Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves Carter Development office at Ellsworth and Happy amid neighborhood opposition

2232553 · February 5, 2025
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 Queen Creek Town Council voted 7-0 Feb. 5 to approve a rezoning and site plan allowing Carter Development to build a single‑story office on a two‑acre parcel at Ellsworth Road and Happy Road. Neighbors raised traffic, lighting and trail concerns; council required the developer to work with staff on mitigation.

The Queen Creek Town Council on Feb. 5 approved a rezoning and site plan that will allow Carter Development to build a single‑story office building on a two‑acre parcel at the northwest corner of Ellsworth Road and Happy Road, voting 7‑0.

The approval follows a major general‑plan amendment the council adopted last year that allows limited commercial and office uses on select rural frontage properties along Ellsworth Road. Town staff said the annexation for the property was approved earlier in the meeting and will be effective March 7; the development will proceed under Queen Creek standards once annexation is final.

Chris Webb, attorney for the applicant, told the council the project would deliver “over 17,000 square feet of brand new Class A office space” and would be parked and operated as general office, not retail or restaurants. Webb said the applicant redesigned the building as single‑story, kept the bulk of the building at about 22 feet high with small roof peaks to 26 feet, and located the building toward Ellsworth to maximize separation from the nearest homes. “We are providing large perimeter landscape buffers,” Webb said, adding the plan includes a 10‑foot multi‑use trail along Ellsworth and double rows of trees on the north and west property lines.

Traffic and lighting were the primary concerns raised by neighbors during the public hearing. Elizabeth Lukens, a resident who said she lives in the adjacent neighborhood, told the council, “Many neighbors are just outraged by this,” and cited worries about lighting and additional traffic. Jessica D'Adabo said petitioners had collected signatures and asked the council to “stand with the people who actually live here and vote against the Carter Project.” Scott Hindeman, another neighbor, raised the potential impact on Happy Road and maintenance costs if more vehicles use the unpaved county road.

The applicant and staff cited the project’s traffic study in response. Webb summarized the trip totals from the study: during the AM peak hour the development generates 37 vehicle trips (33 entering and 4 exiting) and during the PM peak hour 19 trips (12 entering and 7 exiting). Webb also said the traffic study showed “only a total of 7 cars exiting the site during that PM peak hour and 4 exiting the site during the AM peak hour,” numbers he used to argue the site is a low‑impact office use compared with potential retail uses.

To address neighbor concerns, the applicant committed to multiple mitigation measures. Those include building a right‑turn lane on Ellsworth as part of the site work, conducting half‑street improvements to Happy Road adjacent to the property (paving, curb and gutter and a sidewalk on the town side), installing downward‑facing, shielded parking lights that meet the town’s photometric requirements, and planting double rows of trees plus a 30‑foot landscape buffer along residential edges. The applicant also agreed to work with town staff on additional measures to discourage right turns from the site onto Happy Road, including examining curb geometry/visual deterrents; staff noted a condition of approval that the developer “work with town on additional traffic mitigation measures on Happy Road.”

Council members debated how effective physical deterrents would be and how to balance fire and emergency access. Councilmember Brown and others said signs alone would be insufficient to stop right turns and pressed the applicant and staff to consider design options that provide a clear visual deterrent while maintaining required radii for emergency vehicles. Town staff said the condition of approval requires the applicant to coordinate and, if feasible, carry forward additional mitigation measures with the town.

The planning commission had recommended approval on Jan. 7. The council vote to approve the rezoning and site plan (public hearing item 10A) was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by Vice Mayor Martineau; the motion passed 7‑0. The annexation previously approved will take effect March 7, at which point the applicant will pursue building permits under Queen Creek standards.

The council’s approval limits the use to general office (no drive‑throughs, no 24‑hour uses) and relies on the project’s submitted photometric study and the town’s development standards to limit light spill and other off‑site impacts. The council also required the developer to continue working with staff on the Happy Road deterrent design before final engineering approvals are issued.