SAN TAN VALLEY, AZ — The first proposed San Tan Valley annexation went before the town’s new Planning and Zoning Commission on August 24. Staff and the developer’s attorney fielded questions about the vacant 3.33-acre corner at Gantzel Road and Lone Star Lane, where the owners want commercial zoning. However, the session was informational only. No public hearing, vote or formal recommendation took place.
Commissioners still drew out several new details. A completed traffic study calls for a deceleration lane on Gantzel Road. Additionally, Town Manager Brent Billingsley said Queen Creek does not oppose the annexation, and Rural Metro would provide fire coverage if the land joins the town. Meanwhile, Community Development Director Gilbert Olgin said staff expects to bring the companion commercial rezoning case to the commission in September.
Shops, Restaurants and Possibly a Dental Office
Attorney Alex Hayes of Withey Morris Baugh spoke for the owners; Lone Star Partners LLC is listed as the developer. He described the concept as a mix of retail and restaurant space, perhaps with a medical office such as a dental practice. Still, he stressed how early the project is. “There’s no users identified yet,” Hayes said, calling the case pre-entitlement.
One owner is a retail broker who feels confident the corner can succeed, Hayes said. He said he believes another owner is a medical professional, which drives interest in those uses.
Hayes argued the site suits commercial use because Gantzel Road is a major arterial and “the primary commercial corridor in this area.” In addition, he pointed to the treatment plant across the street identifies as EPCOR’s Pecan Creek sewer plant. Those conditions make rural or large-lot housing unrealistic there, in his view. Returning later to an earlier question from Commissioner Donna Hallman, Hayes said the owners intend to seek commercial zoning even if the land stays in unincorporated Pinal County.
Annexation alone would not put stores on the corner. Olgin said state law requires the town to apply comparable zoning at first, which he expects would be its rural designation. The commercial request would then need its own review and a separate council decision.
The staff report is general on finances. Taxable development could generate town revenue, it says, including transaction privilege tax during construction and from later business activity. However, the report includes no project-specific analysis, and any revenue depends on what gets built.
Commissioners Press on Traffic Access
Hallman, who said she has lived and shopped in the area for more than 30 years, questioned the enthusiasm for new commercial land. She urged the town not to celebrate a bigger tax base without weighing the whole picture. She said the parcel, “in my opinion, from real estate experience, construction experience, is not conducive to commercial.” She pointed to ingress and egress problems on a road she said cannot be widened.
Chair Karen Mooney raised access too. “The accesses in and out are always a big concern of mine, especially on major arterials like that,” she said. She noted residents voiced the same worry at the earlier council hearing.
In response, Hayes said the traffic study is already done. It calls for a deceleration lane along the site’s Gantzel Road frontage, entered south of Lone Star Lane. That would give the site a way in besides Lone Star Lane, he said.
Hallman asked how a turn lane fits beside a two-lane road. The owners would dedicate more right-of-way, Hayes said, and Billingsley and Olgin put that at 70 feet off the front of the parcel. Hayes noted the case has not reached the site plan phase, where such designs get full review.
How Queen Creek’s Boundary Affects the San Tan Valley Annexation
The parcel sits in unincorporated Pinal County. Yet it also lies inside Queen Creek’s municipal planning area, the boundary marking where that town could one day grow.
Hallman said she understands that for years Pinal County and Queen Creek “stole property” for commercial, though she called that other people’s wording rather than her own. The parcel’s place in Queen Creek’s planning area still concerns her. She said she never wants to feel the commission is “doing a tit for tat.”
Two separate Queen Creek actions affect that boundary. In February, Queen Creek’s council directed staff to consider removing two developed Pinal County areas from its planning boundary. Members cited impact fees those areas never paid, the cost of serving them, and San Tan Valley’s incorporation. Developers pay those one-time fees to the town or county approving a project, at permitting, to help build infrastructure such as roads and parks. San Tan Valley is adopting its own fees, which take effect no earlier than December 21.
Queen Creek Council Member Jeff Brown was more specific about what his town never collected. Queen Creek received no permit fees and no construction sales tax as those subdivisions went up, he said, calling the south area “a big cost center.” That area lacks the commercial base to offset public safety and parks costs, he said. Much of both areas was already developed under Pinal County jurisdiction. The Gantzel Road parcel, which sits inside the north area, is still vacant.
Subsequently, on June 3, that council voted 6-0 to release the southern area, roughly 488 acres south of Combs Road holding about 5,000 residents. Staff there concluded that serving the area would cost more than it returns. The vote came despite 151 public comments opposing removal.
The northern area is different. That roughly 878-acre amendment contains the Gantzel Road site along with communities such as Country Mini-Farms and Vinwood Estates. However, Queen Creek’s planning commission postponed its hearing on removing the north area in May, at staff’s request, and that amendment remains pending.
Billingsley explained why that postponement happened, based on what Queen Creek told town staff. A separate effort would expand Queen Creek’s fire district into the area, and this parcel appears in that petition and its proposed boundary, he said. Queen Creek paused the north area removal to see whether the fire district effort goes anywhere. He described it as the third attempt, by his understanding.
Queen Creek has not objected to the annexation itself. “We’ve met with Queen Creek twice now, including last week. They’re not opposed to this annexation,” Billingsley said.
Billingsley noted one caveat on fire protection. If San Tan Valley annexes the parcel, it cannot sit in the Queen Creek Fire District, he said, so Rural Metro would cover it like the rest of San Tan Valley. Water and wastewater would come from third-party utility providers rather than the town, according to the staff report. At July’s council hearing, Billingsley confirmed the parcel falls within Queen Creek Water’s service area. After annexation, San Tan Valley would take over maintaining the annexed portions of Gantzel Road from Pinal County, according to the recorded petition.
Objections Raised at July’s Council Hearing
The commission’s review followed the town council’s July 15 public hearing. At that meeting, a resident living beside the site said Lone Star Lane is a narrow private road serving four homes, and turning onto Gantzel Road is already difficult. He also objected to an early concept that would have routed his household through a parking lot.
Additionally, neighbors cited subdivision CC&Rs limiting the properties to residential use, and they pointed to a failed attempt to rezone a nearby five-acre lot. Another speaker called traffic on the two-lane road horrible and said crossing Gantzel Road into the Lone Star properties is dangerous. Meanwhile, a Johnson Ranch resident who supports commercial annexation asked whether the council should wait until HOA legal questions are resolved.
A Presentation Item Before a Newly Organized Commission
Staff brought the annexation forward as a presentation for commission review, not as a hearing. The property owners requested it. “This was not a town-initiated annexation,” Olgin said, adding that the owners submitted a letter of intent. Mooney observed that the town is not yet pursuing annexations of its own.
The commission also selected its leadership that afternoon. Members unanimously chose Mooney as chair and Adrien Litton, who was absent, as vice chair. Mooney noted Litton previously served as vice chair of the Interim Planning Advisory Committee, the body that handled planning matters after incorporation until this commission formed.
Signatures Now, a Rezoning Case in September
Signatures now decide whether the annexation advances. Under state law, the petition needs owners representing at least half the taxable property value in the area, plus more than half of the property owners there. The staff report says the applicant is collecting those signatures. The case returns to the town council only if the petition meets that bar.
Olgin told commissioners he hopes the council can adopt the San Tan Valley annexation in September or October. However, Allen Quist, an attorney with Pierce Coleman PLLC, said that timing is not final. Meanwhile, Olgin said staff expects the commercial rezoning application to reach the commission in September. The commission can recommend that rezoning before the annexation finishes, he said, though council approval would depend on the annexation going through.
Annexation case ANX2026-01. Assessor’s parcel number 104-53-004H.
