Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. We'll call this meeting to order at 9.30 a.m. Rosalie, can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Dan Zison?

Here.

Commissioner Finter?

Here.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Here.

Commissioner Lawrence? Commissioner Layton? Commissioner Lindblom?

Here.

Chair Millhaven. Commissioner Rockwallet.

Here.

Commissioner Thoma. Commissioner Whitney.

I'm here.

Chair, we have a quorum.

All right, wonderful. Are we still doing automated?

Meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa county planning and development office and are also available on the planning and development website one week prior to hearing at www.maricopa.gov slash planning. The staff reports prepared for each agenda item shall become a part of the permanent record for each case. With respect to hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the commission. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present. Anyone wishing to speak on a particular case shall fill out a speaker's card for in-person attendance or raise your hand within GoToWebinar. The amount of time allowed for speaking shall be at the discretion of the commission chair. Staff will provide the chair with the names of persons who have registered and noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each named participant one at a time. The chair will conduct a hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds.

All right, wonderful. The minutes for the June 25th, 2026 hearing were circulated to the commission. Are there any comments or questions from the commission? All right, hearing none, we'll consider the minutes approved. Darren, ready for the consent agenda?

Yes, Mr. Chair, we have five items on consent. They are Z260010, known as Broadway Auto Salvage in District 5. It's an industrial 3 IUPD rezoning for 23 1⁄2 acres at the northeast corner of Broadway and 43rd Avenue. There's no known opposition. There is concerns expressed from the City of Phoenix, but in paragraph 20, you'll see the conditions A through J recommending approval. And then... Next two items are related. They are CPA 260007 and Z260018, known as Balterra in District 4. This is a comprehensive plan amendment to the Tonopah-Arlington Area Plan designating the site for mixed uses and is a zone change to Industrial II IUPD for 593 acres southeast of the southeast corner of 411th Avenue and Camelback. There's no known opposition. The recommendations are for approval of the CPA And in paragraph 16, approval subject conditions A through I of the zoning case. And then the final two items, again, related are CPA 260008 and Z260019, known as Camelback Creek in District 4. It's a CPA to the Tonopah Arlington Area Plan for mixed uses. And it's a rezoning to Industrial II IUPD for 310 acres at the northwest corner of 411th Avenue and Camelback Road. There's no known opposition. The recommendations are for approval of CPA and paragraph 23 approval of the zoning case subject to conditions A through I. And that concludes our consent agenda today. Happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you, Darren. Is there any questions of staff by the commission? I don't have any speaker cards, but I see we have two people online for this case. Is there anything that the people online would like to add or talk about?

Chair, they made no indication.

OK, great. Since there's no public interest, we'll close the public forum. Is there any discussion by the Commission regarding the consent agenda? All right, I will entertain a motion. All right, I will make a motion to go ahead.

Uh, acting share this is commissioner rock walk. I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented and amended.

All right, this is Warren Whitney. I'll 2nd, the motion.

All right, we have a recommendation for approval by commissioner rock wallet and a 2nd, by commissioner Whitney. Is there any comments? All right, Rosalie.

Commissioner, yes.

Mr. yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Lindblom?

Yes.

Commissioner Rockwalek?

Yes.

Commissioner Tomah?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval of the consent agenda by a vote of seven to zero.

Great, thank you, Rosalie. All right, moving on to the regular agenda, we got case Z2024019. Whenever you're ready, Joel.

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, this agenda item is the 2024-19 Happy Valley commercial. This was continued from the July 23rd hearing. As a brief reminder, this is a request for a zone change from Rural 43 to C3 CUPD on about 11 1⁄2 acres at the northeast corner of Happy Valley Parkway at 115th Avenue in District 4, which is a county island surrounded by the city of Peoria next to the Loop 303 freeway. Next slide. The concept includes retail and commercial pads, office space, drive-thru restaurant, convenience store and gas station, car wash and self-storage with access entirely off Happy Valley Parkway and 150th Avenue. Next slide. Since the July 23rd hearing, staff received a revised narrative report as detailed in the handout memo that was published last night. That narrative report was dated August 4th. It also included a document identifying each new commitment that the applicant has made since that hearing. These include a prohibition on gas stations and restaurants and certain parcels, building height and setback limits near residential property, an eight-foot perimeter wall to the north and west, noise limits for car washes and outdoor amplified music, Maximum building pad grades and protection of existing utility easements. Next slide. Staff is recommending the conditions be modified and incorporated these commitments as shown in the handout memo. The key changes include what I just mentioned along with a few other changes along with decibel limits and things of those natures. So staff continues to recommend approval with these additional commitments further addressed in transition to rural residential uses to the north. It's time to have the answer to your questions.

Great, thank you, Joel. Is there any questions for staff by the commission? All right, is the applicant here?

Yes, this is Commissioner Toma. I would just, I don't know, either the staff or the applicant can answer which parcels have the restrictions to drive-throughs and car washes, and just those last-minute details would be helpful to better understand. Thank you.

Commissioner Toma, I believe that's stated in the revised stipulations K and N and O, I believe, give the specific parcel numbers and the restrictions on those.

Mr. Chair, that's correct.

All right. I'll try and take a look, but I did not get a chance to look at the revised packet, so that's why I'm asking. Thank you.

Chair Hernandez, member of the Commission, John Gillespie with the Rose Law Group. My slide deck, I actually do cover that question from Commissioner Tomah, so I'll jump into that if that's all right. Members of the Commission, it's good to be with you again today. We were with you at the last meeting and we heard from the Commission that it was go and meet more with the neighbors about our conceptual site plan, our development standards, continue that conversation with the neighbors. Pleased to share that we've had a great dialogue with our neighbors. I do these cases throughout the valley, and you don't always get to have such a professional, thoughtful, rational, and good conversation with neighbors to projects. And so I really want to give my appreciation to Mr. Little John, who's online with us today, and his neighbors for meeting with us, having a good dialogue about what's understanding that this is a major arterial, that commercial makes sense at the site. but that there's some considerations of how to develop appropriately next to the residential. I think we've done a nice job of that with this project. Most of you were here at our last meeting, but I'll just recap. Our site, 11 acre site, I think it's Happy Valley Parkway. And this slide here just illustrates the commercial corridor that's developed here around us with RV storage, build to rent projects, The gas station across the street from us we're really seeing this this part of happy valley parkway in the loop 303 growing up and recent zoning case and in Peoria to provide for mixed use and employment uses directly west of of this site. When he aspect just to highlight with happy valley parkway, this is a road that that cars travel 45,000 cars a day travel on this road, so this is. This is absolutely the type of site that you would expect for commercial to be developed next to that type of heavy traffic use and and appropriate from a planning perspective. This is that North Peoria gateway which literally right across 115th is to the west of us allows for commercial development with building heights even above 48 feet at that location. So again, happy to have met with the neighbors and we have some really good results that came out of those discussions. Certainly not everything that the developer wanted to do necessarily or felt like was appropriate for a commercial development, but we're in agreement with the neighbors on this and we're happy that they're okay with our application now. Just to show the key neighbors that we've been in discussion with and that represented all the neighbors that are right directly adjacent to the site. This goes to Commissioner Tomas question. So a new condition that we added since the last meeting was that no gas stations or drive throughs will be allowed on those northern parcels. I kind of call that the notched area that will be explicitly restricted from those commercial development types. And here's an updated conceptual site plan that also illustrates that the key change that we've done is with that self-storage building that was previously desired to be in that node area to the north, we've committed to move that down to the south to place that building at the intersection of 115th and Happy Valley Parkway. And the stipulations are written into the, you'll see in your conditions of approval of what that proposed to enforce that change. So some of the additional measures that got tweaked in our discussions with neighbours, we wanted to clarify that it's one U-Haul building, that there can't be multiple buildings at three-storey height. Those northern two parcels, in addition to drive-throughs and gas stations being restricted there, we've agreed to a condition that the total building height will actually be restricted to 23 feet. So in that notched area, the building and structure height limit is going to be 23 feet for all structures. I'll show later, we did some, we also heard from the commission to go and evaluate the topography and the unique conditions there at the site. So I'm going to illustrate that, that at 23 feet is going to feel even like less than 23 feet. But we agreed to that condition there. So this illustrates that, and just for context, the residential zoning that is to the north of us does allow for building and structure heights up to 35 feet, but we're gonna minimize our commercial development to 23 feet there on the north. And then the rest of the site, it has a limitation of 30 feet for building height. The self-storage building, we are allowed to develop a self-storage building up to 40 feet. But again, with this setback, minimum 100 foot setback and putting it next to 115th and happy valley parkway we modified and increased and these increased um requirements for setbacks we we'd worked with the neighbors before the last hearing and we've continued that dialogue and increased these um these aspects a little bit more so um you'll see here just a summary of of how we've gone above and beyond the typical commercial standard 25 feet setbacks uh the key ones to highlight is is more distance added for the drive or the auto car wash use and drive-through restaurants uh dumpsters so we got into the specifics of even dumpster locations with the neighbors and so we've committed to a hundred foot setback for that we uh we got into more of the specifics of of noise constraints i think this is this is an important um aspect and and something we're really pleased that came out of the discussion was okay city of peoria has certain for its noise standards, so we looked at those with the neighbors, and we agreed to the specific standards that will be enforceable against the site in terms of decibels for car washes, outdoor music, to have an enforceability measure that, hey, if a restaurant goes in, wants to have a little bit of music on their patio, this is the standard that will be enforced against it. Just to highlight again, one of the measures that we did was agreed to an eight foot perimeter wall as opposed to a six foot wall and that landscaping providing a buffer to the north. We got even more specifically into the grades of this site. There is unique grading and topography. And so just this illustrates the general idea, which is that our site sits lower than the residential properties to the north of us. And here's the specifics of that. And we've even gone so far as to write in specific finished floor elevation standards. And so that U-Haul building, the neighbors are assured that it will be built at no higher than 1,275 feet. That's the sea floor elevation, not the height of the building. So that's the finished floor of that pad is 1,275. And then just for context, we showed there, you can see that nearest neighbor to that building has a finished floor today. Their home was built at 1,286. And so we actually sit more than 11 feet below that property, but we're committed that we're gonna keep it at 11 feet below. So a 40 foot building would in essence look like a 29 foot building and is set back close to Happy Valley Parkway. We went and took these photos just to kind of illustrate that context of when you're on the site, if you're looking up, you can see the residential that sits kind of up on that hill I'm there above the site. And so that's really a fortunate, I would say circumstance of this site, even though we're narrow and, and, and, you know, up against a freeway interchange, we do have this instance where the homes were naturally built higher than the site. And so the commercial can can be built appropriately lower, which helps with that visual transition. So we're grateful again for the dialogue we've had with the neighbor and that we have their go ahead on our project here. And thank you to the Commission for your work and discussion that we had at our last meeting. And with that, I'd answer any questions that we had about our dialogue.

Great, thank you. Is there any questions for the applicant from the Commission?

Yes, this is Commissioner Comey. I just would like to confirm that Uh, the applicant didn't try and reach out to the curiosity council member from the district and did not receive a response back in case anything to change.

Yes, Commissioner Toma through the chair. Thank you for the follow up on that. So we did after we, we worked through all the logistics with our neighbors and felt we were at the right spot with them. We did reach out to the city Puria to report back to them on where the case was that I did just receive an email just a moment ago from. from Council Member Pollock, or sorry, Council Member Edwards' office from the City of Peoria, who wants to get an update and meet on the project. So we're meeting with them on Monday, but we reached out to them to give them an update on the project.

Thank you. Is there any other questions for the applicant by the Commission? All right, sounds good. Thank you. We will proceed with in-person speakers and allow those registered online to speak after public comment. We'll give you some time for rebuttal. I don't believe we have anybody in person. I believe we have Mr. Littlejohn online. Is he still online?

Chair, yeah. Mr. Littlejohn is online. He said he was able to speak if needed.

I would leave that up to him if he wants to speak. If he doesn't think it's necessary, then that's fine too.

Okay. Yeah, he offered to speak. So let me unmute his mic and he should.

Yep, go ahead. All right. Good morning. Can you folks hear me?

Yes. Please just state your name for the record.

Okay. Name's Craig Littlejohn. Live at 11305 West Avenida Del Rey. Great. Thank you.

Go ahead and let us know your thoughts when you get a moment.

Yeah, just a couple of things. So the experience from this side, it was a lot of work, but it was good working with the folks from Rose Law. There was a lot of healthy dialogue. It was good. What I do want to state, and I stated it in an email I sent to to Mr. Landis is, you know, we're a small group of folks that live within 300 feet. So our the the agree answer acceptance of the condition is from a handful of people within 300 feet. I want to make sure it doesn't reflect what everybody else feels. You know, the rest of the neighborhood, the 300-foot neighbors that were not engaged. I just want to make sure that it's understood that this is a small group of folks that, like I said, not speaking on behalf of the entire neighborhood. Thank you.

All right, great. Thank you. David, is there anybody else online for this case? There's no other indications of anyone wishing to speak. Okay, great. I don't think there's anything necessary for rebuttal. All right, cool. I guess we'll take this close to public forum. And is there any discussion amongst the commission?

This is Commissioner Rock Wallach. I just have a comment to make.

Yes.

I just want to say I do a lot of these in my line of work over at the city, a lot of development and zoning cases and entitlement projects and Um, want to commend, uh, Rose law group for, um, and, and Mr, uh, Gillette, Gillette, that's what I'm going to go with, um, for, um, working so close and his client for working so closely with the neighborhood. Um, I don't see that a lot in these cases. Sometimes I see a lot of, uh, developers attempt to. Give a little bit, uh, and then steamroll through. Um, but this is a very significantly different project than what we saw. Um, just 2 weeks ago, uh, and so, uh, I just want to commend, uh, the development group on on making those changes on behalf of the neighborhood.

Great, uh, thank you. Um, I would also like to, I echo his, uh, comments as well. I knew you guys were close and I was confident guys to get there. So I'm glad to see that you guys worked with the public to get there. I wish. every case that had some contention went as smoothly as this one. So with that, I guess I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, this is Commissioner Tom. I also would like to make a comment or explain my vote. Yes, go for it. So I'm going to vote in favor of this resuming and I just wanted to echo what was previously said. the applicant did call me and speak to me on multiple occasions and i appreciate that he's worked with the residents to address all the concerns and though i do think the site is a little bit oddly shaped um because the applicant has worked with the residents and obtained their support i'm going to be voting in favor of the resign sounds good sounds like you're ready to make a motion commissioner toma So moved.

All right, thanks. Do we have a second? This is Commissioner Rockwallock. I'll second.

All right, we have a recommendation for approval by Commissioner Toma and a second by Commissioner Rockwallock.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. Just for clarification, that motion and second were according to the revised conditions in the handout today.

Yes. Sorry. I should have mentioned that, yes. Recommend approval with the revised conditions as circulated yesterday. Rosalie?

Commissioner Dan Zyssin?

Yes.

Commissioner Finter?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Lindblom?

Yes.

Commissioner Rockwalek?

Yes.

Commissioner Tomah?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of seven to zero.

Great. Thank you, Rosalie.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you. All right. Moving on. Case number seven, MCP 260002. Isaac, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Commission. MCP 260002 for Glengold Logistics is an application for a military compatibility permit with the plan of development for a truck freight and logistics operation in the RU 43 Military Airport and Ancillary Military Facility Overlay Zone District. Located within LDN 70 Moist Contours, subject site is approximately four acres and located east of the northeast corner of Ossoff Avenue and Myrtle Avenue in the Glendale area. The applicant proposes establishing a truck freight and logistics operation in this zoning district. The operation will be comprised of an 8,500 square foot structure at a height of 26 feet, 3,000 square feet of which will be for light truck maintenance and three surface bays. 1,500 square feet will be for short-term storage, two loading docks and an administrative office. Parking will be comprised of 10 spaces for office personnel, 43 spaces for trucks and 33 spaces for trailers. In total, there will be 86 parking spaces. There will be a total of five employees working Monday through Saturday, 8 to 5 p.m. However, the site will be available 24 hours, seven days a week for truck pickup and drop off. There will be no on-site staff for truck pickup or drop off. Drivers will be allowed in and out remotely. The applicant has indicated that no overnight stays or idling will be allowed on site. The staff does not support the proposed MCP for the truck freight and logistics center. While compatibility with the NAMF overlay is one level of analysis, it is not the only one. Given the existing rural and residential character of the immediate vicinity, at least to the east, north, and west, without the existence of this military overlay, such land use and intensity would not merit consideration within an established rural residential community. In the immediate cluster of the vicinity, there are single family residences with only one other MCP having been approved in that for an equine therapy land use. In total, there are eight single family homes surrounding the site, which would be impacted by this 24 hour, seven days a week operation as a remote access location. Staff is concerned about the impact this would have on the neighborhood with traffic noise and the overall land use. The concerns were raised with the applicant to develop the site to mitigate these issues that were raised by neighbors by including buffering, landscaping, and reducing the hours of operation. However, the applicant has decided to proceed forward with the development, but is open to measures that would mitigate the impact. Nevertheless, the mid-block location surrounded by residential structures is not an optimal location for this industrial use. To date, staff has received four statements of support, three statements of support from neighbors, excuse me, three statements of opposition from residents within the 300 foot buffer and one additional statement of opposition. Staff also received one statement with concerns. For the reasons outlined, Staff does not support or does not support a recommendation of this case. However, if the commission chooses to adopt the motion to recommend approval, staff offers conditions A through M for consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions for the commission.

Great. Thank you, Isaac. Is there any questions by the commission for staff? All right. Is the applicant here? Want to make a presentation? Thank you for coming down. If you could just state your name for the record, please.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Jack Gilmore, Gilmore Planning and Landscape Architecture. I'm here representing Glengale Logistics. And my client, the owner, operator of the property is also here. I want to thank Ivan for his effort to communicate and I suppose, see if there's some kind of compromised position that we could take that will appease the neighbors. I've got some exhibits here I'd like to share. This is a, what I'm calling a kind of an area regional vicinity map, but it shows the location more properly immediately north of Bickman Industrial. It's a one million square foot warehouse. This whole area west of Luke Air Force Base is in a gradual transition. from some of these ranchettes that historically have been in place for a long, long time. And because of the F-35s and the expansion of naval operate or airport operations and teaching of the F-35s, the noise contours have been increased. This is just a closeup of the property around our location. I think this exhibit is from the county's Planet website, and it shows the noise contours and the expansion of the city of Glendale going west of Luke Air Force Base. This next exhibit is the general plan. You can see Luke Air Force Base on that west side. It's bright blue and that ochre color, I don't call it pink, but it's that lighter color to the west side of Luke Air Force Base. That is the Luke compatible land use district established by the city of Glendale on the general plan. it just means that there can be no residential development of any kind west of luke airport space within that general color and alex lerma with the city of glendale i spent some time talking to alex uh city glendale is is anticipating more industrial growth on this west side and the long-term plan for the state of glendale is to have this entire area west of luke to look to loop three or three into the west side to go either employment or some kind of commercial, but obviously no residential. This is our site plan. It illustrates how we're going to improve the property. Our building is on the near the frontage of West Myrtle. We did have a neighborhood meeting and for all the stuff that Isaac has reviewed, a lot of the neighbors were concerned. about the truck noise. And we, as part of the solution to appease the neighbors, were proposing an 8-foot screen wall with trees located around that perimeter. This is just an example I put together, but it shows where we're going to put the trees. When we had our communication with the neighbors, we were trying to ask them if they would accept an 8-foot wall and trees as a way to deal with the noise. and create a visual buffer against their property lines. The primary concern was the loss of visibility of the visibility from the trucks into their properties. And we said, well, the eight foot wall will address the visibility, because when you sit in one of these big cabs of these trailers, you really cannot see over the wall on an eight foot wall because they're eight foot wall exists in the west side. And that's how we tested it. The trees that we are recommending would be a non-deciduous, low water. And there's a variety of varieties that we can recommend. But they will all get to 20 feet, plus or minus. So the tree hedge will be above the wall. So I think we can effectively screen those views. When we were getting ready for this hearing, we were trying to round up all of our letters of support. And our immediate neighbor to the west, Mr. Johnson, and i don't know isaac can you get that exhibit back up it shows the the status of our neighbors mr johnson owns the property immediately west of our entrance um it's that green bubble or the green dark right on the entrance off of myrtle on our west side mr johnson showed up at our neighborhood meeting he was quite concerned about the truck noise and especially what they call the reefers, and those are the refrigerated units that run at night. So Delaware, same, my client, the owner-operator, committed to the neighbors that he would no longer allow reefers on the property and no overnight stays. So since that time, Mr. Johnson next door has committed the fact that Delaware ABIDED BY HIS WORD AND THERE'S BEEN NO REFER PROBLEMS ON THAT PROPERTY SINCE THEN. I DID TALK TO BRIAN COOK, THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER FROM RECOVERY COUNTY, AND HE DID CONFIRM THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS ISSUED BY ANY OF THESE NEIGHBORS SINCE OUR ORIGINAL CODE VIOLATION WAS FILED. SO I THINK THAT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. MR. SINGH HAS GOT SPEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY THAT ALLOW THESE TRUCKS NOT TO EXCEED miles per hour. And there has been some truck activity in the evening, but Mr. Johnson, who was closest to the property and the entrance, has not expressed any concern. As a matter of fact, in just the last couple of weeks, Mr. Johnson, in discussion, said he was pleased to submit the letter of support because Delaware kept his word. I believe we can achieve, hopefully, that same consensus from the neighbors by building a wall As an example, ADOT builds noise walls all along the interstates for the same reason that we want to do the safe foot wall. It's a way to deflect noise, and the landscape buffer will improve the visual separation. We had, on June 23rd, the Air Quality Department from Nicaragua County came out and did a site inspection and cleared the property for any concerns with dust. We did talk to the other neighbors, I think that are in yellow on that exhibit, most of them. And we have six of the neighbors, three obviously are in opposition, but we have four in support. And then I've got six who have expressed no opposition. And I think Isaac has referenced some of those, but on the west side of Mr. Johnson's property is a gentleman by the name of Kimball Cartrett. And he's got the property that goes up to the northwest corner of our site. And I talked to Kimball just a few days ago, and he said, as long as it gets the eight-foot wall, he's not going to be opposed to this. And then we've got the three properties used to the northwest, and they've all submitted letters of support. At the southeast corner of our property, there is a vacant home. So we're not going to count that as a property. property in opposition. And the next one to the north, there in yellow, is a property owner. Same thing as Mr. Cartwright. Give him an eight-foot wall, he's going to be happy. So I think we're trying to get as much support as we can, and I'm hoping if we can share more opportunities for discussion with the three ladies in opposition, that we can hopefully convince them that an eight-foot wall in the landscape will begin to address their concerns regarding loss of privacy. The property in the north, Mrs. Tisler, her home is about 380 feet north of our property line, and there's what I would call a boneyard on the southwest corner of her property. So her visibility is really to the southeast corner of her property. And the eight-foot wall, again, and the trees that we want to put in, I think, will effectively mitigate the impact of her property. So we want to, Delor Dunst wants to be a great neighbor, and he wants to encourage these properties in opposition that if they have concerns, if there's truck activity they are not pleased with, then he is hoping they will communicate with them. And just like Mr. Johnson, when there was a complaint or concern, he addressed it immediately. So I guess with all this, we're hoping we can get the commissioners support for moving forward to the Board of Supervisors with recommendation of approval. There is one condition that was listed regarding the hours of operation, and the restriction, I think, is 10 to 7. Mr. Delawar Singh is asking if that can be amended to 11 to 5. The nighttime activity is really very minimal relative to the daytime use. The truckers, these random truckers that come in and exchange trailers or park their trucks for the evening, leave and then come back. There are no overnight stays. So the amount of traffic is really limited versus the daytime in or out activity. So with that, we'd like to answer any questions the commissioners may have.

OK, I think that stipulation C is from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Is that and you want 11 p.m. to 5 a.m.?

12 to 5 midnight to 5am to 5am. Yes. Okay.

All right.

Uh, is there any, um, questions for the applicant for the commission? All right. Um, we'll move to, uh, we'll we'll get public interest and then we'll give you a chance to rebuttal after that. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. all right we'll proceed with in-person speakers that then allow those registered online to speak after public comment we'll have time for a rebuttal by the applicant um i don't have any speaker cards but it looks like we have some people online um first one uh rhonda smith she's ready chair i i have rhonda smith um she has had some issues with connectivity she's gonna try to speak have her unmuted go ahead rhonda

I show her microphone enabled, but not hearing her.

David, this is Darren. If she wishes to call in to speak, she may call 602-723-2241. That was 723-2241?

Yes.

Okay, while we work on her, I have a whole list of other people here, but are they willing, wishing to speak, or are they Just registered.

And can we ensure that that phone number gets added to the chat? Just in case she didn't write it down.

I have Marcus Ankerson just raised his hand, so I'm assuming he wants to speak, so I'll enable his mic. Marcus, you need to unmute your microphone on your side. There you go.

Hello?

Yes, this is Marcus.

Yes, this is Marcus Hankerson, 7330 North 157th Avenue. And although there haven't been any previous, any recent complaints, We are noting things that are still happening over there. We know we were going to have these hearings coming up. And we did write a letter of opposition and sent that in. But the concern is stuff that an eight-foot wall won't fix, right? Like random people coming in and out of our neighborhood. And we moved here. One, an eight-foot wall is also going to block, when you move into a rural area, you move here so that you don't have houses stacked on top of each other, right? You like the view, you like being able to see, and an eight-foot wall is going to block the view to our west. For one. Two, you have multiple people just coming in and out, random people. We don't know these people. We know our neighbors. We see them every day. We know every car that comes down our street. And if we don't, we're talking as neighbors because we want to keep our community safe and rule, right? Also, there's beer cans that I see, trash that comes into our yards. It's just not conducive for being inside of an area where there is a residential community. And so that is our opposition. I don't think there's anything that could change that. No trees, no wall can make us feel safe with our daughters running around in the yard. When we have get togethers out here, this is why we bought the property some 13 years ago. And although it is being built up around us, it's not in the community. And this would just bring the industrial part inside of our community and we don't want that. So that's all, thank you.

Great, thank you, Marcus. All right, Darren, Rhonda.

All right, Mrs. Smith, we have you on speaker.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Hi, my name is Rhonda Smith and I would completely agree with everything Marcus mentioned and a couple things that I just wanted to point out because definitely we are opposed to it. The mention of not being able to build a house in this neighborhood. We do have a neighbor that had been grandfathered in and had an older home. They were able to tear it down, get a permit and rebuild a home on it. So I know that we keep hearing from Mr. Gilmore that, you know, we can't build homes.

And I understand that.

But that house did have a house and a trailer on it prior to his death. business coming in between that business coming over so if they could have gone down that same route and applied for a permit or i'm assuming build a house just the same as our neighbor the uh karen did so um again if you know i don't think everything has been 100 truthful uh this morning i got 3 45 a.m all my dogs started making a lot of noise the neighborhood dogs everything going blowing up out here so i walk out my bedroom door and there's headlights facing me and if i could show you a picture it's maybe about 150 feet away The truck pulled straight in. It's still pulled in there right now. And I'm in my pajamas. You know, this is the kind of stuff that they come in at all hours. And so it's not just, I don't believe for a minute it would be from 10 to or 5 a.m. to 11 o'clock at night. And then I would ask, who's going to be monitoring that? Who's going to be verifying? Are we going to then just daily have to be calling down to complain because it's 2 a.m. or they're blocking the road or, you know, this is a huge impact on us. And I just think that, again, as Marcus said, we've moved into this area for a reason. And I just think that this is definitely not compatible with our residential neighborhoods. So that's pretty much all I had to say. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Rhonda. Do we have anybody else online who wishes to speak?

No other indications that anybody else would like to speak.

All right, great. Jack, do you want to respond to any of the neighbors' concerns? I'll give you a few moments for rebuttal.

Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. I did talk to Rhonda Smith and she did reference some truck activity at night, especially in the morning. And I said all the more reason that we want to build an eight foot wall so that those lights can't penetrate past your property line. And the trees, I still think there's a way that we can mitigate that impact. I'd also like to note that along Orangewood, just for reference, the state of Glendale has approved another 1.5 million square feet of industrial along the north side of Orangewood, which is just barely up this exhibit. And at the northeast corner of Alsop and Orangewood is another 20 acres that just went under contract. And that developer is filing a UCCD and coming in for a pre-app in Maricopa County for a mix of commercial and industrial. The area, as I said, is in transition. We hope to be a good neighbor, and we believe that the design features that we're proposing can mitigate some of that concern. I think relative to the flight activity at Luke Air Force Base, truck noise is going to be negligible. Of course, the majority of our activity is daytime, and that's when the jet activity is occurring. But we were out there touring the property with Isaac, we had to stop all conversation because we couldn't even hear ourselves communicate amongst ourselves because it was so loud. So I think relative to this impact, the truck noise is gonna be negligible. And I understand the concern about the rural lifestyle, but with those jets, there is an impact long-term. And I can see more of the transition moving to the west. Again, we'd like to get your support for this. activity. It's not a large site, it's only four acres, and the truck activity is not a large terminal that you would normally see for this kind of a use, but it allows Mr. Singh to operate a business. Glad to answer any questions.

All right, great. Thank you, Jack. Is there any questions for the applicant from the Commission? Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner Thoma. Yes, Commissioner Thoma.

Thank you. A question for the applicant. You mentioned a lot of industrial being developed around the site, but I was looking up all those sites. All of them have, you know, asphalt concrete roads that access that. Myrtle is a dirt road, correct?

Myrtle is. That's an interesting situation. Maricopa County owns the north half by jurisdiction of Myrtle. City of Glendale owns the south half. I was surprised to see when I first got involved in this property that the city of Glendale did not require that the south half of Myrtle be improved. I talked to Jamie Chapin, who was their development services civil engineer, and she too was surprised that the city of Glendale did not require those off-sites. I asked her what the city's position is long-term because in a situation like this, once Glendale takes the south half, The expectation is in the near future, Glendale will take the north half. The city of Glendale did not require any offsites for this project. And we have a letter in our file from Tony Abbo, who was the assistant traffic engineer for the city of Glendale, indicating that the city of Glendale was not going to require any offsites for this frontage. Interestingly enough, there was also a dust complaint filed a little over a year ago And that's when the road was approved with the milled asphalt. So Myrtle has been approved with milled asphalt for dust control. And the property that we're dealing with, Mr. Singh has also covered his property with milled asphalt just for dust control. And we have, as I said, the Air Quality Department come out and clear the property.

So who's responsible for maintaining the road? The semi trucks are obviously very heavy, and they wear and tear on normal roads, let alone dirt roads?

I don't know who will maintain that portion of Myrtle. We've not had any recent complaints on dust. The south half belongs to the City of Glendale, so I would presume Glendale would take some of the responsibility for long-term maintenance. At the northwest corner of Reams and Myrtle, there's a recent annexation in the City of Glendale. And it's about an 8.8-acre site that's just gone through a PED approval for industrial. I'm also surprised. City of Glendale is going to require the full off-site for reams, but they're not going to require any off-sites for myrtle. So all the access for that particular property will come off reams. Again, I'm not surprised that there are no off-sites required for the frontage along myrtle. Mr. Singh, I think, is willing to participate in any of those improvements once there is a decision, hopefully from the City of Glendale, that might involve some kind of an improvement district that would take care of the full offsites, all along that portion of Myrtle between Reims and Allsup. Thank you, Mr. Gamble. Thank you.

I think your applicant is up.

If I may, my client would like to share a thought.

Yes, come up to the podium, state your name, and then will you please fill out a speaker card so we have it for the record?

Mr. Singh is just reminding me that when he bought the property, Myrtle was a dirt road.

And then it was after he acquired the property, the city of Glendale, because of a dust complaint, participated in the distribution of the milled asphalt all the way along Myrtle from Allsup to Greaves.

OK, thank you for that information. Is there any other comments for the applicant by the commission? All right. Thank you. We will close the public forum. Is there any a discussion amongst the Commission regarding this case?

Mr. Chairman, by your leave, I'd like to explain my vote.

Yes, Commissioner Romo.

Yeah, I'm going to be voting against approving this. I just have, in addition to the neighborhood concerns, I don't believe it's appropriate to have an industrial site like this that has the main access off a small dirt road.

All right, great. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER TOMA. I MOVE THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE THIS CASE CIRCULATE.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND?

THIS IS COMMISSIONER ROCKWELL. I WILL SECOND.

All right, we have a recommendation for denial by Commissioner Toma, and then we have a second by Commissioner Rockwallet. Rosalie?

Commissioner Dan Zyssen?

Yes.

Commissioner Finter?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Lindblom?

Yes.

Commissioner Rockwallet?

Yes.

Commissioner Toma?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Chairman, we have a motion recommending denial by a vote of 7 to 0.

Great. Thank you, Rosalie. Darren, are there any other matters?

Zipper is canceled.

And the zipper meeting was two weeks from today? Correct. OK. All right. Well, I guess we will see everybody in a month. The meeting is adjourned at 10.23 AM.