Buckeye Planning Commission unanimously approves AIM Recycling facility despite agricultural neighbor objections

Buckeye Planning Commission Approves AIM Recycling Facility Over Unresolved Neighbor Opposition

The Buckeye Planning Commission voted unanimously on September 11, 2024, to approve a 61,800-square-foot non-ferrous metal recycling facility on 44.3 acres at the southwest corner of Pala Road and Baseline Road. The approval of American Iron and Metals' (AIM) site plan came despite months of objections from the immediate western neighbor, MedMa Produce Incorporated, which claims the chain-link fence and required landscaping buffer will inadequately protect its future food-processing facility from pest infestation. The vote was 5–0, with the applicant and city staff maintaining that all code requirements were met.

The meeting also saw unanimous approval of a 143.5-acre rezoning of the SR-85 employment corridor from Planned Residential to Planned Area Development—recommended to City Council—and the standard approval of Festival Ranch's 139-unit preliminary plat.

Key Speeches

"We've been working since 2022 on this site, and we're very excited to be here tonight for your site plan approval… I may have normally forgone a presentation but for the fact that MedMa has proposed some opposition to this site. We wanted to be here to address that." — Ben Graff, Corrl and Brady, counsel for AIM

"Staff does recommend approval of the proposed site plan subject to conditions A through RR… We do believe that the use—recycling center use on this property—is permitted in the GC District per the language in the obsolete code, and we don't anticipate any adverse impacts either from a visual standpoint or from a noise, light, odor type of standpoint." — Ken Galikowski, City Planning Manager

"A simple chain-link fence simply isn't adequate to protect this against pests… We respectfully request from this commission that stipulations are incorporated for that full CMU wall down the western side and the removal of that landscaping." — Kurt Waler, representing MedMa Produce

"When you think about what the future is in terms of environmental compliance, the green new deal—however you may feel about any of those things—AIM is an organization that is really the boots on the ground for that." — Kevin Faucet, Corly Colie Architects

Timeline

AIM Recycling Site Plan (PLZS-SP-23-D17)

• City staff presentation: Ken Galikowski outlined the 95.9-acre master plan property (phase 1 = 44.3 acres), zoned General Commerce and designated as an employment corridor. No crushing or shredding on-site; pre-shredded metals arrive by rail and truck, are sorted via conveyor system, and are re-bundled for shipment. Hours: Monday–Friday, 6 a.m.–6 p.m. Two buildings: primary sorting facility (61,800 sq ft, 63 ft tall); administrative/processing (15,493 sq ft, 39 ft tall, expandable to 56,000 sq ft). Screening includes 8-foot masonry wall along Baseline Road, vinyl-coated chain-link with privacy slats along western edge, and required 30-foot landscape buffer (trees at 20–25 ft intervals). City staff recommended approval, noting use is permitted under the obsolete General Commerce code language and that setback, landscaping, and architectural requirements are met. Staff emphasized that no adverse visual, noise, light, or odor impacts were anticipated.

• Applicant presentation: Ben Graff noted AIM has been working with the city since 2022 and obtained written confirmation of use permissibility before purchasing the property in January 2023. Graff acknowledged MedMa's opposition but expressed confusion about the nexus between the recycling operation and pest infestation of a non-existent future facility. Kevin Faucet (Corly Colie Architects) highlighted the contemporary design of the buildings (block, concrete, metal, translucent polycarbonate paneling), the non-ferrous focus (aluminum, copper, glass—not steel), and underground stormwater retention with passive filtration in the southwest corner, designed to meet the 36-hour drainage standard. Faucet reiterated that materials storage piles are screened and operationally monitored. Graff stated that the applicant had offered to split the cost of a full CMU wall (~$400,000–$500,000) with MedMa on a 50/50 basis, but that offer was rejected that afternoon by attorney Paul Gilbert, who demanded 100% cost coverage by AIM.

• Public comment: One speaker, Kurt Waler, representing MedMa Produce. Waler stated that MedMa purchased the subject property in 2019 to establish a future food-packaging plant and is currently cultivating cabbage on the site. He asserted that the chain-link fence with slats is inadequate protection against pests (rodents, birds) and that the landscaping buffer—which he claims attracts birds and other pests—would create "significant restraints" on the company's future FDA-compliant operations. Waler noted that MedMa had engaged with AIM since at least April 2024 and that City Attorney Tasa confirmed at an earlier meeting with Councilman Junker that required wall and landscaping revisions could be done administratively. Waler requested full CMU wall and removal of landscaping as conditions.

• Commission questions: Commissioner Rale asked whether magnesium (a potentially flammable metal) would be processed on-site; Faucet answered no. Commissioner asked about runoff and whether oily/greasy materials would escape off-site; Faucet described the underground containment system and passive filtration in the southwest basin. Commissioner Basler praised the architectural design. Commissioner Manuel asked which building was 63 feet tall; Faucet identified the rear sorting facility, several hundred feet from Baseline Road, and emphasized sight-line mitigation through walls and landscaping. Commissioner Ragdale asked whether negotiations would continue post-approval; Galikowski stated the two private parties may continue negotiating, but the city will not police compliance. Commissioner Manuel clarified that the code requires a 30-foot landscape buffer and an opaque screen (chain-link with slats is acceptable when not adjacent to public streets), but questioned whether the city could impose additional conditions requiring a CMU wall or removal of landscaping. City Attorney Tasa did not directly answer but noted that imposing something beyond code requirements would need additional findings and discussion.

• Council discussion: Councilman Junker (invited to comment per the transcript exchange) confirmed hosting recent in-person meetings with both parties and noted MedMa's FDA concerns, but did not offer new conditions.

• Vote: Unanimous approval (5–0), conditions A–RR. All commissioners present voted in favor; no abstentions or absences noted.

SR-85 Industrial Park Planned Area Development Rezone (PLZZ-22-0013)

• City staff presentation: Sean Banda presented the rezoning of 143.5 acres at the northeast corner of State Route 85 and Southern Avenue from Planned Residential to Planned Area Development. The site encompasses two ownerships (Cardinal Capital on the west, Albo on the east) and is located in the newly designated employment corridor (per a general plan amendment ~2 years prior). A Planned Area Development rezone allows flexibility in use (light industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, office, and commercial frontage) and signage while maintaining urban design standards. The applicant's narrative and exhibits (prepared by landscape architect Jack Gilmore) commit to high-quality commercial/office buildings along the Southern Avenue frontage, with light-industrial facilities behind; maximum height of 50 feet. Staff negotiated conditions over two years, ultimately removing conditions D (maintenance improvement district—city engineer confirmed not required) and L (mislabeled reference to CMP). Final conditions: A–X. Staff recommended approval and Council recommendation.

• Applicant presentation: Jack Gilmore stated that the flexibility allows different users to design buildings tailored to their operational needs without rigid zoning dictates. Gilmore noted the project is "at a great location on this employment corridor" and anticipated that "as soon as we get water in the area, I think we're excited to get this project moving."

• Public comment: None requested.

• Commission questions: Commissioner Trupiano asked whether buildings along 263rd Avenue would be shorter; Banda clarified that the 50-foot maximum applies throughout, and the exhibits were illustrative only—flexibility is the point.

• Vote: Unanimous approval (5–0), conditions A–X, recommended to City Council for adoption.

Festival Ranch Planning Area 3F Preliminary Plat (PLZS-22-00004)

• City staff presentation: Ken Galikowski presented the preliminary plat for 139 single-family homes on 33.68 acres within the Festival Ranch neighborhood, west of 281st Avenue and south of Beardsley Parkway. Plat includes two lot sizes: 50-foot (north) and 45-foot (south) widths, aligned with neighborhood density standards. Full trail connections and required open space. No outstanding departmental issues.

• Applicant presentation: Frank Coupe (Wooden Patel and Associates) did not request time to present.

• Public comment: None.

• Commission questions: Commissioner Rale asked if the project was infill or standalone; Galikowski confirmed surrounding parcels are undergoing similar preliminary-plat reviews as part of the larger Festival Ranch build-out.

• Vote: Unanimous approval (5–0), conditions A–M.

Opposition

AIM Recycling Opposition (MedMa Produce)

• Number of speakers: 1 (Kurt Waler, representing MedMa Produce, a Michigan-based agricultural operation with a property immediately west of AIM)

• Main concerns:

  1. Chain-link fence (even with privacy slats) is inadequate to prevent pest migration (rodents, birds, insects) from the recycling facility to the adjacent agricultural and future food-packaging property.
  2. The required 30-foot landscape buffer, while meeting code, will attract birds and other pests to nest in the trees, which will then migrate to the produce and packaging operations.
  3. The landscaping buffer creates "significant restraints" on MedMa's future FDA-compliant food-packaging facility design and operations.
  4. A solid CMU (concrete masonry unit) wall would provide superior pest-control protection compared to a permeable chain-link fence.
  5. The applicant's offer to split wall costs 50/50 is insufficient; MedMa requires 100% cost coverage by AIM.
  6. The city's allowance of chain-link fencing (rather than mandating CMU) undermines MedMa's food-safety planning.
  7. The recycling operation is incompatible with an agricultural preserve zoned for future food-processing use.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Pest migration is a legitimate food-safety concern in food production and packaging. Rodents and birds are vectors for contamination.
  • FDA compliance for food-packaging facilities typically involves stringent pest-control protocols, and proximity to industrial metal recycling (even if non-ferrous) may complicate certification.
  • The 50/50 cost offer ($200,000–$250,000 each party) may be perceived as shifting the burden to MedMa despite the applicant's argument that walls are not code-mandated.

• Organized groups: MedMa Produce Incorporated; represented by attorney Paul Gilbert (name not corrected in transcript, may be a local or regional counsel not on the canonical roster).

Support

AIM Recycling Support

• Implicit support from city staff: Ken Galikowski and the Planning Department clearly supported the application, noting that the use is permitted under the obsolete General Commerce zoning code, that all code-mandated setbacks and screening are met, and that no adverse impacts are anticipated.

• Commission support: All five commissioners voted in favor. Commissioner Basler specifically praised the design, noting that most recycling facilities "look like a junkyard" but this one does not. Commissioner Ragdale observed that "walls are more aesthetic in the industrial area because pests are going to find their way no matter what."

• Public support arguments:

  • Non-ferrous recycling (aluminum, copper, glass sorting) is an environmentally beneficial use supporting a circular supply chain.
  • The facility's contemporary architectural design, landscape screening, and operational controls exceed typical industrial standards.
  • The 95.9-acre site is large enough to absorb operations without impacting off-site uses; the rail connection makes it ideally situated for this use.
  • The use is a permitted employment-corridor activity consistent with the city's general plan.

• Organized groups: None formally stated in support, though Councilman Junker's involvement in facilitation discussions signals municipal support.

Project Details

AIM Recycling Site Plan

• Case number: PLZS-SP-23-D17

• Applicant / developer: American Iron and Metals (AIM); represented by Ben Graff (Corrl and Brady)

• Attorney: Ben Graff, Corrl and Brady, 2 North Central Avenue, Phoenix; Christian Brisb (AIM representative)

• Architect: Kevin Faucet, Corly Colie Architects, 7530 North 52nd Street, Phoenix

• Location / address: Approximately 1,300 feet west of the southwest corner of Pala Road and Baseline Road (exact street address not stated in transcript)

• APN (if stated): Not stated in transcript

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: General Commerce (existing, no rezone required)

• General Plan designation: Employment Corridor

• Phase 1 size: 44.3 gross acres

• Full master plan: 95.9 acres (phases 2+ not part of this application)

• Facilities:

  • Downstream sorting building: 61,800 sq ft, 63 ft tall
  • Administrative and processing building: 15,493 sq ft initial, expandable to 56,000 sq ft, 39 ft tall
  • Material storage bins and yards (height limited to 16 ft, fully screened)
  • Rail track extension onto property (coordinated with Union Pacific Railroad)
  • Truck parking and customer/employee parking (north of buildings, against Baseline Road)
  • City well site (150×150 ft, adjacent to Baseline Road)
  • Two public access driveways (full movement at northwest; three-quarter movement at northeast); emergency-only access through future phase property

• Operations:

  • Use: Sorting and processing of pre-shredded non-ferrous metals (aluminum, copper, glass, stainless steel)
  • Receipt: Via rail and truck (pre-shredded containers/barrels)
  • Process: Conveyor system separates materials; re-bundling into batches for offsite shipment
  • Secondary retail: Buyers of metal scrap (e.g., aluminum cans) may sell directly to facility
  • Hours: Monday–Friday, 6 a.m.–6 p.m. (administrative/retail); sorting facility near 24/7 to maximize machinery uptime
  • Stormwater: Underground storage in southwest corner with passive filtration system; discharge to southwest basin at controlled rate for 36-hour evaporation compliance
  • No crushing, shredding, or junkyard-type operations on-site

• Screening and landscaping:

  • 8-foot masonry wall along Baseline Road (wraps around northeast and northwest corners)
  • Vinyl-coated chain-link fence with privacy slats along western property line (full western edge)
  • 30-foot landscape buffer (west side, required due to adjacent residential zoning in Maricopa County): trees spaced 20–25 feet apart, mature height sufficient to screen rail cars (15–16 ft)
  • 60-foot landscape setback along Baseline Road (double standard setback): trees, shrubs, mixed plantings to create lush street frontage

• Changes from prior application: Not stated as a reconsideration; applicant had settled site plan with city by time of formal application filing in 2023.

Vote Breakdown

AIM Recycling Site Plan (PLZS-SP-23-D17)

• Final: 5–0 (Unanimous approval)

• Yes: All commissioners present (names not individually read into record, but prior roll call indicated all five seated: Vice Chair Burton, Commissioner Rale, Commissioner C, Commissioner Deasio, Commissioner B)

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: None

SR-85 Industrial Park PAD Rezone (PLZZ-22-0013)

• Final: 5–0 (Unanimous, recommended to City Council)

• Yes: All commissioners present

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: None

Festival Ranch Planning Area 3F Preliminary Plat (PLZS-22-00004)

• Final: 5–0 (Unanimous approval)

• Yes: All commissioners present

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: None

Outcome & Next Steps

AIM Recycling: Approved with 36 conditions (A–RR). The applicant may now proceed to construction permit and detailed design phases, which are technical reviews not requiring Planning Commission or City Council action. MedMa Produce's objections remain unresolved; the applicant's 50/50 cost-share offer for a CMU wall was rejected by MedMa's attorney the same day. The city did not impose additional conditions requiring a CMU wall or landscaping removal, citing code adequacy. Private parties may continue negotiations, but the city will not enforce compliance with any future private agreement. Ken Galikowski stated: "If they want to make changes they agree to something down the road they can bring that to the city, but it wouldn't be something that the city's going to police."

SR-85 Industrial Park PAD Rezone: Approved with conditions A–X and recommended to Buckeye City Council for final adoption. Final conditions removed the maintenance improvement district requirement (confirmed not required by city engineer) and clarified the reference from "CMP amendment" to "PAD." The project encompasses two separate ownerships (Cardinal Capital and Albo) that may develop independently or jointly. Maximum building height: 50 feet. Uses include light industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, office, and retail frontage along Southern Avenue.

Festival Ranch Preliminary Plat: Approved with conditions A–M. Standard preliminary plat approval; next step is final plat review and recordation.

Controversies & Context

AIM vs. MedMa Boundary Dispute

The dispute reflects a collision between the city's employment-corridor vision (codified in a recent general plan amendment) and a neighboring agricultural operation's food-safety concerns. Key tensions:

1. Zoning legacy: AIM's site is zoned under an "obsolete" General Commerce code from prior development code iterations. City staff and applicant emphasized that the code language explicitly permits manufacturing and outdoor storage uses "of similar character" to recycling; attorney Paul Gilbert (for MedMa) challenged this interpretation but was not persuaded by the city.

2. Code compliance vs. sufficiency: City staff maintained that chain-link fence with privacy slats and a 30-foot landscape buffer meet all code requirements for industrial properties adjacent to residential-zone land. Ben Graff (AIM's attorney) argued that a CMU wall was not mandated by code and offered a 50/50 cost-split as a gesture of neighborliness, not concession. MedMa rejected the offer, demanding 100% cost coverage; Graff characterized this as an unreasonable demand for a non-code-required feature.

3. Future use vs. current use: A critical tension is that MedMa's objections are premised on a future food-packaging facility that does not yet exist, is not under permit, and for which no formal application has been filed. Graff noted: "The complaints we've received are really not about the existing use of the site, it's that Meda plans in the future to rezone and create a packaging plant on site… there are no applications into the county nor the city for annexation or anything like that at this time." Ken Galikowski confirmed: "all we have is somebody saying that they might want to do this in the future."

4. Food-safety precedent: Waler cited FDA compliance standards, implying that the city's approval of AIM—without insisting on a CMU wall—may complicate MedMa's future certification. No food-safety officer or FDA representative testified; the commission did not hear direct expert testimony on the pest-control efficacy of chain-link fence with slats vs. CMU wall.

5. Agricultural compatibility: MedMa's position is that an intensive industrial recycling operation is categorically incompatible with agricultural/food-processing zoning and land use. The city's position is that the site's General Commerce zoning permits the use, and the area's employment-corridor designation reflects the city's deliberate shift away from residential and agricultural development toward employment/industrial use.

6. Councilman Junker's role: Councilman Junker hosted in-person mediation meetings, confirming both parties' positions. He did not, in his brief commission appearance, recommend conditions or side with either party, though his facilitation role signals municipal investment in resolution attempts.

Duration

• AIM Recycling site plan item: Approximately 90 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, public comment, commission questions, discussion, vote)

• SR-85 Industrial Park rezone item: Approximately 30 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, no public comment, brief commission questions, vote)

• Festival Ranch preliminary plat item: Approximately 15 minutes (staff presentation, no applicant presentation, no public comment, minimal commission questions, motion and vote)

• Parks and Recreation Master Plan presentation (item 4): Approximately 60 minutes (staff presentation by Bob Weiser and Sean Meeney, community engagement overview, five key themes, recommendations, questions and feedback from commissioners)

• Total meeting duration: Approximately 3.5–4 hours

Other Notable Items

Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Informational, no vote) Bob Weiser (Deputy Director, Community Services) and Sean Meeney (Kimley Horn, consultant) presented draft recommendations for the city's 10-year Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the first update since 2016. The plan incorporates input from over 23,000 community responses (528 statistically valid surveys, 1,000+ online surveys, focus groups, social media). Five overarching themes emerged: (1) celebrate natural resources; (2) enhance community connectivity via multi-use trails; (3) grow a well-distributed park system; (4) strategically provide programming (aquatics, fitness, arts, special events); and (5) reinvest in existing assets. Key recommendations include constructing new aquatic facilities, expanding trails, partnerships with HOAs and school districts to co-locate parks/recreation centers, and adding pickle-ball courts. Commission feedback emphasized desire for a larger recreation center (several commissioners cited Goodyear's recent facility as a model) and pickle-ball court expansion. Plan returns to Planning Commission on December 10 with final document; Community Services Advisory Board votes December 11; City Council consideration December 17.