all right thank you welcome everybody to the July 24th 2024 city of Mesa Planning and Zoning public hearing we appreciate you being here we'll begin with a roll call uh chair SS myself I am here Vice chair pitcher is here here thought you weren't going to be here board member Peterson here board member Montes here board member blakeman here board member Carpenter here and board member Farnsworth here welcome as part of the agenda we have a agenda and all of these will be read into the record record and acted on in one motion so none of these items will be discussed individually there's any new blue cards that I need to worry about okay we're good there so um we will actually have board member uh Montes read our consent agenda today okay we're going to take action on all consent agenda items approval of minutes from previous meetings pz 24091 minutes from the July 10 2024 planning and zoning board meeting uh Z 24249 the Valene Instant Oil Change saucan district 6 within the 1300 Block of South saan Road located south of Southern Avenue and west of San Road major site plan modification the request will allow development of a minor automobile repair facility sta staff recommendation approval with conditions Z1 24- 00251 oops oh that's right sorry sorry look it was xed out and I still read it okay z124 00137 Meto expansion district 6 within the 8200 block of East posos Road located west of H road on the south side of posos Road rezone from light industrial to Alli with a planned area development overlay and sight plan modification this request will allow for an expansion to an existing Industrial Development staff recommendation approval with conditions Z1 22-01 052 RWC Building Supplies district 6 within the 10,600 block of East pagos Road and within the 6600 to 6700 blocks of South to 222nd Street located west of signal Bo road on the north side of pekos road major site plan modification and amending the conditions of approval for case number z12- 0447 and special use permit staff recommendations continue to August 14th 2024 planning and zoning board meeting that's the end of consent agenda thank you very much um do we need to read that it was an industrial I would recommend adding that just so it's clear but also I I want to clarify for the record that Z1 24251 is not on the consent agenda did you did we read that one 0251 oh just to say you read the number I started to say it correct so just for clarity just just need to include this request is Forest you missed that part oh did I miss that part okay do you want me to reread 4B no just say on the say the item number and then add on and then okay um 0122 01 052 need to add the request will allow for an industrial development good enough all right thank you all right is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as read motion to approve and is there a second second all right everyone please vote if it'll go there we go Vice chair pitcher we'll need your vote Yes and board member blakeman yes all right and unanimous that passes thank you for reading the consent in J for us today appreciate it all right we'll go ahead and move into do you do the last two because you have to go through order um I was going to go he was just we could we do the last two first is there any issue with that yeah it's within your discretion to take the agenda in any order we'd rather do that okay so what we're going to do is we're going to go through to uh item 5A and 5B on the consent agenda um board member blakeman I know you want to say say something yes I'm going to recuse myself from these two thank you board member blakean appreciate that and I'll just read would you okay that'd be great uh so make a motion to approve Evans oh do you need to say something or are you good we need to do another presentation do we chair it's it's your discretion we don't have to do another presentation unless you want one I think I don't think we're good is anybody on the board need to hear more on the second on this one okay I don't think so all right thanks Evan I appreciate it sorry chair board members you do need to hold open for public comment yeah so you're good there before the motion yes because we got BL cards go ahead and okay so what we'll do is we'll go in it without the presentation we go into the public uh meeting for this one we do have some blue cards and so I'm going to go ahead actually let me start with this one here for these two wait not for for these chair did you receive blue cards for for I'm looking at the piles differently I'm wrong I do not have any blue cards for this one okay okay is there any commentary we want to do on the public meeting on items either 5 a 5B no all right we'll close the public meeting now we can go to request for a motion go ahead okay make a motion to approve Z 24- 00561 I check it oh I got to read it first oh sorry sorry already wanting to go Pacific proving technology campus GP Amendment district 6 within the 10,000 to 10,400 blocks of East posos Road and within the 6200 to 6800 blocks of the future South krisman Road alignment located north of posos Road and East of ellworth Road minor General plan Amendment this request will change the general plan character area type from mixed use activity to employment staff recommendation is a option and I can lump both of these in the same motion correct uh no no we'll just do General plan yeah so now you can do your second second everybody please vote Vice chair pitcher what's your vote Yes board member blakeman actually never mind you cannot talk right now all right with one abstain it is unanimous passing on item 5 a 5B looking for a motion go ahead item 5B um motion to approve item 5B Z 24-19 Pacific proving technology campus within the 10,000 to 10,400 blocks of East posos Road and within the 6,200 to 6,800 blocks of the future krisman South krisman Road alignment located north of Picos Road and East of ellworth road reone from Agricultural and light industrial with the planned area development overlay to liip a site plan reviewing Council use permit this request will allow for a data center recommendation is approval with conditions thank you is there a second second all right thank you and all in favor Vice chair pitcher what's your vote Yes and I think we got everybody and the same vote with board member Lakeman is stating it unanimous pass of item 5B thank you all right now we back to item 3B all right who's uh who this one Cassidy where's Cass there she is we'll begin with a presentation on item uh 3B thank you chair members of the board Mike's not working there we go there we go just um the case before you this afternoon is zo1 24- 00251 for the Cyrus 1 data center the site is located north of Elliot Road and West of krisman Road the request is site plan review and two special use permits to allow for a data center the general plan designation on the property is employment with the industrial subtype character area uh the intent behind that General plan character area is to provide for a wide range of employment uses the site is also loated within the mixed use Community District of the Mesa Gateway strategic development plan um which does consider business parks and other employment uses compatible with that development plan the zoning on the site is currently planned employment park with a pad overlay and light industrial with a p8 overlay um indoor warehousing and storage which is how data centers are classified is a permitted use in both zoning districts here you can see an existing photo of the site it is currently vacant so the site plan is for five approximately 290,000 squ foot buildings in an Associated substation as a part of the request the applicant is requesting a parking reduction to 281 parking spaces provided here's the proposed landscape plan so there are two special use permit requests um one is for the parking reduction from uh 1,615 spaces required under the zoning ordinance to 281 spaces provided and then a an increase into the maximum Building height so the the P zoning district has no maximum Building height it's plan specific however the light industrial zoning District which is the Blue Area to the south on the zoning exhibit has a maximum Building height of 40 feet in in the Ali zoning District um the applicant is requesting a height increase to 69 ft at the tallest parapet here are the proposed elevations internal and then also external looking to the buildings from the North the applicant did conduct a citizen participation process which included a neighborhood meeting um one neighbor was in attendance at that meeting and he just had general questions about the use um since then uh we've had two neighbors who attended the design review board who expressed opposition to the project um and we've had a number of letters and and Outreach uh from additional neighbors who have um also expressed opposition to the proposed use and the height um and concerns with traffic noise um and just the overall industrial use in summary we find that the proposed development complies with the 2040 Mesa General plan as well as the criteria for site plan review and for special use permit and staff is recommending approval with conditions right thank you Cassidy with that I don't think there's any questions from the board correct for no we want to invite the applicant up if they do have any presentation as well good afternoon chairman board and members of City staff uh Sean ly was Cyrus one and uh wanted to just uh touch upon before we get into um comments just touch upon a little bit of the history of the site what our efforts have been and how we've kind of partnered um over the last year over a year with uh city planning to um give I think and produce what is a a real sound um design and uh fits really nicely within the Tech Corridor um we've owned the property since 2018 2018 and uh once we got uh a power story that uh gave us some Target of bridging power and leading up through a power ramp we began entitlements a few years later like I said it's over a little over a year and a half I think by now um and uh we feel uh and really kudos to planning staff to City staff engineering um members of the um development services department um went through a series of um sort design review probably four rounds of design review um taking City comments um taking uh you know Direction with respect to design uh building location building placement in addition to that we um furnished several reports noise studies um Geotech uh parking studies um noise studies both on and offsite at the property line onsite as well um and and it was those those rounds of design um feedback and and comments that uh gave us the design we have today um and uh I should say as well that uh City staff uh in addition to being you know very helpful in the process also gave us a window I think into um what was important to the city with respect to the neighborhood that uh uh exists on on the north side of the SRP transmission Corridor so we've um I think duly um Incorporated those um recommendations um and then some uh went back to the design board uh if you will and uh received approval uh uh a couple weeks ago actually um from the design board um in addition to that um with respect to questions of of height and I'm sure there are questions from the the public that uh will remain toward that end we um have addressed those I think uh sufficiently um and I would say unique unique to the perspective of data centers are um things such as floor height mechanical equipment that has to dissipate noise um provide cooling um server racks Etc um are sort of the Locust behind um our request for a height uh increase which as um planning staff uh made mention is really applicable to the three buildings that are on the south side of the property and we have a Graphic here in fact that looks as a crosssection across the corridor with residences on the on the left of the graphic I'm sorry I'm there we go and uh our building uh a example of of the north building on the right transmission um Towers in the middle and demonstrates how we've uh stepped back the building with respect to this is mentioned in the um study session but step back the building uh as you move uh up and uh mechanical equipment is fully screened um and that screening uh as proposed also um helps dissipate and attenuate uh noise from uh any rooftop mechanical uh structures and units um the corridor I may have alluded to is is approximately 250 ft um we are set back another 70 ft I think from the property line so we're well over 300 ft from uh the nearest Residence to the north above the uh transmission Corridor um as well and this is not shown on the graphic but I can uh touch on it it was in the in the presentation um we've provided a certain glazing or certain type of glass spandrel glass which is is not not visible or viewable through from a a neighborhood um perspective and that's um replete on the uh North facade of our buildings um to address that part of the concern um there were some comments I I personally tried to reach out to and there was only only two or three people um because that's what I was aware of at the time that had submitted comments early enough for me to get to them before tonight's meeting um I made contact with with one resident had I think a a good conversation over the phone just discussing the the tenants of the project um kind of our approach um what makes us tick from a design and a product uh perspective um one comment uh one resident I was not able to reach via email but I'm happy to be able to address um any questions uh this evening as they they come up and that's what I have do you have any questions for me at this time any questions no more sure hi Sean uh will you talk about the uh you mentioned noise mitigation efforts that that were made will you go into a little more detail on on what what those are and and uh and and a little more background on your noise study right yeah and I'll preface to we we um I think I mentioned we did a noise study per U mesa's requirements as part of our entitlements and there were there several other studies as well um and at the property line what it when we we measured it what we're modeling to I think meets and exceeds the city standard by saying that there there no is no net increase or or negative impact on generated noise from a result of our construction what I was referring to Prior is shown again on the on the right on this graphic is that sort of gray uh parit box if you will on the the uh gray scale and that will fully um screen first the visibility of any rooftop um chill but also the thickness of the wall attenuates and and both attenuates and directs the sound up versus letting it bleed out to you know property lines and eventually to other other Parcels okay thank you go ahead um looking at the Landscaping plan I'm curious the trees that are along the north side that are going to act as a screen do you know the ultimate height of what those trees will be when they're fully grown I don't um I know one of the comments we had from design uh review board which we're addressing is where we have running species excuse me that we'll we'll make sure they're they're um appropriately varied um but I I have civil here I don't know if if Bo can address yeah yeah I I'm happy to track that down but I don't know off and I I appreciate it thank you Sor I'm trying to get to the species see if it's on there doesn't look like it's on there okay okay any other questions from the perhaps one more um Sean I'm noticing on the uh site plan the proposed versus future buildings can you speak to the um duration over which you plan to implement the site development and maybe talk a little more clearly about um is there any optionality and how you guys progress through that yeah we'll progress building one I believe will be on the upper uh well the north side just just to the left of the substation and I think we plan to work our way um counterclockwise from there if I'm not mistaken and some of that is um power related and some of that is um just making sure that when we move on to another building that will have circulation and enough improvements in place that they can go along and we don't you know wind up wind up uh sort of hemmed in at any any sort as far as overall um I mean we're we're estimating you know a a year to build maybe nine months to a year to build um for the first one mhm okay yeah and then I guess maybe that's a clarifier for me if I'm seeing the visual correctly because it appears to me that it's actually the Southwest most building so perhaps even further yet from the neighborhood but am I misunderstanding that I'm sorry I'm looking at the sorry the visual for the site plan yep and it appears as though it's actually the Southwest most building buing building I'm sorry you're right even yet further away from the neighborhood for your first move is that correct so we'll have I I believe in fact we're required to do all the Landscaping if I'm not mistaken we'll have access points security checkpoints security gates so some things will come in with that first building for sure as a matter of practice but I I stand corrected that's that's right and then so the first building will take about a year so but um I guess my other question was more so to like the full development of all five buildings is that forecasted to transpire over a 5year duration 10 would say I would say so yeah okay about five years or so yeah okay thank you any other questions from the board Vice chair pitcher board blakeman he's reaching for something no questions here no all right I appreciate it thank you for your time thank you we will open up comments we do okay why don't we uh so I the first thing I'll do here before we get to those that like to speak we have several comments that have come in uh just so you guys know we've all reviewed the ones that have asked not to speak um I do want to just make sure because I've got two blue cards on here they both are asking um and I'm gring the wrong pile I thought I had two that said they did not wish to speak but now I must have confused my pile here hold on just a second speak okay never mind it looks like we all want to speak never mind so let's go ahead and do SC online to our first we do have one person on the line right James from is online so um the just the general kind of rules for public speaking we'll give all of you guys three minutes each to be able to come up and kind of speak um we've got several to get through that's one of the reasons why we do the three minutes so we'd appreciate if you kind of stick to that and uh we'll remind you as we go through and with that we'll move on so Mr from are you online am can you hear me or form it's Mr for correct from from can you hear me yes sir okay um my my only my only comment in the diagram that Mr looy put up earlier really does a good job of helping mitigate my concerns but really what I want to know is what is the remedy for a resident in the future if the noise pollution mitigations they install are not successful so I'll tell you Mr F we won't be able to answer questions directly but what we will do is we'll get through all of these questions and we'll invite the them to come back on respond to that the board can't answer those question okay does that make sense yep okay any other questions or comments that you would like to have oh that's all I'm only concerned about sound all right thank you Mr fr we appreciate you your time I did find two so pardon I promise I kind of know what I'm doing sometimes um I have Mr Jeremy Donahue and Jamie Don I make sure you neither of you want to speak is that correct okay thank you we do have it so we've read your comments we appreciate comments um we don't well I can so I'll go through uh the first one's from Jeremy donu I do not want this approved the the high buildings were hurt the neighborhood and home values and then Jamie uh resale value height of building and noise are your issues correct all right thank you and so I'll read those and so now we'll get into the public comments I'll just go through in the order that I have first up we would uh invite James Taylor to come up if you'd like to speak and again for everybody as you come up if you could please state your name and your address for the record yeah James Taylor I live at 3129 South Coyote Canyon Circle I am in the Southeast corner of the the uh development for mosqu Canyon um ladies and gentlemen of the board thank you for hearing us um I'd normally say ladies and you know Gentlemen of the jury because you are deciding our Fates tonight all right I was a cop for 21 years in Scottsdale but I chose to live in Mesa and I chose the neighborhood I'm in to raise my family and have that quality of life I did not choose that property that I purchased at a good price which is now worth more to live in an industrial area I did not you know I was against the resoning of the area and now we're getting more and more it's one change after another now let's approve a building that's 29 ft higher than what's already there I built a very nice backyard my wife and I sit outside at night have a have a glass of wine we used to look out and see the Horizon and see the stars from underneath our patio now I look out and I see the top six or seven feet of the buildings there are already there the cement pill boxes that's my view now you put a building that 29 ft higher than that directly behind my house and closer my view is going to be a building that is it I will not see any Sky I will have to walk out into my yard and look straight up to get the view that I am used to seeing in my yard okay this is our life this is our family this is what I brought my family in to you know have my children grow up in this my son just got recently engaged my future daughter-in-law came to me the other day and she goes I would love to have our our wedding in your backyard because I I have the biggest property in the development it's kind of nice um and but she looked at me she goes I can't do it with those buildings and those are the small ones small ones you know so it's already changing my life you know you want to talk finances taxes all the other stuff you get from these buildings $20,000 to buy an event area to have her wedding when she could have had it in my backyard you know so this isn't just a you know approving for Cyrus if they need that much space find a different piece of property that you can build as high as you want to build put it near the Air Park where a lot of these things in Scottdale had been put you know not in our neighborhoods not in my backyard because that is my backyard that is what I will see it doesn't matter how pretty you try to make a building I will look at a building thank you very much thank you Mr Taylor we appreciate your time um next I have Scott Deno did I say that right I hope I said that right uh no you didn't it's done Scott done I'm not the 3132 South 96 Circle so I am at the I would be on the uh Northwest portion of this parcel what I'm my main concern again is just height okay uh 65 foot again I'm I am an a degreed engineer but I do not know how to put up data centers I just want to make sure that this is consistent with the normal height that you would find on a building like this okay uh the second would be noise and then the other concern I would have is any radiation or emissions coming out of the switchyard so those are the three things that I'm most concerned about all right else thank you all right thank you Mr D we appreciate your time um next I have fustino bonc court hello I'm falo beton Court uh live at 3122 South F Circle um when we purchased our home in mosqu Canyon directly north of this project we knew there would eventually be industrial buildings going in there but we felt comfortable with the provisions that were already put in place with the Elliott Corridor um with an emphasis on protecting our neighborhoods and ensuring compatibility um there were several reasonable prote put in place for the community including a maximum Building height of 50 ft within 600t of the SRP lines and to maintain generous buffers between the neighboring communities um both of which are in question today and being nearly doubled um in the citizen participation report dated August 14th 2014 Building height was listed as a major concern by neighbors this concern was addressed at that time stating the development standards within the overlay also require a greater deal of scrutiny for compatibility with the residential neighborhoods to the north of any development within 300 ft of the transmission line easement all we are asking you for today is to live up to that promise and to hold up that development to that higher standard thank you thank you Mr B appreciate your time um Frank and bront tesma BR brona I'm trying just click it to change how do you get to the top again I'm Frank bran at 3121 South verie Circle and uh I was at the july9 meeting I'm retired so I was just kind of curious what this was all about uh well was handed out to some people but not everybody for these meeting notices they said talked about a two-story building and this illegible blueprint and not only that the meetings during working hours most of the people in the neighborhood work and they're not going to take time off from work to go look at this silly map so I came to the meeting I was curious and I saw what you were proposing and it was outrageous so I took some of your slides and talked to almost every neighbor up here and uh most people didn't even know about this they did not get notices and they were very much opposed so this is yeah forget Cyrus one saying they handed out notices forget it that did not happen and uh I can go to the next slide here if I know how to page down here we go so my big thing is the neighborhood was not informed and everybody I talked to was unaware of this and violently objected to it and you need to hear the neighborhood we're part of Mesa and U oh there's a lot of concerns but everybody else can voicing what their concerns are on this but not talking to the neighborhood where you're building these damn tall buildings right next to it that's wrong this shows uh here's what we got in the mail These Blueprints that you can't read I come to the meeting and we see the rendering which one would get your attention if you're living there and somebody's talks about building something in your backyard you probably ignore the silly blueprint you can't read but when you see this picture holy cow no way in the world are you going to allow that if it was your house would you allow buildings this big to be built 100 yards from your house I doubt it don't let them do it to us in the neighborhood all these homes homes were built in the 1900s uh a lot of the neighbors I talked to are the original owners and all the property there was Zed residential in 2014 uh you're talking about the uh Elliot Road Technology Center and you re zoned it the light industrial now you're talking about building massive buildings right by our houses so what I'm asking for you uh do not approve this I'm not against data centers just don't put them next to our houses and at a minimum do not approve the extra height if if the extra height if not making bills buildings taller uh causes them a problem maybe them moving to a different location would work so please do not approve the height city of Chandler has a Cyrus one plant that had tons of problems and most of it was noise so I went over and took a look at it and if you look at this map the Cyrus one area is not next to houses and yet the neighborhood that you can see far to the right had tons of problems look at us in Mesa these giant buildings bigger buildings are closer right up against the houses if they had problem Chandler what are we going to have here in Mesa I mean that's totally wrong you do not do that last but not least if you build those damn things nobody's going to want to buy a house that faces a big 69t tall concrete building at the end of the Court our property Valu is going to go in the toilet is Mesa going to compensate us for the loss of property values so please coordinate with the neighborhood that has not been done and the neighbors are very much opposed to this thank you Mr brones appreciate your time coming in uh Miss Todd Kane my name is Todd Kane I'm uh 3124 South 96 Street uh thank you board members for allowing us to talk today uh my major questions are concerning the basic height and the sound and if I understand Sean correctly he's stating that there's going to be zero sound increase is that what he said that's what I picked up I don't think that's the case when this is all finalized and built also I would like Sean to come up here and talk about all those extensive problems in chanler that was such a concern that they've considered if they haven't already passed city ordinances to not allow any more data centers and Channeler because of Cyprus one that's pretty much all I have to say outside of agree with everybody in everything they've said so I won't repeat what they've all said Thank you thank you Mr C we appreciate that uh okay let me get this one Michael range R Rangel well Dr R Dr Rangel I will you earn that title I'll give that one to you looks like anamation good evening my name is Dr Michael Rangel I live at 3140 South 96 Circle when I saw the fening put it up right close to the right on the edge of the uh Community that's designated for building I had my attention uh um really really focused on what was happening there um now we did receive a letter in the mail I tried my best to decipher that map it is so small I used a magnifying glass and then I decide uh looked at it closely and they have a huge um um generation of electricity in that area we have the SRP main power lines going in that area as well it it meets a radiation and with this radiation we have a lot of kids that play on that back side a lot of people that like to walk there that's going to increase the radiation and ionization and let me tell you radiation ionization destroys cells can cause cancer and I'm concerned about that the other thing is again uh the height of the building I live right next to that going to be that monstrosity and they can look right in my backyard now that's an invasion of privacy and I don't know if you're homeowner but if you have people can look over into your yard and that's an invasion of privacy I'm concerned about how this took place I'm concerned how it was just ramrod through with no discussion in the community they didn't even let the board the mosquite canyon board know what's going on that to me is deception and I'm considerably angry about this disinformation and no information to the community now we've been here in Mesa for over 20 years we love Mesa we want to vote for people that support Mesa but let me tell you this really rules the day when they can put up over 60 feet or 70 feet as now being discussed a monstrosity that destroys the community that destroys the property values and do we really need another data center in that location or anything in that regards it's it's a travesty they had a lot of room in that area to put that facility away from the community but again I am worried about the power source that they need the ionization and radiation and the SRP power lines which will produce the radiation again I walk there all every day I do seven miles I see everybody walking around I had kids and there their bikes and everything walking around there that destroys tissue and when they're young it destroys more thank you for your opinion thank you Dr rle appreciate your time Amber welshy there you go I think it's it's mostly the handwriting that's good right hi um my name is Amber Welch I live at 3137 South 96 Circle I've Liv lived in the community since 2009 um I have a very young family so my priority obviously coming into the community and I should say I'm actually a native arizonan um born and rais I'm actually fifth generation Arizona so take pride in Pride in the state and the the city for sure um we moved into the community wanting to have raise our family there um I have two very small young children um so my biggest thing is the safety and soundness um for them so to Michael's Point um radiation is a big thing for me um I'm very concerned about that um I know I did speak with um Mr ly and we talked about maybe producing some Environmental Studies or if any um radiation testing has been done um we also live in a stone throw away from the elementary school that's there has that been taken into consideration um that school is actually A+ rated school and so if we're talking about security of this building what securities are being put in place for the schooling that's a stone throw away from that um the other thing I wanted to mention is the town hall meeting I appreciate that you said you went to the meeting I actually emailed the management company um and received a response back from them that said I'm sorry to advise you that the ho8 is not get involved with development that is why you did not receive anything um it's my opinion that if this is you know a big building going in a town hall should have been conducted a lot of us Denver even even received uh notifications so brought a lot of it to our attention I spoke to a lot of um other parents in the neighborhood and they had never received anything so um just want to take that into consideration again if you were to live in our community or live next to something like this what you know how would that affect your family and your property values and the health of your your family thank you for your time and just for the record I oppose this building thank you m Welsh we appreciate your time Anson Gilbert and of course the count count does start till I get here my name is Anon Gilbert I 3129 South birdy Circle I've lived in that Community since 2004 uh I came to the meeting with Frank on July the 9th for the uh design review board and I got the same paperwork that they had uh I wasn't aware of the supposed meeting that they had on 624 for the community uh I did not receive that uh after this last board meeting and we saw what they were proposing about fell over backwards uh we uh went back and got the same thing in the mail again and I still can't read it there's no link to go look at it so you can get something larger uh my big issue really was the lack of transparency on what they were trying to do when we came to the last meeting here and saw what they were proposing I thought well why in the heck didn't they send that to us right up front so we would have seen the height and what it was supposed to look like I kind of like it was uh the lack of transparency and the intentions without the facts backing it up really did upset me and then when I they said that they had the the the meeting on uh the 24th on June 24th they had one person show up well I'm not surprised by that because I don't think because when we went around Frank hit every uh culdesac from uh kisman down to the where the building's going to end and no one that he talked to then handed these things out was aware of that meeting so uh the zoning was clearly known before this company showed up they said they had this property in 2018 that zone was already established I I actually thought when they tried to do that light uh industrial but it's coming so when I went out there and saw what was already there if you go looking east of krisman those buildings I looked at the setback and I looked at the height they're 40 ft or so so when I came to this meeting and figured out it's going to be about ft closer to us and substantially higher I could not tell that by what they sent us in the mail so I uh I want you to know I oppose it for that reason and I'm hoping they would at least enforce the the planning zone that the rules that they established for light industri like to see that enforced if possible thank you for thank you Mr gerer we appreciate it all right is there any other people online or anything I don't think so I think we're good so we'll go ahead and close public comment and invite the applicant to come up to respond to these comments thank you again and I I'll do my best to to summarize and and hit um as many as the overlaps I can um how how much time do I have well well if you want me to respond to all your comments you might need a little bit more than three minutes but I think go ahead and go we'll just kind of see how do my best um and to go to go I'll probably go back to where I started um and and this uh these notes as a summary are are were submitted as part of the record um but there's a feeling that there's a lack of transparency a feeling of um that I'm hearing anyways of it of it not truly being a public process so as to transparency I mean we have owned the property since 2018 um we be preliminary studies at that point to develop you know a data center campus we've had just in the last year year and a half we've had a major write up in the Puget Sound Business Journal we've been listed I believe at one point in time at least on the city's website with a placard or a box that says Cyrus one on our site um we were required as part of the the public uh Outreach meeting which precedes uh design board and our in our meeting here this evening we're um given a list of a radius of a th000 ft I believe of uh residents addresses and and neighbors we needed to mail to we we've done that we did that as part of the um like I said the public Outreach meeting which had yes the one attendant but um we satisfied that we've done it at design board we've done it for Planning and Zoning um so while you know I am sympathetic definitely and want you know to be as open and transparent as we we possibly can um and happy to always address and answer any questions the best of my ability um we did satisfy uh that requirement provided by the city and and happily did so um with respect to um many comments came back with respect to the the height and um my Graphics gone now I don't know if I can retrieve it but um I think it's important to um realize that we're separated by over 300 feet and the actual Max height of the buildings on the North which is not technically governed by a set height limit um and that's I think important to it's it's a a plan base or or a caseby casee base based on the project um I think that's important to remember but then also if you remember the graphic that the max height the highest point is stepped back which would amount to I mean you know more than than 300 ft um you know to the highest peak um and again that is not not uh capricious not just draw a number out of the hat that is to support the design of the building which supports the customer that we think we're going to attract which supports the equipment that makes a data center not just what it is and how it functions but also addresses things such as I did before uh with respect to things like noise um and attenuating noise uh on the rooftop uh and uh protecting it or keeping it on site if you will versus spilling over into other um properties over over property lines um and similarly neither is our our design aesthetic language approach to design capricious and just throw a cement box uh you know up there call it good and be thankful for it um but we like I said before went through four rounds of reviews uh with uh with planning staff really and they did a marvelous job of I think giving us great Direction because when you can go with a large development to the drb board and get you know not just a buy off but compliment uh compliments on the design um aesthetic and our attention to detail uh materials colorways modulation articulation um you know that I think speaks speaks volumes um from a design perspective pardon me um a couple comments uh were were brought up and um I'm happy to address them with regards to our Chandler campus so I believe there are some residences that are are within certainly within the vicinity I think on the North side and this uh early on in the process there were some um um concerns with respect to noise to my knowledge right now uh and I know the guy that that operates out of that um and it's dedicated to sort of the public Outreach I don't I'm not aware of any complaints you know at this at this point um anytime uh recently I've been with the company only a year and a half but uh not aware of any um such complaints with respect specifically to nois so uh couple people also asked about and I don't want to speak out of turn with respect to the um City's policy in terms of how we would sort of ongoing uh manage noise but I would imagine you know a concern would be raised through the city um and how we've handled it you know historically many years ago like I said at Chandler is to um a we probably studied it and B we've got strictures and structures in place to kind of deal with that and and and answer questions address questions address problems rather if they if they come up but I'm not anticipating any our our modeling shows that um which was required by uh planning department for submitt um so you know and like I said I can't speak to what the the process at Mesa is for addressing that but and I think um the way we've designed and structured the rooftop units um other other um mechanical structures in fact are on the on the south side of the buildings um how we've designed and uh fashioned what's on the roof I I I do not feel is injurious or or will will cause uh you know harm to the neighbors from a noise perspective for sure there were and I spoke with um Mrs Welsh on the phone about uh a few things but one of the questions that came up once or twice as well here tonight and did in our conversation is with respect to to radiation emissions or emitting of radiation um I don't know what we we will have a a switchyard and a substation on site as required by SRP I do not know um what their standards are I do not know how um any sort of numbers or figures would relate to the towers that are already there and I I would I mean I guess presumably you know emitting something similar um but uh as I as I said on the phone call to U Mrs Welsh I'd be happy to to chase that down from a from an internal standpoint we weren't required to my knowledge to produce any of that um reporting or study uh as part of our submitt so um but happy to uh chase that down I did want to address it here at the microphone but uh I do not have um sort of any special uh Insight uh into that specifically um and then lastly at least per my notes here and and sort of as a as a summation I I'd go back to um the the use of the data center um in this location and how um off the top of my head I I believe zoning was effectively in place for almost 20 years we've owned it from 2018 we never said it would be anything but it data center um as that's what we're you know we are data center developers and owners and operators so that's what we do and we haven't deviated from that um we've been I think more than open and transparent certainly with City staff and stakeholders we've had um inperson several rounds of in-person meetings with um uh city manager assistant city manager uh relevant city council members that are either over that area or have a special um t uh like or dislike for a data center so I think we've been very um open and trans have have desired to be very open and transparent and to the extent that I can I you know I think I've extended that and and will continue to and desire to to the to you know any public uh resident of of Mesa um and you know we're looking forward to being those good neighbors um of you know improving the um Elliot Tech Corridor there um with with a product that I think we're proud of I think the city would be proud of and uh will definitely contribute to the um economic well-being and tax base uh within the city um so that's I I hope I've I've got at least a summary um if you have questions or you you tell me if um uh need to address anything else I think we're good with the public we're could here question can we do that follow a comment chair board yes you are able to direct questions Sean a couple questions one on the uh the site plan on the North property line shows a 12T opaque wall um but then that that was the only sheet they gave us it didn't give any details can you add some color to what opaque wall means or what the materials are CMU wall 12 ft tall on that and it will run and this was something that came out of our design review um uh the suggestion came down ear early on and we were able to certainly catch it is to for for screening purposes for the residents to the north to um run that wall the the length of the property I was I think over over and above what we'd probably be required at a base of the code um and so that's 12 feet um screening opaque and I believe we're going to design it um in such a way that there's some articulated to it so it's not just a running uh some some depth to it right okay gotcha and then can you speak to uh whether the the difference in uh noise generation from the channel facility compared to this one if they're if it's similar technology or if this one has different things and if so what what are those different things and uh speak to that a little bit and then also whether the Chandler one has a private substation as well it does yeah and in fact they're they're uh building a second one um to to accommodate that campus but um yeah I same technology or or similar um same cooling systems same basic um uh units um and same basic approach from what I understand this is getting more into sort of our design and Engineering um side of the business but um you know as I I mentioned and I was actually at the campus uh about a month ago for a a public meeting and I have not heard from uh staff there at the at the uh facility or uh from uh Chandler uh city um planning or economic development of any um recent complaints th those were and I I say only because I'm new or but you know well before my time and and was well well before the even the sort of structure and Leadership we have uh in place now at the facility um and in fact uh I think someone brought it up but but Chandler did pass an ordinance but it didn't expressly Outlaw or or uh ban uh data center development but it put in place um particularly um uh steps for sound uh studies basically and so and does uh does noise is is the noise mitigation then on this the architecture the the top screen parut and is is that any different or is that the same as the CH I think it's really similar in approach and kind um and I know you know in the design sort of engineer in meetings I've sat in on for this campus I mean that's what we're really going for on those rooftop units and then I think if you were to look at the site plan all other ground mounted equipment is on the opposite side uh of the building effectively by um by design by approach gotcha and then uh combined question for staff would would the the some of the residents asked about uh noise if there's noise issues how how does that go is this a situation where a Good Neighbor policy is is appropriate to facilitate that or or what would what would the if the city were to receive uh some noise concerns for that what would be the process chair board member Peterson so there there was not a good neighbor policy required as part of this application so there's no conditions of approval spping to any such document um it would fall back on the noise ordinance for the city if there were any sort ort of complaints that would be the remedy okay and and and if uh to to the the applicant if is a a Good Neighbor policy something the applicant's willing to to to have to address these issues or is that the appropriate mechanism I I guess is a question if if there's a agreement to do that well the the board could make a recommendation of adding the step if we or stipulation if we wanted to as part of ours so that's something we can discuss as a board when we fin schedu gotcha it is that that that mechanism would be an appropriate one but then how how's the dialogue between the the city residents and the and the owner for for issues that come up in the future is that is that the correct mechanism is what I'm asking can I I think that the one of the questions I have and again this is not necessary for him I think the issue we have at this point is what the apparatus will be the HOA is not involved in these processes from my understand is that what I I heard before chair board members so the HOA was notified as part of all they're notified but they are not engaging so if if they don't choose to engage so it would be hard for us to put anything in place as a stipulation because that entity is not engaged in this process is that the board could still add a condition if they desired about a Good Neighbor policy and basically that would that would require them to set up some parameters about mitigation effects if there were complaints about how to contact them gotcha okay I'm sense I'm trying to understand actually a little bit more about the hoa's lack of involvement is that by choice or by other means that that's an interesting clarifier for me if the if the ho is choosing to not engage in this conversation and process I'll I'll hold my own City can't really speak exactly theity I'm asking well C I'm asking staff um but if there's not an answer from staff then if I can I would open up the public chair board member of Farnsworth so the HOAs were notified as part of the citizen participation process so we we do have the mailing list and they are on the mailing list so we know they were they're were invited to the neighborhood meeting and they were notified for both the design review board and the planning and zoning board meetings so to make sure I understand the the comment correctly and I'd apologize the notification process was fulfilled as per requirement that's corre the election to participate remains upon the individual resident and the HOA as an entity to choose to participate or not cor that is correct okay thank you that's all you could try any other questions from the board this can I have a response not right answer I uh so uh just uh let's see oh there was a comment about what's the standard size for a typical uh height for a a data center I was curious if this is an outlier or if this is what the norm is of this time for data center Heights you know I I don't know a cross competitors um uh you know products but um I would say it's not unusual for us if you just again go it's and it's not a random you know we need this we need that it's based on you know design uh parameters and construction parameters for instance I mean starting at the base level many times you'll have a a raised uh floor to support the weight and the and the motion and the the you know running of the equipment on the ground floor and then from there you know I would say there's no wasted space but you work yourself up and then I think we're at 53 feet if I'm not mistaken we talked about that tonight to the to the building proper um you know at ceiling height and then what what's above that is the necessary equipment to uh to help run you know the data center in part but also mitigate noise um cooling you know as needed Etc so I look at the uh the height and the sound issues and it seems like the height is right around the 53 ft and then it jumps up to the 69 ft right and but that screening is there which is somewhat necessary for the noise reduction to it's aesthetic and and for noise as well to to yeah mitigate mitigate uh you know noise and again the way I I EnV Vision it is you know D it directs it up it's going to absorb or Andor direct up nothing's going to penetrate through a you know a solid and we're not talking I used have done projects in the past where there were uh air conditioning units and used to put just a metal 45 you know they're they're not you know aluminum uh you know they they're thick and and uh you know carry the weight and and the thickness to address you know what's needed Up on the Roof okay good Vice chair pitcher or board member Blake b is there anything for you guys no just two quick questions sorry if I might for the applicant um one just looking again back at your uh site plan buildings 2 and buildings four the northmost buildings adjacent to the residences were there any studies done about maybe rotating them 90° and potentially achieving even yet further horizontal separation from the residents it would be question one and then question two um you suggested that your sister property and Chandler is undergoing expansion from the electrical capacity side um it doesn't appear as though there's room on this site but might there be a future electrical expansion um to the substation either in that same area where it's currently proposed or on one of the other adjacent Open Spaces right yeah um so your first question first there that there is consideration given for that in fact we'll we'll routinely when we have uh actually even starting back prior to ownership but um we'll routinely have a a test fit and we'll run different scenarios and sometimes at the at the onset it's a little gray because we don't know Dimensions we don't always know what city requirements are for setbacks and and so we're we're we're playing with kind of Lego pieces to see what we can make work and provide for Access parking and and a big you know question there is always where and and how large does a substation have to be so we played with that uh earlier on and I think a lot of that orientation is related to the size of the sub which was was increased at one point um you know in the course of design but then also access where we need security um and where we have some internal functions that need to fit and support you know not just the buildings but but what uh the power providers requirements are for the yard um and then please repeat your second question if you would uh I think you answered it was it was essentially just about the potential for expansion or addition of a second site I think on this site we're we're pretty well maxed out yeah and um with with you know everything with internal internal drives um uh parking uh some common area and and a fair bit of landscape taping um I I think we I don't see any any room and Chandler is a very is a really large campus and uh the existing sub small and this one will complement that and Chandler thank you yeah any else on yours no okay all right thank you appreciate your coming so with that I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to open it up for the board to have discussion on this item so can I ask a question for St oh uh actually can we reopen it if you have Ian he's got a question for staff yes chair board members during your discussion you are also permitted to call staff or audience members for questions but it's not uh an Engaged dialogue back and forth It's merely for questions gotcha so so question is there was referenced by one of the residents that there was a previous policy about height limitations within 650 ft within 600 ft of the SRP eement is is that a a thing or do you have any more clarity on that yeah um chair board member Peterson so what what the um Resident was referring to is the Elliot Road technology Corridor over overlay so as part of that overlay there is some height limitations um within um 600 ft well the SRP easement itself it's it shows it as 250 ft and the distance between the North property line where the residents are adjacent to there and then 600 ft South there's a an area where it's limited to a 50 foot height and then beyond that it's unrestrict well it's not unrestricted but it's up to 150 ft in height that they could go up to um but this applicant did not opt in to the Elliot Road technology Corridor so they are not subject to those height limitations oh so that's uh so it it's not a so what what what's uh called then if it's a it's not a uh it's not a requirement for that property it's more of a of a guideline within so the El Road Tech Corridor so it's an overlay Zone that's over that area and that was established as an incentive to to bring in some technology sort of businesses and as part of that if they opt in they could do administrative reviews site plan reviews um so but there are limitations on some of the use uses which are permitted within that Tech Corridor um so the the underlying zoning remains until a time where they apply to opt in that overlay okay and then at that time they would be subject to the standards of the OT Road Tech Corridor okay so so the the zoning the the statutory limitation on height is the in the P unlimited or Project Specific and then in the LI 40 that's correct okay you guys have any questions for staff or anything no I think that clarified because I had a question just limitations well I mean I'll I'll I'll chime in here I mean I I think you know I'm looking for anyone that would like to make a recommendation at all but I'm kind of torn on this one a little bit I'll be honest uh for for kind of what you just talking about TR I think that's something I know that they didn't have to opt in to the corridor but that was something that was sold to residences that were going along there um I have a little bit of an issue with this with the use permit on the building height on build specifically on buildings 2 and four uh it's just very close of that second rendering it's just showing that right on those houses it's just uncomfortable however this is also a quarter it's been there it's this is not something new this has been something that's been planned for some time and that's where for myself I'm a little little bit torn on this uh personally because I you know it I see nothing here I think staff did a good job uh one other thing I just want to clarify when you see something uh for example in a building it says a maximum height of 50 ft as an example that is not the absolute height of a building that is usually typically to what the roof line is right so what they're asking for is literally a 3 feet in addition to what would have been in the original height limitation which is again not a or not required for them but we're technically talking about a three-foot difference so it's not as significant as as what have been in another situation however I do feel for the for the Neighbors here and so that's where I kind of personally I'm torn a little bit on this case gotcha I I Echo CH or some of your comments and sentiments um that's hence why I was asking the questions about rotating the buildings some of the optionality on buildings 2 and four um I do think you know even some of the residents comments around transparency I think it's maybe arguable about what happened but I do think that you know maybe this is I don't know permissible comment for staff is you know as these things do go out in the future inclusion of renderings like this um up into and Beyond a site plan if that's possible to make that a requirement I would advise something like that because it is compelling um and does help communicate the vision significantly greater than what the site plan does um but too I'm also mindful of some of other conversations you have had right um so and I think that specifically the clarification around their opting out um of the Elliot Tech Corridor is notable right so um the other thing i' maybe ask for a conversation around is I I agree potentially on a stip around Good Neighbor policy I'm curious on some sort of a stipulation around an EMF study and radiation study um on the site and as feedback comes back on that and what the risks are if there's an opportunity to maybe revisit or potentially impose some additional constraints around mediation chair board members uh I don't believe that you could put uh yeah a step to come back at a later time however you are able to defer action if you're looking for additional information or an alternate solution okay I think the the well try me J but I think the hard part with that is that the the lines that are already behind the site are probably causing more of that issue than the site itself I mean Jason yeah that's a a probably a dual circuit 230 kV line and a 500 kV line that run back there and those do feed the valley as was mentioned a switchyard and a substation I don't know that actually Chang the amount of emfs but I could be totally wrong um I'm no engineer and I'm no scientist but I would say that those studies are available at the power company's website so they can be researched and reviewed and those should be available there so I I would go that route um I I look at the size of the substations um they're a little bit larger than what's typical I think 300x300 is the standard for Salt River Project but there's probably a reason here because of the demand load um from the data centers but again just because they're larger doesn't necessarily mean um the expansion question that you had um there those Bays will come online as those buildings get built out I don't know that there will be a change unless the engineering significantly changes for what they're doing in the building to draw more power into there and again that's not I don't I don't believe that that would change the amount of emfs because the power's already going on those lines that run parallel already there to to the site and uh and the neighborhood um so I I know this area we get um uh so I work for Salt River Project we get complaints from the neighborhood about people riding quads and horses and all sorts of stuff uh and we've been asked to gate this and wall it off um but since the community owns the the land underneath uh that so that there's kind of a Nexus point there of what SRP can do and what uh the neighbor can do to to do that but I would I would say if if there is a concern I would think that the original developer of the neighborhood would have reviewed that because I believe those power lines were there well in advance of the neighborhood so if that's the concern I would say go look look at what's available at at srp's website on on EMS specifically chair board members I would just caution because the the substation is SRP it is a exempt entity so this is not a council use permit as we saw with the previous cases earlier today where we're considering that use itself so I I just caution you to keep it within the purview of the two special use permits in the site plan itself so as a transition from Rachel's comment to keep within our purview and following our training that we just received in the study session I was uh reviewing through and and where this is a special use permit it's not a rezone and for us as a as a planning zoning board that those are different different uh our purview is different in both of those and so as going through the training on the on the use permit um consistency with General plan check um zoning District check uh adequate public facilities check um approval for some minor things that's a check so the the one question mark comes in the impacts to the surrounding area and I think that's where the the brunt of the the neighbors comments are so then I'll just verbalize what what's in my head for for the record is uh and and then boiling those down again with what's in our pre in our purview it comes down to height and noise uh noise it it sounds like with the study the city's required and everything else that there's been a lot of effort to mitigate that and to minimize that I I do think if uh if they're having a Good Neighbor policy would be a a good recommendation to address those if there are future future needs for that and then on the height the um so so on on the height being a a little bit taller like Ben said you're talking three feet to the roof and then you have the screening over the top which is which adds height but it has purpose which helps the noise too because if it's not there then the noise would be worse and so then um just some thoughts that went through my head was on the um is is it a matter of of a lot of times when height is an issue than you look at screening and the the row trees along the north side they mosquit which don't grow super tall but then um based on the the comments the neighbors were making taller trees would only screen more of their view so I don't know that taller trees um address anything and uh frankly comparing to other data centers the level of architectural quality and design of these is is I I would not been an architect but I'd say it's it's it's on a higher end from that so the the architecture of it of it is is nicer um in in addressing that height as well um the I do note too that the pretty much all except for the far Southeast corner of the homes along the south end of the the neighborhood are um side to the side to um to the South rather than backing and which does and I don't know if that was uh um intentional from the the original developer to to mitigate what the the power lines or what could have been from the future but that but that is an an offsetting factor in in practicality um and so that's uh that that that that's where my thoughts are I I think the um I I I hear the the the noise concerns particularly buildings 2 and four and and I do think a a Good Neighbor policy would would be something meaningful yeah go ahead Jason so just to clarify one question so by right at with this current zoning what is the maximum height so say it's not this developer it's another what's their height limitation per case sorry my microphone chair board member Carpenter so it has two zoning districts so the maximum height in the planed employment district is per site plan approval and then within the LI District it's 40 ft okay so we're looking at 13 ft plus the screen wall as far as the variance okay yeah I struggle with the same issue as far as if you were to set it back does that even resolve the the site Horizon issue because there's still going to be height even if it's say that 600 feet away from the SRP Corridor does that change it much I don't know what the the wall is south of the community but you know if an average 6ot six foot person is looking at an 8 foot wall is their site going to go up high enough to actually see the building uh you know it's difficult to tell how far would you have to step it back to not see the buildings is you know then you're getting really into the details and it's yeah so that's kind of how My Mind is Playing devil's advocate playing how to resolve and and look at this but yeah this is a tough one have any thoughts yeah actually Vice chair pitcher and board member blakean guys have anything on their your side as well just listening in no no I I don't have any further comments I think that that you've uh you've really uh articulated my my issues on them as well so I go no if you have a comment I was going to attempt a motion but go ahead with your no I I think what it comes down to is so uh I struggle with a Good Neighbor policy policy I'll be honest I'm not sure how that would be enforced I don't see how that would really work necessarily um the noise there's apparatus in place for noise which I'm not honestly I'm not as concerned about the noise I think they've done a a decent job uh with that one the height is the one that I do have an issue with however the I think at this point you know trees for example you're talking about trees that would be 250 ft away from the from the residential and that's not going to do anything to screen so at the end of the day I think we're kind of in a spot where I will say that you know I think that I will support this moving forward and and I know that's probably not what a lot of the people here would like to hear um there is more opportunity for you guys to kind of speak to this but uh from where we are from the purview that we have of the board I think I will be supporting this one for look so go ahead Char if you have a motion you'd like to make well no I'm thinking more so if someone else has chair I just want to make one clarification so the board is taking action on this you are the approvers of the the site plan and the special use permit so they are not going to city council oh that's true you're right that's right thank you TR what we say go for it I can do it if you want all right I'll attempt a motion here and do what you want with it so uh motion to approve case 3B ZN 24- 00251 Cyrus 1 data center within the 3200 to 3,400 blocks of South krisman Road and within the 3200 to 3,400 blocks of 96 Street located north of Elliot Road and West of krisman Road site plan review and special use permit this request will allow for a Data Center and with uh approval with conditions and with an added condition that the applicant to uh work with the the city to um to form a a Good Neighbor policy um for in the event of future noise issues related to the function of the site so for clarity if I understand so you're making a motion to approve with this added stipulation of a some form of a Good Neighbor policy would be in place with the neighbors anything that he needs to add to that as far as a motion I believe that the way you phrased it is specific enough for our purposes here okay so that's the motion is there a second on that motion U sorry chair board members I I uh Rachel brings up a good point that part of that stipulation should have a time frame attached to it um perhaps before uh any permits are issued good point modifi the the additional stipulation that a Good Neighbor policy be formed and in place before building permits are issued all right is there a second on that motion I'll second it all right thank you so a second all in favor please vote Vice chair Pier yes board member blakeman yes all right and with that with four yeses and three NOS that does pass as a motion appreciate everybody on the board for that one all right I think that thank you everybody for being here today so any updates from uh staffed chair no further updates all right with that I would request a motion to adjourn the board meeting so moved any second second I'll second second okay all in favor we have to reset that there yes you're M jobs over there Vice chair pitcher yes or member blakeman yes and we are adjourned thank you everyone for your time