Extracted text (via pymupdf)
15028 characters
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STUDY SESSION MINUTES July 22, 2026 The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on July 22, 2026, at 3:32 p.m. BOARD PRESENT BOARD ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Troy Peterson, Chairperson Jeff Pitcher, Vice Chairperson* Jayson Carpenter, Boardmember Chase Hales, Boardmember Misty Klann, Boardmember Genessee Montes, Boardmember* Alexis Kay Wagner, Boardmember Evan Balmer Kirstin Dvorchak Danika Heying Mary Kopaskie-Brown Cassidy Welch (*Participated in the meeting through the use of video conference equipment) Chairperson Peterson conducted a roll call. 1. Call meeting to order. Chairperson Peterson called the meeting to order at 3:32pm. 2. Election of Planning and Zoning Board Officers: A. Chairperson Boardmember Carpenter nominated Vice Chairperson Peterson as Chair. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Montes. B. Vice Chairperson Boardmember Carpenter nominated Boardmember Pitcher as Vice Chairperson. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Montes. 3. Discuss the proposed text amendments to the Mesa Zoning Ordinance and Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Historic Preservation Officer, Matthew Kreigl, presented the proposed text amendments to Mesa Zoning Ordinance Title 11, Chapters 23, 44, 66, 74, and 87 relating to historic preservation on the Planning and Zoning Board Study Session agenda and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1) Mr. Kreigl presented the case for the historic preservation text amendments to the Mesa Zoning Ordinance, noting the proposal introduces four primary modifications: reorganizing and consolidating regulations into a single chapter (Chapter 74), improving clarity in application Planning and Zoning Board Study Session July 22, 2026 Page 2 procedures and standards, standardizing terminology for consistency, and updating provisions to ensure compliance with current state and federal laws regarding archaeological resources. He explained that regulations are currently spread across Chapters 3, 7, 42, and 44, making them difficult to navigate. He noted that key changes include extending the mandatory demolition delay from 180 days to one year to explore preservation alternatives, establishing clear "Duty to Maintain" standards benchmarked at the time of designation, and formalizing processes for historically designated signs, emergency repairs, and archaeological resource protections. (See Pages 3 through 7 of Attachment 1) Mr. Kreigl detailed specific procedural and organizational updates, noting the relocation of historic sign regulations to Chapter 74, clarification of the non-regulatory status of the supplemental inventory list, and streamlined processes for emergency repairs to allow Certificate of Appropriateness issuance alongside building permits. He reported that staff conducted extensive public outreach, including meetings with the Historic Preservation Board, state historic preservation officers, tribal representatives, and residents. He noted that community feedback was generally positive, with attendees appreciating the focus on clarification and reorganization over new restrictions. (See Pages 8 through 20 of Attachment 1) In response to clarifying questions from Boardmember Klann regarding tribal consultation protocols, Mr. Kreigl asked City Archaeologist, Meg Eaton, to verify that formal consultation occurs for projects with a federal nexus, while ongoing coordination with local tribal historic preservation officers continues for state and municipal projects. Staff concluded by noting that following the study session, the amendments would proceed through formal public hearings with the Historic Preservation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council. Boardmember Carpenter requested that staff clarify how the "Duty to Maintain" provisions would be enforced and questioned the physical implications of extending the demolition delay from 180 days to one year. Mr. Kreigl indicated that enforcement would primarily be complaint-driven by neighbors within a historic district, with potential violations referred to code enforcement. Boardmember Carpenter further inquired whether private property owners on the supplemental inventory list would be bound by these same rules if their properties are not currently designated as historic. Mr. Kreigl noted that placement on the supplemental list is purely informational and honorific, creating no regulatory restrictions or delays for private property owners. Boardmember Carpenter asked how prospective property buyers can identify if a property carries historic regulations during due diligence. Planning Director, Mary Kopaskie-Brown, along with Mr. Kreigl, confirmed that local overlay designations are recorded on property deeds and city mapping systems, whereas the supplemental list is maintained internally for planning purposes without affecting property rights. Boardmember Hales requested clarification regarding the necessity of the demolition delay, questioning under what circumstances a property owner would seek to demolish a structure prior to an overlay designation if historic designations are largely owner driven. Ms. Kopaskie- Brown confirmed that while historic overlays require property owner participation, or a 50% plus one majority for historic districts, the delay serves as a temporary safeguard during district formation to prevent preemptive demolitions before the neighborhood designation process is completed. Boardmember Hales further inquired on whether the city ever unilaterally imposes historic overlays on private property without owner consent. Ms. Kopaskie-Brown clarified that historic overlay designations are purely voluntary and initiated from the ground up by property owners, confirming that the city does not forcibly designate historic properties or districts. Planning and Zoning Board Study Session July 22, 2026 Page 3 Mr. Kreigl presented the proposed amendments to the Mesa Historic Preservation Design Guidelines on the Planning and Zoning Board Study Session agenda and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 2) Mr. Kriegel presented the case for the proposed historic preservation design guidelines, noting the proposal introduces four primary modifications: modernizing the framework from its last 2001 update to account for the city's growth from four to eight historic districts, transitioning the static document into a searchable digital PDF with embedded navigation links, reorganizing content into project-specific chapters with specialized appendices, and incorporating dedicated visual resources and character-defining features for local building types and heritage neighborhoods. (See Pages 2 through 5 of Attachment 1) Mr. Kreigl explained that the guidelines are intended to provide practical, accessible direction for homeowners, contractors, and designers while offering staff and the Historic Preservation Board a consistent evaluation basis. He noted that key changes include comprehensive guidance for maintaining historic elements (windows, doors, roofs), established compatibility standards for modern additions and new infill construction, regulations for contemporary features like solar panels and accessory dwelling units, and updated framework standards for historic signage. (See Pages 6 through 9 of Attachment 1) Mr. Kriegel detailed specific chapter-by-chapter and appendix updates, highlighting the visual architectural catalog in Chapter 7, and unified appendices covering review standards, district context, and the regulatory-free Heritage Neighborhood program (currently recognizing Washington-Escobedo and Lehi). He reported that staff conducted extensive public outreach over several years, including study sessions with the Historic Preservation Board, state historic preservation officers, local preservation groups, and a recent community meeting. He noted that public feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with residents praising the simplified structure and asking targeted questions regarding material selections, roofs, windows, and addition setbacks, with no formal opposition expressed. (See Pages 7 through 19 of Attachment 1) In response to clarifying questions from Boardmember Klann regarding why Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) were not formally consulted on the guidelines, Ms. Eaton verified that staff presented both the text amendments and design guidelines during bi-monthly working meetings with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa and Gila River Indian Communities. Ms. Eaton noted that tribal representatives requested formal consultation specifically on the text amendments, as the design guidelines focus strictly on above-ground building architecture rather than archaeological assets, though collaborative efforts are underway to draft dedicated archaeological guidelines. Ms. Eaton concluded by noting that the guidelines would proceed through upcoming formal hearings with the Historic Preservation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council. 4. Review and discuss items listed on the Public Hearing agenda for July 22, 2026. Staff Planner, Charlotte Bridges, reviewed agenda Item 3-a, ZON26-00243. "Boeing ACA Expansion", 38.0± acres located approximately 1,700± feet north of the northeast corner of North Greenfield Road and East McDowell Road. Development Plan Review and Special Use Permit. This request will allow for an approximately 263,386± square foot expansion of a Manufacturing facility. (District 5). on the Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing agenda and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 3) Planning and Zoning Board Study Session July 22, 2026 Page 4 Ms. Bridges presented the case for ZON26-00243, a Development Plan Review and Special Use Permit. She noted the proposal introduces three primary modifications: expanding the existing manufacturing facility with a single-story, 60-foot-tall addition set back approximately 700 feet from Greenfield Road; modifying site access and parking via a third Greenfield Road entrance and an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) for a shared parking agreement (providing 563 total spaces for 480 estimated daily employees and visitors); and expanding the central utility plant while updating site landscaping. (See Pages 3 through 4 of Attachment 1) Ms. Bridges explained that the property carries a Light Industrial (LI) zoning designation and a Regional Employment Center General Plan Placetype with an Evolve Growth Strategy, which permits limited manufacturing. She noted that the Special Use Permit is required to allow a building height of 60 feet (measured to the top of the stair tower and parapet) where 40 feet is the standard maximum within the Airfield Overlay District 3. (See Pages 5 through 6 of Attachment 1) Ms. Bridges displayed the site plan and architectural renderings detailing tilt-panel construction with west elevation form liners matching existing buildings, alongside an Alternative Landscape Plan requesting reduced perimeter landscaping for facility security purposes. She reported that the applicant conducted citizen outreach to property owners and registered neighborhoods within a 1,000-foot radius, and staff received no public inquiries or opposition. Ms. Bridges concluded by recommending approval with conditions, noting full compliance with the 2050 Mesa General Plan and Falcon Field Subarea Plan. (See Pages 7 through 22 of Attachment 1) In response to clarifying questions from Boardmember Hales regarding the administrative hierarchy of Conditional Use Permits, Assistant Planning Director, Evan Balmer, verified that Mesa utilizes a three-tier system: Council Use Permits (approved by City Council for specific uses), Special Use Permits (approved by the Planning and Zoning Board or Board of Adjustment for requests such as height or parking modifications), and Administrative Use Permits (approved by staff for minor requests such as shared parking and alternative landscaping). 5. Planning Director’s Updates. • Special Meeting (General Plan Amendment): A special meeting is scheduled for next week at the Dobson Ranch Library regarding a major General Plan amendment. The Board confirmed attendance for a quorum, utilizing new alternate board members to ensure full coverage under the interim alphabetical selection protocol. • Upcoming Study Session: A presentation regarding the Legacy Park development (Planned Community District) at Williamsfield Road is scheduled for the August 12 study session. • City Council Code Amendments: Follow-up was provided on two pending code refinements before City Council, including alternative options for fleet services/drone operations (evaluating vertical vs. horizontal landings under a Council Use Permit in the LC district) and increased EV charging setbacks (150 feet). • Balanced Housing Plan Update: Since April, 692 residential units have been entitled (431 single-family, 261 multifamily). Quarterly tracking continues for both entitlements and final Certificates of Occupancy to monitor housing delivery across income levels. Newly appointed board members and alternates introduced themselves: • Boardmember Wagner: Transitioning from six years of service on the Board of Adjustment. • Boardmember Klann: Owner of Blue Corn Consulting with extensive public sector experience across ADOT, tribal government, and the Federal Highway Administration. Planning and Zoning Board Study Session July 22, 2026 Page 5 • Boardmember Hales: Urban planner for the City of Phoenix and East Valley native. • Alternate Boardmember Thomas: Transitioning with seven years of experience across the Design Review Board and Board of Adjustment. • Alternate Boardmember Trexler: Transitioning from Design Review Board. Staff noted that upcoming study sessions will include Open Meeting Law and general zoning training, with Boardmember Carpenter requesting specific instructions on reviewing plats and easements. 6. Adjourn. It was moved by Boardmember Pitcher, seconded by Boardmember Carpenter, that the Study Session be adjourned. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES –Peterson, Pitcher, Carpenter, Hales, Klann, Montes, Wagner NAYS – None ABSENT– None Without objection, the Planning and Zoning Board Study Session adjourned at 4:31 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board Study Session meeting of the City of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 22nd day of July 2026. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. __________________________________________ TROY PETERSON, CHAIRPERSON DH (Attachments - 3)