good afternoon and welcome to the june 22 2022 mesa planning and zoning public hearing my name is jeff crockett i'll be chairing the meeting this afternoon let me call the meeting to order and begin with a roll call chair sarkissian is absent vice chair villanueva cecedo is absent board member boyle i'm here board member alan heir i'm board member crockett board member ayers here and board member peterson here okay as part of our uh part of our hearing on our agenda today we have a consent agenda these items will be voted on together uh by the board there's two items that are coming off the agenda item 4a and item 4b so that we can have some discussion on those and take some public comment uh is there anyone else would is there anyone in the audience would like anything else removed from the consent agenda if so you'll need to submit a card right now as quickly as possible board member peterson thank you that's correct so we'll we'll pull 5b as well i don't see any other cards coming forward okay and board member boyle has volunteered to read our consent agenda today so uh board member boyle take it away okay this is my last shot um if i screw it up there's no i guess there's too bad you're fired if you screw it up if i'm not good at it by this point i've obviously done something wrong um items on the consent agenda for the planning zoning board public hearing wednesday june 22nd 2022 um item number two a a or two approval of minutes from previous meetings the minutes from the june 8 2022 study session and the regular meeting item 3a pz22107 22-00338 district six within the ten thousand one hundred and twenty to ten thousand two hundred blocks of east williamsfield road south side located east of crisman road on the south side williamsfield road special use permit and site plan review um this allows for the development of a multiple use project staff recommendation is approval with conditions item number four [Music] board member boyle yes can can you make a correction to that last one about it being a multi-rep multi multiple residence project versus a multiple multi-use project oh did i say multi-use yes there you go i blew it my last chance special use permit and site planner okay this is back to the zon 22-00338 um it's a special use permit and site plan review this request will allow the development of a multiple residence project staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 4c pz 22104 zon 22-0023 district 6. within the 10 100 to 10 600 blocks of east williamsfield road south side and within the 6100 to 6400 blocks of south 222nd street west side located east of chrisman road south of williamsfield road and on the north side of the east 24 gateway freeway alignment major modifications to the avalon crossing planned community district community plan it's a rezone from agriculture a.g to planned community pc this request will allow for a single residence development staff recommendation approval with conditions item 4d pz 22106 zon 22-00260 district 5 within the 9100 east the 9100 block of east university drive south side and the 300 block of north ellsworth road west side located south of university drive and west of ellsworth road four uh rezone from multiple residents four to limited commercial and site plan review this request will allow for the development of a restaurant with drive-through staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 4e pz 22087 zon 22-00293 district 6 within the 10 100 to 10 600 blocks of east williams field road and within the 6100 to 6400 blocks of south 222nd street located east of chrisman road south of williamsfield road and on the north side of the east 24 gateway freeway alignment major modification to development unit plan 2 of avalon crossing planned community district this request will allow for a single residence development this is the companion case to item 5a and the staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 5a pz 22108 zln 22-00292 district 6 within the 10 100 to 10 600 blocks of east williamsfield road south side and within the 6100 to 6400 blocks of south 222nd street west side located east of chrisman road south of williamsfield road and on the north side of the east 24 gateway freeway alignment this is a preliminary plat companion case to item 4e staff recommendation is approval with conditions thank you board member boyle do i have a motion to approve the consent agenda i moved to um approve the consent agenda for today do i have a second a second debt thank you we have a motion and a second let's go ahead and vote and board member allen what is your vote yes all right so with a vote of five eyes no no's with two absent we have passed the consent agenda now turn to staff for presentations on the remaining items beginning with agenda item 4a uh thank you chair members of the board this is case 0121-00792 the request is to rezone from light industrial and office commercial with the bic overlay to light industrial and office commercial with a pad overlay and site plan review and consideration of a preliminary plat the purpose of the request is to allow for an industrial development the location is on the north side of germain road east on the east side of haws road alignment here's a view of the site looking north from germain road and here's the view of the site looking southwest across the site from 85th place the general plan character area for the site is employment and the purpose of the employment character area is to provide a wide range of employment opportunities with high quality settings and the uses that are anticipated are office office warehouse research and development and the request complies with the general plan the existing zoning for the site is limited industrial with a bic overlay and office commercial with the bic overlay those zoning districts were approved in 2009 as part of a request for a movie production studio and the bic overlay was attached to a site plan for the movie production studio the current proposal is for a industrial park and there are some modifications to the standard code requirements that are being requested and therefore the planned area development overlay is being requested so the proposed rezoning is to lipad and ocpad and the industrial uses that are proposed are industrial uses are permitted in the li zoning district the pid request includes a variety of modifications to the code requirements the standard maximum building height in the light industrial zoning district is 40 feet and the proposal is to is for a maximum of 46 feet in building height there's also some requests to modify the development standards for the buildings including not requiring some parapet detailing and not requiring the um maximum [Music] of each facade being covered with one material limiting it to 50 the proposed buildings are concrete tilt-up buildings and so they are going to be covered with more than 50 one material the roof mounted equipment standard screening requirements include providing a screening element that is at least as high as the rooftop mechanical units that's what code requires and the proposal is to provide line of sight screening so instead of having a screening element that is like the same height or higher than those rooftop units the view of the rooftop units would be proposed to be blocked or masked by the parapets as seen from pedestrian walking at the ground level rather than at eye level with the parapet the parking area screen walls are required to be set back from parking areas at least five feet and the proposal is for them to be set back by just two feet the request also includes a modification to the standard parking requirements and the proposal includes a just a flat parking ratio of one parking space per 600 square feet of building area the foundation base is proposed to be reduced in width from 15 feet to 12 feet along exterior walls with public entrances and then the entry plazas for the buildings are proposed to be reduced in size to have a a minimum dimension of 16 feet when 20 feet is required the justification for the pid request requests is that the landscape area along the east side of the site is 83 feet in width the standard code requirement for landscape along that 85th place is only 20 feet so they are expanding that landscape buffer substantially the site plan shows the three proposed industrial buildings they total almost 550 000 square feet and there are some screened loading areas either behind the buildings or in between the buildings the access to the site is from germain and haws roads and there are 931 parking spaces proposed these are the elevations for the buildings and they were discussed at the design review board last week the designer review board had some comments on the elevations on the landscaping and staff is working with the applicant to address those here are the renderings from 85th place the applicant completed a citizen participation process they mailed letters to property owners within 1 000 feet and hoas and registered neighborhoods they had an in-person neighborhood meeting in october of last year and they did complete the public notification process for this hearing as well as for the design review board meeting last week staff did not receive any inquiries from neighbors today we did receive some blue cards in summary the request complies with the mesa 2040 general plan it also meets the criteria for a pad overlay outlined in chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance and it also meets the criteria for site planner review outlined in chapter 69 of the zoning ordinance staff recommendation is approval with conditions however there are a couple of additional conditions um i could read my notes now or if you have something you'd like to jennifer i've got those i've got those here written out for me so if it's okay with you i'll go ahead and read these stipulations these additional uh stipulations um don't go away though because we're going to have talk about board member questions in a minute these additional stipulations came about as a result of discussions that we had in the study session and then prior to this public hearing the first addresses a question by board member peterson about whether um the appropriate consents had been worked out for the site plan with regard to the right of ways owned by or controlled by the queen creek irrigation district so the additional stipulation proposed to address that question is this prior to submitting an application for any permit on the property submit a letter of approval from the queen creek irrigation district and the bureau of reclamation for the site design shown on the grading and drainage plan and site plan and if a letter of approval is not submitted submit a revised site plan for review and approval through city site plan review process so that's the first and then there's two other stipulations that have been proposed and worked out between the applicant and some of the residents in the area the first is this truck court screen wall and gate along east side between buildings 2 and 3 shall be 10 feet tall and then screen wall along 85th place shall vary in height between six and eight feet are those consistent with your notes jared yes they are okay um and are there any other stipulations that you're aware of at this time to be added to the proposal no they're not okay so board members are there any questions for jennifer on this item okay i don't see any questions then we'll hear from the applicant at this point and then we'll take public comment following the applicant here yeah just we'll find a pretty picture oh let's leave it there uh chair crockett uh board members for your record lindsey schube with the law firm of gammage and burnham 40 north central and phoenix arizona eight five zero zero four i have a presentation but it looks a lot like the one you just heard from jennifer so uh i'd like to thank very much i'd like to thank you guys uh board member peterson for bringing the irrigation district we're hoping to have that resolved before we get to council at least in terms of site plans so that we can deal with that stipulation but i understand and appreciate raising that um at this point to make sure that we deal with that and it doesn't cause problems we've done a lot of work with the neighbors uh chair crockett in terms of your question of line of sight that was a result of the request to lower the building height on the side across from the neighbors so so yeah we're we're happy that we were able to all compromise a bit and we had a fruitful discussion before the hearing that led to those two additional stipulations the undulation of the of the height of the six-foot wall is to intend where the residential subdivisions exit to make sure that we've got eight feet there but to have some type of you know architectural and aesthetic interest in that wall so it's not just a big eight-foot block wall but there's some interest there so we'll work with staff on that approval but unless you have any questions from me um i i don't want to bore you with a with a presentation i mean i know board member boyle wants more presentations because it's his last night so and i i i would be remiss to say board member boyle we will miss you up here so i'm sure we will see you in and around mesa but thank you also for your service on the dna thank you for being sensitive to our our time uh just quickly the stipulations the additional stipulations that i read is the applicant uh supportive of those chair yes we are okay uh board members are there any questions for the applicant looks like there are no questions okay so at this time we'll we'll take some public comment it sounds like maybe uh some of this has been resolved we'll find out i have two people that i want to ask about the first is craig merkley okay so he's given me the the thumbs up sign and then the other is oh they're both craig merkley there's two of you here no when i went online and i called mesa they told me how to fill out the paper form that i brought the second one but she guided me and had me fill out the one that was like i was listening okay why don't why don't you step to the microphone just since you're speaking i'll go ahead and have you provide your name and your address for the record and then i'm gonna i'm gonna ask if you're satisfied with the stipulations that we've read into the record today okay council members grateful to be here my name is craig merkley i live at 8559 east woodland avenue mesa arizona 85212 neighbor down the street just a little bit from this project and we we read a couple of stipulations regarding the height of screen walls does that address your concerns yes okay well thank you that's all i had thank you for coming down i appreciate it thank you okay so it looks like there's nothing more on this item i'll ask if i have a motion to approve uh agenda items 4a in the companion case agenda item 4b or 5b if i could go ahead then jump in is that all right yes board member alan please um i would make a recommendation that we approve z-o-n-21-00792 district six within the 7300 to 7600 block of southpaws road 8 400 block of easter main road and the 7 300 to 7 500 block of south 85th place located north of germain road and east of haws road rezoned from light industrial with the bonus intensity zone overlay and office commercial with a bonus intensity overlay to light industrial with a planned area development lipab and office commercial with the planned area development overlay oc pad and cyclin review this request allows for the development for an industrial development and this along with staff recommendation is approval with conditions including the new conditions that were outlined in today's meeting along with that the companion case was a 5a 5b by b haas commerce center district six within the 7 300 to 7 600 blocks of southpaws road and the 8400 block of easter main road and the 7 300 to 7 500 blocks of south 85th road the preliminary plat and the staff recommendation approval with conditions again these conditions associated with the ones that we uh previously discussed in this meeting okay thank you board member alan i have a motion do i have a second a second then okay let's go ahead and vote board member alan how do you vote on this one yes so by a vote of five eyes no no's and two absent you have approved agenda items 4a and 5b okay next up is agenda item 4b import since this wasn't pulled off of the consent agenda by someone from the public would you like another presentation or did you just want to discuss this as a board i i think we'll just go right to the discussion of this item charlotte will we'll leave you there to answer any questions the board members may have but board member boyle i'll turn it over to you since you are the one that raised a couple of questions on this item in our study session okay um on the zoning front um i know that there's often some when something is lc along main street and i know the long ago this the city had tried to reserve the first 200 feet along main street street as an lc um designation anytime i've done anything on main street we've tried to be very sensitive to that so losing that lc for a full rm project right here gives me some concern like everyone else i want to see the city develop and i want to see it happen but anytime we're switching from lc especially on main street it seems like that's in my experience it's always been raised to a much higher category had a much higher standard had a much higher um requirement um for that and that's where i start wondering about the the um the quality of this project um it seems to me to have uh quite a you know it seems to me to break a lot of the rules that um other developments that i've seen come to have to obey and that gives me a lot of concern um one of them being the 12 garages in a row if if that's the new standard and and here's where i'm i'm kind of conflicted i don't think you need to make the dry vials beautiful you're driving on them for less than 30 seconds it's the owners driving on them we spend you know there's a lot of regulations that say well the garage site has to have this and this and this and this and this and like but you're only in it for like 30 seconds you should make the drive isles just functional more like a parking garage which you don't have to beautify the inside of a parking garage and the fanciest places in scottsdale have parking garages and so we're spending a bunch of time and effort in space on the dry vials in mesa that i think should be allowed to be plain and simple and you just get in there in your car and you get out again it's even putting a garage on it it's already taken at levels above um a parking garage which we make richer and fancier people than us deal with in scottsdale so that's a conversation that i'm i'm i'm willing to say hey go ahead and do 12 in a row go ahead and not have them stagger i don't even think you need to make some of the walls a little bit thicker to you know sort of try to pretend that this is um abiding by the the code which says it has to be a major architectural feature like an entryway that's a bit of a conversation i think we could have here the lc to rm i give again it gives me a lot of pause as i looked into a little deeper one of the other requirements is that you have your private space outside your front yard and typically they say nothing smaller than 10 feet they don't want any dimension smaller than 10 feet what they've done here is done a 5 foot by 21 foot which gives you more square footage but i don't know what you can really do in a 5 foot yard that's 21 feet long i mean i guess your dog can run back and forth in it if you want to call it that um there seems to be room to do a 10-foot yard and then just push the the landscape setback back a little bit so i would make i would make that recommendation um for uh staff dealing with them pushing on to make it eight feet or ten something where you can actually put some furniture down in it and sit in it a five foot yard that's 21 feet long am i wrong here that just seems not even 21 actually that's that's the width of the units okay so but five feet i mean i mean very big yeah if you put a single chair in the five foot space you've already um you've already kind of messed it up on that point so those are those are the concerns i have um typically when i've brought projects that are similar to this through design review kind of hammers that stuff out and discusses it as a more holistic thing than we do and i guess that's where i get the feeling maybe the smart thing to do would be have design review take a look at this and give their comments before we give our our official vote on it even though i won't be able to do that so i'm i've already shot myself in the foot but those those are my comments having seen these things come through and knowing knowing how many of these this this is i think coming down the pike i mean we have over 500 units like this in development right now so if this is the new standard um great especially with the drive out thing if we can just say that's that's fine now um i'm gung-ho on that one um those are my those are my concerns and thoughts about this and for member boyle if i can address some of those concerns so the the first one being the zoning along main street so as you know further into downtown we have our transect districts and some of our downtown you know districts staff was um there's no official policy within just generally that along main street that we need to retain any frontage of commercial district and especially along along east main street staff has really recognized the need to revitalize that area and interject some population and rooftops in that area so both the planning division and economic development have been supportive of you know the re-zone of some of those limited commercial properties along east main street to really interject that that population there as far as creating any sort of standards i mean this is a pad request so this is you know asking for deviations from the code so it is not in any way creating a new standard for the city as far as our typical zoning standards well not not as a new standard but if it's a well this project got it why can't we do it yeah precedent maybe precedent not ordinance not standard but well that's why i think we as a city and board members we have to recognize that each site is unique and we cannot necessarily judge them against one another we have to look at them in context of the site and the total design but yes i do appreciate that board member alan do you have any questions or comments on this well my comment my recommendation i i i like it everything in and tied up in a neat little bow and so i really like appreciate it going to the drb before it comes to us um and and i think that that that way some of those design issues might be hammered out they might talk about it and yeah i agree with board member boyle i think that um we need you know that the i guess the front yard of 50 square feet or whatever it is that's what i i kind of estimated it to be is really not a whole lot to do you can't really do much with that and i feel like those type of a design details can be worked out with the rb before it comes to us as a board to approve the project as a whole so that's just where i stand on it okay any other comments or questions from the board uh okay board member boyle are you are you proposing anything here what would i propose that it be continued to the next meeting so that the rb can have a look at it yes you would make a motion to continue it yes [Applause] and and before you say anything a question rachel if it okay if it goes to design review if if we approve a site plan and then it goes after that to design review board and they make additional changes does it have to come back to us or does it just go on its way from there board member crockett it really depends if it are if there are suggested changes that might alter the site design um in that case it would likely come back through the board but if they are are more recommendations to the elevations or the landscape plan that wouldn't have any dimensional effects on the site plan then those are usually just worked out between the applicant and staff before it gets final approval by the planning director and so could the could the design board propose changes to the to the to the widths and yard sizes here they could recommend a staff that we that we look at those yes okay okay uh board member airs i believe i think we're good i was a question about the parking counter and the garages i thought they were thinner than a double standard size so we're good i i just looked it up everyone no question okay and board member peterson anything to say on this okay all right so uh board member boyle i guess we'll look to you is there a motion or or or no for my last act on this board let me make sure i do this one right since i botched the the um consent agenda is this one this is for b right yes um i move that we um what's the word i'm going to say table or continue we continue uh pz 22103 the zon 21-00966 district 2 to the meeting following the design review board meeting which is july 13th july 13th um do i have a second to that motion i second that okay i have a motion in a second let's go ahead and vote uh wait before we do that a vote yes is to continue it to the next board meeting okay thank you uh board member alan yes okay so it looks like the the motion passes by a vote of four to one with board member peterson voting no and two uh absent uh board members so that one passes okay you have something to remember your last board meeting buddy i finally got you guys all right um i'll turn to our assistant director do we have anything more that we need to cover in our uh board meeting board member crockett i don't have any other updates for today thank you well before i ask for a motion to uh to adjourn i just wanted to mention this came up in our study session but this is board member boyle's last board meeting as a member of the planning and zoning board and he has been a major contributor the time that i've been on the board i've learned a lot from him i appreciate his attention to detail and his gusto for uh things that sometime can seem a little bit like minutia to some people but he's uh he's made the process much better in mesa so wish him well and best of luck in his future endeavors thank you with that do i have a motion to conclude our meeting i move that we uh finish up the meeting thank you all right do i have a second i'll second oh second that okay all in favor board member alan yes okay we are adjourned thank you