Extracted text (via pymupdf)
22995 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MINUTES
July 27, 2026
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on
July 27, 2026, at 5:15 p.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT
OFFICERS PRESENT
Mark Freeman
Scott Somers
Rich Adams
Jennifer Duff
Alicia Goforth
Francisco Heredia
Dorean Taylor
None
Scott Butler
Holly Moseley
Jim Smith
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call.
1.
Review and discuss items on the agenda for the July 27, 2026, Regular Council meeting.
All of the items on the agenda were reviewed among Council and the following was noted:
Conflict of interest: None
Items removed from the consent agenda: 5-c
In response to a request from Councilmember Duff regarding agenda Items 8-a, (Proposed
amendments to Chapters 6, 7, 8, 31, and 86 pertaining to Fleet-Based Services and Service
Stations. The amendments include but are not limited to: adding definitions for Fleet-
Based Services, Heavy Fleet-Based Services, and Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging;
modifying definitions for Light Fleet-Based Services and Service Stations; adding Heavy
Fleet-Based Services, Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging, and related footnotes to land
use tables; modifying Section 11-31-25 titled, “Service Stations”; and adding Section 11-
31-40 titled, “Fleet-Based Services.” (Citywide)), and 8-b, (Proposed amendments to
Chapters 6, 7, 8, 31, and 86 pertaining to Fleet-Based Services and Service Stations. The
amendments include but are not limited to: adding definitions for Fleet-Based Services,
Heavy Fleet-Based Services, and Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging; modifying
definitions for Light Fleet-Based Services and Service Stations; adding Heavy Fleet-Based
Services, Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging, and related footnotes to land use tables;
modifying Section 11-31-25 titled, “Service Stations”; and adding Section 11-31-40 titled,
“Fleet-Based Services.” (Citywide)), on the Regular Council meeting agenda, Chief of
Emerging Technology Ian Linssen displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1)
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Page 2
Councilmember Duff expressed support for Option 8-a, noting that option would allow drone fleets
to be stored vertically or on rooftops rather than at ground level. She stated that this approach
would make more efficient use of land, preserve space for economic activity, and reduce the need
for expanded surface parking, fencing, and screening. She suggested that locating drones above
ground level could lessen noise impacts and would be comparable in height to existing parking
lot light poles. She opposed Option 8-b based on the prohibitive rooftop charging and noted that
the Council Use Permit (CUP) requirement in Limited Commercial (LC) districts would provide an
opportunity to evaluate potential impacts on nearby residential areas.
Mr. Linssen explained that two options were prepared following the July 16 Council discussion,
and he compared each option. He noted the difference is that Option 8-b would allow at-grade
and building heights of up to 30 feet only within the General Industrial (GI) and Heavy Industrial
(HI) districts. (See Page 2 of Attachment 1)
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Linssen confirmed that state legislation allows
generally applicable regulations affecting drones to be adopted before the legislation takes effect
on September 12, 2026. He explained that the proposed regulations would apply broadly to fleet
uses, including drones, robotaxi parking, delivery-van staging, accessory fleet uses, and service
stations. He added that the regulations could also apply to battery-powered vehicles.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Assistant Planning Director Rachel
Phillips clarified that the current code does not require separation for service stations and does
not establish development standards, including screening or separation requirements, for light
fleet-based services. She explained that the original proposal applied only to electric vehicle
charging infrastructure due to noise concerns; however, following Council direction, the
requirement was expanded to apply to the entire service station use.
Vice Mayor Somers commented that the proposed 150-foot separation requirement was based
on state legislation and reflected the evolution of fleet services to include aerial drones in addition
to traditional cars and trucks. He expressed concern that drone operations in LC districts could
affect nearby neighborhoods through overflight and noise.
Councilmember Taylor pointed out that the separation requirement was also intended to protect
nearby businesses, particularly restaurants with outdoor seating, from the noise associated with
drones repeatedly taking off and landing.
Ms. Phillips clarified that the 150-foot separation requirement would apply to residentially zoned
properties and residential uses. She noted that the Planning Director could reduce the distance if
a sound study demonstrated that the proposed use would not increase existing noise levels. She
added that the landscape-yard requirement would still provide a 15-foot buffer between
properties.
City Manager Scott Butler added that each proposed fleet operation would require a CUP,
whereas such uses previously would have been permitted by right in the LC district. He noted that
requiring Council approval would allow each proposal to be evaluated individually based on its
location, compatibility, and merits. He pointed out that Option 8-a would provide the Council with
greater discretion while preserving its authority to approve or deny each application on a case-
by-case basis.
In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Ms. Phillips clarified that the requirement
was initially proposed for service stations and light fleet-based services because electric charging
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Page 3
equipment may generate a humming noise. She noted that, at the Council’s direction, the
requirement was expanded to apply to all applicable uses, while the CUP requirement was limited
to the LC district.
Responding to a comment from Councilmember Duff, Planning Director Mary Kopaskie-Brown
stated that LC sites vary in character and surrounding uses; therefore, each CUP application
should be evaluated individually. She explained that in some locations, drone delivery equipment
mounted on poles or placed at ground level may be compatible, in others it could be disruptive.
She added that a noise study would allow the Council to consider existing ambient noise levels
to determine whether the proposed use would remain within applicable thresholds.
In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Ms. Phillips explained that CUP criteria
generally address compatibility and potential impacts on surrounding properties, including
whether the proposed use would be detrimental to the surrounding area.
City Attorney Jim Smith added that the law does not clearly classify the decision as legislative;
however, it is considered a discretionary decision subject to established criteria.
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Linssen reported that drone delivery services
operate in other parts of Arizona and nationwide but would be new to the East Valley.
Councilmember Adams expressed support for Option 8-b which restricts the location of pole-
mounted charging stations to the GI and HI districts through the CUP process, providing a
measured approach that could be reconsidered after evaluating its effectiveness and visual
impacts.
Councilmember Duff expressed support for allowing pole-mounted drone facilities, stating that
requiring all equipment to remain at ground level could restrict innovation, use land inefficiently,
and discourage providers from operating in the COM.
Councilmember Taylor supported a cautious approach, noting that vendors may use either
ground-based or pole-based facilities. She cited public concerns regarding the potential
proliferation of drone activity, acknowledged that airspace is regulated by the FAA, and favored
initially limiting locations while evaluating community acceptance and the effectiveness of the
CUP process.
In response to a question from Councilmember Heredia, Ms. Phillips noted that the CUP process
would require a public hearing, a neighborhood meeting, and public notice. She confirmed that a
Good Neighbor Policy could also be imposed as a condition of approval.
In response to an inquiry from Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Smith advised that there is not an objective
decibel level within our noise ordinance that would allow enforcement for this use.
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Linssen stated that the industry currently
uses a mix of ground-based and vertical-based delivery systems. He noted that applications may
also include other fleet services, such as autonomous vehicle staging, and that proximity to
commercial partners and end customers is an important operational consideration. (See Pages 3
and 4 of Attachment 1)
Mayor Freeman expressed support for Option 8-a, stating that it would provide greater flexibility
for vertical delivery systems in LC districts while retaining separation and CUP requirements.
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Page 4
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown confirmed that the ordinance could be amended as the industry evolves.
She stated that existing businesses would remain subject to the regulations in effect when
approved unless they later modify their site plans or operations, in which case the updated
requirements could apply.
In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth relating to allowing Light Industrial (LI) to
Option 8-a, Ms. Phillips explained that light fleet-based services are currently permitted in LI
districts but adding a CUP requirement could raise Proposition 207 concerns.
Assistant City Attorney Kirstin Dvorchak explained that the proposed regulations were introduced
in time for Council action before the statute’s general effective date. She noted that although the
ordinance could be revisited as the industry evolves, the statute may limit the COM’s ability to
modify the regulations after the effective date.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Phillips confirmed that, under
Proposition 207, changing a zoning entitlement from a more restrictive to a less restrictive
designation is generally easier because it does not diminish property rights. She noted that
development standards may be modified more readily because they are treated differently from
zoning entitlements.
Councilmember Duff pointed out that zoning text amendments typically require at least six months
and suggested reconsidering the 30-foot height limit in a future amendment to allow drone
operations from taller rooftops where appropriate.
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown clarified that both options would require a CUP for drone delivery operations
in the LC district, allowing the Council to review each proposal individually. She stated that, under
Option 8-a, a provider could propose either ground-level or pole-mounted equipment, while Option
8-b would limit equipment in the LC district to ground-level installation. She reiterated that the
principal distinction between the options was whether pole-mounted equipment would be
permitted in LC districts; uses in the GC and LI districts would not require a CUP due to existing
zoning entitlements and Proposition 207 considerations.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
2.
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.
2-a.
Design Review Board meeting held on June 9, 2026
It was moved by Councilmember Adams, seconded by Councilmember Duff, that receipt of the
above-listed minutes be acknowledged.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
Carried unanimously.
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Page 5
3.
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.
Mayor Freeman and Councilmembers highlighted the events, meetings, and conferences recently
attended.
4.
Scheduling of meetings.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows:
Monday, August 10, 2026, 2:00 p.m. – Special Session
Thursday, August 13, 2026, 7:30 a.m. – Study Session
5.
Adjournment.
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 6:01 p.m.
____________________________________
MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session
of the City Council of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 27th day of July 2026. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK
sr
(Attachment-1)
Fleet-Based Services & Service Stations
Text Amendments
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Rachel Phillips, Assistant Planning Director
Sean Pesek, Senior Planner
1
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 23
2
Updates since 7/16 Study Session
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Two Ordinance Options for Consideration
Option 1
• Require a CUP for Light Fleet-Based
Services in the LC District
• Increase the separation distance for
Service Stations to 150 feet
• Increase the separation distance for
Fleet-Based Services to 150 feet and
require for any fleet-based services, not
just electric charging infrastructure
• Apply the 30-foot maximum height only
to all Fleet-Based Services in all districts
Option 2
• Require a CUP for Light Fleet-Based
Services in the LC District
• Increase the separation distance for
Service Stations to 150 feet
• Increase the separation distance for
Fleet-Based Services to 150 feet and
require for any fleet-based services, not
just electric charging infrastructure
• Require Accessory, Light Fleet-Based
and Heavy Fleet-Based Services to be
located at grade except in GI and HI at a
height of up to 30 feet
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 23
3
Background & Purpose
New and Emerging Technology Driving the Changes
Fleet Services with Drone Delivery
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 23
4
Background & Purpose
New and Emerging Technology Driving the Changes
EV Service Station
Fleet Services of Robotaxis
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 23
Fleet-Based Services
Text Amendments
5
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 23
6
Fleet-Based Services – Overview of Proposed Changes
•
Updates to Land Use Classification Definitions
•
Updates to Land Use Tables
•
Introduction of fleet-specific development standards (new
Section 11-31-40)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 23
7
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Definitions
Fleet-Based Services (NEW):
•
Primary use is the parking, storage, staging, fueling, charging, or
dispatch of fleet vehicles
•
In connection with passenger transportation services, delivery, medical
transport operations and similar businesses operating more than five
(5) vehicles
•
Includes EV charging infrastructure and accessory support facilities
•
Excludes: Towing & Impound, Vehicle Sales, Major Auto Repair,
Outdoor Storage, Airports, Heliports
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 23
8
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Definitions
Light Fleet-Based Services:
•
50 or fewer ground- or aerial-based vehicles
•
All vehicles have a GVWR of less than 10,000 lbs
•
Less than 10,000 sq. ft. of dedicated fleet area
Heavy Fleet-Based Services (NEW):
•
One or more vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or more; or
•
More than 50 ground- or aerial-based vehicles all under 10,000 lbs; or
•
10,000 sq. ft. or more of dedicated fleet area
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 23
9
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Definitions
Accessory Fleet-Based Services (NEW):
•
Fleet-Based Service that is accessory and
subordinate to a principal use on the same lot or
parcel
•
Serves only the operational needs of the
principal use
•
Shall not constitute the primary use of the site
•
Shall not function as an independent fleet
facility or provide fleet services to off-site
businesses
•
Fleet parking, charging, staging, etc.) shall not
exceed the area devoted to the principal use
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 23
10
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Land Use Tables
• Light Fleet-Based Services remain permitted in the same zoning
districts as currently allowed (GC, LI, GI, and HI) and added to the LC
District
• Added Fleet-Based Services added as an accessory use in the LC, GC,
PEP, LI, GI, and HI Districts
• Heavy Fleet-Based Services permitted with a CUP in the GC and LI
Districts, and by-right in the GI and HI Districts
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 23
11
Fleet-Based Services Development Standards
Parking, Charging & Storage Standards
All Types of Fleet-Based Services (Light, Heavy, or Accessory)
• Fleet vehicles must be parked, charged, and stored in designated areas
• Fleet areas must be clearly delineated and distinct from required parking
• Not permitted in setbacks, landscape yards, maneuvering aisles, or required loading
zones
• Aerial-based vehicle parking, charging, and/or storage: 30-ft maximum height
Accessory Fleet-Based Services Only
• Must be located to the side or rear of buildings
• Not permitted between the front building façade and a public street
• May occupy up to 50% of the required on-site parking spaces for the principal use
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 23
12
Screening Standards
Ground-Based Fleet Vehicle Screening:
•
Street-side: 40-in masonry wall behind the required landscape yard
•
Internal side and rear property lines: 6-ft masonry wall
Accessory Equipment and Infrastructure:
•
Screened per ground-mounted equipment standard of Section 11-30-9(A)(4)
Screening Alternatives:
•
Alternatives may be approved by the Planning Director
Fleet-Based Services Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 12 of 23
13
Residential Separation:
• Accessory equipment and charging infrastructure must be separated
from residential uses and/or zoning districts by a distance of 100 feet
• Does not apply to residentially-zoned properties that only contain
commercial use(s)
• Planning Director may approve less than 100 feet with a sound study
showing noise at the property line stays at or below 60 dB, or doesn't
increase ambient noise where it already exceeds 60 dB
Fleet-Based Services Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 23
Services Station
Text Amendments
14
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 23
15
Service Stations – Overview of Proposed Changes
•
Updates to Land Use Classification Definitions
•
Updates to Land Use Tables
•
Updated Service Station development standards in Section 11-31-25
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 14 of 23
16
Service Station – Updates to Definitions
Service Station:
•
Modified to clarify that it includes the fueling and/or
charging for motor vehicles
•
Specifies the use serves the general public and
doesn’t include fleet fueling and charging operations
Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging (NEW):
•
Provision of electric vehicle charging within a
parking lot or parking structure which is incidental
and subordinate to the principal use
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 16 of 23
17
Accessory EV Charging – Updates to Land Use Tables
Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging
•
Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging added as a permitted accessory use in the
Commercial, Employment, and Downtown Districts
•
Footnotes:
•
Limited to 20% of required on-site parking; excess spaces may be
converted if a parking study demonstrates additional capacity exists
•
Landscaping removed for charging infrastructure must be replaced on-site
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 17 of 23
18
Service Stations – Updates to Development Standards
Fuel Pump Canopy:
•
Max 16-ft canopy height and 30-in canopy fascia width
•
Canopy lighting must be recessed and flush mounted; maximum 20
footcandles within 150 feet of residential uses
EV Shade Structures:
•
When shade structures are provided over EV charging spaces they shall
match or complements the design of the primary building (when present)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 18 of 23
19
Service Stations – Updates to Development Standards
EV Charging Lighting:
•
Can be integrated into the shade structure, canopies, charging equipment, or
other features
•
Maximum 20 footcandles within 150 feet of residential uses
Vehicle Stacking:
•
Min 20-ft stacking on both sides of fuel pump islands and 36 ft for one-way
circulation approaches
•
Modifications may be approved by the Planning Director based on a
circulation study
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 19 of 23
20
Service Stations – Updates to Development Standards
Residential Separation:
• Fuel pumps and charging stations must be separated 100 feet from
residential uses and/or zoning districts
• Planning Director may approve a reduced distance with a sound study
showing noise at the property line stays at or below 60 dB, or doesn't
increase ambient noise where it already exceeds 60 dB
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 20 of 23
21
Public Outreach & Notification
May 6
May 7
May 27
June 15
June 18
June 6
TA Draft
emailed
to
Stake-
holders
P&Z
Board
June 24
Public
Hearing
Email
Reminder
Virtual
Open
House
News-
paper Ad
Website
Updated
Draft TA
Posted to
Website
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 21 of 23
22
Questions?
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 22 of 23
23
Study Session
July 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 23 of 23