good morning and welcome to the November 22nd 2022 uh special board meeting of the Mesa Planning and Zoning Board I'm Jeff Crockett we will begin with a roll call this morning again I'm uh chair Crockett I'm present uh Vice chair Ayers here board member Allen here board member sarkissian here board member Peterson here board member pitcher here and board member Montez here uh great we've got everyone here today thank you for being out so early on a morning before Thanksgiving um we have a couple of items on the agenda today neither of which will be on the consent agenda so I will turn the time over to Michelle uh to run the meeting this morning thank you Mr chairman and board members the first item on the agenda is the minor General plan Amendment emitting existing chapter 7 the community character of that this is my Mason Mesa 24 General plan and Rachel Nettles is here to make a presentation to you on this item care of our members well is the mic okay there it goes there we go this is like deja vu so um this is the second public hearing of these proposed text amendments so we are proposing some text amendments to the general plan has a little bit of a background our current 2040 General plan was adopted by Mesa citizens in 2014. this is our official policy guide um guiding the development within the city um per the ARs we do review this annually and sometimes we do make recommendations for certain amendments to the general plan the last time we did so was in 2020 when we amended chapter 7 in chapter 16 and at that time we had changed some of the size criteria for the major and minor General plan Amendment and we also added specific approval criteria for Council to consider in those instances and then in chapter 7 we added primary and secondary zoning districts to many of our character areas and also established minimums of primary and secondary that have to be established as well as discuss the timing when those have to be established so today we are coming forward with some recommendations to chapter seven and specifically the specialty districts with those we're recommending amendments to the educational and the Medical Campus subtypes so um just very broadly for the specialty districts those are intended to support a single use and it's supposed to be developed in a campus-like setting so staff has been evaluating these and we do recognize that in some instances we think that it is appropriate to have supportive residential uses in the medical and the educational campus subtype so therefore we're going to be recommending some changes there so as a background currently the educational subtype has a list of primary and secondary zoning districts the primary zoning has to be established before a secondary zoning can be utilized so the majority of the character area which we Define as 55 or more has to be developed with those primary zoning districts and land uses and once those have been established as secondary districts can be used staff is recommending that we add multiple residents for and multiple residents five as secondary zoning districts to this subtype we are also recommending some exemptions to the timing of when those secondary zoning districts can be utilized so with this we would be suggesting that if there was an anchor establishment and I apologize for the typo on this so if it was an anchor educational facility that the second secondary districts could be used before the 55 percent of the character area was established with primary uses this does not change the overall percentage that would be required for primary and secondary zoning just the timing of when they could be established then moving on to the Medical Campus subtype once again we have a list of primary and secondary zoning districts in this case 80 percent of the area has to be established with those primary zoning districts before secondary is allowed and with this subtype staff is recommending once again to have that exemption from the timing of when the secondary zoning districts could be utilized and that would be if there was an anchor medical facility that they would be able to use the secondary zoning first but also it does not reduce once again the amount to primary and secondary overall that has to be established within the area just the timing of it so it's a very quick recap of that presentation and I know there were a few questions that came up before so I wanted to address those we had mentioned a map and I couldn't find the specific map that just isolated the specialty districts but if you can see on your screen the specialty districts are these blue areas here so looking at the breakdown of this when we look at the overall planning area within the city so that that blue box and this this encompasses some areas that are currently not within the city but we anticipate that are you know within our growth area that could be annexed in that case specialty districts com compose eight percent of the overall area within the city when we look specifically at just within City Limits currently so not considering those areas outside that haven't been annexed yet specialty districts compose 6.7 percent of the area within the city so specifically we we were talking about where in the city other educational and medical campuses um exist so I can point out a couple of of these so if we go over on on the west side over by Dobson in southern we have Banner over here which is a medical campus right next to an educational campus which would be our MCC area um we also have several other educational campuses near high schools so we have Dobson High School there's another campus as well as when we go up towards towards Westwood we have another one um it's just several other high school campuses that count as that and then going to to the medical once again if we go to the southeast portion of Mesa um once again we have a mixture of of educational and medical campuses over here as well so very limited areas within the city that this this would affect is what I'm trying to get to when we when we talk about the percentage of land area that's designated as specialty and I'd be happy to answer any other questions if you have any at this time about the amendments great thank you for that presentation are there questions for Rachel on this item board member sarkissian so um I guess I'm going to ask a question but I don't know if there's a way to based on our discussion downstairs how you're going to answer but so you're talking about you were showing us some of the educational areas you had some Westwood areas some areas around the high school high school areas that looked like there was some like Falcon Field Mesa Gateway obviously those ones but the ones that looked like they were more focused um and educational they were they seem to be a little bit smaller and you so you have those as rm4 rm5 um I think those um are appropriate but I was it was just because you originally had said that the rm5 was more for dormitories but in a lot of those areas I don't feel like those are very dormitory or high density appropriate but it's a general plan so we can always Zone according to density whereas the medical is only right shown as rm4 and I feel like the RM the medical specialty areas that were focused along the freeways and high intensity areas even larger they actually I felt were more look looked appeared to be more appropriate for an rm5 along those high intensity corridors and I feel we'll discuss it in the next case but I feel like that rm5 would also be appropriate in the medical um to be added and it would alleviate a lot of other issues and we could still rezone and not rezone in those areas but I feel like those areas show on that specialty area for medical we're in those zones and areas that felt and were larger and less in neighborhood neighborhoods for that density um that and then the current the ones that are shown in the in the educational that was that's my comment I I was just trying to see like how how if there's I don't know if there's really anything you want to say back to that but it just felt like that was that was what I was getting at the map why we asked for the map downstairs to see like where this would impact it um so so that's kind of my comment like I do feel the the rm5 is appropriate in certain areas educational but in some of those areas hopefully we obviously get a chance to rezone and or deny an rm5 in those areas because it's not as appropriate um but that would be that was kind of weird because I feel like almost the rm5 is too much in that area for educational whereas it should have been in the medical and it's kind of reversed if it's my thoughts okay um chair board member sarkissian so when I had mentioned the dormitories I guess I wasn't intending it just to be in reference to that but in general um stats about like evaluation and thought process behind that is where there is educational campuses that's where higher density residential would make sense because it is providing housing sometimes for students in that case so just uh I don't know if that helps clarify but hey other questions board member Peterson so if the for the and that's where that's where my line of questions were in the the previous hearing too was that it it it it it makes a it seems to make a lot of sense if not rm5 in medical specialty also or in lieu of educational is there uh as far as that text amendment is that something that that can is that an actionable thing for the the we could modify if if there's enough support to do that or is that a what's the process for that let me see so if I understand the question the question board member Peterson is could you modify the proposal today on the minor General plan amendment to add rm5 the text to the the text Amendment to the medical sub-character area the Planning Commission could have a different recommendation than staff but in the end um so the recommendations would just it would go to city council if that is what the planning recommendation wanted to recommend is adding it you would have the ability to do that um staff would consider that and they would make their recommendation to city council as well and uh and and along with board members sarkissian's comments that you look at those the the medical which are focused around the existing hospitals higher density areas more in line with with downtown Mesa Power Road around the hospital there it it it does it does seem to make more sense okay um I have a question so Rachel in those areas that we looked at on the map that are their educational sub character areas it looks like they all have educational facilities in them is that right sure that's correct okay and and here we would be creating really a relatively small little island of 10 acres or so that would be a educational sub-character area or what no no I'm saying that's but isn't that oh I see the text Amendment simply allows the changes gotcha okay um okay thank you for clarifying that um other questions for Rachel at this point all right thank you we'll invite the applicant up now to make a presentation yeah see that's what happens when we plan these early morning meetings um so we will need we need to have a guess a vote on this public hearing all right so we'll we'll get back to you Mr Hugh mantle all right so let's open the public hearing on this item and see if there's any uh one from the public that wants to speak to this item uh we do have one blue card this is Mr Charles Hugh mantle would you please come up and state your name and business address again for the record and then you'll have three minutes on this item but I will I believe there's a second speaker as well Charles humannel okay PO Box 1833 Tempe Arizona 85280 I know I'm going to have a chance to speak later as well so I'll be pretty brief at this point in time I think one point I'd like to make as you discussed making modifications to the general plan in general and specifically modifications to the text amendments that staff has proposed is that you know the general plan is is not a holy document it changes intentionally in fact the law requires that cities look at it at an annual basis to see what should change it also is not lost on me that you're about to start an entirely New Vision of the general plan so you're about to start your public process I believe on what the next 10-year General plan will be and if if you're not completely happy with where things are today you have that opportunity as well to move things forward I'd also point out that if if the general plan worked effectively without making changes to it from time to time we probably wouldn't have the housing crisis that we have um those are the only comments I have for this case but of course I want my opportunity to speak again as the applicant in the next case thank you thank you very much all right and we've got uh Dave richens that would like to speak welcome hello chair board members as you know I spent way too much time of my life in this building and I try to come back rarely and I only like to come back when it's it's important and so this is something that I feel is very important the general plan is something that I feel passionate about and getting those things right and at still University and the success and flourishing of our heat initiative and those educational facilities is really important to me and it's a great facility if you haven't been over there I suggest a tour um the the I I support this change on the part of staff and and Mr Peterson I think you're on an interesting track about the flexibility which I think you're driving at rm4 rm5 we get wrapped around the axle on these terms but the percentages were uh not in the last General plan the voters voted on this was the part of the annual review process we added them to the general plan uh and we we sometimes as policy makers don't get exactly right and we have to tweak it and what what triggers a tweak is typically a case like this so you don't have a lot of precedent uh chairman Crockett because this has only been a place that's 20 20. and so per percentages can be very inflexible sometimes particularly if you have a good project that is coming ahead a lot of people hey roof rooftops come first and then development follows behind and this is you know a case where you have a site that was owned 25 years ago and it still sat so I would argue that did we get the zoning right on this let's probably see we probably didn't and that's why it's been sitting for a long long time so it's time to rethink that and it's okay that's okay par that's why we have planning and zoning boards we love recommendations from planning zoning boards because they think through stuff sometimes councils overall planning and zoning boards that's okay because they have other considerations they need to make whereas you guys are looking at uh you know a concerted layout for the city uh Mr humans correct we are about to embark on a general planning process and one of the deficiencies of a general plan is it doesn't necessarily take into consideration adjacent uses in other cities and as was pointed out earlier uh Banner at Higley is in Gilbert and so we we have chosen to have to completely ignore the Jason land use even though it has a material effect on what happens here um I I would I would hope that and and the reason we put humans and we don't just crunch numbers and do computers is because they we have the ability to reason and I feel that this is a very reasonable addition to at still not only are they excited to see it come but it also will help enable them to expand into the future so I hope you'll consider approval of this amendment hey thank you for being here before you jump away from the microphone just provide your address for the record uh it's gonna stock my house no I'm not just kidding 833 West 11th Place still in the same place for 25 years yeah I'm more worried about you stalking my house [Laughter] thank you all right um is there any other public comment on this item I don't sure I've been I've been asked to try to to clarify maybe some of the staffs thinking behind not recommending the rm5 in the the Medical subtype so should we close the public comment first before we do that or do we need to leave that open okay getting the high sign so we'll go ahead and close the public comment on this item and then we'll invite Rachel back up to to address okay some things so when when staff looked at the the intent of the different subtypes um we really do not feel the rm5 is appropriate for the Medical Campus when we look at kind of the intent for it um just going back to what I was trying to explain earlier we do we do see that in the educational where we may have bigger facilities for students that a higher density housing product would be appropriate there but in the Medical Campus there there still would be allotment for high desert high density residential but in those cases we also have allowances for hotels and other supportive uses that are more compatible to what's the service in those areas so that's that's kind of the reasoning behind why staff is not and once again we are very selective about where we where we approve the rm5 zoning because it is the highest density residential zoning District in the city so I don't know if that helps provide a little bit of clarification behind that thinking there it does thank you and just just I guess directly to the point would staff support and amendment to this item that would add rm5 to the medical sub-character area staff had already considered that and that was not a recommendation okay thank you okay well um let's I I guess board member Montez I said how long has this area been vacant that's the next case so we can we can bring that up on the next case um all right so if they're a board member sarkissian we're going to have some discussion on this in a moment but you have questions for staff um no I was just going to start discussion okay well then let's do it please go ahead um so yeah I I think I with given the examples that we have I still feel that um I still feel like the density in certain areas we've talked about the educational there there are a lot or the medical too there are a lot of um hotels that serve the patients and things like that as well um but with everything that's been going on with the medical industry as well we've been seeing a high intense intense uh traveling nurses and doctors and things like that and we've been seeing a lot of like banner across the street and some other places where they rent out a great deal of apartments for their doctors and nurses as they travel through um and in certain areas you know I feel a lot of these rm4s and things like that were previously built before these big major hospitals came in you know we had smaller facilities and now they're getting to be institutions you know banners taking over a lot of stuff and so I just feel the um as in you would see it I mean we're not we're we always hope to be we're not downtown Phoenix but when you surround yourselves with the medical you're seeing um High intense residential I mean just they just when they get to that point and I do feel in the future because this is a general plan I do feel mace is going that way of a major you know major Metropolitan downtown and major facilities you know along um you know with Williams the Williams Gateway but but also on Power and along with 60 I think those areas are just going to just continue to grow and we need to be able to accommodate that density that's needed there thank you uh board member Peterson yeah so just uh a few thoughts I I think in uh and we're we're down in a rabbit hole in the general plan and uh and understand these things are flexible it feels like probably the the uh the specialty areas should say should both say multi-family um multi-family uses are allowed and then as far as specific RM four arm five that's a zoning level thing to decide Case by case kind of like we talked about but um but understanding where where we are with the current General plan the uh the uses and and I think it's important too that we're not talking about um with the rm5 that that that's not a smaller dormitory type use necessarily the the what that's saying is is different you know different setbacks different heights of buildings and you're still talking you know two-bedroom one-bedroom kind of typical apartments that it's not a it's not like this uh the density comes from the setbacks and the heights um differences and not necessarily from the the that we're saying these are dormitories because that that word's been used a lot and I think that throws people off because that that I don't think we're talking about that under any scenario we're talking about do we go higher and tire with the densities or or or do they stay less and um so and and with the with the case now it um I I I I I guess the uh the the easy route is to adopt it or to recommend adoption per staff recommendation and then to uh and then to deal with the the next case the the merits of the next case accordingly but I think adopting it if we were to add rm5 to Medical then that makes a lot of the confusion and the Paradox and the the fiction that you referenced um for for future cases to be less confusing because because it creates a more direct route to for options and again understanding that we're not we're not talking specific zoning and nor will we that that case already came through and and uh has already gone through so we're not we're not even uh that that'll be left up for city council to decide it feels like from a look in a future situations that um that it and where the general plan is right now it it just seems appropriate to to uh go with the the recommendations of the of the text Amendment and to add to that to allow rm5 in in um medical specialty areas and then uh and then let each case stand on its merits from there and that's my thoughts okay thank you board member Peterson I um I I don't support the text Amendment here um I appreciate all the work that staff does and I typically do support staff recommendations um but I think that what we're doing here is we are we're adopting text amendments that really are focused on allowing a vote on a specific project where staff is recommending denial and so I find us in this odd position of on the one hand approving a text amendment that will facilitate a vote on a on a proposal on a project that staff is opposing so um I don't I don't believe that we've seen a showing by staff on this that there's a real a true need in the city for these text amendments on this item we are starting the process of a new general plan we can look at all of these things including you know some of the the issues had been brought up regarding hospitals and where where things have headed and whether we need to look at different types of of zoning characterizations around those facilities educational facilities but I think it it should be done in the context of a broader planning process and not done for the purpose which appears to be the case here to facilitate a vote on another specific zoning case which probably wouldn't get a vote based on the current General plan without this text Amendment so those are my concerns about it I think that I think that this is not the best way to make policy for the city and that that's part of what I think the struggle we've seen today around this issue trying to get to a resolution as we're trying to you know make a square peg fit in a round hole on this so those are my thoughts any other thoughts from board members board member Allen please if thanks chair if I could I agree with your sentiments um I I don't support the text amendments either and my reason for not supporting them is I think the unintended consequences like uh board member sarkassian mentioned earlier you know Westwood area it's if we put that high density housing in next to a I don't think it's appropriate to be next to a high school either there or by Mountain View or a lot of the other high schools around and I think that this might have unintended consequences that we're just not looking at and I think what we need to do is maybe like you said revisit this when we when we redo the general plan might be more appropriate than more more Project Specific because to me that's what it is we're approving this so that there's an opportunity to approve this uh project this we're going to talk about next but that's my thoughts on it as well thank you board member Allen board member pitcher yeah I I too can't support this one I'm concerned about the unintended consequences like like word member Allen suggested I I really do feel that this is a way to facilitate the second case and so I don't think that's the way to make policy let's let's um let's proceed with the with the vote unless there's other time uh board member errors any any thoughts you want to share on this item I think uh actually I'm I'm very much aligned with uh you as well on this one to be completely honest at this point I think um I do actually really like the ideas that we're talking about that Troy was speaking about earlier allotting flexibility uh through the residential zoning as we move forward into cases like this I think that's much more useful as we look into the future but I think that I'm agreement with you guys what you've just said right now as far as this particular case thank you board member Montez thoughts no okay all right well uh is there any other discussion from board members on this item okay uh you're not raising your hand are you okay all right just checking uh okay well then um we have uh this item 1A on the agenda do I have a motion to approve the agenda item I like to make emotion although I know it's going to happen but I'd like to make a motion so it's on the record that we approve a minor General plan amendment to amend the existing chapter 7 Community character area um this is my Mesa Mesa 2040 General plan as shown exhibit one 2022 General plan amendments to include were not revised permitting secondary Zone Industries in the specialty District educational campus subtype and revising the time we went secondary zoning districts and secondary land uses are permitted in the specialty District educational campus subtype and the specialty District Medical Campus for a for adoption with the addition of the RM the R5 to the medical specialty character area okay so we have a motion by board member sarkissian to approve agenda item 1A with a modification that would add the rm5 zoning designation to the medical sub-character area yes do I have a second on that motion second okay you have a motion in a second let's go ahead and vote well before we vote so okay let's I think I'm clear on this let's go ahead and vote board member Ayers how do you vote just one quick question this is adding the rm5 correctly that's the change to this this yes voting for this item with the addition of adding rm5 to the medical sub-character area specialty area um yes okay board member airsville she asked board member Montez oh our board member Alan sorry no no okay by your vote of four yeses and three no's you have passed this item okay Michelle on to the next item thank you Mr chairman and board members the next item is kzon22-01129 this is a minor General plan Amendment request for the property known as Millennium Superstition Springs and Cassidy is here to present the item to you thank you good morning chair members of the board um so this case is item zon22-01129 the request is for a minor General plan amendment to allow for multiple residents development the previous zoning requests which changed the which would change the zoning to rm5 with the planned area development overlay Was Heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 14th with the 3-3 split vote so the site is located north of Baseline Road and West of Sunview Road also west of Power Road so the current General plan designation for this property is specialty with a Medical Campus subtype so the intent is to develop these areas around large single users with Associated secondary uses there's also an intent in the general plan to preserve Prime employment land uses the request would modify that subtype from a specialty Medical Campus to Specialty educational campus and the specific intent for the educational campus is for college and high school campuses with some Associated accessory uses this proposed General plan Amendment would only apply to the subject 10 Acre Site um so this proposed request is tied to the general plan text amendments so in order for the proposed zoning of rm5 to be approved on the site a um the text amendments must be approved to allow rm5 within the specialty educational campus subtype so the proposed zoning as we discussed is is multiple residence five with the planned area development overlay and staff feels that the proposed zoning is not consistent with the intent for the area and the the intent of that um specialty character area designation so as we discussed in the previous public hearing there's kind of two points that staff is is analyzing when looking at whether or not to support or oppose this case and and one of those is compliance with the general plan the other is when you're looking at a minor General plan character areas the criteria purse chapter 16 of the general plan and part of that criteria say consistency with the surrounding development and so when we look at the proposed development we find that the proposed multiple residents is at the subject density which is approximately 40 dwelling units per acre is not consistent with the surrounding area there's uh the A.T still University to the the Northwest I'm sorry Northeast um there's an ex proposed Industrial Development immediately to the north there are some existing multiple residence developments within the specialty character area those are at approximately 17 dwelling units per acre so significantly less than what this proposed development would allow um so again kind of reiterating a staff's opposition to the proposed development um the the proposed minor General plan Amendment would be to the educational campus it would only apply to that send Acre Site it would be developed entirely with secondary uses and under that analysis staff finds that it doesn't meet the intent of the educational campus subtype as well as they would be permitted to develop the site with an rm4 zoning without a minor General plan Amendment as as it stands today economic development is not in support of the proposed development um their intent is to preserve those designated commercial industrial areas for future job growth and make sure that they are improving the job to housing ratio that's consistent with the the kind of overarching goals of the general plan as well and so going back to the criteria for chapter 16 is the proposed development consistent with the general plan when you look at that goal to preserve and protect those employment areas we cannot find consistency with that criteria the the applicant did conduct a citizen participation process which included Property Owners within a thousand feet neither the staff nor applicant have heard any contact from surrounding properties about the proposed request so in summary we find that the proposed development is not consistent with the 2040 Mesa General plan and does not meet the criteria for a minor General plan Amendment outlined in chapter 16 of the general plan and therefore staff is recommending recommending denial and I'd be happy to answer any questions thank you Cassidy questions from board members on this one uh not seeing any board member heirs do you have any questions no I do not okay if the question I have if the council uh goes ahead and approves the text Amendment the general plan that was just to pass as modified with the rm5 zoning is that does that change staff's recommendation on this item because you would have you'd have a medical campus with I mean if if the zoning wasn't if the if the the character area wasn't changed to educational they could still build rm5 in the Medical Campus area correct I mean I'm just trying to figure out how the how the text amendments that were just approved by the board if that affects the staff recommendation on this case chair Crockett so for clarification you're asking if city council were to approve the recommended modification to allow rm5 in the Medical Campus subtype correct um then there would be no need for a minor General plan Amendment okay so all right okay that answers the question thank you any other questions on this one this is where my question comes how long has this area been vacant for what it was planned and zoned for so the the current zoning of planned employment park with a pad overlay and Council use permit was established in 2007. okay any other questions all right thank you we'll invite the applicant up now thank you so I know we've had most of this discussion already downstairs I Mr the commissioner Ayers was was not part of that so I'm I'm going to still cut to the chase but I'm going to repeat some of my comments not because I think any of you will have forgotten them since a half an hour ago or an hour ago whatever it was but but for his benefit um this is why we have planning commissions it's great to see planning Commissioners spending time understanding issues and providing their best recommendations for for their communities in this case it's about General plans and and general plans in Arizona are a 10-year process that are designed to be modified and they're designed to be modified for very good reason and that's because none of us can see well 10 years out in fact I would doubt any of us would have predicted the last 10 years and if you tried to explain to someone what happened over the last 10 years with the pandemic with the changes in medical care with election politics uh people would be hard-pressed to understand that these things have happened but the world changes and it changes rapidly the medical profession has changed rapidly and the housing has changed rapidly when I was starting out the way I looked for a job was different the kind of job I would do is different where I did it was different where I would live is different and I think we continue to see that we continue to see a change in housing Arizona's grown a lot you know interestingly when when you were talking about some of the changes it occurs to me that the very long time ago Mesa had a hospital at a hospital downtown I kind of had two of them and they were really small hospitals because that's that's what hospitals were then and if you go to a hospital today they're a very different thing Health Care has changed dramatically Arizona has imported lots and lots of people that you have an economic development department that spends most of its time trying to convince other people to come here from other places but they have to have places to live and whereas when I was younger people would gladly travel quite some distance from their home to their work largely because they wanted to have their own home they wanted to own a home that's not the case anymore young people move here and in some cases they don't move here to stay they just come here to work in hospitals to go to school to do some of those things and it's important for them to live close part of that's just cultural that's something that's important to them because they like that kind of Lifestyle some of it's practical the streets are not what they once were I'm going to go back to what this case is is really about which is the support of residential and the idea that we need more housing and we'll talk a little bit about some of those issues by the way this is an image we haven't really talked about it much today and I know this isn't the case before you but but it isn't a random thing we're asking to build it's a specific thing and we've gone through the process and and had staff comment and made modifications accordingly um but but the real problem is Supportive Housing the fact that we don't have enough housing to support the uses that are important to us we don't have enough housing to support a place for students to go to school and live we don't have a place for health care workers to work in a hospital and live it's a it's a real problem uh I think it's it's it's a unquestionable uncontroverted problem some people may think otherwise there have been all kinds of news stories you may remember at the last hearing I showed you several examples of front page stories about our housing crisis City officials Mayors the governor housing officials have all called it a crisis and in fact it is what we're really talking about here is a site that makes sense for residential and we don't have enough residential and residential is getting harder and harder to do the cost of lending money for a project is more the cost of Labor is more the cost of materials is more unfortunately rents have gone up but that gets harder and harder for people on salaries to afford and it's largely because of supply and demand we don't have enough housing to provide people units and so the cost goes up that's how economy works what we're talking about in this case is a site that no one from the community has objected to and some have supported including A.T still that's pretty rare these days to have a housing site a multi-family housing site that no one objects to and the reason no one objects other than staff is because it's a good location for multi-family housing it's it's on a freeway essentially it's not next to single-family housing we're not going to have congestion issues and it's going to serve two obvious populations A.T still and the medical office uses that are around Hospital uses and so for those reasons we ask you to to pass this amendment because this amendment will allow the difference between a project that won't get built and continues to to add to the problems of housing or to add 100 more units and a place can handle 100 more units and to to let us build the project that you saw and I know you didn't all agree on it but but you saw before you not long ago I'm happy to answer questions I think you've had lots of discussion today and I don't want to belabor the point or as as you say beat the horse thank you for that are there questions on this for Mr Hugh mantle uh board member ask me a question um looking at this as staff was talking about you know it is 10 acres um and regarding the requirements for a specialty area um and you're trying to go into educational and you have support from at still who is your direct neighbor to the east um for quite a big portion was there any discussion about adding them into the educational specialty area because they are so much a portion of the reason why you're looking for that or an AR educational it wouldn't affect them in any way so we've had a lot of discussion with them uh I certainly don't have any authority to speak for them so only speak for myself as it relates to these discussions it's not lost on me that they have another case they're strongly opposed to and it's probably created some challenges for them in working with the city the case to the north of us as I understand it through opposition to the case to the north was because they had been promised in their mind uh by the city and educational campus in fact one of the things they have always wanted since day one was housing and in fact when we sat down with them and showed them the images of the housing they were super excited and they went when one of the guys went back to his office and tried to find some of images because it was almost exactly what they had originally proposed it's worth noting out noting that that at still did something else I think it's a really commendable in our discussions early on talked about the why there's a YMCA tucked back there as well and the reason that that exists is because at still believes that when they came to Mesa they were offered this opportunity to build a campus and rather than build their own facility they wanted to partner and so they partnered with the Y and they saw us as another piece of that sort of doing the same thing the Y serves their students but it's not them and they they saw us as serving them but as it relates to specifically including them in the zoning they didn't seem excited about that we did talk about some early options and they expressed other concerns with the city at that point in time and said they'd write us a letter of support but that we would sort of be on our own but we certainly did talk with them about uh specifically um our uses we talked about adding additional signage for them which we've agreed to do to add to the campus feel and to tie them together we went back with our site plan and prepared to add additional access points for pedestrians again so they could get back and forth easily and one of the reasons A.T still said they liked us as opposed to the other uses we didn't create a lot of traffic to the extent that someone brought out parking earlier I think it was staff you know we see that as probably a good thing to not have too much parking and to the extent that we run into parking problems which we don't think we will and we've had a parking study done to indicate that parking works well because parking at an apartment is usually going to be busiest in the evening and and the at still campus and again we expect to have a lot of cross use is empty at those times so if there's plenty of places in our minds or for Parking Solutions that we don't think will ever be required but again it's that's the point of having those uses that that complement each other did I answer your question oh yeah kind of kind of yeah I don't know and then the other question was um the adjacent densities around you um I know that we talked that there's some you have some residential um sure to the to the West um that's but it's in the medical um and you're looking just for the educational what are those so there are lower density uh residential projects near us those projects don't generally get built anymore those projects were generally designed and conceived before this area was what it is I don't think those projects would get built today I don't think that they would pencil out frankly but they also if again going back to my original point if you can find a place that Apartments make sense you should put the density in reasonably that you can and we definitely need it in this area uh with with the hospital and other things at still being so close for some reason I wish I were in the meeting next door it sounds like it's a lot happier maker and those are generally walk-ups what we're proposing is different we're proposing a project that has some garage units that has indoor corridors as opposed to walk up that has elevators so it it's a different product that exists today I don't think you do well building or selling renting those units I should say today it's not what the world is okay Other Board member Peterson Charleston and uh were it's uh this is a Bizarro world uh hearing because we're kind of caught in the middle right so even though it's a zoning case question we just State the uh um refresh us on number of Stories of the buildings proposed and one bedroom two bedroom you know it's that that type of thing just for for a sense of absolutely the size that and more more I think just to clarify this uh this term dormitory that's been kicked around in the previous yeah I appreciate that question I know it was used for other contexts but we're proposing market rate housing not dormitory housing specifically there are 394 units 17 of them are Studios 152 of them are one bedroom two of them I'm sorry 183 of them are two bedrooms and three of them are 42 bedrooms and you can see that it's a four-story product 42 three bedroom units what did I say I'm sorry you said three of them are 42 bedrooms sorry sorry well I'm glad you verified them now I also don't like these 7 30 meetings they're problematic for me as well unfortunately I'm not a coffee drinker so it takes me some time to to get moving in the morning so let me repeat those 17 Studios 152 one bedrooms 183 two bedrooms and 42 three bedrooms and and then how many stories um it's four stories it's 50 feet uh 60 feet to the top of mechanical okay gotcha and you can see on the screen this is an image of the project that's proposed yep four stories so we're not talking about high rise or anything we're just talking about we're not and for what it's worth the design review board had complimentary things to say about the project when we went okay perfect thank you I I guess one more question is does the um does the the vote on the previous case impact your path here or strategically did I I I guess what what direction does It Go I mean it affects us of course because we we still need the council to act on those changes um I think either way we're asking you because we don't know what the council will do our request for you is to approve our requested modification to the um to the general plan because we don't know how Council will react to your changes it sounds like it will go as two forms staff as in having one you having another so you will join us in good companies having staff not agree with you I suppose gotcha if if counsel were to approve the previous case then would you still proceed with this and the reason I'm asking is because I think in the previous hearing there's there's a lot of of confusion that gets introduced by having a small educational specialty area within the bigger medical specialty area that I think we're we're trying to to wrap our heads around too that's a tough question to answer respectfully we don't believe we need a general plan Amendment the Stillwater case recently the staff used a different mechanism to get through the general plan we actually think we could qualify under the existing General plan we don't agree with staff we don't agree with the city attorney we had some discussions with the city attorney's office and ultimately agreed that the best path forward was to find a way where we could both agree we both agree that our general plan amendment that we've proposed would work again we don't think it's necessary lawfully but rather than fight over that issue we agreed to file for a general plan Amendment and chair and board member Peterson so both of these amendments are currently on City council's agenda for introduction on the first infraction on the 8th so regardless of that motion staff's recommendation will continue to be denial on on this General plan text Amendment oh I apologize I guess a text meme is action on the first any other questions for Mr Hugh mantle I do believe there's a technical point that land has been vacant since 99 and so back then but it's been a long time to your to your point board member airs anything for the applicant no nothing right now board member Allen okay thank you thank you again for your time this morning all right well I will now open the public hearing on this item and I don't I don't see anyone from the public that's here to speak to this Mr chairman you Mr Richardson's submitted a card to address both of those items okay great then we'll have Mr Richards come back up and you'll have three minutes I missed you guys um board member Montez for your history Cassidy actually wrote it the staff report and I know she handles a lot of cases so we're going to give her a little Grace on her dates but prior to 1997 it was Agriculture and so probably gruesome hay and carrots or something in 2000 it was rezoned to industrial Light industrial to be specific in 2004 it went to the uh current pepad in 2004 and so it's been vacant almost 20 years out of the current zoning and then it's always been vacant basically I just had a couple of quick comments related to to this um I there's been a lot talked about unintended consequences and we've dealt with that all the time and it's important to think about unintended consequences of all these but sometimes you need intended consequences when when you rezone something it's with the intention of getting those kinds of uses at that place you have a UPS delivery facility the industrial case of the north of you to the north of this project I'm not going to litigate that case or argue it but but uh you know I ran a food bank for the last five and a half years and 43 000 square foot Warehouse four loading docks we had trucks coming and going all the time on that and so we're our our Focus if if our focus is a deed to preserve jobs at this location you know where housing jobs are okay jobs but in a warehouse there's not a ton of jobs there right so you know our warehouse portion probably employed about 15 people we had 50 employees but they were all mostly focused on running a charity Canada agencies and so if I'm not sure how an industrial zoning fits with medical so we have a lot of contradictions going on here and so so with all the contradictions that are happening here let's focus on what are intended our intended consequences here and not maybe maybe set aside or unintended if we feel we need housing at this location you have legal mechanisms that we've all been going through to do it so do it if we think this is a great project in the right place then let's go ahead and support that and and we've gone through all the legal mechanisms to make that happen for something that has been vacant for forever and intentionally zoned for since at least two thousand uh in 2004 and to have no proposal the Market's sending a signal there and a signal that's long overdue that that maybe that's not quite right and that's okay we don't get it right every single time but but that's why we do these amendments from time to time they're important to the process you're an important part of that process to vet this out I really appreciate whether you support it or you don't the thoughtfulness of this conversation I I it's it's been it's been really heartening that the people that get appointed to this board in my city still really care a lot about doing the right thing and I appreciate that I believe the right thing here and we we have all the legal mechanisms to do it is to to build this project so I encourage you to do it I encouraged you to support the future of at still and be intentional about your consequence and would you vote Yes on this it's sending a signal that this is the intended consequence and then we can move forward with this project I guess we'll go to Council next so we can see what they decide but but I appreciate your thoughtfulness thank you thank you Mr Richards any other public comment on this I'm not seeing any so I'll close the public hearing and now open the item for discussion among the board members board member sarkissian can I ask Ed um pending the previous case goes through with or without the admit addendum or whatever can you go over again the criteria for like meeting a sub character you know sub area or even the specialty area because we were talking about that downstairs regarding anchors and what qualifies and all that kind of stuff chair board members of kissing yes give me a minute to pull up the exact text so for the the Medical Campus when we talk about uh an anchor medical establishment is defined as a hospital including the associated Medical Office Buildings a medical clinic included Associated Medical Office Buildings or a medical school campus that constitutes at least 10 percent of the total character area or contains at least one building that's used for Hospital medical clinic or medical school and is at least 90 000 square feet was it was it either or was it I think it was either 10 90 000 or okay so that's for the medical the educational is very similar language so the anchor would be anchor is defined as either a high school campus including Associated athletic fields athletic buildings and performance art buildings or a college campus including Associated athletic fields athletic builds and Associated art buildings same with Junior High Junior higher elementary school that is adjacent to a high school campus and once again that it would constitute at least 10 percent of the character area or contain at least one building that's 90 000 square feet in size okay and so the questions we had downstairs which I believe a couple of us were still confused on or like more confused downstairs was in the language it says 10 of specialty area versus individual medical or individual right right because the the overall character area is specialty and then it's broken down into subtypes so as long as yeah 100 of educational but it's inside a larger specialty correct okay gotcha thank you any other questions or any other discussion on this board member Peterson yeah so to uh to try to step out of the procedural and Technical rabbit hole that it feels like we're in and just to look at the the uh this holistically the in in my mind were were talking about is this an appropriate place for a four-story um a apartment multi-family development to go and with uh I when the zoning case came through previously I was in support of that because I think from a good planning perspective that this this is an appropriate site that the building is it's uh it's uh it it it it feels like it's the the appropriate site for this use there's a lot of history there's a lot of layers of of uh approvals and different things that have happened here over the years and as we can see nothing has has developed and meanwhile the these medical facilities and different things have have chosen their locations everything's kind of picked a spot and this feels very complementary very appropriate for this location it says a lot for a multi-family project like this to not have had any public neighbor opposition at all and uh and that that even yields more to the the appropriateness of of it on a major arterial Street um and and the location where it is and so for that reason and I procedurally I get that there's there's a a lot of different directions here if approving this is another tool to get to that end then then I would be in um a what which may or may not depend on what how canceled cancel it how city council acts here may this this may be dropped if there's a shorter path to get there but um uh from from my position I would be in support of this uh minor General plan Amendment other discussion um I'll just say I I guess my oh sorry Shelly or sorry go ahead I just go ahead and said when I when I was looking at this initially I I did have concerns because it felt like Ground Round you know Square playground Hall um being into that it would be a hundred percent um you know residential in this educational but being that it's part of a larger size and I do feel that it serves specifically mostly the educational side I would prefer it to that's why I asked that question I feel like the overall goal of this area would be with at still to be part of that educational hot spot you know because you have I think it would work really well together with educational right next to you guys in other areas where you had the medical next to it um because it does they do serve each other and it's kind of just stuff we're looking at definitions here of what's this what's that um but I do agree with the the residential here um fit feel fits with what is needed to boost that area to just I mean the intensity here I think will further Drive the intensity behind it and along that area in the economic development sense and boost also at still to further grow and expand and invest in that area um so while I was I had some concerns but hearing that the the educational is the sub area but the specialty area as long as the specialty area has that tenant anchor I feel like it's met that criteria and it feeds that 10 acre which qualifies as either medical or educational so so that that's that's why I feel like I've I'm leaning that way um on this one board member Allen thank you um I I guess my opinion is the same as it was before I was opposed to this project and the reason that I'm opposed to this project is um several different things I mean one we talk about all the you know Apartments being needed for that that this location in the hospital uh the hospital there's I live in that area so there's uh one two three four at least six apartment uh with it with the two that are proposed there's going to be at least six apartment complexes surrounding this Hospital area and I think that we just approved another uh apartment uh complex what a couple of weeks ago or about a month ago or something like that kind of in this area um and I I do believe I still am a firm believer and a strong supporter of Economic Development and I think that um that we their other their other viable locations they can look at but this type of audacity there and I don't think just my opinion I'm sticking with my original vote is that I think that we need to preserve the employment districts and employment areas because we have built apartments on some of the other employment districts on Baseline and Greenfield and I think we're just slowly eating away at that and we've got to at least maintain what's there now but that's my opinion thank you thank you board member Allen the board member pitcher I I just like to agree with board member Alan I I'm I'm concerned about the the loss of these these economic engines that we'd have I you know I I don't think the putting in a large apartment complex is going to drive Economic Development it's going to you know take it away so I'm I'm still opposed to this I I don't think and I agree with staff on this as far as being very selective where we're putting in rm5 this isn't it thanks thank you and I and I you know my perspective on this it's not in a surprise to people I agree with what board members pitcher and Allen have said on this one um I am I'm a little troubled by this because I think we're trying to as I mentioned earlier fit a square peg in a round hole but um anyway any other comments board member Montez do you have anything to add no uh board member errors anything no I'm good okay all right well uh if we don't have any further discussion I will entertain a motion on this item board member Peterson I'll move to approve zon 22-01129 Millennium Superstition Springs minor General plan Amendment District 2 within the 5700 to 5900 blocks of East Baseline Road within the 1800 to 1900 blocks of South Sunview and within the 5700 to 5900 blocks of East Inverness Avenue located west of record road on the north side of Baseline Road minor General plan Amendment from specialty Medical Campus to Specialty educational campus this request will allow for a multiple residence development with uh recommendation for approval well the staff recommendation on this is denial yes that's okay his motion was to recommend approval of it okay gotcha okay do I have a motion do I have a second also I think okay we have a motion in a second let's vote on this one oh I'm sorry board member heirs yes and board member Allen you're on mute no no okay so by your vote of four yeses and three no's you have passed this item thank you and thank you again for making time for a special meeting you're welcome good day good to have you here so uh Michelle is there anything else on our agenda today to cover there's no other items to discuss on the agenda Mr chairman I'm sorry say that again there are no other additional items to discuss okay thank you uh then I will entertain a motion to adjourn still moved second okay all in favor vote I I will go ahead and vote all right well okay it sounds like it's unanimous so we are thank you [Music] foreign [Music]