welcome to the march 23rd 2022 city mesa planning and zoning board public hearing we'll begin by taking roll call board member peterson here board member heirs here board member crockett is absent board member alan here board member boyle i'm here vice chair of illinois saucedo here and chair sarkisian is here as part of today's agenda we have a consent agenda it'll be read into the record enacted in on in one motion they will not be discussed individually we will be removing items three a and three b from the consent agenda they will be heard after uh and i will introduce vice chair villanueva saucida who will read the consent agenda our consent agenda for wednesday march 23rd planning and zoning board public hearing item 2a minutes from the march 9th 2022 study session and regular meeting item 3c 0122-0048 district 4. within the 1400 to 1600 blocks of east dana avenue north side located south of main street and east of stapley drive site plan review this request will allow for the expansion of an existing multiple residence development staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 4a 0121.00435 district 2. within the 4400 block of east baseline road north side located east of greenfield road on the north side of baseline road site plan modification this request will allow for a multi-tenant retail building with a drive-through staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 4b0121-00921 district 5 within the 10 000 block of east southern avenue north side and when the 1000 to 1200 blocks of south chrisman road eastside located north of southern avenue and east of chrisman road rezoned from limited commercial with the planned area development overlay llcpad to multiple residents 3 with a planned area development overlay rm3 pad and site plan review this request will allow for a multiple residence development staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 4c0121-01024 district 6. within the 7 200 to 7 400 blocks of south haas road alignment east side located south of pecos road on the east side of the haas road alignment rezoned from light industrial with the bonus intensity zone overlay and office commercial with the bonus intensity zone overlay libiz and ocbiz to light industrial and office commercial with the planned area development overlay lipad and ocpid and site plan review this request will allow for an industrial development staff recommendation is approval with conditions and that is today's consent agenda thank you thank you we haven't received any additional comments on how we see anything on those nope all right so i'll entertain a motion on the consent agenda motion to approve the consent agenda as read second okay all right first and the second uh please vote board member boyle hi board member allen hi and board member crockett is absent so the consent agenda passes with board member crockett absent all right moving on to item 3a uh the items we'll be hearing if anybody has any other comment cards please make sure you fill the blue card in the back and hand it in up front and we have a stack and comments we will read into record as well but item 3a z0121-01224 district 6 within the 3700 to 4100 blocks of south everton terrace located west of signal beat road and south of elliott road site plan review this request fill out the industrial development within the eastmark plan community and kelly is here members of the board this is kcon 21-01224 the subject request before you tonight is for site plan review to allow for an industrial development the subject site is located west of signal butte road on the south side of elliott and just east of everton terrace within the eastmark plan community to get more specific into the location uh south the subject site is south of the elliott road technology corridor and it's within an area known as the eastmark technology enterprise core and some of the developments that have already been approved in this area include facebook amazon and apple the site is not directly on elliott road it is south of the of elliott road and then south of that is the eastmark disc golf course and then south of that is residential in the development unit plan for du56 south south where the subject site is located um it states that the appropriate transition and buffering techniques include the use of open space park area setbacks berms landscaping road connections walls buildings placement and architecture because this site is close to residential the the or the separation that's already being used is that existing disc golf course they've also applicant has also increased their building and landscape setbacks so the general plan character area is mixed use community and the focus of that character area is to develop a mixture of uses that create a complete and identifiable community the uses allowed include employment industrial office open space and residential the site's also within the gateway strategic development plan area specifically within the mixed use community district and that district is intended to be kind of the greatest variety of a mix of uses to create a live work play environment and the request complies with both the general plan and the gateway strategic development plan area the zoning on the site is planned community the site is also within the aoa 3 area and again the site is within development unit 56 south the land use group that has been determined is land use group c which is for regional center in campus and warehouses and office spaces are permitted and just kind of an overview of how the eastmark framework work so there is the community plan which sets the overall vision for the entire community it lays out the planning processes for individual applications it has the allowable land uses development units and includes an overall infrastructure master plans and the general design guidelines and development standards the next level is the development unit plan and the development needle plan really supplies the context in conceptual land planning for individual areas within eastmark and it allocates land use budget and the use intensity and it has permitted land use groups more specific design guidelines and is really there to create the compatibility between uses and lastly there's the site plan and subdivision platz that is the most detailed level of review and when you do the site plan review you identify which lannies group you will be using again the subject request is to use the landings group c and the specific site details need to comply with the development unit plan and the community plan at that level so here's an existing photo of the site so this is looking southeast towards to say from elliott road it's behind this vacant parcel you see here along elliott road and then on the right hand side of the page you can see some of the residential houses in the background and then on the left hand side you can see the existing apple development on the site plan yeah we can't see anything they're showing ten buildings that are divided by mesquite road five will be located north of mesquite road the other five are located on the south side of mesquite road on the combined square footage of all the buildings is over 1.5 million square feet and primary access will be from everton terrace and mesquite road because they are choosing the lux seed develop or land use group they are providing almost two dozen open space areas around the site to create that um can that network amongst the the group development and to get a little bit more specific in the site plan so there has been some concerns raised by the neighbors in this image i provided the location of where the four streets of everton terrace turn into two streets which is south of mesquite road the distance from mesquite road to the southern property line is over 900 feet the width of the disc golf course at its minimum point is about 140 feet and then the minimum distance from an industrial building to a resident residential lot is at a minimum of 303 feet so here are the proposed elevations of the site uh the elevations were reviewed and approved by the eastmark design review committee um their preliminary approval was approved on december 9th once the site plan is approved they'll go back and get their final approval through the eastmark design review committee so the applicants did complete their citizen participation process and preliminary outreach included property owners within a thousand feet and hoas and registered neighborhoods within one mile they did hold one neighborhood meeting via zoom on february 16 2022 myself and the applicants also held another meeting with a smaller group of neighbors that had additional questions last week just to explain kind of how the process works for first sight plants within eastmark they did do their required notice of public hearing where they mailed letters to properties within 500 feet i know there have been some confusion on what the public notice range is and then what their outreach for citizen participation was so they did meet the 500 feet requirement and then some of the concerns that were brought up include trucks going south on everton terrace into that residential area where the four lanes become two lanes going south and then also light spillage noise concerns compatibility issues some other concerns that were brought up is just the overall process of how site plans work in eastmark um and then just again just compatibility was really the main one and so with that staff complies are buttons that the request complies with the 2040 mesa general plan it complies with the esmart community plan it complies with the development unit plan for du56 south and it meets the review review criteria for a slight plan review which is outlined in section 6.1 in the community plan and staff recommends approval with conditions okay thank you are there any board member uh questions at this time nope all right i'd like to invite the applicant up to present if they want please state your name and address for the record wonderful madam chair members of the commission wendy riddell with the law firm barry riddell 6750 east camelback my pleasure to be here this afternoon on behalf of indiecap we are here today on a site plan review case for indiecab as staff mentioned to you i'm just going to give you a quick quick overview staff obviously has given you quite a bit of background this is a site that is already zoned it's been zoned as part of the original eastmark master plan the same time the residential property was owned the site itself is 116 acres we're proposing 10 buildings with a maximum of 55 feet in height and this is all within the eastmark technology enterprise core while we certainly are not here to talk about land use so i will point out that there was quite a bit of thought that went into that enterprise core as well as keeping this area industrial in large part to protect the airport so if you look back mesa has known that that airport is a very valuable economic engine and has driven some land use decisions around that as part of what has brought us here today so as i mentioned we are a use that is permitted by wright you can see our particular lug the regional center campus you can see that it calls out specifically the use it also talks about some of the development standards in fact we're allowed to be up to 150 feet in height certainly that is not what we're proposing here today again when you break down that matrix in eastmark a little further it talks about these types of warehouses again as being permitted uses if you can see that and then just to give you an idea of what this looks like when you actually overlay it on the aerial for the area you can see the relationship between the surrounding uses the location ultimately of mesquite road i've got a little better graphic here that shows it as we drill down so quite a bit of consideration is was also given particularly on the property south of mesquite so comparison of the setbacks you obviously have quite a bit of setback from that disc golf course that staff mentioned that was part of the open space buffering that was part of the original plan but in addition to that we've got quite a bit of setback from our own property line in fact it could have been right at the property line at zero feet we're actually set back 60 feet so when you ultimately combine our entire proposal with that disc golf course you are looking effectively at the length of a football field without the end zones so that is how far back from that property to the edge of our building we actually are the same is true when you look up at everton terrace so we are set back you know nearly the same distance with 250 feet where we could have been six or uh to 11 feet so a very dense setback i would also point out if you looked at that landscape plan it kind of looks like we're building a forest that was also quite intentional so it will in fact that's not just illustrative it will be that densely landscaped and vegetated again to make sure that there is a screening here between the industrial and the residential to give you an idea of what the buildings themselves will look like you get an idea here of the type of building the type of architecture the pop-ups the breaking up of the massing just a little different viewpoint here as well and then as steph mentioned we did have quite a bit of neighborhood outreach as part of this application i would say one of the biggest concerns we heard was that there would be truck traffic in the eastmark neighborhood itself and so we shared this exhibit actually as part of our outreach as well when you look at it the trucks here truckers are pretty predictable they don't like to go into residential neighborhoods they're going to take the path of least resistance the most direct path to the freeway or to the airport and the roads were actually designed on everton terrace going north of mesquite they're wider to take you up to elliott to the freeway so that's the anticipated truck traffic there will be no trucks turning south or going into the neighborhood there's simply no reason for them to do that i also wanted to show you out on site as i mentioned the roadway on everton terrace as you go north of mesquite and actually frankly a little bit south of mesquite is actually wider so it is four lanes it was always anticipated to handle that type of truck traffic and then it narrows as you get down south into ultimately the neighborhood and then finally again we did go ahead and host a neighborhood meeting as part of this on february 16th we invited 347 people 36 were kind enough to show up we had some other neighbors that asked for a follow-up meeting that we met with them and invited staff to participate as well we have had countless phone calls countless emails really trying to disseminate information to the community and have exceeded ultimately the notification and outreach requirements here and then finally just as a reminder the site is already zoned and entitled we are simply seeking site plan approval for a use that is permitted by wright it complies with the 2040 mesa general plan it complies with the development unit for du56 south and staff has confirmed for you it meets all of the site plan review outlined in the community plan and they have recommended approval and with that madam chair members of the commission we would also respectfully request approval and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you um just so clarification on the site plan you're showing it looks like that like you mentioned the road mesquite road is going to end up connecting to the east that's correct yeah it goes all the way to ultimately through to signal butte okay so it's got access to there as well okay are there any board member comments or questions at this time no all right thank you thank you so much all right we'll open the public meeting we have um a variety of comment cards people who wish their comments read people who want to speak um so we'll be going through those deanna nice chair thank you that quite a number of comments uh that wish to be read into the record so we'll start with that grouping first nelly mccarthy bittner at one 10116 east supernova supernova drive opposed as a resident of everton heights i strongly approach this development it will bring safety concerns to an already congested everton terrace by allowing semi trucks and thousands of employees on the street i've been told that traffic would stay in the northern and head to the 202. parts of the neighborhood only have everton as an access road this will push all local traffic south and isn't a solution the presentation provided is misleading the site photo on slide 12 shows the intersection of everton terrace and elliot which includes a parcel of land to the north of the development scott bittner 10116 supernova drive as opposed ask the comet to be read this is not what my family and i envisioned nor but the residents of eastmark were sold when we moved to the so-called technology corridor of mesa we were sold on the plans for a tight knit community with high-tech manufacturing employment opportunities not warehouses and commercial trucking section b2 of the dup for du6 north states that jobs created in the employment core of du6n will not only support the families in the community but also enrich the lives of the families living in the neighborhoods nearby where houses in our backyards do not enrich our lives we do not want this next is tracy bedwell one zero five one zero e sheffield drive opposed ask the comment to be read the this area of mesa is already congested everton terrace is already a dangerous road to drive on with just eastmark residents using it once you win that once you add in that many employees and semi-tractor trailers it will get exponentially worse everton terrace between ellsworth and point 22 should not have major business next is gregory cole mesa arizona 85212 opposed ask the comment to be read the safety of children walking to school waiting on the sidewalk for their school bus and residents who use the road to exercise is impractical when semi trucks are traveling down such a narrow road this issue alone should be the main reason to reconsider having a warehouse built in this area it is a bad idea next is tara unlin 4203 south neptune is opposed there are too many large warehouses in the area of eastmark the addition of another one will negatively impact our quality of life this is not what we were promised by developers when we built our home here please listen to the community and do not approve this sofia morrison10202 is revolution drive revolution drive is opposed there's not enough room on the streets for this many vehicles and big trucks the noise and lights is going to create is going to be disruptive to homeowners these buildings weren't in the plans when i purchased my home i opposed this next is travis miller 4211 south nano opposed what is going on with mesa planning this board does not know what it's approving last month the mesquite subdivision plot was approved the road ran over a utility easement no one noticed until it was discovered by citizens planning has no regard for legally required processes pz-22061 is another example there's no project narrative no traffic study in the citizen participation report is incomplete which are required by 1167 to see on march 7th dr apia said these issues would be addressed at the site planned level this application is incomplete illegal and should be denied chad shipman 4145 south plasma opposed me and my wife opposed this warehouse development while moving to eastmark almost three years ago we saw it as an opportunity to raise our kids family in a widely developed neighborhood never did we foresee or think that these massive warehouses would go up behind us with the increased traffic employees it brings to our neighborhood i fear it will cause havoc on our streets and increase crime to our neighborhood we can allow cannot allow these already narrow roads to flood our neighborhood with trucks and cars where our kids will potentially roam thank you next is amber rogers 10356 east sebring avenue opposed i was okay with the amazon and facebook distribution centers going in along elliott because it wouldn't impede traffic in my neighborhood but this warehouse being proposed to be built adjacent to our community with 2000 parking spaces slotted and trucks entering off everton terrace con adjusting traffic even more it's a no for me it's my understanding that the city won't allow chrisman to open north south from elliot to guadalupe for this exact same reason so why is it okay to do this south of elliott on crisman caitlyn thompson 4860 south covalent dr covalent lane is opposed as a resident of eastmark i strongly oppose the outlet of mesquite road onto everton terrace everton terrace is a narrow residential street with heavy foot traffic there are many school bus stops along everton terrace and therefore young children walking along the roadway we all know the feeling of the large hush of a semi truck drives right past us on the road children should not be dealing with that while walking scootering or riding their bicycles on this residential home from school the safety of eastmark residents may must be placed at a higher priority sean o'connor 9957 east rotation drive is opposed the e-smart community is being developed and sold to new home buyers around the concept of families in a safe neighborhood where children complain adults can enjoy long walks in a quiet beautiful area without the noise and massive concrete structures and view bringing 2000 employees to a massive warehouse should be considered to be relocated in an area where it's more appropriate not eastmark and not in an area building homes averaging 800 000 to a million plus thank you for your consideration teresa nishan 11308 east sandoval opposed i've immediately opposed the addition of another huge warehouse in the eastmark area off everton this lovely residential community is already being taxed with warehouses off ellsworth the traffic is getting beyond busy and unmanageable in this area and that's not even addressing what right now comp is completed this additional structure with the pros proposed 2 000 car lot is more than this entire community will be able to stand we're beginning to look like the far west valley please consider and vote no for this additional warehouse enough is enough reyna johnson 10305 east strobe avenue is opposed i oppose this warehouse development this is a residential area and these semi-trucks and traffic are not safe and will cause extreme traffic and devalue our property paul landis 4161 south apollo is opposed i do not support this project in my community the proposed warehouse will negatively impact property values due to increased noise and traffic levels please vote no wilford jalbert 9948 east revolution drive as opposed i oppose this construction this will create a major traffic issue into a residential area as you will have new roads intersecting everton terrace that each have several entrances into this new complex along with entrances along everton terrace itself this will cause a hazard with the addition of semi-truck usage and residential drivers this type of commercial construction should not be allowed as it will reduce the value of each property in this residential area a redesign should be done to stop the addition roads intersecting with everton terrace and no entrances from everton terrace jacob landai 4234 south neutron is opposed this planned warehouse development is a travesty to all of the families who have paid a premium to be in a safe quiet neighborhood where we were promised a community free from disgusting traffic and noise for years to come as a resident of eastmark i fully condemn any building of warehouses with parking to litter our beautiful neighborhood jillian lonson no address provided is opposed when our family moved here in 2016. it was not conveyed to us that our residential community would be surrounded by data warehouses commercial warehouses power lines and now propose planned zoning for semi truck loading unloading warehouses with thousands of parking spots for employees if i knew this to be the case six years ago i would have been second guessing my family's move into eastmark we were sold a family planned community to be sound rounded by shopping restaurants theaters we are now a warehouse district that will be consumed by higher traffic volume and congestion alex chavette 9929 east retrograde drive as opposed too much too close to a residential community that ours has already been shortchanged on certain amenities kelly devlin 4121 south nano is opposed as a homeowner he uses everton terrorist daily i am con very concerned about the traffic impact and safety of this project i believe a traffic safe traffic study should be conducted in this area children bikers pedestrians disc golf car course users etc use this road throughout the day and large semi trucks and increase traffic pose a safety hazard from the size of the indica project and parking space allotment it seems that it would be warranted i'm also worried about this affecting the home values in our area it will add light pollution massive amounts of noise and block mountain views kimberly bregard address not provided opposed everton terrace will not support this kind of traffic there needs to be another solution or at the very least an environmental impact survey conducted i highly doubt semis will be able to make the turn in ryan parkhouse 9936 east rubidium rubidium avenue opposed i do not wish to have a small two-lane road like everton terrace to be utilized by hundreds of semis weekly as this is a residential street that is relied on by a vast majority majority of em residents and cannot be bogged down by commercial vehicles not to mention the noise in air pollution ashley marshall 10312 east revolution drive i sang strongly opposed zoning file number pz22061 everton terrace is not equipped to handle the traffic that this warehouse would undoubtedly attract the streets are narrow not meant for semi-truck traffic i should also mention that this neighborhood has a high population of children there are multiple bus stops along everton terrace my children are just a few of many that ride the bus and walk home i fear for their safety already and this would only add to that concern this neighborhood street should not be used for semi-truck traffic even if just at the north end thank you kirby doty 4709 south aileron lane opposed if i had known that our house was going to end up in the middle of an industrial warehouse district we most likely would have picked a different neighborhood we would love to see some restaurants retail maybe a small theater or markers maker space we definitely don't need industrial traffic in 2000 space parking lot cindy lucas10122 east gamma opposed i live in eastmark and with all the warehouses now under construction traffic is going to be a nightmare not to mention that damage big rigs will cause to our streets so sad that so many businesses will be put into a small space i lived in the area for 20 years and we're shopping in restaurant space was promised now ugly warehouses are going up this is not bringing value to this area we'll only bring home validation down amy gordon 10134 east supernova drive opposed i fully oppose this development as everton heights is not adequately sized to support both the traffic from this volume of semis and warehouse employees and the traffic and the neighborhood traffic additionally the size and number of semis will make it difficult for people who've paid a great deal of money to make eastmark their home to get into and out of the neighborhood finally finally eastmark needs businesses that support the community restaurants and stores not this type of business this development needs to be rejected now before it's too late thank you samantha delgadillo 9955 east seismic avenue opposed the type and amount of traffic this project brings into a residential neighborhood is completely illogical everton terrace has been proven accident prone for the traffic that it was designed for so one can only imagine how dangerous it will be with traffic that doesn't align with the design the residents of eastmark will hold the city and representatives accountable legally and in the media for the guaranteed accidents and risk to our children that will come with the approving this project joshua lohmann 10104 east theorem drive opposed the scope and scale of this proposal is inappropriate for its context this proposal would bring a dangerous increase of semi semi-truck traffic into a neighborhood setting i hope that the board can see that this is not the highest and best use for this process property and deny their application stephanie hodgson 10218 east ariane avenue opposed eastmark was designed as a family-oriented neighborhood how is adding warehouses instead of parks promoting a family-oriented neighborhood it's also questionable that kevin thompson has not abstained from previous meetings decisions when his consulting firm represents one of the companies doing all the work around eastmark he can't ethically represent his constituents when he has received financial gain from decisions made on the city council mark kaiser 9418 east resistance avenue opposed i am not an eastmark residence and close i am an eastmark resident in close proximity to the proposed site while i'm not in total opposition to the project i am in total opposition to the proposed location this is due to the entry proposal onto everton terrace road i drive this part of everson terrace daily and it cannot accommodate semi-vehicle traffic the road was designed for residential use only and adding semi-traffic to this would be disastrous please consider moving the project so that entry exit occurs on elliott thank you hawley park house 9936 east rubidium avenue opposed i strongly oppose this warehouse being put up everton terrace is a residential road and is inappropriate to allow semis and thousands of cars to be added to traffic on this road it will create safety issues pollution issues traffic issues and disrupt the neighborhood nancy phillips 10565 eastern avenue opposed i oppose the warehouse development in the eastmark community everton terrace is a small street adding thousands of parking spots for employees and semi-truck semi-truck traffic will bring a significant amount of extra noise and traffic to our neighborhood and take a toll on the road itself this is a residential community being turned into a warehouse district whitney winter 5024 south newton terra everton terrace is a tiny winding road through a residential area that can barely carry two cars passing on it there's no biking or walking lane and is already dangerous because of that to add heavy traffic especially semi-truck or large vehicle traffic would have devastating results not to mention would be a traffic nightmare for residents in that area it is not uncommon for one of our neighborhood youth to accidentally skid out onto everton on a skateboard or scooter or to cruise around in golf course the issues are already precarious on this narrow residential through street please know maria funicello 4443 south mata is opposed please do not allow this massive warehouse with 2 000 parking spaces into the neighborhood of eastmark and mesa paul morrison 10202 east revolution drive is opposed the noise and lights to build these buildings isn't part of the original plans i oppose these buildings going up and with the names of the company on them the lime green color is too loud homeowners should be compensated this wasn't part of the plan shawna cruz 10746 sees palladium drive as opposed i leave it live in eastmark and believe the way it is designed is bad for the neighborhood ismail murillo 9935 east resistance avenue the application for the indica mesa industrial park should be denied because the application has not satisfied the legal requirements for your consideration this evening furthermore the city of mesa planning department has omitted a petition of opposition from 726 community members who strongly oppose the project despite written confirmation from kelly rorex that it would be included on the citizen participation report as is required by 11673 the mesa city code this application for the proposed industrial park does not satisfy the legal requirements there are a number of alexia porto noa just provided may say 5212 the city has already let the developers skip out an additional recreational park acreage that we paid through paid for through additional taxes as well as change the plan for the retail space in the community i believe this will negatively impact our neighborhood as well as our homes value the congestion around the current available restaurants will not be able to accommodate additional workers everton terrace is already a busy street and the additional traffic would create more danger dangers for this family community jonathan antilla 9410 east ray road number 172 is opposed this proposed development is in the backyards of all those houses east of everton terrace there would be an immense amount of noise and activity pollution not to mention all the employees who don't necessarily live in the area coming and going at all hours this would be a sizable disruption of life for all residents in a large area rebecca shumway no address provided as opposed i absolutely oppose this complex is way too close to homes eastmark was sold to residents is a nice neighborhood to live in not on a place to stare at massive warehouses and semi-truck noise city councils should be ashamed of themselves you need to care for the residents that live and spend money here and not just your dream of an industrial paradise such a shame daniel zambrano 9860 is red giant drive opposed as a resident who lives off of everton terrace this is an outrageous proposition there's absolutely no reason for all that industrial traffic should be directed down a residential street any entrance or additional traffic should be exclusively off of elliot nothing should be approved without a traffic survey being done first matthew hixson 4203 south apollo is opposed we admittedly oppose the plans to add a massive warehouse development on the northern part of everton terrace as our elected representatives is your responsibility to do what's best for our neighborhoods and our community largely opposes this development we have already been shorted on park acres that we have paid for through additional taxes and the city has done nothing to hold the developer accountable additionally the developers have altered the planned retail space for our community with the help of you our elected representatives do your jobs and advocate on our behalf the next group uh did not want their comments to be read into the record that's a totally different one oh wait yeah right okay good yep okay uh but they do want to have their name and address read in as in opposition to this item elizabeth atkins 10542e sheffield drive is opposed lauren tebenhoff 10552 is sebring avenue as opposed hannah blackmore 10753 is sebring avenue is opposed jenny choi 9859 east radioactive drive as opposed shailene amos 10535 east lincoln avenue is opposed gavin lau 9859 east radioactive drive is opposed monica my apologies as opposed robert ho 9955 east retrograde drive as opposed laurie bell 1045 445 east palladium drive as opposed cassandra holt tower 10633 east sebring avenue is opposed christina zimmerman 10621 east wavelength avenue is opposed heather cellini 10421 east corbin avenue is opposed lindsey wyatt 4641 south concord lane is opposed michelle e1010057 e seismic avenue is opposed laura hennessey 504 7 south dassault way is opposed k clybau 10253 strobe avenue is opposed ariella sabo 10163 is revolution drive as opposed jason plummer 9853's retrograde drive is opposed erica plummer 9853 east restaurant riot drive is opposed jill hansen 102 03 is revolution drive as opposed ariella sabo 101 63's revolution drive as opposed bridge elliott 10 10123 sphere avenue is opposed heather cook 4035 south zeus is opposed we have just a couple of others this one did not clarify whether they wish to speak or not kristen bolstad did you wish speaker do you want your comment read into the record kristin we'll go ahead and read that into the record 103 kristen bolstad 10334 east aperture avenue it seems rushed with little to no impact studies being done at the expense of local residents the amount of heavy traffic this will bring is entirely unacceptable and other solutions of off elliot need to be considered prior to using a local community road nicholas rosen did you wish your record comment to be read into the record we'll go ahead and add that to the record then opposed i am deeply concerned with the amount of traffic already accumulating on everton terrace why are we putting warehouses in a residential community when they seem to be building commercial warehouses all around us already the last thing this community needs is busier streets with more traffic and i'm pretty positive most all of the e-smart community will oppose this we have just three individuals who indicated that they wish to speak okay all right thank you so much you take that excuse me thank you so much for reading all that um so we do have as she mentioned a couple people who wish to speak on this so we will call you up um you have three minutes and please read your name and address into the record um first one we have is liza goodman is liza goodman here she was opposed and wished to speak is there anybody on the line i don't help you nope okay um also we have amy infantolino is opposed and which is to speak is there any okay these were all submitted in advance of the meeting so we don't have blue cards on these ones but and then the last one we have is monica miller who was opposed and wish to speak hello yes is this monica can you hear me yes yes this is monica okay if you can see the application for the indie cap okay my address is 4211 south nano mesa arizona 85212. okay thank you you have three minutes the application for the indie cap oh okay excuse me oh yes go ahead you have three minutes go ahead the application for the indiecap industrial park has not satisfied the legal requirements for your consideration this evening the dutch architecture group emitted material elements of the site plan application that are legally required to the e-smart community plan as well as the mesa city code due to this this application should be denied with prejudice site plan applications in eastmark are required to conform to title 1167 of the mesa city code pursuant to 11672 applications supporting materials and fees the application is required to have a project description that is of sufficient scope and detail to allow a review of traffic generation the project narrative and associated application materials for this project does not include a statement regarding traffic and therefore this application should not have been considered complete despite multiple requests to the planning department and the applicant to learn why this was omitted from the application no response has been provided peter vargas the traffic engineer who reviewed the subdivision plat said that the statement regarding traffic generation is used to determine if a traffic study is required peter provided that if 300 trips are likely to occur during any given hour then a study is needed he also stated that he had not seen a statement regarding traffic generation for this project considering that the proposed plaque contains a total of more than 1.6 million square feet of warehouse space and the institute of transportation engineers provides that on average warehouses have one employee per 535 square feet the indiecap project will likely have more than 3 000 employees peter vargas did provide that given this the semi-truck traffic and the associated traffic from the community a study would probably be needed he said that he typically reviews such statements before it goes to planning and zoning and that a study will be done before it can be approved traffic generation semi-truck traffic on everton terrace traffic intensity during shift changes and safety are a huge concern for our community these concerns were expressed during the city council meeting for the corresponding plat and nana apia provided during a recorded meeting that traffic would be addressed during the site plan application process shockingly this did not occur without the legally required information regarding traffic generation it is impossible for mesa to ensure that the proposed project is safe as required by law as members of the community it is imperative to us that our government ensure that the legally required procedures are followed to ensure safety and to allow our due process right we should have had an opportunity to review all pertinent information that is required in advance of this meeting and had a chance to comment because this has not occurred this application should be denied with prejudice okay thank you so much are there any comments um and i would also like to point um out that a number of the residents who attempted to make comments were quite frustrated that only 600 characters were allowed that's only 90 words given that each commenter is allowed um three minutes you should be allowing three thousand to four thousand characters and the community feels it's very difficult to provide a substantial comment in relation to a complex issue in in just 90 words which is what 600 characters is essentially thank you for your comments we do also obviously you know allow people to attend in person and be on the phone are there any comments for uh monica from the board at this time or questions is that tim did you have anything no i'm just curious a lot of the comments seem to talk about legal um real requirements but i'm assuming the city looked at the legals they're usually pretty thorough about that um is there any response from staff or from legal about the being satisfied about the legal requirements for all the submittals yeah if we can get staff to answer that question all right uh chair sarkisian and board members so staff does find that this meets the legal requirements of the application so per section 11672 b applications it states that applications required by this ordinance shall be filed with the office of the planning division and include all of the following an application provided by the city the required documents and information in a form acceptable to the planning division additional materials as required the zoning administrator may require the submission of supporting materials as part of the application including but not limited to statements photographs plans drawings renderings models material samples and other items necessary to describe existing conditions and the proposed project so a traffic report is not a is not a standard requirement of the application if it is determined necessary by the transportation division they will request one during the review process is anyone here from that department we do have a representative from the transportation department if you would like to discuss yeah if they're available hello hey good afternoon chair and board my name is ryan hudson i'm the city traffic engineer with the city of mesa transportation department i can certainly answer any questions but i'll speak first to kind of the discussion here and when we talk about the requirements for a traffic statement or a traffic study which was kind of referenced in some of the comments there was some citations as to what at the peak hour of when that would kick in and those sorts of things which is in our standards however this development sits within the eastmark community and there's a master transportation plan and that master transportation plan does those traffic projections and shows the trips that are anticipated with these developments and the associated trip distribution so the master transportation plan serves as that mechanism and it you know it conformed to what this development was and showed those traffic impacts okay so with the original master plan that traffic study anticipated like these uses that are pre were pre-put in there um re-zoned before those zoning uses and possibilities were already in that study there was there was a master transportation plan update that included these okay yes okay great thank you is there any other questions for from the board for mr peterson through the chair to ryan uh so with the the on on the it's two lanes each direction as you come down until you're past this until you're right at this site and then it narrows down to one lane each direction right so is that that that seems that that was part of that master plan was knowing this would be the the technology core that the it's it's the the extra lanes are specifically for this site is that fair to say is is that's what that's what drove them to be that way in the first place chair and board member peterson uh yes the the cross section up from elliott to a point it's about a little bit over 2000 feet south of elliott road it's a five-lane cross section so two lanes in each direction and a center uh two e left turn lane and yes that was that was certainly um built that way for a reason to handle uh the increased traffic patterns and volumes that are along this corridor and then south of that point that's when it transitions i know you've already seen some images on that but it transitions into a two lane one lane in each direction cross section 22 foot wide so it's a very narrow kind of neighborhood collector street at that point um south of of this um this corridor okay gotcha and do you have any any concerns with uh semi truck uh movements being able to uh to turn into the into the proposed driveways for this project no concerns regarding um turning into any any sort of facilities within the development how those meet their criteria and then may maybe uh speak to a lot of the neighbor concerns were about truck traffic going further south into the residential area maybe if you could just speak as far as a typical uh warehouse it traffic associated with this development and what what the flows of those would look like sure it's certainly not anticipated that any truck traffic would would want to go south um just given how that cross section does narrow one else everton terrace like i said it narrows down into a 20 22 foot wide cross section so it's extremely narrow so any trucks that would be accessing that area it just wouldn't make much sense for them to go that direction to to go northbound up to elliot and then i know as it was previously stated as well there will be that connection of mesquite ultimately as it moves eastbound or eastward all the way to signal butte so there'll be that connection out to signal mute in the future as well okay and is there any known timing for that connection for mesquite to tie over to signal i would just be able to speak to that one accurately just depending on on how that property develops i'd be looking to planning a staff on something like that and then i think that was yep that's all i have thanks i'd like to point out that the southbound is only one lane it is three lanes where the proposed entrance is sir two northbound one stop sir did you have um a comment card or were you one of the people you were trying to get in touch with uh i don't have your name or address i don't have yes i did already submit a comment my name is scott bittner but i'd like to point out it is three lanes okay where the proposed entrance is thank you i'm interested all right thank you thank you um does the applicant want to come up and respond you know madam chair members of the commission i think you unfortunately had to read all of the opposition i do appreciate that um i think you can see the majority of it's related to land use not related necessarily to the site plan which is really what's in front of this board today that said i'm happy to answer any additional questions that you may have there any comments for the applicant questions okay thank you so much thank you are any questions for staff before we close the public all right we'll close the public hearing and bring it back for discussion any question anything anybody wants to see chair uh-huh board member alan if i could go ahead um i i've taken a lot of look at this look at this site plan and that's what we're here for today we're not here for the use we're here to just look at a site plan um this isn't allowed use by by the zoning by zoning according to the e-smart plan according to the city of mesa general plan it's it's an approved use i i do however i empathize with the neighborhood because they didn't know what was going to go there they probably figured it was something because it's it part of the technology corridor but i think the application has done a good job to try to separate a 300 foot separation is is quite a bit of separation between the homes and the property of this development so just as for me looking at just the site plan i don't have any issues um as far as the site plan that i would be in support of this project thank you thank you there are other board member comments or questions nope okay i would have to um echo that is that that is a very large separation um and looking also at the landscape plan i see there's a lot of 24-inch and 36-inch box trees in the between so on top of the already frisbee golf thing or it seems like that is a very large distance and it has been it is a site plan review um not a land use the land uses have been planned in possibility for a very long time as in the original transportation plan and development plan so with that i will um entertain a motion if there's no other comments sure if i could go ahead then okay remember i would make i would make a motion that we approve z-o-n-21 2101 224 district 6 within the 3 700 to 4 100 blocks of south everton terrace located west of signal b road and south of elliott road for a site plan review with the staff recommendation of approval with conditions thank you do i have a second i'll second then thank you but remember errors all right i'll please vote there we go all right boar member a four member boyle and board member crockett is absent so with that the item passes with board member crockett absent all right next item is zeon 21-1237 district five within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of east mcdowell road and within the 2800 block of north 58th circle located west of record road on the north side of mcdowell road site plan review for the development of two office warehouse buildings and chloe is here for the presentation good evening board good evening board and chair one moment i'm gonna try and get the powerpoint to pull up this is case don 21-01237 this is for a site plan review request to allow for the development of two office warehouse buildings overall within the 56 this is located within the 5600 to the 5800 blocks of east mcdowell road on the north side and within the 2800 blocks of north 58th circle on the west side it is located west of wrecker road on the north side of mcdowell road it is located within within the employment character area for the general plan which purpose is to provide for a wide range of employment opportunities in high quality settings these zoning is a light industrial zoning which an office warehouse use is permitted this is the site photo the current site is vacant bordering up against the longbow golf course the site plan is for two office warehouse buildings building one is going to pro is proposing a one hundred 129 sixty five square foot office and warehouse development to be split within four tenants building two is one hundred and fifteen thousand one hundred and twenty one square feet again office and warehouse to believe split with between four tenants truck entry is from 58th circle only and exit from 58th circle or the southwest corner of mcdowell usually the building won the elevations and the building two elevations that are proposed it did go to design review board for the march 8th work session with minor comments from the board the citizen participation was to property owners within 1 000 feet in hoas and registered neighborhoods there were large amounts of citizen comment through both the two zoning meetings the sorry zoom meetings offered by the applicant for their citizen outreach as well as several emails and large amounts of comments and petitions that were received by staff the overall concerns are mainly due to traffic and noise increased due to trucks as well as a proposed development size and layout the applicant did provide a trip generation letter as well as the city does have their traffic estimates from 2020 which do predict their by day and we do have a representative from transportation here to speak on any questions or concerns overall the findings that the sorry that the request does imply comply with 2040 mesa general plan and meets the review criteria for site plan review outlined in section 11695 of the mesa zoning ordinance staff does recommend approval with conditions and i'd be happy to take any questions okay thank you are there any questions for staff at this time nope all right thank you so much is the applicant here you can state your name and address for the record please good evening for your record my name is taylor earl with the law firm of earl and curly our address is 3101 north central avenue in phoenix i appreciate chloe's presentation i'll do my best not to duplicate but just to add to that here on behalf of sun state builders this is the the location of the property here good location off of the 202 freeway just a couple of things that i would just highlight one is that we do have the golf course directly to the north we have boeing that's off to our west we have flanked by self storage facilities except for a vacant piece which is to our right which is uh developing with a similar use but at a smaller scale as the site is smaller and then the cal portland site also as a the southwest corner of this slide you'll see the falcon field airport which is significant as you can see the the orientation of the airport and so we come off the tail end of that and so part of the reason that this area is designated for industrial on the general plan and so or employment i should say so this is the does it the mesa 2040 general plan again this site is designated as employment you see there we've designated the site and you can see that the other areas that are also part of that employment within the general plan the statement regarding employment is that the goal of employment districts is to provide for a wide range of employment opportunities in high quality settings and so again i would just highlight on this slide that you see that there is a transition between the yellow which is residential and the employment category something that was envisioned to be within the general plan again a voter approved document as well and then also the site is within a falcon field sub area so this area also includes an abundance of high quality employment for professionals technical experts and highly skilled laborers so again part of another plan sub sub area to be near the falcon field airport according to the staff report as chloe mentioned the proposed project conforms with the intent of the employment character area and the intent of the falcon field sub area but providing a wide range of opportunities for the employment of professionals technical experts and high skilled labor in a high quality setting so i highlight those things just to establish that there is forethought that went into the designation of this particular property in the employment designation and under that sub area and so we're in perfect conformance to that also worth noting that it is a growth area uh here a statement that this area is expected to see about 10 000 more jobs by 2040 most of the infrastructure is in place in this area again star designating our our project so coming in now diving into the site here a little bit zoomed in and we'll walk through some of the background here so the site was zoned to its current zoning of lipads for the light industrial planned area development many years ago which is the the zoning that allows us to proceed forward with the uses that we're proposing so some history here 85 zoned ami and an o8 was owned to lipad and so we're developing the site in accordance with the existing zoning there was i think a subsequent action from lipid to lipad but ultimately the point is that this site has been zoned with this current zoning for many years and we're in conformance with that so we are again not changing zoning not adding uses to the property we're also not seeking any deviations from the development standards uh so no variances are being requested so we conform with the existing zoning and the design criteria again our request here is just a site plan to allow two office warehouse buildings and uh this went to design review as chloe mentioned so a couple of just aspects of the project that we would just note so this does bring more jobs to the area uh it's a good opportunity for a light industrial user again i pointed out the proximity to the the freeways on its placement at the tail end of the airport makes it a good use from a land use perspective again decisions already made and again we anticipate the site generating quality jobs developing on existing zoning conforms to the existing zoning criteria and design criteria no changes and so you know we've worked hard on this to provide an attractive and appealing design with attention to publicly ask the public aspects of the project that are visible in that direction i'll walk you through that the building massing is reduced reduced by vertical or horizontal wall offsets something the design review board looked at and articulation and so again if you look at some of these measurements which you think are significant there is a significant uh distance between the the property on the on the south side of the street to our building there about uh 222 feet uh to the south side of the building and then before you get all the way to any of the loading areas you're looking at close to 400 feet and so there's a significant right-of-way there 120 feet of right-of-way and then we have a landscape setback and then we have a parking and then we have the building and so there's quite a bit of distance between the properties on the south side of mcdowell and the actual loading areas that are part of our project i would also highlight that the orientation of our buildings is such that the truck bays are fully internalized to the site they're not again oriented in such a way or if we had the buildings running north south then you would have the truck bays with a greater view into those and so from the view of mcdowell road it would just be the building which again we've articulated and gone through design review and so by orienting that way we're pushing not only the distance away from the residential to the south but also orienting it so that that is within that area that will significantly reduce the visibility into that area almost completely especially when the property to the right develops and it will also significantly reduce any noise escaping because of the obstruct that basically you think about freeways that have very tall sound walls essentially we have almost a 40-foot sound wall that would be placed in between that area and the residential to the south so again just to kind of zoom in here on a couple of these things 120 foot right of way in the transition you have a 30 foot landscape setback and then you have a 102 foot building setback as it sits today so ultimately 222 feet to the building itself and then again it's about just under 400 feet to that loading area again this is the design of the building we've done our best again it's more of a design review question but just to reassure the commission that we have gone through that process and again had some good comments from design review but nothing that was dramatic or or would dramatically change what you're seeing here and so there's been a lot of attention put into articulation for the building also you just note that we have worked closely with staff and the technical staff to to go through this process which is a fairly technical process that we do with staff one of the things that had come up and and what ultimately caused us to need to continue the case previously is that there was a comment that came up from transportation that they preferred that we ultimately move our driveway to the west in order to line up and have a safer four-way intersection with the driveway that is existing to the south and so we were happy to accommodate that and as we made that change it was close enough to this hearing the staff felt it was appropriate to continue that and so that's the reason that this case was continued previously again our efforts to work with staff it's not a comment that had been brought up early in the process but we were still happy to to make that change and as chloe mentioned and i know that staff can speak to this area has a lot of capacity that's on mcdowell a lot of capacity available and we fall in the category for the trips that are currently there between 10 and 19 nine and as we understand it we're at the very lower end of that threshold in other words there's a lot of capacity left on mcdowell and again this use is already permitted and and so uh there isn't a traffic concern we did do a trick traffic generation and i'm happy to dive into the details on this but the conclusion was that due to the low forecasted peak hour volumes at the subject site site generated traffic part of the proposed development is not anticipated to cause detrimental impacts to the surrounding roadway network uh and if you if you look up that we've the the chart here designates the warehousing vehicles versus warehousing trucks and in the am peak we're looking at three trips coming in and the pm peak we're looking at three trips coming in so in terms of the truck traffic during peak hours it's really quite minor so again similar to the case that you just heard this is a case that has zoning entitlements we're here just for a site plan and we have worked closely with staff to make sure that we meet all the criteria that we're meeting the technical requirements and we think above and beyond that we've put in features here that we think are accommodating to residential so with that happy to answer any questions okay are there any board member um comments or questions for the applicant no no okay thank you so much um so we will begin um working on the public hearing um just so you know we do have the petition um so that staff has that for 2 3 z121-01237 with the signatures so that is added to the case file and we've all seen that and then we also have comment cards um people who want just these are speakers okay so do you uh voice vice chair is going to read in those comments these are residents who submitted comments one of them to be read into the record david partridge 5733 east leonard street is in opposition apache wells community is nothing but residential homes with this much truck traffic it would be like dropping a high traffic truck stop right up against your neighborhood who would possibly want that traffic is a main concern slow moving trucks waiting to turn backed up on two main roads can only turn into a safety issue for all wanting to get through the through the area please stop this project there are lots of commercial areas around y plant a trucking company and all the noise and slow moving trucks by a residential area that does not want an industrial undertone pushing against us david bothwell 2454 north sneed drive is in opposition this is a sleepy retirement community where the air pollution impact will be harsh was an environmental study done the noise pollution will be deafening and both together which will drive down our property value as well as cause severe health issues the traffic that will flow through our side streets will become congested and dangerous creating accidents injuries and death the main road mcdowell cannot handle that many hundreds of trucks each and every day do not do this to us do not put this monstrosity in our retirement community area it will cause irreparable damage retirement area janine mitchell 5825 east leland street is in opposition i oppose this rezoning because it is immediately adjacent to a large residential area this project will destroy home values it will cause traffic jams for hundreds of automobiles and cause a huge noise in air pollution noise and pollution problem for those living anywhere in the vicinity why would the city approve this one there is a lot of vacant land almost on top of the freeways that is where this kind of industry belongs it will not only affect apache wells but also painted mountain mesa desert heights ridgeview red mountain even lasandis mcdowell traffic will use residential streets too instead gail facet 2420 north sneed drive is in opposition i feel there is much more appropriate location for a large truck facility near mcdowell and 58th circuit circle with the large number of 55 plus residents living across mcdowell world i feel that added traffic noise and exhaust pollution will negatively affect the property values of those homes the volume of trucks and employees using the streets will lead to congestion causing local cars to begin using the streets through apache wells hoa where there is much less traffic this brings concerns as the general public is not used to sharing streets with golf carts as those used to get around in apache wells deb hill 22 25 51 north lima road is in opposition this proposed trucking facility is not something that should be near residential homes due to the noise pollution and traffic on such a busy road i can't imagine anyone including this board that this is a good idea to have a trucking facility in this location i would hope that this could be located somewhere else instead of a busy road like mcdowell road 2340 north north tully street is in opposition i live in the apache wells community and have enough loud vehicles up and down the roads all night and day long we don't need noise trucks all night to please stop this from happening trisha mallott 2723 north trevino place is in opposition i already made a comment but wanted to extend my concern for this development that is planned to be built directly across from a large 55 plus community and other residential areas with the already increased air traffic that is occurring directly over our homes we now have to deal with increased semi-truck traffic that could be occurring 24 7. this adds to further noise pollution and air pollution in the area in addition there are safety concerns with added traffic it could bring to apache wells why isn't this being done closer to the freeway and away from residential areas linda silva stone 2706 north lima drive is in opposition i live in apache wells on lima drive i just built a home here and it is about 10 homes away from the mcdowell road entrance into the community i'm opposing the plan of the two warehouse buildings being built on mcdowell road and 58th street which will be bringing a large number of semi-trucks coming and going causing an increase in traffic more noise and added pollution this type of biz could easily be constructed in another location that isn't literally across the street from a residential community i am positive that the people in lucentis would not be happy if this was a block from their homes cheryl gabriel 5735 east mcdowell road is in opposition i am concerned the traffic on mcdowell road 56 will be so congested that it will be very hard to get out on mcdowell road also i'm very concerned on the noise that will affect the residents in this area the road will get torn up with big trucks low truck loads and there goes a nice road torn and our taxes are going to keep fixing the road this is a residence area and i would like it keeping it that way there are plenty of land there's plenty of land close to the 202 that they can purchase so that it is not in a residential area sandy overby 5837 east northern street is in opposition we are concerned about the traffic impacts and safety for our community we believe you are aware of the city of mesa design sanders section 208 4-1 and mcdot 6-1-2 intersection spacing and the plans that we have seen so far one area of concern is we don't see the required deceleration lane for the north side of mcdowell at the site the amount of noise from the trucks as they ingress and egresses site is also a concern for our community for these reasons we would like to request left turns only into and out of this project we feel these items would increase safety and reduce noise thomas crosby 5735 east mcdowell road is in opposition as a resident of the wells and live on wells drive close to the main gate on mcdowell road i'm very concerned about traffic safety with the proposed developments entrance exit driveway directly across mcdowell from our main gate left turns from mcdowell into the wells and into the development puts vehicles into head-on conditions the traffic study done 2020 is basically invalid as boeing was shut down and amazon was not up and running then traffic has increased considerably since then due to those two businesses i suggest in the name of safety making the entrance a right turn only off west brown mcdowell and exit a right turn only onto westbound mcdowell access to the 202 loop is easy off westbound or westbound utilizing wrecker or higley and eliminate the center entrance for cars altogether any delay in allowing the mesa ambulance or fire into the wells could be life or death if the development has to go in i would sure like to see the buildings not quite so high they will completely block out the view of the mountains we currently enjoy the additional traffic will surely impact the property values here in the wells as well don abbey 5904 east player place opposed allowing this facility will transform the existing quiet neighborhood to an industrial nightmare of noise pollution and vib vibrations with trucks accessing mcdowell road continually to the 202 freeway mcdowell road at this location backs up to dozens of homes that have existed here for decades it is not in the best interest of the local community at this location it would be more appropriate in a more industrial setting susan irma 5736 east mcdowell road as an opposition traffic on mcdowell road is already heavy the traffic analysis was done during the pandemic and when was winter visitors were not here an entrance directly across from the well's main entrance could create a potential for head-on accidents and tie-up swell wells residents and visitors are waiting to open the main gate visitors must wait to be buzzed in and with more traffic it would create a safety issue the noise of model is already a nuisance i'm afraid property values in the wells will go down with the traffic noise created by the development as well as the loss of the view of red mountain oh that one's unknown okay okay all right thank you so much and then we do have a couple who wish to speak so we'll start with those i have right here um please state your name and address for the record it is james rydell which is opposed and wishes to speak good evening madam chair and council board members thank you for the opportunity to present our opposition my name is jim riedel i am the president of the hoa at the wells a senior community existing of 422 homes established nearly 40 years ago i would like to read into minutes the petition we circulated starting march 1st and then elaborate if i still have a few minutes of time a few seconds of time as i said we started the petition march first after a couple of the zoom uh teleconferences we had with the developer i read the petition we the wells residents have significant concerns about the height of and the additional traffic impact of the two proposed buildings at the longbow business park located at the corner of east mcdowell and 58th circle the car parking entrance is only 79 feet from our 57 35 east mcdowell main gate and that is my address 5735 so i'd like to elaborate a little bit on the height and then mainly about the traffic impact when we had the original prints on the development we only had eight and a half by 11 sheets it was very hard to determine the height so that's why in our petition as a march first we questioned what the height would be since that time we found the height which is within the 40 foot allowed but our understanding is the building will be 39 feet and there may be two foot signage of tenant signage that would take this the building past the 40-foot limit so that would just be for clarification but most importantly as a lot of the comment cards already stated is a traffic impact as i stated our community is 57 35 east mcdowell it is exactly between 56th street and 58th circle we actually extend a little bit east to 58th circle so our property is smack dab directly across from this proposed development traffic it's already been mentioned concern about noise pollution volume what kind of cargo will be carried on the trucks first responder response all right so our concern really was the entrance to the trucks and the exit if those could be right turn only as other common cart said that would eliminate any trucks trying to use the center turn only lane to try to get into the facility but then we had concern about the parking that was 79 feet away from our main gate i'm not sure if ryan hudson or somebody else from the transportation department worked with the developer but they did move that uh car parking they moved it 79 feet to the west now it is directly across from our main gate and left hand turned only into our community or into that car parking i would have to defer to ryan but it sounds like those cars will pass but the concern is if there's any cars backed up trying to make a left hand turn into the storage parking lot it would prevent or greatly hinder any cars trying to turn left out of our community they would have no access to mcdowell even using the center turn only lane if cars were backed up and if trucks are allowed to turn left in or turn left out of the development again they would back up that center turn lane and that would have a great impact on people getting our community not a good solution but potential solution for our community is we have a second gate located on 56th street but then that would drive most of not all of our 422 units to drive down 56 have taken us into many other senior communities along 56th which is not has not been developed for major traffic it's 25 mile an hour speed limit it is a designated bike path mcdowell is a designated bike path mcdowell are five and ten 10k runs go down mcdoleo so there's a lot of concerns about this traffic pattern coming in and out of that development especially how it would impact the wells community okay can you summarize finish up i am thank you i would thank the council for hearing our concerns and if you have any questions with other whatever time you give me i will attempt to answer them okay thank you so much are there any board member questions for the neighbor nope thank you thank you uh next speaker i have is kimberly marshall i would like to give a petition oh yes please i already gave this to the design is kimberly marshall here on the phone yes oh great can you please state your name for the record kimberly marshall 5846 east nora mesa arizona 85215. thank you you have three minutes um i had written a letter perfect i had written a letter and i'm just going to read the letter out loud at the recent neighborhood meeting we were made aware that traffic impacts were noted as a top concern for the neighborhoods i wanted to provide a bit more factual for this concern as permit dot roadside design section 6.1.2 intersections along arterial streets should be spaced 660 feet apart however 58 circles distance is only 370 feet apart from the opposing entrances of the weld and ironwood creating a left out conflict from 58th circle by limiting the traffic to write in right out with a median pork chop at 58 circles the city of basil will increase safety by decreasing left turn movement onto mcdowell and furthermore this restriction will decrease potential pedestrian conflict of the school bus stop directly east of the subject parcel asset additionally according to the city of mesa design standards developments which will provide 200 000 square feet are required to have a dedicated right turn lane this project is slated for two thousand two hundred and forty four thousand two hundred eighty six square feet in total for both the buildings once the overall site is completed this deceleration lane will be required to provide safe traffic movements from the westbound mess down traffic uh through at 58th circle our second concern is the additional noise this facility will create we purchase our home during the recent housing crisis so our options were somewhat limited our home backed onto mcdowell road which is already quite noisy while the traffic report indicated there are only five to six trucks during peak hours the overall number total of vehicles trucks included during a 24 hour period is going to be 565 which impacts the quality of our lives especially the truck air brakes and idling across the property while not required by the development a distribution center is permitted under the element zoning we would hope that if good neighbors they would stand they would consider some noise mitigation measures which could include no eating traffic movements similar to the other l1 properties or enhanced landscaping across the south side of picdel road or some sort of contribution to those facing mcdowell for soundproofing their windows okay thank you very much is there any questions from them nope thank you so much for your comments all right next we have let's see um they did not say if they wish to speak or not is kate bigwig mcswiggen i can't did you want to speak but after the gentleman mentioned some things i i was kind of curious can you please come up to the podium and state your name and address at the podium please so we can my name is kate mcswiggen i own the property at 5802 east lockwood street in mesa i'm in the apache wells community after hearing the individual speak it indicates that the property is designated for light industrial but i'm not sure what is your definition of light industrial there's going to be hundreds and hundreds of semis and trucks going through there to me that's not light industrial i'm not sure what light industrial is but when you've got hundreds of trucks semi's going through there daily to me that's not light industrial and also what are the high quality jobs what high quality jobs there's truckers okay and they can operate out anywhere and then there's people in the office what's the high quality jobs i i don't see any um and how many bays are going to be there 78 bays 24 hours a day hundreds and hundreds of vehicles that's not even mentioning the gosh the pollution the noise the the these are retirement communities you know uh are people gonna slow down we travel by golf carts are they gonna slow down for us i know they're not going to be through the hopefully the main communities but all the employees are people we walk daily people are on walkers we're polite we stop we let them go are these people in a hurry to get to work or to cut through gonna do that i i don't think so but i just thought i'd bring that up to me is that in light industrial i i would beg to differ thank you very much thank you are there any questions nope okay all right next speaker i have is carmella staley she's opposed and wishes to speak again can you speak your name an address for the record you have three minutes i'm carmella staley 5735 east mcdowell road directly across from the proposed development thank you chair and members for your attention um this location uh we have been there for decades decades objection is to the density and scope of the project this was and is your opportunity to show the residents of the wells and the surrounding communities that you care about us do you realize that from higley road to wrecker to mcdowell to mckellips is almost completely high density 55 plus community traffic and egress we are a gated community we only have two ways in and out of our park and they're getting three and only off mcdowell road and they're taking away one of ours possibly by having it directly across from our main gate um a 2020 traffic study during a pandemic possibly during the summer we never got that question answered is not valid there are 422 homes many of those are gone in the summer the pollution of idling diesel trucks uh and bays mean that they plan to have 78 bays being used our health is important for many this is our only home i am an arizona resident i've been here since 1967 i've been in mesa for 17 years i'm very disappointed in what i see going on it's not easy for seniors to move who have varying degrees of health should we have to do that developers have many choices and much money behind them our property values will go down if we cannot get in and out of mcdowell road 24 7 noise from truck bays i can tell you the name of the song that they're playing at the golf course in their outdoor venue at night with my doors and windows closed what do you think this is going to do to us david luna our council member i want this on the record was contacted by phone email and i did speak to his uh assistant antonio with and a personal invitation to come and see the issues but there was no response very disappointed there too um like i said it's almost all seniors that entire area i ask that you consider us in this thank you okay thank you so much are there any questions for nope uh next speaker is donald mcdermott is donald okay he said he is opposed to this item all right next and uh next person i have is kirk mahoney is opposed to this item and wishes to speak if you can state your name and address for the record please it's kirk mahoney 2654 north armor um madame chair board i represent the hoa board of apache wells that's 1414 residents you have the petition that was signed by that group that's a thousand two hundred and two signatures so we probably could resolve this in um our complaint in two different ways one is noise i have a national transportation board noise map that is as recent as 2018. so this is four years old it already puts us in a red zone and with the additional development that's going on at falcon field and with the addition of this project we believe that noise level is going to raise at least another level i have this if you'd like to see it i can pass it to you for review and discussion the other is the traffic and a lot of people have complained about the traffic we're concerned about the traffic on mcdowell several of our residents live on mcdowell but we are also concerned about the alternative routes that people will start taking once mcdowell gets busy that's 56th street that goes all the way through north and south of our property that's hermosa vista that goes primarily east and west on our property and then player that goes east and west doesn't go all the way through the property but halfway to 56th street what we've already experienced in the past with the businesses that have started up on mcdowell is people cutting through from mccallups taking 56 and getting into one of the commercial businesses on mcdowell they speed they stop hesitantly at a four-way stop sign at hermosa vista and 56th street and this will only add to that additional traffic that'll be in our community and you've heard we're a 55 plus a lot of golf carts we've got a goth course in that neighborhood that we're built around and the other part that people haven't talked about but eyewitness every day is power wheelchairs that are trying to make their way into the community activities there's not going to be a community community like we know it today if that's alternative traffic starts coming through our community the other thing about traffic from the corner of wrecker going west there are three lanes the third lane the curbside lane reduces after the entrance to the public storage unit that's to the east of this development with the trucks coming down that traffic lane they're going to have to merge left merge with the traffic that's already on mcdowell and then make a sharp right hand turn onto 58 circle 58 circle isn't wide enough for them to do so safely so they're going to swerve even further left to make that turn into the property that's our concern that will impede traffic headed west on mcdowell and that will also then force people into alternative routes that's our concern i've got a map of that merger lane if you'd like to see that as well i've got some measurements to show you how what the distance is for that merging lane thank you is there anyone else that wished to speak or hadn't gotten a chance to speak nope okay thank you all right well i'll close the public meeting uh well actually let's bring it back let's yes bring it back to the applicant thank you madam chair um i'm happy to answer any questions i i know that um with regard to the traffic fundamentally it gets it really does get down to a used question of whether i've heard concerns about there being trucks but with this type of use and designation and zoning those trucks are going to be a natural part of how the site develops and so i think a lot of what you're hearing is just that the use will be there and therefore will generate traffic we have worked closely with transportation in the city and done what's been asked of us restricted access points the the trucks can only enter into 58 circle they're not permitted to enter into the middle entrance the far left entrance is an exit only the trucks can't they can't exit they can't use the middle at all for any type of egress so we have worked with the city to restrict access as to as a site planning issue to address that and limit it but there's a certain point at which the site does have to function and is going to generate trucks under the existing zoning and so again we would if there's technicals traffic transportation questions we would defer those to city staff but we have you know done what has been asked of us including even recently shifting the driveway at the request of staff that was one of my questions so the driveway change was the request of staff yes ma'am okay then i have a question for staff thank you thank you um first question was um with what the moving of the driveway entrance what was the thought process on that um because of the they're just saying there could be conflict but then he mentioned the applicant mentioned the restriction of um the center driveway maybe being restricted so how how is it the design or how are you guys restricting truck traffic in that entrance so uh chair and board to answer the first question which is regarding the driveway alignment uh it's our current practice and our standards to always try to have developments on either side of an arterial road as they come in to align their driveways now when this development came in with the driveway um you know we we did not see the the other side of mcdowell on the site plan so it was it was an oversight that it was it was off a little bit so it is always our our um our goal to align driveways and uh how it was offset previously was was kind of offset in in a manner that creates unsafe movements so if you can picture mcdowell road uh if you had driveways that were misaligned you could have opposing vehicles in the two-way left turn lane crossing each other to get to those access points with them aligned that prevents that situation and creates a safer inter type of movement and for the second question if you don't mind repeating um he mentioned that they're going to try to prevent or not allow trucks to go in off the center so how does that work is that a design or is it just a memo it's it's all really with their their site design so how the the access to the truck bays is all forced off of 58th circle and the westernmost driveway on the site is going to be designated as an exit-only driveway so that will be enforced with traffic control and again reinforced with just the site design so that middle driveway on mcdowell road only provides access into that front parking lot okay thank you is there any questions remember peterson remember heirs same thing i'm curious uh with the restriction of uh mcdowell was there consideration is there a need for the de-sell lane uh i see that that reduction does happen and it kind of comes down was there any conversation or any thought uh as far as that process was concerned sure so regarding d-cell lanes you know that conversation was had and that was looked into uh just given just the overall site design and how this access was kind of broken out in the different aspects as we just discussed and the fact that the truck traffic will be forced to use 58 circle that is the reason why you know we're not requiring a diesel lane as to speaking to the the lane reduction out on mcdowell road that lane reduction is coming from uh from the east heading west from the intersection where we have that additional lane for additional capacity at the signalized intersection of record and mcdowell as you move west it transitions back into what mcdowell road cross section is which is a five-lane arterial and at that point um you know we don't we did not feel the need for the de-selling board member peterson did you have any it was the same question okay and then um i had a question that went left in my head were there any other questions for staff at this time nope okay thank you all right i'll close the public meeting and and bring it back for a discussion an emotion maybe i'll start up madame chair um so i i mean with all of us definitely appreciate the the neighbor concerns and comments and and spending your time to share those with as as a planning and zoning board we our purview is always narrow to the action at hand and which is site plan review only it's not a that has been discussed the land use the light industrial all that's been approved uh years ago and part of the general plan and there's a a legal land right to that uh to that approved zoning the i i live in this area i drive that section of of mcdowell road frequently and uh and i'm well aware of the you know falcon field and the impacts that come with falcon field and and the airport and the associated uh traffic around that and falcon field was there um i mean that was there before it's been there for 80 years almost and is uh or even previous to that and and drives a lot of that i think this for the being in the overflight zone of the airport and the restrictions that come with that that this this is an appropriate uh site plan for that that zoning designation it uh it gives good good buffers on mcdowell road has a thoughtful building orientation where the where the the the trucks are the the truck traffic is limited in between the buildings and screened by the buildings and and the access appreciate the the access and and those things and uh for those reasons i i think that for that site that the uh that the item we have before us is uh regarding site plan requirements for the site and i think that that those have been thoughtfully addressed there any other comments um i just have to notice that uh comment that i do appreciate now that i can understand where how you're restricting i can see how the truck traffic would be restricted from that center entrance because they basically would be going into the smaller parking area and it would be amazed to get through there so it does show that it would pretty access would be off of 58th street and then obviously they can't put a decelerating on someone else's property if they want to do that anyway so they would be off the 58th street and cycle through the site and then back out on the opposite side so that kind of alleviates my concern over the traffic as you mentioned with the um hazards with cross cross access and as board member peterson mentioned this is we are following um code requirements and what is provided with us and through staff and so with that i would be supporting this site plan um as this has been the use and all the other items within this district have been in place for quite some time um so with that i'll entertain emotion if they're from anyone yeah if i can go ahead and go with a chair i would make a motion that we approve z-o-n-2101237 district five within the 56 to 5800 blocks of east mcdowell road and within the 2800 block of north 58th circle located west of wrecker on the north side of power on the north side of mcdowell road a site plan review and with a step along with the staff recommendation of approval with conditions do i have a second i'll second okay i have a motion in a second oh please vote uh board member alan hi uh board member crockett is absent and board member boyle actually had to step out so he is absent also so it passes um with five votes and two absent and that is our agenda for today is there anything else from the planning directors nope nothing else for staff we're gonna the sorry the public we can speak to you afterwards if you like yes no nothing else from snapchat thank you so much all right do i have a motion to adjourn i moved to germany is there a second second all those in favor hi all right thank you board member allen for staying on thanks earned