[00:00:01]
MEETING.[1. ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK]
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 THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS IN ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INVIS WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MARCELLA, DO YOU MIND DOING ROLL CALL PLEASE? COUNCIL MEMBER CONDI HERE.
UH, 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 LARNE FARMER.
SIR LARNE, ARE YOU HERE TONIGHT? IF HE COMES IN LATE, I'M GONNA GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
[3. CONSENT AGENDA]
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 MO VOICE MOTION.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM VICE MAYOR, A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CONDI.
[2. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES]
YES, SIR.IS THAT MR. CON? IS THAT, IS THAT LARNE? THANK YOU MAYOR.
ARE YOU HERE, SIR? OH, THANK YOU.
DO YOU MIND COMING UP? WE JUST DID, UM, UH, UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES, BUT C COME ON UP.
I KNOW YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON AN ISSUE.
SIR, DO YOU MIND JUST STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? RIGHT.
MY NAME IS LARNE 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, AMARI AND HOPE, WHICH HAPPENED IN FEBRUARY OF 2023.
AND AS I STATED, I FINALLY GOT ALL THE CO, UH, COPIES OF THE POLICE REPORTS, THE REPORT FROM AVONDALE, THE REPORT FROM, UM, UH, RA, 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, 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 DID HE DID NO WRONGDOING, IT WAS EGREGIOUS.
THIS YOUNG MAN OF OMARION 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, THIS OFFICER HAD HIS EGO BRUISED AND THAT'S WHY HIS LAST DECISION OR HIS ULTIMATE DECISION WAS TO SHOOT,
[00:05:01]
UM, A JUVENILE 17-YEAR-OLD JUVENILE RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM.HE POSED NO THREAT TO THE POLICE OFFICER AT THAT TIME.
HE POSED NO THREAT TO THE 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 OFFICIALS, 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 I 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 CAN 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.
[a. Public Hearing - Extra Space Storage – Appeal of Conditional Use Permit – Application PL-23-0303]
NUMBER FOUR, PLEASE.NOW WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, A APPEAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PL 23 DASH 0 3 0 3.
IT'S GONNA BE PRESENTED BY SANDRA, OUR SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
YES, MAYOR, YOU HAVE A STATEMENT? YES.
I THOUGHT, THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA READ IT FOR ME, BUT I WILL READ IT.
I, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL WILL BE ACTING AS A QUASI 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 DASH 21 DASH 0 0 3 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 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 CEP, 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.
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, UM, YOUR ROLE IS TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND 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 TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN'T CONSIDER ANY NEW EVIDENCE THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE RECORD.
THE RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU, UM, BY THE COUNCIL AGENDA.
AND, UM, THEN AT THE END YOU WILL MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON THE RECORD.
AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, ALSO YOU'LL HEAR FROM COL 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 COUNSEL WILL SHORTEN THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN SPEAK, ASK FOR A COUPLE SPEAKERS.
UH, EVERY, UM, EVERY UH, EMAIL THAT WAS SENT, THE ONES WHO DON'T WANNA 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'LL 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 THE VOTE CORRECT.
AND, BUT, BUT MY COMMENT ON THAT, MY POINT ON THAT WAS THAT THESE, THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN THE FULL THREE MINUTES FOR EACH PERSON WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE.
OKAY, MR. BALL, MR. BALL, WILL YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? ADAM BA.
25 25 EAST ARIZONA BILTMORE CIRCLE.
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.
[00:10:02]
THANK YOU.IN 2021 THREE REVIEWING BODIES APPROVE, 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 USE PRINT APPROVAL.
THE PURPOSE IS TO REAPPROVE THAT CUP THAT YOU'VE 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.
UM, YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, IT'S ALREADY ZONED C TWO AND THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS THIS USE SUBJECT TO USE FROM IT.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION IF THIS USE IS PREFERRED TO BE HERE OR DESIRED 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 BUILDING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HEIGHTS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT AND WHICH ALLOWS UP TO 30 FOOT MAX BUILDING HEIGHT.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS ACCESSED FROM OSBORNE ROAD, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'D EXPECT FOR, UM, A, A PROPERTY THAT A, UH, IS ADJACENT NEXT TO ARTERIAL STREET.
IT HAS TWO LOADED 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 MAYBE 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.
AND 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 ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS TO A YEAR.
THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PLATTING PROCESS THAT TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW, WHICH TAKES, IN OUR CASE, MORE THAN A YEAR.
AND SO ACTUALLY 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'VE HAD TO BUILD IT, WHICH PROBABLY WOULD'VE TAKEN ME ANOTHER YEAR.
REALISTICALLY, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY BUILD A BUILDING GROUND UP WITHOUT ALL THE INTENTS ALREADY IN PLACE IN TWO YEARS.
IT ISN'T BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A FAILURE ON OUR PART TO AFFECT USE OR TO UM, TRY TO COMPLETE THIS PROCESS AND 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, PLANNING, FIRE REVIEW, BUILD REVIEW, THEN CONSTRUCTION.
SO I WANNA 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 ASK 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, 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? 'CAUSE ALL THE FACTS REMAIN THE SAME.
WE DIDN'T REZONE THE PROPERTY OF 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 GONNA 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.
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 MADE THIS DECISION BEFORE, BUT IT IS WORTH REPEATING 'CAUSE THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.
ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS IS, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE JOURNAL PLAN YOUR STAFF HAS DETERMINED IT IS.
I KNOW WHAT IT IS BECAUSE YOUR JOURNAL 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, YOU HAVE THE NORTH, UM, UH, THE NORTH AVONDALE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH TALKS ABOUT FACILITATING THE BUILD OUT OF NORTH AVONDALE.
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
[00:15:01]
OF THE AREA BECAUSE LOOK AT THE CHARACTER AREAS.IT'S A COMMERCIAL NODE SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES THAT HAS EARTH TONE, COLORS, STUCCO, MASONRY, THAT KIND OF THINGS YOU'D EXPECT TO SEE IN A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER.
ONE OF THE SECOND CRITERIA IN THE CONDITION USED FROM A TEST IS IF IT IS ABLE TO BE, UH, COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER ADJACENT AND NEARBY LAND USES, I BELIEVE THERE'S GONNA BE A DIFFERENCE 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, UM, 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, UM, 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 GONNA CREATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC, UM, UH, INFORMATION SUPPORTING THIS TYPES OF VIEWS, IT CREATES ABOUT 160 DAILY TRIPS.
AND IF THIS USE AND THIS SHOPPING CENTER WERE TO BE DEVELOPED PER ITS CURRENT SEAT ZONING, YOU WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE, UH, VEHICLE TRIPS JUST ON A UH, 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 PERMIT 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 VERIFY 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, UM, INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD AND OSBORNE ROAD WHERE IT IS ABLE TO BE ACCESSED AS YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE, UM, NEXT TO THESE TYPES OF ARTERIAL STREETS.
BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US IS AGAIN, THE TRAFFIC VOLUME CREATED BY THIS IS SO SUBSTANTIALLY LOW THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FACILITY IN 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, IT'S IF APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED BY STAFF TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY LONG TERM, AND 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 AT THE END OF OUR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW.
I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT WE CAN GET THERE NOW.
UM, 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, OR UM, MATERIALS OUT OF THIS, THE INDIVIDUAL STORAGE UNITS, UM, THE ABILITY TO REGULATE AND, AND PROHIBIT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLY PRECISELY WITH THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR YOU TODAY.
UM, WE HAVE NOW PROVEN AND SATISFIED THE FIVE ELEMENTS OF THE LEGAL TEST 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 THE 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, UM, 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.
[00:20:01]
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, UM, 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 GONNA CREATE PESTS AND RODENTS AS IF, UM, WE BRING THAT WITH US AS PART OF OUR BUILDING OF THE PROJECT.
UM, 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 AND CONTROL THAT GOING FORWARD.
AND SO WE'VE, AND ALL OUR FACILITIES USE FOLKS LIKE GLAB, TRULY NOLAN, UM, TO HELP MAINTAIN AND CONTROL THAT TYPE OF, UM, CONCERN.
THERE'S BEEN A FEAR THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS GONNA 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 SAFEWAY GROCER AND PUT MY PALM TREES OR MY MATTRESS.
UM, THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANYTHING TIME BEHIND A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER.
BUT HERE IN OUR CASE IT'S SECURED AND GATED AND WE DO HAVE, UM, SIGNIFICANT, UH, UH, DUMPSTERS ON OUR PROPERTY.
SO IF THERE WAS A MOVE OUT AND TRASH BIN THERE, IT'S JUST REALLY EASY FOR US TO CALL A, A SECONDARY ONE-OFF PICKUP IF FOR SOME REASON IT WAS TO HAVE MORE TRASH.
I DON'T BELIEVE TRASH IS A, IS A TRULY, UM, LEGITIMATE CONCERN BUT WORTH ADDRESSING.
ONE THING I'VE HEARD IS LIGHTING AS IF SOMEHOW THE LIGHT FROM THIS PROJECT WAS GONNA POLLUTE THE AREA AROUND THERE.
AND I WANNA BE CLEAR AND ADDRESS THIS.
UM, WE 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 SOMETHING BY US.
BUT I DO WANNA, UM, ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS.
WE ARE ZERO TO NEAR ZERO AT THE THAT 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 8:00 PM 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 ANYTIME 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 8:00 PM SO THE ONLY LIGHTING THAT WILL REMAIN IS THE 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, UM, UH, THE ADJACENT STREET AS WELL, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE LIGHTING IS ACTUALLY VERY, VERY MINIMAL.
AND AS PART OF THIS PROCESS BEFORE I WAS INVOLVED, BECAUSE I DIDN'T, I WASN'T AT THE FIRST HEARING, UM, BUT THERE HAD 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 WE 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 EARLIER THIS YEAR, IT WAS A TWO, TWO, IT WAS A TIE.
BUT WHAT WAS 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 LEGISL TYPICAL 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'VE VOTED ON IN THE PAST, YOUR DECISION THAT SHE MADE IN 2021 IS EASY TO BE MADE TODAY BECAUSE OF 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 8:00 PM 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 C TWO DISTRICT SUBJECT TO USE FROM IT.
THE GENERAL 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.
[00:25:01]
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.I KNOW YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT.
I'LL JUST TAKE SOME NOTES AND PROBABLY BE ABLE TO RESPOND ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND RESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT BE SAID ON THE REBUTTAL SIDE.
RON, WHO'S HERE FROM STAFF? SANDRA WILL BE PRESENTING.
GOOD EVENING MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THE RECORD.
UM, SANDRA FRE, SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UH, TONIGHT I'M PRESENTING ITEM FOUR A, AN APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PL 23 DASH 3 0 3.
AND THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 29TH, 2024 COUNSEL 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, UH, 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.
UH, BECAUSE THE USE HAD NOT COMMENCE COMMANDS, EXCUSE ME, THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR RE-APPROVAL 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 6TH, 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 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 UNDERLINED ZONING OF C TWO.
AN EXAMPLE OF SOME USES PERMITTED WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THIS DISTRICT INCLUDE BANKS, RESTAURANTS, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, PLACES OF WARSHIP, 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.
UH, THE POST OFFICE IS THE WHITE BUILDING, UH, WITH THE PINK ARROW POINTING TO IT.
THE 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 THE EAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.
UH, 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, WITH THE WEST ELEVATION ON THE TOP.
UH, THIS IS HOW THE BUILDING WILL BE SEEN AS ONE DRIVES ON INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD, UH, 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
[00:30:01]
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.
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 COMPLIMENT THE AREA AND THE PROJECT MEET 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, UH, 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.
UH, 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, UH, EACH UH, ATTENDED THOSE MEETINGS AND BOTH MEETINGS WERE HELD AT LITCHFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION OF THE STA UH, PACKET ARE INCLUDED, UH, 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.
UH, COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUIRE MAIL NOTIFICATION A LEGAL 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 TWO TWO 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 COUNSEL IS INCLINED TO AFFIRM THE DENIAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN PASSAGE OF A MOTION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION WILL BE NEEDED.
IF COUNSEL IS INCLINED TO REVERSE OR MODIFY THE DENIAL AND APPROVE APPLICATION PL 23 DASH 0 3 0 3, 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.
WE'LL PROBABLY HOLD OFF ON QUESTIONS TILL AFTER THE PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MARCEL, I 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 PE 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.
MAYOR COUNCIL, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE.
FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TIMOTHY LATA.
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'LL BE READING ALOUD ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER OUR LAST PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, WHICH WAS AT 3:00 PM LAST THURSDAY.
FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT FROM OUR 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 READY NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE
[00:35:01]
TO TURN ONTO OSBORNE FROM A HUNDRED AND THIRD 20 130 SECOND 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.
NEXT I HAVE CATHERINE M WHO IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM, NO COMMENTS.
NEXT I HAVE DEBORAH WILSON WHO IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM AND I QUOTE, AS A PROPERTY OWNER IN ER RANCH, I AM OPPOSED TO BREAKING THE CURRENT C TWO ZONING TO ALLOW YET ANOTHER STORAGE FACILITY TO BE BUILT IN THE OUR 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, EPT 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 IS CURRENT AESTHETIC.
THIS AREA WOULD BE BETTER USED FOR THE PURPOSE.
IT WAS ATTENDED BY C TWO 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 C TWO USES ON A ADJACENT PARCELS.
NEXT I HAVE ANDREA SANDOVAL WHO IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM 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 AND THIS MEETING BE UTILIZED AS MY STATEMENT OF RECORD.
ANDREA SANDOVAL AND MAYOR, I DO HAVE HER LISTED AS UM, SOMEONE WHO DOES WANT TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
NEXT I HAVE VIRGINIA THIEL WHO IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM AND I QUOTE, I JUST HEARD ABOUT ANOTHER MONTROSS 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 EXCESS VEHICLES.
I'VE LIVED IN GOODYEAR FOR 23 YEARS AND WILL BE, IT WAS A WONDERFUL CHARMING FAMILY TOWN.
NOW IT'S DOMINATED BY UGLY MULTILEVEL 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 WATER CRISIS AND ADDING THESE HUGE FACILITIES WILL FURTHER PUT A STRAIN ON OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
GREED HAS TAKEN COMMON SENSE WHEN, WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH, PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS REASONING FOR ANOTHER COMMERCIAL MEN MONSTROSITY.
NEXT I HAD EDWARD QUINN WHO IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM AND I QUOTE EDWARD AND LISA QUINN STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL PL DASH 23 0 3 0 3.
AS A RESIDENT OF ER 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 FEELS 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 AND HIS OBLIGATION IN A CODE REGULATED ZONE APP 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 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 THE AESTHETICS TO THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT CREATE JOBS AND DOES NOT CONFORM OR TRA CONFORM TO TRADITIONAL C TWO 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 AVONDALE 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
[00:40:01]
OR ANY OTHER PROJECT OF THIS TYPE END QUOTE.NEXT I HAVE STEVEN E WHO IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM I QUOTE, I AM A LITCHFIELD 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 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE EXISTING C TWO 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 DIAR 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 DIAR RANCH DUE TO THE PROJECT'S IMPACT ON STORMWATER RUNOFF.
THIS IMPACT IS NOT SPECULATIVE, IT IS CONFIRMED BY FEMA ANALYSIS AS WELL AS GUARDIAN EXTRA SPACES OWNED OWN DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER RUNOFF PLAN FOR THE PROJECT.
DUE TO THE WIDESPREAD CHANGES IN CHALLENGES AT HOME INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE INCREASED FLOOD RISK RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT WILL LIKELY RENDER DIAR RANCH HOMES UNINSURABLE.
AND IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED IN MORE SIMILARLY SIMILAR PROJECTS WILL PRESUMABLY APPLY FOR AND BE GRANTED SIMILAR EXCEPTIONS FOR ADJACENT PARCELS CAUSING THE FLOOD RISK TO DIAR RANCH.
TO INCREASE EVEN FURTHER THE IMPACT ON DIAR RANCH HOMES AND HOMEOWNERS COULD BE CATASTROPHIC.
THERE ARE AL ALREADY MULTIPLE STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING ONE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONED AREA THAT IS LESS THAN HALF MILE AWAY FROM THIS NEW PROPOSED PROJECT.
THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT NEED MORE STORAGE FACILITIES KEEPING THE EXISTING ZONING C TWO 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 INTEREST 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 C TWO 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.
IRENE VASQUEZ AS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM I QUOTE, I OPPOSE THE STORAGE WAREHOUSE PROJECT AT THE CORNER OF OSBORNE AND INDIAN SCHOOL BECAUSE IT WILL D DEPRECIATE PROPERTY VALUES AND ADD TO THE TRAFFIC ISSUES IN DIAR RANCH.
NEIGHBORHOOD L'S BETA S IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM 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 STORMWATER RUNOFF BASED ON NEW FEMA INFORMATION AND THE DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER RUNOFF PLANS FOR THE PROJECT.
THE CURRENT ZONING OF C TWO DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
ONLY ADDITIONAL VALUE WILL 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 COMMERCIALLY ZONES FOR A REASON THIS PROJECT BELONGS.
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 SEE RESIDENTIAL.
NEXT I HAVE JANE NICHOLS WHO IS OPPOSED OF 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, A SU AND U-S-C-U-S-C 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.
[00:45:01]
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 BUST RECENTLY AS ONE OF THESE PLACES AND I'M SURE THAT PLACE HAD RULES TOO.
NEXT I HAVE JL WHO IS OPPOSED WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM AND I QUOTE, I WOULD RATHER SEE A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS, ET CETERA.
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.
NEXT I HAVE GAIL SANCHEZ WHO IS OPPOSED OF 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.
MY POSTMASTER WAS NOT AWARE THAT THIS WAS EVEN CONSIDERED.
WHAT ABOUT A SWAP OF LAND, WHICH VILLE PARK? WHAT ABOUT TRADER JOE'S? A CHEESE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, OUTBACK LONGHORN, A MIRACLE MILE DELI OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BETTER SERVICE THE AREA.
SOMETHING THAT WOULD LOOK BETTER.
EVEN A MOM AND POP SANDWICH SHOP.
I LIVE IN FL AND HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS AND HAVE WORKED FOR THE POST OFFICE AND I'M 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 TRAIL 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.
NEXT I HAVE JAY LAGA SCHULTZ WHO IS OPPOSED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM AND I QUOTE GUARDIAN GEORGE SENT OUT A LETTER WITH A ZOOM MEETING ADDRESS FOR THE PROPOSED GEORGE FACILITY AT OSBORNE ROAD IN 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 DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 3 MEETING WAS TO BE ON DECEMBER 9TH AT 6:00 PM 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.
NEXT I HAVE TRANSPARENCY AZ WHO IS OPPOSED OF 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 AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S 2021 DENIAL IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF AVONDALE PAUL HEDGES COMPANIES WERE IN DEFAULT WITH THE A CC.
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 AND OTHER OWNED PROPERTIES AND REFERENCES TO AMPLE ONSITE TRASH BINS FOR CLIENTS.
VIDEO AND INFO PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE WE HAVE 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 A CC, 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.
I HAVE JOHN B WHO'S OPPOSED OF 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, 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 ER RANCH COMMUNITY WILL HAVE A POOR AND PERMANENT EFFECT ON OUR COMMUNITY.
[00:50:01]
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 OF THIS AGENDA ITEM WITH NO COMMENTS.
NEXT I HAVE KATHLEEN MONTEREY WHO IS OPPOSED OF THIS AGENDA ITEM AND I QUOTE, OUR FAMILY IS ON VACATION.
A LOT OF FAMILIES ARE ON VACATION.
I WAS, 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.
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.
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 AND O WHAT CAN OPERATE HERE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN ADJUST AND EVOLVE.
I'M GONNA GO AND ORDER THE ONES THAT I RECEIVED HERE.
MR. LADA, YOU WANTED TO GO FIRST, CORRECT, SIR? YES, SIR.
UH, YOU'VE GOT THREE MINUTES, SIR, AS EVERYONE ELSE DOES.
DO YOU MIND JUST STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, SIR? YES.
UH, 21 9 80 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD IN PHOENIX.
ON BEHALF OF ER RANCH COMMUNITY, HOA AND I I WANNA START BY MENTIONING, UH, THE ACTUAL POSTURE HERE.
YOU'VE HEARD THAT THIS IS INDEED AN APPEAL.
UH, MR. BA 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. BALL 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, 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 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, 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 LE 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.
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, IT'S JUST, IT'S EMBLEMATIC OF, OF SORT OF THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT.
I I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, IT 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.
THANK YOU SIR FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
AND I'LL JUST ASK EVERYONE SO I DON'T HAVE TO KEEP ON REPEATING IT 'CAUSE YOU GET TIRED OF HEARING ME.
JUST WHEN YOU GET UP, JUST FOR THE RECORD, JUST STATE YOUR NAME, YOU DON'T
[00:55:01]
NEED TO GIVE YOUR ADDRESS.JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
DO YOU WANT US TO LOWER THAT TO READ? YEAH, COULD YOU, 'CAUSE I AM READING THE MARCELA, 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.
UM, MY NAME IS ANDREA SANDOVAL.
UM, I AM A HOMEOWNER IN THE ER 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, UH, 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, LITCHFIELD 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.
I DISAGREE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE CUP SPECIFICALLY, THE ENTRANCE AND EXITS TO THE PRO PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD FALL DIRECTLY INTO OUR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO THE US POST OFFICE.
OBVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT IS LIVES ON THE EAST VALLEY, BUT IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN NEAR THE POST OFFICE, THE LITCHFIELD PARK POST OFFICE AROUND CHRISTMAS TIME OR ELECTION TIME, THE LINES AND THE BACKUP WOULD BACK UP RIGHT ONTO OSBORN, RIGHT WHERE THE ENTRANCE AND EXITS WOULD, WOULD, UM, 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 MEETING GREET, UM, 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 DESERT RANCH COMMUNITY MEMBER AND SPOKE ABOUT OUR STORAGE FACILITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S OP 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 AT OTHER BUSINESSES ZONED.
I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, AND I ASK THAT YOU REVIEW THAT AND, UH, DENY THIS APPEAL.
OUR CMO, YOU DON'T WANNA SPEAK, SIR? DID I, DID I SAY YOUR LAST NAME RIGHT OR DID I BUTCHER IT? BUTCHER
DID I GET THAT LAST NAME RIGHT? YOU DID.
UH, MY NAME IS BENJAMIN GRASSY.
GOOD EVENING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I LIVE IN DIE HEART RANCH WITH MY WIFE AND CHILDREN, AND I'M 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.
IT IS INDEED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD.
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 DIAR 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.
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%.
[01:00:01]
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.
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 OF 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 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 DIAR 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, WERE 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.
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, UM, 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 GONNA APPEAR ACROSS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S VISIBLE TO EVERYONE IN LITCHFIELD PARK NEVER GOES OUT.
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 TIMEFRAME.
WE PULLED THE BUILDING RECORDS FROM THE CITY OF GILBERT AND FOR MR. HEDGES PROPERTY.
HIS FACILITY WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN 21 AND 22.
CONCURRENT TO HIS TIMEFRAME HERE IN AVONDALE.
RECORDS FROM GILBERT, CHEWY 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. HEDGES.
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 AN 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 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.
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.
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 IN SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE 2023 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
DID I SAY IT CORRECTLY? YES SIR, YOU DID.
I USED TO LADA MOST OF THE TIME.
THANK YOU FOR LE 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
[01:05:01]
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 THERE IS NO FUTURE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE COMMUNITY FOR SECURITY ISSUES AFTER OUR NOISE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CONCERNS, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID THERE IS, THESE FACILITIES HAVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF JOB CREATION, THE OBSTRUCTION THAT THIS FACILITY WILL CREATE IN OUR EXCLUSIVE AND QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD IS 100% UNACCEPTABLE.
IT WILL STAND AS A STARK UNWELCOME INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE.
IN CONTRAST TO OUR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ENTRANCE, THIS IS A PRIME CORNER PARCEL OF LAND THAT SITS AT THE ENTRANCE OF OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'LL BE BETTER SUITED FOR THIS PARCEL IF IT HAD BUSINESSES THAT WOULD SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IF THIS CONDITIONAL USE IS APPROVED WITH 24 HOUR LID SIGNAGE, SOME OF THE SECOND STORY OF THE BUILDING, THIS WILL BE A CATASTROPHE FOR OUR AREA.
OUR OPPOSITION TO THE STORAGE FACILITY IS CATEGORICALLY UNANIMOUS.
DID I SAY THAT CORRECT? YES, YOU DID.
MY NAME IS ERIC BLOCKER AND I'M A RESIDENT ON WEST MULBERRY DRIVE IN DYSERT RANCH.
HAVE IDENTIFIED 42 DARD RANCH RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE WEST MULBERRY DRIVE, WEST FLOWER STREET, AND MONTEREY WAY.
CUL-DE-SACS THAT ARE REQUESTING THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PL 21 0 3 0 3 FOR FACILITY NOT BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF AVONDALE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.
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 IN 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 6:00 AM TO 10:00 PM IS NOT CONSISTENT.
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 DIAR RANCH COMMUNITY TO THE SOUTH AND THE LITCHFIELD PARK COMMUNITY TO THE NORTH OF THE FACILITY.
THE PLANNED FACILITY CONSTRUCTION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING OFFICE PARK SIGNAGE OR NIGHTLIGHT.
SIGNAGE SHOULD NOT BE ILLUMINATED, BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND LIMIT VISUAL OR NIGHTLIGHT IMPACTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.
EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION.
WHILE THE APPEALS REQUEST ADDRESS 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 LITCHFIELD 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.
I DON'T HAVE A LAST NAME, BUT I HAVE A GREG D THANK YOU SIR.
SO THE FIRST THING I WANNA START OFF IS SOME DISTANCES.
AS I TOLD YOU LAST TIME, MAYOR, I'M A DATA SCIENTIST, SO I'M THE ONE WHO THANKED 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.
[01:10:01]
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 COURTE 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, AND 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.
ALL 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 DON'T LIVE WITH US IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY LIVE IN $10 MILLION HOUSES WITH GUARD GATES.
YOU STAND AT OUR GATES, WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU.
OUR CONCERNS WERE DISMISSED AT EVERY TURN.
I ASKED HIM TO SEND ME THE APPEAL BEFORE I RESPOND.
TAKE THE WORD OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.
THIS FACILITY WILL CAUSE AN ECONOMIC INJURY.
MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COVER UP CO RECOVER FROM.
THE EVIDENCE I HAVE IS ACTIONABLE.
THE COMPLICITY OF THE CITY STAFF AND WORKING WITH THIS MAN IS A LITTLE BIT OVER THE TOP.
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO EVERYONE HERE AND I I WANNA 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, HONESTLY TO YOU VERY HUMBLY.
AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I CONFIRMED THE NEWSPAPER AD WAS NOT IN THERE.
I HAVE TAKEN THE TOURS, I HAVE DOCUMENTED THESE THINGS.
I HAVE DOWNLOADED THE 6,000 PAGES AND 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.
UH, BEFORE 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 BARAL.
UH, PEOPLE ARE HOLDING UP SIGNS THAT SAY DENY.
I JUST WANT THAT IN THE RECORD.
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.
I WAS JUST WAITING FOR YOU TO TRY IT.
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 ER 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 GONNA GO INTO THAT WHILE 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 UH, OUR COMMUNITY IS, UH, GROWN QUITE A BIT AND OUR HOME VALUES WILL DEFINITELY BE, UH,
[01:15:01]
IMPACTED BY THIS FACILITY.AND, UH, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FEMA, UH, 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 UH, I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT, UH, LIKE OTHERS HAVE SAID, WOULD BE MORE FITTING IN A AREA WHERE THERE'S MORE SUITABLE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES INSTEAD OF RESTAURANTS AND THINGS THAT WE NEED.
UH, WE DON'T NEED A FACILITY LIKE THIS.
UH, I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ANYBODY IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT SAID THEY WANTED A FACILITY CLOSER BY.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE, MA'AM, MAY I POINT DOWN SOMETHING? DO YOU MIND COMING UP SO WE CAN HEAR YOU? THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE.
IT'S BEING RECORDED AND STREAMED.
AND I JUST WANNA 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.
UH, WELL 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.
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 STORM WATER IS BEING MENTIONED AND FEMA'S BEING MENTIONED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT HE'S USING OUR, UH, COMMON AREA TO DUMP THE STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM HIS FACILITY.
AND HE IS NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE PROPER, UM, RETENTION.
THEREFORE, THE STORMWATER RUNOFF, WHICH RUNS INTO OUR, UH, ENCATCHMENT, 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'S GONNA BE UNDERWATER AND REQUIRED TO HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE.
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 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN THAT IS REQUIRED BY THIS APPLICATION.
WE REQUESTED ALL OF THESE THINGS AND WE NEVER RECEIVED IT.
NO STORM WATER POLLUTION PLAN WAS DONE.
AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ASKING THAT NOTHING BE BUILT THERE.
WE ACTUALLY WANT SERVICES THERE.
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. HEDGES 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 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'S GONNA BE.
IT'S ALSO A KEY PAD 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 11 POLICE CALLS IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS IS AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF POLICE CALLS.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
WE APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU AND YOU KNOW, WE WANNA SUPPORT ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT GOES THERE, BUT, UM, WE ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY OPPOSED TO THIS.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[01:20:03]
LET ME SAY IT TAKES, I HEAR A LOT OF PASSION.I HEAR A LOVE FOR THE COMMUNITY, UM, AND 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.
WE 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, I WON'T, DON'T MAKE, DON'T MAKE IT THAT HIGH 'CAUSE OTHER PEOPLE MAY HAVE TO COME UP.
OKAY, 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, 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 DEVELOPER INVESTING IN YOUR COMMUNITY GOING THROUGH 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, ANOTHER 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, UM, BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW UNTIL I GET THROUGH PLANNING.
I CAN'T DO APPLYING TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.
AND SO IT, IT'S IN THE UNFORTUNATE PART OF WHAT IT TAKES TO ENTITLE PROPERTY IN THIS, IN THE CITY OF AVONDALE.
EVEN IF I CAN'T DONE THAT IN A MUCH FASTER TIME, I STILL COULDN'T BEEN ABLE TO BUILD A BILLION 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 'EM IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER, BUT MAYBE JUST ADDRESS SOME CLEAR MISCONCEPTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, OR JUST DISHONEST STATEMENTS.
THIS IS NOT A BREAKUP OF THE CT ZONING.
THIS IS NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CT ZONING.
THIS IS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CT ZONING.
THIS IS A USE PERMITTED IN THE CT ZONING WITH THE USE PERMIT 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.
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, A COMMENT MADE ABOUT LOWERING PROP 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 NOTICES 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.
YOU GUYS OWN SO MUCH A RIGHT OF WAY 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'VE BEEN THE SIXTH PART OF THIS TEST.
I'VE HEARD THAT THIS EXITS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ACTUALLY IT EXITS ONTO OSBORNE ROAD, WHICH IS A PUBLIC STREET ARTERIAL 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 AND INSIDE THE BUILDING SO THAT WAY IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF LIFE.
BUT IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THERE A BUSINESS SIGNAGE ON THE BACKSIDE OF OUR BUILDING THAT WOULD BE
[01:25:01]
CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORS.OUR 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 THEY COUNSELED INTRODUCED THIS IDEA.
AND 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 THEY TELL YOU? ONE WAS FOR POLICE PROACTIVE, UM, OUTREACH THAT ACTUALLY THERE'S ONLY FOUR INCIDENCES AND A COUPLE OF FOLLOWUPS THOUGH, SO IT'S SORT OF A MISS OF REPRESENTATION 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, LIKE A DAYCARE OR A CHEESECAKE FACTORY OR A 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 IF THAT HAPPENS.
BUT AT A MINIMUM, THIS SITE IS A VALUE IN ITSELF OF THE ENDOWMENTS 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 'CAUSE 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 SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER IS THE PARTS THAT ARE OUTLINED AND CODIFIED IN YOUR ZONING CODE.
AND THAT'S WHY STAFF RECOMMENDED 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 HAD 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 GONNA MAKE A DECISION BASED ON A USE PERMIT CRITERIA, I HOPE WE CAN FOLLOW THAT CAREER HERE.
'CAUSE IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE'LL END UP IN THE SPOT THAT THIS IS APPROVAL.
SANDRA, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD? SANDRA FO 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 COUNSEL RIGHT THERE.
UM, MARCELLA, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO PUT UP THE, UH, FIVE CRITERIA? DO YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY? I, SANDRA, IS THAT IN YOUR SLIDE RIGHT THERE.
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 LITCHFIELD PARK.
AND AS MUCH AS WE LOVE LITCHFIELD 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 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 VOTED TWO TO TWO, WHICH IS A TECHNICAL DENIAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED IF THERE WAS A FIFTH PERSON THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE PENDING 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 KINDA WANNA HEAR FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS IF THEY WANT TO.
UM, MAX, LET'S START WITH YOU.
I MOVE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[01:30:01]
SESSION.I SECOND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MARCELLA, DO YOU MIND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? WE'RE ADJOURNED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING, UH, ONLINE, WE ARE TAKING A RECESS AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SORRY WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US.
UM, TINA, I THINK YOU HAD A, YOU MAY HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, ACTUALLY I HAVE A, 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 ROLL, MAYOR COUNSEL.
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, UM, SHALL ONLY BE MADE UPON THE RECORD THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, YOU SHOULD NOT CONSIDER ANY NEW EVIDENCE UNLESS THAT E EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
CAN WE GO DOWN THE LINE? MY MIKE, LEMME GO DOWN THE LINE.
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 WANNA THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU'VE 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, UM, 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'S FOR, UM, CHIEF, UM, ESPINOZA.
I JUST WANNA 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.
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 WANNA, YOU KNOW, JUST MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS.
BUT I, I CAN GET YOU THAT INFO.
UM, ALSO WANTED TO, UM, JUST ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, MAYOR AND COUNSEL THAT, UM, WE WERE GIVEN FEEDBACK, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE APPLICANT OR ANOTHER COMMENTARY THAT MAY OUR OR ORDINANCE IS ARCHAIC.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, UM, UH, A LITTLE BIT FROM THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
UM, UH, AND, 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, FOR PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, UM, TYPICALLY THE TIMELINE IS TWO YEARS FOR A 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, THEY'RE REVIEWED CONDITION USE PERMIT GOES FIRST HERE AND APPLICANT CAN DECIDE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CONCURRENTLY OR JUST AFTER A CONDITION 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.
UM, AND SO THAT'S HOW THAT GOES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING SURE THE ORDER, UM, MAKES SENSE.
AND THEN, UM, JUST TO THE FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, I, I REGRET THAT, UM, MAYBE, UH, THE ASSUMPTION IS OUR RIGHT AWAY IS, IS IS TOO LARGE.
'CAUSE 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, I RESPECT THE CONCERN, BUT I, I BELIEVE THE SIGNAGE WAS SUFFICIENT BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT, UM, EXECUTED.
COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL NIELSEN, ANY COMMENTS? NO, I'M GOOD.
SANDRA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, SANDRA,
[01:35:01]
YOU MAY WANNA STAY UP THERE JUST FORJUST AVOID BACK AND FORTH FOR THE RECORD.
UH, THANK YOU FOR COMING IN TODAY.
I KNOW THAT IT'S DINNER TIME AND IT'S IMPORTANT TIME WITH FAMILY, BUT I JUST WANNA 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, DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT HAS THAT INFORMATION? UH, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER SOLORIO.
I WAS GONNA ASK, UH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, UH, TRACY STEVENS, WHO'S BEEN WITH THE CITY 17 OR SO YEARS AND A PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS AND SHE CAN REMEMBER ANY APPLICATIONS FOR THAT PROPERTY.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER SOLORIO, UM, AS, UH, CITY MANAGER RON CORBY 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.
COUNCIL CONDI, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR YOU? NO, THANK YOU.
MAYOR COUNCILMAN MALONE? NO, VICE MAYOR.
AND SANDRA, 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, IT ADHERES TO WHAT, UH, THE STANDARD IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF THE COP? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
SO WHEN WE LOOK, SANDRA, WHEN WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT IS ALLOWED HERE, EVEN WITHOUT A CUP, WOULD A STORAGE FACILITY BE ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY? IS, IS IT AN ALLOWED USE IN THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT WITH A CONDITION USE PERMIT ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE? YES.
WHAT OTHER, WHAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WOULD REQUIRE A CUP ON THAT PROPERTY? OH GOSH.
OKAY, SO A GAS STATION COULD GO THERE WITH A CUP? THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT ELSE? MOVIE THEATER THAT'S ALLOWED WITHOUT A CUP.
AN ICE RINK IS ALLOWED WITHOUT A CUP MOVIE.
BANKS URGENT CARE WITHOUT A CUP.
UM, CHILDCARE WITH CHILDCARE IS WITH A CUP.
SORRY, I WASN'T PREPARED FOR THAT.
UM, CAR WASH, SELF SERVICE, CAR WASH, FULL SERVICE TRUCK AND TRAILER AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL LIQUOR STORES.
ALL WITH THE CUP PRESCHOOLS? YES.
PUBLIC SERVICE AND NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY USE NIGHTCLUB RECEPTION CENTERS, SHOOTING RANGE CIGAR BAR, TOBACCO LOUNGE.
UM, IT MAYOR, UH, UM, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THEN THIS IS THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S DECISION ON HOW THEY CHOOSE TO USE THE LAND.
THEY, THEY'RE DEVELOPING THE LAND TO THE BEST, WHAT THEY DO AND WHETHER THE, I'LL 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, TINO 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, A STORAGE FACILITY COULD BE USED.
I I IS PART OF THE C TWO ZONING AND THEN GET IDEAS OF WHAT OTHER, WHAT OTHER ITEMS COULD BE THERE BESIDES A STORAGE FACILITY WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
ARE THERE ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL? 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,
[01:40:01]
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, SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER WHITE MAX, OR I'M SORRY, BARELA.
DO YOU WANNA DO VOICE? THANK YOU, MAYOR, IF YOU TOUCH THE SCREENS ON YOUR MICROPHONES, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE YES.
IS OVERTURNING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE A DENIAL A NO IS DENYING THAT, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WHO ARE WE MISSING? WE HAVE OVERTURNED THE, UH, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
NICOLE, I'M DIRECTING YOU TO PREPARE WRITTEN FINDINGS SETTING, SHOWING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE REQUESTED FINDINGS, WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THIS COUNCIL'S DECISION TONIGHT.
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 A MOVE.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN SOLORIO.
A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER WHITE MARCELLE, PLEASE VOTE.
ANY OPPOSED? NOPE, WE ARE ADJOURNED.