Extracted text (via pymupdf)
33024 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. Discuss the proposed text amendments to Mesa Zoning Ordinance Title 11, Chapters 23, 44, 66, 74, and 87 relating to historic preservation Agenda Item: 3-a Planning & Zoning Board Study Session – July 22, 2026 Historic Preservation Text Amendments Background and Purpose Collectively, the proposed text amendments are intended to improve clarity, useability, and organization of the City’s Historic Preservation regulations. Reorganization – simplify and streamline Clarify – language and processes Consistency – among historic preservation provisions Compliance – align with current state and federal laws and regulations Historic Preservation Text Amendments Reorganization Related historic preservation zoning provisions have been combined and reorganized: Chapter 23 (Historic Preservation Overlay), Chapter 44 (Historic Signs), and Chapter 74 (Historic District and Historic Landmark Procedures) will be repealed Create new Chapter 74 (Historic Preservation Procedures) to include the following sections: Mesa Historic Property Register; Historic Preservation Overlay; Certificate of Appropriateness; Historically Designated Signs; Appeals; and Archaeological Resources Historic Preservation Text Amendments Clarity More detailed application / review process to follow a more chronological manner Additional reference made to the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” and to existing and future Historic Preservation guidelines regarding project evaluation Extends the current 180-day delay on demolition permits to 1 year for both existing and proposed Historic Preservation Overlays Historic Preservation Text Amendments Consistency Redundant and unnecessary provisions eliminated Consistent terminology throughout Aligned with nationwide standards created by the Secretary of the Interior (National Register) References to MZO updated Public notice requirements for Historic Preservation Overlay to conform to MZO processes (11-74-3) Historic Preservation Text Amendments Compliance Created archaeological resource requirements for development on public and private land Aligned with current state and federal laws and regulations governing the protection of cultural resources Archaeological resource assessment to ensure compliance Historic Preservation Text Amendments Additional Amendments Chapter 74 Historically Designated Signs Supplemental List Duty to Maintain Emergency Repairs Demolition Process Archaeological Resources Chapter 66 Historic Preservation Board Chapter 87 Definitions Historic Preservation Text Amendments Historically Designated Signs (11-74-5) Removed from Chapter 44 Processes clarified • Application • Review Eligibility Criteria Mesa Historic Sign Register Maintenance and Repair Revocation Process Historic Preservation Text Amendments Supplemental Inventory List The Supplemental Inventory List is a list of properties that have been determined eligible for inclusion in the Mesa Historic Property Register but not yet designated. Same eligibility requirements as listed properties The Historic Preservation Officer will maintain the Supplemental Inventory List and make it available to the public. Historic Preservation Text Amendments Required Maintenance and Repairs provision added (11-74-3) Duty to Maintain The owner of a Historic Resource within a Historic Preservation Overlay shall not permit any portion of the Historic Resource to fall into a state of disrepair. Benchmarked at the time of designation Historic Preservation Text Amendments Emergency Repairs provision added under Section 11-74-4(F) Provision states that COAs are to be issued concurrently with a building permit in emergency situations Historic Preservation Text Amendments Certificate of Appropriateness – Demolition Process Clarified: 11-74-4 (G) Demo Permits (Within Approved Overlay) May be appealed if Demo Request denied by HPB 1 year (365 day) delay on any demo permit from date of HPB denial Work on plan/agreement No plan or agreement – clearance for demo permit at applicant’s request Historic Preservation Text Amendments Certificate of Appropriateness – Demolition Process Clarified: 11-74-4 (G) Demo Permits (Within Proposed Overlay) Delay for a period of 1 year (365 days) from the date of application for a proposed Historic Preservation Overlay If the Overlay is not approved by City Council within 1 year (365 days) – demo permit approved Historic Preservation Text Amendments Archaeological Resources HPB and SHPO recommended staff consider the importance of archaeology and protecting archaeological resources. Archaeological Resources added as Section 11-74-6 to address: • Archaeology on Private Land • Archaeology on Land under City Ownership or Control • Archaeological Resource Assessments • Review of relevant resource databases • Consultation with SHPO, THPO, and qualified professionals, as appropriate Align our zoning ordinance with current cultural resource laws Historic Preservation Text Amendments Archaeological Resources Affirm that archaeological resources are irreplaceable community assets that represent significant aspects of the past, may retain connections to living communities, and merit stewardship for future generations; and Enhance the City’s community character and heritage by considering archaeological resources during development, where appropriate. • In general, all development (private and municipal) shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations governing the protection of cultural resources. Historic Preservation Text Amendments Chapter 66: Historic Preservation Board (11-66-4) Portions reformatted: The Historic Preservation Officer (or designee) is the Secretary of the Historic Preservation Board; At least four (4) members of the Historic Preservation Board must be present to conduct a meeting; The Historic Preservation Board meet at least four (4) times a year; The Chair (or in the Chair's absence, the Vice Chair) leads the meeting and is the final decision maker Historic Preservation Text Amendments Chapter 87: Definitions Adds a new category of definitions titled “Historic Preservation Related Definitions” to include: • Certificate of Appropriateness • Historic District • Historic Landmark • Historic Preservation Overlay • Historic Resource • Historically Designated Sign • State of Disrepair All other definitions in Chapter 87 remain the same Historic Preservation Text Amendments Text Amendments Summary Repeals Chapter 23 (Historic and Landmark Overlay Districts), Chapter 74 (Historic District and Historic Landmark Procedures), and Chapter 44 (Historic Signs) Replace with a new Chapter 74 (Historic Preservation Procedures) Modify Chapter 66 (Historic Preservation Board) Add definitions to Chapter 87 (Definitions) Historic Preservation Text Amendments Historic Preservation Board Comments Comments from the Historic Preservation Board have been overwhelmingly positive. Many of their comments have been previously addressed. Additional comments from the last HPB meeting include: Details regarding the Supplemental List Purview of archaeology regarding city roads and utilities Outreach with stakeholder organizations All these comments have also been addressed. Historic Preservation Text Amendments Text Amendments Outreach Outreach Dates: • HPB Study Session – Aug. 01, 2023 • Public Meeting – Aug. 24, 2023 • HPB Meeting – Jul. 07, 2026 • Public Meeting – Jul. 21, 2026 Consultation: • State Historic Preservation Office • Tribal Historic Preservation Offices Additional Review: • Mesa Preservation Foundation • Mesa City Website (mesaaz.gov/hp) Required Review: • Historic Preservation Board • Jul. 07 (discussion) • Aug. 04 (action) • Planning & Zoning Board • Jul. 22 (study session) • Aug. 26 (action) • Mesa City Council • Sep. (introduction) • Oct. (action) Historic Preservation Text Amendments Questions & Discussion For additional information, please visit: mesaaz.gov/hp Discuss the Proposed Amendments to the Mesa Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Agenda Item: 3-b Planning & Zoning Board Study Session – July 22, 2026 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Background Existing Historic Preservation Design Guidelines - 2001 • Only 2 locally-designated Historic Districts at the time • 218-page document includes several topics not regulated by the MZO • Hard copy document (scanned and on website) New design guidelines reflect changing historic resources • 6 of the 8 locally-designated Historic Districts and 8 of the 11 locally- designated Historic Landmarks added since 2001 • Wider Distribution; New guidelines can be printed, but will exist primarily as a digital document • PDF format allows for key word searches and embedded links improve user-friendliness Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Purpose Provide guidance for planning, designing, and undertaking improvements to Mesa’s historic properties • Use by property owners/designers/contractors Improve the design quality of future developments and growth Assist City staff and the HPB in decision making • Establishes a basis for determining the appropriateness of construction projects Increase the overall public awareness of Mesa’s historic resources Protect property values in the districts by discouraging poorly-designed and inappropriate projects Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Design Guideline Organization Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Certificates of Appropriateness Chapter 3 – Guidelines for Preservation, Restoration & Rehabilitation Chapter 4 – Guidelines for Additions Chapter 5 – Guidelines for New Construction Chapter 6 – Guidelines for Historic Signage Chapter 7 – Historic Building Types & Architectural Styles Appendices: A, B, C, D, E Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Design Guideline Organization Appendices A – City of Mesa Historic Preservation Program B – Certificate of Appropriateness Review Standards C – Character Defining Features / Definitions D – Locally Designated Historic Districts & Historic Landmarks E – Heritage Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 1 Introduction Describes the purpose for creating the document: • Assist staff and the Historic Preservation Board in decision making • Promote appropriate changes to maintain historic character • Supplement the historic preservation regulations in MZO Outlines the many uses for the document including: • Evaluating real estate • Preparing for home improvements • Design review guidance How to use the document Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 2 Certificates of Appropriateness What is subject to as COA (when is a COA needed) Why COAs are not needed for properties exclusively on the National Register of Historic Places Encourages the use of the guidelines for non-locally-designated properties Provides contact information for the Mesa Historic Preservation Office Details the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the Standards for Rehabilitation, which is the basis of our code. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 3 Guidelines for Preservation, Restoration & Rehabilitation Provides Guidelines for the following topics: • Character-Defining Features • Materials and Finishes • Windows • Doors and Entries • Porches, Decks, and Balconies • Historic Roofs • Exposed Foundations • Landscaping and Fences • Painting Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Guidelines for Additions Provides Guidelines for the following topics: • Addition Placement • Addition Design • Roofs • Dormers • Doors and Windows • Porches • Fences and Walls • Mechanical Equipment and Solar Panels Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 5 Guidelines for New Construction Provides Guidelines for the following topics: • Building Height, Scale, Materials • Building Setbacks • Roof Shape and Materials • Doors and Windows: Orientation/Proportions • Porch Design • Accessory Dwelling Units: Location/Scale/Design • Fences and Walls • Mechanical Equipment and Solar Panels Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 6 Guidelines for Historic Signage Provides Guidelines for the following topics: • Compatible Signage and Streetscape Character • Neon Signs • Signage Types • Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Design Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 7 Historic Building Types & Architectural Styles Highlights common residential building types and architectural styles found in Mesa Each building type/style features a description and a list of typical features Photos of Mesa homes provided as illustrative examples of each building type/style Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Appendix A City of Mesa Historic Preservation Program Background of the Mesa Historic Preservation program Brief overview of: • City of Mesa Historic Districts and Historic Landmarks • Heritage Neighborhood Recognition Program • Historic and Cultural Resource Surveys • Regulatory Compliance Importance of Historic Preservation for the Future Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Appendix B COA Review Standards Standards for Alteration, Rehabilitation, and/or Additions to Existing Structures Standards for Detached New Construction Criteria for Demolition Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Appendix C Character Defining Features / Definitions Physical elements that convey a property's historic identity and significance Express the history, architecture, and cultural significance that make a building unique Importance of Retaining original materials, design, and craftsmanship to preserve a property's integrity and sense of place Help guide thoughtful changes to ensure that repairs, alterations, and additions are compatible with the historic resource Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Appendix D Historic Districts & Historic Landmarks Discussion of Mesa’s historic context • Early origin • Euromerican Settlement • Growth and Expansion • Suburban Mesa in the 1970s Brief overview of: • Local Historic Districts • Local Historic Landmarks Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Appendix E Heritage Neighborhoods Created to help recognize and give status to neighborhoods in Mesa that have a unique history that do not have historic district designation Honorary recognition does not explicitly impose additional regulations The Washington Escobedo Neighborhood and the Lehi Neighborhood are currently Mesa’s only Heritage Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Historic Preservation Board Comments Comments from the Historic Preservation Board have been overwhelmingly positive. All substantive comments and issues have been addressed previously. Many of the recent comments have been editorial. Additional comments from the last HPB meeting include: Adding captions to all photos and images Reference to current building code Refer to existing HP guidelines Fencing/wall/mechanical equipment requirements Adding information on Heritage Neighborhoods in Appendix Minimum application/drawing requirements for projects Outreach with stakeholder organizations Staff continues to edit the document based on all feedback. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Design Guidelines Outreach Outreach Dates: • HPB Study Session – Aug. 01, 2023 • Public Meeting – Aug. 24, 2023 • HPB Meeting – May 05, 2026 • HPB Meeting – Jul. 07, 2026 • Public Meeting – Jul. 21, 2026 Consultation: • State Historic Preservation Office • Tribal Historic Preservation Offices Additional Review: • Mesa Preservation Foundation • Mesa City Website (mesaaz.gov/hp) Required Review: • Historic Preservation Board • May 05 (discussion) • Jul. 07 (discussion) • Aug. 04 (action) • Planning & Zoning Board • Jul. 22 (study session) • Aug. 26 (action) • Mesa City Council • Sep. (introduction) • Oct. (action) Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Questions & Discussion For additional information, please visit: mesaaz.gov/hp Planning and Zoning Board City of Mesa ZON26-00243 Boeing ACA Expansion Charlotte Bridges Request DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 3 • Development Plan Review for the expansion of a manufacturing facility • Special Use Permit for a height exception in the AF Airfield Overlay District Location DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 4 • 38.0± acres • North of McDowell Road • East Side of Greenfield Road General Plan • Regional Employment Center Placetype, Evolve Growth Strategy • Light Industrial 5 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION Zoning 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • Existing – LI District • Limited Manufacturing is permitted in LI District 7 Site Photos Looking east from Greenfield Road DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION • 267,761± sq. ft. • Single-story, 60 ft. in height • 3 access points onto Greenfield Road • Administrative Use Permit for a shared parking agreement 8 Site Plan DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 9 Landscape Plan DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 10 Landscape Plan DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 11 Materials & Colors DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 12 Elevations DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION North Elevation West Elevation 13 Elevations DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION East Elevation 14 CUP - Elevations DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 15 CUP - Elevations DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 16 Renderings DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 17 Renderings DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 18 Renderings DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION 19 Special Use Permit DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION • SUP for height exception in the Falcon Field Overflight Area Three (AOA3) • LI District maximum height – 40 feet • Requested height: • Top of parapet – 60 feet • Top of stair tower – 60 feet 20 Special Use Permit – Required Findings DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION • Advance the goals and objectives of and is consistent with the General Plan and any other applicable City plan and/or policies; • The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed project are consistent with the district where it is located; • The proposed project will not be injurious or detrimental to the adjacent or surrounding properties in the area • Adequate public services, public facilities and public infrastructure are available to serve the proposed project. • Notified property owners within 1,000’, HOAs, and registered neighborhood • Neighborhood outreach letter mailed May 19, 2026 • No responses were received by the applicant • No phone calls or emails were received by Planning 21 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Notification 22 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Findings Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan Complies with the Falcon Field Sub Area Plan Complies with Chapter 69 of the MZO for Development Plan Review Complies with Section 11-7-5(E) of the MZO for a SUP 23 Recommendation Approval with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION Planning and Zoning Board City of Mesa