good evening and welcome to the planning commission meeting of december 2nd 2021 my name is vern crow and i am the chairperson of the commission the planning commission is a citizen body appointed by the city council the commission is empowered to make final decisions on certain matters with others being appealable to the city council on other matters the commission's act in an advisory role to the council with the council making the final decision you will have an opportunity to address the commission during the public hearing portion of the meeting your testimony is appreciated and encouraged the commission acts from a written agenda you will need to fill out a yellow speaker card and give it to the city staff if you wish to speak on any item on the agenda tonight copies of the agenda and the speaker cards are located on the table just inside the main door to the council chambers at this time please silence your cell phones there are seven members appointed to the planning commission at this time i will ask the commissioners to introduce themselves and state the district they are representing starting from my far right john crow mayor at large good evening i'm ed nyberg representing the choir district uh warren wolfe i tell you the district good evening martine naokowski representing yuck district hi this is dan heath and i represent saguaro district good evening again and i'm the chairperson vern when i represent the cactus i'm trying to do too many things here cactus district and i might add that commissioner cole is absent tonight and he is an excused absence the planning commission receives staff assistance and guidance with planning division and the city attorney's office miss perry would you please introduce the city staff who are presenting this evening thank you chairperson crowe good evening chairperson crow and commissioners again um to my left is jim gruber the chief deputy city attorney across the dice is diana figueroa the recording secretary making presentations before you this evening is this evening is alex lerma planner christina lavelle planner george geillart senior planner and jonathan ramirez associate planner and i am tabitha perry in trum planning manager thank you miss mary is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda okay hearing none is seeing none we'll move on now to the approval of the minutes do i hear a motion to approve the minutes of the november 4th 2021 planning commission regular meeting support okay i have a motion in a second to approve the minutes from november 4th 2021 planning commission all those in favor say aye aye aye aye aye opposed motion carries miss perry are there any withdrawals or continuances this evening chairperson crow and commissioners yes there is one it is center line on glendale general plan amendment gpa 21-11 and re-zoning application 0n 21-27 is requesting to have this item continue to the next public hearing before planning commission which is scheduled for january the 13th 2022 thank you is there anyone here tonight that is here to speak on that item that has been continued okay the purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to protest present testimony for the commission's consideration we will follow the same procedures for for each item tonight i will call the application number and the name of the applicant staff will present their report and answer questions from the commission the applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation and answer questions from the commission other persons who wish to testify will be asked to do so and answer questions from the commission the applicant will then have an opportunity for closing comments staff will be asked for any final comments on the application or procedural guidance and i will then close the public hearing and ask for a motion prior to discussion if you speak tonight you will need to state your name and address for the record if you wish to speak on any item please be brief and to the point and avoid repetition i reserve the right to limit the length of the testimony and in that regard we normally set it up for five minutes all exhibits shown to the commission become part of the permanent record and must be submitted for the file if there's large groups which it doesn't appear to be but if there happens to be a large group if if you're all one group um we would appreciate it if you would designate a spokesperson so we don't have to go through the same thing multiple times and applause or disruptions which delay the hearing will not be tolerated we have four public hearing items this evening and our first agenda item is gpa 2107 and it looks like mr lerma will do the presentation this evening welcome mr lerma good evening mr chair members of the commission okay before you have item gpa 21.07 and 0121. this is a request by the applicant brian greathouse representing broken cracker yolo pa we're asking for a request for a minor general plan amendment in order to change the land use designation of the property from plain commercial to high-density residential up to 30 units per acre and to rezone the property from planned area development to planetary development there's a site location map uh this is a site in reference to uh city hall the subject site is located north of the north west corner of bell road and 51st avenue approximately eight miles northeast of city hall here's the general plan amendment again the the property is designated planned commercial currently uh the the subject side is a part of a piece of a development planned area development named 51st campana pid the subject site is about the subject site is 4.7 7.4 acres here's the subject site again highlighted within the zoning map the site is comprised of four separate lots again and there's a part of the 51 component pad here's the general area of the site um the project is located right in the border of the municipal limits uh city of phoenix will be to the east uh some of the uses within this area are going to be a single-family residence to the north uh waste a west glendale neighborhood subdivision to the east glendale storage to the south uh labeled as 51 kampana again currently has already been developed with uh various fast food restaurants and on the corner lot uh this south east corner of the subject site is going to be a medical treatment center here's the subject site um the the site is comprised or the request actually is for active adult community age-restricted community uh comprised of 204 units a multifamily project 128 one bedroom units and 76 two-bedroom units on a four-story building here's a better plan to indicate exactly what the what the developer is proposing um the the bigger building will be the multi-family residential building again it is extended to the south of the property and and has two wings extending out the northbound and the accessory building will be the leasing office and the clubhouse with amenities in between located more as a buffer for the the property to the north or the single-family properties to the north access to the to the site will be uh proposed the main access will be along 51st avenue with a secondary access on the south of the property by way of the private drive that's currently already there with the the applicant is proposing some of the amenities the applicant is proposing would be the the pool that you see there to the north will be a pool that has an extension of lap lanes a waterfall and a shallow area for exercise uh the surrounding the pool will be a lounging area an outdoor dining area with a cooking area as well a pickleball court will be located directly north of that or sorry directly east of that and then between that will be a natural turf yoga area the dog park will be located further uh west of the site uh a tree basque an outdoor lounging area with a fire pit will be located also within the the western open area the applicant has done a substantial amount of work of designing the site but as you see again the property is about in a single-family residential subdivision to the north about five five separate residents will be impacted by this new development south of them uh with the development facing either their side of the property or the rear of the property as you see here the the property or the or the four foot four-story building has been substantially pushed back uh so it's nowhere near the same family residential lots uh the the longer extension of the of the building is about approximately 172 feet uh the two wing areas that are being extended northbound the one further to the west would be about 72 feet away from the from the from the north property line and the the wing that's to the further to the east will be about six to three feet give or take the the clubhouse clubhouse leasing office building that's located east of the property will only be one story high and that one will be about 46 feet away from the property line keep in mind that the second the the second wing uh that's more to the middle of the uh of the site is not actually facing a single-family residence but is also what is actually facing a attract within the subdivision so again the the applicant has done substantial amount of work in order to mitigate the impact of a four-story building next to a single-family residential subdivision they have added substantial amount of landscaping as an additional buffer with uh garage accessory structures more towards that residence that's going to be further to the west that's going to be impacted by the the closeness of the building here you see uh elevation plans that the applicant has uh has submitted that are currently in review through the design review process here's again the a different side of the four foot residential structure and again here's the elevation or renderings of of the design of the building what it will look like as as well as the clubhouse keeping in mind that these are still uh conceptual renderings and modifications might be made to these to this design the applicant has uh completed the assistance outreach the final assistance participation final report was included within the the staff report one thing to keep in mind here is the app that the applicant did um have two separate neighborhood meetings uh the first neighborhood meeting there were two residents that attended and the second one was one resident that attended uh within the two meetings there was the residents didn't have any issues or complaints about the conceptual site plan that was presented to them by uh reviewing the the the submittal the app the staff has made the final uh findings and analysis uh the application or the project substantially conforms to the goals and policies of the general plan those that include development being done by sound growth management tying in the project to existing and future transportation systems and in encouraging housing and close proximity to employment areas again the development will serve more of a transitional use between the already existing commercial uses that are to the south and that and those of the existing single family residents to the north the project also meets the intent the true intent of the of the plan or the pad or the planned area development within the purpose of the pad within the zoning or engine states that there should be a mix of commercial and residential uses uh currently the 51 component of pad entanglements are only those for those of commercial uh light uses and the additional entitlement or the multi-family residential will achieve this true purpose of the planned area development again the project is proposing 204 dwelling units or that is 24.9 units per the acre within a 7.4 uh site acre site the project will include approximately 128 one bedroom units and 76 two-bedroom units and the project will be provided again where you talked about the entitlement sorry about the amenities within those amenities are included also 25 open space of open area we talked about the details about the impact of what the development might have on adjacent property owners and the project the the applicant has done substantial amount of work in order to have the building layout in a way that reduces the impact of those property owners to the north on-site traffic will be adequate for the for the site transportation department has reviewed the traffic impact analysis or sorry the traffic impact statement that the applicant submitted and the transportation department is agreeing since has approved it and their adequate school full facilities within the area and all internal departments have reviewed it and recommended approval with that said supply and commission make a motion for this recommendation it should be for a general point for gpa 21.07 it should be as written and should the planning commission motion to recommend approval zoning case 21-19 it should be subject to the following stipulations uh stipulation number one the developments have been substantial conformance to the planned dairy development booklet entitled amberlynn arrowhead date stamped october 8th 2021 and before i read uh stipulation number two again keep in mind that the project is right within the municipal limits of city of glendale and city of phoenix 51st avenue is controlled by the city of phoenix and that in going forward with that comment the developer will be required to coordinate with the city of phoenix on the roadway right away on the roadway right-of-way requirements road with typical section requirements that includes the lighting sidewalk bike lanes buses and etc and roadway access locations on 51st avenue mr chair members of the commission this concludes my presentation the applicant is here if you guys have any questions for them or for myself commissioners anything for mr lerma gee you did a great job nobody's got anything for you mr lerma would the applicant or the applicant's representative like to come up and add anything only if necessary anything for the applicant's representative i guess you're good thank you anything additional mr lerma that's a chair no i don't have any more comments okay i don't have any speaker cards diana okay miss perry are there any final comments or procedural guidance to person coral commissioner there's none okay the public hearing for case number gpa 2107 and zon 21-1-9 is now closed and i would like to take these separately so do i hear a motion for gpa 21-07 mr chairman mr vice chair i would move uh approval of gpa 21-07 has written any further comments or discussions on gpa 21-07 okay i have a motion in a second to approve case con 21-19 second i do have a second was it you or you just did diana did you get that we have a motion and a second from commissioner nowakowski okay i have a motion and a second to approve case number gpa 21-07 as written i will conduct a roll call vote from my far right starting with commissioner crowe aye vice chair nyberg aye commissioner will fong aye commissioner nowakowski aye commissioner heath aye chair votes high motion is carried mr gruber what are the next steps for this agenda item chair members of commission your action with respect to gpa 21-07 is not final your recommendation will be forwarded to the city council thank you mr gruber okay i will entertain the motion now for z o n 21-1-9 chairman i move to recommend the approval of z-o-n-21-19 subject to stipulation containment report do i have a second second any further discussion okay i have a motion and a second to approve case number zon 21-19 subject to the stipulations as outlined in the staff report i will conduct a roll call vote starting from my far right commissioner crowe aye vice chair nyberg aye commissioner will fund aye commissioner nawkowski like to make a comment first absolutely i want i want to show that um i really recognize the the attention to detail and protecting the neighborhood reducing the impact by the configuration placement of the of the main buildings thank you and i vote i commissioner heath aye chair votes hi case is passed mr gruber what are the next steps in the process chair members of the commission like the companion general plan amendment uh zon 21-19 will be forwarded to the city council for further consideration thank you sir okay our next agenda item is kcup 21-07 mr lerma good evening mr chair members of the commission before you you have cep 21.07 this is a request by the applicant luisa aguilar representing our kaa architects is requesting a conditional use permit in order to allow an outdoor recreational area within the c2 zoning district subject property is located within the cactus district southeast southwest corner of glendale avenue and 43rd avenue here's a location of the site relation to city hall is approximately uh two miles east of city hall this is a zoning map with the property highlighted keep in mind that the property has a dual zoning the portion to the north is going to be commercial 3 and portion to the to the south where the outdoor area recreational area is being proposed is within the c2 zoning district the subject site again like the other item the the site is located within the municipal boundaries of the city of glendale city of phoenix the properties east of 43rd avenue are within the city of phoenix the site is comprised of two separate buildings the standalone building to the southeast of the other property and the continuum building running north and south to the west of the property it's located within the shopping center there are other buildings within the site that are owned by the property owner uh there's a circle k on the north east corner of that shopping area and then there's a minor auto repair building directly north the the property properties to the south are going to be town homes properties to the west are going to be condominiums and further north of those condominiums i believe is a mcdonald's again i already stated about the minor auto repair building that's to the north and across the way on west on on across the way to the east are going to be a walgreens and a seventh-day adventist church within the city of city of phoenix properties or areas sorry just a history about the site the the property was developed back in the mid 1970s and the property historically has had the the classification of the c3 and the sea funding district the property hasn't gone through any recent land use actions again the profit the applicant is requesting the conditional use permit in order to allow an additional entitlement to the site that would be in relation to a proposed fitness center that is being located to the buildings that were located uh west of the site this would allow them to have an outdoor exercise area to complement the proposed fitness center the outdoor area will be located uh to the rear of the other property what is identified within the site plan as building b and c facing 44th avenue the enclosed area is going to be approximately 2 645 square feet the enclosed area will be enclosed with decorative metal and welding wire mesh in addition to landscape this landscaping area within uh in front of that enclosed area uh the that outdoor area will only be accessible internally through the to the actual building there will be an emergency exit only for the use this outdoor area will have weights artificial turf sled lane tire flips and similar independent activities again the key word here is independent activities the outdoor area will not have any functional training will have any type of classes or or be learning outdoor music as well everything will be done independently per individual uh this uh the the fitness center is being proposed to be open on a 24 hour seven days a week basis the applicant is proposing to limit the use of this outside exercise area from the hours of 6am to midnight this is a an area of the site um a part part of the of their proposal which they don't need entitlements for is making modifications to the to the site as you see here the the build the buildings have been identified by letters of building a building b d and c the area that's in yellow where the hatch lines is building c is currently not there this will be part of their the part of the process that they're going through right now concurrently for the design review they're proposing to further expand the building southbound to lamar road which would be in addition to the already proposed uh fitness center uh west of that as you see the paved area there's currently a dock area and that is in the area that's gonna be converted into the outdoor recreational area the hatched areas that are identified the red hatched areas are going to be a building area that's going to be reduced that what is the budding building a is going to be that building area will be removed and in place will be landscaping areas and additional parking area as well as to the north of building d that's an existing building that's also going to be removed and within in place will be additional parking area here's a site plan again showing the improvements to the site showing the elimination of that building area of budding building a and then place putting parking stalls in an additional landscaping area and the same could be the same for north of building d that building area has been removed and parking styles have been added here's a street view of the site the way it currently looks this is um standing on 51st sorry 43rd avenue looking in towards what is identified as building b right now here's a site this is standing on lamar road and lucky northbound uh to the to the end of building d again uh building d will be building c would be located within what we see now as a the parking area and to the rio you'll see the the dock area that's going to be converted into the outdoor recreational area here's again standing on lamar road the reason i wanted to show uh this street view is just to show the existing improvements to the site and the existing condominiums or town homes to to the west of the site you'll see there's substantial amount of space there's there's a driving lane behind the buildings and then there's a six foot wall a but to separate the residential use and the commercial use here's the conceptual elevations that are currently being reviewed again through the con through design review just showing the modifications that are going to be done to the exterior of the building this is again showing building b and c the elevation that's shown uh labeled as south elevation and west elevation uh keep in mind that this is showing already the outdoor exercise area with the landscaping trimming to her to further buffer the the noise of that of this outdoor exercise area the applicant has uh has completed their citizens outreach um the final report is attached to the staff report the neighborhood meeting there was only one resident who attended he had no issues in relation to the project staff has reviewed and found the has completed their finding and analysis um also the departments have reviewed the record and have recommended approval of the site or for this additional entitlement the outdoor area will be located rear of the property having no impact towards the shopping center itself and the use of the shopping center uh there are several um ways that the applicant is reducing the the impact of this outdoor area and what it will cost to the adjacent property owners and that is uh the design of this outdoor exercise area again not only are they designing it at a way to mitigate the the the noise that it's going to produce but also the hours of operation for this outdoor use with that uh staff recommend approval a conditional use permit 21.07 subject to the following stipulations the development should be in substantial conformance with a site plan date stamped october 24th 2021 and the project narrative date stamp september 24th 2021 subject to design review approval by the development service department mr chair members of the commission this concludes my presentation if uh commissioners have any questions for myself or the applicant he is currently he is also here commissioners anything for mr lerma mr alkowski i'm just curious i really like seeing the um the conceptual elevations that page where it shows improvement to the storefront and i know this is a probably built 50 years ago in the site plan it shows i think in your presentation you mentioned improvements would be to building b and c how about building d on the far north end is the storefront improvements extend to building d yes uh they do uh mr chair uh commission nowakowski improvements will also be done to those areas of the buildings on building a and building d where the building where the building footprint will be reduced those areas will also have exterior modifications done to them all right time for a facelift thank you commissioners anything else for mr lerma thank you mr lerma would the applicant or applicant's representative like to come forward and add anything thank you sir commissioners anything else i have no speaker cards is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this agenda item okay the public hearing for uh well i miss perry are there any final comments that you'd like to make or any procedural guidance person crow commissioner there's none thank you the public hearing for case number cup 21-07 is now closed do i hear a motion mr chair i move to approve cp 21-07 for the findings and subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report do i have a second second okay i have a motion and a second to approve case number cup 2107 subject to the stipulations as outlined in the staff report any further discussions gentlemen hearing none i will now conduct a roll call vote starting from my far right commissioner crow aye vice chair nyberg aye commissioner will fong aye commissioner nowakowski aye commissioner heath aye chair votes high okay mr gruber what are the next steps in the process chair and members of the commission your action with respect to cop 21-07 is final subject to a written appeal within 15 days thank you mr gruber our next agenda item will be cup 21-1 and will be presented by ms labelle welcome good evening chairperson crow and commission members my name is christina lavelle and i'm a planning project manager for the city of glendale tonight i will be presenting the pawn shop relocation conditional use permit cup 21-11 this request is from neil yucos representing 43rd avenue llc and he is requesting a conditional use approval to operate a pawn shop in an existing tenant space in a c2 zoning district conditional use approval is required of section 5.754 i of the city of glendale ordinance this is the vicinity map showing the subject property in relation to city hall the as you can see it is uh north east of city hall and it is approximately three miles away here's a zoning map that just gives you a context of the location this property is uh obviously c2 it it abuts 43rd avenue which is uh just adjacent and to the city of phoenix to the north is r16 single-family residential to the west is our three multi-family residential and to the south is general commercial as well as multi-family residential as a point of interest this property is actually totally surrounded by c2 zoning so here is an aerial map showing the location of the tenant space that the applicant is asking for the conditional use permit this is an existing tenant space within the olive crossing shopping center the fully developed site the applicant is not proposing any exterior modifications any any additions to the footprint they're just asking for the cup for the use so some of the project details upon a pawn shop is required to have conditional use approval from the planning commission when it is in a c2 zoning district this is an existing tenant space it's in olive crossing shopping center the applicant is proposing to have their operational hours monday through friday nine a.m to six pm saturday nine a.m to 5 p.m and they will be closed on sundays the applicant has noted that they intend to have four full-time employees and that they the employees will be using the shared on-site parking with customers okay so this is their master site plan just kind of showing you the location of the uh proposed pawn shop as you can see there are two access points for this development there is shared parking that is provided directly in front of the youth as well as adequate parking along 43rd avenue and interior to the site uh and and again the uh the tenant space is about 4 500 square feet the applicant has and staff have gone through the public involvement process and met all of the requirements of the state and the local statutes there was a the applicant held a neighborhood meeting which was on october 26 2021 and there was uh no one except for staff and the applicant attended and there were no comments received on this application the per section 3.904 of the zoning ordinance it requires that the following findings be met before granting a conditional use permit from the planning commission the proposed land the proposed use is consistent with the policies objectives and land use map of the general plan and the purpose of the zoning district in which the site is located number two the proposed use will not be material detrimental to the health safety or general welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use or have any adverse effect on the property adjacent properties or the sound surrounding neighborhood or the city when in consideration is given to the character and size of the use and the hours of the operation number three the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the intended use and that all requirements for the zoning district including but not limited to setbacks walls landscaping and buffer yards are met number four the proposed site has adequate access to public streets and highways to carry the type and quantity of traffic which may be generated by the subject use and that on-site circulation is adequate to permit driveways parking and loading requirements in a manner which is safe and efficient and finally adequate conditions or stipulations have been incorporated into the approval of the conditional use permit to ensure that any anticipated detrimental effects can be mitigated staff has analyzed the project using the five findings for the planning commission approval staff has found that the project has met finding one because the general plan designation for the site is general commercial the general commercial designation supports commercial uses such as retail which is the use that upon a pawn shop would fall under number two staff has found that the project is meant finding two that it will not be detrimental or have an adverse effect on the neighbors or the city in general because the hours of operation are within normal business hours and during these hours the tenant space will be secured by a panic distress alarm video surveillance and a secure room in addition during closed hours the applicant will be providing a third party security system with alarms video cameras and motion textures staff has found that the project proposal has met finding three because the project has an adequate shape and meets all of the zoning development standards for the setbacks landscaping circulation this is a fully developed site and that the olive crossing uh shopping center went through design review and it was anticipated that there would be a commercial use in this tenant space so this was evaluated for landscaping parking uh circulation and access staff finds that the project proposal meets finding number four in regards to traffic impacts again when this um shopping center was developed it went through a design review process and it was evaluated for traffic impacts from the potential uses of the c2 uses which include retail and so there is adequate uh parking there's adequate circulation and adequate access and finally staff finds that the project meets finding number five because the applicant has provided mitigation measures within their project narrative which have been added to part of the stipulations for the approval staff recommends the approval of cep 21-11 subject to the following stipulation business operations shall be in substantial conformance with the project narrative date stamped november 1st 2021 and the site plan date stamped september 9 2021. mr chair and commissioners that concludes my presentation i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have uh the applicant is also available if you would like to miss lavell commissioners anything for miss lavelle yeah commissioner nowakowski hi miss lavell one point of clarification when the applicant sent out the neighborhood notice the operation hours were different what he was stating to the neighborhood he had monday through saturday nine to six sunday noon to five pm and you stated that it's monday through friday nine to six saturday night to five closed on sunday yes so the uh narrative was changed and that it just wasn't a it wasn't reflected in the neighborhood meeting okay so the applicants yes okay all right thank you any other questions commissioners thank you miss level thank you would the applicant or applicant's representative like come forward and add anything i'd like to make one quick comment sure name and address for the record please sir of course my name is neil euclis i reside at 935 north somerset circle in mesa arizona the one item i wanted to just clarify is that i'm not opening a new shop i'm relocating my old shop so i wanted to make that clarification everything else is pretty much in the narrative and i don't need to okay commissioners anything for mr euchilus thank you i think we're good i do not have any speaker cards diana correct okay is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this agenda item okay miss perry are there any final comments or procedural guidance chairperson crow commissioners i believe you guys have all the information so there's no additional information to provide thank you the public hearing for case number cup 21-11 is now closed do i hear a motion chair i'll make a motion to approve cup 21-11 as written subject stipulations do i have a second second are there any further comments or discussions on cup 21-11 okay i have a motion a second to approve case number cup 21-11 subject to the stipulations as outlined by the staff i will conduct a roll call vote starting from my far right commissioner crowe aye vice chair nyberg aye commissioner will fong aye commissioner naokowski aye commissioner heath aye chair votes aye agenda item is passed mr gruber what are the next steps in the process chair members of the commission your action with respect to cop 21-11 is final subject to a written appeal received within 15 days thank you mr gruber our next agenda item is case number pp21-04 mr gellard mr chairman members of the commission good evening george gaylord glendale city planning staff development services here this evening to represent case number pp 2104 for the tomachof subdivision also known as the northeast corner of 75th ave and bethany home the request before you is for approval of a preliminary plat for a 71 lot subdivision the applicant is natalie makowsky with eps group inc for the on behalf of the telemacho trust the size of the property is 20.09 gross acres the proposed density is 3.53 units per um excuse me 3.53 units per acre this is a locator map representing both city hall the red dot and the the yellow star is the subject property it's about two miles southwest of our current location this is the designation by the general plan um as appropriate for medium density residential five thousand square foot uh minimum lot size aerial photo of the subject property depicted with the red dotted line this is again is a 20 acre parcel it sits adjacent to medium density residential to the east west and somewhat to the south the areas located to the north are a large lot residential and sort of quasi-agricultural uses to the south across bethany home road you have a commercial district once again representation of the local zoning adjacent to the property you note that the areas east and west are of a similar zoning classification although not exactly the same their r6 and r17 respectively to the north and south also r16 prd as in the case of the subject property the prd stands for planned residential development basically a flexible plan development designation specifically uh the prd would um establish lot sizes that range from 5162 square feet to 7864 square feet proposing a lot coverage maximum of 45 percent otherwise the setbacks and building heights would remain the same as other properties within the r1 6 zone excuse me 20 of the site would be preserved as open space and amenities this is a depiction of the preliminary plat it's uh once again this is 20 acres we're at the northeast corner of 75th avenue and bethany home what you see here is a representation of the lot configuration an interior a looping interior access system that drives its primary access from 75th avenue at the center of the of the block along the west side and the secondary access is located in alignment with the rose lane configuration to the east side of the property as part of this project the applicant would dedicate half street widths on all three sides of the property all three streets 75th avenue bethany home and 74th avenue as well as to provide half street improvements to those corridors i should note here that the 74th avenue corridor is currently developed at a half street with with the development of this property that quarter would be extended to a full width street improvement this is a depiction of the landscape plan you know that the um they're proposing reduced lot sizes within the port southern portion of the area and in exchange for some added open space areas um to the east of the side excuse me this side of the property where there's an older residential area already planted and developed to the north they've also proposed larger lots to buffer the areas to the north again up there we have a large lot residential configuration and they've beefed up the streetscaping all around the perimeter of the property some quick photos of the site this is the 75th bethany home intersection you notice kind of the rather unfinished appearance of the streetscape in that location this is the southwest corner looking east along bethany home to the southeast corner where the site is obviously vacant abuts the adjacent residential area northwest corner of the property that's the site to the east to the right side of the screen and further north along the 74th street corridor again you can see this is the the current level development of that corridor looking north at the top of the screen to the corner of the property on the slide at the bottom of the screen is a depiction of the the where the half street rounds that northeast corner and heads east along claremont in the review of this project proposal the applicant has put on two neighborhood meetings online meetings one on april 22nd and the other june the 24th there was advanced notice given for each of those couple weeks in advance we do have some concerns from the adjacent residential population initially with regard to the proposed density of the site of the proposal rather as well as for the traffic impacts the perceived traffic impacts as a result of the development of the property what i have mentioned on the screen was also some commentary regarding some flood issues i would like to take just a minute to address each one of those before going any further with regard to density the applicant is proposing a density that's actually less than what has already been entitled by the zoning action that occurred in 1984 for r16 prd it's a 20 acre parcel they're proposing 71 lots on the site just by comparison with the neighborhood next door 20 acres would cover about 80 lots of that block so what they're proposing is 71 so the density is actually slightly less it may look like more because the lots are smaller they're tighter but they're surrounded by open space as well what the prd enables is variation in lot width depth block coverage and the setbacks although in this instance the setbacks have not been changed and once again along the east side of the property they're offering a fairly substantial open space buffer um as a transition between the kind of housing product that's being offered here and the existing area uh to the east and there have been some added costs to do that because they've had to elevate that side of the property as part of that development with regard to the flooding issue you may be aware that there's some ponding that presently occurs at the intersection of 75th avenue and bethany home there is some pounding that occurs on down the street along bethany home that the city's in the process of responding to we've got some matched funding that that has already been awarded and the project is right at the top of the list but the other thing i want to say was that in the development of this proposal the the ponding the flood issue at the intersection of 74th would actually be improved within with this development with regard to the traffic issue again the applicant is dedicating right of way on three sides and making improvements to all three of those three quarters the 74th street corridor again the half street will become a full street with a rather pleasant streetscape improvement along that corridor we have heard from the community again regarding the perceived impact to 74th avenue with the development of this project we're adding 71 homes along the west side there will obviously be some level of traffic impact one of the primary concerns that they've had is to the constriction that occurs further north along uh 74th ave as it runs the corner onto claremont there is an extension of that half street corridor or half street width that proceeds for about 300 feet east of the claremont intersection the um this is something that should probably be cured at some point um but this is probably on this on the uh the city's back to do that um there is no zoning action that's being requested here we're here only to consider the review and approval of a preliminary plat we don't really have the leverage required it's an off-site improvement we really only have the ability to require improvements along the frontage of the properties along 75th bethany home and 74th beyond that point it's kind of on us to respond to that the zoning once again has already been entitled the city is really going to have to be the one to respond to the claremont issue the one of the things that's standing in our way man is well there's a claremont corridor is interrupted by the property boundaries and one of the parcels to the north so we don't have the right of way to respond to it even if it was part of our um you know our transportation improvement plan but it probably will be in the future um what we're proposing in the meantime because there will be some additional traffic on that corridor is probably a series of speed bumps to slow the traffic with regard to the hearing this evening we have notified the public by all the usual means the site's been posted advertised and the property owner's notification cards were mailed out all which occurred just about three weeks in advance of the hearing tonight as far as staff's findings we believe this is a viable use of the property it's an infill site it's probably best served as a residential area we feel that it conforms to the city's subdivision code and applicable residential design standards city departments have reviewed and approved the recommending approve approval of the subdivision plat subject to the following stipulations number one that development occur in substantial conformance with the narrative for the northeast corner 75th avenue and bethany home project received june 25th of 2021 the preliminary plan dated october 26 of 2021 and the landscape plan dated october 27th of 2021. number two lot sizes shall be a minimum 5 000 square feet number three dedication of 55 feet of right away along 75th avenue and construction of all half street improvements number four dedication of 30 feet of right-of-way along 74th avenue and construction of all half street improvements and number five dedication of 55 feet of right away along bethany home road and construction of all half street improvements mr chairman with that i'll be happy to respond to whatever questions you may have commissioners anything for mr gellert thank you mr geller sure thank you would the applicant or applicant's representative like to come forward and add anything only if you have questions gentlemen okay uh let's see i have received three speaker cards uh on this particular item uh would terry starr please step forward to the podium state your name and address for the record please good evening commissioner and commissioners i'm terry starr i live at 7350 west rose lane right there on the thing our family moved on to roselane april 1st 1978. we are the last of the original owners on rose lane over the years we've enjoyed watching the alfalfa and the corn grow in the fields earlier this week a flock of about 50 geese landed in the field so we will miss seeing them come every year i do have some concerns and one is at the corner of 74th avenue in claremont it's a one-lane road turning onto another one-lane road you cannot see around that corner until you're right in the corner um it only goes for four more four houses and then it widens up you should see the trouble the school buses the garbage trucks and the fire trucks have getting around that corner just today the garbage truck hit the side it it hit the sign about noon today they those garbage drivers go there twice a day on thursdays every week they know the area and he still hit the sign they have to go out into the dirt to even try to even make that corner and there's a solid fence on the other side so they have they make these wide wide turns when at the public meetings in april and june visa representatives said they would put speed cushions on 74th avenue and continue discussions with city engineers about this corner i'm asking if these discussions have continued uh both council members clark and odama asked that this corner issue be addressed before the approval of this property is completed at that meeting the owner of one of the two properties on the north side of claremont rebecca johnson said that she would be willing to have talks with the city about this corner did beazer or the city engineers follow through and talk with her beezer is brushing off an existing problem and not realizing that it may be made worse if the corner is not improved opening our neighborhood to 75th avenue will allow non-residents of both the new property and our neighborhood to cut through and and to avoid the light at bethany and will make the corner even more dangerous by adding more traffic in our neighborhood if the bees are going to put a median down the middle of that and widened street if so it would further restrict the turning radius of all vehicles we need a current traffic study that really looks at the current patterns and projects future numbers of vehicles i don't think bees are homes realizes the impact their development is going to have on our 45 year old neighborhood if beezer is not going to fix this corner then the city of glendale needs to step up and do it 74th avenue has been a one lane road for more than 40 years we can't wait another 40 years for the long and johnson properties to be sold so the rest of clermont can be widened someone needs to fix this problem and please do it now um we have flooding that he that um they were talking about on bethany and 74th avenue it all started most of it started when the city put a huge drainage pipe down the middle of bethany the engineer slanted the road so that the water runs runs off and it goes on to the drain there on 74th avenue the city replaced the drain at that time and we all think they made a smaller one because it made this the situation worse most with most rains the drain backs up and stays that way for at least a day or two we live on rose lane which is four streets north of bethany there are many many many times that we cannot go down that way because the water backs up at least two blocks then we have to try to exit on 73rd that's block two with flooded it's impossible during most brains and it stays that way for at least a day there then we have to try to get out so we have to go north to claremont three blocks east to 71st avenue and then south to bethany the storm drains in the middle of the of bethany are not hooked up but have caused a lot of frustration for the residents of that neighborhood a few years ago when the houses at camino estates and the estates at 73rd were added on the north side of claremont local traffic increased by at least double i walk daily in that area and i have to be extremely careful especially as cars come around that corner and you cannot see them and i walk a dog and we have to be very careful the traffic is so much heavier now than i can't imagine what adding 200 more cars a day will do to that neighborhood my street rose lane will get the bulk of that traffic from the subdivision as the main entrance exits onto rose lane the speed limits are not enforced in our neighborhood now so conditions with more cars can only be worse i would like to see some police speed patrols on 74th now avenue as well as the rest of our neighborhood i would greatly appreciate you looking into these concerns as this has been our home for the last 43 years and we look forward to many more years on rose lane thank you thank you mr steve poole evening i'm steve poole i live at 7349 west clermont street that's like the second house east of 74th avenue uh ms starr's description of that corner is through rose-colored glasses because she doesn't live on that street you cannot absolutely cannot get two cars around that corner simultaneously if you add a full width street up into a half width street how are you going to accommodate the turning traffic the other reality which i think at this point the developer may have not paid attention to is claremont is the only street between bethany holm and ocotillo well let me rephrase that it is the only through street between 74th avenue and 71st avenue every other street south of claremont terminates at 72nd avenue into a half street you cannot put traffic down that road like that i have some serious questions regarding some of the traffic impact study data as well fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be for the consultant i have 45 years with maricopa county d.o.t all of it in traffic engineering and traffic management divisions and i have done a lot of traffic count work and i have done a large number of reviews of traffic impact studies and the red flag that hit me yesterday when i thumbed through that hundred and something page traffic impact study is is all of their data is based on counts that were done in april of this year april before people went back to work before the schools opened back up and before the city of glendale opened up cardinals way all the way to 99th avenue the traffic on bethany home is probably three times what it was six months ago when the road opened up and i think this needs to be addressed i think they need to go back and they need to do a new impact study and i think this time perhaps instead of just guessing what the numbers are on claremont i would be thrilled if i would see traffic count equipment or an actual live body out in front of my house on claremont doing a traffic count because i can guarantee you right now month of april while i was still at home recovering from covid i never saw anyone out there doing any kind of traffic counting at all but yet they have data for april so i don't know where they came up with that data the reality is the traffic coming out to 74th is not going to take very long before they're going to figure out it's a nightmare to get out onto bethany home it's a nightmare to get out onto 75th going out the west end of this subdivision and it is going to be much easier from a time constraint for them to take 70 to take clarendon to seven excuse me claremont to 71st avenue and take 71st avenue north to glendale which is a much lower volume street at this point now so i think this needs to be reviewed again before we just let them throw whatever they want in there i am not anti development and honestly with the people in the neighborhood i'm the one who's been there the least amount of time four years today but i've seen enough in the last four years to know how bad it can get and my years in traffic engineering the mindset was always on a traffic impact study do no harm to existing conditions and bringing a full width street into a half width roadway is not a do no harm kind of situation now i also understand the city of glendale has no legal recourse to force bees or to fix clarendon or excuse me claremont i used to live in around clarendon so that pops up in my head but uh i understand the city has no requirement to fix claremont to bring it out to a full width street and i would not ask the city to force beezer to do that all i'm asking is whatever beezer does at the north end of their street with improvement to claremont makes allowances at claremont to make that a safe intersection to come west to south and north to east around the corner and to be able to get two cars around that corner at the same time thank you sir okay thank you appreciate it karen aborn i hope i didn't slaughter that last name abernae i don't know good evening mr chairman members of the commission just in reference to the name um when i was the bilingual educator abortnay was what was coming up with a lot of my bilingual students families um as a point of information we pronounce it aborn but we're really not too sure about the actual pronunciation because my father-in-law chose that name off of a tombstone in new york city back in the the 20s because there was discrimination going on about what his last name really was and so he picked something that was a bit more generic so anything you choose is fine just don't do airborne and we're friends um we'll go forward with this address oh yes 7318 west griffin lane thank you you have the floor thank you so much griffin lane is the dead end street to the north of this project i have lived there for 41 years in fact i live across the street from miss johnson that they're speaking about her property is probably four or five acres we have two acres the entire neighborhood has nothing less than one acre uh parcels um most people have some kind of livestock in the area we raised our own beef for 10 years we have miniature horses on one side and we have sheep on the other side and it's a really comfortable little neighborhood to bring your children up in since 1980 when we moved there the only development that was going on there at the time was their neighborhood bethany hermosa park was a couple years old at the time and then independence heights started coming over on the north side of maryland avenue and as these things were impacting our neighborhood and our lifestyle we were learning a lot about the protocols of the planning and zoning department in glendale um i found out that uh i was actually sitting in the back of the planning department going through the microfiche if you can think back how long ago actually 2002 and i discovered an ordinance that nobody in planning seemed to have known about that if a parcel is being developed adjacent to a larger existing parcel then the new parcel has to be at least 50 percent the size of that large one which is sometimes difficult to do when you've got a 10 or 12 acre parcel adjacent however camino estates is the it was referenced i think by mrs starr was a development that came in to the east of us and they were going to be adjacent to a five-acre parcel across the street from my house so we were able to negotiate with these developers to have that parcel be adjacent to the large parcel to be open space and then after that all of a sudden all over the city large lots had some some adjustments made to to vessels that were being built next to it another thing that i was able to do learning how the city programs worked was i renamed the street in the camino estates development because they were going to have griffin lane go all the way down their street too there was an alignment they they thought that that would be fine to go through except we're a dead end so 7298 is the last address on our street and then you've got a block wall if 7285 is on the other side people are going to come in from 75th avenue and hit literally a black wall so i was able to point out things by living there that were being overlooked by the developers by the city staff just because they they work from the plans they work from pic schematics or whatever but they didn't really as they said in the music man know the territory so i learned a lot about it and i was very helpful i think in in helping with development we negotiated a lot of different changes and developments all the way around us that benefited our street benefited the people moving into those areas now i wish i knew more about this development than than or at least as much as the people who are here with us but for ada reasons i am unable to participate in virtual meetings and as a matter of fact i served on the library advisory board for nine years i was a chairman i was a vice chairman and i presided over two open hearings when um midwestern university wanted to buy a library the foothills library so i was really involved with it nine years but when the virtual meetings came about i tried for three of the meetings i couldn't follow through with it i had to resign it broke my heart miss figaro was our secretary for a while and she knew how involved and how much i really cared about that program so when this all came about i i received my first letter from from josh hannon of eps group about the meeting and i responded to him and i invited him to our house we have two acres we have lots of space it's the middle of kova but we can sit on the patio and you can tell me what's going on no response no reply no acknowledgement i contacted mr gaylord he he was sharing some information he actually came out to the house and he showed us what he had at the time but it wasn't very much at that point it was in the spring and he told me that there would be some information coming from natalie griffin so i waited for that got that letter responded to her could we please talk and uh develop some kind of an accommodation to to help me understand what's going on because i'm proactive in this kind of a program but if i can't tell what's going on if i can't see the small print that you're providing it's not going to be very helpful no reply i called the city attorney's office and i said our cp meetings subject to the rules like this meeting here where accommodations should be provided for people who needed assistance they didn't answer me but they called her evidently miss figueroa because she called and she said what do you need and i said i'd like to talk to these folks so mr gayler sent them an email asking for accommodation for me i think he sent three i think all together there were five communications requesting accommodations so i could review what you guys you folks excuse me are talking about tonight nothing not a thing a non-person i don't know so i was checking with the department uh or the um you got about a minute left okay to find out if i could possibly get a complaint so that i could be more positive in helping this on reviewing the cpa information i saw no recognition that i had actually responded to this i would really like to be helpful about it some issues that maybe were not presented earlier about the school across the street the school half mile to the south the school a half mile to the north are all closing uh the property is in the flight path for the sky harbor airport they're proposing to put a car wash across the street nobody talked about the horse property to the north and there's plenty of dust and plenty of flies and i don't know if there's any mitigation and also the the buildings on the west side i call it a heat sink they're going to be subject to an awful lot of heat and somebody abuser ought to know that they ought to put a little more um insulation into those those buildings but nobody wants to talk to me but thank you for your attention and your courtesy and for listening thank you very much mr gellard or applicant's representative either one would you like to address any of those concerns mr geller i i don't have too much to offer on what i've already said about the the traffic issue um you know i think mr poole may have some well-founded points with regard to the traffic information things have changed over the months before the hearing throughout this process of review however the long and short of it is we don't have the ability to require the applicant to fix the issue on clarendon that's something the city is going to have to take care of thank you [Music] gentlemen yes thank you i'm ryan johnson division president for beeser homes do you need my address yes sir 1890 west aspen avenue gilbert arizona i appreciate you guys taking time letting us talk presenting our preliminary plat did have multiple meetings with the neighborhoods virtual met with who we could took their comments had multiple meetings with councilwoman clark and also met with councilmember aldama that is what kind of triggered the buffering in the larger lots on the north part of the property was trying to take into account the larger acreage that's to the north and give bigger lots on that section as well as open space behind it that was councilwoman's clark's recommendation and things that she wanted to see in that in that vicinity of the of the area because of those north acre lots that are that are there um but we took into account we tried to do the buffering on 74th we're improving the entire street on 74th so that is not going to be a half street anymore so it will be easier to turn but unfortunately the property that we're buying has no right-of-way on on claremont so the ability to widen that street is is not something we can do with the property that we're buying we've had multiple multiple meetings with the staff this is now our third submittal here we've taken into account everything they've asked for anything that we can do multiple improvements along the exterior of the property all the open space that we're willing to participate and make the community feel open to the existing residents to the east so any questions you may have we're happy to to answer the traffic analysis also was talking about the traffic that we will introduce into the communities so timing of when the analysis was done doesn't really change things because it was saying based on the 71 residents that we're bringing in or the 71 homes what kind of traffic are we going to be putting out at any time any time of the year into the surrounding area any other questions all commissioners you want to go first i just got one question you're going up to i got you i'm on the video or on the site on map you're are you going up to the irrigation ditch is that where your property line ends just right right there yep okay so then you got the irrigation just makes like a little hang to the left or right or you want to do it then it falls down claremont and that general area is are you encouraging are you making that like a like a i would say a round area kind of like you know to make it oh swing around type thing for that corner we'll um our design will add as much pavement in that area as we can in the right of way with the street section i believe it's about an additional 20 or 25 feet of pavement all the way north to our property line which is going to improve over 50 percent of that intersection right um cars trucks buses make that turn we can do some things with striping and delineation to help vehicles navigate that turn so in that sense we're we're making it better making it better that was my second question was are you going to try to stripe it so it kind of like leads them out around that edge yeah we'll work with your traffic engineer we we talked to him yesterday we met with him that uh city uh traffic engineer when we get to final design and come up with something striping and signage uh barricades or something down down the middle someone mentioned a median i don't know if we can put a median down there i don't think it's the uh yeah i don't think that but there's other things we can do for delineation of the traffic direction so you don't have any any possibility of head-on uh collisions okay uh just one question for the mr gerhart is the city looking at maybe expanding that road because there is a dirt area that's uh looks available to pave are they looking to expand that area um there's no plans at this point in time i'd say has not been identified as a traffic improvement yet um with the development of this project i wouldn't doubt that it you know climbs the ladder but it really hasn't been identified yet so i can't speak for them okay i was gonna say because you still got the the irrigation ditch sitting right there so i just wondering yeah they did take a look at it as part of this process we were encouraging you know them to participate in that improvement but you know we can't really require it again um they they took a look at the the alignment and the fact that the ditch is there what it's going to cost to move it and it's expensive okay for the size of the project all right thank you for everyone commissioners commissioner heath so i guess the first question i have is what accommodations were made i'm sorry i didn't get your name but what accommodations were made for disabled to attend the public meeting we did have the two virtual meetings i would have to check with eps on the the request for meetings but we were not aware we held two virtual um as far as i know we met the requirements so you're saying you were not aware of the individual who requested apparently she said in multiple emails accommodation no all right um so traffic counts when you do traffic counts what do you use as a basis for the traffic flow i might handle that or traffic counts are you are you yes referring to the accounts we have a uh a sub consultant that will do the counts i'm not sure how they did these if they have people out there or they'll use tubes sometimes that will be set up at different hours and be connected to machines to do the counts at each study intersection i'm sorry i misunderstood i thought i heard him say that there were no counts done before there were certainly accounts they were done in april um according to the report and that was just the timing of when we needed them done um and you know it gave us their background traffic for projections in the future years but our our analysis uh of the trip demand was done um from the ite manual and um uh followed the standard procedures which you know as they're affected do you know what there was annual i'm sorry pardon me i'm sorry i thought you were done go ahead i'm done okay um do you know if any consideration was made for the reduced amount of traffic due to current events i do not believe it was no and do you know if there was any study of traffic incidents occurring at the corners of 74th and claremont there was not it was not so none of that was studied no all right thank you commissioner nowakowski and you're planning to put the exit on 74th avenue at rose lane was there any consideration um putting it further south if you're in your mitigation what i heard is that you're planning to put speed cushions along 74th but that would kind of be better if the exit was further further south and then also secondary question the the north side of claremont that's in contention where it's worth bottlenecks i guess claremont bottlenecks whose property is that is that the same property owner where the bees are developed occurring or is it a different property owner i'd like to state my name and address for the record james alexander 1284 east spur avenue gilbert arizona first question regarding moving the secondary access south the traffic impact analysis found that the further south that you move the entrance the more traffic that would travel on to 74th avenue up to claremont so we actually moved the secondary access as far north as possible to reduce the number of additional trips that would be added to claremont and 74th avenue from our community we actually had it a little bit further north but we're asked by staff to align it with rose lane so we did that in addition to creating some additional landscape buffer on the north east corner of the property regarding the speed cushions the speed cushions and conversations with staff yesterday the speed cushions would primarily be on the northern part of 74th avenue to reduce the speeds approaching that that that turn and we would we would be leaving them off further south to assist with the flooding that was discussed earlier to allow the water to flow into the inlets that would then take it into the retention areas uh and i'm sorry there was one last question who owns that right away uh that's the the area that's in contention is owned by two two different owners uh the the western part of it is owned by uh maya long and the eastern part of it is owned by rebecca johnson okay can you address a little bit the flooding issue concern at 74th and bethany uh yes so um we will have retention that that is in that uh south east corner at 74th uh in bethany and we will have inlets for the water to flow into our retention to try to capture some of that and the improvements are half street improvements to the street putting in curb and gutter and putting a proper crown on the road is going to help that as well when the second gentleman spoke the resident spoke he mentioned cut through traffic going actually both ways and and i can really see that especially if there's students going to independence high school that the residents would be cutting through the beezer development to get a quicker shot at 75th avenue has there been any discussion about making that gated private streets uh it would then turn the streets to private and like you can speak more to that that be the payoff trade-off okay yeah any other questions that we can address no i just want to but mr chair i just want to comment that you know i i i've lived in the area i have friends in the area and i visit i'm i understand the area and the 71 homes is a lot better than the 80 that was proposed in april and i heard multi-family you know i went to a meeting years and years ago about multi-family going in this and the neighborhood came unglued and so i i did see the the effort with the buffering and i saw that you know it was you know there's 90 homes in the existing neighborhood and there's 71 in this one which has i think a larger footprint so i do see the work in in mitigating you know the impact on the neighborhood and i appreciate that but that area of claremont and 74th is the issue and the gentleman is correct claremont is the only shot to somebody first which takes you directly to glendale and bethany and and there's also by the church the the one one car on that road so i want to thank you i do see the effort and i do understand that issue at claremont and i'm not quite sure mr gaylord what happens from here to if it's approved to counsel if because i heard the names council member clark and aldama i'm sure there's some discussions that if you're privy to share with us well from here i would say that's a good question um they have the right to develop and it will result in added traffic impact to this intersection um what i'm guessing is there will be some sort of an interim kind of band-aid for that corner if it's a combination of speed cushions and signage and striping and i don't know maybe there's even an opportunity to create a dead end for some point in time until they come up with something else basically it's a project that needs to be addressed and prioritized by the city and that would happen at the council level thank you commissioners miss perry are there any final comments or procedural guidance we may have missed a comment i think we had one more public comment did you fill out a card i did mary kane i don't have it sorry gee we're sorry we missed you thank you so much my name is mary kay wanner and i live at 7328 west cavalier drive uh cavalier is just one block north of bethany my husband and i have lived there for 28 years raising our babies and i actually bought my mom and dad's old home and they bought it in 74. but i guess i want to just echo what everybody has said i don't want to take much of your time i know it's getting late we love i love our neighborhood 28 years in that area right there there's a reason why my husband and i have stayed we've raised our three kids they just recently in three years all got married and then started having babies so i'm now raising not raising but having grandbabies there i love it i love our neighbors we got good quality people there um but i've always wondered why glendale and maybe this is not the place to say it but i'm gonna just share it why has why i felt like we've kind of been left alone and there's some things that have needed to be fixed for a very long time and we're seeing it now and i don't necessarily think beezer has to fix that street somehow glendale should have fixed that street a long time ago we had a mass exodus in 2008 and 2009. my husband and i really prayed about moving but we didn't we stayed and we're thankful we did my house is worth 300 something thousand right now um we could move but we're not going to we love it i miss my field i will miss it but i understand development kind of excited about there's a little park i think my grandbabies will be going to that and i'm one of the ones that was at that first or second meeting that said can we make your homes look can we make your site look more like ours those need to be bigger lots like we this is home has been there a long time i love glendale i'm a glendale girl i graduated from independence high school i'm a senior class president and independence high school um we just i've always wondered and i kind of said this in an email recently what have you done for me lately you know like come on glenda like let's not leave this little neighborhood we've not left like everybody else has um i'm concerned about 75th avenue and bethany traffic no one's mentioned that today there are many accidents and i believe there have been fatalities there that's a lot of traffic that's going to happen the larger um lots and less families going in there could help that some but that's going to be an issue in addition to the claremont issue so i want to just to echo what everyone has said i love glendale i love that neighborhood but i don't know what i can do is there anything that we can do to get this speeded up in terms of making that corner right there safe what things that we can do to make that a different place again we've been there a long time we love it we don't want to leave but if everything just starts going crazy in terms of traffic it's going to be a scary situation i'm most concerned about the safety of our beautiful neighborhood filled with quality people thank you very much appreciate your time thank you mary kay thank you well i i think it's pretty clear that and mr gellard put it in pretty plain language that that particular problem is a city problem and not necessarily a developer problem at this particular time and in addition i think they have some access right-of-way problems that that are probably insurmountable even if they wanted to do something right now so that's a difficult situation commissioners anything else okay anyone else like to speak right miss perry are there any final comments or procedural guidance yes chairperson growing commissioner just for a point of clarification that um based on the decision that is rendered by the planning commission this evening on the preliminary plat that will be final for the preliminary plat however the next steps just to give clarity is that the developers will go through construction documents review followed by the final plat which would be presented before city council for a final vote on the final plaque of this application also i would like just to share based on what you've heard from staff and the applicant we've worked diligently on this project trying to find resolutions to claremont the applicant north staff took it lightly we overturned various different approaches to find the resolutions we included the city attorney's office to just to ensure to what point the city has some level of leverage to apply to the applicant to make some level of improvements to claremont the reality of it is is that this is an issue that the city needs to address our transportation department is aware of it they've been grossly involved in the process since day one um even though the application came in back in the month of april as you can see on the traffic the traffic impact analysis it's been revised three times they have three submittals the last one being in october that just demonstrates how collectively the planning division as well as transportation department has been working on these issues and there's opportunities to have speed humps that is something that our transportation department has a process in which they undergo they survey the area they get input from the neighbors to determine if indeed it's a necessity to have these speed humps or any other type of safety mitigations that they can take place knowing the concerns that's taking place on claremont i would like to reassure the commission that if the planning commission makes the determination to approve this preliminary plat the city is still working diligently to find resolutions to clermont thank you okay the public hearing for case number bp 21-04 is now closed gentlemen do i hear a motion cheer further discussion yes sir mr crow this question is probably mr gruber group is there a footnote we could make on this approval that we would like the council to take up the issue on claremont chair members of the commission i don't know if there's anything that you can add to the disapproval other than what you have already done which is to to state that intent and i believe staff has has heard that so i don't i don't know if staff has anything planning staff has anything to add to that they'd probably be better able to state that but i don't think we there's anything we can state other than what we've done along with this approval miss perry i don't like that answer is is there something else we can do we strenuously recommend chairperson chrome commissioners specifically commissioner crowe um we will continue to work on it to see where we can find levels of resolutions we will continue to work with um the applicants council members that the applicants have been speaking with and in between now the review of the construction documents and the final plat if there's a condition that is applicable that we can reasonably present towards the applicant and they can accommodate that then we'll address it between now and the final plaid but it is noted on record that the commission would like for us to continue to find some level of relief to address the issues that was brought before you this evening thank you commissioner anything else oh commissioner heath yes this is probably a question for mr gruber as well and it has to do with public notice and accommodation for disabled disabled folks so the lady sat here and sat through the meeting got up and spoke said that she notified and spoke with individuals in the city and had requested from the developers on numerous occasions to receive accommodation for this public meeting and it never came so now my question is we have had concerns about notice and people being allowed to attend these public meetings all along here where do we stand currently now that a disabled person has not been allowed accommodation to attend a public meeting uh chairman of the commission and commissioner heath that request did come across our desks and miss figaro and i worked with the person who stood before you earlier to try to make some sort of accommodation to see what would uh what would work for her for a meeting so i can't speak to it any further than that i think it was our understanding that the request had been granted so i think there was a communication breakdown at some point we'll have to look into that but certainly that's as much as we can that is something that we try to try to receive and respond to so do we have any concerns moving forward since somebody has not been allowed that accommodation chair members of the commission without looking into it further i i i don't have any at this point without getting a better understanding of what happened right now i don't have any concerns about it all right thank you commissioners anything else okay we will close the hearing ap 21-04 do i hear a motion mr chairman vice chair nyberg i would move that we approve uh application pp 21-04 subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report do i hear a second second any further comments or discussions on bp 21-04 okay i have a motion a second to approve case number pp 21-04 subject to the stipulations as outlined by the staff i will conduct a roll call vote starting from my far right commissioner crowe aye vice chair nyberg aye commissioner will fong i'd like to explain my vote certainly uh that that corner is a mess there's really a disaster going on right there like i hope the applicant works with the residents to come up with a a decent plan that makes you know at least a safe corner for everybody but i vote i commissioner naokowski explain my vote certainly i echo commissioner wilfong's comments and i just want to add that i do see the due diligence here with expanding 74th avenue adding that 30 feet adding 55 feet right away on 75th and and on bethany also and you know we really look at density and when you compare it to the 90 homes adjacent in these 71 homes and you're reducing the number of streets really also that are home occupied and i just think it's it's a good plan but we need to fix claremont 74th to make it a better solution for everyone so with that i say i i vote commissioner heath and i would like to explain my vote as well certainly i have several concerns first off we have somebody um a disabled party who wasn't allowed to attend a public meeting accommodation not made for whatever reason secondly we have a traffic report that is very seriously in question about how properly the traffic study was done um serious concern we have our own city staff who recognizes the area as being a traffic problem whether visa can fix it or not the trap the problem exists maybe something could have been done differently if the traffic study had been better conducted more detail more alternatives considered we don't know that because that didn't happen and with that i have to vote nay okay i'd like to explain my vote as well i i am concerned with the same same things that have already i'm not going to go through all of these things that the other commissioners have already said but i do appreciate the effort that uh beezer has put in to try to remedy the things that they could remedy i also appreciate mr gellard's uh comments in regards to the fact that that problem there on the corner is uh really a city problem i i appreciate the situation where the right of way to do much more is in the hands of somebody else i i am i'm a little concerned about the traffic report in regards to when it was done under the circumstances in that particular environment with covid and nobody going to work and everybody working from home and so on and so forth but based on the totality and all of the other positive things i i'm going to have to vote i okay case number pp 21-04 has been approved mr gruber what are the next steps in the process chairman of the commission your action with respect to case number pp 21-04 is final subject to a written appeal received within 15 days miss perry is there any other business yes um thank you oh chairperson crow um commissioners for item number seven other business there are no other business planning staff report yes chairperson crow commissioners actually have two items that i want to bring to your attention the first one is in the agenda for a presentation for the loop 303 area and as the staff member comes forward to prepare for the presentation i would like to just give you a brief introduction for that so last month at the request of the commission we provided a presentation on development that was occurring in the sports entertainment district hopefully the commissioners were appreciative of that information and you found it to be most beneficial in knowing the hard work that staff and staff has been undergoing for the last several years now what we would like to do in a proactive approach is to provide you with a presentation for our loop 303 area which the city identifies as the new frontier corridor this is a big win for the city overall so just to give context to it since 2019 approximately six annexation applications have been approved by city council in those six annexation applications applications that is a total of two thousand six hundred and sixty acres that have been annexed into the city limits in addition to that approximately 15 rezoning applications that came before a planning commission for recommendation and approved by city council that projected approximately 36 million square feet of potential development in that loop 303 corridor area what does that mean for the win-win for the city and for developers and for the community as a whole for the open facilities that are currently in operational status in the loop 303 area nearly there's nearly 1 500 employees generated under construction for development that is projected in one to two years is forecast at 3 000 additional jobs will be made available so over the next 10 years it's projected that a total of 12 000 to 6 000 additional jobs or in total would be generated in that loop 303 area so that is just the indication of all the hard work that staff has been doing to bring before a planning commission for recommendations to different projects in the loop 303 area to just provide a little more insight to that is approximately there is about 10 more properties that are anticipated to be annexed into the city within the next um 12 to 24 months and with that that would generate another approximately 620 acres more within the city limits that is a lot of growth for the city of glendale that is a lot of job opportunities for those that are looking for employment so with that i will turn it over to staff to give you the presentation good evening chairperson crow and commissioners my name is jonathan ramirez and i am the associate planner here with the city of glendale and today i will i will be doing a presentation on the new development within the 303 corridor here's a map showing what the what's surrounding the 303 corridor my main focus today will be from the projects from the from camelback road all the way to peoria ave and from litchfield road to west cotton lane the first project is the cotton properties pad it is approximately 161. approximately 161 acre site located between bethany home road and glendale avenue between kind lane and loop 303 there are currently three projects under construction within that area the zooty distribution center scannell and kentwood 303 kenwood 303 is a new warehouse business park with approximately 271 440 square feet of building area with around 10 of office area the second project is scandal 303 a proposed 49 acre development with two 413 thousand square foot industrial buildings to be used for warehousing space and office moving forward the pizzuti distribution center a proposed 54 gross acre project consisting of a new 900 000 square foot single warehouse and distribution facility part 303 pad approximately 340.22 acre site located at the northeast corner and southeast corner of glendale ave and state route loop 303 in the northeast corner of bethany home road and state route loop 303 there are currently three projects under construction within that area the first one is park 303 phase 1 and 2 westmac 303 and servo logistics center the current the first project under construction is servo logistics center it is addressed distribution and warehouse development it is currently a two phase complex of crosstalk warehouse building phase one of the building will have one million one hundred fifty five thousand square feet off phase two building b will have three hundred and eighty thousand four hundred and thirty four square feet the next project is westback 303 it is it contains two building developments consisting of approximately nine hundred thousand square feet of a warehouse distribution center on a 55 net acre site the next project is currently under review under design review it is for it is part 303 phase 1 and 2 4 to 1 million hundred thousand three hundred and seventy square foot commercial warehouse building with trucking yards parking lots and landscaped areas the next project is wolf logistics center pad a 1 338 acre site which is two miles long north to south the site spans from peoria avenue to northern avenue between rims road and 143rd avenue there are currently five projects on that location the first project is ball glendale this project consists of an approximately 515 966 square foot manufacturing and distribution center current status is it is completed the next one is cold summit a 350 000 square foot cold storage logistics set warehouse facility which is currently under construction the next one is red bull consists of a new 700 000 square foot structure that will be utilized for products production and distribution of beverage products the next one is lager house it is currently under construction and it is a built to suit crosstalk industrial building totaling approximately 818 and 103 square feet white claw an approximately 950 000 square foot building to be used for brewing and distribution of beverage products moving forward the cubes at glendale 30 a 335 acre site located at the southeast corner of northern avenue and reams road current status is under construction the proposed development the cubes at glendale is a proposed development of modern industrial park consisting of multiple attractive high-quality industrial buildings with the future his expansion totaling up to four million seven hundred and thirty one thousand four hundred and sixty square feet on a 335 acre site 75.6 acres of that of the cubes at glendale is at the north and eastern portion of northern avenue and reems road while the other half the other the southern portion of that of the cubesat glendale is currently under construction and this is what was a this is what was approved in design review commerce 303 located at the northeast corner of camelback road and al sub ave project is fully completed it is an industrial and warehouse development on approximately 73.9 acres side includes flight manufacturing and warehouse with office components current status is 25 completed and this is what was approved within the design review the next project is g-303 at the northeast corner of seville ave in maryland ave the status of this project is currently under construction there's two buildings planned for industrial distribution with approximately 1 million 139 and 40 square feet this is what the current project looks like today and what the final product will look like based on what was approved in the design review the next project is vt 303 located at the southeast corner of ceravo lab in maryland ave current status of this project is it is currently under construction the buildings are planned for industrial distribution uses and will include truck parking auto parking and other on other on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements this is building one of vt 303 building 2 and what the proposed final product will look like based on what was approved within the design review falcon park 303 located at the northwest corner of camelback road and 152nd ave this project is a high quality speculative industrial distribution approximately 599 000 square feet and it is anticipated anticipated that business operation in size will be dependent based on final user demand and this is what the proposed final product will look like based on what was approved within the design review and this is a map display showing all the current developments within the 303 corridor and that concludes my presentation thank you thank you mr ramirez miss perry anything else yes chairperson crowing commissioners um i would like to acknowledge before you diana figuerola she will be retiring in january [Laughter] this is her official last planning commission meeting as the recording secretary she was not expecting me to do this so i've caught off guard so she's been with us for more than 25 years so a lot of experience historical knowledge will be retiring when she leave us but then more so for the many viewers that have seen her sitting here at the diastasia recording secretary i just wanted to make sure it was on record that we don't see her that it's because she has earned her right and deserve to enter into retirement so i just would like to say before the planning commission that we're very appreciative of her hard work and her dedication to ensuring that the planning commission has been operating and running as smoothly as it has for many many years [Applause] well as the chairperson i interface with diane figueroa quite often and i can tell you diana it has been an absolute pleasure and it's been my honor to work with you and i can tell you that at least from my perspective i will miss you greatly thank you so much for everything that you've done mr chair commissioner nowakowski you're you're going to be so missed yes i've known you for over 20 years when i was a glendale employee and you know your smile your optimism you're willing to go the extra mile for anybody you know i i truly believe that you know positions could be filled but people cannot be replaced you're one of those irreplaceable people and i thank you for your service to this commission to the citizens of glendale and you're just a great person thank you thank you miss perry commissioners any comments or suggestions okay our next regular meeting of the planning commission will be held on january 13th at 6 00 pm if there's no further business i will now entertain a motion to adjourn support i have a motion in a second uh to adjourn all those in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed we stand adjourned you