Goodyear council delays Celebrate Plaza PAD amendment after debate over drive‑thru limits and multifamily mix

The Goodyear City Council on March 24 continued consideration of a proposed amendment to the Celebration Plaza planned area development after an extended discussion about drive‑through limits, the amount and location of multifamily housing, and whether the council's original walkable‑community vision remains appropriate.

Planner Justin Gabrielsson told the council the proposal would amend the Celebration Plaza PAD for about 66.6 acres at the northwest corner of Celebrate Life Way and North Litchfield Road to change a restriction that currently limits standalone drive‑through buildings to one; the applicant asked to increase that limit to two and allow unlimited end‑cap drive‑through users in buildings configured to hold three or more tenants.

Supporters for the amendment, represented by Tom Blake, said the change would make the site more competitive to attract top retail tenants and that the owner has sought higher‑quality retail and medical office development for years without a tenant in escrow. Blake said the owner remains committed to connectivity and walkability but needs flexibility to secure tenants.

Several council members questioned the change. Councilmember Megillis said constituents oppose adding more drive‑thrus and would prefer sit‑down restaurants; Councilmember Campbell and others said the parcel is a major gateway site and should not become a continuous strip of drive‑through restaurants like other corridors. Councilmember Hampton proposed a narrower stipulation to allow drive‑throughs only when they are part of a multi‑tenant building (an "end‑cap" format) rather than freestanding units.

Staff noted the PAD was adopted in 2008 with the intent to emphasize walkability and a mix of uses, and that changing the commercial rules requires a PAD amendment affecting the entire 66.6‑acre district. Council and staff discussed the site's history, the so‑called hybrid parcel originally anticipated for more office/medical uses, and the market changes since the PAD was adopted.

After discussion, Councilmember Hampton made a motion to continue the item to a future meeting so the applicant and staff can revise the proposal and return with options and stipulations that address council concerns; a second was entered and the motion passed 7‑0.

The continuance preserves the current PAD rules while staff and the applicant work on clarifications, possible stipulations (for example, limiting freestanding drive‑throughs and clarifying the hybrid/parcel E configuration), and additional information the council requested about comparable drive‑thru restrictions and the parcel's planned uses.

City staff advised that denial would trigger a one‑year waiting period before the applicant could return; instead the council asked for a revised application that reflects the feedback given during the March 24 hearing.

The council did not adopt the ordinance read earlier in the meeting; the item remains continued for a future public hearing.