Commission approves rezone for Terrible’s site after public safety, wall and drainage debate

The City of Maricopa Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 22 approved ZON 25‑04, a city‑initiated like‑for‑like rezoning that moves an approximately 2.21‑acre parcel at the southwest corner of West Honeycutt Road and North Porter Road from legacy Pinal County C B‑2 zoning into the city’s General Commercial (G C) district. The parcel is the proposed site for a Terrible’s gasoline service station and convenience store; the developer also presented an informational major development review permit (DRP 25‑13) for the project.

The rezone passed after public comment from nearby residents urging a perimeter wall to separate the 24‑hour convenience store from adjacent homes, requests to reduce speed limits near schools, and concerns about pedestrian safety, trash, lighting and on‑site stormwater retention. Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant to provide a plan for a physical buffer and to address drainage details during the DRP and civil‑engineering review.

What the proposal would build Planning staff described the applicant’s proposed site program as a seven‑pump fueling canopy, a 6,186‑square‑foot convenience store, 43 surface parking spaces, decorative lighting and pedestrian connections to both Honeycutt and Porter. Vehicular access was shown as right‑in/right‑out on both Honeycutt and Porter; staff said a median will be installed to prohibit left‑turn movements where proximity to the intersection makes left turns unsafe. The submitted plan also includes a box culvert bridge over an existing channel and on‑site subsurface storage/dry wells for stormwater capture.

Public comment and commission concerns Residents who spoke said a wall along the southern property line is a standard and necessary buffer where commercial property directly abuts a residential cul‑de‑sac. One commenter representing the neighborhood association requested that a condition of approval require a wall, citing lights, noise, delivery trucks and cut‑through pedestrian traffic. Another local resident raised concerns about children walking or biking to schools on Porter Road and argued the speed limit near multiple schools should be 35 mph, not 45 mph.

The commission also discussed the visibility/tunnel effect a high privacy wall could cause for the small cul‑de‑sac adjacent to the site and asked the applicant and staff to propose a design that balances resident privacy, pedestrian safety and emergency‑vehicle turning movements.

Applicant response and DRP Brett Griffin, development manager for Terrible’s, said the company understands the neighborhood’s concerns and is “open to building said walls” and exploring alternatives such as a pony wall with enhanced landscaping — and that Terrible’s would work with staff and the commission to refine the barrier design. Griffin asked whether the commission could reconsider the earlier tabling and advance the rezoning so the applicant could avoid delaying a planned closing; legal staff explained procedural steps to reconsider and noted the DRP could continue through staff review while zoning proceedings complete.

Staff noted a notification error for the item: a failure to publish an earlier newspaper notice required re‑posting and a subsequent mailing; staff also said it received three written letters of opposition. The staff recommendation was for approval of the rezone subject to conditions in the staff report. The DRP (case DRP25‑13) was presented for informational feedback only; it is an administrative process subject to code review and engineering, with major building permits returning to the commission on an informational basis when required.

Vote and next steps After a motion to continue and then a motion to reconsider, the commission approved ZON 25‑04. The final roll call recorded in the transcript shows Commissioner Robertson, Vice Chair Barnes, Commissioner Yoakam and Commissioner Thomas voting aye; Chair Singleton and Commissioner Clove voted nay; the motion passed. Commissioners instructed staff and the applicant to provide a perimeter buffer solution and to ensure detailed stormwater retention and drainage engineering in the DRP civil review.

Ending note Because the rezoning was city‑initiated as a like‑for‑like conversion from legacy Pinal County zoning to the city’s zoning map, staff said the rezone is largely housekeeping to align the parcel with the city code; however, the commission used the opportunity to secure commitments from the applicant to work on neighborhood‑requested mitigations as part of the DRP and engineering review.