turn my mic on all right welcome everybody to the April 10th 2024 City Mesa Planning and Zoning Board public hearing we glad to have you all here we'll begin with taking a roll call uh chair SS myself I am here Vice chair pitcher here board member Crockett here board member blakeman here board member Carpenter here and board member Peterson and board member Montes are not here with us today so as part of the agenda uh we do have a consent agenda this will all be read into the record and acted on in one motion these items will not be uh discussed individually and uh board member Carpenters agree to read the consent agenda today all right uh the items on the consent agenda are the approval of minutes from previous meetings uh pz 24052 meeting minutes from March 27 uh 2024 planning zoning meeting uh z23 d1002 waterburger power and Broadway District 2 within the 300 block of South Power Road and within the 6,800 block of East Broadway Road located north on Broadway Road on the east side of Power Road major site plan modification and amending the conditions of approval for case number z91 038 this request will allow for a restaurant with a drive-through facility uh staff recommendation approval of conditions uh next item Zo N 23- 00743 Central Mesa reuse pipeline within the 3600 block of East Thomas Road and within 3600 block of North Valvista Drive located on the east of Valvista Drive on the north side of Thomas Road rezone from General industrial to public and semi-public with a bonus intensity Zone overlay Council use permit and site plan review this request will allow for the development of a major utility um the city of Mesa staff recommendation approval with conditions uh next item Z 23- 00174 southwest corner Ellsworth Road and Peterson Avenue within 3400 to 3600 blocks of South Ellsworth Road and within the 90 uh 9,000 to 9200 blocks of East Peterson Avenue located north of Ellsworth Road Excuse Me Elliot Road on the west side of ellworth road rezone from planned employment park with two planned area development overlays and limited commercial with two planned area development overlays to limited commercial and site plan review this request will allow for the large commercial development uh Ellsworth Land El all right staff recommendations approval with condition next item Z 22- 00779 Gallery Park freeway l Landmark Monument um within the 4900 to 5200 blocks of South Power Road and within the 6800 to 7,000 blocks of East Ray Road located south of the loop 202 Santan freeway on the east side of Power Road Council use permit this request will allow for a freeway Landmark Monument uh staff recommendation approval with conditions um next item Z 23-00 923 uh 1868 North Power Road within the 1800 and 1900 blocks of North Power Road located south of melbs road on the west side of Power Road review of a PR preliminary plat uh staff recommendation approval with conditions all right thank you and we don't have any other cards than what I have now good all right so I would like to request motion for to approve the consent agenda as read I move that we approve the consent agenda as read by board member Carpenter thank you there second second second all in favor and vice chair pitcher what's your vote I and we'll see if the computer likes us today all right that is unanimous and appreciate everybody's help on that one so we will now move into the rest of the yeah now everybody leaves appreciate you guys being here so um all right so we're going to move into our first case or our only case we're going to hear is that correct Mary ready to go oh sure yes please I was trying to find out which one that is so we have a presentation on zoning case 2 21 uh 00874 which is the C cottages at San this is a request for resoning from a limited commercial to multiple residents too with a planned area development and a site plan review and Sean pezak will make their presentation all right good afternoon chair board members um as mentioned this is k1 21- 00874 this is a request to rezone um the subject site from limited commercial uh to multiple residents 2 with the planned area development overlay and site plan review and this is for multiple residents Dev M so the site is currently vacant it's about 2.75 acres in size and located um on the west side of sasman road uh north of uh East Main Street and is directly south of an existing self storage facility and then north of an existing uh strip commercial center across the street is a county island with single single family residential so the curer area um designation on the site is neighborhood with a Suburban subtype so it's intended to provide residential um uses rm2 is the primary zoning District listed in the in the neighborhood um character area and then multiple residence is a primary um use the existing zoning again as as mentioned is limited commercial and the proposed zoning is multi residence 2 uh with the planned area development overlay and multiple residents is is allowed by right in the rm2 zone so this a site photo looking from sapen road you can see on the east on the on the right hand side of the image is the self storage facility left hand side is the the backs of the commercial buildings so the applicant is proposing 37 uh rental units with a density of just over 13 dwelling units per acre uh there's a centralized amenity space consisting of a pool and pickle ball court and then in the northeast corner there's an enclosed um dock Park Primary access is on the Northern portion of the site from sasman Road and there's an emergency only um driveway and gate in the Southeast corner so per um Mesa Zing ordinance the 78 parking space spaces are required to serve this development um 80 total spaces are proposed um and 37 of those are are dedicated carport spaces for the residents um each dwelling unit will have two parking spaces provided and then Six Guest spaces south of the of the pool area so here's an image of the landscape plan um as I'll get into there are some deviations being requested to landscape buffers um but as you can see there there's plenty of trees and shrubs proposed along the South property line and along the East property line um adjacent to sasman road so the elevations um did not go to a formal design or view workor session because the density is under the maximum um for rm2 uh but staff did review the elevations for consistency with applicable um design standards um and here's an image um of those floor plans so there's three total floor plans being proposed each floor plan has four distinct elevations and then here's some renderings of the site this is internal of the development and then this is looking West from sofman road so the applicants requesting five deviations from the Mesa zoning ordinance the first being uh building setbacks so per code 30 FTS required along the north and west property line um the applicants proposing 6 feet minimum setback along the north property line and then 24 ft along the west property line uh building separation because these are two story dwelling units uh 30 FTS required and the applicants proposing 12 ft minimum building separation uh for materials two are required for each facade and they must cover at least 25% um plan a is Spanish Spanish floor plan so um only 9 9% is covered uh for landscape yards uh 15 ft buffers required um or sorry 15t buffers required along the Northwest and South property lines and the applicants requesting a reduction to six feet along the north property line 10 feet along the west and 8 feet along the South and then for plant and shrub materials um in those yards the applicants requesting a reduction on the Northern yard um because the separation is so so um there's not enough separation between the homes and the and the northern property line so property were notified within 1,000 ft as well as HOAs in registered neighborhood um a virtual meeting was held on October 21st um no one attended um so a second letter was sent out shortly after and a second neighborhood meeting was held um on November 15 of 2021 um two members of the public attended both residents in Maricopa County across the street um there were some concerns raised at that meeting regarding lack of parking noise from the um Community amenities um reduced property values and then environmental concerns uh staff has not been contacted by any members of the public regarding this proposal so overall we find that the request complies with the 2040 Mesa General plan uh chapter 2 of the MZ for p80 overlay and criteria 6 chapter 69 for Sight plan review and our recommendation is approval with conditions thank you thank you Sean is there any questions for Sean fromard no all right do the applicant want to come up and present them good afternoon chair and uh board members um happy to be with you this afternoon about the cottages on San we're going back in time a little bit to Zone 21 you probably haven't seen one of those those in a little bit um but this is a a case we've been working on for a few years now with with staff and um it's brought forward by company called craft homes and this is a local um here in Mesa home builder that um and developer focused on um a lot of single family homes but also some other uh different types of residential products uh including a similar one to to the one proposed here today um and the site in question here it is located uh as Sean said north uh the northwest corner of Main Street in sasman Road and this is an infill parcel it's kind of a leftover uh piece of property that um for whatever reason when the Sun Valley Plaza retail Center was developed uh it it this parcel was not uh kind of included in that and it ended up kind of being vacant uh between that retail Center and uh a self storage facility that developed to the north but the site is it does have a general plan designation of neighborhood uh so this has always been intended to be developed as a as a residential use um and so when you look at at this site and its existing zoning of LC it's kind of a again a leftover parcel and and given the lack of success or the current kind of lack of activity at that retail Center on the corner it's kind of hard to imagine uh a retail use being successful here um you think you know commercial may be more self storage could work but I don't think that's really what uh the city wants to see so you know kind of looking at what might work here in furtherance of the general plan we looked at options for uh what type of residential product could be successful here and we you know you looked around what exists in the surrounding area and you see a lot of similar type of products in town homes um kind of Auto Court style homes um and that's what we kind of ended up with uh again you can see the the the existing site condition this is an F property that um has some large power lines here uh I see a smile of one of the board members um but the uh you know this is kind of waiting for for activity to be brought here and I think the proposal that we have for you brings uh a great design that it really will be an improvement to this community and so uh getting to the proposal this is the cottage is on saucan uh this is 37 residential units at a density of about 13 and a half dwelling units per acre uh these homes range from 1,00 to 1100 square ft uh roughly each unit is two bedrooms with a two bedrooms on the second floor the the primary floor the main floor is uh a um kind of open floor plane with a great room and a kitchen uh and bathroom uh the the parking I know has has was something that we've discussed with staff and board members and the community the the community is parked to coat it's actually parked slightly above Co code with two parking spaces per unit one covered with a a um carport and then a parking space behind and then uh an additional six guest parking spaces located in the in the center of the property uh adjacent the the centrally located amenity uh uses which include a pool uh a uh Turf and a lawn area pickle ball located on the North uh property line and then in the southwest corner you have um another Remada and Gathering area uh and then in the north east you have a dog park for um use of the residence with pets here are just kind of some of the pretty pictures of the of the uh proposed development you can see that there's a lot of attention given to the design um wanting to use a a a variety of materials um and create you know aesthetic interest within a community like this I think it's often easy for it to just be a lot of monotony and um this I think brings a lot of diversity to the uh to the appearance and kind of creates um some uniqueness where um often you might find that lacking here you kind of can see a good a view of of the car ports and how that carport connects uh the the various units and their different styles there's the the essentially located guest parking and the pool in rot space this is on that south side of thek property uh and lastly this is um you know it's consistent with the mro general plan it achieves a number of the the goals within that General plan this is an infill site and I think it brings a great design to uh this site I know we've heard from the board members that's a a priority is to to um bring good development to these infill sites within the city uh the development team really has taken good care and and and time and effort into delivering a high quality project here with um a really high level of design that I think will be an improvement to um this area and it brings new investment to this area and hopefully new activity that can help uh support that that retail Center on the uh on the corner of Main Street and stman obviously this can't alone fix that that um area but bringing you know more more people more activity here uh can certainly help do its part and then you know we've heard from the from some members of the surrounding area some of the other HOA communities that uh were supportive of this development because of it's going to bring uh new development again to this un undeveloped vacant parcel which as we've seen with a lot of vacant Parcels it it it attracts unwanted activity so um with that we're grateful to have have staff support for this we we uh are grateful for the the time that they've um spent with us working to to make this a good project that fits with this area um and you know with with no significant neighborhood opposition we we did have two neighborhood meetings and had had two neighbors um in attendance there it sounds like they may be have a comment here tonight but happy to address those questions and and any questions you may have all right thanks Alex would you quickly just introduce yourself and oh sorry yeah at the beginning I got a little too excited my name is Alex Hayes 2525 East Arizona boilore Circle all right thanks Alex all right any questions no no good Jeff you're good yes we're just checking to make sure he's listening all right with that thank Alex okay so no questions so um I do have a couple of cards uh that I want to make sure I read uh one is going to be just uh I'll read the statement and then one is actually asked to speak at this time so the first one uh Colleen Melton and then she says she does not want to speak You're is that correct you not want to speak all right so um Colleen uh 7613 East akan Street 85207 and parking will be an issue and they will end up parking in front of my my house is is the comment and she is opposed to item 3E and then I also do have Brian Paul that does wish to speak right come on and Brian if you could uh please uh just state your name and your address for us for the record all right Brian Paul 7621 East akan Street um I'm here to rip on behalf of the residents of the Apache sand subdivision um the Apache Sands is an older subdivision of Maric County with home construction beginning in the late 50s uh this is is a well established close-knit community of residents some living here for over 50 years as stated before uh we were approached in 2021 only one time not October we were not notified in October it was the later meeting um and the residents received a card in the mail proposed with for this proposed development about this meeting um I feel like the petitioner researched the demographics on this uh and chose an online format for the meeting uh to discuss the proposed development knowing the residents have a difficult time participating in it most of them being elderly uh I even had trouble participating and I consider myself somewhat tech-savvy um and I actually had to call the original uh meeting would not work and I had to call which Mr Hayes can verify I had to call him for a new uh Link at that time uh again as he's saying um several issues were brought up um we felt like we were not being listened to we brought up issues um asked for feedback on them you know all the answers we got was oh we'll check into it we'll get answers for you we'll get back with you no communication since then uh so also I'll get straight into some of the uh concerns we have uh with the traffic congestion this is the third development being built between University and San one under construction currently uh it's already causing uh numerous issues and has for the past year and a half that the res current residents have had to endure so this is going to again prolong that uh also the noise of batement in the proposed drawing there's a front wall in accordance with the current ordinances this wall can only be 4 and a half fet tall with the topmost foot and a half being transparent this means there's going to be 3 ft of solid wall that funnels all the traffic noise from San into our community basing basically creating an Amphitheater for traffic noise into us has there any noise abatement mitigation strategies been established also with the parking situation uh the current ordinances only require 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit when uh the multiple residents is within A4 mile of a bus stop uh there are two bus stops on the Block between San and Maine um so there uh with the there is a similar uh Housing Development on the within the same block on that area uh this is on billing Street uh when those were built uh all the Overflow parking wound up going to the front of that residence um you can Google the image of that and it shows nine cars parked on the street right there um with this proposed uh amount of parking it's going to the residents are not going to have enough spaces so that overflow parking is then going to spill over into iron neighborhood um so as they're you know now that's going to cause safety issues again congestion issues there are children in the neighborhood uh uh can an off-site parking agreement be reached with a commercial lot next to the residents um and also another Point Mr Hayes just brought up um if this area was always deemed to be uh the intent of it was residential why was it Zone commercial in the first place um also putting a residential area that is basically landlocked between all commercial facilities doesn't seem feasible to me I would not want to live in a development like that I don't know who would who would want to live being surrounded by commercial property um so that is a concern and also again he strengthened the argument with the uh comment about the power lines being there again who would want to live in a residence with huge power lines that's your when you walk out of your house who wants to see that all right and also with this uh when we were originally briefed during the meeting these were going to be homes for sale um now I guess they are have turned into rental properties so that is also going to have an effect on the existing homeowners and their property values uh is there any compensation that is going to be that the applicant could uh provide for lowering our property values that's a huge concern having a a rental property beside an established neighborhood with residents moving in and out frequently so um also uh the noise and dust abatement during the construction uh that's going to be huge uh I myself work night shift a couple of other residents work night shift as well in a very close proximity uh to this uh proposed development um this is going to have a a severe impact on my life and my ability to perform my job functions um so basically I'm going to have to find somewhere else to sleep during the day because this is going to cause a a huge amount of uh noise pollution so has any type of abatement or plan for that been put in place Mr Paul give you a couple extra minutes here there kind of just wrap up for us that be appreciate it want to make sure you had plenty of time okay all right um and I think we all know uh right now the the Phoenix housing market has kind of leveled out and is is kind of on a downturn a little uh since this uh since this development was initially proposed um again as I was saying there uh is a development that has been construction for what the better part of a year now on the corner with similar units to this um so I feel like this is also going to flood the market with unneeded units again lowering everyone's property value that is an existing homeowner so that's thank you that's really about all I have so appreciate your time Mr Paul appreciate you coming down okay so that is the only two oh can say one thing of course yeah come on up Miss Melton if you could just say your name and address I'd appreciate I am Colleen Melton 7613 East akan thank you as you can tell I am a senior citizen I am the second house from the corner of saaman I live alone the last thing I KN need is people parking in front of my house that I don't know it's very nerve-wracking it's bad enough we have the house next door that's being used for um drug treatment center a drug treatment center which which may be a violation of the Z right but we're County so we have to go before another zoning commission for that I'm just not comfortable with having people park in front of my house it you know we don't even have lights on the street you know what I mean do you understand what I'm saying yes no yes that's it all right thank you Miss belon we appreciate your time okay with that bring the appli AL want to come back up to respond to some of the comments yeah just just briefly um on a couple of those items I think one important one is related to the citizen participation in our notice um this was 2021 so this was a time when virtual meetings were I think the norm for obvious reasons and the first neighborhood meeting we held or noticed I think I did speak with Mr Paul and um they were having trouble accessing the zoom meeting our our development team was all able to access it via a link separately so that it did it was an effective link but given the fact that the residents had challenges we did notice the second meeting um but again was also virtual but but those uh both Miss Melton and Mr Paul were able to attend that meeting meeting so um so we uh were able to you know hear their concerns and and discuss the project with them at that time um related to uh the construction of the site you know I think short of leaving this site vacant for you know perpetuity there's always going to be some kind of construction impact that happens here um I think bringing new development here and creating value is is what the city wants and it's a good thing this is uh you know in the general plan for residential use the proposed use is is in furtherance of that General plan and the quality project that is being proposed here will is an improvement Upon A a vacant lot that attracts unwanted activity and what we see across the valley is that in those circumstances it actually does increase the value of the properties around it so I think um where there's concern about it reducing property values is really kind of unfounded um as for parking this is actually parked at 2.1 space per uh per unit so this is um above code two two spaces per home with an additional uh six parking spaces for uh guest parking and you know I think we'd be certainly willing to look into a potential parking agreement with the retail Center to the extent that they have a lot of excess spaces but um we do feel comfortable that we're parked um in compliance with the ordinance and we're you know operating within the uh within the sandbox that's provided within the city of Mesa thank you all right with that we'll close the public hearing portion of this and we'll begin our board discussion so put it back to the board here if there's anyone that like to discuss or to bring up us you know a motion for item 3 well I I'll just I'll make a motion here in a moment but I'm I'd just like to kind of express my opinion on this I um I hear the comment for that that our our uh public have made today and I I think I think those are reflected in the zoning ordinances that we have in the city um we we have a lack of housing affordable housing in Mesa today and affordable doesn't mean lowquality housing I think what I'm looking for especially on an infill property that's been vacant for a long time is quality construction um that provides housing opportunities for people that need that need the housing so I think the applicant here has done a nice job in fashioning a project that looks good that provides in my view uh it's above the it's above the minimum code requirements for parking um it's next to a commercial uh retail Center I assume that if people need to park they may they'll probably park there if there's a need for that but but I uh you know I support the project and and um I'm ready to make a motion when we've had we completed our discussion anything I want to bring no need proba we need definite Solutions not prob we PR yeah so I think to add to yours as well a little bit I this is and we've talked about this quite a bit and completely understand some of the public comments as well these types of infill development are sely needed in Mesa um a lot of the concern that we do have with parking on on projects similar to this is when they have garages that are not utilized for their parking and that is not a problem this that's on this site I think they've been clever about the design on that so you're not going to be able to see a garage filled for example with storage so their parking is not able to be parked on site on their own driveway and so that is some of the concerns I have and I think what they've done here is actually really clever to alleviate those concerns because that's what we see all the time right as far as design I think again I agree with you Jeff this is something that's certainly um better than a lot of the other ones that we see sometimes I think they've done a very good job on the design and I think that this is also when you think of the other types of development that could happen on a a location like this this is something I think is is going to be very good uh here in this location so I'm also in support of this project as well and so with that if there's anybody Jeff do you have anything on there as well no I I I'd Echo those those comments there there's really a a lack of affordable housing in Mesa and having uh two children that uh are facing this right now this is this would be a welcome kind of a development for them so I to am and in favor of this Development question I'm sorry we can't do we've closed the public hearing I apologize I appreciate it all right well I'll make a motion I move that we approve case z23 nope wrong one I move the we proov case Co 21- 00874 cottages on saaman in District 2 within the 100 block of North saaman Road West Side located north of Main Street and West of saaman Road uh rezone from limited commercial to multiple residents 2 with a planned area development overlay and site plan review this request will allow for a multiple residents development the staff recommendation is approval with conditions thank you is there a second of that motion I'll second that thank you Jeff all in favor and Jeff what's your vote Yes and that is unanimous with uh board member Peterson and board member montz is not here today with a 5-0 vote that passes so we appreciate everybody's being here and being a part of the process all right with that I'll turn it over is there anything that we need from an update I our board members no additional updates thank you all right with that I would request a motion to adjourn I'll move that we adjourn our public second hearing I'll second I'll second that okay you're a little late and I'm guessing you're in favor Jeff yes all right unanimous again thank you everybody