Become a Founder Member Now!

Goodyear staff outline comprehensive zoning ordinance rewrite; commission gives feedback on notice, permitted uses, housing and temporary signage

October 15, 2025 | Goodyear, Maricopa County, Arizona


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Goodyear staff outline comprehensive zoning ordinance rewrite; commission gives feedback on notice, permitted uses, housing and temporary signage
The Goodyear Planning and Zoning Commission received an update Wednesday on the city’s comprehensive zoning ordinance rewrite and provided direction on several topic areas that staff and consultants plan to refine in ordinance text.

Planning manager Christian Williams said the rewrite is part of the City Council’s 2025–2028 strategic plan and kicked off in January; the city aims to bring a draft ordinance to council for adoption in June 2026. "We're here to give you an update on the status of updating the zoning ordinance and get directions on recommendations related to specific topic areas," Williams said.

Staff and Michael Baker International consultant Matt Kliesico outlined four primary areas for commission feedback: public‑notice requirements, uses permitted by right versus those needing a use permit, opportunities to expand housing product types in agricultural and single‑family zoning districts, and temporary signage rules in multifamily districts.

Noticing: Guadalupe Ortiz Cortez and the consultant reviewed current practice and state requirements. Goodyear currently notifies property owners within 500 feet for projects requiring hearings (posting signs, mailers and newspaper ads). State statute requires a minimum 300‑foot notice; the city’s standard is 500 feet. Staff proposed modest expansions in some cases — a 600‑foot standard generally, with an option for up to 1,200 feet for larger or rezoning projects that change residential parcels to nonresidential uses — and a direct HOA notice radius of 1,000 feet. Kliesico showed staff estimates of increased mailing counts and applicant costs for each radius (example: 81 properties at 500 feet, ≈104 at 600 feet, ≈290 at 1,200 feet), noting the applicant pays those costs through existing application fees.

Permitted uses vs. use permits: Staff presented lists of uses currently requiring a use permit in residential, commercial and industrial districts and proposed allowing certain uses by right if they meet new, explicit performance or location standards. Examples discussed included permitting assisted‑living facilities or veterinary hospitals within specified roadway or separation standards rather than requiring a use permit in every case. Industrial uses would generally retain tighter review, with limited exceptions such as caretaker dwellings.

Housing opportunities: Christian Williams and Matt Kliesico described recommendations to expand "missing middle" and other product types within existing agricultural and single‑family zoning districts. Staff referenced a 2024 housing study by Elliot Pollock and Company and a Maricopa Association of Governments grant study; those studies indicate the city currently has land and product diversity to meet near‑term demand and identified opportunities to allow two‑unit attached homes, duplexes, and limited triplex/fourplex typologies in targeted districts. Staff also proposed allowing manufactured homes in certain agricultural districts subject to the city's design standards.

Temporary signage in multifamily districts: Staff said Goodyear's current temporary‑sign rules (generally 32 square feet or less; allowed 10–30 days depending on sign type; placement rules to protect visibility triangles) are largely in line with regional practice. Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement concerns where temporary signs sometimes remain long term and the need to preserve aesthetics and safety.

Commissioners suggested adjustments and asked for follow‑up: clarification on how notification distances vary with land use and density, examples of acreage thresholds used in other cities, and a return engagement to review final code text and tracked changes. Staff said a council work session will follow, text edits will be drafted from the feedback, and the commission will see proposed code language and tracked changes in spring 2026.

No formal action was taken at the work session; staff emphasized the session was for discussion only. Staff invited additional public input and provided links to project materials and the housing studies on the city's website.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Arizona articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI