Goodyear Planning Commission Recommends 20% West Valley Christian School Expansion, 5-0 Vote

Planning Commission Approves West Valley Christian School Expansion 5–0 Amid Neighbor Safety Concerns and Easement Dispute

The Goodyear Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously on June 12 to recommend conditional approval of West Valley Christian School's expansion proposal, which would add approximately 100 students (a 20% increase) and include a new classroom building, expanded parking, and outdoor storage containers on the school's 16.45-acre campus. The recommendation advances to Goodyear City Council on June 24 for final determination. However, the vote masks significant unresolved tensions between the applicant and adjacent property owners over traffic safety, private easement formalization, and the adequacy of neighborhood notification and process.

Key Speeches

"What we're asking the school to do is now to give me a recorded easement that goes with our property so if I ever sell my property the owners the buyers of the property will know that easement is for use of the property that I now own because it will impact any future owners of that property." — Raymond Ortiz, property owner

"I almost killed every time I go up and down my driveway and so it not only that but the parents um yell vulgar things to us and flip us off I mean sad to say it definitely happens and my grandchildren are with me when it's being done." — Pearl "Dolly" Ortiz, property owner

"Construction on the special use permit request items um have not begun okay just for parking and Grading." — Staff response regarding pre-approval construction

"This sup is really just about can the use of expansion of the school occur on the property" and "the property Zone AU so even in even with its current entitlement any site plan subdivision or anything of that nature would all be administrative and need to be addressed." — Staff clarification on scope of special use permit versus later traffic mitigation

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Assistant Planner Jimmy Carion presented the application on behalf of Mike Patton, introducing the site as four separate parcels (16.45 acres total) zoned agricultural, urban, or commercial office at the northeast corner of Sahel Avenue and Van Buren Street. The school currently enrolls approximately 400 students; the expansion would add about 100 students.

• Site history: The property was annexed in 1983 with agricultural-urban zoning. In 2007, the northeast corner parcel was rezoned to commercial office following a failed office-building proposal. The school was originally built in 2002 and became a "legal non-conforming use" when the 2007 ordinance imposed the special use permit requirement—allowing certain improvements without prior approval.

• Design evolution: Carion reported that after a neighborhood meeting on May 22, the applicant redesigned internal circulation to move student pickup and drop-off from the northern portion of the lot (adjacent to the residential property north of the school) to the southern portion, eliminating direct conflict with the neighboring residence and creating a "fully paved residential and emergency access drive" between 161st Lane and 161st Avenue for use only by residents, their guests, and emergency services.

• Staff recommendation: Staff recommended conditional approval, citing the traffic management plan, restricted-use driveway, and rod-iron fencing (to prevent queuing along 161st Avenue) as sufficient mitigation.

• Public comment: Four residents spoke; two were Raymond and Pearl Ortiz (the property-owner couple seeking a recorded easement), and two others—Leticia Castro (Wade Acres resident) and Ken Hub (unrelated Indian School roadway concern)—raised process and traffic-enforcement objections.

• Council discussion: Commissioners questioned whether a traffic study was required before approval, expressed concern about construction already underway, and debated whether to mandate a formal recorded easement in addition to the conditional-access requirement. Vice Chair Sam Beloe moved approval; Commissioner Wang seconded. The motion passed 5–0 with no dissents or abstentions by voting commissioners.

• Vote: 5–0, Recommend Approval to City Council.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 2 primary opponents (Raymond and Pearl Ortiz); 2 additional residents raising process and enforcement concerns (Leticia Castro, Ken Hub—though Hub's item was technically non-agenda).

Main concerns:

1. Lack of formal easement protection: Raymond Ortiz, a 15-year resident and property owner, stated he and his wife have a recorded easement for their 161st Lane driveway access but demanded that the new conditional-access route be formalized as a recorded easement with legal description to bind future property owners and protect against revocation. He noted the school's block wall construction proves its capability to build protective barriers.

2. Existing traffic violence and parental aggression: Pearl Ortiz reported nearly being killed multiple times using her own driveway, witnessing parental traffic behavior ("vulgar things," middle fingers) in front of grandchildren, and noting the school cannot currently enforce traffic control with 400 students—raising serious doubt about a 25% increase in volume.

3. Insufficient student-count transparency: Castro and the Ortiz family noted the neighborhood meeting disclosed plans for approximately 50 additional students, but the actual proposal adds 100—a 20% increase versus ~12.5%, suggesting a material change unshared before the hearing.

4. Inadequate notification and single neighborhood meeting: Castro emphasized the city's 500-foot notification radius is insufficient for the Wade Acres community, which has been "significantly affected" by existing school traffic. She stressed that only one neighborhood meeting was held, and that residents' safety suggestions were not implemented in the final proposal.

5. Premature construction: Castro reported that grading and parking construction began the day after the May 22 neighborhood meeting, undermining confidence in the approval process and residents' ability to influence design. She questioned whether the conditional commitments would actually be enforced.

6. Lack of current traffic management: Castro and Ortiz both emphasized that the school has failed to enforce traffic control for its current 400-student enrollment, and residents fear adding 100 students without demonstrated compliance mechanisms is reckless.

7. Process violations and false assurances: Ortiz noted residents provided the school with a purchase proposal (implying willingness to sell the property rather than defend an easement dispute) and had discussed details in person, yet received no documented response—suggesting the conditional-access language may not be binding or enforceable.

Most compelling arguments:

The Ortizes' insistence on a recorded easement reflects a sophisticated understanding of real-estate law: conditional-use restrictions are more easily modified or abandoned than recorded easements, which run with the land. Leticia Castro's assertion that construction commenced before community input was finalized, combined with the 50-to-100-student discrepancy, suggests process opacity. The accumulation of reports of aggressive parental behavior and near-accidents on the shared 161st Lane driveway anchored concerns in observed safety conditions rather than abstract projections.

Organized groups: None identified; opposition was primarily from directly affected residents (the Ortiz family, Wade Acres residents).

Support

No speakers voiced support. The applicant (Mike Patton, Jeremy Hines, Director of Development Operations) attended but did not make an affirmative public statement. Staff presented the application as administratively approvable under the conditions outlined. The commission voted unanimously without recorded dissent.

Project Details

• Case number: Not explicitly stated in transcript; referred to as "West Valley Christian School expansion, special use permit."

• Applicant / developer: West Valley Christian School; represented by Mike Patton and Jeremy Hines (Director of Development Operations).

• Attorney: None identified in transcript.

• Location / address: Northeast corner of Sahel Avenue and Van Buren Street, Goodyear, Arizona. The site includes four parcels and is situated north of Van Buren Street, adjacent to the Roosevelt Irrigation District Canal (west), Harvest Baptist Church and Palm Valley Montessori (north), single-family residential (south and east), and multifamily residential (west).

• APN (if stated): Not provided in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Mixture of agricultural-urban (AU) and commercial office (CO). No zoning change proposed; the special use permit allows the school expansion to proceed under its current zoning designations.

• Current enrollment: Approximately 400 students.

• Proposed enrollment: Approximately 500 students (100-student, ~20% increase).

• Physical improvements:

  • New classroom building (architecture and materials to match existing structures; stone, stucco, window awnings).
  • Parking lot expansion, located east of the new classroom building.
  • Up to four outdoor storage containers (metal construction, not visible from Van Buren Street).
  • Fully paved residential and emergency-access driveway connecting 161st Lane to 161st Avenue (for exclusive use by residents north of the school, their guests, and emergency services; prohibited for school drop-off/pick-up 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.).
  • Rod-iron fencing along the west side of 161st Avenue on school property to prevent vehicle queuing and pedestrian overflow.

• Changes from previous version (if reconsideration): This is not a reconsideration. However, the site plan was redesigned after the May 22 neighborhood meeting to relocate student pick-up and drop-off from the northern parking area (adjacent to the residential property) to the southern portion, eliminating internal circulation conflicts with the neighboring residence.

• Acreage: Approximately 16.45 acres (four parcels combined).

• Future phases: Parcel 1 (north, ~5 acres) is envisioned for recreation and sports activities with potential for future classroom expansion; Parcels 2 and 3 (east and northeast, at the corner of 161st Lane and Van Buren) currently serve as temporary parking and may be developed for recreational fields, additional permanent parking, or classroom expansion depending on future school needs. Parcels 2, 3, and any work on Parcel 1 would require future site-plan review and approval, not covered in this special use permit.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 5–0, Recommend Approval.

• Yes: Vice Chair Sam Beloe (motion), Commissioner Wang (second); Commissioners Smith, Nepo Misino [sic], and Chairman Climer voted in favor (individual votes not named, but all five present commissioners approved).

• Abstentions / absences: Commissioners Hegedus and Booth were excused at the beginning of the meeting and did not participate.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditional approval of the special use permit and forwarded the application to Goodyear City Council for a final vote on June 24, 2024. The approval is contingent upon the following (as articulated by staff):

1. Parking Management and Queuing Plan: The school must create and submit a plan clearly showing student pick-up and drop-off routes, excluding the residential and emergency-access driveway (161st Lane–to–161st Avenue connection). The plan must be provided to enrolled students and families at least 14 days before each school year and upon new enrollments. The school is responsible for enforcing compliance, and any revisions must be resubmitted to the city for approval.

2. Residential and Emergency-Access Driveway: A fully paved driveway must be completed and certified for occupancy before the school issues certificates of occupancy (CO) for new classroom construction, ensuring resident access is unimpaired. The driveway may be used only by residents north of the school, their guests, and emergency services. School activities (parking, queuing, pick-up/drop-off) are explicitly prohibited on this driveway between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

3. Rod-Iron Fencing and Gate: A rod-iron fence parallel to 161st Avenue (installed on the west side of that roadway, on school property) will restrict pedestrian and vehicular traffic from queuing or spilling onto 161st Avenue. The residential and emergency-access gate will be incorporated into this fencing.

4. Outdoor Storage Containers: No more than four outdoor storage containers are permitted, and they must be constructed of metal and not be visible from Van Buren Street.

5. Secondary Access Provision (Not Formalized as Easement): Staff clarified that the residential and emergency-access driveway is a condition of the special use permit, not a recorded easement. The condition can be modified only if the property owner to the north provides written notice to the city requesting revocation, or if the property changes hands and a new owner requests modification. The city cannot unilaterally remove it without the resident's consent.

No formally recorded easement was added to the permit, despite the Ortiz family's request. Staff noted that adding a second recorded easement alongside the existing 161st Lane easement could create unnecessary legal conflicts and restrict the school's future use of the parcel (e.g., for alternative commercial office development under the CO zoning). The conditional-access requirement, staff argued, is sufficient and enforceable.

Next steps: City Council will hold a final hearing and vote on June 24, 2024. The decision is final at that stage unless appealed or remanded by council direction.

Controversies & Context

Easement vs. Conditional Provision: The core dispute centers on the distinction between a recorded easement (a property-law instrument that runs with the land and binds successors) and a conditional provision of a special use permit (an administrative requirement removable only via written notice from the benefiting property owner or a board/council action). The Ortizes, represented informally by Raymond Ortiz (who mentioned consulting two attorneys), sought a recorded easement with legal description to protect their property rights and ensure future buyers and the school understand the access constraint permanently. Staff and one commissioner argued that a recorded easement would be overly restrictive to the school's future options and unnecessary given the administrative enforceability of the conditional provision. The dispute remained unresolved; the conditional provision was approved without being upgraded to a recorded easement.

Process Transparency and Premature Construction: Multiple residents expressed frustration that grading and parking construction commenced the day after the May 22 neighborhood meeting, before final city approval. Staff clarified that grading and parking work fall under "legal non-conforming use" exemptions—the school, having been established before the 2007 ordinance requiring special use permits, can make certain improvements without prior approval. This explanation did not satisfy resident concerns that the simultaneous neighborhood meeting and next-day construction implied a fait accompli and undermined the appearance of good-faith community engagement. Leticia Castro's assertion that the notification radius (500 feet) excluded the Wade Acres community, a more distant but directly affected residential area, raised questions about the city's notification standards for sensitive land uses like schools.

Student-Count Discrepancy: Residents reported being told at the neighborhood meeting that the expansion would add approximately 50 students, but the application disclosed 100 students (roughly a 20% increase from 400 to 500). While this may reflect refinements in the applicant's internal planning, it undermined resident trust that the neighborhood meeting was presented with accurate projections. The school's current inability to manage traffic with 400 students—a point repeatedly asserted by the Ortizes and Castro—casts doubt on the feasibility of adding a 25% increase without significant operational changes.

Traffic Study Deferral: One commissioner questioned why no traffic impact study was presented before the special use permit approval. Staff explained that a final traffic study would be required as part of site-plan approval (a later administrative step), but this meant traffic mitigation concerns raised by residents were not formally addressed before the commission vote. The commissioner noted this puts the burden on residents to advocate for traffic controls later, rather than having the city or applicant demonstrate feasibility upfront. Staff countered that traffic-management requirements in the special use permit conditions (the queuing plan, fencing, restricted-use driveway) partially addressed circulation without requiring a full study.

Legal Non-Conforming Use Doctrine: Staff invoked the legal non-conforming use doctrine to explain why the school can undertake certain improvements (including grading and parking work) without a special use permit. The school was built in 2002, before the 2007 ordinance imposed the special use permit requirement. This gave the school grandfathered rights to make certain additions, but triggering a major expansion forced conformance. The explanation satisfied the technical zoning question but frustrated residents who viewed it as a loophole allowing construction before community or formal regulatory review.

Mailbox and Property Access: A tangential but revealing detail emerged: the Ortizes mentioned concerns about the location of their mailbox relative to the new driveway and school traffic patterns. One commissioner asked whether the city could work with the U.S. Postal Service to relocate the mailbox, but staff noted that federal authority over mail delivery is beyond municipal control, and an easement does not compel such relocation. This unresolved detail underscores how neighborhood integration affects quality of life in ways the special use permit framework does not directly address.

Duration

• This item (West Valley Christian School Special Use Permit): Approximately 60–75 minutes, including presentation, public comment, and commission discussion.

• Total meeting: Approximately 100–120 minutes (the meeting also included minutes approval, commissioner excusals, a non-agenda public comment period, and announcements of two continued items: Guardian Storage special use permit and El Cedro restatement, both postponed to future dates).

Other Notable Items

Ken Hub's Indian School Roadway Concern (Non-Agenda Public Comment): A Goodyear resident, Ken Hub, raised a non-agenda item regarding the stalled construction of the Indian School roadway between warehouses and citrus in the development sedel (west of the 303 freeway). He reported over three years of incomplete work, debris, and safety hazards from broken bollards, and contrasted the slow progress with the efficient resealing of Indian School Road in the Palm Valley area. Staff committed to investigating and contacting him with an update. This concern, while not formally on the agenda, signals frustration with infrastructure timelines in less developed areas of the city.

Continued Items: The Guardian Storage special use permit and El Cedro restatement (pad site) were both continued to future meetings—Guardian Storage to be re-noticed for a future planning zoning commission date, and El Cedro to the June 26, 2024 meeting. Staff noted that El Cedro applicants requested modifications to stipulations, specifically regarding references to "Parcel 4" from prior ordinances, and submitted red-lined revisions for review.