire in about 4 weeks. Based on
these reports, this request should be denied. In the event it is not, let's look at the
property that has requested a change in zoning. If this had happened on the property
that has a request to change zoning, we can assume that a fire would result in the
following: A fire breaks out from a cement piece hits an electrical pole (many are 50 feet
from this property). This property is surrounded by empty lots that are filled with dead
weeds. It is assumed those weeds would catch fire which would cause the equipment
and trucks in the yard to catch fire. Those sparks/fire would catch the plants, trees,
structures behind and around the property to catch fire. That would lead to the 194
homes that are behind the property to be at risk to also catch fire. Moving down
Perryville, about 1 acre away is a landscape company that operates illegally. Their 30-
50 pieces of equipment and trucks that are filled with oil and gasoline woud be at risk to
catch fire and explode. As a chain reaction, the property across the street that stores 10
semi-trucks/trailer illegally to catch fire and explode. Many of those semi-trucks trackers
are also stored within 50 feet of homes. Those fires would lead to additional homes
behind them to also catch fire. Further down Perryville are additional metal building that
are unpermitted metal buildings. There are no drawings or permits to determine what is
in those buildings or what was used to build them. And last but not the end, the property
has one acre filled with metal containers, sea containers, trailers, semi-trucks/trailers
and a cloth gardening structure that is about the length and width of the entire property.
One house away from that is an elementary school filled with parked cars and kids/staff.
That is just to tragic to even think about.
Should the threat of fire not be a determining factor of denying the change of zoning,
let's look at what can be proven. The property located at 3220 N Perryville Litchfield has
been illegally operating a concrete company for more in than 2 years. We do not need
to wonder what will happen should the zoning change be approved. During the last 2
years, homeowners have been subjected to employees turning music on loudly
beginning at 6:AM and turning it off about 4:00 PM. This makes it difficult for families to
use their backyards when the music interferes with their own music. Homeowners have
been exposed to toxins from equipment, trucks and dirt/dust from all of the above.
There are commercial size metal covers that are several feet higher than an RV. There
are trucks parked all over the yard, metal structures, racks, wooden racks and a truck
filled with materials. All of those are visible over the fence. None of these items would
be found in a residential property.
When the City of Goodyear city counsel approved the zoning for the farm property
across the street, they did not request a change in the flight path zoning. With this in
mind, it makes no sense to change for one property owner.
I cannot find any benefit to property owners that surround the property that is requesting
a change in zoning. There is actually many reasons that would cause the property
owners to lose value and be put at risk for one person.
Am asking you to deny the request to change the zoning.
Sincerely, Leslie LeVan
Hello,
Thank you for your reply to my email to Andy Lipton. I would like the following read into
the documents.
As I was thinking about what I wanted to say about this request, I saw a news report
that an industrial fire was happening. This was the 3rd fire in about 4 weeks. Based on
these reports, this request should be denied. In the event it is not, let's look at the
property that has requested a change in zoning. If this had happened on the property
that has a request to change zoning, we can assume that a fire would result in the
following: A fire breaks out from a cement piece hits an electrical pole (many are 50 feet
from this property). This property is surrounded by empty lots that are filled with dead
weeds. It is assumed those weeds would catch fire which would cause the equipment
and trucks in the yard to catch fire. Those sparks/fire would catch the plants, trees,
structures behind and around the property to catch fire. That would lead to the 194
homes that are behind the property to be at risk to also catch fire. Moving down
Perryville, about 1 acre away is a landscape company that operates illegally. Their 30-
50 pieces of equipment and trucks that are filled with oil and gasoline woud be at risk to
catch fire and explode. As a chain reaction, the property across the street that stores 10
semi-trucks/trailer illegally to catch fire and explode. Many of those semi-trucks trackers
are also stored within 50 feet of homes. Those fires would lead to additional homes
behind them to also catch fire. Further down Perryville are additional metal building that
are unpermitted metal buildings. There are no drawings or permits to determine what is
in those buildings or what was used to build them. And last but not the end, the property
has one acre filled with metal containers, sea containers, trailers, semi-trucks/trailers
and a cloth gardening structure that is about the length and width of the entire property.
One house away from that is an elementary school filled with parked cars and kids/staff.
That is just to tragic to even think about.
Should the threat of fire not be a determining factor of denying the change of zoning,
let's look at what can be proven. The property located at 3220 N Perryville Litchfield has
been illegally operating a concrete company for more in than 2 years. We do not need
to wonder what will happen should the zoning change be approved. During the last 2
years, homeowners have been subjected to employees turning music on loudly
beginning at 6:AM and turning it off about 4:00 PM. This makes it difficult for families to
use their backyards when the music interferes with their own music. Homeowners have
been exposed to toxins from equipment, trucks and dirt/dust from all of the above.
There are commercial size metal covers that are several feet higher than an RV. There
are trucks parked all over the yard, metal structures, racks, wooden racks and a truck
filled with materials. All of those are visible over the fence. None of these items would
be found in a residential property.
When the City of Goodyear city counsel approved the zoning for the farm property
across the street, they did not request a change in the flight path zoning. With this in
mind, it makes no sense to change for one property owner.
I cannot find any benefit to property owners that surround the property that is requesting
a change in zoning. There is actually many reasons that would cause the property
owners to lose value and be put at risk for one person.
Am asking you to deny the request to change the zoning.
Sincerely, Leslie LeVan
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Leslie LeVan <lblevan@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, October 4, 2024 11:05 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Re: MCP2023008 - TK Concrete Planning and Zoning Hearing
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Good morning,
Thank you so much for the information. It was very helpful. Afer reading the documents, I am concerned that the 20 foot
stadium lights (I think there are 3 pillars) have not been addressed. They are part of the original violation. These lights
come on about 4:00am and are a hazard to drivers. I experienced these lights myself a few months ago. The hazard
comes from no lights to super bright lights and then back to no lights. Totally blinded by the lights. These lights do not
meet the night sky ordinance for this area.
Enjoy your weekend.
Leslie LeVan
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 7:09 AM Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Leslie,
You may find the most recent case documents provided by the applicant at the link below, which should answer most
of your questions.
All site conditions will have to follow county zoning standards (unless specifically amended by the case) which includes
lighting.
The county does not enforce CC&Rs. Please note the subject property is not part of the Litchfield Farms plat.
Public Information (tylerhost.net)
October 15, 2024
Plan Number: MCP2023008
Board of Supervisors
I am requesting that the above mentioned plan be denied. The current property owners have been
operating a concrete business for 3.5 years as evidenced by the Maricopa county code
enforcement found them out of compliance in June 2021. This is far longer than reported in the
narrative supplied in the plan. The property owners have not done anything to meet the
requirements listed in the violations.
While the author of the narrative supplied in this plan, reports that the shade structures enhance
the property, they do not meet county standards in height or the placement which is within one
foot of the neighbor’s block wall instead of the required 3 feet. There is nothing in the plan that
states these structures will be brought into code requirements. The lights adjacent to the shade
structures are even higher and do not meet night sky ordinances. This is a reason why this plan
should be denied.
The plan is requesting that the hours of operation begin at 4:30AM and end at 6:30PM. While the
author reports the noise study stated that the noise meets requirements. This property is in a very
quiet area and noise carries. Cars arriving with music playing, people talking and trucks leaving
would cause a lot of noise to the neighbors next to the concrete company. I request that the hours
of operation with county codes of construction beginning at 6:00AM during summer and
7:00AM in winter. This will do several things. One, it would alleviate the need for lights for
cars/trucks arriving into the property, and two it would provide the noise to be less intrusive to
neighbors.
I am requesting that the plan be amended to add a block wall across the yard that defines the
business side and the residential side. This will allow a clear definition between the which part
must meet business codes and requirements and allows the property owners to use their home as
a home. The parking spaces that have been designated for business need to be moved to the
business side.
Lastly, I am requesting that the property owners pay any and all fines associated with the code
violation June 2021 before any plan is approved. The property owners have been operating their
business making money and have ignored any and all requests from the code enforcement
department as well as the legal agreement that they signed stating they would meet code
enforcement.
I am available by email at lblevan@gmail.com if you have any questions or require any
additional information.
Leslie LeVan
Michael and Dawn Martin
18822 West Earll Court
Litchfield Park, Arizona 85340
623-703-5889 or 623-326-0175
August 9, 2023
Maricopa County Code and Compliance Division
Attn: Mr. Joseph Mueller
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the zone change for the
property located at 3220 N. Perryville Road and/or the surrounding area. Nearly all
residents of Litchfield Farms, the neighborhood located directly west of this
property, are completely opposed to this rezoning request.
The owners of the aforementioned property have been illegally running a
construction company and building non-permitted structures for the past two
years. In addition, they have employees coming and going at all hours of the day,
stirring up dust and playing music so loudly that we are able to hear it clearly at
our home. We are aware that the owners of this home did not reply to requests
made by the Maricopa County Code Compliance Division. With all of the illegal
activities that have taken place with disregard to those that live around this area,
we fear to see what would happen if the zoning is changed.
We have a few other items that we would also like to be noted and are listed below.
If this property was to be rezoned, is it going to be a single-family home
with a business? If so, what facilities would the employees use?
Will they be required to meet OSHA guidelines?
What fire protection will be installed to protect the approximately 200
homes surrounding the property that would be affected should a fire break
out?
Will the property owner hole a multimillion-dollar insurance policy to cover
damages that could occur to those surrounding homes or for physical harm
done to the residents due to the caustic nature of concrete?
Has an environmental impact study been completed?
Has a housing property value impact study been completed?
Who would be paying for the roadway repairs required from the heavy
vehicle wear to the surrounding roadways?
Commented [MM1]:
Are there any documented studies showing how this change will positively
impact the surrounding community?
How would any of the above be enforced seeing as the owners have already
refused to comply with any zoning requirements or permits?
When zoning was changed by the City of Goodyear for the farm on the east
side of Perryville, they did not request that there be a change to the
military requirement for the property. Why would this be changed for a
single property that is approximately 900 acres smaller?
Keeping all of this in mind, we respectfully insist that this zoning request be denied.
Sincerely,
Michael Martin
Dawn Martin
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
f8t@cox.net
Sent:
Thursday, August 10, 2023 8:48 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Re: 3220 N Perryville Rd
Good evening Joseph,
There is another question we would appreciate if you could add to the letter we submitted.
Why they have the property owners done any improvements to the front of the property that would run along the
Perryville easement? Any other business that is going up in the area or across the street in the farmland, is required to
landscape that area so not to look like an eyesore. The owners did not clean up that area until they were applying for
the zoning change.
On 08/10/2023 12:07 AM EDT f8t@cox.net wrote:
Good evening,
Please find attached our letter of opposition for the rezoning of 3220 N Perryville Rd., Litchfield Park, AZ
85340.
Should you need to speak with either of us, please feel free to call.
Thank you,
Mike and Dawn Martin
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
f8t@cox.net
Sent:
Saturday, August 26, 2023 6:49 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
3220 N Perryville
The attorney's for this property stated that the owner would not have any heavy equipment coming and/or going from
their property, should they get the permit(s) they are requesting. Attached to this email and the next, please find photos
of a concrete truck at their property. I believe concrete trucks would be considered heavy equipment.
Thank you
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dawn-martin@cox.net
Date: Aug 26, 2023 4:11 PM
Subject:
To: f8t@cox.net
Cc:
August 1, 2023
Joseph Mueller
Planning and Development
Phoenix, AZ.
Subj: CASE: MCP 2023008 Property 3309 N. 188th Ave Litchfield Park, AZ
Ref: LETTER DATED July 25,2023 FROM MADISON LEAK / RICKI HOROWITZ
ATTORNEYS TO GUILLERMO SANDOVAL
We 100% do not agree to the proposal of a “construction yard” right smack up against our back
yard. 100% of our backyard will be affected by these plans.
We, along with many of our neighbors, purchased our properties out in the farm areas to get
away from the noise and the hustle and bustle of busier areas. Our homes are in a gated
community and hence we willingly pay HOA fees to preserve and protect our community’s
lifestyle.
Now our neighbor to the rear of our home wants to put up a construction yard when we’ve
previously had to deal with issues on that property from a former tenant who set up an extra-
large lighting system to illuminate their extra-large lot. That lot has been used for a large-scale
baseball practice with large netting covering most of our shared back fence. They also parked
several semi-trucks, motor homes and construction trucks that would come and go at all hours of
the night. We couldn’t sit in the back without being watched by the men coming and going.
We have had major changes to our community that have affected the original beauty and view
that we saw worth living in. The city permitted a major electrical grid to be installed down
Perryville Rd instead of having it placed on the busier road of Jackrabbit Trail that had less
housing to be affected. That was a total eyesore to our community. Then the city allowed the
Fire Department and all its emergency vehicles to use Perryville Rd as an official corridor.
It is obvious that the city does not care about Litchfield Farms I and Litchfield Farms II
communities. Our lots are larger than the current new home lots being sold. We willingly paid
the purchase price and are still paying the larger property taxes (for 18 years) for our beautiful
homes. We plan to retire and build a pool eventually on our property. We will have the biggest
eyesore, lack of privacy, noise and dust up against our entire back yard. ENTIRE back yard.
YOU must come and view the situation.
We will most certainly hire an attorney to fight this application and proposal. We expect to be
kept appraised of all matters in this case.
Sincerely,
Guillermo F. and Antonette B. Sandoval
Mailing address:
1005 Red Oak Pl
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
619 972-7080
August 1, 2023
Joseph Mueller
Planning and Development
Phoenix, AZ.
Subj: CASE: MCP 2023008 Property 3309 N. 188th Ave Litchfield Park, AZ
Ref: LETTER DATED July 25,2023 FROM MADISON LEAK / RICKI HOROWITZ
ATTORNEYS TO GUILLERMO SANDOVAL
We 100% do not agree to the proposal of a “construction yard” right smack up against our back
yard. 100% of our backyard will be affected by these plans.
We, along with many of our neighbors, purchased our properties out in the farm areas to get
away from the noise and the hustle and bustle of busier areas. Our homes are in a gated
community and hence we willingly pay HOA fees to preserve and protect our community’s
lifestyle.
Now our neighbor to the rear of our home wants to put up a construction yard when we’ve
previously had to deal with issues on that property from a former tenant who set up an extra-
large lighting system to illuminate their extra-large lot. That lot has been used for a large-scale
baseball practice with large netting covering most of our shared back fence. They also parked
several semi-trucks, motor homes and construction trucks that would come and go at all hours of
the night. We couldn’t sit in the back without being watched by the men coming and going.
We have had major changes to our community that have affected the original beauty and view
that we saw worth living in. The city permitted a major electrical grid to be installed down
Perryville Rd instead of having it placed on the busier road of Jackrabbit Trail that had less
housing to be affected. That was a total eyesore to our community. Then the city allowed the
Fire Department and all its emergency vehicles to use Perryville Rd as an official corridor.
It is obvious that the city does not care about Litchfield Farms I and Litchfield Farms II
communities. Our lots are larger than the current new home lots being sold. We willingly paid
the purchase price and are still paying the larger property taxes (for 18 years) for our beautiful
homes. We plan to retire and build a pool eventually on our property. We will have the biggest
eyesore, lack of privacy, noise and dust up against our entire back yard. ENTIRE back yard.
YOU must come and view the situation.
We will most certainly hire an attorney to fight this application and proposal. We expect to be
kept appraised of all matters in this case.
Sincerely,
Guillermo F. and Antonette B. Sandoval
Mailing address:
1005 Red Oak Pl
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
619 972-7080
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
antonette sandoval <tonibsandoval@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:20 AM
To:
wemanage@royermanagement.com; Litchfield Farms HOA
Cc:
Joseph Mueller (PND); mleake@bcattorneys.com
Subject:
Construction Yard Permit for 3220 N. Perryville Rd. Litchfield Park, AZ
Attachments:
3309 N 188th Ave Litchfield Park.docx
Greetings,
It has come to our attention that our neighbor to the direct rear of us, 3220 N. Perryville Rd., has applied
for a Military Compatibility Permit and Plan of Development permit/ zone change to permit them to have a
construction yard that they seem to have already initiated. We have heard from neighbors that a wall of
some sort has already been constructed.
We were sent a letter of their intent from their attorneys since we are within “300 feet” of the proposed
site.
This is an error as we are ONE FOOT/12 INCHES directly connected to their yard. 100% of our back yard
fence is connected to their yard and proposed construction yard.
We have sent an email (attached) to the Maricopa Planning & Zoning Division to the attention of Joseph
Mueller.
We are now informing you of our intent to hire an attorney to protect our homesite. We have not
received a notice from you regarding this situation. Were you not made aware of it by their
attorneys? We are formally asking what is your intent regarding this situation? Are you planning on
taking action to protect the interest of the homeowners of Litchfield Farms?
We will be in contact shortly with the name of the attorneys that will be representing us.
Guillermo F. and Antonette B. Sandoval
Mailing address;
1005 Red Oak Pl
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
antonette sandoval <tonibsandoval@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Friday, August 4, 2023 1:14 PM
To:
Clint Hickman (BOS)
Cc:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Litchfield Farms HOA; wemanage@royermanagement.com
Subject:
Residential rezoning application to commercial construction adjacent to Litchfield Farms
August 4, 2023
Dear Supervisor Clint L. Hickman,
We were referred to you by Attorney James B. Conner of the
Gallagher & Kennedy Law Firm. We are needing your help in a situation
where a neighbor (Sanchez-Mendoza) directly to the rear of our homes,
which are in the Litchfield Farms community off Perryville Rd., has been
operating a concrete construction company out of their residential lot which
is located at 3220 N. Perryville Rd. Litchfield Park, AZ 85340. Mendoza-
Sanchez recently built some sort of wall that drew complaints and were
fined (V202300512) in April 2023. They then applied to the county of
Maricopa for a change in zoning and are seeking a “military compatibility
permit”. The application number is MCP2023008.
Commercial activity, vehicle storage, construction yard, supplies
storage, etc. should not be allowed in a residential area. We have had
issues before with this neighbor and the former owner.
Large industrial lights were installed to light up this lot which is 1.86+
acres. Those lights were on at night and shining directly into our living
rooms. This also drew complaints from us and adjacent neighbors. Large
semi/rigs trucks were being parked along with motor homes. People
coming and going at all hours of the day and night. Large (as in 20 feet
high) fencing was installed. There has been no end to the developments
leading away from a quiet residential area.
Mr. Clint, if you are familiar with our community, Litchfield
Farms I and II, we are larger than average lots currently being built, a
gated community, with an HOA to keep our community looking pristine. We
2
pay more in taxes, and we are willing to pay our HOA to keep the lifestyle
we chose away from the hustle and bustle of busier areas. We purchased
further out to a quiet location in the farming community. Unfortunately, we
have had continued changes to the area that are destroying our
community’s motto of living out in the country. The first large blow to our
community was when a large electrical grid tower corridor, an enormous
eye-sore, was rerouted onto Perryville Rd when it should have been run
down Jackrabbit Trail highway. Then the fire department and their
emergency vehicles were allowed to use Perryville Rd as their “corridor”
when again other alternatives best suited our residential areas. Our homes
and our choice of a quiet lifestyle are not being represented or protected by
either the City of Litchfield Park, Litchfield Farms HOA and now the County
of Maricopa.
Please come by and look at our properties. We will be in town
on Saturday, August 5th and will be canvassing the neighborhood for more
support as only 12 letters (unbelievable!)
were sent out to the residents of Litchfield Farms by the County of
Maricopa. We will be attending the meeting being held at the Sanchez-
Mendoza home on Thursday, August 10 at 6 pm. BTW, we only received
our notice on August 1, 2023. We are truly hoping that you and your office
will see to our rights in this situation. We are in the process of finding and
hiring an attorney if this application process proceeds any further. We
were referred to Attorney Bill Allison and will be contacting him on Monday.
We are attaching all pertinent letters that we have received and
sent out.
Thank you,
Guillermo F. and Antonette B. Sandoval
3309 N. 188th Ave. Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
Mailing address: 1005 Red Oak Pl. Chula Vista, CA 91910
3
619 972-7080 619 972-7079
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Troy Shelton <wtroyshelton@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 6, 2023 8:39 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Rezoning of 3220 N Perryville Road for Commercial Use (Proposal:
MCP2023008)
Dear Joseph Mueller
I hope this email you well. I am writing as a concerned resident and homeowner in the vicinity of 3220 N Perryville Road
to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of this property for commercial use. I implore you to carefully
consider the detrimental impact that such a decision would have on our community and quality of life.
Firstly, we know that the owners of the property have already begun operating a business on the premises without
obtaining the necessary county approval. This blatant disregard for the established regulations and procedures is
concerning and raises questions about their willingness to abide by future zoning requirements. Approving the rezoning
request in retrospect would only validate this unauthorized action, setting a dangerous precedent for other property
owners and undermining the integrity of the regulatory process. We ourselves have already reported the blatant disregard
for our county laws but have seen no action taken.
The negative consequences of this rezoning request are already apparent. As residents living directly behind the property
at 3220 N Perryville Road, we have already experienced significant disturbances since the commencement of the
unauthorized commercial operations. The introduction of bright lights, excessive noise and an unsightly appearance has
profoundly affected the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood. Our property values are at risk, and the once pleasant
view from our homes has been replaced by an eyesore that tarnishes the overall aesthetic appeal of the area.
Moreover, the rezoning to commercial use could lead to a cascade of further negative impacts. Increased traffic flow,
potential safety hazards, and changes in the character of the neighborhood are all genuine concerns that we, as
residents, must contemplate. We fear that granting this rezoning request without thorough evaluation and mitigation
measures would result in irreversible consequences that would fundamentally alter the fabric of our community.
In light of these reasons, I kindly request that the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department carefully
consider our objections and prioritize the interests and well-being of the existing residents. I strongly urge you to deny the
rezoning request for 3220 N Perryville Road and take appropriate action to address the unauthorized business operations
that have already taken place on the property.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Your thoughtful consideration of our concerns is deeply appreciated.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information or clarification regarding our opposition to this
rezoning proposal.
Sincerely,
Troy & Stefani Shelton
3213 N 188th Ave
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Kirk Tinsley <ktinman@aol.com>
Sent:
Saturday, August 12, 2023 4:06 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); 'barbara'
Cc:
lblevan@gmail.com
Subject:
Comments on Case MCP2023008
Attachments:
Comments_MCP2023008.pdf
Ladies & Gentleman,
Please find the aƩached comments from Kirk and Rosa Tinsley regarding the proposed zoning acƟon related to the
property at 3220 N Perryville Rd (Case #MCP2023008). If you have any quesƟons related to these comments, please
contact me at this email address or at the phone number listed below. We reside at 3295 N 188th Ave which is within the
Litchfield Farms Community down the street from the subject property.
Thank you,
Kirk Tinsley
(805)264-1030