Mindale City Council meeting.

I'd like to call the regular meeting of Monday, August 19th, to order.

Would you all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of reflection?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.

And to my nation under God.

Thank you, everyone.

Marcella, do you mind doing a roll call, please?

Councilmember Condi.

Here.

Councilmember Malone.

Here.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Here.

Councilmember Solario.

Here.

Councilmember White.

Here.

Vice Mayor Paneda.

Here.

Mayor Weiss.

Here.

Unscheduled Public Appearances.

The cards that we have, Marcella, are for item four, correct?

Thank you, Mayor.

We have received one request to speak from Larnell Farmer.

Sir.

Larnell, are you here tonight?

If he comes in late, I'm going to give him a chance to speak on that one.

Thank you, Mayor.

I will let you know.

Thank you.

Item number three is consent agenda.

Are there any counselors who wish to have an item removed for separate consideration?

Hearing and seeing none, can I get a motion on the consent agenda, please?

And Mayor, this will be a voice motion.

Okay.

I'll make the motion.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Vice Mayor, a second from Councilman Conde.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Go ahead, Marcel.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Passes unanimously.

Mr.

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

I think he may have come.

Is that Mr.

Is that Larna?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Larnell Farmer, are you here?

Oh, thank you.

Hi.

Do you mind coming out?

We just did um uh unscheduled public appearances, but come on up.

I know you wanted to speak on an issue.

Sir, do you mind just saying your name for the record?

Right.

Um, I'm sorry.

My name is Larnell Farmer.

And how are you?

Good.

And what I wanted to speak on, I think I spoke before the council maybe about six months ago, and I'm here again to speak after receiving um all the police reports on the incident, and what I'm speaking about is the police involved shooting of uh Amarian Hope, which happened in February of 2023.

And as I stated, I finally got all the uh copies of the police reports, the report from Avondale, the report from um uh Piora who did the uh investigation, and I finally got a copy of the internal investigation last week.

And again, I'm here to speak about that again after receiving all of that.

And um a little bit about myself.

I'm a police officer from just outside of Chicago, where I did 23 years, and I'm currently the president of the uh West Valley NAACP.

And after I initially saw the video of the shooting, I was appalled, to say the least.

And then after getting all the reports, it made it even worse because the county attorney Rachel Mitchell's office determined that the shooting was justified.

And then what made it even more egregious, that was a year after the shooting occurred.

Then it came back to Avondale's police department, and then Avondale, which is under which we all know who the chief is of Avondale.

I received a call from the chief informing me maybe a couple months ago that the city decided not to pursue or that the officer did no wrongdoing in the shooting.

And so again, it just escalated everything.

So with what happened from the initial shooting to Rachel Mitchell's decision from her office back to Avondale's decision not to charge the police officer, or he did he did no wrongdoing, it was egregious.

This young man hope was shot in the back as he was running away.

There's no justification for that.

And in reading all the police reports, the justification, it was a made-up story.

Because again, you cannot shoot anybody running away.

He was an unarmed juvenile running away from a police officer, and is my opinion.

He polls no threat to the police officer at that time.

He poles no threat to anybody in the public because the area where the shooting occurred was out in the wash in the deserted area.

So once again, the shooting, there's no way that anybody in their right mind, be it politically, you know, an elected official, police official, the police officer themselves could justify this shooting.

And so again, that's why I came before you guys again just to speak on this subject.

And I know only have three minutes to speak, so I'm rushing through things, but I do have all the reports, all of this stuff, and once again, there's no way that this shooting could be justified and it should not be justified.

So what I'm asking is for this thing to be looked at again, maybe by another department, another agency to see what can be done to justify to rectify this uh shooting.

So that's it.

All right.

Ron, item number four, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Now we have our public hearing, extra space storage, appeal of a conditional use permit, application PL 23-0303.

It's gonna be presented by Sandra, our senior planner with development services.

Mayor, you have a statement.

Yes.

Sorry, I thought you were gonna read it for me, but I will read it.

I the mayor and council will be acting as a quasi-ju quasi-judicial body in this matter.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal of the denial of a conditional use permit.

Zoning case PL-21-003 by the planning commission.

The CUP pertains to the development of a self-storage facility.

Please note that the city council may vote to recess the hearing and go into executive session one or more times to obtain legal advice from the city attorney.

Under our under Arizona law, no decisions will be made in the executive session.

After the presentation of all the evidence, the mayor and council may take one of the following actions.

Reverse the decision of the planning commission denying the CUP, affirm the decision of the planning commission denying the CP, or modify the decision of the Planning Commission.

And Nicole, will you do me a favor and just because what we're what we're deciding tonight is different than what we normally do as a city council.

We've been away from council chambers for almost a month now.

When we talk about quasi-judicial, give us some insight into that.

Yes, Mayor and Council.

Um, normally in your role, you're operating from your legislative position where you're deciding what should be put where and taking facts and evidence and opinions.

Tonight you're acting in your quasi-judicial role.

You're acting as an appeal body for the planning commission's decision.

So your role is to look at the facts in the law and apply them to determine if the planning commission's decision was correct.

Um so you'll be hearing from the applicant and staff, and there will be a public hearing where the public will have an opportunity to address you, but you can't consider any new evidence that's not already in the record.

The record has been provided to you by the council agenda.

And um, then at the end, you will make your decision based on the record.

Thank you, Nicole.

As part of this process also, you'll hear from count you'll hear from counsel last.

We want to hear from the public, we want to hear from the applicant.

Um, everyone will be given three uh minutes.

This is the applicant's appeal, so he has uh information to present as part of this process.

But everyone will be given three minutes in cases like this.

Sometimes what happens is that council will shorten the amount of people who can speak, ask for a couple speakers.

We're not doing that tonight.

Uh every um every uh email that was sent, the ones who don't want to speak, Marcella will read those.

Those who want who are comfortable coming up and speak to the microphone.

All I do is I ask that you state your name for the record, and you will be given three minutes to speak.

So that's how the process will work out tonight.

Mr.

Mayor, actually, first will be our applicant will make the presentation, followed by a city staff presentation, and then after that presentation, we will open it up for the public hearing.

We will allow the applicant to have a rebuttal if needed.

Uh then um staff's concluding comments, and then uh comments from city council if necessary, and of course it'll close with a vote.

Correct.

And but my comment on that, my point on that was that this the public will be given the full three minutes for each person who wants to speak on this issue.

Okay.

Mr.

Baugh.

Mr.

Ball, will you start your name for the record, please?

Adam Baugh, 2525 East Arizona Billmore Circle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor and Council, this is an unusual circumstance that brings me here today, not one that I envisioned having to participate in before, but I'm grateful for your the courtesy of presenting this appeal before you.

Um in 2021, city.

Thank you.

In 2021, three reviewing bodies approved this.

Staff recommended approval, planning commission recommended approval, and this council recommended approval, including five of you that are on this panel still today.

And the facts that you uh evaluated that decision and made that determination is the legal criteria that still influences this case today.

And those facts and those scenarios in which you approved it yes last time, remain the same and are identical even still today.

The current application before you today is an extension of a conditional useprint approval.

The purpose is to reapprove that CUP that you once approved previously in 2021 in the same manner, size, scope, design, and operation as before.

All things remain exactly the same, and the legal criteria that influenced your decision then is the same legal criteria that should influence your decision today.

You're familiar with the property, it's already zone C2, and the C2 zoning district allows this use subject to use permit.

It's not a question if this use is preferred to be here or desire to be here.

It's really a question if this use meets the five criteria of that use permit test.

And in this case, um it's important to kind of understand some things.

This is a two-story building.

This building is consistent with the heights that are allowed in the C2 zoning district, which allows up to 30 foot max building height.

Um this property is accessed from Osborne Road, which is what you'd expect for a property that is adjacent next to an arterial street.

It has two loading areas that are actually recessed under the building.

You can kind of see a little bit of that picture right there.

And then it has significant landscaping along its property.

So you may ask yourself um how did we get to this point?

You see, when you approve this case previously, there's a condition in the code that says you have to commence the use within two years.

If this was an existing building, it'd be very easy for me to commence that use in two years.

The problem is once you get a use permit, then you have to go through a site plan process, which takes us about eight months to a year.

Then you have to go through a plating process that takes several months.

Then you have to go through a building permit review that takes in our case more than a year.

And so actually it was at the very final stages of our building permit review when the expiration of the two-year period happened.

But even if I had completed all my permitting, I still would have had to build it, which probably would have taken me another year.

Realistically, it's impossible to actually build a building ground up without all the entitlement already in place in two years.

It isn't because there's been a failure on our part to effect use or to um try to complete this process on these steps.

It's just virtually impossible to do take dirt to actual operation with all the processes that occur in between.

Again, site planning, plating, fire review, building review, then construction.

So I want to kind of cover a couple of things because you may ask yourself, well, if it was the same case as before, why are we having this dispute today?

I kind of asked myself that same question as well.

And as I look through this decision that you made unanimously back then, and all our efforts to to come to find a way to make this use work within the appropriate time.

I'm asking myself, how did this new opposition exist that wasn't present the first time?

Because all the facts remain the same.

We didn't rezone the property different category, we didn't build a different building, we didn't create different heights, we didn't change the design.

It's exactly in virtually the same.

So I'm going to click through a couple of slides that helps um illustrate a couple of things that are important here.

So the request for you today is to reapprove what you've previously approved once before.

And that criteria matters.

This isn't a decision based on popularity.

It's not a decision based on do we have too much of this scenario?

It's not a decision based on do we even want it in the area.

The question is really simple.

Does this use meet the five elements of the legal criteria in the zoning ordinance?

So I like to walk through that criteria.

I know you've seen it before.

I know you've made this decision before, but it is worth repeating because this is a quasi-judicial hearing.

One of the first questions is is it consistent with the general plan?

Your staff has determined it is.

I know what it is, because your general plan is a designation as a local commercial.

And that local commercial designation allows uh and promotes commercial services in the media area, like a storage facility that is used by residents who live in the vicinity.

Another part of your general plan talks about whether it furthers the goals and its policies.

Well, what's interesting is you have the North uh the North Avendale specific plan, which talks about facilitating the build-out of North Avondel.

And when I look at North Avondale, this property was zoned in 1976.

It's been more than 30 years, 40 years, yet still in this condition of vacant empty land.

And the ability to build this actually brings some of the infrastructure necessary for this area that actually fulfills the goals of the North Area specific plan.

It is consistent with the character of the area because look at the character of the areas.

It's a commercial node surrounded by commercial uses that has earth tone colors, stucco, masonry, the kind of things you'd expect to see in a commercial shopping center.

One of the second criteria in the condition used from it test is if it is able to be compatible with other adjacent and nearby land uses.

I believe there's going to be a difference in opinion of compatibility.

But what's important isn't my opinion or necessarily theirs, but it's the evidence.

Does the evidence demonstrate some degree of incompatibility?

So I look at this and go, well, it's on a major arterial street, the kind of street you would expect to see one of these uses.

It's in a commercial area where you expect to see these uses.

And it's actually buffered from the residents to the south by other commercial office buildings without any immediate adjacency to it.

So, yes, I believe this use is compatible because if it's specific location in a commercial shopping center zoned area where you would expect to see these types of uses.

More importantly, our building heights are actually equal to the same building heights of the commercial center directly to next to us.

And in fact, in some places we're even smaller than some of those heights.

In short, we've increased our compatibility by even tucking our loading areas inside and recessed underneath the building.

A second part of that test is will it be detrimental to folks that live in the area?

And I think I've struggled to understand the concern because I haven't seen the evidence to support it.

But one of the things I continually hear is that this is going to create a lot of traffic.

And when I look at the traffic information supporting this types of use, it creates about 160 daily trips.

And if this use and this shopping center were to be developed for its current siege zoning, you would have significantly more vehicle trips just on a uh trip generation statement.

At its peak, we'll have eight trips in and eight trips out during its peak hour.

I can't think of a use that probably has less traffic than one like this.

Another part of the the third part of the use formit test is if this site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and if the use can meet all the development standards.

Well, this site has already gone through the site plan approval process.

The city's already approved the site plan, and no variances were needed, no deviations were needed, and the staff's already determined it satisfies all the city's legal standards related to development of the use.

In fact, that's the approval letter in 2022.

So I don't need to belabor the points, but your professional staff has already done the analysis and verified that we indeed meet this part of the legal findings.

One of the next parts of the test is whether there's appropriate access to public streets.

Well, this property is on Indian School Road and Osborne Road, where it is able to be accessed as you would expect to see next to these types of arterial streets.

But what's important for us is that again, the traffic volume created by this is so substantially low that it actually has more than adequate facility and size in your surrounding street network to accommodate this use.

That question might be a little different if I was doing a Dutch Brothers or a Raising Canes or Chick-fil-A where you have so much traffic demand that comes with it and so much queuing demand and problems with drive-throughs.

And this is one of those fuses that actually has very, very little traffic demand and impact in the area.

So one of the final tests of this is if appropriate conditions have been suggested by staff to ensure compatibility long term.

I think that's why staff recommends these five conditions of approval.

Compliance with the plans, another two years to commence the use, except for in this case we're kind of at the end of our building permit review.

I'm pretty confident we can get there now.

But additional things that staff has recommended, largely in response to feedback from neighbors, to control the operational aspects and to maintain a good compatibility.

For example, um no sale of goods or materials out of this, the individual store units, the ability to regulate and prohibit hazardous materials, and the requirement that the development comply precisely with the plans that have been prepared before you today.

And you probably are shaking your head going, yeah, I know because you did this the first time three years ago.

I just feel like it's important for the record that I restate this again because I'm not asking for anything different that you haven't already reviewed and approved the first time.

Now you're gonna hear some things.

I thought I should probably get ahead of it.

I've had a chance to review the packet.

Lots of letters.

And there's a number of concerns that I thought it's helpful for me to address.

Number one, there's been a fear that somehow we're going to house hazardous materials.

Our leases don't allow it, they're not permitted on our facilities, and our restrictions are even significantly more restrictive than what you would probably see in some of the homes in the adjacent HOA and subdivisions.

Um there's things that we just can't put here that you probably have in your garage right now.

I already covered traffic, so I won't spend a lot of time in traffic, but those are the two main points I've heard quite a bit.

Some of these other things are a little bit secondary concerns, but someone said we don't like the heights, but they ignore the fact that these heights are already allowed in the commercial zoning district, whether I'm a target, uh dry cleaner, or a storage facility.

I'm not asking for heights that aren't already allowed today.

Another concern is that somehow this is going to create pests and rodents, as if we bring that with us as part of our building of the project.

One of the things that we do best is actually the pest control element of it.

It's really easy for us to maintain and control that going forward.

And so we've, and all our facilities use folks like Golab Truly Nolan to help maintain and control that type of um concern.

There's been a fear that somehow this is going to collect trash, that this facility will become sort of the neighborhood dumping ground.

Well, first of all, it's a gated facility, so the public just can't come and dump here like you could if I was decided to drive behind a safe way grocer and put my palm trees or my mattress.

Um that can happen at any time behind a commercial shopping center.

But here in our case, it's secured and gated.

And we do have significant uh uh dumpsters on our property.

So if there was a move out and trash been there, it's just really easy for us to call a secondary one-off pickup if for some reason it was to have more trash.

I don't believe trash is a it's a truly um legitimate concern, but worth addressing.

One thing I've heard is lighting, as if somehow the light from this project was going to pollute the area around there.

And I want to be clear and address this.

Um have very, very low minimal lighting.

In fact, we have wall pack lighting, which is shielded in a box and downward directed.

And that's intentional, and it's part of the city's review and analysis when you do a site plan case to make sure your foot candle of lighting doesn't exceed city standards.

So we aren't any different than you would expect on a commercial shopping center.

But let's not ignore the fact that there's literally office buildings behind us in the neighbors.

So any lighting probably would be observed by the existing office before or something by us.

But I do want to address a couple of things.

We are zero to near zero at the property line, which staff has reviewed and approved, and our we have been agreeable all along to a condition.

We've told the neighbors we'd be happy to do this, that our um internal lighting that is part of our office component, we will happily extinguish at 8 p.m.

And let me illustrate what that might look like.

The only lighting is on these kind of display windows, these are not real units, they're actually faux units where that where that lighting is.

So no one's walking in that area any time of the day.

It's just essentially um ornamental.

But for the sake of concern about lighting, we've agreed and been willing to extinguish that at 8 p.m.

So the only lighting that will remain is lighting on that little wall pack right there.

You can see shielding downward, and the lighting on the signage.

So, and and we don't have this on the back side of the building that would be closer to the neighbors anyways.

So, from the street perspective, this is your view from Indian School Road and from uh the adjacent street as well.

You'll be able to see that the lighting is actually very, very minimal.

Um, as part of this process before I was involved, because I didn't, I wasn't at the first hearing, um, but there have been two neighbor meetings before this came to the commission back then.

One was in December, there was um multiple attendees, and then there was another one in January where you had five people.

The first one was virtual, the second was in person.

After um we got involved and the matter was appealed to the council, we held a meeting in April, two attendees came.

We held a meeting in June, two more attendees came.

Um at one point we even emailed and reached out to the key spokespersons for the DRC and um offered to meet, but it that offer was declined.

So it hasn't been without effort to try to understand concerns and try to sift through what is real and um factual versus perception and fear.

Um, when I look back at what the planning commission action was early this year, it was a two-to, it's a tie.

But what's interesting is when you read the meeting minutes, there actually was no deliberation on the case.

There was no real testimony given.

And I think there was a confusion on the process because the analysis appeared to be based on what is a legislative legislative hearing, a zoning case, which gives a great deal of arbitrary and subjectiveness.

But on this case, because it's a use permit, that criteria is not necessarily subjective.

It's actually outlined specifically in your code, and as I've shown you today, and as you voted on in the past, your decision that you made in 2021 is easy to be made today because it's the same facts, same site plan, same layout, same building, same operations, but now with an additional consideration that we'd extinguish our lights at that 8 p.m.

shutoff time.

So I know you've heard quite a bit from me, and I'll just end it by saying this use is the use that's allowed in a C2 district, so two years from it.

The use is consistent to the journal plan.

It's identical to what you've approved before.

It's the same site plan, the same layout, low traffic, and very minimal noise, and most important, it's designed per the city code.

And I think that's why staff's able to recommend approval.

I appreciate your time.

I know you have a number of people here tonight.

I'll just take some notes and probably able to respond any questions you may have and reserve the opportunity to correct some things that might be said on the rebuttal side.

Thank you, Mr.

Ball.

Thank you.

Ron Hooster from Staff.

Sandra will be presenting.

Hi, Sandra.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members for the record.

Um, Sandra Freund, Senior Planner with Development Services Department.

Uh tonight I'm presenting item 4A in appeal of conditional use permit application PL 23-0303.

And this item was continued from the April 29th, 2024 council meeting.

The purpose of this item is to consider the appeal request by the applicant to reverse the planning commission's denial of conditional use permit to allow for the development of the mini storage warehouse and personal storage facility.

This project was previously approved as a conditional use permit by the city council on June 21st, 2021.

However, the CUP expired on June 21st, 2023 because the use had not compensed commands, excuse me, through the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant submitted for reapproval of the conditional use permit in October 2023, but it was denied by the planning commission in February 2024.

The applicant filed an appeal of the planning commission's decision on March 6, 2024.

Uh and tonight the council will conduct a public hearing, and after consideration of the record, the city council may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Commission.

The subject site outlined in red on this slide is located on the southwest corner of Indian School Road and Osborne Road, is 2.28 net acres, was annexed into the city in 1981, and is zoned to Palm Valley Planned Area Development, which includes community commercial uses and development standards.

This slide uh is an overview of the general plan designation on the left and the adjacent properties.

The subject site is in the pink color, which represents the general plan land use designation of local commercial.

This designation is used primarily for providing daily needs of goods and services to the residents within the surrounding area.

Typical uses include grocery stores, neighborhood, retail services, office and medical uses.

The slide on the right shows the zoning district of the subject site and the surrounding area.

The zoning is Palm Valley Planned Area Development, which with underlying zoning of C2.

An example of some uses permitted without a conditional use permit in this district include banks, restaurants, professional offices, places of worship, movie theaters, ice rinks, hotels, urgent care, and health and exercise facilities.

To the north of the site is single family residential development within the city of Litchfield Park.

These are recent photos of the subject site.

The top left photo is looking across the site with Osborne Road towards the right side where you see the white truck in the photograph.

And the bottom right photo is looking south from Indian School Road.

The post office is the white building with the pink arrow pointing to it.

This slide shows the overall site plan.

The top left picture shows the northeast corner of the climate controlled building and what that will look like.

And the bottom left picture is of the two covered loading bays that will be used to access the interior storage units.

Access to the site will be provided from Osborne Road only.

Parking on-site will accommodate 10 vehicles in addition to the spaces provided in the covered loading bays.

Access to the loading bays and internal units will be controlled with a security gate requiring a code to enter.

Here are the east and north elevations of the proposed facility.

The top elevation is the east elevation, and this is how the building will be seen from Osborne Road.

And the north elevation on the bottom is how the building will be seen from Indian School Road.

And this slide shows the west and south elevations with the what with the west elevation on the top.

This is how the building will be seen as one drives on Indian School Road in an eastward fashion.

And the south elevation would be visible from the post office on the bottom of the slide.

To be granted a conditional use permit, the project must meet five requires five required findings.

As proposed, the project is consistent with the General Plan 2030 and the North Avondale specific plan.

Objective number one of the specific plan is to facilitate build out of North Avondale.

The project will further this objective as the site has remained undeveloped for over 29 years since being zoned for commercial uses.

The project is compatible with the existing land uses.

The project is a suitable size to accommodate the use.

It's 2.3 acres.

The proposed use is a fully enclosed mini storage facility and are considered among the least impactful commercial uses.

The building's architectural design includes stucco, masonry, and earth tone colors to complement the area, and the project meets the city development standards.

The project will provide adequate access to public streets with capacity to accommodate traffic generated.

The proposed project will have full access to Osborne Road and is considered a very low traffic generating use relative to other commercial uses.

And the fifth finding staff has provided five recommended conditions of approval to mitigate any negative impacts from the project if they should occur.

The applicant held several neighborhood meetings to review the proposal, answer questions, and take public comments.

The applicant held one virtual meeting on December 19th, 2023, and a second in-person meeting on January 31st, 2024, prior to the planning commission meeting.

The applicant also held two community meetings, one on April 16th in preparation of the April 29th Council meeting, and the second on June 11th in preparation of this August 19th City Council meeting.

Two attendees each attended those meetings, and both meetings were held at Lichfield Elementary School.

Public comments received at the time of publication of the staff packet are included in your city council packet.

And the public comments have focused on traffic safety concerns, landscape and water demand, and the proposed use at this location.

Staff is aware of the objections raised about the sign and the issues with the posted sign have been resolved.

The proposed project was noticed in accordance with the zoning ordinance.

Council public hearings require a mail notification, a legal ad and the site to be posted 15 days prior to the public hearing.

For this hearing, the 15 days was August 4th.

The site was posted with the notice sign on August 1st.

Notice postcards were mailed to property owners on July 25th, and the newspaper legal ad was published July 31st, 2024.

On February 21st, 2024, the planning commission conducted a public hearing for the conditional use permit.

Staff presented the project with a recommendation of approval.

Public comments expressed concerns about traffic, noise, safety, property values, and visual quality.

A motion to approve the request failed with a 2-2 tie vote.

And a copy of the planning commission staff report, including public comments received, uh, is provided in your packet.

An appeal of the planning commission decision is a quasi-judicial hearing as opposed to a legislative hearing, and for this reason, council may only consider the record presented to the planning commission.

New issues or information may not be considered in council's action.

The council must evaluate the commission's action based on the required findings.

If council is inclined to affirm the denial by the planning commission, then passage of a motion to uphold the decision will be needed.

If council is inclined to reverse or modify the denial and approve application PL 23-0303, then council should direct the city attorney to prepare written findings setting forth the basis for the reversal.

Approval should be subject to the five conditions of approval listed in the staff report.

And with that, I conclude my presentation and I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

We'll probably hold off on questions until after the public has a chance to speak, but thank you for that.

Marceline, I think I want to go in the order of the people who aren't here for you to read their statements.

I think that's fair, and then that'll give uh the end time for the peak, not the end time, but the uh the final comments to people who are here in the audience.

So Nicole, am I missing anything?

Just open the public hearing.

I'd like to go ahead and open a public hearing on this issue.

Thank you, Mayor.

First, I would like to note that City Council has received a letter from Timothy La Sota.

This letter was not included in the agenda packet as it was received this morning.

Um the letter will be entered into the record.

Next, I will be reading aloud all public comments received after our last publication of the agenda packet, which was at 3 p.m.

last Thursday.

First public comment from R.

Bridges, who is opposed to this agenda item.

And I quote, I am opposed to any development made in the neighborhood until the city does something about the rampant speeding through here, namely Osborne between Dysert and Indian School at peak hours.

It is already nearly impossible to turn on to Osborne from 132nd Avenue due to those speeding along Osborne.

Pushing more traffic through here decreases our quality of life and our safety.

Thank you for the consideration.

End quote.

Next, I have Catherine M, who is opposed to this agenda item.

No comments.

Next, I have Deborah Wilson, who is opposed to this agenda item, and I quote, as a property owner in Dysart Ranch, I am opposed to breaking the current C2 zoning to allow yet another storage facility to be built in the R area.

A facility like this is such in such close proximity to our neighborhood, will only have a negative impact, such as the increased possibility of crime, unkept property, and even homeless related issues that is rapidly moving into our area.

In addition, the type of building proposed is not in keeping with the surrounding area and its current aesthetic.

This area would be better used for the purpose it was attended by C2 zoning, which would be businesses that provide value to the surrounding communities, such as medical offices, a daycare shops, or even restaurants.

My biggest concern is that this type of facility will break our current zoning that is appropriate for this area and will open the door for other non-C2 uses on adjacent parcels.

Thank you, Deborah Wilson.

End quote.

Next, I have Andrea Sandoval, who is opposed to this agenda item.

I quote, I wish to speak at the meeting.

I am opposed to this agenda item.

I would like my previous written statement removed from the record and my statement at this meeting be utilized as my statement of record, Andrea Sondoval.

And mayor, I do have her listed as someone who does want to speak tonight.

Next, I have Virginia Thiel, who is opposed to this agenda item.

And I quote, I just heard about another monstrosity of a storage facility.

My goodness, there are already hundreds of big box storages all over Buckeye, Avondale, and especially Goodyear.

We are becoming a commercialized area that will allow more big rig vehicles onto our already jammed parking lot type freeways.

The freeways will not be expanded enough to carry all of the access vehicles.

I've lived in Goodyear for 23 years and it'll be it was a wonderful, charming family town.

Now it's dominated by ugly multi-level apartments and box buildings.

I definitely say no to another one being allowed to be built close to the family homes, neighbors, and critical post office.

Additionally, we have a water crisis and adding these huge facilities will further put a strain on our natural resources.

Greed has taken common sense when is when is enough enough.

Please do not allow this reasoning for another commercial monstrosity.

End quote.

Next, I had Edward Quinn, who is opposed to this agenda item.

And I quote, Edward and Lisa Quinn, statement in opposition to appeal PL 23-0303.

As a resident of Dysart Ranch, my wife Lisa Quinn and myself, Edward Quinn strongly oppose this conditional use permit.

As others have stated throughout this process, this type of facility favors only the investors, stakeholders, and seems to completely disregard the actual community stakeholders and the environmental issues related to this issue, this use.

Regarding the community members like my wife and I, this type of facility fails any sorts of wholesome beneficial use for the community members, as other community members have stated.

Further, the record shows this this developer has continually failed in his obligation in a code regulated zone application zoning application process for a range of things that will be covered by other community members.

But in the interest of being specific, my wife and I have lived here since 2016 and in 2021, we and many neighbors have spoken to, did not receive any effective noticing on this project application, nor were there any attempts by the developer to reach out for cooperative community stakeholder engagement on the project application.

If we have been effectively noticed and have been effectively engaged as stakeholders, we would have strongly opposed the project then.

The use does not serve the immediate need of the community, does not conform the aesthetics to the community, does not create jobs, and does not conform or conform to traditional C2 zoning.

In fact, the developers' other similar project in Gilbert AZ actually fosters an environment for crime in that facility, among other deleterious effects for the community.

Our community has proven during the recent application that this applicant has not been working in good faith with the community and has sought to limit opposition.

I encourage the city council members to focus on the decision regarding the denial of the planning commission, not on question of whether the current application is the same as application 2021.

If it were the same application, it was again denied by the 2024 Avindale Planning Commission on February 21st, 2024, confirming that the CUP does not meet the requirements for a conditional use permit.

Respectfully, if I may speak for others in the community, please consider that this is community and its members are informed, committed, and will remain resilient in our current and future opposition to the project or any other project of this type.

End quote.

Next, I have Stephen E, who is opposed to this agenda item.

And quote, I am a Lichville Park homeowner.

My family and I vote regularly and have a great appreciation for the hard work and service of city council.

I am writing to express my family's violent opposition to Guardian extra space storage requests for a conditional use permit in contraventions to the existing C2 zoning.

This is not simply an issue of vague concern regarding community impact.

Granting this conditional use permit would result in potentially catastrophic effects on the Dysart Ranch neighborhood due to the massive size of the Guardian Extra Space Warehouse over 2.5 acres with a building over 30 feet tall and over 11,000 square feet total.

This building would result in substantially increased flood risk to Dysart Ranch due to the project's impact on storm router runoff.

This impact is not speculative.

It is confirmed by FEMA analysis, as well as Guardian Extra Spaces' own drainage and stormwater runoff plan for the project.

Due to the widespread changes and challenges in home insurance industry, the increased flood risk resulting from the project will likely render Dysart Ranch homes uninsurable.

And if the project is approved in more similar similar projects will presumably apply for and be granted similar exceptions for adjacent parcels, causing the flood risk to Dysart Ranch to increase even further.

The impact on Diceart ranch homes and homeowners could be catastrophic.

There are also already multiple storage facilities in the area, including one appropriately located in the commercial zoned area that is less than half a mile away from this new proposed project.

The community does not need more storage facilities.

Keeping the existing zoning C2 in place will best serve the community by prioritizing neighborhood appropriate businesses which offer essential services while locating commercial projects in appropriate commercial zones.

The impact of the conditional use permit could not be more one-sided.

If the permit is denied, then guardian extra space will simply locate their business somewhere else.

But in the permit, but if the permit is approved, the homes of the entire neighborhood will be put at risk, and homeowners will have no recourse whatsoever.

Please do not prioritize the profit interests of a single business owner, business over the safety, security, financial stability of an entire neighborhood.

Large commercial projects such as this one belong in the commercially zoned areas, not in C2 zoned areas, and not where they will put an entire neighborhood at risk of a flood.

We respectfully request that guardian slash extra spaces appeal be denied.

Consistent with the denial of the original conditional use permit.

Thank you for your consideration and recognition of the community's needs.

End quote.

Irene Vasquez is opposed to this agenda item.

I quote, I oppose the storage warehouse project at the corner of Osborne and Indian School because it will depreciate property values and add to the traffic issues in Dysart Ranch neighborhood.

End quote.

And I quote, I strongly oppose to this project and believe that the city has already made a correct decision when it denied the CUP for this project.

A storage facility has no place in a residential neighborhood period.

The project does not fit in the surrounding homes, businesses, and due to the size of the building, it is likely the neighborhood will be seriously impacted by storm router runoff based on new FEMA information and the drainage and storm router runoff plans for the project.

The current zoning of C2 does not allow for residential development, only additional valuable services for residents like medical care shops, resident restaurants, daycare, et cetera.

The zoning decision was mindfully made with the residents in mind, allowing this variation flies in the face of that intent and would reflect a wholehearted disregard for residents.

Please vote no and uphold the integrity of this neighborhood.

There are commercial aid zones for a reason.

This project belongs belongs there.

There is no reason for this project needs to be here.

It can move to where it should have been in the first place.

Residents don't have the luxury and depend on city council to ensure that residential neighborhoods save residential.

Please vote no.

End quote.

Next, I have Jay Nichols, who is opposed to this agenda item.

I quote, I work at the business park next door.

We've had enough denials that there is a link, there is a link to these facilities in the homeless.

We have read the vetted studies and looked at the data.

Two reputable universities, ASU and USC, USC partnered with the Arizona Self Storage Association to study the use of these facilities in an outreach point for the homeless.

Why?

Because of because as the independent academic study says, many homeless or near homeless use these facilities for storing belongings while living in vehicles or on the street and even as shelter.

A simple Google search will send you to YouTube and shows people giving tours of the units they've converted into shelter and the so-called secure climate control facilities as are their favorite.

They know it's not allowed, but as they know the facilities have no staff to monitor activity after hours.

There was a massive fentanyl bus recently as one of these places, and I'm sure that place had rules too.

End quote.

Next, I have JL, who is opposed to this agenda item, and I quote, I would rather see a development that would create more jobs, etc., a building with a sandwich shop, an insurance agent, a bunk cake business that would have more services for our community.

I have used a local storage facility, end quote.

Next, I have Gail Sanchez, who is opposed to this agenda item.

I quote, we do not need another storage facility.

There are three extremely close that come to mind.

The post office I work for would deliver the mail to the business here.

Has the post office even been notified?

My postmaster was not aware that this was even considered.

What about a swap of land with Lutchville Park?

What about Trader Joe's, a cheats and cheesecake factory, outback, Longhorn, America Mile, Delhi, or something that would better service the area.

Something that would look better, even a mom and pop sandwich shop.

I live in Belfleur and have been there for 20 years and have worked for the post office and am very familiar with the mail route.

It's a lot of medical and only one food, I believe.

There's nothing to walk to for lunch or coffee without driving.

The neighborhood restaurants in the middle of the child by the Wigwam are very profitable and it's packed daily with residents eating outside that we need more of.

We at the post office will service whatever is approved, and hopefully this area will remain unique and still feel like a small town community.

End quote.

Next, I have Jay Laga Schult, who is opposed to this agenda item.

And I quote, Guardian Storage sent out a letter with a Zoom meeting address for the proposed storage facility at Osborne Road and Indian School Road.

Tried several times and could not get a signal in.

Each time it came back invalid.

I wondered how many other residents could not get signed in.

Concerns me about application PL 23-0303 meeting was to be on December 9th at 6 p.m.

They gave us no phone number in the mailing to contact them.

We are not in favor of two-story building on that property.

We would have expressed more of our concerns, such as traffic flow had been had we been able to sign into the meeting.

Thank you, Jay and Eva Lugaschult.

End quote.

Next, I have Transparency AZ, who is opposed to this agenda item.

Transparency AZ been looking into the repository of files related to the CUP.

Looks like while Guardian Storage was pleading for a reversal of the planning commission's 2021 denial in front of the city council of Avondil, Paul Hedges companies were in default with the ACC.

Looks like the 2021 conditional use permit potentially obtained a fraud or misrepresentation since the applicant has not proven he is a legal representative of extra space storage, and guardian storage is not a registered company, foreign or domestic in the state of Arizona at the time of their application.

Community reps have documents presented by the applicant to the city that appear to be altered, and from what we can gather, the applicant's attorney has repeatedly made statements to city officials at the public that are misleading or untrue, including but not limited to his safety record at other owned properties and references to ample on-site trash bins for clients.

Video and photographic evidence we've obtained from the subject facility in Gilbert, as well as conversations with representatives from extra space storage facilities, including the subject's own, prove that this not to be the case.

According to the ACC, this is only not the only company that Paul Hedges has formed during a construction project, then allowed to fall into dissolution.

We also checked out the Yelp reviews, and half of them are one star and talk about unresponsive management, price gouging, rats, and roaches.

Due to the lack of transparency in the process, video, audio, and photographic evidence and other concerns conveyed, we stand with the community in opposition to any approval of the application.

End quote.

I have John B, who is opposed to this agenda item.

I quote, I know that many members of our community have specific points to address in opposition to the construction and operation of the storage facility.

The more I learn about the facility and the tactics of the owners of the intended facility, the more uncomfortable I am with it with its effects on the neighborhood and the obvious disdain the owners of the facility have for the community that they wish to build on top of.

I know from experience the effects from building and then forever operations of a storage facility built on top of a community.

There is no doubt the significant increase in traffic, particularly heavy vehicle traffic that will occur on Osborne where right through the middle of Dysheart Ranch community will have a poor and permanent effect on our community.

We don't need this facility built on top of our community and don't want it there.

There are plenty of appropriately zoned properties this company can use in the area that would not poorly affect the daily lives of residents of a safe and comfortable community.

Next I have Chuck L, who is opposed to this agenda item with no comments.

Next I have Kathleen Monterey, who is opposed to this agenda item.

And I quote, our family is on vacation.

A lot of families are on vacation.

I was pre uh I was at the previous meeting at City Hall, but can't attend this one because for some reason it was scheduled during a very busy season rather than in September.

You waited four months.

Why give such short notice to people?

At first it appeared on the city website as a remote meeting, so I figured I can make comments.

Thankfully, this was brought to my attention by the neighbor just in time to make the comment on behalf of my entire family, grandma, kids, grandkids.

Here it is.

The thing about a storage facility building is that it will only ever be one thing, a storage facility.

Unlike other shops or business offices, this use and design limits what can operate here.

The neighborhood can adjust and evolve.

Please don't approve.

End quote.

Thank you, Mayor.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Marcel.

I appreciate that.

I'm gonna go in order the ones that I received here.

So I have nine.

Mr.

Lesota, you wanted to go first, correct, sir?

Uh you've got three minutes, sir, as everyone else does.

Thank you.

Do you mind just saying your name for the record, sir?

Yes, Mayor.

Timothy Lasoda, uh 2198's Camelback Road in Phoenix, on behalf of Dysert Ranch Community HOA.

And I I want to start by mentioning uh the actual posture here.

You've heard that this is indeed an appeal.

Uh Mr.

Baugh himself said there really wasn't much at the Planning Commission level.

But that's your job here is to look at what happened there.

And if they didn't develop the record and you're unable to make a decision, that's nobody's fault but the applicant.

Now, Mr.

Baugh wasn't even involved then, but he makes a presentation here after hearing that you're not supposed to hear new evidence or new information.

Um so it's a little bit on it seems like that's not being followed.

Um but the bottom line here is the record is what was presented to the uh planning commission, and that record was was what it is.

Um that's what should have been presented on this screen to you is what they considered.

Uh they didn't make any findings.

So this body is is basically completely unable to sit in judgment of the decision they made.

It's it's been stressed to you already by your own staff.

This is not just a decision that you're making.

This is you're sitting as an appellate body in a quasi-judicial capacity to review what they did, and that's that's impossible to overturn them when you just don't have uh anything to go on, and certainly nothing that's been presented tonight.

Um I also want to talk about the notice.

Uh, we did not see a notice in a newspaper.

I did a search myself in newspapers.com.

I I maybe it's possible it I don't know what happened, but we didn't see that notice.

And as for the posted notice, that sign is way, way off of Indian School Road.

I went out there myself, I and the sign is not legible.

Um, so I have no idea why they put the sign where they put it.

They put it in the middle of that vacant lot.

Uh it's where you'd put the sign if you didn't want people to be able to see it.

It does not comply with the code provision that requires a legible sign.

Um, if they're gonna put it in the middle of the field, the lettering needs to be bigger.

It just it's I I've never seen anything like it.

And this comes on the tail of having to continue the last meeting because the sign in that instance, the lettering wasn't big enough.

I don't know exactly where it is, but it has the same effect.

If they move the sign further and um and they make the let uh uh further away, uh then it doesn't matter that they've made the lettering bigger because you still can't read it.

And of course, the lot is posted private property, so you're not allowed to go up to the sign and and look at it.

It's supposed to be there so you can actually read it as you drive by or at least get the major information.

That simply wasn't done.

I mean, it's just it's emblematic of sort of the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

I I think one of the things, you know, it it does come down to is it gonna be detrimental to everyone else?

I think you have to ask them yourselves.

This gang that can't shoot straight, do you really have confidence in them?

And bottom line, you don't have anything to overturn the planning commission.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, sir, for being here tonight.

Andrea Sandoval.

And I'll just ask everyone, so I don't have to keep on repeating it because you'll get tired of hearing me.

Just when you get up just for the record, just state your name.

You don't need to give your address.

Just state your name for the record.

That would be great.

Hi, ma'am.

How are you?

Good.

I'm a little bit short, so you want us to lower that?

Yeah, could you, because I am reading.

Marcella, do you mind?

It's high tech, and sometimes we don't know how to do it, but we'll figure it out.

Just a little bit.

Okay.

Okay.

My name is Andrea Sandoval.

Um I am a homeowner in the Dysert Ranch community.

I oppose this item for several reasons.

First of all, I oppose the item because of the way that the item was continued at the last minute at the last council meeting after the applicant's representative appeared late.

If the applicant cannot even show up to a public meeting on time, they should not have been allowed to request a continuance.

The community should have been allowed to speak, and the appeal should have been denied.

I also oppose because of the number of existing storage facilities already built or being built in our neighborhood during the time that the applicant failed to build and allowed his CUP to expire.

The neighborhood has changed since that time, and more storage facilities have popped up in our neighborhood.

Also Goodyear, Litchville Park, Al Mirage, so all of all of the surrounding neighborhood have now been built, and we no longer need or would like an unmanaged facility.

Specifically, the entrance and exits to the proposed building would fall directly into our small neighborhood next to the U.S.

Post Office.

Obviously, the applicant is lives on the East Valley, but if you've ever been near the post office, the Lichville Park post office, around Christmas time or election time, the lines and the backup would back up right on to Osborne, right where the entrance and exits would come from this facility.

I also believe that the public signage has been inaccurate and placed in locations where the neighborhood cannot even read them.

And the community engagement related to this item has been sporadic, confusing, and unmanageable for us to understand what's going on.

And finally, I would like to mention that I was invited to and attended a political meet and greet that I attended on July 11th.

For some of you that were running for um both Avondale Mayor and Avondale City Council.

At that meeting, I per personally introduced myself as a Dysert Ranch community member and spoke about our storage facility and our neighborhood's opposite opposition.

The council members I spoke to gave me suggestions on and ideas of other successful neighborhood groups who had opposed um similar projects.

You described documentation and proof that was needed to promote prove bad business practices, complaints from existing tenants, crimes uh at other businesses owned.

I understand now that that information has been presented to you, and I ask that you review that and uh deny this appeal.

Thank you, ma'am.

I appreciate that.

You don't want to speak, sir?

Did I did I say your last name right or did I butcher it?

Benjamin Grassi.

Benjamin, did I get that last name right?

All right, good.

Uh my name is Benjamin Grassy.

Good evening, City Council members.

I live in Dys Rat Ranch with my wife and children, and I am here urging the City Council to represent the voters and taxpayers in this community who you were entrusted to serve and vote down this appeal.

We the citizens have been fighting this for months.

There is still very poor signage at the site.

I walked by there today.

It is indeed in the middle of the field.

You can't read it.

I even took a picture.

Additionally, I now know why I didn't know about any of these neighborhood meetings.

Clearly, I am further than a thousand feet from the proposed site, even though I live in Dysart Ranch.

There are 16 other storage facilities within uh five miles of this proposed location, and there's two more in development in the same radius.

So let's say 18.

I inquired about availability at seven of these locations and found thousands of available units at these locations.

They are currently running vacancy rates of 10 to 45 percent.

The market is clearly oversaturated here for storage facilities.

This land was originally zoned for office space, retail, daycares, which we really need if you've ever uh called a daycare and listen to their wait list.

It's it's a lot.

Um we don't need another storage facility to add to the existing 18.

We don't need 19.

Approving this will pave the way for additional unnecessary developments that lower our home values and impede our communities with trash, drugs, crime, and unfortunately homelessness.

And this will stand in stark contrast to the surrounding architecture.

Please welcome in businesses that benefit the neighborhoods and people who already live here, not another storage facility offering one to two jobs and a permanent stucco facade as a thank you.

Do not bookend our neighborhood with storage facilities, as there's already one on the next corner up.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Thank you for being here tonight, sir.

The Dysert Ranch Community Coalition.

Ma'am, how are you?

I'm Jennifer Deeds.

I'm here uh on behalf of the Dice Art Ranch Community Coalition.

The only thing that is the same about this permit as the 2021 application is the lack of noticing to the community.

We went back and we pulled a lot of the affidavits and noticing, and we've done a lot of data science, and we can tell you that the signs back then, just like this time, we're all out of compliance, but we're here to discuss the here and now.

And as you've been told, there is no newspapers.com listing uh where the rest of these notices were shown.

Um it just doesn't exist, it wasn't done, that commitment wasn't fulfilled, and the sign at the site is unreadable.

Um Adam's appeal seeds new information, and Adam, a clock tower is an artistic feature that the community doesn't mind.

This we've got the same elevations at the site.

The the building he keeps referring to is actually uh one story, and it just has a two-story clock tower and some parapets.

Um my comments and many others from us were either omitted or boiled down for the um previous packages.

And um I went to the neighborhood meeting, and Adam, the second story sign that's going to appear across the side of the building that's visible to everyone in Lichfield Park, never goes out.

It's always lit.

So there's always lit signage on the second story.

And why would anybody go to a neighborhood meeting when you've already put an appeal in that basically says everything is not valid?

So Mr.

Bond, Mr.

Hedges have floated a story about how they worked as hard as they could to complete the project in the given time frame.

We pulled the building records from the city of Gilbert and for Mr.

Hedge's property.

His facility was being constructed in 21 and 22, concurrent to his time frame here in Avondale.

Records from Gilbert Shoey had no problems meeting as many deadlines there.

Obviously, Gilbert and not Avondale was his priority.

We pulled the records from the Gilbert Police Department.

Mr.

Hedge's uh so-called secure facility has 11 separate police calls for service in less than two years, uh, an inordinate number, including many burglaries, vagrancy calls, nuisance calls, and more.

And we provided records that show Mr.

Hedge has allowed companies to operate while in administrative default.

Allowing these companies to fall into dissolution is a strategy to sidestep accountability.

A corporation that no longer exists is no longer accountable.

It's why this applicant and his attorney feel so much agency to make false promises and m misrepresent facts.

What message are we sending future developers if we allow this to happen?

This council continues to hear that this is the same uh application as 2021, and that's what you're deciding.

Please don't be misled.

It doesn't matter if it's the same application.

It's about new data presented to the city that directly affects this decision and the welfare of the community.

We will be seeking accountability.

Our community listened.

We heard what you said.

Uh we we heard what you said you needed, and we've provided proof from reliable sources at the state and local level.

Please end this today and support the planning commission's denial of the 2023 conditional use permit.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Leda Fontaine.

Did I say it correctly?

Yes, sir.

I'm two out of three.

Actually, Lila.

Lida?

I'm used to later most of the time.

Okay, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of our community.

I live in one of the cul de sacs directly facing the existing business park, the post office, and the empty lot the developer wants to use to build an unsightly obstructive structure.

This structure looks nothing like anything in the area.

Some of the issues residents who value the integrity of these of this exclusive community with semi-custom homes and stable property values are.

Thank you, ma'am.

Eric Blocker.

Did I say that correct?

Yes, you did.

My name is Eric Blocker, and I'm a resident on West Mulberry Drive and Dysart Ranch.

I've identified 42 Dysheart Ranch residents living in the West Mulberry Drive, West Flower Street, and Monterey Way Cal-de-Sax that are requesting that the conditional use permit application PL 210303 for facility not be approved by the City of Avondale.

Of the Cal de Sack residents that I contacted, none indicated that they would approve the conditional use permit application.

The proposed facility is not consistent with the 2030 general plan that states consideration be given to relationship with surrounding land uses, visual impact of the project, potential for risk, and public input.

The appeals request does not adequately address the following neighborhood concerns and does not demonstrate the facility would be built and operated in a manner consistent with public health, safety, or welfare of the community, or in a manner that does not constitute a nuisance to the neighboring property owners, adjacent neighborhoods, or the city.

Noise impact.

The proposed facility operating hours of 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

is not consistent with the existing office park operating hours and would create a potential noise impact to existing residential areas during early morning and evening operation.

The two-story facility would ref reflect noise to the Dysart Ranch community to the south and the Litchville Park community to the north of the facility.

Signage and night light.

The planned facility construction is not consistent with the existing office park signage or night light.

Signage should not be illuminated, be aesthetically pleasing, and limit visual or night light impacts to the residential areas to the north and the south.

Excessive traffic and congestion.

While the appeals request addressed traffic volume, it did not adequately address traffic flow.

Existing assets to the access to the post office assumes a one-way traffic flow off of Osborne.

The addition of another business using the Lichfield Park post office access point from Osborne Drive would create an additional access flow to the Osborne Drive from the office port, and then add to the existing congestion on Osborne Drive.

Additional neighbor concerns.

Additional neighbor concerns include, as you've heard, uh waste dumping and removal, hazardous waste, toxic materials, disposal and removal, and vagrancy.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Sir, thank you for that.

I don't have a last name, but I have a Greg D.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, thank you for having me.

My name is Mr.

Deeds Greg Deeds.

So the first thing I want to start off with is some distances.

As I told you last time, Mayor, I'm a data scientist, so I'm the one who thank Marcel and the rest of the staff have pulled about 6,000 pages of emails and documentation.

So let's talk about first some distances.

The distance from my home to a daycare in Avondale is four and a half miles.

It's one and a half miles in Goodyear.

Why don't we have one in Avondale?

Pharmacy, 2.7 miles.

Neighborhood market, 1.3 miles.

Nearest storage, 0.5 miles.

Data point.

Mr.

Hedges, who has been very courteous to me, unlike Mr.

Ball, who doesn't shake people's hands, has promoted a business that is safe.

Well, I went down there and actually took a tour.

And in full well knowing I was shooting the video, his employee did admit there is crime.

So we pulled the police reports, and there's crime.

There is a locked garbage bin.

There's one garbage can in the bathroom which is only open during the day.

That is also a lie perpetrated by Mr.

Ball.

Extra space storage employees make it clear that they will charge you if you leave anything in the units.

In an environment where people are struggling, and they're put in a position where this is their last resort to save their belongings.

They're going to dump.

These are people who don't live with us in our neighborhood.

They don't live, they live in 10 million dollar houses with guard gates.

You are our guards.

You stand at our gates.

We're counting on you.

Our concerns were dismissed at every turn.

Mr.

Baugh said in respond.

I asked him to send me the appeal before I respond.

Also a lie.

Do not take his word.

Take the word of your neighbors.

This facility will cause an economic injury.

Most people will not be able to cover up, recover from.

And with all due respect to everyone here, and I I want to be a good citizen.

I'm not saying we don't want businesses there.

We don't want the right business.

We do.

Build the right thing there.

Please.

But do not approve this.

This is the picture I took of the locked dumpster at his facility.

I speak very plainly and honestly to you, very humbly.

And I want you to understand that I confirm the newspaper ad was not in there personally.

I have taken the tours.

I have documented these things.

I have downloaded the 6,000 pages in using AI.

I have found out more information than I want to about all this.

Please listen to your neighbors, protect us.

And let's end this.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Ball.

Mr.

Ball, before you go any further, is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak on this issue before I close the public hearing?

And for the record, I want the what if it's Barcelona, you could do this.

Uh people are holding up sides that say deny.

I just want that in the record.

Thank you, Mary.

Well deal.

Anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak on this issue?

Ma'am?

Yes, please come on up.

Yeah, I saw the gentleman in the sharp shirt.

If you would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up now and have a seat in the front.

How are you, ma'am?

I'm great.

My last name is Kupus Iske.

I was just waiting for you to try it.

I was not going to.

I appreciate you helping me out.

I'll try to be quick and I thank you so much for your time.

Uh my husband and I are homeowners in the Dysot Ranch community.

The only reason I had to come up here and shoot my mouth off was because I care.

I care about what's going on here.

I care about the beautiful community that we live in, the people that help to take care of it and protect it.

And I care about every one of these blessed people that came up and stood up and did all their homework to watch out about this.

Yes, I am vehemently opposed to this thing.

I don't think it is going to be good for our community.

There is a list of legalities and logistics that I could reiterate here.

I'm not going to go into that.

All I'm asking, first of all, I wanted to thank you for your time.

Second of all, is please care along with me and think a little bit with your heart as well as with your attorneys and your common sense and realize what this may do to our beautiful community.

And thank you again for your time.

Thank you, ma'am, for being here.

Sir My name's Charles Anderson, and I've been a DIES art resident for 20 years.

And our community is uh grown quite a bit, and our home values will definitely be impacted by this facility.

And a number of people are concerned about the FEMA requiring flood insurance.

So anyone that has a mortgage on their home would have to have flood insurance, which costs a lot of money.

And I think that this project, like others have said, would be more fitting in an area where there's more suitable commercial businesses instead of restaurants and things that we need.

I've never heard of anybody in our community that said they wanted a facility closer by the thank you, sir.

Is there anybody else?

Ma'am?

Do you mind coming up so we can hear you?

That's the only issue.

It's being recorded and streamed, and I just want to make sure.

I wanted to point out the numerous school buses that go up and down Osborne.

And not more than a half a block from where this facility is proposing to be built.

There's lit uh Trinity Lutheran School with a lot of school activities, after hours, and sometimes they're going on school trips early in the morning.

I do not welcome this facility being built so so near any any schools in our community.

And we are just appreciating the fact that you're listening to us, but our home values are gonna be affected, and many of us are going to be using that value at some point in the future for our retirement.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

One more, ma'am.

I just wanted to add that we read the community comments uh before coming, and some of the community comments um seem to be missing from having been read here today.

I'm not sure uh whether that was a time constraint.

I also wanted to add that um the stormwater is being mentioned and FEMA's being mentioned because the applicant has stated that he's using our uh common area to dump the stormwater runoff from his facility.

And he is not accounting for the proper um retention.

Therefore, the stormwater runoff, which runs into our uh and catchment, our catchment there, will put a strain on an already strained neighborhood that now has new FEMA data that says the back half of the neighborhood is gonna be underwater and required to have flood insurance.

This is all new data.

It's obviously very upsetting for people, and it's very technical, but we have experts working on that right now for us.

And also, we'd like to say that there's no stormwater pollution prevention plan that is required by this application.

We requested all of these things, and we never received it.

No stormwater pollution plan was done.

And you know, we're not asking that nothing be built there.

We actually want services there.

We will welcome anything.

We have a drug and alcohol treatment center in the neighborhood.

We've never said no to anything.

This is very specific to the fact that there's saturation, and we we really just are very opposed after having gone to Mr.

Hedge's facility, taken a tour, seen people living in the parking lots.

We pulled the police records, as I said, 11 incidences, including burglary, hand handful of burglaries.

You know, the majority of them were related to burglaries, it seems.

Um, and these are police records from Gilbert.

We can't fake this data.

That we got this data, and this is what we see, and this is what we were concerned about.

And we are obviously very concerned that he's made promises all over Gilbert, I'm sure, about how safe the facility is gonna be.

It's also a keypad-only facility.

Um we've we've done the work, we've we've got the documentation.

We presented this, and obviously it did not make it into the record today for some reason.

Uh but we've mentioned these concerns throughout this application process, and our concerns were boiled down into a sentence in most cases.

So that's why you don't have this information because the stuff that the planning commission read was not the statements that we made.

It wasn't the information we sent that we asked to be included in the record.

So you know, this is why we're bringing this to you now, why so many citizens are concerned.

So please, we just implore you.

Believe the sources, don't you don't even have to believe us, but believe the sources.

Eleven police calls in less than two years is an inordinate amount of police calls.

And obviously, we're all very concerned about this issue.

So thank you again.

We appreciate all of you.

And you know, we want to support any other business that goes there, but um, we are obviously very opposed to this.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing.

Let me say it takes I hear a lot of passion.

I hear a love for the community.

Um I appreciate everyone who got up to speak.

It takes a lot of courage to go ahead and do that.

Um Marcella got through a bunch of things very bravely.

Did that great names, everything?

So I appreciate that.

Mr.

Ball, I'm gonna give you the opportunity.

I'm gonna have staff come up after and kind of talk.

Um don't make don't make it that high, because other people may have to come up.

You never know.

I promise I'll lower it when I finish.

Um mayor and counsel.

A lot was said.

I'm gonna do my best to address what I heard.

I think I think you'd expect an applicant to answer questions.

I may miss an item or two, so please um feel free to interrupt me or if there's a question I can answer, I'm happy to do that.

Imagine a developer investing in your community, go into the processes, but the length of the processes and the sequential order of those processes don't actually allow him to fulfill the measure of the stipulations because of the time it takes to go through those processes.

That's that's really why we're here today.

Um other cities, you can overlap some of those processes at the same time, but we don't have that privilege here in the city of Avondale.

I can't do my uh building permit review until I get through plattering.

I can't do a pilot until the site plan review.

And so it's on the unfortunate part of what it takes to entitle property in this in the city of Avondale.

Even if I can done that in much faster time, I still couldn't have been able to build a building in time.

I think it's more of a technicality related to an archaic version of your ordinance, but not a reflection of someone's um failure to try their best to comply.

You know, um I heard a lot of things, and I don't know if I'll be able to cover them in any particular order, but maybe just address some clear misconceptions, misunderstandings, or just uh dishonest statements.

This is not a breakup of the C2 zoning.

This is not in contravention of the CD zoning.

This is in furtherance of the C2 zoning.

This is a use permitted in the C2 zoning with this use permit.

This is not building a monstrosity.

This is not exceeding the heights.

This is use that's consistent with the heights that are allowed here.

I do not know why there is this belief that somehow a development of our facility floods the neighborhood, which is beyond the office project that separates us in the neighborhood.

Um the city, through the engineering staff, reviews our plans.

They change they they give us comments, we revise our plans to make sure they're compliant.

Uh I think it's better to ask your city the question, will this flood the neighborhood?

But we will not do that.

I don't know where that misbelief came from.

I continue to hear that this creates traffic.

If eight trips in uh and out in a one-hour period at its greatest peak time is traffic, I can't imagine how these neighbors are gonna react when the balance of the six acres gets built for a real commercial shopping center.

There's a comment made about lowering property values, but I haven't seen any evidence presented by them to support that.

I was told this has no place in the residential neighborhood except for the fact that this is in a commercial zoned area around commercial properties and buffered from the residential neighborhood by other built existing commercial properties.

I've heard that somehow our newspaper notice is is doesn't exist, except for it was published, and staff has a copy from the newspaper that um is the tear sheet that evidences that happened.

I've heard that our sign is somehow in the middle of the property.

But you have a very large right of way along Indian School Road, and as the applicant, we are not allowed to put our signs in your right of way.

We have to put it within three feet of your right of way, which is exactly where the sign is placed.

I didn't get to control that you guys own so much of right away along Indian School Road, but that's where our sign is because that's where it's legally required to be.

I've heard that there's too many facilities in the area, as if that was a criteria that you are allowed to consider.

But that is not part of the five-part test.

And if that was part of the test, then you would say, well, we have too many restaurants.

Or we have too many neighborhoods, we should stop building neighborhoods.

At some point, the market will determine what the market desires.

And if that was a factor for your consideration, it would have been the sixth part of this test, but it's not within that.

I've heard that this exits into the neighborhood, but actually it exits onto Osborne Road, which is a public street, our trio for that matter.

Um I've heard that uh business signage is offensive because it's lit.

But I can't think of any other instance in your city where you have restricted a business owner from having his signs lit at nighttime.

I think we've gone above what you would expect the applicant to actually extinguish the lights inside the building, so that way it reduces the amount of light.

But in no circumstance is there a business signage on the back side of our building that would be closer to the neighbors.

Our signage is actually on the street side.

Um I've heard weirdly things about police records.

I thought it was odd that I heard this today because I haven't heard that before.

It was almost this ambush effort at the last second before the council introduced this idea.

So I had a chance to look into that and go, mm-hmm, 11 police calls.

Did they tell you that one was for people stuck in an elevator?

Did they tell you because there was an alarm that was continually running?

Or to tell you one was for police proactive um outreach?

That actually there's only uh four incidences and a couple of follow-ups to those.

So it's sort of a misrepresentation to refer to a different city, different facility, different operations, and a set of facts that we haven't had the chance to consider, or even you for that matter, nor do we know how it was resolved.

I find it interesting that somehow this is the obstruction to the neighborhood.

When it's on land zone commercial, with six other acres of vacant land zone commercial, and I hope it doesn't take another 40 years before the other six acres gets developed.

But when we talk about things like a like a daycare, or uh cheesecake factory, or whole foods.

I mean, we would all love one of those near our houses, but the market will attract those things or the market will chase them away.

This site has had more 40 years of zoned commercial land to attract those uses.

And it might be a much longer period of time before that happens, but at a minimum, this site is available in itself of the entitlement that are available to it.

And hopefully it's enough to create interest on the balance of the of the shopping center so that those other uses may come online.

I've heard things like this is gonna have a noise impact, but I just really struggle to understand how does something with such few visits create noise.

At the end of the day, I look back and I go, if I'm a member of this council and I'm evaluating this request, how do I judge it?

Do I judge it by the number of people put in cards?

Well, I wish I could, but I can't, because that's not part of the test.

Do I judge it by my preference for eating establishments or other things I would prefer to see here?

Well, I wish I could, but that's just not part of the test.

The only thing I could consider if I was a city council member is the parts that are outlined and codified in your zoning code.

And that's why staffs recommend approval.

When staff gave their presentation, they concluded, your professional staff determined the analysis that we had satisfied the five elements of this test.

You, at least five of you had determined that we have satisfied the elements of this five-part test.

And for those reasons, I appreciate that there's a lot of concern related to the use or the desire to see something different.

But unfortunately, facts matter.

Fears without evidence to support them don't have the same weight and consideration.

And if we are going to uh make a decision based on a use permit criteria, I hope we can follow that criteria.

Because if we do that, then we'll end up in the spot that this is approval.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Baugh.

Sandra, did you have anything else you wanted to say?

For the record, Sandra Floyne Development Services.

Um I have no further comments.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Let's open this up for council right there, so stay close.

Okay.

Um Marcella, is it possible for you to put up the uh five criteria?

Do you have that ability?

Sandra, is that in your slide?

Right there.

Perfect.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was part of the yes vote in 2021.

And I saw no reason at that time to deny it.

There was a lot of good information that came out.

There was no input from the community at all.

Um we are responsible to the residents of Avondale, not to the residents of Lichville Park.

And as much as we love Lichville Park, we love having them as our neighbor, they have their own city council, their own mayor, their own form of government.

We don't get involved what they do over there.

I look at this and as a quasi-judicial panel, we're not evaluating the merits of the um of the facility.

What we're looking at is did the Planning and Zoning Commission of Avondale get it wrong?

Did they get it right?

One of those two.

They tied a voted two to two, which is a technical denial.

I don't know what would have happened if there was a fifth person there.

I don't know if the planning com I don't know what would happen if the planning commission was there in full.

But for me, and for this council, we can't make a decision based off of anything except for the facts off of anything that's in front of us here.

It can't be based on a motion.

It can't be based on anything else except for the facts.

So I kind of want to hear from other council members if they want to.

Uh Max, let's start with you.

I move we go into executive session.

I get a second for executive session.

I have a motion and a second for executive session.

Marcella, do you mind?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any of those?

We're adjourned to executive session.

For those who are listening online, we are taking a recess and city council will be in executive session.

Thank you.

Sorry.

We're back from executive session.

Everyone, thank you for being patient with us.

Tina, I think you had a you may have a question.

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um actually I have a question for you, Nicole.

If you can just do us a favor and remind me and us of what our role is as a quasi judicial role that we play tonight versus our regular council role.

Mayor Council.

Um so tonight um you are serving in your quasi judicial capacity, which means your decision to reverse or affirm the planning commission's decision shall only be made upon the record that was presented at the planning commission.

Um you should not consider any new evidence unless that evidence or information was presented to the planning commission.

Thank you.

Let me go down the line.

My mic.

Let me go down the line.

Max, anything for you?

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you so much for all the presentations and all the speakers and community members that came out this evening to the applicant, to our staff.

I just want to thank you for all the hard work that you put in.

I know how much our staff has done.

Um I I think um our planning commission left us in an interesting situation with the tie vote.

So a couple things that I I know someone in the audience took my guidance and went ahead and took a look at the criminal aspect.

So I just have a uh my first question is for um Chief Um Espinoza.

I just want to know um is crime uh rates in the city of Avondale increasing?

Are they decreasing?

And with similar facilities, have you had a lot of um calls?

Mayor, vice mayor, council member White.

Uh overall, our crime rates in the city of Avondale, both property and uh persons' crimes have decreased.

Thank you so much.

Do you do you notice that there's any um I know we have one on McDowell that's kind of new right around where West Point have you gotten any recent calls with that storage facility, sir?

Ma'am, off the top of my head, I don't want to you know just make any assumptions.

Thank you.

But I can get you that info.

I appreciate that.

Um also wanted to um just acknowledge um Mayor and Council that um we were given feedback.

Um I'm not sure if it was the applicant or another commentary that maybe our ordinance is archaic.

Um I just wanted to understand um uh a little bit from the permitting process.

Um and maybe this is staff, maybe you guys will be able to answer this for us.

How often are we having to reissue permits when we're not getting stuff done within that two-year period?

Is that a frequent happenstance or is this an outlier situation?

Thank you, Sandra.

I appreciate you.

For the record, Sandra Floyd and Planning Development.

Um typically the timeline is two years for conditional use permit.

Um I haven't been with the city long enough to know how often it occurs.

This is the first one I've seen since I've been here.

Um in my experience, it doesn't seem to happen often.

But uh we have a order of operations the way applications come in, the reviewed conditional use permit goes first here.

An applicant can decide to submit a site plan and design review application concurrently or just after a conditional use permit uh might be scheduled for public hearing, but that site plan and design review uh application cannot be approved until the condition use permit process is concluded.

I got it.

Um so that's how that goes.

Okay, thank you so much for making sure the order um makes sense.

And then um just to the folks in the community.

Um I regret that uh maybe uh the assumption is our right of way is is is too large because I think that there was some difficulty seeing the signage out there, but um I believe it it is in compliance with our existing code.

So um I and and I believe that a few of us have had a chance to see that sign and it's posting.

So um I I respect the concern, but I I believe the signage was sufficient based on what the applicant um executed.

Mayor, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Nielsen, any comments?

No, I'm good.

Council Mercellar.

Sandra, I have a question for you.

Sandra, you may want to stay up there just for just a way back and forth.

For the record, Sandra Fine.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone.

Thank you for coming in today.

I know that it's dinner time and it's important time with family, but I just want to acknowledge the fact that we are thankful that you are here in front of us.

Sandra, my question to you is the site in question.

We've heard from the audience many things that they would like to have seen come there.

What other things have applied, if any, to be there before at that site?

Uh in my time here, I've not seen anything come in there.

Um but I've been with the city only seven to eight months, so I can't give you an exact answer on that.

Um we have anyone that has that information?

Uh Mr.

Mayor, Councilmember Solario, I was gonna ask uh assistant city manager uh Tracy Sevens, who's been with the city 17 or so years and a part of the planning process if she can remember any applications for that property.

Thank you, Tracy.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmember Salorio.

Um as uh City Manager Ron Corbin mentioned, I've been here some time now, and I cannot recall the last time we've had an application for the property in that location.

Thank you, Tracy.

Council Mr.

Candy, sorry, Councilmember Condi, any other comments, questions for you.

No, thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember Malone?

No.

Vice Mayor.

And Senator, just to confirm that the zoning will um match what is being asked uh to be completed in terms of the the current making sure that it adheres to what uh the standard is that we're looking for in terms of the CUP.

Yes, absolutely.

It's zone C2.

Okay.

Thank you.

So when we look, Sandra, when we look at everything that is allowed here, even without a C UP, would a storage facility be allowed on this property?

Is it an allowed use in the C2 zoning district?

With a conditional use permit on this particular site, yes.

Okay.

What other what other developments would require a C UP on that property?

Oh gosh.

Uh a gas station.

Okay.

So a gas station could go there with the C UP.

That's correct.

What else?

Movie theater.

That's allowed without a C UP.

Okay.

And ice rink is allowed without a C UP.

Movie theater without a C UP, banks, urgent care without a C UP.

Um child care is with the C UP.

Child care is with the C UP.

Yes, I can give you more here.

Okay.

Sorry, I wasn't prepared for that.

Um car wash self-service, car wash full service, truck and trailer and equipment rental.

Liquor stores.

Uh child care center.

All with the C UP.

Preschools, yes, public service, the nonprofit community use.

Nightclub, reception centers, shooting range, cigar bar, tobacco, lounge, smoke shop.

Okay.

Yep, sorry.

Max.

Um mayor, I um it's it sounds like to me then this is the the property owner's decision on how they choose to use the land.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Yes, they they are developing the land to the best what they do and whether the the I'll tell you from 2021.

The five criteria that we considered are on your screen.

And I was the one of four others.

Mike was here, Veronica was here, Tina was here, Curtis was here.

These five items were the only thing that we could consider legally.

Only thing we could do.

And yes, it's up to the developer to develop that land in the best way that he thinks he can or she can develop it, sell it, do whatever.

I just wanted to understand that the storage facility could be used as part of the C2 zoning, and then get ideas of what other what other items could be there besides the storage facility with a conditional use permit.

So, Sandra, I appreciate that.

Are there any other questions from council?

So you have option one and option two.

So, Mayor, based upon uh everything that we heard tonight, considering the fact that we are only taking into consideration these five conditional uh requirements.

Um, in addition to uh not considering any of the information that was provided tonight that was not originally part of the CUP.

Um I will move to reverse the planning commission's denial because the applicant has met all the required findings as set forth in chapter 28 of city code.

I second.

I have a first from the Vice Mayor, a second from Councilmember White Max, or I'm sorry, Marcella.

Do you want to do voice?

Thank you, Mayor.

If you touch the screens on your microphones, you have the ability to vote yes, no, or abstain.

So yes is overturning the planning and zoning commission.

I just want to make sure a denial, a no is denying that, correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

So everyone please vote who we missing.

We have overturned the uh planning and zoning commission 7-0.

Nicole, I'm directing you to prepare written findings, settings showing that the applicant has met all the requested findings, which is the basis for this council's decision tonight.

Okay, Mayor, we'll do.

Okay.

Um item number five, summary of current events from Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

Are there any updates from council?

All right.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

I will move.

I have a motion from Council Marshalario, a second from Councilmember White.

Marcel, and please vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

We are adjourned.

Thank you.