Hold on. There we go. Welcome everybody to the December, what is the date today? Because it's not on there. 10. Alexis uh public hearing for the city of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board hearing. We'll begin by taking our roll calls. Chairs is present. Vice Chair Peterson >> here. Board member Pitcher >> here. >> There he is. Board member Blakeman >> here. >> Board member Carpenter >> here. Board member Farnsworth >> here. I will excuse board member Montes. As part of the agenda today, we do have a consent agenda. These items will all be read into the record and acted on in one motion. These will not be discussed individually. I do not believe we have any other blue cards. Correct, Alexis? >> Chairs? No, we have not received anymore. >> All right. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson has offered to read our consent agenda today. >> Items on the consent agenda for December 10th, 2025. Item 2 A, planning and zoning meetings from November 12, 2025, planning and zoning board meeting. Item 3A 025-0000827 cadence DU multi-resident 17 acres located at the southwest corner of Charisman Road and Williamsfield Road. Site plan review for a 3002 unit multi- multiple residence development and a special use permit to allow for parking reduction. Recommendation is approval with conditions. Item 3B 025-0000324 Circle K POS and Sausan 6.3 acres located at the southeast corner of East Pos Road and Southman Road. Site plan review and special use permit. This request will allow for a 5200 ft² service station development. Recommendation is approval with conditions. Uh these items are for recommendation to the city council on the following zoning cases. Item 4 a 0124-00525 202 RV storage expansion 15.5 acres located at 8839 East Main Street. Reszone from general commercial with planned area development to GC with a new PAD overly site plan review and council use permit. This request will allow for a 58,845T boat and RV storage facility. Recommendation approval with conditions. Item 4B, 0125-0000397, Department of Child Safety of Arizona, 3 acres located at the northeast corner of East University Drive and North Adiath Street, site plan modification and amending the conditions of approval number one and four of ordinance number 2354. This request will allow for a 24,000 foot office development. Recommendation is approval with conditions. Recommendations to the city council on the following general plan amendment and related zoning case. Item 5A 025-0000210 the Lincoln 9.1 acres located approximately 340 ft west of the southwest corner of Hampton Avenue and Chrisman Road. Reszone from planned area planned employment park with a planned area development overlay to multiple residents too with a planned area development overlay. Special use permit and site plan review to allow for a 113 lot attached single residence development. Recommendation is continuation to the January 14, 2026 planning and zoning board meeting. Item 5B 025-0000313 the Lincoln 9.1 acres located 340 ft west of the southwest corner of Hampton Avenue and Chrisman Road. Minor general plan amendment to change the place type from urban center to urban residential. Recommendation also continuence to the January 14, 2026 planning and zoning board meeting. And that concludes the consent agenda. >> Thank you vice chair. So, I'll look for a motion to pass a consent agenda. >> Motion to pass. >> Thank you, Jason. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor, please vote. >> Board member Pitcher. >> Yes. >> Verbal. >> Yay. >> Yay. >> And with that, everyone here passes. Thank you everyone. The consent agenda passes is. Let's move into the two items that we do have on the agenda today to discuss which is item 6A and 6B for the proposed amendments. We do have I don't think we need another presentation. I think we're good because we do um without the public hearing we could just do this and have a discussion. Correct. Mary. >> So, chairs for 6A and 6B, um I would do each of them separate and open your public hearing, do comments, and then close your public hearing and then you could probably vote on them at the same time. Um because they're related. You okay with that? >> We could vote. >> No, she wants to vote on them separately. >> That's fine to vote on. >> So, with that, uh actually the Let me just make sure. So, uh Mr. Ba 6A or 6B. Are you are discussing both? I see you just I think you just wrote down 6B. >> Okay. So 6B. So on item 6A then I guess Dang, we could have Doesn't matter. We don't need to put on the consent agenda. All right. So for item 6A, I'll go ahead and open up public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on item 6A? No, I think so. Okay. So, with that, we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of this. I'll look for a motion if there's anyone that wants to discuss anything on item 6A on the board. >> No discussion. >> Yeah. You good? [clears throat] Gosh. Okay. I'll make a motion. >> Yeah. Uh see, make a motion to adopt uh item 6A, proposed amendments to chapters 66 and 67 of the Mesa City Code, pertaining to the organization and duties of the planning and zoning board and the design and review board. The amendments include, but are not limited to modifying the membership and qualifications of the plan and zoning board, repealing in its entirety, section 11-66-2, planning and zone zoning board. Oh, I lost my place. uh planning and zoning board and adoption of new section 11-662 planning and zoning board repealing and in its entirety section 11-66-6 design review board and adopting a new section 1166-6 design review board and modifying uh appeal bodies although not subject to recommendation of the board. Don't you read all this? The discussion may also cover related and proposed amendments to chapter one of title two of the Mesa City Code pertaining to planning and zoning board. Staff recommendation was adoption. >> And the motion is to adopt. >> Motion to adopt. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Thank you both. With that, we'll go ahead and do our vote. Board member Pitcher, what's your verbal? >> Yes. >> And with that, the 6A passes. Thank you to the board. Moving over to item 6B. I'll go ahead and open up the public comment portion of this. I do have one blue card and we'll go ahead and invite Mr. Ba to come on up for that. >> I think you know the deal, but >> I do. Yes. >> Do I need to push? You can hear me fine, right? Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Adam Ba 25 actually 211 East Highland Avenue out. It's the first time I've been able to say that. I'm thankful to be here today. I I'll be brief. I think there's just three things that stand out to me and and there might be more. The draft was released 48 hours ago and I really haven't had time to fully digest it. Um, and I think the many years I've been doing work in the city and the type of public engagement that we're asked to do with notice and letters and neighbor meetings and site postings, it just seemed unusual that this last version of the draft was the last part to be released without the same level of community engagement and stakeholder input. I I might be the only one here today, but I I I think it's probably because most people didn't don't know what this was because it was just barely released not too long ago. A month ago, I was inquiring about it, but a draft wasn't quite ready then. Look, I I I can appreciate what's happening. The city has to react to the state legislature passing a new law, and it's a scramble, and it's probably against what they wanted to do to begin with, but sometimes the state legislature does what they do. But one of the things that was in the state legislature was to make these types of processes like site plans more specifically to quote it objective standards without a public hearing. And while I appreciate a lot of the ways that that new language accomplishes that and in other ways it actually departs from what that direction is from the state statute. And I'm sure that the city attorney and I have a different opinion. That's fine. We each have our own clients that we represent and we'll be good advocates for them. But when I look at this state statute, it doesn't talk about making distinctions between initial development plans or plan amendments or minor amendments or major amendments. It just says objective standards without a public hearing. But what I heard today under this new version is there will be some site plans that will be major modifications that will require public hearing, which seems opposite of what that um directive and intention was of the co of the state statute. And when you go to a public hearing, you now lose the objective standards and it becomes purely subjective and discretionary. And so what was confusing to me is that that first part, the second part that I struggle to understand because I I haven't seen a single city anybody wants to do this. Even in Phoenix, when you have a a PHO case where you modify the steps, they'll tell you we can't discuss land use. We can only discuss the site plan because the land use is what it's allowed by right. But what I'm hearing here is when you read the text now, they've added the phrases change of land use or uses. And so if I'm just looking at the code, I was curious myself like what does that mean? And now I heard in the study session what it means. I think they look at like subcategories within the zoning district. But there are so many subcategories in the district. I scrambled real quick and just looked at the map. If I was to be a bank today, and you know, there's not a lot of banks that have physical locations anymore. And so those banks become something else. Let's say the bank becomes a retail store or a salon reszone. Assuming there's a, you know, a site plan compliance tip. Um, because that's a different category than retail. If I was a commercial entertainment use and I want to become a commercial recreation use, rezone. If I want, if I'm a restaurant and I just want to become a general market or a reszone. If I'm a a salon personal services and I want to become an office, reszone. If I'm a a building light assembly and I just want to become a research and development use, rezone. Let's say I'm not even changing the footprint of the building. And so you can see what happens in the effort to and I think this is the purpose of of the state statute change. Simplify processes, remove subjectivity and discretion and accelerate development approvals. And what we just did with this process is actually create a discretion for legislative body. the opposite is simplifying the process and we delayed development approvals particularly for things like infill development and and redevelopment sites. And so when we were trying to like make these distinctions between subcategories of the commercial district, we actually just made development more difficult in the city of Mesa and Mesa on new development probably won't experience this issue. Ma me Mesa on old development where you're going to be redeveloping and there will be a lot of these cases you guys know have site plan compliance dips. It's been around for a long time. So I I have a feeling this is going to touch a lot more projects than we are aware of until the day someone actually has to go and implement a project. And what I liked about the old one was it told you that when you had a major amendment, you had to look to the criteria specifically in 11 it said specifically city council shall evaluate this the criteria at 11695 which essentially to me was a little bit more of an objective analysis and that's gone. And uh it it is it's just a big it's a big swing for 48 hours notice. And I can imagine if architects, engineers developers landings attorneys had all had knowledge of this, many many more would be here because um it seems simple, but man, if I if I can't take my old retail Well, Dane Ael did one and he took a Walgreens retail and he turned into an office. You know how many Walgreens are empty across the valley now? Well, sorry. you got to do a reszone. It's going to take you some time and at some point you start to put you at risk. So that's where that's where I'm I'm at. Um I can appreciate this staff didn't ask for this. This is just kind of what got put in their hands. They have to react to it. But I don't think they had to go as far as where they've gone with regarding the uses. And so I feel like if you have a commercial shopping center, you should be able to do any of the commercial uses that are allowed in that commercial shopping center. So without having to come back and ask for a reszone to do a commercial use on a commercial property. Anyways, thank you guys. It's a different position for me to be here today. It's it's completely opposite of how I present cases and and my advocacy role, but um I can imagine today how many of my clients don't know about this and how many future clients haven't contact me until until they find out that there's this problem and then we'll be back again. It's great for me. I'm going to have a lot of work. I will be reszoning a lot of land and hopefully um the lights will stay on at with Hima Spa. Thank you. >> Oh yeah. Yeah, of course. you wanted to respond. I I was gonna ask staff if he want to response. >> Uh, thank you. So, >> okay. Thank you, Chair Eris and and board members. And I'm going to ask both Rachel and and Kirsten if I miss anything to kind of kind of pop up. So, the f the first thing is the process has not changed today. If you change your use and you are stipped to um the an ordinance that was part of a reasonzoning that went to council, it is the same process that you are going through today. You had a case on the agenda today that was a major site plan modification with a a modification to a condition of approval. That process has not changed. What we've done is we've tried to clarify what that means and that's where we brought in the change of the use and the definition of what that means. So the process as it relates to those projects that are currently going back to council that has not changed. So we're not adding any additional layers to that. The second is that a lot of the objectivity that that Adam was talking about and I I appreciate Adam's comments is really related to design. That is the specifically the state statute talks about objective design standards. It doesn't say objective site plan standards. It talks about objective design standards. So that's the second part of that. Um I also think that there might be a misconception of not every project that comes in and is a Walgreens and wants to change to an office will have to go through that process of maybe going to planning and zoning board for a recommendation in council. It depends on what the original approval was for that project. So, if it was something that that was approved without a step to an ordinance that was related to a resoning, that would not go back to council. And what we've done is we've actually actually broadened those that are going to be captured as minor site plan amendments because those criteria were so narrow. So, I don't know if Kirsten or Rachel want to add anything to what they said as it relates to that. Did you want anything? No. >> Ju just a question to clarify. So under under current code if it's a call it a hard zone commercial district and then you have a development in it. If if somebody comes in and switches from uh whatever uses are are within there from uh from from a a bank to a salon then then a reszone isn't isn't triggered and what you're saying is is that it even under but today if if it were a biz or P overlay if there was some overlay bas and the the site plan was and the uses were linked to that that ordinance, then you come in to change one, then that would trigger a reszone and and that the uh so so that's current. Is that what the the current code process would be? >> So, I'm I'm not sure I understand the question. Can we try that again? And then I might ask Rachel to come up. >> Yeah. So, so if it's uh you had explained that it only triggers a reszone if it's uh if it's part of part of the approval was tied >> stipp was stipped to that which would be a some some biz or PD overlay or something that was specific to a plan, right? and not to the to the the overall land use if it was a hard zone um development and then uses come that that didn't have that wasn't stipulated to a specific plan. Is am I getting that right or or or or or or what what what is what is the what is the difference I guess what what is a stipula stipulated to uh to an or the ordinance with the stipulation to >> that you're talking about. I I'll start and then I'll Rachel maybe you can help. If if there is a use that comes before city council and there is an ordinance associated with that use. So whether it's a PED, it could be a biz, it could be a council use permit. No, I I'm going to pull council use permit out. But there's an or because that's a resolution. It's not an ordinance. If there is an ordinance and that site plan is then stipped to that ordinance. You'll notice when you see those and you're making recommendations on that, usually the first or second condition is compliance with the site plan as submitted. And then council is passing that ordinance and they're approving that ordinance. And so that council has made that decision. If you're looking to change that site plan that is stipped to that ordinance, that would be a major. And then >> yeah and and and and chair board member Peterson I'm sorry I was a little confused. I was trying to follow as well. So hopefully I'm answering this correctly but if if you have an instance where you're changing it's not stipped to an ordinance so it didn't go as a site plan with with a reasonzoning or some other city council action and they come in for a change of use. It wouldn't trigger a a major modification. But it there are different parts of the code that it could trigger. So for instance, we have in our our landscaping section that if you have a change of use and it increases your parking requirement by 10%, then you have to comply with all of the landscaping criteria. So there are different parts of the code that it a change of use could trigger. Um but if it is not stipped to an ordinance, it wouldn't have to go back to city council currently. >> It it it is it accurate um a uh maybe not redevelopment but just a new tenant in a space that typically both under existing and under the new. If there's a retail tenant and then a a different retail use, if it's an insurance agent and then a barberh shop comes in, but it's the the the same building, but it's just a a new tenant in there, then that doesn't trigger this muddiness >> under either scenario. Right. Because in in the code, it's a different use from the code, but it's not but but the ordinance stipulated would just say retail or something like that. >> Correct. Correct. if they're not changing the site plan. So if there's no change to the site plan associated with that right? >> As long as, like I said, it wasn't increasing the parking ratio and it, you know, so it wasn't triggering other things, then it just ends up they usually come in for a tenant improvement and they make changes to the inside of the building. >> Okay. >> So change of use is then tied to any change in a site plan, >> right? That is correct. >> Okay. it. One more question. Is there based on uh Adam's comment I is there anything that can be added to these revisions that would further clarify any any confusion that that would be prudent to do at this time that would make that more clear to people of of uh what what triggers and what doesn't or is that a >> Yeah. Um, Chair Ers and Board Member Peterson, I think that's a fair comment and request. So, we can go back and we can work with Kirsten. I'm sorry I can't see people. I'm too short. Um, but we can look at that language and see how we might be able to clarify some of that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is there anything else? >> Okay. So specifically what you're saying though is try to read your complicated mind. >> Um that it's specifically clarification on the change of use. >> It sounds like that that that's where the confusion >> I think that's most that's where my confusion was like the that was one of them. >> What what what what defines a change of use? Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. chair er what I'm hearing is that as it applies to that that new chapter 69 for development plan review and the modification criteria. >> Yeah, between the major minor. Yeah, that's absolutely one of the ones that was confusing to me. So, it sounds like it's also out there. I think that was one the I'll be honest, there's a couple of things I'm concerned about what this does for development. I think that will help by the way, but redevelopment I think that Mr. Bob brought that up. You know, it just it's confusing. It's a little bit confusing and I could see why there's going to be hesitation on that. So, there's confusion there. I also worry I I I'm going to just be super frank here a little bit. One of the things when I was reading this this morning is I have concerns about any potential litigation that could happen because of this down the road. Is there have you guys talked about that at all? And maybe this is a question more for you Chris is, you know, it opens it up where, you know, for most part it's not going to be, but I I think of a significant project that has enough money invested into this if there's clarity. Is is there any worry from that side? >> Uh yes, chairs. Um and and certainly I I can't predict who would want to file a notice of claim. Every project might be different. Every ordinance might be different. But I will tell you that I believe it was in 2016 to 2018 this issue has been litigated >> with the city and it w this exact issue was upheld where there was a site plan with a specific use. A user wanted to change the site plan to a permitted use uh and the court upheld that that is a reasonzoning. Um uh that change of use would require a legislative act by city council. >> Yeah. So and I get because of the site plan change because of the change of use. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Well, I think the biggest thing for me then I think is there's clarity on what that is the definition of of change of use and what that specific a lot more clarity there will help me on that to feel more comfortable for sure. I don't know what anybody else says anything on the board. >> I think the only question I have is more just along the lines of call it procedural equitability. I think the the position is a fair statement to ask and now we've heard it from two different people a statement about 48 hours from issuance to review and so forth. So I think one question is can we get some clarity was it actually 48 hours ago that this was issued to the public for review. And if that is true, I would con I would um promote that we give the public more time to consider this um to ask more questions and maybe bring some more challenges forward for us. >> Sure. So chairs uh board member Farnsworth as as I mentioned downstairs, this is something we've been talking with a lot of the development community about. So we've been probably over the last year been talking about the changes that were coming with this. Um this agenda was posted I believe on Thursday. Um so I think while it's not a lot more than 48 hours, it was more than 48 hours. I would also suggest that this is the first I mean the planning and zoning board is a part of that public process and so this is now available and anyone in the public is can be looking at this and before it goes to council and come to council and you know let council know what their concerns are about this. So, this is part of that public input process. This isn't the end of public input. This is part of that process. >> Do it. Is it scheduled yet for council? Do we have that date that we can >> We currently have it. I believe it's for introduction on January 12th with a a potential final action on the 26th. >> Okay. >> And chair board, member Farnsworth, we have a study session on um January, it's the Thursday before. So, what is that? January 8th. >> A council study session, you're saying? >> Yes. Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. So, we did have an open house, a public open house to discuss the text amendment. So, while we didn't have the actual draft of it, we did discuss these concepts. We only had four people show up for that that public meeting and um one of them was a council member and two of them were citizens of Phoenix. >> Um so, but we did have that opportunity for the public to to discuss these changes. >> Thanks for the clarity. Appreciate that. Anything else from the board on that? Okay. I don't think we have any other comment cards or anything. >> Can I add one more thing for your consideration? >> Um, >> yeah. Come on. I mean, we only had the one blue card, so >> 30 seconds. Only one blue card, >> but then I'm going to give them time to respond. >> Yeah, please do. Look, it's really important you understand when when this will apply. So, I think Mary's right. It only applies when there's a stipulation on a zoning case to a site plan. But almost every case has that stipulation going forward and for I don't know decades going backwards. So like in my case I'm hard zoned. I don't have a pad bis nothing like that but I have a zoning stiff that says that. So if I was a commissioner or an applicant, I'd be very nervous about agreeing to steps regarding basic compliance to site plan going forward because I don't know what's going to be down the road and I might need to change a subcategory in a commercial building to a different subcategory in a commercial building. And what I just heard in the study session is the change in the subcategories when you have a stip for site plan compliance is goes back to council. And so it isn't as simple as being presented. And yes, this was publicly listed on the agenda a week ago except for this section 1169 which came out on Tuesday or Monday, whatever it was. >> Well, when I looked online and it wasn't there. So, I had to email staff and and then staff said it's not available yet and then they sent it to me on 3 or 4 o'clock. >> See, that's why I was confused. >> Maybe I can ask Alexis to clarify that because I was not aware that we got any emails because people couldn't find this. >> Yeah. So, I'm the one that posts the agenda. I posted everything on Thursday. Um, everything was available Thursday evening before I left. Um, I'm not sure. >> I feel like there was something new. >> I I can clarify what this is. So, as a courtesy on our website, we post the red lines of some of these chapters that were repealed and replaced so that people could see the actual strikethroughs because a lot of them are larger and we cannot do strike through and bold by our ordinance because of the length. >> And so, we posted those as a courtesy on the website and we got informed, hey, we're missing this one. And so, Monday we we posted that. But that it was in the agenda, >> but it was on the it was on our legis Well, it was also on the website for PNZ people to get to. You're that's okay. Yeah, that's why cuz I remember not seeing it. That's that makes more sense. Okay. Um Oh, what? So, one question that that that detour made me lose my thought. I can't think of what I was going to say. >> So, Terrar if I'll start and maybe it'll help you to remember. >> Or do you want to wait? >> No. Go go go. I can't remember what. >> So, um what Adam is talking about, um a couple of things, >> the planning and zoning board and city council see a very I don't want to say not a lot, but a smaller percentage of our applicants that come in in the projects that we review. So, I I think it's too broad to say almost every case does that. the ones that Adam is involved with probably because that's why they're bringing in a land use attorney. But a lot of the cases that we do this will never touch. So I just want to make that clear. It's I can't say it's almost every project. I don't know what the percentage is, but it's not almost every project. The second is it's important to note that this is about the site plan changing. So the site plan is what's changing the use. So, if you have a site plan with an approved use in a an approved square footage of a building and then you want to change the location of that building and the size of that building and how that building is configured and the the circulation of that site because of that change of where that building is going. That's what would be triggered to go back to city council. So, it's it's important to understand it's not almost every case we do. It's important to understand that really this is about those site plan changes as it relates to those changes of use. >> And you actually 100% right. That's what it was. I think I was going to respond and say specifically in the the example that Adam was speaking about was was there any site plan change? Right. And so that and so you you said the exact right. So, I think that that and I understand that. I think that if there's a site plan edit, that obviously makes sense from a a use of change. I still think the clarity of of what it means to have a change of use is is something that's going to happen. >> And chairs, we can absolutely do that. Um, if it's causing confusion here with people who work with us every day, that's definitely something that we can do as part of our we can work with the city attorney's office to do that. >> Okay. But >> just I would ask that you make that part of your recommendation because then when we bring it back to council, they'll understand why it's there. >> Troy's giving me the sign here. So I I'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of this. And um I will open it up in case anyone would like to make a motion or have a discussion as a board on this item. >> Is there any discussion before I throw out a motion? Uh motion regarding item 6B, proposed amendments to chapters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 14 21 22 30 31 32 33 34 35 42 46 56 63 67 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 86 and 87 of title 11 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to administrative for review and compliance with ARS9-500.49. The amendments replace, amend, and update procedures for submission, review approval modification expiration, and enforcement for land use applications associated with administrative approval along with corresponding revisions needed to align related provisions for consistency. The amendments replace, amend, and update development standards citywide to incorporate technical updates and objective standards in compliance with ARS 9-500.49. The amendments also include related changes in terminology and definitions, modifications to rules of measurement and updates to alternative compliance. Recommendation to city council is adoption with a condition to for staff to look to clarify um the the meaning of change of use in section 11-69- five >> whatever it is. I think it's five. >> Yeah, I'll leave it at that. >> Thank you for that motion, Tro. Is there a second on the motion? I'll second that. >> Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and look for everybody to vote. Board member pitcher, what's your verbal vote on that? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Oh, thought I did. With that, unanimously, the motion passes. Thank you everybody for that one. With that, I look to staff. Is there any other updates or conversation that we need to have chair? >> There is no additional updates. Thank you. >> Without a look for a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Anyone second? >> All in favor? >> Board member pitcher. >> Yes. >> And look at that. We're unanimously. Thank you. We appreciate everybody. [music] >> [music]