Goodyear council continues Celebrate Plaza PAD rezoning amid debate over drive‑thru limits

The Goodyear City Council on March 24 continued consideration of a proposed amendment to the Celebrate Plaza planned area development that would increase the site'wide limit on standalone drive‑throughs.

The public hearing was continued by unanimous vote after council members pressed the applicant and staff for more information and changes to the proposal. Council Member Hampton moved to continue the item; the vice mayor seconded and the motion passed 7-0.

The amendment before the council would change the PAD's current restriction of one standalone drive‑through to allow two standalone drive‑through buildings plus 'unlimited end caps,' meaning a required minimum building footprint that would include at least three tenant spaces (one with a drive‑through and two retail tenants). Staff said the change is limited to the commercial portion of the 66‑acre site at the northwest corner of Celebrate Life Way and Litchfield Road and would not require a neighborhood meeting because the parcel is not proximate to residential uses.

Justin Gabrielsson, senior planner for the city, told council staff recommended approval with stipulations and that postcards were mailed to property owners within 500 feet; staff reported no comments were received through that outreach. Tom Blake, representing the property owner, said the applicant sought flexibility to attract national retail tenants and that developers were reluctant to compete for the site under the current restriction. Blake said the applicant's intent is to preserve walkability and quality but that permitting two drive‑throughs would help market the site to larger retail developers.

Several council members said the city's original PAD vision emphasized walkability and sit‑down restaurants to serve nearby multifamily and medical office uses, and they expressed concern the amendment could produce a strip of quick‑serve drive‑throughs similar to other corridors. Council Member McGillis said she opposed the rezoning as currently proposed. Council Member Hampton and others asked staff to return with alternatives including stricter end‑cap design or limits on standalone drive‑through buildings, and asked for additional history and parcel‑by‑parcel detail for Council review.

Staff and the applicant both indicated they preferred to take council feedback and return with a revised proposal rather than face a denial that would trigger a one‑year waiting period to refile. The council's action was procedural: continuing the public hearing to a future meeting so revisions and additional information can be provided.

Because the continuation preserves the item for additional public hearings, no ordinance was adopted at the March 24 meeting.