Mesa Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing - December 15, 2025

The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on December 15, 2025, to consider consent agenda items, proposed amendments to the city code regarding board organization and duties (Item 6A), and a comprehensive update to administrative review procedures and development standards to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes 9-500.49 (Item 6B). The board unanimously approved the consent agenda, Item 6A, and Item 6B with a condition to clarify the definition of "change of use."

Consent Calendar

• Item 2A: Approval of minutes from the November 12, 2025 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
• Item 3A: ZON 25-00827 – Cadence DU multi-residence (17 acres, 302 units) at Chrisman and Williamsfield Roads. Site plan review and special use permit for parking reduction. Recommended approval with conditions.
• Item 3B: ZON25-00324 – Circle K Pecos and Sossaman (6.3 acres, 5,200 sq ft service station) at Pecos and Sossaman Roads. Recommended approval with conditions.
• Item 4A: ZON24-00525 – 202 RV Valley Storage Expansion (15.5 acres, 58,845 sq ft boat and RV storage) at 8839 East Main Street. Recommended approval with conditions.
• Item 4B: ZON 25-00397 – Department of Child Safety of Arizona (3 acres, 24,000 sq ft office) at University Drive and 80th Street. Site plan modification and amendment to conditions of approval. Recommended approval with conditions.
• Item 5A & 5B: The Lincoln (9.1 acres, 113 attached single residence lots) – Rezone and minor general plan amendment. Continued to January 14, 2026 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.

All consent items were approved unanimously by voice vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Adam Baugh (2121 East Highland, representing himself) spoke on Item 6B. He raised three concerns:
  1. The final draft was released only 48 hours before the meeting, limiting public review and stakeholder input.
  2. The proposed amendments add discretion and public hearings for certain site plan modifications (major modifications), which he argued contradicts the state statute's directive for objective standards without public hearings.
  3. The new language on "change of use" could require a rezoning for many redevelopment projects (e.g., converting a bank to a retail store or a restaurant to a market) because it treats subcategories within a commercial district as distinct uses, delaying development approvals for infill and redevelopment sites. He noted this could increase the workload for land use attorneys but would complicate projects.

Staff responded that the process has not changed; only projects already tied to a rezoning ordinance with a site plan stipulation would be affected. They clarified that the state statute addresses objective design standards, not site plan standards, and that many projects are not captured by this requirement.

Discussion Items

• Item 6A – Amendments to Chapters 66 and 67 (Board Organization and Duties): The board discussed and adopted amendments modifying membership and qualifications of the Planning and Zoning Board, repealing and replacing sections on the board and the Design and Review Board, and adjusting appeal bodies. No public comments were received. The motion passed unanimously.

• Item 6B – Comprehensive Code Amendments (Administrative Review and ARS 9-500.49 Compliance): The board considered amendments to numerous chapters of Title 11 to streamline land use application procedures, update development standards, and incorporate objective standards. After public comment and debate, the board discussed:

  • The need for clarity on what constitutes a "change of use" to avoid confusion among applicants and board members.
  • Board Member Farnsworth asked about the timeline for public review; staff noted the agenda was posted on Thursday (December 11) and a public open house was held earlier, though only four people attended.
  • Board Member Peterson requested clarification on the definition of "change of use" in the modification criteria.
  • Chair Ayers expressed concern about potential litigation stemming from the ambiguity.
  • Staff (Christina, Rachel, Kirsten) confirmed that they would work with the city attorney to clarify the language.

Key Outcomes

• Item 6A: Motion to adopt the proposed amendments to Chapters 66 and 67 passed unanimously with no discussion.
• Item 6B: Motion to adopt the comprehensive code amendments with a condition that staff clarify the meaning of "change of use" in Section 11-69-5 (or related section) passed unanimously. The motion was made by Board Member Farnsworth and seconded by Board Member Carpenter. The condition will be included in the recommendation to the City Council.
• Next Steps: The amendments are scheduled for City Council introduction on January 12, 2026, with a potential final action on January 26, 2026. A council study session is set for January 8, 2026.