all right welcome everybody to the November 13th 2024 city of Mesa planning and Zing board meeting public Mee thank you um we'll begin with a roll call chair SS as president president geez I said that one time before the keep giving myself to the election I know I'm sorry I'm tired Vice chair pitcher here board member Peterson here board member montz here board member blakeman here board member Carpenter here and board member Farnsworth here all right part of the agenda today we do have a consent agenda be read to the record and enacted on allinone motion uh these items will not be discussed individually and board member Montes has offered to read that for us today okay items on the consent agenda to approve the minutes from previous meetings to a minutes from October 23rd 2024 Planning and Zoning meeting item 3A Z1 23-00 208 East Market 32.3 Acres located at the northwest corner of South elworth Road and East Ray Road and the southwest corner of South Ellsworth Road and East Point 22 Boulevard site plan development potential review to allow for mixed use development staff recommendations continued to a date uncertain 3B z123 - 00210 East Market major budget transfer 32.3 Acres located at the northwest corner of South elw Ellsworth Road and East Ray Road and the southwest corner of South oh Southeast corner of South Ellsworth Road and East Point 22 Boulevard major land use budget transfer from development unit 1 to development unit 4 of the eastart community plan to allow for a mixed use development staff recommendations continue to a date uncertain item 4B Z1 23- 00970 Legacy Square 2.2 Acres located at the northwest corner of South pomoy in East 2 Avenue approximately 250 ft west of South Mesa Drive rezone from downtown residence 2 and downtown residence 3 to downtown core site plan review and a special use permit to allow for a multi multiple residents development staff recommendation approval with conditions item 4D Z1 24-15 5308 East Maine modern 2.3 Acres located approximately 600 ft east of the northeast corner of North Higley Road and East Main Street reson from limited commercial to multip multiple residence 4 with a bonus Den in intensity Zone overlay and site plan review to allow for a multiple residents development staff recommendation approval with conditions 4 e01 24- 636 Red Mountain Storage expansion 4.2 Acres located at 5612 East McDow Road major site plan modification and a council use permit to allow for an expansion of an existing mini mini storage facility gasa The Amigos Mobile Home Estates staff recommendation approval with conditions item 4f Z1 24656 az4 expansion mpca 16 acres located at the northwest corner of East Pacos Road and South Mountain Road major site plan modification spe special use permit and amending condition of approval number one for case number Z1 15- 024 to allow for an expansion to an existing manufacturing plant staff recommendations approval with conditions item 4 G z124 007 711 lot 7 at Thomas Road 1 acre located at the northwest corner of East Thomas Road in North 55th Place approximately 2600 ft west of North Recker road rezone from light industrial with a planned area development overlay to light industrial with a planned area development and bonus intensity Zone overlays and sight plan review to allow for an industrial development staff recommend ation approval with conditions item 4H z124 00745 Black Rock Coffee Bar 7 Acres located at 1050 South Country Club Drive major sight plan modification for the development of a limit service limited service restaurant with a drive-through facility staff recommendation approval with conditions all right thank no there's more right yep seven just okay 7A propos amendment to Chapters 67 and 87 of Title 11 of the mesa city code pertaining to residential zoning application review time frames the text amendments include but are not limited to adding time frames for administrative completeness review for residential zoning applications adding a process for res residential zoning applications that are deemed incomplete adding a time frame for approving or denying residential zoning applications providing exceptions from the residential zoning application time frames and adding a definition of residential zoning application Citywide staff recommendation adoption item 7B propose amendments to Chapters 34 and 87 of Title 11 of the Mesa City code planning to manufactured home parks and subdivisions and recreational vehicle parks and subdivisions the text amendments include but are not limited to pertaining dwelling units of conventional Construction in manufactured home subdivisions and recreational vehicle subdivisions modifying the definition of recreational vehicle accessory structure modifying the development standards for re for recreational vehicle access accessories structures adding a maximum height for dwelling units of conventional construction modifying measurements for required yard setbacks and miror revisions minor thank you revisions Citywide staff recommendations adoption all right yeah thank you thank you Bo M montz for reading all of that for us today so I'm looking for a uh motion to approve the consent agenda is read anybody somebody motion is there a second second all right all in favor everyone please vote on screen and that passes unanimously with everybody here thank you very much okay so now we're going to move into the rest of the cases and we'll begin with item oh my goodness we have too many pages 4 4 A I don't think we need a presentation does anybody want the presentation on for I'm seeing no okay i' like to hear you you'd like to yeah I I want to ask about the sound attenuation okay so we do want to invite the applicant up for a question about the sound attenuation for 4 A okay so we have them online um I'm being told that we don't see Ryan Alvarez online yet okay we'll do that chair Aris I do want to remind you we did receive an online request to speak on this item um Lance Earl and he is on the line oh we did do the should we wait till we get call the okay we'll hold off and do that next one as we get the applicant online okay all right let's go ahead and move to item 4 c um yeah come on up Josh just in case I don't know if we want to have the full presentation on this one but I knew do know we have some comments as well obviously yeah we do yeah they can do it all right thank you chair uh this is for Zo in uh 23-01 uh 003 also known as Carmelo by blanford Holmes uh this specifically is a request from AG to rs15 pad uh the AG is the uh proposed uh rezoning from when it was annexed uh there is a concurrent annexation that would accompany this to city council um and that would change that from the County zoning to the AG which is our standard practice for all annexations uh this request is for the southeast corner of McDow and HW Road uh it is located uh within the county uh it's within the general plan designation of neighborhood SL uh specifically desert Uplands within the desert Uplands it's intended to be a lowdensity residential area uh which is committed to that preservation of the natural desert open space uh as part of that developments are either large Lots with preservation on each lot uh or smaller with uh open space that's common to all all members and it would be maintained a lower density in the area uh again that this case is under a concurrent annexation uh which The Proposal is a rezoning from AG which is that agriculture to rs15 with a planned area development uh here's an existing photo looking at the southeast uh from that intersection of Haw and McDow oh does not be appear moving on the screen give me a second might be on the downstairs computer all right I'll continue with the pimary plat I'll try to describe it as best I can great it's on screen now uh it is 30 Acres uh it is primary access will be from AAL that is shown on the north side of this uh plat um there is a secondary emergency access that is only designed for a fire truck um because that uh required access to the fire code uh it is a total of 65 lots that range from 10,400 Ft to two or 22,616 ft as part of this plan area development there is quite a few uh deviations due to that um private streets as well as the overall changes to the lot sizes and there're as follows uh one of their deviations is that request to front onto that private Street rather than what is typically required for the city of Mesa which is on in public Street uh a maximum lock coverage being from 50 to the proposed 55 as well as the block coverage also to 55% a minimum lot area reduced down to 10,400 Ft as well as a minimum width of 75 Square ft or 70 ft as well uh there is a number of changes to the building front uh setbacks the request is for the front to be reduced down to 12 ft the uh front yard for the garage and carports reduced to 20 it fronts the road uh 12 ft if it fronts the side of that garage uh the street side is reduced to seven went adjacent to a minimum 8T wide uh landscape track so this would create an area of 15 ft and this specifically along McDow as well as Waterberry and then um you also have a rear reduction to 20 ft for the building or uh livable space as a whole and then porches and patios reduced to 15 specifically so also a reduction to the minimum lot Dimensions instead of being 20x 22 is uh on three specific models being reduced to 20 x19 as well as an increase in the wall size uh this is specifically as one of the comments that came out uh is the impacts to the neighbors and in order to reduce that they're proposing a higher wall to reduce that height impact as well as a request of 10 ft only if it's on top of a retaining wall with retaining wall would be 4 feet and the screen wall would be six for a total of 10 and then a reduction of materials required for specifically the Spanish elevations to that architectural style it tends to be more stucco and would be uh just accents so that is in common with other Spanish developments as part of this uh Outreach the uh the applicant reach out to Property Owners as well as H and registered neighborhoods in the area um there was two neighborhood meetings held one was on January 30th of this year as well as one on April 4th uh throughout those uh neighborhood meetings uh the neighbors came out were concerned about the density as well as the overall impacts to the desert open space um originally this project was proposed at 81 units that has now been uh reduced down to 65 which is reducing that uh the density from 2.83 down to 2.27 per dwelling unit acre uh staff finds that the overall project complies with the 2040 Mesa General plan chapter 69 of the MZ for site plan review chapter 22 of the MZ for the uh planned area development overlay as well as section 9-6 D2 of the city code for subdivisions for that preliminary plat staff gan's approval with conditions happy to answer any questions question any questions for Josh before we invite the applicant out no I think we're good I'm not sure if the applicant has thing to add to that I can do little or wait till after um does it matter we do let's just go ahead and do the public comment actually let's do that instead okay so I do know we have a few comments on there do we have anyone online for this one no no online for this one all all right so I do have a few cards here it looks like that would like to speak to this so uh what we'll do is invite you up um we uh asked that you state your name and your address so we know uh where you live and then we ask you to hold your comments to about three minutes um just to try to get through a lot of the comments that we have today I appreciate that so first person that we have for this I apologies uh you will need to officially open the public hearing first thank you we will officially open the public comment portion of this one and we will invite up uh Brian Hansen if he's here appreciate you coming up yes thank you uh for hearing my comments um I have a very specific one on my card which is in the big picture for this development um I am a resident in uh Thunder Mountain Estates which is directly north across McDow I see heads nodding um so you're familiar with the area uh my comment is simply that as proposed and as laid out in the preliminary plat uh what is Planned is atypical for the neighborhood and by that I mean Thunder Mountain uh residences that were built in recent years to the north uh older residences to the South and further to the uh West so I consider it to be atypical and the zoning that you're considering today at R15 uh allows for some very small lot sizes you're talking about Construction in an area that has typically half acre to one acre lots and so my opposition to the preliminary plat is that I think zoning on the order of half an acre per dwelling is what's appropriate for the neighborhood it's what's appropriate for what's already established and existing so from a big picture comment uh that would be the point I would like the board to very strongly consider is that this is atypical and I am not opposed to the area being developed I understand that very clearly but I think what's incumbent upon development for areas residential areas in particular is that you have some consistency working through the neighborhoods and uh that just promotes um uh greater acceptance uh for all of the existing residents of what's proposed so I'll stop there that's a big picture that I would like you to consider thank you thank you Mr answer appreciate you coming in uh next we'll invite up Lisa Benjamin what's what is it says Lisa Benjamin is that not correct no um my last name is karuth c a r u h can you give me your address 2647 North Waterbury Road it says Lisa Benjamin it happens it used to be my last name before I got married this second [Laughter] time so go ahead um uh thank you for um hearing us I'm speaking for a group of Neighbors in the area and we also have opposition to the density the rs15 zoning which is 15,000 square foot Lots I think a lot of us would be okay with that um however with the builder doing the pad the pad over it they're asking and I guess uh may get many exceptions to the rs15 zoning um re regulations like instead of 110 feet wide Lots it's 75 that's a pretty big difference and then the uh garages and carports the front yard distance instead of 30 ft they're going to be cut down to 20 ft and 12T and then then the um rear porches and patios are being cut from 30 ft down to 15 ft and um the there's other items about where the um the lock coverage is going down also so all those items together which are cutting down the open space around each home on the property and the density with the number number of lots on the property it's just to we neighbors it's going to feel like it's very dense you know mostly homes close together so all those exceptions that are in our mind are breaking the rules of the zoning which I know the pad allows exceptions but I think that they should really be considered um not just as one bulk item when rubber stamped I really would like um you to consider those different exceptions that are being asked for that are really going to you know add to the density and the number of houses closer together closer to the street that sort of thing thank you yes thank you for coming and we appreciate it uh Paul sharp we go make sure that's the right name yeah that's correct um 8507 East mallerie so I live just south of the proposed development and I understand that eventually it's going to be developed but again like previous folks I just feel it's um uh trying to be reasoned in Mesa so that they could reduce the size of the Lots as as was pointed out um so Bland in their brochures mentions desert Uplands well it's kind of a marketing thing for them to make you think it's a you know large area but I think it's going to detract and um it's just not to fit in with our our developments around there you I'm in one of the large Lots just south one of the older homes um the other thing I'm I'm a little concerned with Blandford I'm also live adjacent to another blanford development that was put in years ago and we were well I have to say the neighbors told me they were promised one acre lots and single level homes that were adjacent to our community neither of those happened you know it just as soon as they had another meeting they increased the density and put a lot of homes along our our um Heros Vista Road there um see the only other thing to mention is I'm just wondering how many homes and developments are going to be put into the East Mesa and still leave McDow a two-lane road I don't know if you've driven down there but it's it can be pretty exciting some days um and again I I appreciate you uh give me a chance to speak thanks thank you Mr Sharp we appreciate that all right I think that's all the cards I have at this point for this case I will say also that we what's that I speak Jeff I didn't get that one one from Che it was the one that was submitted late online oh we discussed downstairs why don't you come on up then if you can give us your name and address and then did I miss that one thank you for uh hearing me uh my name is Jeff Potter I live at 8449 East Culver Street which is smack dab where this development is going to be right now all I have is a a beautiful Desert Landscaping and area that's out there in front of my view which also includes a nice view of uh user pass mountain and the surrounding communities uh I noticed on the developers uh petition along Waterberry Street where Miss KS lives uh all those are designated as single family homes and on Culver Street all those are uh designated as optional two-story houses which would greatly impede my view of the area uh thing I'd like to point out there is another area uh lot that's open that was uh prly accessed by the city of Mesa that is being developed by another developer and it's located on the uh corner of 87th Street in Culver over on the uh northeast corner it's a 5.9 acre uh parcel approximately and the developer that is developing that property is uh roughly those uh that he has proposed are going to be 3/4 of an acre lots which is suitable to the community which we currently have uh uh the uh proposal that they currently have uh like I said the 29 Acres that Lanford would like to develop uh I'm not opposed to it uh necessarily being developed but the uh density even though they started out at 81 and then dropped down to 65 sounds like they've made a big compromise but in reality compared to the houses in the surrounding commun Community uh that's not a very big sacrifice at all also all the uh um adjustments that they'd like to make to their proposed development the smaller size Lots the smaller size setbacks and everything I think is going to lead to a more crowded and condensed uh area and will have a great economic impact as far as lowering the values of the existing homes and the communities around us so I think that that is uh you know like I said I'm not opposed to developing but developing in a manner in which is consistent with the existing neighborhoods is more desirable I think uh anybody that you know whether it's across from where you may live or where I live I'm sure you would love to see something of equal value going in and not necessarily uh a mobile home park per se going into that area uh over on a Mountain Bridge Community which was also built by Blandford you have a lot of beautiful homes nice siiz Lots adjacent to that where they built the monaluna development all congested you can go in there and it's like they're stacked up like Cookie Cutters that's very inconsistent with the community around uh even in uh Mountain Bridge there they have nice uh desert Landscaping throughout the communities and the surrounding perimeter and uh everything is much more in line with what would be expected in uh our community and uh development so I appreciate you uh taking the time to hear me and that's what I'd like to say thank you very much thank you Mr P appreciate it goe I think that was it and then the last one I do want to say that we received the petition um there was not an attached letter to this so we've reviewed that seen the signatures but we don't have the attached letter to review so I don't know if any we've gotten that just says I know but it says there's also attached letter so I was just curious what was in the letter so uh but with that I think what we'll do is we'll invite the uh applicant up to respond to the public comments is this going I'm just or do I need to push like F5 oh there we go okay board members uh Sean Lake 1744 uh South Val Vista Drive here on behalf of BL blanford Holmes um it is a pleasure to be here on behalf of blanford as many of you know Blandford is a homegrown Mesa homebuilder uh Mr blanford lives in Mesa and he develops in Mesa and has done quite a bit in Mesa so it's a pleasure to to represent this case and walk you through I'll abbreviate my presentation uh to try to hit some highlight points uh specifically addressing um comments that were raised by the neighbors let me just right out of the shoots before I get into the presentation talk a little bit about two of them the first is traffic we have met extensively with the city's transportation department and the traffic engineer to discuss the traffic on mcdal and alignment of the main entrance along mcdal the city is I don't know if somebody from the Transportation Department is here but they said that they would probably have somebody I know there's a lot of people up there you guys know a lot about traffic um there is more than sufficient capacity on McDow road to handle the traffic that will be generated by this I think uh they said the capacity is double to what it currently is today but you guys are the experts on that but we have worked extensively with the city's transportation department on that as far as the gentleman dealing with Culver Street um I'm authorized here today just to say hey we'll we'll limit the the row of homes along Culver to single story as well and we can update our development plan between now and Council should this uh move forward here tonight uh to limit those homes along Culver Street to single story as well uh like we have along the east side of the project so staff has gone through the request and I don't really need to do that they talked about the neighborhood meetings that we've held um those of you that are familiar with the site it's along mcdal and HW Road HW would be along the left side you have the marova county Flood Control District that owns that carved out chunk and that really is is a flood control I I don't know the flood control that r sells land but it's being us utilized as kind of a mountain bike area if you uh you can see from this aerial photograph the trails of where people are are riding their bikes and and and walking in that area but use that as uh owned by the Maricopa County Flood Control District we wrap the site and you can see kind of in a seven shape and then there's also a city of Mesa Well site in our upper right hand corner um we are will be doing improvements to both Haw and and M uh mcdal Road pursuing went to the recommendations of the city of Mesa and Maricopa County because in this area it's County jurisdiction and so we'll be working with both departments both jurisdictions to do those improvements as as required as part of this development it isn't staff went over it's in the neighborhood General plan let me talk a little bit about desert Uplands um I've been working on projects in the desert Uplands for a long time going back to when lendus and there was nothing there uh for many of you that know Mr Blandford uh developed in lendis and so I remember a lot of the discussions that went on with the desert Uplands the desert Uplands just isn't that chunk of what what I'll call County white in the middle but it really goes that whole length of property you can see desert Uplands is far more encompassing than just a little bit surrounded by this property there is a lot of property that was part of the desert Uplands when this was originally adopted I'm thinking we started working on it in the '90s late '90s and that ages me but I remember going through and talking about the desert Uplands so let's talk about the desert Uplands and what's happened as many of you know Mr Blandford has developed much of the property in the desert Uplands and look at some of the developments that have occurred in the desert Uplands with the desert Uplands guidelines lendis and lendis Mountain both beautiful developments Lots ranging them from five to 10 and then the estate-sized Lots it's a massive development in the desert Uplands Mountain Bridge is another project that Blandford holes represented again Lots ranging in various different sizes I represented Mr Ward who developed uh Madrid which is adjacent to the to East when when that went through um Boulder Mountain which is just east of uh uh Mountain Bridge again I believe that was developed by py has lots down into the 7,000 range uh you have Sierra and montal Luna montal Luna again was another Jeff Blandford project that was recently approved and developed by the city of Mesa um then you have Soro mountain and mount whisper so you can kind of get a feel inside the desert Uplands of the lot sizes that really do exist in this area and so well in that county area and in the lot split area yes there are very very very large Lots but as you Annex into the city of meser to get utilities and you develop according to the city standards you typically see these subdivisions or master plan communities that incorporate a lot of things like preservation of open space Parks Trails offsite improvements extension of utilities connections to sewer connections to water a lot of the things that you would typically expect within a City development as opposed to a county development we understand there's a distinction between the two we certainly do but both do exist within the desert Uplands um and I wanted to point that out because I think Jeff has Mr Blandford has done a lot in a lot of development in the desert leelins over the last uh several decades or so um again staff pointed out when this originally our first neighborhood meeting it was up at to 81 Lots we went down to 77 for the second neighborhood meeting then we reduced it down to 665 Lots reducing the density down to around 2.2 um we also increased the lot sizes on this project you can see along mcdal Road those lots are 100 ft wide by 150 ft deep which also is another important project you'll notice a lot of these lots are deeper they may be a little narrower but they're deeper than you typically would see for a subdivision a lot of times we're seeing these days 110 120 130 feet but these lots are deeper because of the livability that we find with the buyer profile that they like deeper lots and so uh that's where BL Mr Blandford has gone in to design a project that has wider Lots along mcdal wider Lots along the east side where there's existing uh residential development that exists there to try to match that as well as the same sidey yard setbacks so as you drive along mcdal you're going to see the see the same sidey yard setbacks here along those lots along MCM as mcdal as you do in Madrid so the separations be the between the homes so with the sidey guard setbacks um with the average lot size here around 12,000 ft ranging staff pointed from 10 to 22,000 ft lot so a broad various different colors represent the different lot sizes within the project um open space in this project is about 24% or almost seven acres of this project so quite a bit of open space you'll notice that every lot almost every lot there's a couple almost every lot backs up to open space which is unique a lot of times you have subdivisions where you have lots backing up to Lots you share a common wall uh Mr Blandford in the montal Luna in Mountain Bridge it was popular to have a lot open space behind lots and so you'll see how this was specifically designed to have lots backing up to open space which is another uh point that really sold well in this in this area particularly in Mountain Bridge I I will point out and and staff pointed it out but I think this is important the primary Ingress and egress is off of mcdal the access that we show off of the West side is only for emergency vehicles that is we talked about that at length in a neighborhood me meeting and we committed not to do that and so that's only for emergency vehicles uh off of the West side again as part of the desert Uplands we will also be doing desert uh landscape Salvage where we go through and identify that the landscape on site that will be salvaged nurser and and taken care of and so that will happen to comply with the desert Uplands guidelines as part of this development we will incorporate Wildlife passages that was another issue that was brought up at the neighborhood meeting there is wildlife in this area and with our open space as part of the project we will have um uh Wildlife passages through the project you can see where those are identified on our plan and with the red circles so that Wildlife that is in and coming through this area uh will have passage without getting trapped in uh We've updated our uh pedestrian plan to include more uh sidewalks within the project uh so that staff has this this is now part of the record as as well and let me just back up real quick we can update this exhibit you can see at the bottom right hand corner it says denotes single story restriction and you can see the stars along the right side we can to include those what to be four Lots along the South Side as well so we can update that exhibit should this Council or should this board move it forward to council and make that part of the record sorry I digressed there uh again that we will have parks and open space in addition to the trails and open space and amenities around the project there'll be uh an amenity package within the project uh I've got some elevations of the homes but I think I've kind of addressed or tried to address uh this community and what's going on and around this project we think this fits a lot of the developments that you've seen in and around the desert Uplands area desert Uplands is far bigger than just this immediate area it is a a lot of Master plans that have occurred within the city of Mesa in the desert Uplands over several decades and and we' we've come to really like them I think a lot of people who live in the city of Mesa and work in the city of Mesa live in some of those homes that have been built in the desert Uplands and so we all cherish the area we like the way it's turned out and so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions all right is there questions from the board for the applicant at all sure Sean what are the uh for you mentioned widening on McDow road for the project Frontage at least what's what what is that being widened to is there there were some traffic lane width is my understanding is we'll be adding a lane on the South Side um but that again I have to permit through meropa County and I have to do what they tell me go you right now we're being told to add a lane on the south side but I I I I I hesitate committing to it because if the County transportation engineer tells me to do something different I have to follow what they tell me but that's what we're we're anticipating right now so so McDow road is not included in the proposed annexation into City Mesa it excludes the roadway chairman board member the city of Mesa does not Annex roadways until after improvements are done and then and only if if the whole road is built according to the city standards and the north half of the road and a lot of the most of the road to the East and most of the road to the West are not annexed into the city so I don't know that the city is going to Annex this small strip surrounded completely by County roadway got you thank you go ahead Jason just follow up on that question so is the RO the right of way granted already to the county or so to the ultimate with or is will that need to occur that that will need to occur as part of the platting process and will be dedicated to the Maricopa County transport or Maricopa County not the city of Mesa because they're the jurisdiction over the roadway any other questions all right I'm not seeing anything all right thank you we got to be questions right now for you guys yeah we need you have to fill out a card for that that's what we have all right with that um I will go ahead and close the public comment and uh open it up for board discussion a reminder just on this one if anyone wants to go ahead and make a uh um a motion that you have to include item 6A including 4 C so is there anything from a discussion wise I think just from a discussion point I think it is worth amending to include those homes along Culver to the one to the one story restriction so make no I'm saying just one story to the yep to match what's on the East alignment there these are y I agree with that yeah just some thoughts on this too so in along the lines of what the the neighbors are saying compatibility with the neighborhood and and and and I really wrestled with this too on on how to make it better and and I I I appreciate along mcdal the the the perimeter the lots are bigger along the perimeter to the east and west they're bigger the the smaller lots are really isolated in the middle and so there and there is some extra depth um yeah but I I I I definitely hear what the what the neighbors are saying as I pan out and look at the the the the whole area and even compared to Mountain Bridge where where the amount of Desert Landscaping and the the the spaces are just so much different than this is I think I would agree with that I think one of the things I was looking at though um if you look immediately to the east not really far off from a size from the from the parcel sizes um and I know we've talked a lot about for example like the half acre to an acre half acre is you know 21 plus thousand square ft um this is actually zoned to a 15 which is a 15,000 sare ft and so their minimum on this one that they proposed is 10,000 something if I remember correctly 10,400 so it's it's not even a half acre so it it is a restrict but I I hear what you're saying Troy and I I completely understand that as well that does it fit within it as I looked around and kind of looked to the housing that was in again the the adjacent lot directly to the east is actually comparable any other yeah so um I also um familiar with the Blandford development and just want to speak on behalf of I know they do very quality development have a phenomenal reputation in this area doing a lot of development um I know you pointed out the Los anges and the Mountain Bridge development and how good quality that is the open space um looking at those lot sizes those are actually smaller than these what's proposed here so this is actually summer between what is currently out there on the county areas um and between what lend and Mountain Bridge currently have in on average I'm seeing a lot of lot sizes that are along the lines of like 10,000 6,000 8,000 MH when you jump through the lendis and um Mountain Bridge area so I think it it I know that um the blend for development is also very familiar and has actually established the look and feel in this area of uh Mesa so I imagine they' continue on through and then just seeing some of the renderings it seems to continue on through with the theme that it already they have already established in this area um so I I I do think that although it's smaller in sizes um then what's in the surrounding area and the County area I think it's appropriate um I do also like the offer to address the one story along Culver so I think that's a a great offer um in terms of it being laid out uh as a site plan from a traffic uh so my background is in traffic engineering um it's well laid out the access point is appropriate it aligns with the access point to the north um the emergency access on Haw those are all very well done well thought through um also in terms of the traffic volumes that would be generated whether it's the 65 uh looted development or even the 80 or 90 as they were previously suggesting those will not add tremendously to the traffic in the area and certainly the roadways um as Mr Lake explained it does have that capacity along McD out road so certainly from a traffic standpoint it is sufficient um so I will be voting in favor of this development any other comments discussion nothing here I will go ahead actually I'll just I'll go ahead and make a motion on this one just um so on item 4C Carmel By blanford hes homes can't talk today Z 23- 01003 30 plus or minus Acres located on the Southeast corner of North HW Road and East McDow Road reone from agriculture to single residence 15 with a planed area development overlay to allow for single resident subdivision um this is a staff recommendation here is approval conditions and then also on 6a um pz 24209 Carmello by blanford homes of preliminary plat 30 plus or minus Acres located the South east corner of North HW Road and East McDowell Road uh staff recommendations approval conditions the added stipulation to reduce to one-story homes along Culver Street we would like to add that into and chair what I would do is ask the Planning and Zoning Board to also um identify Waterberry as the other location just to get it into the uh record as a stipulation on both of those corridors so identify other location to Waterberry as well right right yes so essentially Lots 5 through 16 Lots 5 through 16 and Sean that is understood for you guys absolutely the Lots along c the Lots along Waterbury all right so I would move to that we approve both those items 4 C and 6A very second second all right we'll go ahead and vote and with a six y and one know the item passes for both 4 C and 6A thank you everybody for coming and providing comment um we're going to go ahead now to move to item 4 I chair s oh yes to sorry thank you that was a long time ago item 4 a is he on the phone chair s yes I do believe um we had one comment in opposition in regards to this project along with the applicant has now joined online as well all right we'll give just a second here so let's go ahead and uh Mr Earl is he on and of course there's a fire truck are you able to hear me yes we do Mr if you could go ahead and uh give us your name and your address and uh we could uh hear your comments thank you very much my name is Lance Earl um it I I'm at 10,1 Park Run Drive Las Vegas Nevada I represent the owners of the property located at 6005 East Southern Avenue which is the property that is uh it's uh borders the Walmart property uh to the east sort of to the northeast of this along Southern um there are actually three owners I'm happy to identify who they are but they're the owners of that property and um we've been uh we got into this a little bit uh late and uh and trying to understand it um with respect to the impact that it has um with respect to the 65 East Southern Property there are several concerns that we've got that um we would suggest uh would warrant potentially a continuance or a postponement of this uh of any decision today um one of those deals with the question of actually all of them in large respect deal with issues of traffic flow um for example I think the way in which the truck turning rate radius um is being proposed presents some it's a very very tight radius and presents some issues the access from the from East Southern uh looks like the primary access to the fuel station is on the road that is closest to Superstition Springs off of East Southern it's a right turn in only and a right turn out um and that is uh we're concerned about how the flow traffic will affect um that and uh along there along with other properties I've spoken and I appreciate the help that staff has given uh Peter Vargas on the transportation and uh Khloe Daniels as well and trying to help answer some questions um he's indicated that there's a I guess it's a federal standard or an international standard relating to peak hour trips and they've identified that it for fuel station Convenience St it's only 22 peak hour trips per hour I'd respectfully suggest that when you have a propo when you put a Walmart fuel station much like a Sam's Club or a Costco you're going to have significantly more peak hour trips and so it should be taken into account into how that traffic flow will go with respect to the 605 East Southern Property we're concerned that the way in which that property will generate traffic it's going to increase the traffic on our end as well and so we're looking at those issues and what need some more time to really fully analyze what impact that it might have it seems that if you look uh to the West you know we have an entrance off of leisure um from Southern um there is and those roadways are going to create I think some issues that we need to uh needs to be um looked at further um additionally we're still looking at the grading and drainage plans particularly as it relates to any environmental concerns relating to putting a fuel station there um given that it appears that our property is down gradient to the uh to that property so our request would simply be that uh um that as a result of these concerns we'd like a little bit more time to work with Walmart to try to address some of these issues I'd raised with uh Miss Daniels that there is a private easement um restriction relating to this that will have to be resolved that is I understand it's not part of what you are considering today um in the context of entitlements but with respect to that I appreciate the time that we've been given and again i' appreciate the staff uh response and um help in uh in in trying to explain what what's happening all right thank you Mr Earl we appreciate your comments all right with that we do have the applicant as well right oh are we lost him I'm waiting for confirmation but I do believe the applicant Ryan is online now and available to answer any questions Ryan are you there yes I am and thank you for uh getting me unmuted there um yes appreciate the comments uh from Lance Earl there and happy to kind of touch on each of those um as well um as you guys know a lot of these items are flushed through or reviewed uh by City staff but we also do our own internal ones so um kind of the first item that was brought up there was regarding the traffic volumes that the fuel station would bring um and the other item that was raised was that traffic volumes for this fuel station would be much greater and should be looked at in terms of a Sam's Club or a Costco um those two examp that were presented are actually uh quite different from the proposed fuel station those would be a club Only or membership only fuel station which uh tries to queue up and bring in traffic in One Direction only and does in fact see larger volumes this fuel station here is considered more of a neighborhood fuel station um so similar to something like a Circle K or a quick trip um at the corner of some various other intersections throughout the city um yes it will be Walmart owned branded um and ran in conjunction with a larger Walmart site but this is more of a neighborhood fuel station where access to each of the pumps will be from each direction queuing will not happen in One Direction and we will not have large queuing um piling up in a long line um but rather similar to what you guys will see for an intersection um and then regarding the truck Maneuvers and traffic Maneuvers uh as was stated by probably the city traffic engineer um we use utilize high high technology uh modeling that uh requires the latest uh traffic state and federal regulations to be implemented into the traffic turning modeling to ensure each of these sites uh functions appropriately so we've not only done that with the fuel delivery trucks um but also the passenger cars that will be accessing the site um and making sure that those do not have any negative impacts on our direct neighbors there um to speak to the uh storm water or um in quote uh environmental concerns uh this site is going to be included in the storm water system that is is also linked to the larger Walmart Super Center um and I believe a lot of these additional outlots actually uh share drainage features with that Walmart site um so then note that our kind of fuel station would drain into other Lots I I would slightly like to to challenge that thought and more and view this drainage uh system as something that's shared between all the Lots um but for protection we do provide uh multiple um kind of structures on site to help protect the rest of the uh storm drain infrastructure against any potential spills the storm the fuel tanks are double walled uh as required by state and federal regulations we have multiple spill mechanisms that would alert staff in the event of a spill but there's also mechanisms and Technology on site to prevent any spills all the attendance at the fuel station will be educated and put through training if an event uh were to happen that had spilling of fuel at anywhere on site and then also the storm water will be treated um through multiple filters and separation Chambers with our drywall system I know that that was a lot uh to kind of quickly run through there but happy to answer any other further questions there all right thank you very much Ryan so with that uh I didn't actually officially open that public comment I guess we did have that public so I'll close the public comment open up to the board unless they have any questions actually first for I I've actually got a couple of questions for you based on the comments we've received especially from the uh from the Leisure World folks to the north uh they were concerned about uh sound attenuation and light control and uh I'm wondering how you're your addressing that so that they're to lessen that kind of an impact yeah so I'll touch on the light attenuation so similar to the other outlots um next to us we will have parking lot lighting um and I believe there's actually already existing parking lot lighting out there but each of those will have specific fixtures that meets the local city code to not allow I'll call it spillage out towards those residents um anything that is permitted through the city will be uh need to meet the city code regarding site photometrics and the amount of call it um foot candles that we can have on site so each of those in order for us to have to get those approved through City permitting we need to meet each of those codes related to that and then sound attenuation we do have an existing uh small screen wall it's more of a visible screen wall along the front as well as Landscaping but um regarding sound attenuation there will not necessarily be an increase in sound here yes we all have additional Vehicles incoming to the site uh but by no means is there a loading dock or something of that sort that would cause larger trucks to um be backing up and and sitting in a in a docked area we will have the fuel truck on site um but should it will not be a significant increase in sound there and I had one other question I know that U there was one question about the private easement is that something that um that you can address so I know the private easement um is something the um the attorneys of the two properties are discussing in regards to how that relates to city code and the applicability of um the fuel station design it doesn't really have any any impact on on kind of what we're discussing for our our uh review tonight um I think it's it's just a an access um agreement between those two parties you good all right any other questions chair s pardon me I I just want to acknowledge that um Mr Earl has raised his hand on the zoom call to try to speak again but I don't know if you want to give him that opportunity or not we don't I just wanted to acknowledge that chair board members I think that you may have closed public comment now what you're getting as response to those public comments yeah we we close that public comment okay with that I'll uh we have closed public comment actually this point so the board uh any discussion or if anyone would like to go for uh bring a motion forward on this case I'll uh move to approve case Z Item 48 case z 24- 00426 Walmart fuel Mesa 1646 district 6 within the 6,000 to 6200 blocks of East Southern Avenue located west of Superstition Springs Boulevard on the south side of Southern Avenue major site plan modification and amending condition of approval number one for case number Z 99- 043 and a special use permit this request will allow for a service station recommendation is approval with conditions second thank you and go ahead and vote on the board and it looks like unanimously this passes seven years uh for item 4 a we thank you guys for being online for the comments and discussion um now we will move over to item 4 I that I had skipped before so Josh there he is all right thank you chair and members of the board uh this is for MCC Billboards uh also know as z 24- 00767 uh it is specifically a request for a rezone from public semiu to public semi-public with a billboard overlay which will allow for the development of two Billboards uh it is located at the MCC campus which is located off uh south of Southern Avenue East of Dobson as well as Le west of Longmore north of the us60 uh General plan designates this as an education campus and it is consistent with that as being the campus for MCC uh there is a concurrent in government uh agreement for that da as is required for any kind of billboard um and that's consistent with the uh section 25 of the MZ for that billboard overlay and uh the request itself is for that reone for the overlay here's the uh site photo of the Eastern location or rather the the Western location uh and this is uh from Longmore away and then this is the Eastern one where you can kind of get that location with context of that radio uh here's the overall site plan it's 134.5 Acre Site uh primary access will be from that longm to access these um it is two Billboards there is a actually only a required setback of zero feet uh because it is offset by 1 foot that is meeting that requirement as well as uh as I highlighted earlier they are 1,000 ft away from each other which meets the also the requirement of the Billboards and uh in order to be uh no more than 400 but less than 500 ft away uh from Residential Properties of either zoning or use um the applicant did provide a line of sight study that shows that there is uh limited to no impacts for that residential compared to what is there today again here's that highlight of that uh site plan showing the context of those two Billboards here's the proposed elevations and then as part of this process the applicant uh did a notification of property orders within 1,000 ft as as well as HOAs and registered neighborhoods in the area as well as having a neighborhood meeting on uh September 12th 2024 uh owners were concerned about uh impacts of that lighting to the billboard uh we did provide the uh overall requirements of the lighting and the required dimming at Sunset and uh to be consistent with our MZ and this sign will meet those requirements um based off that staff finds that the overall project complies with the 2040 Mesa General plan chapter 69 of the MZ for site plan review as well as chapter 25 of the MZ for the billboard overlay happy to uh respond to any questions and uh staff recommends approval with conditions thank you Josh any questions for Josh from the board no all right we'll go ahead and thank you Josh he's already leaving so we do have some uh comments on this one as well let me get to this one okay so I think you guys both saw that there's a few on here already that we can read but there is someone that wants to speak do we have anyone online for this one Alexis chair s they we're going to be in person Michael Barton Michael Barton chair U Can you officially open the public we are going to officially open the public you come for keep com it's my fault for not officially opening the public comment if you can go ahead and state your name and your address for us Michael Barton 1642 South Saro um good afternoon to members of of the board um a little over a year ago uh my wife and I were in a serious accident uh on uh a dangerous stretch of the Loop 101 uh traffic slowed to a stop and distracted driver hit us from behind at high speed it spun our car out into the car in front of us and then into the lane to the left where we were hit by a third car at high speed happily no one died or had to be rushed to the hospital um in part because this accident happened on a weekend evening so why am I mentioning this accident in a hearing about electronic Billboards on the us60 well my accident happened in a very busy complicated stretch of the 101 in Tempe where cars merge in from Broadway merge off onto Southern merge onto the East and the westbound us60 the location of the proposed electronic Billboards is next to a nearly identical stretch of the us60 where people merge in from Alma School merge off onto Dobson merge onto the Northbound and to the southbound Loop of the 101 it's where drivers need to concentrate especially on the road with people switching lanes and traffic stoppages it's one of the most dangerous places to put a digital billboard on the entire UT 60 except maybe where it connects to the I 10 in Tempe Billboards are designed to distract drivers and their sole purpose is to get drivers to look at the message instead of the road and other cars electronic Billboards take this goal to an extreme they project multiple brightly lit messages that flash from one to another after a few seconds they're very successful in achieving the goal of distracting drivers to read their messages or they couldn't afford to offer land owners large payments to host the Billboards now I understand that the proposed Billboards could provide well up to $350 or $400,000 per year to MCC that's that's a lot of money right but is this worth the value of human life or disability and there are monetary considerations you know my accident could have been much worse right but some of the people involved have some subsequent medical issues I have permanent damage to my left ear for hearing the insurance settlements are currently being negotiated still a year later but it looks like it'll be more like around a half a million dollars for all the people in property involved right but if a much worse accident were to happen on the proposed US 60 location during rush hour MCC and Mesa could be faced with multi-million dollar lawsuits with claims that they permitted dangerously distracting Billboards there right as a Mesa citizen neighbor and a University faculty member I strongly support funding for MCC but not from Billboards to put human life and property at risk and also risk significant monetary costs from accidents that happen as a result so thanks for listening to this and I hope you'll seriously reconsider the location I'll say one last thing during the community meeting one of the engineers said we have no evidence that electronic Billboards cause more accidents but as a scientist we say like lack of evidence doesn't mean you have evidence of absence and that means just because you don't know you have evidence that that Billboards cause accidents doesn't mean you have evidence that they don't cause accidents this could be a test case but I'm not sure if if Mesa really wants to carry out the experiment here so thank you thank you Mr Bon we appreciate you coming in all right do we have the applic oh there you okay I know I can't remember Who's online who's not Mr chairman let me I think I've got a short presentation here um that I'll just get teed up but I don't even know if we necessarily need it and I may have to ask for professional help I think I've got it I did something right today everyone uh M chairman SS members of the board ree Anderson with PE and Lake my address is 1744 South alvista number 217 here in Mesa I'm here today on behalf of the mar Copa County Community College District with me is Leanne Bond Chief Operating Officer she's sited here in the audience also Robert budak who's the vice president of administrative Affairs for MCC and Jacob Z with Becker Billboards all of us are available to answer any questions um I'm I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Michael Barton at the neighborhood meeting back in September and it was a pleasure to spend some time with him and and answer his questions to the best of our ability um and I I can give you more information about the proposal if you'd like or or I can just limit my comments to the specific issue that he raised Mr chairman of the board I defer to you I don't want to take any more necessary time that it's necessary you want speak comments seems like that's kind of the comments I think is yeah okay keep keep it keep it to address Mr Barton yeah I I have the greatest respect for Mr Barton and again it was a pleasure to meet him and his wife at that neighborhood meeting the interesting thing about that uh argument made by Mr Barton with all due respect is that no one should have Billboards anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter just because they run a risk but here as you see across the valley there are already electronic Billboards and a lot of jurisdictions and how do they exist why do they exist why haven't there been litigation with those and the answer is because the Federal Transportation safety board and the rules that are made up by them as well as the state specify what the frequency can be the light Etc and these Billboards comply and the Mesa ordinance complies with those standards too and so what you see in the Mesa ordinance is a mirroring of those Federal standards and so while while we all admit that there can be distractions while driving these Billboards comply with the applicable safety standards already so there is while there's always a risk there's a risk with everything that we do this one complies with those safety standards I I I'll leave it at that thank you appreciate that if there's any other questions I'm happy to talk about anything else there if you guys have no I think we're good okay if you do want more information about the safety standards we'll ask Jacob Z to come up but I thank you all right with that we will go ahead and close the public comment and open it up to the board for discussion or if anyone would like to like to make a motion no discussion on this may just a comment just for the record I think um excuse me it Bears noting that while certainly I'm grateful that Mr um Barton Barton thank you I was about to say Becker Mr Barton is is safe and his wife is safe um I think it's also maybe a commentary on the unfortunate situation that our community colleges find themselves in that they have to go to these measures to find funding to be able to support their students and support their initiatives So to that end I I support the districts being Innovative and finding these Funding Solutions anybody else the board I would agree with that as well I think um one I was thinking about again Mr Bart I appreciate it as well it's one of those situations where I think that a lot of us and I would actually be uh typically along thinking along the lines of kind of Common Sense would be that uh electricon electronic board on the freeway would be distracting um however I think as a as the uh plan and zoning board for the city of Mace I don't necessarily think that we have the ability to go against you know the national highway tra you know safety board or those things that have decided to make that so with that um I will uh think that I I will be in support of this one uh moving forward just because of that I think that unfortunately it's kind of Beyond us but I do empathize I completely understand that perspective and point of view um but at this time I think from where we are where I'm sitting I think that would Echo your comments as well Chase so anybody else has anything go ahead no then I'll I'll make a motion to approve uh Z 24- 00767 MCC Billboards that's 134.5 plus or minus Acres located at the southeast corner of the of South Dobson Road and West Southern Avenue reone from public and semi uh public to public in semi-public with a billboard overlay to allow for two Billboards uh this uh this uh staff recommendation is approval with conditions is there a second on that motion I'll second all right everybody go ahead and vote and item four I passes unanimously unanimously to everybody here thank you to all those involved to being here today we appreciate that um let's move to item 4J and invite Sean up who's been patiently waiting good afternoon chair me members of the board this is uh the case for Banner Gateway residences Z1 24- 0075 52 so this request is to rezone the subject property from light industrial to multiple residence 4 with the planed area development overlay also includes site plan riew um and that is to allow for a multiple residence development on the site so the site itself is uh east of Greenfield Road West of Pier Pond Street and on the north side of Banner Gateway Drive it's approximately 10 and half acres in size is currently vacant um to the west and south you have um existing multiple family developments and then to the east you have the Banner Rehabilitation Hospital further east is the hospital itself the Banner Gateway so the current um General plan character area of the 2040 General plan is employment so that's intended to Pro provide a wide range of employment opportunities examples include but not limited to manufacturing facilities indoor warehousing and business Parks um the proposed um character area for the 2040 General plan is mixed use activity district with a regional scale District subtype uh So Co commercial is obviously the focus of that area but it does support secondary uses so long as they don't Encompass more than 30% of the whole character area so multiple residents is specifically listed um as a secondary use within that character type So currently again the zoning is light industrial the proposed zoning is rm4 pad I'll get into the uh pad deviations in a couple slides um RM multiple residents is permitted within the rm4 district so this is a site photo looking North from Banner Gateway Drive and then here's a snippet of the site plan so the applicants proposing eight buildings ranging in height from two stories to four stories um 260 total units with a density of just over 27 dwelling units per acre there's a central amenity area with a fitness pool Clubhouse um other related amenities shown in red on the site plan in the center of the site um primary access is from Banner Gateway in the southwest corner and then there's a secondary access point in the Southeast corner for fire um 546 parking spaces are required per code 48 are being provided and then 261 of those will be covered and then here is a snippet of the landscape plan showing perimeter Landscaping Foundation base in streetscape landscaping um this was looked at by the designer re report last night at their work session and had no comments on the on the proposed design and then here's a rendering um of the clubhouse and surrounding buildings um the designer re board also had no comments on the elevations so for the pad the um code requirement is actually 40 ft the maximum code or the maximum height requirement for rm4 is 40 feet and the applicants proposing a increase um to 55 feet to accommodate the four-story building um we also have a requirement for building separation related to parking canopies that minimum separation is 20 ft the applicants requesting a reduction to 10 ft so property owners were notified within 1,000 ft and a neighborhood meeting was held on October 30th um no public uh attendees were present at that meeting and staff has not received correspondence since so overall we find the the request compli with 2040 Mesa General plan chapter 69 of the mzo for site plan review and complies with chapter 22 of the MZ for a pad overlay our recommendation is approval with conditions happy to answer any questions thank you Sean appreciate that I know um I don't believe anyone's here for public Comon do I still need to open and close it I have a question oh go ahead actually let's do that first Sean on the so the parcel just south of the banner E Street AB that's to the east of this parcel the vacant parcel is there a site plan approved for that or is there a use designated for uh chair board member Peterson so yeah directly south of the re Rehabilitation Hospital not the whole site but abortion of that site um is developed with the um home away from home so it's the oh that's the one that the units that are owned and operated by Banner for the cancer patients yeah that's right okay yeah I remember that coming through okay thank you okay anything else for Sean guys up was here no all right thanks Sean so I'll go ahead and open is there um anyone here that wants to speak to this besides the applicant there with me in the back all right Kona we'll just snip that one right in the bud just me just yourself all right uh good evening chair members of the board Brenan Ray 1850 North Central here on behalf of the applicant and Oakdale realy um we're certainly excited to be talking to you about Banner Gateway residences um we have been involved since I got involved in a number of discussions uh with uh staff Collective staff particularly planning and economic development talking about the land use the appropriateness layout design we certainly appreciate Sean's presentation their staff report and the recommendation for approval I will correct them on one thing at last night's drb hearing uh it wasn't that they had no comment in fact they were very comp mentary of the design of everything that we had done from a design perspective and so I'll jokingly correct him on that one point but as we look at the site you guys are certainly familiar with it it's 10 and a half acres this is one of the last patches on the patchwork quilt uh and as we look at it the area is full with employment uh commercial and residential uses and so what this is is the textbook definition of an infill development um and you can see that there are a number of constraints on it uh first and foremost obviously it's its shape with a narrow deep parcel there's no visibility from any arterial streets as is obvious it has limited visibility from the us60 again because of how narrow it is it has limited access from the collectors the only access to this particular parcel is from the south from Banner point and that kind of magnifies uh the narrowness the the depth of it uh that makes it really challenging to figure out what's a good viable use uh on this again last little patch or hole in the donut whatever you want to call it and so as we've talked and and thought about it we believe that uh the multifam really is the only logical land use uh that makes it viable and as we go into the future especially as you look at it you guys saw the zoning map you guys are very familiar with it but I think what's important to understand as well as we look at the light industrial designation is as indicated in your staff report it's been zoned light industrial since 1986 that's 38 years um that this parcel obviously was part of a much larger parcel at the time it was approved but the entire area has developed around it leaving this kind of again orphan piece with it um and The Last Action is indicated in your staff report was taken in 2018 um there was an application uh I know there was comment in the study session about multif family before there was an application that was filed in 2021 um that application was withdrawn uh and I don't believe it was ever presented to the board at least that's what I could see from the records that were indicated in visiting with Mr Shawn Lake who was the one that filed that application so I don't know that that was ever presented uh to this group at least it the records don't indicate it that it went much further than discussions with staff so I know that one of the questions that came up in the study session as you look a little closer at the site you can see Banner um Banner on the south um and access out to Greenfield there is a a traffic signal out at Greenfield uh and likewise if you follow it across that gray greenish area which is the town of Gilbert um as you keep going over to Higley Road I know there are traffic signals at both of those locations that allow it but as we look at uh we had a traffic engineer at this from a trip generation standpoint and I know we talked morning and night um but in an AM Peak um which is as was discussed earlier kind of the busy times there's uh best guess 129 um uh trips that morning and that study was actually based on 280 units so we're now proposing 260 so a little bit less than that so 129 and in particular in the uh am Peak out 99 PM similar got 157 I can go into a lot of detail as we as we look at it certainly in context with it and we don't have the little one-story home away from home uh that's been built out there um up against our East property line the west side of banner but one of the things that I think is important to note as we kind of look at this and I don't know if you saw it in your packet or not but we do have a letter of support from Banner Health um which is a little bit um atypical of zoning cases to receive such a letter from an organization but as you can see there in the fine print and I kind of emphasize kind of the best point which is on that second page on the right that Banner has said that we believe this is the most compatible land use adjacent to the medical center operations uh and and we are grateful for Banner support their public support uh and willing to write a letter um such as this um and talking about their operations and I'll leave it up I see some of you trying to read it I apologize the font so tiny on my little presentation um but with that again I'm I'm happy to answer any questions that you all might have but we are again appreciative uh of the the time and effort that staff has taken to work with us again we believe it's it's an appropriate land use uh when we look at it and when we look at the surrounding area it is a good viable Solution on a very challenging infill piece and we would recommend your recommendation for approval in accordance with staffs all right thank you Mr Ray any questions for the applicant from the board I'm not seeing any no okay I think we're good so goe to open again public comment I don't think there's anyone so we'll close public comment and open it up to the board for discussion or a motion uh my my concern is as mentioned in the in the study session was originally this was this came to force a couple of years ago um it was I I can't remember either if it was withdrawn or if it uh was was considered I feel like it was continued yeah like we okayed one and then the other I I I think that the concern was is that economic development at the time wanted it to to remain the um a potential uh employment area and I think that that would still be a good U thing to to preserve that that this should be be available to be an employment area that's what it's zoned for my concern about you know the uh the changes I know that that part of the uh part of the consideration is is about what has changed in in the plan what's changed in the plan is is there are two other apartment complexes within the vicinity if you look at the apartment complexes from from Baseline to Southern to Higley to Greenfield there's now this would make 10 uh apartment complexes in that area I it there I I think there's just an oversaturation of density in this area and and so I would I would recommend that we we do not approve this has uh to staff has Economic Development weighed in on this or any comments uh chair board members yes um we've had several conversations with our Economic Development officer with the director um with the staff on this project and it being moved out of the light industrial z uh designation and there there no oppos there's no opposition that's correct to the discussion on potential employment I mean one would normally think some sort of a medical office type product perhaps right to be adjoining to the banner campus but clearly it appears that hasn't occurred as the discussions that did occur with economic development be they current or previous was there any discussion around targeted employment or any specific sectors that were trying to be attracted into that area um chair board members I don't know if I can speak to the specifics of the targeted industries that they looked at for that site but what I would say is that this letter is actually to J O'Donnell our director of Economic Development the one from Banner Health so they're supporting something that economic development is supporting in this area understood okay thank you yeah so just thinking through just this area in general too and I recall a couple of cases on the other side of Higley over by the the medical school there and some some additional multif family or other uses because the the the the medical uses and it's uh with with with the time duration I don't know if if the uh medical uses are kind of built out what they originally anticipated um or kind of what was there but it it uh that that's my recollection with those is that it feels like and and this and I hear what Jason said earlier too that this site it's it it's back out of the way frankly it's a little bit hard to get to you have to you have to want to get there because that road going to Greenfield isn't you have to know where you're going it's it's a hard one to accidentally get to um from a from a business Frontage perspective and um try trying to think in my head like Jason what you were saying earlier about what's a a more compatible use or what's a more viable use and and I'm not I'm not sure what that is I I'll chime in since we're all kind of chiming in at this point too same thing uh guys I'll be honest too and as I go through and look through you've got Greenfield you got Higley significant commercial employment um I I don't really know what would be best back in here um there is a significant amount of medical office along Pier Point which is a little bit east and south um I do not see the hospital moving over this way obviously at all I don't think they're going to go this direction if if anything they would actually go to the other side of Higley uh for their growth but they've already kind of said that they weren't going to be doing any of that so at this point I I don't see any other use that really makes a lot of sense on this site um I will say I I don't necess say have any issues with the apartment Comics but I would really hate to live in a fourth story without an elevator so I feel sorry for the people that are going to be living on those fourth floors but it yeah I I oh doesn't those I didn't see one in the plan okay well then never mind negate that comment but dude you said scared you live longer than [Laughter] that you call me fat Troy but anyway I think I think as far as I'm concerned I I know what you're saying completely by the way I I completely get it I just don't uh really see what else makes a lot of sense so Jamie I think you're the only one if you don't want to say anything just let me know you're good okay I'm just going to go ahead and make a motion on this one because I think everybody's itching Boogie so on uh item 4J so in 24- 000752 Banner Gateway residences 10 and a half plus or minus Acres located approximately 1,350 ft east of northeast corner of East Banner Gateway Drive in South Greenfield Road reson from light industrial to multiple residence for with the plary development overlay and site plan review to allow for multiple residence development uh staff recommendation here is approval conditions I would move to approve item 4J as well as actually never we don't oh yeah 5A um 0124 d894 Banner Gateway residences minor General plan amendment 10 and a half plus or minus Acres located approximately 1,350 ft east of Northeast east of the northeast corner of East Banner Gateway Drive in South Greenfield Road minor General plan amendment to change the general plan character area type from employment to mix use activity district with a regional scale district subtype and staff aration here is approval of conditions I would move to approve both item 4J and 5A is there a second on that motion second all right and we'll go ahead vote and with a 61 this item 4J and 5A passes all right thank you everybody for being here anything from staff no updates uh additional updates thank you no additional updates and so I look for a motion to adour second second all in favor please vote all right and we are journ thank you everybody man that was a marathon [Music]