December 9, 2025, Design Review Board.

Design Review Board 
 Meeting Minutes 
Mesa City Council Chambers - Lower Level, 20 East Main Street 
Date: December 9, 2025 Time: 4:30 p.m.  
A meeting of the Design Review Board was held at 4:30 p.m. 
MEMBERS PRESENT: 
MEMBERS ABSENT: 
Chair Dane Astle  
Vice Chair Ryan Circello 
Boardmember Paul Johnson 
Boardmember Denise Dunlop 
Boardmember Shelly Udall 
Boardmember David Winstanley 
STAFF PRESENT:         
 OTHERS PRESENT: 
Nanna Appiah  
Rachel Phillips  
Kellie Rorex 
Joshua Grandlienard 
 Charlotte Bridges 
            Chloe Durfee Daniel 
            Kwasi Abebrese 
Vanessa Felix  
(* indicates Boardmember or staff participated in the meeting using audio  conference 
equipment)     
1 
Call meeting to order. 
Chair Astle and welcomed everyone to the meeting at 4:30PM. 
2 
Consider the Minutes from November 18, 2025, Design Review Board Meeting. 
A motion to approve the Minutes from the November 18, 2025, Design Review Board 
Meeting was made by Vice Chair Circello and seconded by Boardmember Udall. 
Vote: 6 – 0 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: 
AYES – Astle – Circello – Johnson – Dunlop – Udall – Winstanley 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT – None  
ABSTAINED – None

City of Mesa – Design Review Board – December 9, 2025 – Meeting Minutes 
2 
3 
Hear a presentation and discuss proposed changes to the Design Review Board’s 
authority and duties related to streamlined development processes and changes 
to State legislation.  
Staff Director Nanna Appiah and staff Assistant Director Rachel Phillips 
presented.   
See attached presentation. 
4 
Discuss and take action on the following case: 
4a 
DRB25-00647. "Aldi Greenfield and Main," 3.4± acres located at 4433 East Main 
Street. Design Review of façade improvements to the existing approximately 25,850 
square foot building and a request to allow a new 35± foot tall entry feature at the 
existing building. (District 2) 
Staff planner Charlotte Bridges presented the case.  
Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions 
The Board approved DRB25-00647 with the following conditions: 
1. Compliance with Ordinance No. 1273, except as modified by subsequent approvals.
2. Compliance with all requirements of Design Review Case No. DRB25-00647.
3. Compliance with all applicable City development codes and regulations.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit for and receive approval of an
Administrative Review for minor site plan modifications.
5. Prior to submittal of a building permit, submit to planning staff revised elevations to
continue the painted CMU wainscot along the west, north and east elevations
Vote: 6 – 0 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: 
AYES – Astle – Circello – Johnson – Dunlop – Udall – Winstanley 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT – None  
ABSTAINED – None 
5 
Discuss and make a recommendation on the following case: 
5b 
DRB25-00059. "Destination at Gateway FLM," 125± acres located at the Southeast 
and Southwest corners of East Williams Field Road and South Signal Butte Road. 
Design Review for two Freeway Landmark signs. (District 6) 
Staff planner Kellie Rorex presented the case. 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

City of Mesa – Design Review Board – December 9, 2025 – Meeting Minutes 
3 
The Board recommends to approve case DRB25-00059 conditioned upon: 
1. Compliance with the final sign plan submitted.
2. Compliance with all requirements of Case No. ZON25-00056.
3. Compliance with all requirements of DA22-00031.
4. Compliance with all applicable City development codes and regulations
Vote: 6 – 0 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: 
AYES – Astle – Circello – Johnson – Dunlop – Udall – Winstanley 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT – None  
ABSTAINED – None 
6 
Discuss and provide direction on the following Preliminary Design Review 
cases: * 
6a 
DRB24-00524. "202 RV Valet Storage Expansion," 2.3± acres located at 8839 
East Main Street. Design Review for an approximately 58,845 square foot 
expansion of a Boat and Recreational Vehicle Storage facility. (District 5) 
Chair Astle recused himself. 
Staff planner Kwasi Abebrese presented the case.  
See attached presentation. 
Staff planner Kwasi Abebrese summarized the case: 
•
Enhance the design of the proposed parapets by increasing the depth of the
returns or provide a different material
6b 
DRB25-00325. "Circle K - Pecos & Sossaman," 6.3± acres located at the 
southeast corner of East Pecos Road & South Sossaman Road. Design Review 
to allow for an approximately 5,200 square foot service station and associated 
fuel canopy. (District 5) 
Staff planner Chloe Durfee Daniel presented the case.  
See attached presentation. 
Staff planner Chloe Durfee Daniel summarized the case: 
•
Provide landscaping around the trash enclosure, specifically immediately south
of the enclosure so long as there are no easements of concern
6c 
DRB25-00623. "NTT Mesa PH10," 170± acres located at the NEC of the future 
alignment of S Crismon Road and Pecos Road. Design Review for an 
approximately 2,257,600 square foot Data Center development. (District 6) 
Boardmember Dunlop recused herself.

City of Mesa -Design Review Board- December 9, 2025-Meeting Minutes 
Staff planner Joshua Grandllenard presented the case. 
See attached presentation. 
Staff planner Joshua Grandllenard summarized the case: 
•
Provide the architectural eyebrow only at the public entry area
•
Confirm that there are no downspouts visible from outside the site
•
Confirm that lighting is consistent with the AOA overlay allowances and that it
creates elements along SR24
7 
Staff Update: No update 
8 
Adjournment: Vice Chair Circello moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by 
Boardmember Udall. 
Vote: 6-0 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: 
AYES - Astle - Circello -Johnson - Dunlop - Udall -Winstanley 
NAYS-None 
ABSENT -None 
ABSTAINED -None 
The meeting was adjourned at 5:58 p.m. 
Chair Dane Astle 
4

Design Review Board Duties
Nana Appiah, Development Services Director
December 9, 2025

Changes to State Legislation
• HB 2447 signed by the governor on March 31, 2025
• Changed existing law to require (rather than allow) legislative bodies 
to establish administrative review processes for development 
proposals
• Required design review plans to be:
Reviewed and approved based on objective standards 
Without a public hearing
• "Objective" means not influenced by personal interpretation, taste 
or feelings of a municipal employee and verifiable by reference to an 
adopted benchmark, standard or criterion available and knowable by 
the applicant or proponent.

3
Development Community 
Feedback 
• Improve and expand administrative approvals
• Revise stringent standards on major and minor 
site plan amendment approval process
• Minimize uncertainty in the Design Review 
Process

4
Effects on the Design Review Board
Combine Design Review with 
Site Plan Review to create a 
new “Development Plan 
Review” application
Planning Director
1)
Align reviewing and approving 
bodies
• Meet all development 
standards
• Alternative Compliance
• Municipal Projects
• As Directed by Council
Streamline Processes 
2)
Design Review Board
• Not requesting a rezone, 
PAD, BIZ, CUP, SUP, or 
other deviation
• Planning Director Referral
• Planning Director Appeal
• PC District Matters
• Previous Condition
Planning & Zoning Board
• Rezone, PAD, BIZ, CUP, or 
SUP
• PC District Matters
• Project Specific Design 
Guidelines & Standards

Questions?

Design Review Board

DRB25-00647
Aldi at Greenfield and Main
December 9, 2025
Charlotte Bridges, Planner II

Request
• Review of an exterior 
remodel of a 35,705 square 
foot major tenant space and 
associated landscape plan
• Approval of a height 
exception to allow a 35-foot 
two-inch entry feature

Location
• 4433 East Main Street
• Major tenant within the 
commercial center at the 
southeast corner Greenfield 
Road and Main Street

Site Photo
Looking south from Main Street

Site Photo
Looking east from Greenfield Road

Site Plan
• Existing 35,705± square foot building including
o 25,850± square foot major tenant
o 9,855± square foot tenant
• Existing access is provided via four shared 
drives from Main Street and three shared drives 
from Greenfield Road
• 96 parking spaces are required; 155 parking 
spaces are provided on-site

Landscape Plan

Elevations

Elevations

Elevations

Site Rendering

Site Rendering

Color and Material Board

Alternative Compliance 
Character and Image:  In multiple building developments, each 
individual building shall include predominant characteristics shared 
by each building so that the buildings within the development 
appear to be part of a cohesive, planned area, yet are not 
monotonous in design.
Roof Articulation – Existing South Elevation:  Minimum vertical 
modulation is two (2) feet or one-tenth ( 1/10 ) multiplied by the 
wall height, not to exceed one-third (⅓) of the height of the 
supporting wall.

Alternative Compliance 
Materials and Colors:
Existing East, West and South Elevations:  Shall incorporate at 
least three (3) different and distinct materials and no more than 
50% of the total facade may be covered with one material.
Existing East and South Elevations:  Provide a recognizable “base”.

Height Exception
Maximum height allowed in the LC district is 30 feet
Requesting a 35-foot two-inch top height (mid-point height of  31 
feet, six-inches) for a shed roof entry feature

Findings
Staff is seeking review and recommendation on the following:
Proposed building elevations & landscape design
Alternative compliance requests
Staff is seeking review and approval of the:
Exception to the height limit in the LC District
Staff welcomes any feedback

Design Review Board

Photos of Commercial Center

Photos of Commercial Center

Design Review Board

DRB25-00059
Destination at Gateway Freeway
Landmark Monument
December 9, 2025
Kellie Rorex, Senior Planner

Request
• Design Review for two (2) 
Freeway Landmark Signs 
within Destination at 
Gateway

Location
• East of Signal Butte Road
• North of 24 Gateway Freeway
• West of Mountain Road
• Within Destination at 
Gateway commercial center

Site Photo
Looking north from 24 Gateway Freeway offramp (Signal Butte)

Site Photo
Looking north from 24 Gateway Freeway (Mountain Road)

Site Plan
• One FLM sign at 
the corner of Signal 
Butte and the 24 
Gateway Freeway 
offramp
• One FLM sign 500+ 
feet from Mountain 
Road and 24 
Gateway Freeway

MZO Design Standards
• Architectural Compatibility
• Materials
• Project Identification
• Lighting Controls

Color & Materials
Sign Colors and Materials
Destination at Gateway Design 
Guidelines Colors and Materials

Elevations (Signal Butte)

Elevations (Mountain)

Findings
Staff is seeking your review and recommendation on the following:
Freeway Landmark Monument Sign design and materials
Staff recommendations Approval with Conditions

Design Review Board

Design Review Board

DRB24-00524
202 RV Valet Storage Expansion
December 9, 2025
Kwasi Abebrese, Planner II

Request
• Design Review for an 
approximately  58,845 
square foot expansion of a 
Boat and Recreational 
Vehicle Storage Facility

Location
• 8839 East Main Street
• West of Ellsworth Road
• South side of Main Street

Site Photo
Looking south from Main Street

Site Context (Phase 1)
Looking south from Main Street

Site Context (Phase 2)
Looking south from Main Street

Site Plan
• Four RV and Boat Storage 
buildings
• Range from 3,200 square 
feet to 27,000 square feet
• 58,845 total building 
square footage

Landscape Plan

Color & Material Board

Elevations

Elevations

Elevations

Site Rendering

Site Rendering

Alternative Compliance 
Roof Articulation.  Vary building height including at least 2 changes in 
height or roof forms that are varied over different portions of the 
building through changes in pitch, plane and orientation
Materials.  Facades shall incorporate at least 3 different materials
Materials. No more than 50% of the façade may be covered with one 
single material

Findings
Staff is seeking your review and recommendation on the following:
Proposed building elevations & landscape design
Alternative compliance requests
Staff welcomes any feedback

Design Review Board

Site Context (Phase 2)
Looking south from Main Street

Design Review 
Board

DRB25-00325
Circle K Pecos & 
Sossaman
December 9, 2025
Chloe Durfee Daniel, Planner II

Request
• Design Review
• To allow for a Service Station

Location
• South side of Pecos Road
• East side of Sossaman Road

Site Photo
Looking south from Pecos Road

Site Plan
• Shared access will be 
provided from Pecos Road 
and Sossaman Road
• 3,936 sqft 12 pump gas 
canopy
• 5,200 sqft c-store
• 4 EV charging spaces on the 
north side

Landscape Plan

Building Elevations – C-Store

Building Elevations – Gas Canopy

Renderings

Renderings

Colors and Materials

Alternative Compliance 
Materials. No more than 50% of the total façade may be covered 
with one (1) single material.
Roof Articulation. Vary building height, providing at least two (2) 
changes in height or roof forms that are varied over different 
portions of the building through changes in pitch, plane, and 
orientation.

Findings
Staff is seeking your review and recommendation on the following:
Proposed building elevations and landscape plan
Proposed alternative compliance
Staff welcomes any feedback

Design Review 
Board

Design Review 
Board

DRB25-00623
NTT PH10 Pecos
December 9, 2025
Josh Grandlienard, Senior Planner

Request
• Design Review
• To allow for a Data Center 
Campus

Location
• North of Pecos Road
• East of Crismon Road 
alignment

Site Photo
Looking north from Pecos Road

Site Photo
Looking south from SR 24

Site Plan
• Access will only be provided 
from Pecos Road
• 7 total buildings on site
• 2,257,561 square feet total
• Two Substations; one private, 
one owned by SRP
• Includes a walking path 
throughout the site

Landscape Plan

Landscape Plan - Details

Building Elevations – Building 1

Building Elevations – Building 1

Building Elevations – Building 2-7

Building Elevations – Building 2-7

Colors and Materials

Alternative Compliance 
Materials. To reduce the apparent massing and scale of buildings, 
facades shall incorporate at least 3 different and distinct materials.
Materials. No more than 50% of the total façade may be covered 
with one (1) single material.

Findings
Staff is seeking your review and recommendation on the following:
Proposed building elevations and landscape plan
Proposed alternative compliance
Staff welcomes any feedback

Design Review 
Board