good afternoon and welcome to the September 20 2023 Mesa Planning and Zoning Board public hearing we will begin with a roll call I am board member Crockett chair Ayers is absent today as is vice chair pitcher uh board member Peterson here board member Montez here board member blakeman here and board member Carpenter here well it appears that we have a quorum so we will move ahead as you heard in the introduction we operate with a consent agenda we have a couple of items on our consent agenda today that will be voted as a group if there's anyone that is here just to confirm uh on items three C and 3D and you'd like to speak on those you need to let us know right now we have any requests to speak and I'm not seeing anyone in the audience so board member carpenter has volunteered to read our consent agenda today so I will turn the time over to him thank you the items of the consent agenda are item 3C pz2311 proposed amendments to chapters 45678 10 30 31 33 86 and 87 of Title 11 zoning ordinance of the city of the mesa city code the Amendments include but are not limited to modifying land use tables to remove outdated information and correct references modifying landscape standards to the consistent to be consistent across various chapters of the zoning ordinance clarifying outdoor storage requirements modifying how accessory structures are measured clarifying development standards for group commercial industrial and office developments correcting previous codification errors in the land use definitions and adding a new definition for cross access the staff recommend recommendation is adoption the next item of the consented agenda is item three agenda item 3D pz23112 proposed amendments to Chapters 69 of Title 11 zoning ordinance of the mesa city code pertaining to site plan review the Amendments include but are not limited to amending the site plan modification process set forth in section 11-69-7 of the Mesa zoning ordinance staff recommendation adoption thank you okay you've heard the consent agenda do I have a motion to approve it sub mode is there a second second all right let's vote oh there it there's the vote looks like the vote is unanimous five eyes No No's you have passed your consent agenda I will turn the time over now to staff for presentations on the remaining items all right chair board members the first item off of consent is item 3A and our planning director Mary Kapowski Brown will be making a presentation on proposed text amendments to our hips historic preservation ordinance to you changes to the historic preservation ordinance which are included in the basis zoning ordinance and some of the changes that we're proposing as a background what we looked at in 1994 if the Mesa zoning ordinance was modified to include historic preservation regulations in the year in 1997 and the early 2000s they were updated but what we're finding is that in some cases they're a little outdated and we wanted to bring them up to to uh current standards in 2019 we received a grant from for to update the Mesa zoning ordinance and to develop design guidelines for our historic resources here in the city the regulations are found currently in four different chapters of the Mesa zoning ordinance chapters 23 44 66 and 74. there are also several historic preservation terms that are not defined and they have been added to chapter 87. so there were three goals that we wanted to achieve in doing the changes to the zoning ordinance as it related to our historic resources the first again was to consolidate them all into one section to make it easy for those who currently own a historic resource to be able to understand the requirements that they would have to apply apply to their properties we wanted to clarify standards related to designated historic resources in the city and we wanted to Define our any of those terms related to Historic preservation which are not currently found in the code as it relates to consolidating standards and ensuring consistency chapters 23 the historic preservation overlay chapter chapter 44 as it relates to Historic signs were moved into chapter 74 to consolidate all of the regulations related to Historic preservation into one part of the code we also look to eliminate redundant and unnecessary Provisions in some cases there was things within each of the different pieces that we were able to eliminate we wanted to ensure consistent terminology so we're using the same terms as it relates to all of our historic resources we wanted to update our references within the Mesa zoning ordinance and we wanted to make our public notice requirements for historic resources consistent to conform with the other portions of the Mesa zoning ordinance as it related to clarifying standards we expanded on the purpose of the historic preservation procedures for historic preservation overlay districts we wanted to clarify the application and review process update eligibility requirements and then better Define the current overlay process as it relates to the certificate of appropriateness we wanted to clarify the relationship with the building permit and when a COA or certificate of appropriateness is required as it related to demolition permits there were two things we wanted to clarify that within an improved overlay District if you were denied a a demolition permit that it could be appealed and if it was denied that there was a 180 day delay in issuing any demo permit to give City staff members of the historic preservation board and the applicant an opportunity to work together to develop a plan or agreement to see if there was some way to clarify and and determine a path forward we've also added and clarified in that section that if all of the parties agree that that time frame can be extended within a proposed overlay district for a period of 100 days once that proposal is put before City count or is applied to at the city there is a state of demolition for 180 days on any buildings and if that overlay is not approved by the city council within 180 days then demo permits could be allowed if they are applied for as it relates to Historic signs we wanted to clarify the application and review process we wanted to identify eligibility criteria to find responsibilities as it relates to maintenance and repair and provide a clear revocation process for historic signs if someone wanted to take it out of that that designation it's important to note that all of our historic preservation regulations really is about balancing the historic resources and their importance in the city and protecting them with the rights of the property owner and in everything that we've done we've really tried to make that balance and then we've also looked at a clear appeals process we've defined terms one is missing from this slide and I'll add that it's so we've defined the terms for historic districts historic landmarks historic preservation overlay historic signs that end the historic preservation officer and the one that's not on your list is the state of disrepair thank you just to clarify what that means as it relates to the duty to maintain through this process we've had some Outreach we had a study session with the historic preservation board on August 1st of this year we had a public meeting on August 24th at approximately 60 residents show up for that studies or for that public meeting and then the historic preservation board made a recommendation on September 5th basically agreeing with all of staff's recommendations with four modifications staff has agreed to three of those modifications the difference in in the recommendation from the historic preservation board has to do with that state of demolition as it relates to existing historic districts they are looking at 108 or I'm sorry a one-year stay demolition for existing historic districts and then on the supplemental list which we maintain a Mesa historic property list of all of our historic resources and then the supplemental list identifies potential resources that are eligible for designation they put a one-year stay demolition I'm sorry a 180 days day of demolition on those that is different than stamps recommendations staff's recommendation is to maintain the 180 days for both the existing and the proposed historic districts our next steps are to bring this to city council study session on November 2nd for their information to introduce the ordinance on November 6th and to look for a final action on November 20th we are still working with the historic preservation board on the design guideline portion of this project so we may that may be delayed if we decide to bring them both together depending on what happens at the historic preservation board in October um in a few weeks with that I am happy to answer any questions thank you director kopasky Brown uh just for my own clarification so the requested modifications from the historic preservation board staff has agreed to three of the four is that right that is correct and are those reflected in The Proposal that we're voting on tonight that is correct okay and then with regard to the fourth proposal on the one-year stay out that's the recommendation of staff is six months and not one year correct 180 days okay thank you are there questions other questions on this one I don't think so thank you uh is there any discussion uh oh I do we have anyone from the public here to speak on this item not on this item sure okay thank you uh is there any discussion among the board members on this before we take it on board member Peterson please yeah so so uh just in consideration of the historic preservation board's recommendation for the stem demolition um to be extended to a year versus the 180 days and whereas in the um in the study session it was represented the full this is only for full demolitions that they're very rare anyway and that uh and that during that if if there was to be a full demolition that that applicant would be needing to prepare plans or do something for what they were going to do in lieu of of the property once once in the existing site once it was demoed it uh the uh I just felt compelled to stay in line with the historic preservation board's recommendation rather than than modified as recommended by staff okay thank you board member Peterson any other discussion on this item is there a motion forthcoming I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve item 3 apz 23110 amendments to Chapters 23 44 66 74 and 87 of Title 11 zoning ordinance of the mesa city code pertaining to Historic preservation overlays historic science the historic preservation board and the historic district and Historic Landmark procedures the Amendments include but are not limited to repealing in its entirety chapter 23 historical landmark overly districts and replacing it with a new chapter 23 historic preservation overlay repealing in its entirety chapter 44 historic signs and replacing it with a new chapter 44 historic signs modifying section 11-66-4 pertaining to the historic preservation board repelling in its entirety chapter 74 historic district and Historic Landmark procedures and replacing it with a new chapter 74 historic preservation procedures and adding new definitions for a historic district Historic Landmark historic preservation overlay historic preservation officer and historic sign and the the recommendation on that is to approve in line with the approval of of items one through four of the historic preservation board's recommendation that was approved chair board members for clarification you're recommending adoption of the proposed text amendments With The Changes proposed by the historic preservation board and those are items one through four and excuse me listed in the staff report correct thank you so so there that is the motion that is on the table is there a second to that motion wait a second okay then I will call for the vote on that if you'd vote now okay by your vote of four eyes and one no you have passed uh item three a uh as as it was amended by board member Peterson that's correct okay all right uh then back to staff for the next item thank you chair Crockett our next item is item 3B which are proposed amendments to Chapters 5 6 7 8 31 58 86 and 87 of Title 11 as they pertain to drive through facilities and assistant director Rachel Nettles will make that presentation okay thank you chair board members okay it's showing up I wanted to make sure all right so I'm here tonight to discuss with you some proposed amendments to our drive-through regulations I want to give you a quick recap of this project and where we've been so this project was initiated early 2022 at the direction of city council it has been an ongoing process with many iterations we've been doing extensive Outreach with the public and based on feedback both from Council yourselves and the public there have been various modifications to the recommended text amendments so we are here before today to to um to show you our proposed recommendation to move forward to city council so during that process of the feedback that we received we heard both from our development community and from residences and the feedback that we heard from the development Community was that the proposed amendments requiring a council use permit would be costly timely and arbitrary there was a sentiment then in request that the these goals could be accomplished through development standards instead of hard regulations on the number of drive-throughs located adjacent to one another and through regulating it through processes and the other common comment was that our proposed amendments were not in line with other jurisdictions that they were relaxing regulations and that we were increasing ours and making it harder to develop in Mesa at the same time we continued to hear from residents that Council should be limiting the number of drive-throughs to adjust some concerns such as on-site congestion and to encourage more out of car shopping and vibrancy of our centers that they have you know their opinion that there are enough Quick Serve restaurants within the city already and that there really is a desire for higher quality development in Mesa So based on some of that feedback and the set of public meetings that we had late in 2020 to and early 2023 staff took a a step back and we did some extensive research of our surrounding jurisdictions to see where they are allowing drive-throughs what their processes were and what their development standards were so through this research we found that drive-through facilities are permitted in a significantly larger portion of Mesa than in our surrounding jurisdictions and we also found that our proposed development standards were very much in line with the standards of other jurisdictions as well so before we we have a table that outlines some of that research that we conducted the first two columns look at the land area as far as the zoning districts where drive-throughs are permitted by right and where they are permitted with the council use permit and those were shown on the previous slide with those Maps as you can see in Mesa currently 21.2 percent of our land area permits drive-throughs by right um only one percent of our land area requires a council use permit the closest neighboring jurisdiction to us would be Gilbert but they are far less with only 9.1 percent of their land where drive-throughs are permitted by right and point five percent of the land where a council use permit or a conditional use permit I should say is required we looked also at our existing drive-throughs in the city so as opposed to the land area and where they could be developed we look specifically at where drive-throughs are now and how many we have per capita so per 10 000 people in Mesa we have 5.07 drive-throughs um in comparison um Chandler is slightly higher they have a smaller land area but for them they have 6.55 drive-throughs per 10 000 residents we also looked at this in relation to the overall land area and in Mesa per 100 acres we have 2.14 drive-throughs for every 100 acres so you can see that we really do have a quite difference from surrounding communities and availability to develop drive-throughs in Mesa So based on some of that research we went forward and further refined our recommendations this is a summary of of the category so we made some adjustments to the definitions we created a separate definition for drive-through facilities pickup window facilities and drive up ATM facilities currently our zoning regulation IT addresses all of them under drive-throughs one thing that we heard from both stakeholders city council other board members was and staff agrees that there is a difference in operations of some of these facilities and in impacts they create so by creating these different definitions we were able to tailor development standards specific to them as well as processes um the next set of amendments are proposed modifications to the process for some zoning districts this is to better align with other jurisdictions to better meet the intent of the zoning districts themselves and the general plan character error designations and to increase public engagement opportunities another big change to these amendments is we are proposing that in on-site circulation and stacking study be provided for drive-through facilities this is specific for drive-throughs and would not be required for pickup window facilities or drive up ATM facilities and lastly there are a set of modifications to our development standards to address some of the impacts and this was you know based on the recommendation that we heard from stakeholders instead of keeping to the hard number to address some of the concentration and the impacts that we had originally had in previous versions We went back and refined development standards instead to try to address those so with the proposed amendments the definitions as I mentioned we created three different definitions one for driving through facilities one for pickup window facilities and one for drive up ATM uh teller window facilities the big difference between drive-up facilities and pickup window facilities is that pickup window facilities do not have menu boards or order placing boxes there patrons would be placing their orders beforehand and they simply drive up to the window to receive their goods when we look at our recommendations for land use districts and the processes we are recommending that a cup be required in the neighborhood commercial which was formally required a special use permit and then we're recommending that a cup be required in the plan employment Park like industrial district General industrial district and heavy industrial district which currently requires a special use permit when we looked at other jurisdictions most jurisdictions do not allow drive-through facilities and in their industrial districts when we look at the intent of our industrial districts it is to promote employment generating uses and those districts are often correlated to our employment District character area which once again is intended to promote a wide array of high quality jobs so we feel that by requiring a cup it better meets the intent of those districts and preserving those for employment uses and economic development within the city this would not ban them from industrial districts but it would allow city council to look at these and to determine whether they are appropriate for those areas and to consider the impacts that they pose with these proposed amendments the city attorney's office is working on various options that we discussed in the study session as far as proposition 207 waivers and what property owners could do to to keep the rights to develop a drive-through if they currently own a property with one of these zoning districts where it is changing so for the on-site circulation and stacking study this is a proposed requirement as I mentioned earlier just for drive-through facilities not for pickup window facilities or drive up ATM teller windows and with this we are requesting an analysis of the site to determine whether the proposed stacking meets the operational requirements of the facilities so with this there would be a description of operational characteristics which include the business hours of operation the methods by which the orders are placed the peak demand hours the time required to serve typical customers and lastly how noise and other operations will be mitigated to neighboring properties so a lot of these a lot of these operational conditions kind of feed into stacking and how long people are are lined up in in these lines in addition the second part of this study would be a description of the on-site traffic activity itself so what are the arrival rates what are the anticipated stacking requirements a requirement to show an on-site circulation plan which shows points of entries shows the distance of the stacking Lanes shows a cross-access drive vials and what that anticipated pattern or circulation is on the site and this once again is to help demonstrate that it will not be causing impacts that overflow into adjacent Properties or onto our roadways and the last part of that would be a description a mitigation plan of how those how that backup would be addressed so what are the measures to prevent any such overflow into surrounding Properties or onto the streets the next set of development standards has to do with our stacking requirements currently we require a hundred feet between drive-through windows and Order placing boxes and 40 feet between an order placing box and the entry to a drive-through so we're recommending that this remain and we are proposing that there be additional standards specific to pickup windows and ATM teller Windows since they do not have many ordering boards or um order boxes instead for pick up Windows you would be 100 feet stacking distance from the window itself to the entry of that that pickup window Lane and for the drive up ATM teller window a 40 feet distance from the teller ATM to the entry of the the lane itself um in addition we are proposing that for all these facilities that there be a 50-foot separation between the drive-through lanes and a street access or cross-access drive aisle this mimics the requirements we have in the code currently for a 50-foot separation from access to a street to a cross-access drive aisle into parking spaces this actually came as a result of planning and zoning boards recommendation a year ago to address some of the concerns about cars that were overflowing into adjacent properties like in group commercial developments finally we have written into the Amendments that these these stocking requirements can be deviated from if through the on-site circulation and stacking study they're able to to demonstrate that what they're proposing is sufficient to meet the demands of of the operations for drive-through screening currently our zoning ordinance says that drive-through Lane should not be located parallel to arterial roadways but if there are circumstances due to physical constraints that they may be located adjacent to the roadway but they would have to provide a 40 inch high screen wall with our proposed modifications we are creating a couple of different options here but we are also recommending that additional Landscaping be provided in addition to these screen walls so with the first option it would still be the 40 inch screen wall but in this case the requirement will be to provide two additional trees and two additional shrubs per 25 linear feet of Street Frontage and for the second option instead of providing a 40 inch screen wall a integrated awning canopy or trellis system that would cover the drive-through Lane could be provided and in that case the Landscaping would be less which just would be one additional tree and two additional shrubs per the 25 feet of Street Frontage Steph is also recommending that there be inclusion of requirements for shade and a raised pedestrian path for employees when they are outside taking orders this is very much a trend that we're seeing in other jurisdictions as kind of a new operational characteristics of many of our facilities that have people out there taking orders as opposed to a speaker box staff is also recommending that there be a setback requirement from residential uses and properties early on in our our process and recommendations we staff had recommended that that drive-throughs be restricted from the neighborhood commercial center and this was due to feedback from residents and the concerns about noise and impacts that they were experiencing from drive-throughs adjacent to their homes through the process we you know we heard a lot of concern from our development Community about that proposal and along with a lot of these other proposed amendments there was the um the desire that this be handled through development standards versus a hard restriction or requirement there so instead staff is proposing that there be 100 foot step back from a residential use or zoning District to the drive through lane or pickup Lane this is in line with Scott still who requires 125 feet from their drive-through Lanes to residential uses in this case as well we have we've received additional comment and feedback from stakeholders that they would like to see a way to deviate from this standard and so we have included within our proposal that this standard could be modified if they provided a sound study that showed that it impacts could be mitigated in other ways so we have heard some additional comments and questions especially at our latest public Outreach meeting that we had on September 6 and I wanted to respond to some of those one of them had to do with the on-site circulation and stacking and study originally we had a proposal that a traffic impact study be required we heard from some stakeholders that they felt that this was onerous we we moved back a little bit and we evaluated that and we felt a staff that some of these concerns could be addressed through a less intensive traffic study but we do still have concerns from residents that they don't think that that is sufficient to address the concerns and the impacts on our roadways and especially the cumulative impacts and so we have modified the requirements within that section A little bit to include that cumulative impacts within 1200 feet of the site would also need to be considered in that evaluation um as I discussed earlier we we heard the request that the 100 foot setback from residential to be modified through a study or a different provision and so we did include that recommendation in with our text amendments that they could be modified by the planning director if shown through the sound study that it could be mitigated properly another comment was the desire for these amendments specifically in this chapter to allow for deviations to development standards staff is not including that recommendation in these text amendments and that is because our Zone zoning ordinance contains processes which outline various ways that development standards can be deviated so it was not it was not necessary to provide it directly in this chapter we have we have lots of sections Within chapter 31 that address specific uses um and any and when any one of those uses or development standards can can qualify for one of those other processes so it's not needed to address individually in this chapter um another comment that we heard was that existing pad sites right now would not be able to develop under the current proposed standards so I was as I was just mentioning we have several processes in place that um were created to to alleviate some of those hardships and to allow for infill and Redevelopment those include the substantial conformance Improvement permit and that is specifically for developed Parcels that are non-conforming it allows them to expand without having to bring the full site into conformance we also have a development incentive permit and this is for bypass parcels and oftentimes they're smaller and I have hard time meeting development standards so this allows for modifications to those development as standards to incentivize them to develop and then finally we have a planned area development and a bonus intensity Zone overlay which allows for modifications to development standards for Creative Solutions or innovative solutions that would accomplish the intent through other means it's from the public as well or concerns from the public that the proposed amendments would make existing facilities in the city non-conforming and unable to develop if they are burned down um the zoning ordinance in chapter 36 addresses non-conforming sites buildings and uses and this is already a consideration that is addressed in that chapter if a site were to be damaged or burned down they would have the ability to build back to their current standards as they are now and lastly we had the question come from Council about how many more Council use permits would they be seeing going to them for approval if these amendments were passed so what staff did is we went back and there's a typo on the side so I apologize we looked at all of our applications from 2021 to January 2021 to June of 2023 and there were a total of 71 applications that involved drive-through facilities 12 of those projects went to city council already because of either previous conditions of approval or because they were requesting modifications and five we only found that five additional projects would have had to go to City Council due to the changes to the cup requirements so these draft text amendments are currently posted online for public review we will be going to City Council on September 28th for a study session and then it is going to be introduced on October 2nd and city council will be taking action on October 16th and with that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have thank you for that presentation are there questions for assistant director nettles on this item I know we had a lengthy discussion in our study session is there is there anything else at this time no okay thank you then I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this and it looks like we've got a couple of more blue cards more than a couple uh okay so um let's go ahead and I'm going to call you up and when you come up I'll uh have you state your name and your address for the record and then you'll have three minutes to tell us what you'd like to hear let's see let's start with um Paul Gilbert let's start with you and welcome back to Mesa well thank you it's a delight to be here my name is Paul Gilbert My address is 701 North 44th Street Phoenix Arizona you caught me a little by surprise I was just kind of nodding back there figured I'd be a little later on the agenda uh I'd like to preface my three minutes very quickly because that's a short period of time by saying I'd like to compliment the staff they've done some things right in this report noted would be focusing on the new restrictions on design standards rather than the use eliminating numerical limits for drive-throughs that was a big change and we're very happy to see that eliminating the requirement for a cup in the LC commercial District I like the idea of protecting employees that pick up orders I I don't know of any jurisdiction that does that and I think it's phenomenal so those are good things very salutatory we're in support of those things however there are a couple of things we would like to discuss with you I were very concerned about the requirements for the industrial district right now you've got pep l-i-g-i-h-i you are now requiring the a cup where none existed before this is plain and simple Overkill other cities take a much more tailored approach and indeed many cities in the valley and I submit the majority of them and I appear in all of them don't have any requirement of this type whatsoever I have a suggestion I think if you're going to require a cup it should only be required in industrial districts that are adjacent to residential zones or uses um you are now requiring a queuing study for every drive through in all districts where none was required before again I submit this is not necessarily and only required in certain instances why in Chandler in Scottsdale they only do it in required instances uh suggestion again this may sound a little bit repetitive but I submit that we ought to have this requirement for a queuing study only when the retail Center is part of a reason part of a retail Center or a rezoning case you're now requiring enhanced screening for every drive through in all districts where only 40 foot or 40 inch screen walls were required before suggestion only require the enhanced screening if the proposed drive-through would be adjacent to a residential district common theme but I think it has a lot of applicability here you are now proposing a setback automatic setback of a hundred feet from any residential zone or use we don't think that's necessary it's not required in Chandler or Gilbert one jurisdiction has it 125 but that is an anomaly I'll submit this doesn't find place in very many other jurisdictions throughout the valley including most of your neighbors no cup should be required we submit when a process requires a major site plan review if you're going through a major site plan review the city has all the tools they need to regulate a drive-through and you don't need to get a cup you don't need to do a queuing study you don't need to do all these things if it's a major site plan amendment in order to satisfy the city you've got to go through these strict site plan major site plan requirements this is redundant and Overkill and not necessary now lastly and I know I'm just a bit over the three minutes but it's pretty good for me um I don't think this case is ready to go to council candidly I've attended most of these meetings and if I haven't been here my staff has so we've heard everything I think we've read everything that's been passed out we're hearing new things tonight for the very first time and we haven't had a chance to digest them although the Outreach has been good I'm not complaining but changes continue to be made the other thing that bothers me a little bit is that every time we reach something that's kind of an impasse or it doesn't seem quite right we get this feedback oh well that's okay we'll work with you on that well this reminds me of a one of my favorite scriptures when it talks about in Egypt there are a rows of pharaoh who knows not Joseph if we had director kopesky Brown to work with on all these cases I feel better about it but who knows who's going to be there who knows what we're going to be working with who knows what those standards will be so I submit that those things still have yet to be worked out in the ordinance and that this could use some more breathing room thank you for your time thank you Mr Gilbert and let's have Mary Grace McNair come up next foreign hi everybody my name is Mary Grace McNair and my business address is also 701 North 44th Street um so I will Echo some of Paul's comments but actually I'm going to cover something different um I wanted to talk a little bit about the queuing and circulation study I appreciated the discussion downstairs and study session it was very helpful that the board seems to be keying on some factors that will really be important to our clients when they try to develop property in Mesa from the standpoint of a developer sometimes we don't know who the ndoser is going to be so if I'm going to fill out a queuing study how accurate is that going to be before I have my users set up for my site plan and I assume that this queuing study is going to be required at site plan review see it that in the ordinance draft but I think we're all assuming that that's where it will be required so this is an example of some things that I just think the ordinance needs a lot more tightening and this queuing study is still a concern to us because when I came here tonight I was ready to say before I sat through the study session I was ready to say how could it be that we're going to do a sound study for every um for every drive through in the city of Mesa as it turns out we're only going to be a sound study is only going to be required if you are trying to lessen the requirements that's not what the ordinance says so I would say you know it needs some adjustment and it needs some adjustment and then feedback from the community before you know you make the changes that we were talking about today um we don't like the language to be honest it allows the planning director to require additional information in a queuing study at his or her discretion again it's not that we don't like staff or we don't like to work with them but what we see there is an opportunity for us to come in to an unknown situation you know tell us what the rules are and we'll follow them but don't leave a bunch of discretionary decisions out there to be made by staff because that makes things uncertain that slows things down and it costs us money and it's unnecessary I mean if there was a good reason for it I would say great but you know the necessity of it has not been shown what if the information that we give you in a queuing study changes a user changes and all of a sudden our hours of operation are different or it takes more time the time that we estimated to take orders or to fill orders are we out of compliance what happens to our zoning if if we're not in compliance in that way do we have to submit another study or do we have to update the city in some way none of this is covered in the ordinance and again it's concerning that we might come in and hear oh yeah well if that does change we want you to come back we want you to report to us I mean maybe that's not in the offing but we didn't know that we weren't required to submit a sound study in every case until tonight either so again this needs some adjustment and is not is not um easy to apply whenever you come in to seek these approvals um Paul already said we object to having to get a cup in the industrial Stone zones in the previous in the study session we heard that staff and the council wants to preserve employment uses and I heard that when I listened to the study session of council too but you know it really these these um these drive-through uses only take up a small portion of the industrial site and what do they have if they're on an industrial site what do they have to be buffered from other commercial and Industrial uses I don't think so this is an unnecessary obstacle and I want to point out that in Chandler a cup is required in planned industrial and general industrial and in Scottsdale in light industrial and Industrial Park and in Gilbert not required in any industrial district only in neighborhood commercial and Heritage Village so I think we have a couple facts wrong there um finally um well I'm not going to repeat this we if you're going to build in some flexibility for us on these options please put it in the code so that we don't have to rely on comments like this made tonight and we're not left hanging out to dry when it comes to get our approvals thank you so much I am approve I or add my gratefulness to the staff my gratitude for the work that they did I've been involved in this process since the beginning and I really appreciate some of the changes that were made thank you Ms McNair thank you Alan Tom let's have you next hello honorable Lord my name is Alan Thomas my PO Box is 31465 Mesa Arizona 85275 near I live near Power Road Maine I've been a mono no residence here in Mesa for a long time and we're being strangled to death here I got I we have a prime piece of property in northwest corner of Ellsworth Roan University board members and respectfully the staff here in the City attorney I plant my neighbor across the street is going to put a Wendy's uh Taco Bell and a Dutch Brothers there across the street and we have almost the same identical side we've had for 60 years I played by the rules I got my zone in place why am I being strained with the possibility this 100 foot setback I did nothing wrong paid property taxes there and I want to get three fast foods on my property there on the northwest Cornell's working you a nurse and you know what kind of property that is a very unique piece of property to the east there we got no uh a freeway I mean west to east is a Circle K there up north that's my problem they just built a new residential development several millions of dollars there there's a new concept of building a small miniature home and renting them out there's 160 in belt over there now I got my property my debt is 330 feet on Ellsworth and 600 University you guys are all very intelligent there I think we'll be 100 foot set back I want to put three fast food restaurants there suppose raising Raising Cane wants to go over there in and out or Chick-fil-A they're going to have a stack of like says having three I might can only have one restaurant or two why am I being punished for this I've done nothing wrong there are so many things to be said it's unbelievable I don't have enough time oh you know how come these things are now sending out all Property Owners there they're gonna do this let's do this type of thing here but see eight nine ten years ago I had the right to put another commiser in my corner the city Mesa took that away from me I didn't even know about that you know we're grandfather I'm grandfathered in and I have two really smart kids that are government lawyers one's a hip County attorney out of state another one here just one Arizona Supreme Court decision president case she's very sure if I brought this up to her she said Dad any legal zoning usage you have he said we have regulation is so tough you cannot develop for that over there he said that's the uh taking under the fifth and 14th in the United States Constitution and she's a very smart young lady and my point is because I'm emotional about this thing because I've done everything right we paid our taxes why am I being punished the northeast corner a Pilot Road Main Street and we have I have two to third acres and we own that for 65 years of family and uh and I want to put eventually one of these days I made two fast foods at least one faster in the corner we got a mobile home park that's a residential property now if a hundred feet set back maybe I can't get the stack of light I thought the hundred feet said that was to drive a window you know it's a stack of light however that may go six seven hundred feet I mean it's a stranglement in our country here we're string with rules or regulation we can't even breathe you know also Mason wants to be friendly for businesses how can this be friendly for a business that we're here over here then they come here with the uncertainty they allowed to go to another city Instead This is really a Sanity on clean and begging you guys not even considering us that we're here we're there the old regulations are bad enough you've got the design reborn they address all these situations already it's like what these people here say we're we're we're being strong I can sit here for hours and talk about it I'm sorry but these gestures I made the back shaking my head and all this but this is really I just can't believe it and again is my family paid by the rules I got my zoning place and the time is now like University Ellsworth over there at Northwest point of view why can't I get three fast foods over there like my neighbor's gonna get over there right now and your folks have seen your plan over there and uh I said I'm being on most of my wife told me not to give me emotional but how can you be non-emotional you know and um I I've talked enough and all I can say is this is please put on your thinking cap this cannot happen there were already being strangled to death already you know and now you're talking about the cue stack of ways and noise and decibels and others how crazy can that get you know people that they don't want to be my near property especially make a commercial property but possibility of fast food is going once you get a whole further away you know or something like that why is always a handful of people running this country over here you know I said I think if you took a random scientific sampling I'll probably be almost a thousand people there you think I think you'll get a better uh view I think people want more selection than fast food that's the new culture today sure it's all in your idealistic they're people when we're going to sit down restaurant but it's not going to happen because there's no demand for it you know but again I talked too much and I shut my mouth up and thank you for hearing me okay thank you Mr Tom it's always good to see you here at our meetings you're welcome you know the difficulty you're going through and I appreciate the staff and respect them but I just want people to see my point of view well thank you for your comments okay uh Jeff Welker my name is Jeff Welker and I live at 3125 East Dover Street in Mesa and as I anticipated Paul Mary Beth and Mr Toms have stolen all my thunder and left me with little to talk about but I I want to add my voice to theirs and thank staff for the hard work they've put forward on a very difficult task the city council handed them not easy in a former life I used to make presentations in the study session Chambers below and up here to the city council when I was an employee for the city of Mason I used to I was trained by a really knowledgeable manager and he said when you're making your presentations to boards or to the city council you can gauge how well you're doing with an ordinance Amendment or a new ordinance based upon how many questions come at you and how long it takes to help those board members or council members understand what you're presenting to them you spent I'm going to guess a little over an hour earlier this afternoon down in the Chambers bouncing questions back and forth off of Staff in some cases the same question multiple times an example being why do we need to study cueing and stacking and provide those detailed and expensive reports if we comply with the standards that are established in the ordinance a fair question it was asked numerous times by these board members and I think this board is a thoughtful board and ask thoughtful questions but it an example and others have cited other examples of the ambiguities that are in the current version of the ordinance being proposed the Amendments and I agree with Paul that I don't think this is ready for city council Prime Time and instead I think staff should go back and try to address these ambiguities I appreciate for example the explanation on what happens with the existing sites where most of the shopping center has been built but maybe there's a pad or two that has been left for years and years and was developed under much different standards than today how does that work as staff points out various things within the current ordinance and other sections that could be used to help mitigate those issues and they're correct they exist but I think the ambiguity is how they're applied with these new amendments which how would they work with them because I can guarantee you that that would be left to interpretation by applicants landowners staff council members and boards and I think that the ordinance would benefit from greater guidance and more specificity on how these unique scenarios work I also think it would be helpful and promote adherence if you say if you adhere to standards you don't have to use and provide this study and if you need to deviate from the standards then the study would be an obvious way to present data to staff to consider as to why your deviation might be helpful I I appreciate the board listening to our comments and hearing our concerns the folks I get to work with own existing shopping centers and the retail and Commercial world is much different than it used to be where we used to have large grocery stores anchoring these sites now now they're anchored by AutoZone and these parcels and the drive-throughs that are proposed are in some cases one of the very few things that helped keep those centers alive financially and when the city with good intentions creates more onerous demands and greater cost and time on these centers they jeopardize their long-term their long-term viability and so we would ask that staff be tasked with taking those things back working on them and coming back and and making those changes and sharing them with you to show where they've addressed those items and I I thank you for that time thank you Mr Welker okay the last blue card I have is Carol harder she is opposed to this item it's marked that she does not wish to speak is that is Carol here is this true you don't wish to speak well we'll please please come up to the microphone I knew if I gave you a chance you'd want to come up and take the mic so and you just state your name for the record in your address uh Carol Harter 1515 East Bethany Home Road Phoenix Arizona 85016 I guess I'm a pretty straight shooter I think I'm going to address the elephant in the room and that is that when this started out there was this perception that by following some of this that more sit-down restaurants or more restaurants with patios with things that I think almost any of us if we were asked what would you rather have on the corner close to your home that you could ride your bike to I I wanted True Food right I want a I want a place where I can go with my children be out on a patio I can tell you we own five shopping centers in Mesa none of those users are knocking on our door and so the the perception that by doing this means that we're going to get more of those users that that we don't see that I haven't seen that in probably at least four years now since covet happened so it's just going to make it so that where the the pads are going to sit vacant which is the last thing that anybody wants and we as developers are we would love the ability to have even more discussion with staff on addressing those concerns and is there a middle ground is there a way to get to something that is more of what the residents want and I think one of the challenges is going to be if you look around at the sit-down restaurants in Mesa especially in Central Mesa right Country Club in southern Mesa and Southern Maine and Lindsay the people aren't if you look at the sit-down restaurants the residents aren't going there they're going to the drive-throughs and so this is this is not going to help to get to that I think there's other ways to do that so thank you very much for everybody's time thank you for your comments appreciate it okay do we have anyone online do we have any we don't have any more cards or any more speakers okay then I will close the public comment portion of the the hearing today um and uh I let me let me just turn to staff and see if there's any response to any of the public comment that you'd like to make yeah board members um I would like to go back that this has been a a very long process and um we have tried to take in consideration all of the feedback and different opinions that we've heard from the various stakeholders tonight we're hearing from you know a one set of those stakeholders and it's unfortunate that we're not hearing the other voices um but it is our responsibility as staff to kind of represent those as well and and we are in a spot where we're trying to we're trying to balance the needs of both these parties um we've we've done our debt best to come to a you know reasonable compromise to accomplish those um no zoning ordinance is going to be perfect um we still continue to hear kind of conflicting consensus from stakeholders about wanting you know more definition and restriction and you know details about what there is and then more flexibility we've we've tried to put in processes in place that allows some flexibility and and deviations um we've really been intentional about looking at our zoning districts and and where those are allowed we've heard a lot of feedback from our Economic Development community and different council members and concerns about you know the amount of drive-throughs that are eating up our industrial and employment areas within the city we think that through the council use permit that that still provides opportunities for those but it provides a you know a good a good check and ability for the community to really assess what's best for the city um I think that I think that's all I have to say for now yeah but Mary maybe want to thank you Rachel chair board members I think there's only a couple of things I would add we heard a lot about the protection of residential districts and yes that is one part of this so the design standards we have come up with really have a couple of goals it is to protect those Residential Properties that are adjacent to these uses but it's also about the image of the city of Riverside I'm sorry the city of Mesa that will eventually leave me I know well sorry about that it's about the the image that we have here at the city the drive-throughs we hear over and over again there are four or five drive-throughs in a row what does that do to our major corridors where people are driving regularly what is the image of our city with that what we've done in listening to our stakeholders is there really is a lot of compromise in this as it relates to those design standards that we've put in place to try to make our public realm more attractive it's not just about the adjacent residential uses it's about what we see every day as we're driving down our streets um I think that saying that this is not ready to go to council is a little troubling and that they're hearing new things today because we've not introduced anything that we haven't talked about that was not presented at the public meeting that we had earlier this month everything we've talked about was in there we've done some modifications to them but everything was in that in the the ordinance that was discussed at that public meeting as it relates to the cueing study we have a lot of residents who are asking for more as it relates to that those cueing studies they want full traffic impact studies they want a full study where we look at the cumulative impacts as you would with any traffic impact study what we've done in listening to the industry is said look what is the Compromise the compromise is we want to make sure that it's safe for cars we want to make sure it's safe for pedestrians we want them to show us how they're going to do that we're putting that onus on the development Community the developer who's coming in and doing those drive-throughs to say how they're going to protect the people that are going to be in that shopping area to ensure that cars aren't queuing onto a street rather than putting that onus on to the city staff once it happens to fix it so what we're trying to do is get ahead of it before it occurs as it relates to the noise again we're trying to predict people's quality of life where what we're saying is if there is noise being generated by your use you need to mitigate it and you need to show us how you're mitigating it again to protect those residences that are surrounding those properties there are so many processes already built into the code with very clear criteria and standards on how what process would apply to any individual situation on a parcel whether it's a pad based on your lot size whether it's a Biz because of your lot size whether you need to go through the the the the the skip process there are so many processes already in place to put those just related to drive throughs really is counter-intuitive to how a zoning code works and that is your processes are set up to go through and and put all of the different things that you're doing in your zoning code through the same processes rather than all of these exceptions of you only need a cup if you're in an industrial area adjacent to a residential property it defeats the purpose of having that transparent equity for everyone to go through those same processes and that really is how a zoning code should be written to ensure that people are having very consistent transparent processes that they're going through I do want to just again point out with the industrial lands a lot of our industrial lands were right now drive-throughs are permitted that is where we're seeing a lot of our drive-throughs and our industrial land is getting eaten up by those drive-throughs so what we're trying to do is say yes they should be there they should be they should be allowed with a cup so that people who work in that area have a place to go to lunch but we do need to protect our industrial lands we do need to protect those job opportunities that's why they're being proposed for the cup we looked at all the the surrounding jurisdictions to see that we are meeting the the same kind of practices we're not doing anything out of the ordinary with these recommendations um I don't think any of what we're trying to do is to say we're going to get more sit-down restaurants that economic development is working on with city council based on some direction for a study that they're working on this is about the image of our city this is about what you see when you drive down down power Road or you drive down Broadway or you drive down Main Street this is about people who live adjacent to these areas to make sure that their quality of life is as protected as mine is and as protected as yours is that's what this project is about it's not about trying to encourage more drive-through rest or sorry sit down restaurants I think that that's all I have left oh Charlotte wants to add something chair of board members I just wanted to address some of the comments that were made this evening about the proposed text amendments requiring a council use permit when one is not currently required as discussed in a study session there is a process in the ordinance for a waiver where property owner can request a waiver to the changes in the proposed text amendments that would require that Council use permit and that would basically put the property owner in the same position that they exist today and the timing and who can request the right waiver and the waiver requirements and the specific information that they have to submit is all set forth in the ordinance thank you for that and if I could just follow up director kopasky Brown on a couple of things you said you you talked about residents being concerned about seeing three or four drive-throughs in a row is uh so two questions on that is one of the purposes of this ordinance to reduce the number or to limit going forward the number of new drive-throughs and then secondly is that the effect that this will have this ordinance will be to reduce the number of new drive-throughs uh chair Crockett that's a great question and the answer is no this is not to limit the number of drive-throughs in a row I think that was one of the original proposals based on the last two-year process that we've gone through that's been eliminated so now the purpose of this is to ensure that the Aesthetics when a drive-through does go through that it just has a better appearance from the arterial there is no intent to try to limit that number now on to that when when this project first came forward from Council one of the concerns was about the impacts and the the accumulation of multiple drive-throughs adjacent to one another and to to try to address that early iterations did try to put numbers on the num like number of drive-throughs located adjacent to one another listening to stakeholders we went back and decided to try to address those through development standards as best we can and also this goes back to the the concept of the on-site cueing in circulation study it was suggested that we do a traffic impact study instead of putting a limit on those so that was brought forward and then that was asked not to be a traffic impact study and so we we tried to make modifications to that so it's not about limiting the number of drive-throughs but it's about addressing the impacts that they have and those impacts do increase when we have multiple ones adjacent to each other so how is we as staff how can we evaluate those impacts without receiving information about you know what the operations are going to do and how those affect our streets yeah thank you for that explanation and then just to follow up one more and this may be a question I don't know if Charlotte wants to weigh in on this but we talked about a decimal limitation and in our study session and and director capacity Brown you indicated that might be a good idea to include how does that happen going forward we've got a proposal in front of us tonight if we approve that proposal can there are there additional changes that would be made between now and the time it gets presented to the the city council chair board members if you want to make some amendments to what is being proposed this evening you can do that when you make your motion and you would just include that with your motion you would say it if you wanted if if you wanted to adopt it then you would say adoption with and whatever proposed changes you want it added okay thank you for that all right well are there other questions for either our director or assistant director all right are you ready to have a discussion on this item is there uh is there thoughts or discussions on this let's start let's start with remember blakeman I'm happy to go first um I'll try to be short so I certainly understand that this is a very complex um topic here well um and I I can see some of the things that I do like within it I understand that we want to work on Aesthetics I couldn't agree more sound in being sensitive to the residences I couldn't agree more um I I also reading through some of this the support letters really Desiring more sit-down restaurants I couldn't agree more as a resident um the one thing so as I go through all of these things and I have a few points I would kind of like to walk through um the the first and foremost thing um when developers are putting suggesting certain developments be put in place it is because there is a lot of market research that go on behind the scenes that they're willing to spend millions of dollars walking through a process and to build a building and invest in this that said although we're hearing from a lot of residents here that you know they want less drive-throughs we're seeing how however many pages that we've got here the fact that drive-throughs are is what developers are proposing it's because there's a market value meaning there are residents here in Mesa using it so that it's profitable and it actually pencils out so although we're hearing from a certain amount of residents or not hearing from all the residents the residents are saying their votes through the fact that there's market demand to make sense so to me what I see is um the fact that there's two three four whatever that's being desired I'm not just seeing that here in Mesa but I'm seeing that anywhere across the valley um Kobe has changed things patterns have changed and then you guys have also said you've gone through this through a two-year process that says human behavior changes even within that process we start to move what Fiesta Mall used to be a thriving District the place to be and now it's getting torn down so there's certainly a movement and I think that I know for a fact that the development community's responsibility is to know where the Market's moving and they move where Market money is moving which means you're spending dollars residents are spending dollars there so that's one is that I think that I definitely want to uh allow developers to present what the market is starting to demand and ask for and I think that's what you hear when you see site plans developed if not money wouldn't be spent on that um so number well number two um some of well when we went through some of this stuff they're Desiring High I read through a lot of the comments um that residents submitted on both ends first of all I saw a lot of the support letters they're wanting a lot of sit down and this as we just explained here that's not achieving that I think that this whole thing is is not helping focus on that and there's a whole other effort that needs to go behind whatever doing Economic Development to attract the and create the environment that will attract folks sit down restaurants to want to develop here in Mesa and that's obviously not being accomplished for many reasons um so I don't know that it's addressing that Resident concern for that um no so also when I'm looking at the letters and I look at the ones that are in opposition um a lot of the opposition letters are from 2022 and as you read through the letters they're actually not addressing what the current state of The Proposal is or what's before us they're addressing things like the number of drives so I know it's gone through some iterations that so what I I believe what that says is there hasn't been enough time for the opposition to catch up to what has changed to either maybe change their opinion or view their support or or React to what the latest and greatest is is going on and I know you have the September meeting I understand that that coming from a busy Community I'm sure that maybe is not enough time for those folks to to Now respond to the latest and greatest um the cup um putting it through this process definitely makes things longer um and it creates complexity and we say it can be taken to city council for city council to to determine what they think about these drive-throughs um and what they think about these sites now mind you again I go back to the fact that a development Community has studied this understands what's viable what's market-driven what's going to succeed and that's what they're putting before City Council that said we're gonna allow city council to now determine that that's not going to work or decide those features at city council now that it completely changes all your metrics behind the scenes of what makes the site work and say oh cross this out cross this out you can't have five drives through you can have two I mean I think it's it's to wait that far in the game to get Council approval that just seems I don't know I I just worry about that um and I know that there's a lot of places within here we talk about the ability like yes this is our best effort this is what we've we'd like to see but there's always opportunity for deviations waivers variances and all these things I know working behind the scenes on development communities no developer wants every developer well that I work with that I can speak on behalf of wants to meet every single standard that is the number one goal is behind scenes they're they're saying what's the standard let's meet them all it's when they can't meet them that they come before and they realize it's a cumbersome process to walk through deviations variations it it lasts longer it takes longer though it's complex it gets confusing we don't know where the approvals come from um how high does it need to go what department there's multiple meetings so so that said I know there's a processing place to deviate to waiver and it can make us feel good but in reality that does add complexity to a project time and money too um I also I and because there's a lot to this I also can admit personally that I don't know the the rolling impacts of this like has someone laid out a site now with this hundred foot and say how does this actually work now that the site that wants to have three now with these new standards how does that lay out I don't I don't know that that's been thought through and I myself haven't laid that out to think through that what the implicant implications are and and I can't think of every scenario that there is out there and how this rolls into it so so for me I I'm just a little bit nervous with this really really complex I there's so many pieces and parts to this what's being proposed um I feel like there's almost like five different things being proposed here that that I just don't quite know how to react to them things like there's things I absolutely like I love the intention behind them um but there's other things that I get very nervous about what that means behind the scenes um and also I know we talked about traffic impact studies queuing analysis and you know that's how I make a living so certainly I'm a fan of those things but there already are things in place um at the city of Mesa so tias are already required and there are certain requirements you can look at your code and they are done so there are circulation analysis um and I can also say I know the intent is safety and and to have a quality development I couldn't agree more and I don't think anyone out there proposing a certain Saipan would not agree that their site plan or whatever they're proposing there are also main goals is safety and to make a quality development that folks also like um and the least I would say the last thing someone would want is a development that causes problems in the end so I do understand that there are ones that do cause problems I believe that those are trying very hard most of those that want to continue to stay in business are trying very hard to mediate that um and I think the popularity of certain drive-throughs I mean I guess as a business owner you would hope to be popular beyond all means that you're exceeding all of your queuing right now is that creating issues yes um so now your next goal as a business owner a good business would be to try to your best to mitigate that but your best is your prediction right it's your consumer that it's you're trying to predict which can change um quickly too um so that said I kind of agree that there's just a lot here that I feel a little uncomfortable just kind of passing it along and moving it along I also don't know quite how to make emotion of of saying I accept this except can we modify this this and this and this I feel like be here for a while um I'd like to have dinner too so that's my two cents and I'll stop there thank you for that board member Peterson please thank you board member blakeman for that and and thank you to staff truly as well for uh for all your effort over the the time for this uh chasing a very elusive Target um definitely with the Dynamics of it and uh and taking us on this ride um although it may feel a little more like the teacup ride than uh than other rides but uh so so I think um the in and I apologize for referencing my notes here a little bit it feels like there's several false narratives that are at play here the first one is as has been discussed I did read through the 89 pages of of Citizen support emails and uh and all but three or four of those were about uh fewer drive-through fast food restaurants more sit-down restaurants and it's already been discussed that this ordinance doesn't doesn't achieve that and and this so and and then the um to play into that false narrative is that Mesa doesn't have enough sit-down restaurants and um if which isn't the case either you you uh look at I mean areas that and and it's all something that comes with the development cycle maybe in Council District Six a newer developing area some of those sit-down areas have have yet to develop and maybe the demand's not there because reality is for a lot of sit-down demand you have to have both lunch and dinner demand and if people are commuting from where they live and they're not frequenting those places for for lunch then then they the the viability is not there and that's what the market tells us based on demand that we that we've heard in the meeting today but there are I mean you look around the city there's uh the area around superstition mall I mean a lot of sit-down places there the old Fiesta Mall there's there's fewer than there were because of the the dynamic changing area there Mekong Plaza I mean lots of sit-down restaurants around there Dana Park a lot of sit down restaurants so so the The Narrative that that Mesa only has fast food drive through and doesn't have these other options is it is just a false narrative and um and then the reality is that with this ordinance if somehow now Riverview becomes Tempe Marketplace because we have this this uh this ordinance in place is it is just not the case that's uh that that that's more complex um issues that that aren't going to be solved by by uh by um a zoning ordinance the the second one is that there's these uh these exhibits that are part part of Staff report that show over 20 percent of the city can have drive-throughs and the reality is a lot of those areas are heavy industrial industrial areas where the uh where it's and and you look at how a lot of those are developing they're developing as as industrial big box industrial whatever type of industrial areas there there aren't a lot of drive-throughs going through in those areas and the and so to change the cut to say okay these errors can't have drive-throughs now on and because we we without going through the the cep then uh then we've accomplished something when in in uh staff Zone report that over the last two and a half years the Delta is only five projects that would have to go through that didn't have to go through in the past and that that's in the margins as far as as far as as are we really stepping up here are we just stepping to the side the next false narrative is um is on comparable to adjacent cities and and we looking at Chandler and Gilbert the per capita per people per 100 acres the uh Mesa has fewer fast food establishments than there are fewer I'm sorry fewer drive-throughs then than uh than Gilbert and is very comparable with it in a few percentage points of of uh of Chandler and and those are very comparable cities Scottsdale I think is is a tougher one to compare to but it shows you that we're right there on track the uh the the next false narrative is the the current regulations leave intense drive-through use is unchecked which isn't true as the in the time that that I've spent on the board we've had Chick-fil-A's come through we've had intense drive-through projects come through they're they're being designed that's part of the discussion that's part of what we do the the last Chick-fil-A that came through had three three uh drive-through Lanes already designed in to to what they're doing and so to to say that the current ordinance doesn't let's kind of a free-for-all it is is not the case either and then um so on the so then and looking at the the standards and like board member blakeman said in and trying to say hey are there a few tweaks we can make here that um that will get it to where to where it makes sense or or that that it feels comfortable to to move forward with and the I so I started taking some notes and started saying okay this this and and realized that I was proposing tweaks to almost everything in it and and it felt like a lot and and I think that goes to some some of the the comments that that it's it it's it's not quite there yet the the whole basis of of why if you're meeting this why have a standard and require the circulation study in all cases um is it is uh has some some is perplexing the 100 foot residential buffer is is arbitrary it doesn't consider what's happening on the other side of the residential property line and it uh and the as as illustrated by the the figure in the in the text of the ordinance um having that hundred foot buffer actually creates some safety issues with pedestrians having to now park in that where parking Stills are on the buffer and and walk across the drive-through which is which is not ideal and and not the the the best plan and I I get it that's just an example but it goes to show you that it's not a slam dunk yes this makes a lot of sense that there's other ways to to uh work through those things the um per the discussion in the state session there are still a lot of hoop jumping waivers questions and details yet to be worked out has been discussed the city's journey is working out language to mitigate the prop 207 risks of of passing this and for uh as we look through and break down the uh the the the the the real dynamics of it the we're really in the margins from the the the the the change from the the existing ordinance and it's not demonstrated effectively as written to justify the adjust the the changes to this rather than sticking to the the elements as they are and and as it's currently written it's uh it's not something that that I'm able to support thank you board member Peterson uh uh board member Carpenter board member Montez do either of you have anything you want to weigh in with in the discussion foreign I'll just say I appreciate the hard work that was put into this I think there was a lot of thought and consideration and uh contemplation and trying to walk a fine line and maintaining balance is very difficult obviously there's different interests and different protections and experiences here and you know a lot of what has been said I could it could Echo I think the market is kind of telling us what It Wants by how it's voting with its money and looking at the presentation you know is interesting to see that while we do have so much more percentage of zoning area available that we're kind of on par as far as the per capita and the per acre that was really interesting um let's see I do like the um the definitions and the changes there to identify the different needs and the different usages with the the drive-through versus a drive up and I think that's a new um emerging market so to speak here and so I really think there's something there that can be had with that as well as differentiating like an ATM or bank use or say a pharmacy use that's very low um you know parking and whatever there so I I you know there's a lot here and I I just wanted to say thank you to everybody I appreciate the comments there's a lot to chew on here so I you know that's that's kind of it for me I guess thank you anything all right I uh you want me to talk about my Googling no no well if you want to talk about your Googling I don't want to stop you but uh okay well uh I recognize how much work has gone into this by staff and I sure appreciate it and there's some things in this ordinance that I like I am I totally agree in terms of the quality of the the the uh new construction that we're approving drive-throughs that are well thought out that are safe that don't negatively impact adjoining neighborhoods all of that I am for but as I I've thought through being an applicant and coming to the city to build something there's some there's still some things that are troubling about about what's being proposed there's some just some question marks and things that would be difficult to um to anticipate for the development community and I you know I thought about uh whether I could even propose some amendments you know board member Peterson talked about that and I'm you know I kind of made a half a dozen items on a list as we were in our study session things that I would probably like to clarify and on this ordinance and so I'm not sure I'm in a position to even offer up amendments and I I like board member Peterson I'm I'm not sure I'm quite ready to to support this ordinance in the current form so that's that's my thought process on it any other comments on this before I ask if there's a motion to be made here does anyone want to make a motion on this can you just make a motion to continue the case based on the council's schedule it sounds like it that that's why I asked early on if it's uh this is an Up Down based on council's schedule and that was the answer was it's an up down and on to council so that I I guess that's a question yeah and I I think the way and we'll hear from the director here but I think if if the vote is ultimately not to support this in its current form tonight I think it just goes to the council with a negative recommendation from this board is that right so chair board member um but board members um without I'm not sure we have a clear understanding of exactly what would need to change so that's why continuing it I'm not sure would take us where we need to go so I'll let um Charlotte talk about what that looks like if there's a motion to not move this forward okay to not adopt the ordinance then that would move forward to city council with that recommendation that's kind of what I thought so I think that I we could we could we could recommend or we could have a motion to continue this and if that motion passes I think that puts this in a bit of a limbo I guess it would go on to the council with a vote to continue and but but by the time we heard it again the council would have had a study session or potentially acted on it so um so I think there's some huddling going on over here we'll wait just a moment just just all really kind of like and can get behind but we also pointed out some things that were all feeling really uncomfortable so it's not that we're saying we hate it all together it's really saying like gosh can we get get some clarity on some things and work through a few things and we hope to get there we want to get behind supporting so so there are two things uh chair and board members if I can and I'll address the first and that is that the unclarity that I'm hearing I'm not sure I understand so it's Challen it would be challenging for us to go back and do modifications because we hear from the public and from the the board members that it's not ready yet staff is presenting what they think is ready and that it is clear and so I'll let I'll let Charlotte talk about what your next steps could be if I could just interject in and and looking through I mean normally it would be a make a motion with uh okay let's uh you know let's let's add this item or just this item but that there's so much and and I I think we have verbalized those both in study session and here where there's questions and there's things and and I don't think it's things that we can rewrite uh you know an amendment to it from the diocese here that that it needs to be maybe a a work session working together and talking through those things and uh the I mean you can play back then you can hear our concerns in in the questioning and everything that we've had discussion tonight and all all the the issues that we've talked through and so I I think that's the the tough one with this one is just not a matter of hey let's move to uh to recommend adoption with these with these couple of amendments because it it's just a lot and there's some that that probably need some back and forth discussion otherwise as if we'll make it up on our end and then then it'll be something that uh that the staff will prefer to be different or something like that so so this one uniquely is tough to do that chair board members I think you have a couple different options you can recommend adoption you can recommend adoption with proposed changes if you want to go that direction or you can make a motion to not support the adoption don't think you have the option to continue to city council okay I appreciate that clarification and I think that at least from what I'm hearing on this half of the dies that inter that amending it proposing amendments at this meeting today wouldn't wouldn't be a practical solution for us because we're not ready to propose specific amendments and it would probably involve some back and forth um and I'm not sure there's the votes to pass it so it may just be a vote to uh not not to approve it uh perhaps with the understanding that again there are things there are things that we really like about the ordinance we think at least I think the ordinance can can be adopted in a form that I could really get behind but I don't think it's in that form today can you also right like not adopting it but putting in some of the thoughts bullet points of why well they'll have the minutes from this meeting they'll see what the discussions yeah so I I you know again I'm back to requesting a motion on this one I'll um I'll I'll take a go here uh regarding item three BPZ 23109 proposed amendments to Chapters 5 6 7 8 31 58 86 and 87 of Title 11 zoning ordinance of the mesa city code pretending to drive through facilities pick up window facilities and drive up ATM teller Windows the Amendments include but are not limited to repealing in its entirety section 11-31-18 drive-through facilities and replacing it with the new section 11-31-18 drive through and pick up window facilities modifying land use tables pertaining to drive through facilities pick up window facilities and drive up ATM teller Windows removing definitions of drive-through facilities and adding new definitions for drive-through facilities pickup window facilities and drive up ATM teller windows and the um the motion is to not recommend adoption okay you've heard the motion is there a second all right a second motion we have a second let's go ahead and vote on the motion okay by your vote of five eyes no Nays with two absent you have passed the the uh the item which is in effect to not recommend approval of the item all right I'll turn it back to the director thank you chair board members we have no director update um for this meeting thank you thank you to everyone that's been here today for this I will entertain a motion to adjourn our uh zoning and our our zoning meeting today uh motion to adjourn is there a second my second all in favor all right by your vote of five eyes No No's with two absent you voted to adjourn our meeting thank you everyone