good afternoon and welcome to the august 24 2022 uh city of mesa planning and zoning public hearing i'm jeff crockett i'll be chairing the meeting today we'll begin with a roll call chair crockett present vice chair heirs here board member alan is absent board member sarkissian here board member peterson here and board member pitcher here okay we have a a quorum so we're going to push ahead as part of our agenda today we have a consent agenda these items will be taken as a group and voted on as a group and not discussed separately we do have a comment card on agenda item 4d which is the texas roadhouse item that is coming off of the consent agenda and so we'll discuss that separately but that's the only comment card that i have on on well i have one other comment to read in on that item but i don't have any comment cards on any other agenda items so is there any anything else from the public before we get to our consent agenda i don't see anything so all right and board member peterson has volunteered to read our consent agenda today so that's that's so we'll turn turn it over to him for the reading of the consent agenda items on the consent agenda for the august 24th 2022 meeting are item 2a minutes from the july 27 2022 study session and regular meeting item 3a zon21-0115 district 6 within the 3700 to 3 900 blocks of south haas road located south of elliott road on the west side of haas road site plan review this request will allow for a multiple residence development recommendation is approval with conditions item 4a 0121-00966 district 2 within the 6100 block of east main street located east of wrecker road on the south side of main street rezoned from limited commercial lc to multiple residence 3 with a u designation and a planned area development overlay and site plan review this request will allow for a multiple residence development staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 4b 0121-00995 district 6 within the 8 900 block of east pecos road within the 7200 block of south 89th place and within the 8 900 block of east waltham avenue located west of ellsworth road on the south side of pecos road rezoned from light industrial with the planned area development overlay to light industrial with the planned area development overlay and bonus intensity zone overlay site plan and site plan review this request will allow for an industrial development recommendation is continue to the september 14 2022 planning and zoning board meeting item 4c zon 21-01271 district 4 within the 600 block of west university drive within the 300 block of north hossick and within the 300 block of north date located west of country club drive on the south side of university drive rezoned from limited commercial and single resident six to multiple residents four with the planned area development overlay and site plan review this request will allow for a multiple residence development recommendation is continue to the september 14 2022 planning and zoning board meeting item 4e zon 22-00263 district 2. within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of east inverness avenue and within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of south sun view located east of higley road and north of baseline road reasoned from planned employment park with a planned area development overlay and conditional use permit to planned employment park with the planned area development overlay light industrial with a planned area development overlay and site plan review this request will allow for an industrial development recommendation is continue to the september 14 2022 planning and zoning board meeting item four f zeron22-00436 district five within the 10 500 block of east hampton avenue and within the 1300 block of south 105th place located west of signal butte road and south of southern avenue rezoned from limited commercial with the planned area development overlay to multiple residents 3 with the planned area development overlay and site plan review this request will allow for multiple residents development recommendation is approval with conditions item 4g 0122-00437 district 6 within the 9 300 to 9 600 blocks of east germain road located east of ellsworth road on the north side of germain road site plan review this request will allow for an industrial warehouse and office development recommendation is approval with conditions item 4h zon 22-0535 district 1 within the 3900 block of east oasis circle and within the 2 800 to 2 900 blocks of north norwalk located north of mcdowell road and east of greenfield road site plan review this request will allow for an industrial development recommendation is approval with conditions item 4i zon 22-0593 district 2. within the 4100 block of east valley auto drive located west of greenfield road and north of baseline road site plan review this request will allow for an industrial warehouse and office development with contractors storage yards recommendation is approval with conditions item 5 a baseline logistics park district 2 within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of east inverness avenue and within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of south sun view located east of higley road and north of baseline road preliminary plat this item recommendation has continued to the september 14 2022 planning and zoning board meeting item 5b hampton town homes district 5 within the 10 500 block of east hampton avenue and within the 1300 block of south 105th place located west of signal butte road on the south side of southern avenue preliminary plat this request will allow for multiple residents development recommendation is approval with conditions okay thank you thank you for that uh you've heard the consent agenda do i have a motion to approve so moved we have a second a second all right we have a fur motion a second go ahead and vote please hi and aye board member so board member airs is an eye board member circusian isn't i okay by your vote of six eyes uh no no's with one absent you have approved your consent agenda um so rachel i'll turn it over to you now yeah chair and if you wouldn't mind correcting for the record that was the five eyes and two oh that's right it was five eyes with one absent thank you and yeah and one vacant thank you okay okay and chair i'm sorry i interrupted you and i didn't hear what you were saying no i would you go ahead and have us have our presentation on agenda item 4d absolutely so evan balmer will be making that presentation on uh case zon 22-0-437 nope nope zero zero five zero zero zero let me start over he'll be making the presentation on zon 22-051 thank you rachel uh chair board members this is case zon220051 which is a request for a site plan modification to allow the development of a new texas roadhouse restaurant adjacent to the existing texas roadhouse the subject property is located on the southeast corner of stapley in the us-60 it's cross-hatched on the map here two images of the site the first is looking at the existing texas roadhouse from stapley drive the second image on the right is from the mesa grand center parking lot looking to the west to give you an approximation of where the new restaurant would be located the general plan designation is mixed use activity this is generally large-scale areas over 25 acres that provide unique shopping entertainment and shopping and entertainment experiences and generally provide a mixture of different uses the zoning on the property is light industrial with a council use permit overlay that cup was approved in 1998 which allowed for the development of large commercial developments within the li zoning district the site plan for the site shows a new 90 approximately 9 200 square foot texas roadhouse built directly to the east of the existing texas roadhouse there are 66 parking stalls shown on the site plan there is a shared parking agreement in place for the mesa grand development which was put in place when the center was was developed when the excuse me when the new building is finished with construction the existing building would be removed in that area landscaped the landscaping plan shows primarily mesquites a few mexican fan palms and some red yuccas here you can see some elevations of the building this will be going to design review board in september the applicant did complete the system participation process which included letters to property owners within a thousand feet of the site hoas and registered neighborhoods within a mile of the site they did hold a neighborhood meeting in february via zoom they did have one attendee who had questions and concerns about parking for the center if i could back up just a second a few things that came up um at our study session the board asked about uh construction and where that would would take place the construction yard and where they would set up i spoke with the applicant and it was approved to be just on the east side of texas roadhouse as far north on the site as as possible to be hopefully as minimally impacted impactful to adjacent developments as possible and i did reiterate the fact that the intention with moving the building to the east is that the future restaurant uh the patrons to that restaurant would primarily utilize the parking that would be to the east of that site that being said um it is consistent with the mesa 2040 general plan as well as the uh review criteria for site plan review from chapter 69. uh staff is recommending approval with conditions i'm happy to answer any questions the board might have the applicant is here as well if the board has any further questions okay any questions from board members at this time okay i don't i don't see any questions now let me ask the applicant to come forward and address the board good afternoon chairman members of the board my name is heather persson my address is 4601 north 39th place in phoenix i would like to thank mr ballmer for that presentation and for clarifying the comment about the construction staging texas roadhouse has been a longtime member of the community as board member pitcher pointed out they're very excited to be bringing a new modernized facility and continue that relationship and and serving their um their customers here in mesa i would like to respond to a few of the issues that came up in the study session as mr ballmer pointed out the construction staging is a you know a legitimate concern that we need to address and we are working with the fire marshal and also with staff to come up with a plan that puts it as far north as possible and in the area east of the building we think that will be the least impactful to the other tenants but also for texas roadhouse that restaurant that's there is going to be operating during construction and we don't want that to be an issue either right um we think the construction duration should be about four and a half months um and again texas roadhouse is very motivated to to have that be as short as possible um to be a good neighbor and to be a good steward for their customers and their employees as for the permanent parking uh the plan that you reviewed was done with careful consideration and input from staff including evan including rachel and others we have done our best as a team to put forth a plan that meets the city's golden goals and objectives but that being said we are open to incorporating some additional parking if the board would like us to consider that so i have no further questions i do have john's story here who is at texas roadhouse as well as elena feaster our architect if there are any other technical questions that you'd like to ask them okay thank you questions from board members i'm not seeing any at the moment so uh let's go ahead and we've got one blue card so let's go ahead and hear from thank you um ryan bird would you please uh state your name and address for the record and then you'll have three minutes to address the board good afternoon chairman and members of the board my name is ryan byrd my address is 105 75 north 114th street in scottsdale arizona i represent the lot 3 owner charleston's building it's wasatch equity advisors and that's the building just to the south of the proposed texas roadhouse we are here today to object to the application as it stands now when we would like further comments and maybe a review of the site plan the number one objection is the parking we lose 26 spaces roughly based upon the moving of this building to the east in an already tight parking space that has an amc center in it which will greatly affect my client and his tenant charleston's if you look at the ccnr's for this location they are recorded and just so we're if i can read them into the record just the one section regarding parking it says the shopping center this is on number five page twenty four recorded document ninety eight zero three two six three three five the shopping center shall at all times contain a number of parking spaces equal to the greater of a 2750 full spaces or six parking spaces for each 1 000 square feet of floor area in the shopping center the site plan that they've proposed doesn't address this total at all that we're losing 26 so we're not sure if they're in compliance with the ecrs for this property secondly they haven't put anything in the site plan to show how we'll recoup the loss of those 26 spaces especially when they're going to be operating a restaurant while they're constructing a restaurant so now we have an existing restaurant we have 26 spaces we're losing and we have a staging area to the right of that that even takes more spaces for four and a half months on a center that is already struggling with parking and we get complaints from our tenant regarding that all the time so the question we have in the comments for the planner and for the applicants how many spots in the shopping center are we actually losing is it are they doing anything to recoup those spots are they in compliance with the ccnrs that control this property in addition to the ccnr's we have the construction work that says in the ccnr is that the work has to be a minimal disruption and i think when you look at where that staging area is and the loss of parking spaces for my client which is directly to the south of that location it's not a minimal it's going to be a major problem for four and a half months during construction and then after that we lose those 26 spaces roughly thank you if you have any other questions uh let me ask my board members any questions for mr bird on this board member pitcher do you have a question yeah i do we why don't we hear from the the applicant and see how they yeah and let me be before we do that i do have a question for mr burger so a board member heirs board member sarkissian do you have any any questions at this point i have a question for staff but not for the applicant or not for the public right now okay let me we'll get back to you on that let me just so mr bird um educate me a little bit you said that you're talking about the ccnr's and the number of parking spaces as you go east from both of these restaurants all the way to the end of the movie theater there is parking further to the east and i i go have dinner at both of these restaurants on a fairly regular basis so thank you you can yeah i love i love them both really they're terrific um and and and i know there's a lot of it's a lot of traffic congestion right around the restaurants but if you go further east you can always find a parking space now you're hiking a little bit further coming back to the restaurant but when you talk about the number of spaces you're losing what's the parking lot that we're talking about is the parking lot go all the way to the to the eastern boundary where the amc is or what's the what's the parking area that's covered by the ccnr's for your client the ccnrs cover the entire development of the mesa grand shopping center each individual certain pads are owned by mesa grand themselves other pads are individually owned but they're all subject to the ccnr's in that whole development okay and the issue is to the east where you're talking about that's where the staging is going to be yeah you can go for a good 100 200 yards to the east there's a lot of parking on the north side of the amc and and a lot of the times there's there's large areas over there that are vacant that you can park in like i said you just have to go further east but let me ask you this question have you had any discussions with um with texas roadhouse yet on this issue so i had brief discussions with the original planner i don't think it was mr bomber i think it was somebody else and they got transferred since that no we just got a notice on the door earlier this week i got an email from a mr hardman who is the commercial broker that represents the landlord entity for mesa grand just wanting to know what our concerns were i conveyed those to him he gave me some information with the site plan and how many parking spots we were actually losing because we didn't have any of that information because on the site plan you can't see it they just move the building to the east but it's essentially two parking rows roughly in the picture looks like they're about 10 each and then some towards the back of the new building so and i understand there's a lot of parking to the east but as you know people that go to restaurants they want to park right in front of both these locations no i know so i usually drop the family off drive east and then i hike back so i understand um okay any any questions for more from mr bird okay so let me i've got um did you want to hear uh board member picture did you want to hear from the applicant let's bring the applicant back up and and then we'll go to staff after that hi again um thank you mr bird for for sharing that for everyone um i would like to respond with respect to the construction staging it's a little hard to see on that scale of a map but what we're envisioning is a rectangular shaped construction staging area tucked right up against the freeway frontage um on the east side of the building so so it would be immediately north of where you're going to build the new restaurant is that north and east so it would be east of the black outlined site area but as far north as you can get without getting into the landscape or the right of way so i understand the concern and you know texas roadhouse is also very mindful of that as i mentioned um just to clarify too so the parking that's currently there will not be touched during construction because what's going to happen so that texas roadhouse can keep all their employees employed during this process they're going to build the new building on the east half of the site and then they are going to tear down the other building so they're not intending to impact that parking to the south of the building at all okay but but the parking to the east you're going to lose parking where the new building is going yes and then you're going to lose parking where the staging area is as well at least for the four and a half months right and i and and i you know i share um uh mr bird's concern over the parking but i i think that that is as far away from from charleston's and is part of our our plan right to keep that further away from them one of the ideas for moving the building to the east we actually think we're going to be more accessible to that parking to the east that you mentioned and you know i'm kind of the same i feel like i can eat more if i park further away so i may be in a minority but um our our hope is that with the new orientation of the building we'll be able to um be more accessible to some of those stalls they mentioned and again um we we can certainly talk about looking again at the plan with staff to see about adding some more parking but we have been working with them to come up with a plan that met the goals and objectives that the city is trying to achieve there okay does that answer your question mr pitcher so i've just got a couple of questions you know too to his points he had three one is uh is it in compliance with the existing ccnr's after after we believe so yes and that 27.50 is for the whole center like mr bird mentioned okay and the second thing is is any of the parking going to be recouped at all i don't think so because within we're not you know except for the construction staging we're not touching anything outside of the area that's outlined as the site and so the the parking that's currently shown kind of the south part of that site will still be maintained once the new building is up but the parking that i guess is at the northeast portion of that site area that's where the new building is going and those are the stalls that are being removed and so the in the third point was uh disruption and and you've addressed that so you know yeah i mean we want to be good neighbors and we're happy to you know have our superintendent go over and talk to the store manager and try to do whatever we can you know texas roadhouse does this a lot i know charleston does this a lot with their buildings and it's really important to you know try to minimize the disruption to the extent we can yeah i i too have been to both so i'm familiar with the issue any other questions for me any other questions for the applicant board member peterson heather what are the the uh the through the the association the obligations for both the approval to do this modification but then also for what for uh parking and and what's the status of of that approval through the association thank you for asking that uh good question so um james hardman that mr bird mentioned he's actually one of the owners of the center and um he and his partner had to get approvals from amc and i think one other owner because they were either in their lease or in the ccnr's allowed permitted to to review and approve and we've gotten those approvals from them okay any other questions for the applicant actually one quick point if i could um so a couple of things just um and hearing that by the way i appreciate that having that approval makes me feel a little bit better about it in general however just a couple of things i i think moving forward having those conversations um with charleston is going to be important i'm going to be honest i'm i think you're very optimistic thinking that four and a half months is going to be enough time to build that as an architect i can tell you right now that's very optimistic and i think there's going to be more impacts especially with the timing i'm curious you know and that this is not our purview but the curious is kind of the time frames when you'll be on site working and how that would impact the site i think there's going to be more impact than than you're kind of anticipating as well so but with that i would say having that kind of support and the approvals coming down from the center itself i feel better about it as well but i'd say encourage you to have many conversations and do what you can with charleston thank you i appreciate that um the construction timing we were talking about this earlier in in the recess and just being in arizona you know any construction project that we see they're usually starting real early and getting out early so the good news with that is um you know i know that uh texas roadhouse does mostly dinner right so there will be an impact there i'm not as familiar with charleston's but i would hope that um you know if if there is disruption it's it's not going to be going on the whole day and frankly will be done pretty early because people don't want to be out in the heat board member peterson yeah just one more comment on that four and and as uh as board member heirs just mentioned for you know parking of contractors or people working on that to have those push further to the east too so that for lunchtime or or that type of thing for for both charleston's and uh texas roadhouse that that there's not not that they're not in the the the prime spaces for for lunchtime parking i guess but you're right most of them are will be gone by early afternoon it's just that lunch time well we're happy to work continue to work with staff and charleston's to find the best possible place for the construction staging i mean we also we want to keep it close enough that then there's you know not a bunch of issues back and forth but i think you know our goal is to to make it as minimally impact impactful as possible thank you and i think the i mean the point is that construction staging is one thing but where your employees that are working their park is another and having them park in a place where it's not going to interfere with the existing restaurant parking would be helpful yeah and if you give me a moment john is that something that you guys can do we currently do that okay right now we don't want that prime part to use for our guests okay okay any other questions for the applicant board member sarkisian was your question for staff question i don't know if it applies anymore but i can ask it let's get uh mr balmer back up here to field this question oh and then you're good yeah remind me of that while you're doing that let me i have one public comment that we received in writing they asked that it be read into the record this is timothy leskowski 1332 east hope circle he is in support of this item his comment says i am a patron of texas roadhouse who lives just directly north across the freeway the food service and staff are excellent the restaurant is so successful that on any given weekend day there is a waiting line outside this can be uncomfortable on hot days as well as rainy ones parking is a big problem because of the current parking lot configuration i also feel that there are not enough ada parking spots i say this because many of the customers are seniors with disabilities who aren't always able to get an ada parking spot in closing i fully support the renovation and expansion all right so with that board member sir kissian ask away um just to clarify i believe um if you tell me if i'm wrong or the city of mesa manages the shared parking agreement making sure that the complex overall is still maintaining what it is required correct um thank you chair board members i kiss you no the the city does not enforce the ccnr's that would no i'm not i don't mean the ccnr's that's what i wanted to get to that too that the city doesn't enforce the ccnr's but don't we have so the shared parking agreement is not part of um the overall pad or development plan or anything uh chair board member sarah casey when the the shared parking agreement my knowledge was adopted at the time the uh the original development was was constructed um i don't believe it was part of the pad the site has a cup that allows for the large commercial development in allied zoning districts but the the shared parking agreement was not part of the original pad okay and like you said we don't have authority over the ccnr's correct private matter that is correct okay thank you yeah chair and board members if i could clarify a couple items that that came up during discussions as well um there was one question about the the permanent parking and if they were replacing any just to clarify there are going to be 13 additional spots that are provided um with this new design if on the site plan and you might have to zoom in evan but on the south side of the new landscape area there is going to be a new row of parking that's going to be installed there that will recoup some of those parking spots so when we talk about losing um 26 you're saying that we're going to get back 13 of the 26. yeah that is correct yes and then and then to follow up on um on board member sergey kissian's kind of comment is the city does not enforce the ccnars but we as a city look at the overall parking ratios that are required by the city to ensure that the development is still meeting those ratios so in that sense the the overall shopping center does still have ample parking to meet the required parking per the city and the comment we just read about ada parking did you look have you looked at that issue and whether the ada parking is is consistent with the requirements yes and with this new with this new design those 88 parking spots are actually going to be within that new row that's being provided right there so there will be 688 parking stalls directly adjacent to the entryway so board member peterson so what is the evan what is the net net parking difference from where we are today versus once everything's all built and up and functional yes thank you chair uh board member peterson so the required parking for this would be 100 and i believe it's 122 spaces based on square footage they are providing 66 spaces the original site plan i believe had 92 i think we're at about a 20 20-ish stall reduction from what is there currently okay so so minus 20. and then second question is the the the code for not allowing additional parking for not allowing parking between the building and stapley what is uh what what's what's the the workaround or is if if the applicant's open for that what what's the because it seems like it's a little bit of a wasted opportunity there sure thank you chair board member peterson so a couple points on that first we have requirements in our zoning ordinance to limit the amount of parking between a building and an arterial roadway like stapley we have code provisions that require parking on the side and the rear of the building this one is a bit of a unique scenario because there is an existing building on the stapley frontage and i'd like to point out that charleston's is also right up against the stapley frontage we worked with panera which is a little farther south so we've we've gotten a precedent for all the buildings along the street frontage we felt that with the existing building being removed the closest that we could get to those code requirements would be to include landscaping in in front of the building to be more in line with our code requirements that look to move parking to the side in the rear of the buildings and not have it between the front of a building in an arterial street so so is there a a a way to add parking there if that's if that's part of the permanent solution uh chair board member peterson the the reason that we we worked with the applicant to come up with with this solution was that this was the the closest that we could get to um our current code requirements so um it is i guess something that we could look at having parking in front of the building but it's it's discouraged through our zoning ordinance so if this was just a a clean site vacant property they're coming in to develop just from the ground up the requirement we would be looking for is to get that building as close to staply as possible to really engage that street frontage so not being able to do that necessarily with with this location we felt that the best engagement with stapley would not be parking rather be the landscaping which is is how we ended up at this at this scenario so chair board member peterson and just to just to follow up on that question so including a deviation it would require a pd at this point so we would have to come back we would have to re-notice this item and come back to the board for that motion yeah and just kind of as a background we did work very closely with the applicant on this design with the original design of this center as you can see those pad centers they were all directly along stapley avenue and that was sir safely drive and that was really the intent to provide you know that connectivity that pedestrian connectivity you know having the buildings really fronting the street there so originally they did come in and propose parking there which we told the applicant that that was not allowed per the code we've worked with them on solutions to be able to keep that existing building in place while they construct their new building and as evan was describing kind of the the solution that came about was being able to pull the landscaping towards the building to achieve that same intent without having them demolish the existing building and reconstruct it in the same place you know i suspect that moving the texas roadhouse further east is actually going to help the parking situation around charleston's in the long run i do continue to worry about the construction period over the next you know six months or a year in the study session i'd mentioned a good neighbor policy i know we don't the the city doesn't mandate or enforce those but it seems to me that that the applicant and the owner of charleston's could get together and agree on a sort of a code of conduct on how things are going to work during the construction period which is what i'm most worried about um so i don't know how maybe we could get a little feedback on on whether something like that could could potentially make things better i think during any construction project there's going to be inconvenience and an annoyance factor and things aren't going to work the best way they could while you're building but like i said i think over the long run this is going to be a a better situation for both restaurants once the construction's completed yes thank you chair crockett so um as the applicant previously mentioned they're willing to to work with charleston's maybe i'll let her speak a little bit more about that but we can as staff work when the construction documents come in to make sure that you know the staging areas and and those things are consistent with what we've we've discussed today to try to minimize as much impact as we can to both restaurants and i'll speak for myself but that would certainly be my expectation here that that would happen in this case understood any other questions for evan before we any other questions for the applicant or uh looks i'm not not seeing any okay well what is your pleasure on this one board i vote to approve the uh the matter but uh with conditions and and hope that they will the staff will oversee the construction and board member pitcher if you would make that motion in the form of reading the agenda item for the record i would appreciate it with regard to zon 22-00051 district 4 within the 1600 block of south staply drive located south of us-60 superstition freeway on the east side of stapley drive this is a site plan modification the the request will allow for the development of a restaurant the staff recommendation is approval with conditions i also approve this matter and so move okay do i have we have a motion do i have a second second all right we have a motion in a second let's go ahead and vote if you would aye board member airs aye okay with your vote of five eyes and one absent you have passed agenda item 4d uh rachel is there anything else from staff today chair i don't have any further announcements okay anything else from the board members all right oh board member peterson just real quick and instead of session we talked about this uh being leslie's last meeting with her retiring from the city and so again just both i've only been on the board a short time but i think for most of her time in the 20-plus years in the planning department that that i've had some interaction with her and it's all it's always been uh professional and uh and and great and i just appreciate all that you've done and wish you the best of luck in the future thanks yeah and i second those remarks thank you leslie she's all right [Laughter] no she's awesome she knows it we love her so thank you so i couldn't be there for your lust but we'll see you around all right well can i have a motion to adjourn our board meeting so moved a second thank you all right if you'd go ahead and vote aye hi all right we have uh unanimously passed the motion to adjourn thank you everybody [Music] [Music] foreign