Motion by Vice Chair Robert Montgomery, Second by Member Nathan Watkins

Vote: 6 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Nathan Watkins, Second by Vice Chair Robert Montgomery Staff and the applicant jointly requested that the application be tabled until the September 10, 2025 commission meeting. The vote above is regarding the tabling to a date certain.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Vice Chair Robert Montgomery Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Shane Harmon, applicant, provided an applicant's statement. No one present spoke in favor or in opposition.

Shane Harmon, applicant, waived his rebuttal. Chair DePew closed the public hearing.

Commission discussion: Member Limbach asked the applicant about the lean-to on the plan and whether it was storage. The applicant stated it was for RV and vehicle coverage and solar. Case planner Taylor stated staff supported a recommendation of approval with no conditions attached.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Alfonso Munoz, applicant, provided an applicant's statement. No one present spoke in favor or in opposition.

Alfonzo Munoz, applicant, waived his rebuttal. Chair DePew closed the public hearing.

Commission discussion: None. Case planner Taylor stated staff supported a recommendation of approval with no conditions attached.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Vice Chair Robert Montgomery Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Two letters of opposition were read into the record by case planner Taylor. Louis Manuta, applicant, provided an applicant's statement. No one present spoke in favor or in opposition.

Louis Manuta, applicant, waived his rebuttal. Chair DePew closed the public hearing.

Commission discussion: None. Case planner Taylor stated staff supported a recommendation of approval with no conditions attached.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Nathan Watkins The applicant requested that the application be tabled until the September 10, 2025 commission meeting. The vote above is regarding the tabling to a date certain.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Larry Saunders, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez The applicant requested that the application be tabled until the September 10, 2025 commission meeting. The vote above is regarding the tabling to a date certain.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Vice Chair Robert Montgomery Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Mario and Angela Robles, applicants, provided an applicant's statement. Robert Bray spoke in opposition to the request. Kevin Roberts spoke in opposition to the request. Ann Roberts spoke in opposition to the request. Jonathan Wall spoke in opposition to the request. Laurel Goeglien spoke in opposition to the request. Loretta Goeglien spoke in opposition to the request.

Mario and Angela Robles, applicants, provided a rebuttal. Chair DePew closed the public hearing.

Commission discussion: Vice-chair Montgomery stated that the commission did not consider rumors. He complimented the applicant's presentation and the appearance of the property. He asked whether the applicants' would maintain the property. He asked if the applicants' planned to maintain the road at no cost to the county. He asked about noise mitigation measures that were planned. He asked about potential attendance limits for the events. He asked the applicants to clarify their current density limits. Member Gonzalez stated he saw this as an economic benefit to the area and did not see any major impacts that were posed by the event. He saw the potential development as an area improvement. Member Saunders asked the applicant to clarify the acreage of the request. He stated 100 acres were shown, but 40 acres were listed on the application. The applicant clarified that the special use would only occur on the lower 40 acres. Member Saunders further clarified that the request was in the unincorporated area on a county-maintained road (Octotillo Road). Member Watkins asked whether the applicants planned on living on the property. The applicant responded they would live on-site. Member Watkins asked about the applicants liquor license. The applicants stated they would use local mobile bartenders. Member Limbach asked the applicants to clarify that the purchase of the property was contingent on the special use acquisition. He asked if the applicants were familiar with the area. He noted there were many people present from the area that were concerned. He did not think it was realistic to mitigate all concerns of the neighbors. Vice-chair Montgomery mentioned he felt this would fit well in the area. Chair DePew asked what was envisioned yearly for traffic impacts and what the guest lodging would be used for outside of weddings. The applicants stated it could be a corporate, wellness retreat, school field trips.

Case planner Taylor clarified the extent of the application (40 acres). He stated staff supported a recommendation of approval with conditions attached related to hours of operation, site access, wastewater improvements, capacity, and wadding pool permitting.

No- DePew (nearby resident objections, area plan compatibility)
No- Limbach (nearby resident objections, area plan compatibility)
No- Fickett (nearby resident objections)
No- Sauders (nearby resident objections)
No -Watkins (nearby resident objections)

Vote: 2 - 5 Disapproved

AYE:

Member Gerry Gonzalez
Vice Chair Robert Montgomery

Motion by Member Nathan Watkins, Second by Member Randall Limbach Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Eduardo and Claudia Perez Hinojos, applicants, provided an applicant's statement. Bill Jones spoke in opposition to the request.

Eduardo and Claudia Perez Hinojos, applicants, provided their rebuttal. Davis Bond spoke in opposition to the request. Chair DePew closed the public hearing.

Commission discussion: Member Saunders asked the applicants to clarify what they intended to do with the property. Member Gonzalez asked whether the applicants owned the property and if they intended to live there. Member Watkins asked the applicants if they intend to secure the property and whether the trucks would be loaded. Member Limbach asked the applicants about the type and height of fencing they would use, and whether there would be security. Member Watkins asked what type of trucks would be stored onsite. Member Gonzalez complmented the applicants on brining employment to Douglas. Vice-Chair Montgomery also stated he appreciated the applicants bringing employment to Douglas. Chair DePew asked whether the applicants owned the trucks. She asked why trucks were in the back. The applicants stated it wasn't totally decided. Chair DePew asked the applicants to clarify why the application stated this was a "temporary use." Chair DePew asked about the power pole placement on the property and stated the easement could be an issue.

Case planner Taylor stated staff recommended approval with conditions attached related to number of authorized trucks, parking lot surface treatment, prohibition of on-site loading and fueling, and screening.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Vice Chair Robert Montgomery Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Case planner McLachlan provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request.

Commission discussion: Member Watkins asked staff to clarify how many ADUs would be allowed on one 4-acre parcel. Chair DePew asked how this would impact the commission's workload, given that accessory living quarters that exceed the allowable size would be delegated to the board of adjustment. Member Limbach asked staff to clarify how many total accessory dwellings would be allowed on a property total.

Chair DePew closed the public hearing.

DePew - no, considers the amendment required by the state unconstitutional.

Vote: 6 - 1 Approved

NO:

Chair Kim DePew