Study Session Minutes

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
STUDY SESSION MINUTES
September 2, 2026
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main
Street, on September 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
BOARD PRESENT BOARD ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Chairperson, Troy Glover Gordon Sheffield Kelly Whittemore
Vice Chairperson, Janice Paul Cassidy Welch
Gerson Barrera* Jennifer Merrill
Jessica Sarkissian
Spencer Tippetts
Todd Trendler
Chairperson Glover called the study session to order and conducted a roll call.
Chairperson Glover excused Boardmember Sheffield from the entire meeting.
1. Presentation and Board Training Regarding Board of Adjustment Authority, Procedures,
Legal Requirements and Required Findings.
Deputy City Attorney Kelly Whittemore stated the training will be continued to the October 7,
2026 Board of Adjustment study session. Ms. Whittemore also highlighted changes to the staff
report, including a dedicated findings section. The training will address how to structure motions
to ensure the required findings are stated for the record, as required by City Code §11-6-77. Ms.
Whittemore encouraged the Board to make motions more specific and offered to provide
suggested language during the meeting if needed, with additional guidance to be provided
during the training next month.
2. Staff update.
Board Training regarding Board of Adjustment authority, procedures, legal requirements and
required findings training will be continued to the October 7, 2026, Board of Adjustment study
session.
3. Review and discuss items listed on the Public Hearing agenda for September 2, 2026.
Chairperson Glover noted that case 3a, BOA25-00815 (RV Service Building) and 3b,
BOA26-00182 (Spilsbury Future Site) had been continued to the October 7, 2026 Board of
Adjustment meeting.

Board of Adjustment Study Session
September 2, 2026
Page 2
Planner ll Kwasi Abebrese reviewed agenda Item 3-c, (BOA26-00484. "Fairfield CSP", 2.2±
acres located approximately 1,600± feet west of the northwest corner of South
Signal Butte Road and the US 60 Freeway. Special Use Permit (SUP). This request
will allow for a Comprehensive Sign Plan. (District 5)), on the Board of Adjustment
Public Hearing agenda and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1)
Mr. Abebrese presented case BOA26-00484, a request for a Special Use Permit to allow a
Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP) for a hotel development on an approximately 2.2-acre site
located approximately 1,600 feet west of Signal Butte Road and 600 feet south of East Hampton
Avenue. The site is designated Regional Center in the General Plan and is zoned Limited
Commercial (LC) with a Planned Area Development overlay. Hotel uses are permitted within the
LC zoning district. (See Page 1 through Page 6 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Abebrese stated the proposed CSP would allow a total of five signs, consisting of four
attached signs and one monument sign. The request includes an increase in the maximum
number of attached signs from three to four and an increase in the aggregate sign area from
160 square feet to 345 square feet. No deviations are requested for the detached monument
sign, which complies with applicable zoning requirements. The attached signs would be located
on the north, south, east, and west elevations of the four-story hotel, while the monument sign
would be located near the northeast side of the building. (See Page 7 through Page 8 of
Attachment 1)
Mr. Abebrese noted that the proposed signage is designed to complement the hotel’s
architectural standards and building design, incorporating aluminum materials, illuminated pan-
channel letters, and coordinated colors and finishes. Staff determined that the proposed CSP
meets the applicable Special Use Permit and Comprehensive Sign Plan criteria, is consistent
with the General Plan and LC zoning designation, and would not be injurious or detrimental to
the surrounding area. (See Page 9 through Page 12 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Abebrese further noted that the site has unique physical conditions that limit sign visibility
from East Hampton Avenue, the only public street providing access to the site. The proposed
signage would improve visibility from the U.S. 60 freeway and surrounding commercial and
residential areas while remaining integrated with the building design. (See Page 13 of
Attachment 1)
The applicant completed the required citizen participation process by mailing notification letters
to residents within 500 feet of the site. Mr. Abebrese received one comment from a resident
expressing support for the project. Staff concluded that the request complies with the 2015
Mesa General Plan and applicable zoning ordinance criteria and recommended approval of the
request with conditions. (See Page 14 through Page 16 of Attachment 1)
Planner ll Tulili Tuiteleleapaga-Howard reviewed agenda Item 3-d, (BOA26-00528.
"Reasonable Accommodation Request", 0.2+ acres located at 1338 West Lobo
Avenue. Special Use Permit (SUP). This request will allow for Reasonable
Accommodation to the spacing requirement to allow a Community Residence
within 1,200 feet of an existing Community Residence. (District 3)), on the Board of
Adjustment Public Hearing agenda and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment
2)
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard presented Board of Adjustment Case BOA26-00528, a request for a
Special Use Permit for reasonable accommodation from the spacing requirements for

Board of Adjustment Study Session
September 2, 2026
Page 3
community residences. The request would allow a community residence at 1338 West Lobo
Avenue, located west of Alma School Road and Country Club Road and south of West Baseline
Road, within a Single Residence-6 zoning district with a Planned Area Development overlay.
(See Page 1 through Page 6 of Attachment 2)
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard explained that Mesa Zoning Ordinance Section 11-31-14 requires
community residences to be located at least 1,200 feet from another registered community
residence. The proposed residence is approximately 850 feet from the nearest existing
community residence measured in a straight line and approximately 1,056 feet by walking
distance. The ordinance allows a community residence that does not meet the spacing
requirement to request reasonable accommodation through the Special Use Permit process.
(See Page 7 through Page 8 of Attachment 2)
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard provided the Board with an exhibit showing general locations of
existing community residences within the area bounded by Baseline Road, Guadalupe Road,
Dobson Road, and Alma School Road. The exhibit was distributed for review and was collected
by staff at the end of the meeting.
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard reviewed the applicable approval criteria and determined that the
proposed community residence would not interfere with the community integration of residents
of either the proposed or existing community residences. Staff also determined that the
proposal, in combination with existing community residences, would not alter the residential
character of the surrounding neighborhood or create an institutional atmosphere or
concentrated social service district. The applicant provided public notification to property owners
within 150 feet of the subject site. Staff received one phone call from an adjacent resident
requesting additional information regarding the proposal. (See Page 9 through Page 10 of
Attachment 2)
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard noted that the proposed community residence would be required to
comply with all applicable development standards and registration requirements, including
registration with the Arizona Department of Health Services. (See Page 11 of Attachment 2)
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard concluded that the request is consistent with the goals of the
General Plan, satisfies the applicable reasonable accommodation and Special Use Permit
criteria, and would not negatively impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff
recommended approval of the request with conditions. (See Page 12 through Page 15 of
Attachment 2)
Boardmember Sarkissian ask whether permits are subject to time limits.
Senior Planner Jennifer Merrill answered there no time limits.
Boardmember Sarkissian inquired how the City monitors approved use permits to ensure the
permitted uses remain active and whether the City periodically checks on permits that may no
longer be needed or in use.
Ms. Merrill explained that each community residence is subject to an annual re-registration
requirement, which helps ensure that the residences remain active and current.
Boardmember Trendler sought clarification regarding the distinction between a reasonable
accommodation and a conditional use permit, asking whether the community residence is
otherwise permitted in the neighborhood by right and whether the request before the Board was

Board of Adjustment Study Session
September 2, 2026
Page 4
limited to a reasonable accommodation. Boardmember Trendler stated that the clarification was
intended to better understand the applicable legal framework.
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard clarified that the reasonable accommodation request pertains
specifically to the spacing requirement for community residences. Community residences are
permitted uses within the zoning district; however, the proposed residence is located within
1,200 feet of an existing registered community residence, which does not meet the required
separation standard. Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard explained that a Special Use Permit for
reasonable accommodation is being requested to allow an exception to the spacing
requirement, which is the matter under consideration.
Boardmember Trendler raised a question as to whether the matter would still be under
discussion if the spacing requirement had been met and there had been no other establishment
located within 1,200 feet.
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard confirmed the case would not need to be brought to the Board of
Adjustment.
Boardmember Paul asked whether the community residence is permitted by right because of
the length of residency, and whether the residents are residing there for one year or more.
Clarification was requested regarding the applicable definitions.
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard stated that the distinction between a transitional community
residence and a family community residence is based on the length of stay. To qualify as a
family community residence, residents must have a minimum stay of at least 12 months. Ms.
Tuiteleleapaga-Howard confirmed that the proposed assisted living center community residence
meets this criterion and has provided documentation confirming the length of stay.
Boardmember Tippetts questioned the purpose of the 1,200-foot spacing requirement if an
exception to the requirement may be granted. Concern was expressed that allowing exceptions
could result in similar establishments being located closer than 1,200 feet from one another,
potentially diminishing the purpose of the spacing requirement.
Boardmember Sarkissian added that spacing exceptions are evaluated individually based on
neighborhood input, surrounding uses, clustering, and potential impacts on the community.
Applicants must demonstrate that the request meets the required findings for an exception.
Ms. Whittemore explained that the 1,200-foot spacing requirement was established to help
prevent clustering and concentration of community residences and to support their integration
and normalization within the surrounding community. The spacing requirement represents the
assumption under the City Code that residences located at least 1,200 feet apart will not
interfere with these goals. However, under the Fair Housing Act, an applicant may request a
reasonable accommodation to the spacing requirement when there are circumstances indicating
that a reduced separation would not create the concerns the requirement is intended to
address. The Board may consider each request individually and determine whether the
proposed exception would still support the goals of community integration and normalization.
Boardmember Trendler sought clarification regarding the 1,200-foot requirement establishes a
distance presumed to prevent interference with the criteria for community residences. However,
a residence located within 1,200 feet may also be able to operate without creating such
interference. He asked what specific need or factors should be considered when evaluating
whether a reduced separation would result in interference, noting that the primary consideration

Board of Adjustment Study Session
September 2, 2026
Page 5
appeared to be whether the potential impacts identified by the spacing requirement would
actually exist.
Ms. Whittemore clarified that, under the City Code, the Board’s review is limited to the three
criteria presented. Other criteria previously considered for community residences do not apply to
this request. The Board is required to evaluate the application based solely on the three
specified criteria.
Ms. Tuiteleleapaga-Howard added that the primary consideration in reasonable accommodation
requests is whether the proposed use and clustering of residences would substantially alter the
residential character of the neighborhood. The additional criteria allow the Board to consider the
function of the existing and proposed residences, the separation between them, the populations
they serve, and whether the proposed use would interfere with the residents’ ability to integrate
into the surrounding community.
Ms. Whittemore explained that the existing community residence is a sober living home, while
the proposed residence is an assisted living facility serving a different population. The Board
should consider whether the two residences are likely to interact or interfere with the residents’
ability to integrate into the surrounding community. Factors may include the distance between
the residences, physical barriers or major roads, visibility, and the populations served. Ms.
Whittemore also noted that the Board should consider whether the proposed use would create
clustering or concentration that alters the residential character of the neighborhood, as well as
whether the proposal complies with applicable development standards.
4. Adjourn.
Without objection, the Board of Adjustment Study Session adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Board of
Adjustment Study Session meeting of the City of Mesa, Arizona, held on 2nd day of September 2026. I
further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
__________________________________________
TROY GLOVER, CHAIRPERSON
vf

City of Mesa
Board of Adjustment

BOA26-00484
Fairfield CSP
Kwasi Abebrese, Planner II

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Request
• Special Use Permit
• To allow for a
Comprehensive Sign Plan
3

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Location
• 2.2± acres
• South of Hampton Avenue
• West of Signal Butte Road
• North of US 60 Freeway
4

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
General Plan
• Regional Center Placetype
• Evolve Growth Strategy
• A hotel is a principal landuse
5

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Zoning
• Limited Commercial with a Planned
Area Development Overlay (LC-
PAD)
• Hotels are permitted
6

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Site Photos
Looking west towards the site from 105th Place
7

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Sign Plan
Proposed:
• A total of five signs
• Four attached signs
• One monument sign
• Increase in the number of
attached signs from 3 to 4 signs
• Increase in the maximum sign
area for attached signage from
160 sq. ft. to 345 sq. ft.
8

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Sign Plan
Attached Sign
9

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Sign Plan
Attached Sign
10

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Sign Plan
Monument Sign
11

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Special Use Permit (SUP) Findings
The proposed CSP meets the criteria for a Special Use Permit outlined in Section 11-70-5(E)
of the MZO. These include the following:
1. The proposal is consistent with and advances the goals and objectives of the Regional
Center Placetype of the 2050 General Plan by allowing a customized sign plan for a hotel
development with a unique location and physical scale.
2. The proposed CSP is consistent with the location, design and operating characteristics
and conforms to the goals and objectives of the LC zoning designation on the property.
3. The proposed signs will not be injurious or detrimental to the surrounding area or to the
general welfare of the City of Mesa. The proposed signs will not be overbearing in size,
and will not flash, blink, animate or emit any noise.
4. Adequate public services, public facilities and public infrastructure are available to serve
the proposed project.
12

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP) Findings
The proposed CSP meets all of the criteria for a Comprehensive Sign Plan outlined in
Section 11-46-3(D) of the MZO. These include the following:
1. The development site contains unique or unusual physical conditions that would
limit or restrict normal sign visibility from East Hampton Avenue, which serves as
the only public street access to the site.
2. The proposed CSP exhibits unique architectural style and distinguishing features
including colors and materials that are consistent with the approved building
design on the site.
3. The proposed signage incorporates special design features that reinforce or are
integrated with the building architecture. The proposed signs comprised of
aluminum and illuminated pan channel letters are designed to exhibit the brand
architectural standards of the hotel development and will be well integrated with
the rest of the site.
13

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Notification
• Notified property owners
within 500 feet
• No comments received from
neighboring property owners
14

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Findings
 Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan
 Meets the review criteria of Section 11-46-3(D) of the MZO
 Meets the SUP findings of Section 11-70-5(E) of the MZO
15

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Recommendation
Approval with conditions
16

City of Mesa
Board of Adjustment

City of Mesa
Board of Adjustment

BOA26-00528
Reasonable Accommodation
Tulili Tuiteleleapaga-Howard, Planner II

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Request
SUP for reasonable accommodation
to the spacing requirements for
Community Residences to allow a
Community Residence within 1,200
feet of an existing Community
Residence
3

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Location
• 1338 West Lobo Avenue
• West of Alma School Road
• West of Country Club Road
• Located on the south side of West
Baseline Road
4

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
General Plan
• Traditional Residential Placetype
• Sustain Growth Strategy
• Single-family residential is a
principal land use
5

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Zoning
• Single Residence-6 with a Planned Area
Development Overlay (RS-6 PAD)
• Single residence use permitted
• Community Residences permitted
subject to compliance with Section 11-
31-14
6

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Site Photos
Looking northwest from West Lobo Avenue towards the site
7

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Spacing Requirement
Per Section 11-31-14(A)(1), a proposed
Community Residence:
• Must be 1,200 feet from the closest
existing Community Residence
Per Section 11-31-14(D):
• A Community Residence that does not
meet the spacing requirements may
request reasonable accommodation
through the SUP process
8

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Spacing Requirement
Proposed Community Residence is:
• 850 feet, measured as the crow flies &
1,056 feet walking distance from closest
existing Community Residence
9

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Notification
• Notified property owners
within 150 feet
• One phone call received
10

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Approval Criteria Per Section 11-31-14(D)(1)
The proposed use will not interfere with the community integration of the
residents of any existing community residences, assisted living homes, or assisted
living centers, or their ability to interact with neighbors without disabilities; and
the presence of other community residences, assisted living homes, or assisted
living centers will not interfere with the community integration and interaction of
the residents of the proposed use;
The proposed use in combination with any existing community residences,
assisted living homes, or assisted living centers will not alter the residential
character of the surrounding neighborhood by creating or intensifying an
institutional atmosphere or by creating or intensifying a de facto social service
district by clustering or concentrating community residences, assisted living
homes, or assisted living centers; and
The proposed use complies with all other development standards in this Chapter.
11

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Findings
The request is consistent with the goals of the General Plan.
The proposed use will not interfere with the community integration of any other
existing community residences or their ability to interact with neighbors without
disabilities.
The presence of other community residences will not interfere with the community
integration of the residents of the proposed use.
The proposed use in combination with any existing community residences will not
alter the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood by creating or
intensifying an institutional atmosphere or by creating or intensifying a de facto
social service district by clustering or concentrating community residences, assisted
living homes, or assisted living centers.
This request conforms with the criteria for the granting of a SUP as outlined in
Section 11-31-14(D)(1) of the Mesa Zoning Ordinance.
12

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Recommendation
Approval with conditions
13

City of Mesa
Board of Adjustment

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Findings
Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan
Meets the SUP findings of Section 11-31-14(D)(1) of the MZO
15