Citizen Portal

Peoria council approves rezoning, general plan change for 5.6‑acre Evergreen site to enable 62,000‑sq‑ft business park

3303657 · May 14, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City Council voted 7‑0 May 13 to approve a minor general plan amendment and a rezoning to a Planned Area Development that would allow a one‑story, roughly 62,000‑square‑foot multi‑tenant commercial/business park at a 5.6‑acre site near Cibola Vista Resort.

Peoria City Council voted 7‑0 on May 13 to approve a minor general plan amendment (23R) and a companion rezoning (24R) that reclassify a roughly 5.6‑acre parcel near Cibola Vista Resort from urban residential to an office/local commercial designation and from general agricultural zoning to a Planned Area Development (PAD). The changes were filed by attorney Adam Baugh of Withy Morris Baugh on behalf of the property owner, Evergreen Investment Company.

City planning director Chris Hakkas told council the approvals would allow a single one‑story building of about 62,000 square feet divided into up to 10 tenant spaces, with targeted uses such as flex office, medical, retail, limited business‑park uses, and an introduced “artisan/makerspace and light design and production” category. Hakkas said the PAD would bar higher‑impact uses, including drive‑through restaurants, gas stations, car washes and mini‑storage.

The change matters locally because it converts a mid‑block site fronting Lake Pleasant Parkway from a previously contemplated multifamily use into a lower‑intensity commercial corridor use favored by council economic goals, offering what staff described as a transition between the parkway and single‑family neighborhoods east of the wash.

Hakkas noted development limits written into the PAD: a maximum building height of 39 feet (one story), no outdoor storage, and controls on certain uses. For example, a powersports dealership would be limited to indoor display and indoor operations, limited to a single business in the development and to a maximum lease area of 15,000 square feet. Maker‑space/light production uses would be capped at two businesses and 10,000 square feet each unless a conditional use permit (CUP) is granted; wholesaling/warehousing would be limited to one business with a lease cap of 7,500 square feet before CUP review. Hakkas said roll‑up doors would be required to remain closed and that the PAD purposefully targets small‑scale, low‑impact entrepreneurship rather than industrial operations.

On traffic, staff described a shared access arrangement with the parcel to the south and a median break on Lake Pleasant Parkway to allow full turning movements (left‑in/left‑out, LILO). Secondary right‑in/right‑out access also is proposed to reduce traffic pressure on adjacent residential streets, Hakkas said.

Council member Castro Bullock, who said he has met with the developer and staff, pressed for clarity on outdoor storage and on architecture and design review. "Nothing could be stored out back…that is not allowed no matter what. Correct?" Bullock asked. Hakkas replied, "That is correct. No outdoor storage is permitted." He also noted that formal site plan submittal and design review would follow and that the final architecture would be shaped through that process.

The project history includes a withdrawn multifamily proposal in 2023 that staff said failed to secure community support. The city held the required notice and two neighborhood meetings (one in‑person, one remote) with no members of the public attending; staff said they received no formal support or opposition during the application period. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing April 3 with no speakers and voted 4‑0 to recommend approval to the council.

Council approved the general plan amendment (23R) and the rezoning to PAD (24R) in separate motions; both passed by voice vote 7‑0. Hakkas said next steps would include site plan application, design review and any required conditional use permit proceedings if tenants exceed the PAD thresholds.

The PAD as adopted establishes a schedule of permitted uses and operating restrictions intended to limit outdoor storage, control building scale and require subsequent design review and permitting before construction.

The council record shows the two votes concluded the matters before the body that evening; any site plan, CUP or building permit would return to staff review and public noticing as required by city code.