All right, welcome everyone to the June 24th, 2026 City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Public Hearing.

We will uh well actually first off, I need everybody to go ahead and yeah, there you go.

Unmute everybody's microphone so that you can all listen to our side talks here.

So uh with that, uh we'll go ahead and begin by taking a roll call.

So chairs is present, vice chair Peterson here, board member pitcher.

Here board member Blakeman.

Here, board member Carpenter here, board member Farnsworth.

Did we lose Farnsburg?

Here.

There he is.

All right.

Well, excuse board member Montes, we do have quorums, so we'll call the meeting to order.

So as part of the agenda for today, we do have a consent agenda.

Um as a reminder to everybody here, the items on the consent agenda will not be considered individually.

These will be all considered and acted on in one motion.

We do have principal planner Cassidy Welsh here to read our consent agenda for us.

Thank you.

Um items on the consent agenda.

Item two A, the planning and zoning minutes from the June 10th, 2026 planning and zoning board.

Items 3A and 3B have been removed from the consent agenda, and items 4A.

Um item 4B, uh proposed amendments to Mesa City Code, Title 11, Chapters 6, 7, 8, 31, and 86 pertaining to the emerging technology and use of electric vehicles, specifically fleet-based services and service stations.

The amendments include, but not but are not limited to adding definitions for fleet-based services, accessory 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 electrical electric vehicle charging, modifying use tables and related footnotes to reflect the new definitions, modifying section 11-31-25 titled service stations, and adding section 11-31-40 titled fleet-based services.

Staff recommendation is adoption.

Those are the items on the consent agenda.

Uh Chair, if I could really quick, the uh blue card for item 4A is withdrawing their comment.

That can also be on the consent agenda.

Okay.

Did we prepare um or we going to do anything on 1130-8 for that one?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

On consent with the condition added, right?

They're gonna sorry, Evan.

Um, the planning and zoning board wants to add something related to the bollards with the pedestrian um and the auto separations.

So they have to add that condition.

My apologies.

No worries.

But can we still keep it on consent and just add that as a condition?

Yes, you can keep it on consent, and when you um read it in the motion to oh, so you I I see what you're saying.

You should do it off consent just so that you can read in the motion with the additional language that you want included.

Okay, so I guess we're good.

Thank you.

All right, so uh hopefully everybody understands where we're at.

So I'll look for a motion to approve the consent agenda as read.

Motion to approve.

Sarah second.

Second.

All right, let's go ahead and vote.

I will need a verbal from board member pitcher.

Yes.

And board member Farnsworth.

Yep.

With that, we are unanimously, yes.

So consent agenda is approved.

With that, uh, I guess we can go ahead and just talk about 4A then.

I didn't prepare anything.

I will be honest.

So I don't know if you have a season there.

I can make something up.

You're gonna wing it.

Yeah.

So so yeah, the intent is just to add a stipulation for flexibility or other options in lieu of a vertical curb.

Yeah, that's good.

Transition, right?

So yeah.

Do you want to add the um section of the 1138?

What is it?

11-30?

11-30-8.

Yes, so the change would be made to 11-30-8 subsection E.

Okay.

So uh like to make a motion to approve item 4A, proposed amendments to Mesa City Code, Title 11, chapters 5678, 30, 31, 33, 34, 43, 67, 81, 86, and 87.

The amendments include but are not limited to modifying entryway monumentation requirements, refining building material and color standards, updating employment district use tables and development standards, clarifying lot and land use division and land division requirements, modifying pedestrian connection requirements, modifying standards for detached accessory billings or structures and accessory dwind units updating low work, UNIT and residential use standards and commercial districts refining data center, battery energy storage system, screening requirements, modifying landscaping and alternative landscape plan provisions, modifying landscape diversity requirements, updating manufactured home and recreational vehicle accessory structure standards, clarifying sign regulations, updating procedural requirements related to written protests, application review and expirations and modifying definitions of home occupations, lib work units, and indoor warehousing and storage, relocating the definition of skilled nursing facility to public and semi-public use classification and adding a definition for hazardous material warehousing and storage.

The recommendation is for adoption with a condition added to uh section 11-30-8 subsection E to modify the requirement to allow for options other than to thoughtfully designed options other than the vertical curve.

All right, thank you, Troy, for the motion.

Is there a second on that?

Second.

All right, we'll go ahead and vote for this.

Look for the verbal from oh, it's not wanting to work for me today.

Oh, went through.

Okay, good.

Board member pitcher.

Yes.

Board member Farnsborough.

Yes.

All right, with that, uh passes unanimously well on item four A.

Thank you.

Everyone on that one.

So we will go ahead and move to item 3A.

Where is oh there she is, Jennifer?

Come on, presentation.

Um I don't know.

So, Mary, if uh to save Jennifer's speaking voice here, could we go ahead straight to the applicant as far as a presentation, or do we need to go through both of these uh uh presentations again on the chairs?

That's at your discretion.

If the board wants to hear the presentations again, you can do the presentations again.

Um, or if you want to go right to the applicant, we can do that.

Um you do have public here that may not have heard the presentations the first time, so I'll leave that up to you.

I'm just what do you guys think?

That's your discretion is your last nobody wants to make a choice, guys.

That's it.

Jennifer, why don't you go ahead and go through uh some of it here?

We can kind of get everybody that has not seen it downstairs, so that's a good point.

Okay, thank you, Chair Ayers and board members.

The first request is ZON 26-00155.

It is a request for DU56 South plan amendment.

The request is a major amendment to the development unit 5-6 south development unit plan.

And they the outline shows the location of the existing DUP or the proposed DOP.

The request involves shifting the boundary of the DUP, establishing new boundaries for the district land use group or LUG, and updating the details for an area known as the transition area, which is between uh some developing industrial properties and existing single family residential uses.

Okay.

The location directly affects approximately 11.7 acres that's located at the southwest corner of South Signal Butte Road and East Rubidium Avenue.

The first change is to shift the boundary of the uh southeastern portion of the DUP north to align with the new Rubidium Avenue location.

The new uh boundary of the DUP would be where the yellow outline is, and that would be in alignment with the Rubidium Avenue.

The general plan place type for the area is mixed residential.

The growth strategy is evolve.

Um this is more specifically looking at that 11.7 acre area.

The principal land uses include multifamily residential, eating and drinking establishments, and supporting land uses include retail.

The zoning is planned community.

The second change would be a proposed amendment to the district lug boundaries.

And as shown on the on the left side of this slide, you can see that the existing district lug is in a rectangular shape along South Signal Butte Road, and the proposal is to expand that district lug along Rubidium Avenue, and that would accommodate the multifamily residential use that's proposed.

I see it here, but I don't think they went to the group.

We're good.

The third proposed amendment is regarding the transition or the interface area.

The current uh development unit plan shows the uh image in the upper left portion of the slide, and that transition or buffer was shown between the industrial uses on the north side and the single family residential on the south.

The existing or current DUP shows an approximately 275 foot wide transition area, which runs all across the single family residential neighborhood all the way east to Signal Butte Road.

The proposed DUP shows a wider uh great park area for the uh amended uh great park outline, which reaches all the way to Rubidium Avenue, and then east of the Great Park, the uh transition area is a 50-foot wide linear open space buffer combined with a higher density residential apartment area.

As part of the citizen participation process, the applicant notified property owners within a thousand feet of the overall 750 acre DUP area, as well as HOAs and registered neighborhoods.

There were two neighborhood meetings held this year, one in April, one in May.

The uh most significant concerns that were raised were regarding the residential density of the apartments portion, the loss of the open space buffer between the single family residential uses and the industrial, and uh increased traffic.

The applicant posted five signs in uh to uh notify the neighbors of this meeting, and those sign locations are shown with the blue stars on this map.

In summary, the request is consistent with the Mesa 2050 general plan.

It's consistent with the requirements of the DUPs per section five of the Eastmark Community Plan, and staff recommends approval with conditions.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Joe.

Any questions for staff?

Nothing new on this one.

Board member Pitcher, board members or farmsworth, anything new?

Okay.

So actually, I do have kind of a procedural question.

So each item we we're gonna go through the process public here.

We we can't go through both presentations and then come back and do public on both items.

Chairs, you can go through both presentations and then um you and you could probably even do one vote on these if you choose to.

Okay, that would be good.

I think so.

I think what we do is we'll go ahead and yeah, go to the other presentation, then we'll have the if the applicant is uh there they oh there's standing off to the side.

You good with that kind of going through both the okay, let's just do that.

That way we kind of have to do go through two times here.

All right, thank you, Jennifer.

Of course.

Uh Chair, board members.

This is zoning case ZON25-00693 for homestead at Eastmark.

The request is for a major site plan review to allow a 261-unit multiple residence development and an approximately 10,840 square foot uh commercial development.

The location is at the southwest corner of South Signal Butte Road and East Rubidium Avenue.

It comprises approximately 11.7 acres.

The general plan place type is mixed residential, the growth strategy is evolve.

The principal land uses uh include multifamily residential and eating and drinking establishments.

The supporting land uses include retail.

The existing zoning is planned community or PC, and it would be located within DU56 South Development Unit Plan.

The proposed district land use group as proposed through the uh companion case would allow for the multiple family dwelling and restaurant and retail.

Here's a photo of the site looking southeast from Rubidium Avenue.

You can see on the right side of the screen the construction fencing around the great park, which is currently under construction.

And here's a view looking south from Rubidium Avenue.

This photo was taken looking southwest from behind this self-storage building.

The site plan shows nine three-story apartment buildings containing a total of 261 units.

488 required parking spaces and 444 are provided.

If you can see my cursor, the pedestrian connections are provided from all sides of this development.

It includes a 2,360 square foot restaurant with a pickup window, an eight house 8,480 square foot retail restaurant building.

There are 59 required parking spaces, and 99 are provided.

And pedestrian connections are provided with the Reds of way and with the apartments to the west.

The landscape plan for the entire site shows a variety of trees and shrubs, including Mulga Acacia, Palaverde, Red Push Pistache, Bottle Brush.

And the elevations are shown over the next few slides.

The elevations for the apartments are all very similar.

It's comprised mostly of stucco, but there's also some tile and some metal accents.

The next two are four slides show the commercial buildings.

And then the last slides are of the retail restaurant building.

And this slide shows the renderings of the apartment building.

The materials and colors are shown on this slide.

They also notified surrounding HOAs and registered neighborhoods.

They held four neighborhood meetings.

Two of them were held just for this project, and then the last two were held in conjunction with the development unit plan amendment request.

They were held starting in December of 2025, and the last meeting was held in May of 2026.

The major concerns regarding this development that were expressed during those meetings as well as through emails were the density and height of the residential use and the loss of open space buffer between the single-family residences and the industrial uses, as well as an increase in traffic.

In summary, the request complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan.

It also complies with the amended DUP for DU56 South, and it complies with the criteria for site plan approval per section 6.1F of the community plan.

Staff recommendation is approval with conditions, and I can answer any questions.

Thanks.

Jennifer, if you would uh just and as you had mentioned some of the items from the citizen input, will you with these cases having staff support?

Will you articulate staff's assessment and support of three items?

The shift of the land use group boundary, the height, and then the buffer, particularly adjacent to the existing homes.

Yes, thank you, Chair Ayers and uh Vice Chair Peterson.

Regarding uh shifting the boundary of the uh DUP, the overall DUP to align with Rubidium.

Or the the land use group was the same.

The land use group, okay.

Um it does meet the requirements for the DUP amendment.

Um it does uh the district land use group is something that is uh permitted per the general plan.

The general plan does uh the principal land uses are multifamily residential and uh restaurants, and then the supporting land uses are retail, and that's what's being proposed as part of the district.

Thanks.

And then on the the height uh concern and on the site plan and then the buffer, particularly just on the south edge there.

The south edge, um originally there was parking proposed on the south uh portion of the um apartments portion, and staff has worked with the applicant to expand um that area into an open space area so it's landscaped rather than having parking and uh more active usage there.

Um it also uh provides a better connection with the existing park that's located to the south.

Danny, could you put the site plan up while we're talking about it?

Yep.

The landscape plan shows it fairly well, but this area here, the minimum north-south distance is 50 feet.

And you can also see it here in the site plan.

This area was originally proposed to have parking.

Uh Chair Ayers, uh Vice Chair Peterson.

If I could uh maybe elaborate just a little bit on that.

So when staff looks at the height of the hotels or excuse me, the the apartments and the surrounding land uses.

We we looked at that buffer from that that building in the southwest corner of the site to the the nearest residences um just over 85 feet, I believe.

It's like in the 87-foot range.

The applicant staff feels did a good job with the landscaping, and they are also including that connection from the great park um to the secondary park to provide more direct access to the great park from all of all of the residents in that neighborhood.

And when you look at just the setbacks, that 80 that 80 feet represents a pretty substantial um setback between uses.

If this were another development out outside of Eastmark and this was just apartments, um the setback would be 15 feet per story, uh, which is 45 feet.

So they're actually exceeding that, and again, those those rules don't necessarily apply in Eastmark, but if you look at just traditional multiple residence development, and if it was zoned RM2 RM4, that setback would would be 15 feet per story and it would be met in this location.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that.

So Evan, I'm gonna get on my soapbox since it's the last time I can say this, and I I know I've said it before, but I really really really think that it should be a requirement to provide a section through exactly these scenarios.

I know I've said it, but you guys know I've said this one before.

But just a visual section that we can understand from a perspective view between it, it's just so much more clear, especially for people that are out here.

And I think that I would say, I know we only have the one applicant here today, but most of them would agree that that is an exhibit that should be here.

So it helps kind of clarify this exact issue.

Because when you think about it from that like 88 feet, that is a pretty good distance, and I think that that would have been a much clearer way to kind of show exactly what you're trying to describe.

Sorry, last time I can say it, so I'm gonna do it one more time.

So any other questions, Troy, you good no?

I'm good.

She A.

No, nothing.

How about uh board member pitcher, board member Farnsworth?

Any questions, comments?

No, no further questions.

No, okay.

I think you're good for a little bit, Jennifer.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and have the applicant come on up.

And so just for the board here, we're doing both presentations.

Or should we go for both?

Yeah, okay.

3A and 3B.

Is it done?

Okay.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Okay.

Okay.

Slideshow.

Okay.

Chair Ayers, are you ready?

Uh Chair Ayers, members of the commission for your record, Lindsay Shubi with the law firm of Gamage and Burnham, 40 North Central, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004.

Thank you very much for your time this evening.

I will try.

I actually I think our presentations are a little complementary of what of what staff presented, so look forward to taking you through here.

Again, the first item on the agenda, and whether you vote separately or together, is the amendment of the DU56 South.

And this is a major amendment.

We have a the DU amendment was initiated after the submittal of the mixed use development.

So again, we've got the 26-acre park.

Don't know why it says 24.

99% sure it's 26 acres or no, almost 25 acres of the additional great park as well as a mixed use development, 11.7 acres.

Again, compliant with the general plan with mixed uh with multifamily um housing as well as commercial.

Uh so this was Eastmark, and we're gonna do a little a little walk through history lane um for all of us geeks here who like the aerial photography.

But again, in 2017, when DU56 South was approved, this is what it looked, this is what Eastmark looked like.

Hence the necessity for the flexibility in the community plan.

We did not have a transportation framework.

We did not have, you know, we did not know how the built environment was going to come to play.

Well, here we go, 2026.

Gosh, right?

All that development.

Um new new roadway networks, uh, different development, things that again uh we didn't know in 2027.

So uh you know, there are three major changes.

Um Chair Airs, you've asked about that, and Commissioner Peterson, thank you for touching.

You know, we did have to update quite a few different exhibits.

Again, it was an opportunity, a lot of development has happened.

Um, and frankly, if you look at this, if you look on the the right side of your screen, the Eastmark 2026.

Uh, if you see our parcel, which I'm sure you you know, you guys can all are here, kind of put my cursor right there, that commercial development that's existing today, that is in the transition area, right?

That that commercial development did go north.

Rubidium was not there, hence the need for all these cleanup items.

So, again, Eastmark, right?

It's made up of eight different uh land use groups.

Gosh, I mean, we all know zoning and planning.

Uh, and then you then you get a community plan and you get East Mark, and we throw it all out the window.

Uh so as we know we've got the district units and then lugs, right?

The land use group.

The lugs are like zoning.

Uh so what we're speaking about today is specifically DU56 South.

One question, and I apologize.

I I think it was Commissioner Peterson, but I'm not sure if it was if it was online.

A question as to whether there is a lug designation in the transition area today.

If you look to your right, you see all of the lug designations.

Open space, all of Eastmark has an open space lug designation.

Civic space, all of Eastmark, and then you kind of get down into the other lugs.

Um, but you know, the the civic space, the lug, it has always kind of been intended as the holding pattern.

You know, it's it just not required to be open spaced, not defined as open space, just you know, it not site-specific, I guess, is something that I wanted to point out in that exhibit.

Uh again, as was mentioned in staff's presentation, the general plan um does call for mixed residential, multi-family, as well as eating, uh eating and and dining uses.

Uh, part of our commercial project is uh a Chipotle with a pickup window, which we're excited to bring.

But you also see in here rabidium as constructed, right, did not match up with DU56 south, hence the need for this change.

So, what does the community plan say, right?

Because this is this is old.

You know, if any of us, some of us may remember this used to be Pacific Proving.

Uh I think I think Wayne Bomber was still working here and worked on Pacific Proving many, many moons ago.

I worked on Pacific Proving as an intern.

Uh and again, when we when we did the original Eastmark community plan, the street alignment was going to change.

And that meant the DU boundaries were also going to change.

And the final placement of the lugs, right?

The zoning was supposed to be made during the site plan or the subdivision plat process.

The purpose is for the development to remain remain flexible and be able to be flexible with market conditions.

So that's why we're here.

A couple of the major changes, right?

And we didn't talk about it as much in staff's presentation is it doesn't kind of pertain to the 11.7 acres that we're talking, but Eastmark Parkway, the conceptual alignment there, again, when it was constructed, is there.

That'll be reflected, and if it's approved today, that'll be one of the changes.

The other second major change, right?

The roadway alignment.

Um, oh, now we're showing here.

So sorry, the built condition of 2026, Eastmark Parkway there, um, different than the original, and then the Evergreen project, right here, rubidium was built to the north.

The thought was rubidium would be further south.

Um, and therefore the expansion of the not only the DU, but also the expansion of the lug, the district lug.

Um thing that I asked my client as we're going through this is gosh, how much how much district did we're originally allowed allotted?

There is a the ability to have 365 acres of district, right?

So that's for apartments, commercial.

We only have 27.4.

The only existing district that's been built is here.

We are adding an additional 11.7 acres of district, again, which was allotted for 365 acres in district six alone.

I'd also say, you know, once in reading some of the complaint or some of the concerns, uh, is too much residential.

Well, also Eastmark is approved for 15,000 residential units.

So far, there's only 5,300.

Therefore, there is planned infrastructure, water, sewer, transportation framework for far greater residential units.

So I would say the addition of this 11.7 acres is a very minor, you know, it's a we're in the major modification process, but it's a minor modification in the overall Eastmark.

Getting back again to the community plan, you know, it was uh it was developed to be flexible.

Um it was allowed the determination of the lugs as stated earlier uh was to be reviewed during the site plan or subdivision process, which is exactly why we are here today.

Um, when you think about this this is this plan, it looks kind of like transect zoning.

You kind of think about you know, Euclidean zoning.

I had the privilege of teaching the master's in real estate and development program with Grady Gamage.

And we look at textbooks from the 1980s of zoning, right?

And what is what's the goal of zoning?

It's to protect the single family house, right?

And so you've got industrial on one end when you think Euclidean zoning, and you've got the single family home on the other.

And in between, you have all sorts of transitions.

And so, board, I would submit to you that the transition that we are offering tonight, it was actually, you know, it is the the paramount of of traditional zoning from from back in the day.

Uh I would also say the transition area as was described and was originally introduced in 2017 from the staff report in 2017, they said uh the transition area in DU6 is intended to be held for future study to allow for consideration of how residential uses in D5-6 South will transition to potential employment uh in in DU6 North when it's developed.

And so I think the the intention of this transition area was always to see what does the built environment look like and what is appropriate at that time.

Here you'll see two different exhibits.

The the exhibit that staff had was more of an illustrative.

This this is these are the actual exhibits from 2017 to 2026.

Uh, you know, the intent was always to provide appropriate buffers so that the two so that all the land uses can coexist through the site planning process when we had more information adjacent to employment uses.

We are supposed to, you know, use landscaping booming pathways to ensure proper buffering.

We wanted to make sure that the interface between residential and employment was carefully planned to protect the integrity of both of these uses.

So I would submit to you that open space was not always the goal of this transition.

The transition was what do we do to protect the single family from the uh from the employment?

Uh Commissioner uh Peterson, you asked in the study session if the overall acreage of open space has changed.

Yes, it is doubled, I'd say almost tripled.

As you see with the addition of the Great Park, they added an additional 16 acres of open space.

So I'd say this is one of the most monumental changes.

When I read some of the comments, you know, it was protect a park.

Well, gosh, I don't have a 26-acre park by my house, but I would like one.

So there's a big park here, uh, with again the connectivity with the connectivity as as East Mark has always done so well.

So again, right back to the built environment.

There are two existing industrial projects.

One, you know, shovels in the ground.

So when you look at the the industrial project just north of Rubidium, there are four buildings, there are shovels in the ground.

So again, what you see below, if I use my cursor with the 26-acre park, great park, 11.7 acre mixed use project, I would say is a really great buffer and transition between the single family house and the industrial to the north.

The industrial, as we know, will carry truck traffic, noise, um, and I think both the park as well as the multifamily and the commercial uh will create a nice visual um as well as noise buffer between the two projects.

Chair, there I hope this is what you were looking for.

As you were saying, a perspective shot of what the open space looks like.

Uh again, this is how the two projects interface.

When we get to the next presentation, uh, which will be shorter, the the commer the mixed use project did go through many different iterations.

One of which uh was to integrate, right?

The buildings uh were were less east-west, more north-south with the original submittal in working with staff, and we worked.

Staff was great.

We did a lot of arm wrestling to get to this with this great resolution where we got to.

Um, really, they want the buildings to interact with the park.

There is an 88-foot buffer, 87.

Evan, I was very impressed you knew that exact number.

Uh, but as you see by that at the top of your screen, that is a lot of width.

It's a very, very, very wide buffer.

Gaming Burnham works all over the state.

I do not know another multifamily project that has an 88-foot buffer adjacent to single family homes.

I'd also submit to you that it is a hundred and eighty-five feet there.

And as staff explained, um, uh in in arm wrestling over this additional buffer, which we are happy to give.

We did give up a little parking.

We feel the the you know is the commercial is overparked, as Jennifer explained in the in her presentation.

We believe we are at market rate and have no problem with the parking.

Um, and there's trade-offs, right?

There's trade-offs and zoning.

I think this 88-foot buffer is is exactly what we need.

To answer another question from study session, again, this building on the south west corner.

It's gonna get my east and my west confused there for a second.

There are 12 small windows that are between six feet and eight feet high in the bedrooms that are two by two.

We are happy if it pleases the planning commission to add a stipulation that they are glazed, um, but they are not intended for visual, it is only to let light into the bedroom.

They're very, I'm only 5'2, I couldn't even see if I stood on a ladder out of those windows.

Uh, but they're not intended to be visual.

That was planned purposefully, uh, commission again to protect the the privacy of the five residential homes to the south.

So not only are we 88 feet away, but the windows are six to eight feet tall.

Um, and if anyone would like to add a stipulation on glazing, we're happy to offer them.

Neighborhood meetings.

We had lots.

We noticed 2,155 people three times.

In case you didn't know, that takes a lot of work and it's actually very expensive.

But we're happy to do it.

We wanted to go above and beyond.

We wanted to make sure that everyone knew about this application.

And frankly, we had very few people attend.

We had 10 at our original meeting at our first meeting, four attendees at our second, 25 at our third.

That was a four-hour meeting where we had 25 people.

And the 13th, we had eight attendees.

Uh, then we also did enhanced notice for the PNZ meeting as well as enhanced meetings uh and enhanced posting.

So, with that, you know, I'd submit to you that the the infrastructure for East Mark um more than adequately, you know, in terms of water sewer road networks, uh it was designed to handle this number of units.

We're still below on what the what the bank allows.

Um, this mixed-use project at 11.7 acres, coupled with the 26-acre great park, are fabulous transitions, especially with an 88-foot landscape buffer in between the two.

We have a recommendation of approval from staff and respectfully request approval and stand for questions, and or can make my second presentation.

So I guess we'll just roll in the second one.

I think let's just roll it in the second.

Yeah, oh, actually, while you're pulling that up, just uh oh, there look uh board member Farnsworth had the drop off just so staff is aware.

Okay, so we're down to five.

Yep.

Uh wonderful.

Okay, the homestead at Eastmark.

Gotta drop off.

Again, this is a companion case with the uh major amendment to the Eastmark uh DUP.

And this is specific to the site plan.

Again, you just saw you've seen this exhibit now multiple times because then we're looking at the southwest corner of Signal Butte and Rubidium.

So this we are sticking specifically to the 11 point 11.7 acres.

We have 261 four-rent homes.

There are nine three-story buildings, but for uh there are five different building types.

A mix of one, two, and three bedroom plans, predominantly one and two bedrooms.

We only have nine three-bedroom units.

Um, resident style resident resident clubhouse and resort style amenities.

Then we have 10,000 square feet uh of retail, uh, an 8,400 retail shops building as well as a 2,300 uh retail pad.

Again, this mixed use compliant with the general plan, compliant with the amended DUP if that gets approved, uh able to serve the residents of the area.

This is a bit closer up as you can see.

Uh the buffer area.

Again, we may have had somewhere and Evan's looking better than I am, somewhere from five to seven.

We had a lot of submittals.

We worked really closely with staff on this of the orientation of the buildings, ensuring that the buffer is more than adequate, and you know, the these three buildings interacting with the park, I feel like is getting back to you know the intention of of Eastmark and the and the interaction, the as well as the we like to call it the emerald necklace, the park, the integration of the park systems, going from the disc golf to the 26-acre uh park, our 88 to 54 feet of buffer, uh, and all no no gate, no gated community, and then again some great um pedestrian connectivity between the the commercial and the uh residential.

I'll also say an important part of this and was mentioned by staff, no vehicular connection into the single-family neighborhood.

All of our vehicular connectivity is off of signal butte and rabidium, no chance of cars uh going into the neighborhood.

Uh again, you can see here our perspective uh shot of uh the enhanced landscape buffer.

Again, we're butting approximately five residential lots.

And I do think between the landscaping um the buffer and the placement of the multi-family, that this will create a uh fabulous visual as well as noise buffer between uh the single-family home and the intense industrial development to the north.

I think we've hit on these again 47% of one-bedroom units, 49% two-bedroom units, and four percent of three-bedroom units.

Very enhanced uh enhanced amenity package, dog park, shaded trail, connections to the Eastmark Great Park, outdoor kitchens, EV chargers, game and activity lawn.

Um, it will be a beautiful market rate community.

Um, and uh Chair Commissioner Peterson, your question on height, the district lug does allow four stories.

That wasn't something we wanted to do.

We believe that three stories is the appropriate height to not only offer diversity of housing options and and tackle the affordability and housing prices that we have here here in Arizona, but being respectful to the single family neighbors from the south.

We never asked for four stories.

We think three stories is the appropriate height here.

Uh again, here are some perspective shots.

As you can see on the top right corner, the park view, right?

A lot of interaction.

There'll also be some dog dog pickup stations in between the buildings uh that I'm sure some residents of the park will use uh entry feature off rabidium and uh again a pool and enhanced clubhouse.

Uh again, the site uh does fall on the signal butte corridor adjacent to the East Mark Great Park and a great neighborhood buffer.

Uh we have had a major design evolution in working with staff.

We did start at 300 apartments that went down when we added the commercial.

We've engaged with the great park.

We have refined architecture and want to protect the neighborhood with the enhanced landscape buffer, you know, with the uh park request for the parking reduction.

Uh multiple submittals.

I think we've hit all those, uh, but we're really excited.

We think these 261 units at the current design is a great project.

Same slide as you saw before uh for neighborhood meetings enhanced, enhanced, enhanced.

I don't think there's any more we could have done.

I don't think I've ever had spent so many hours at neighborhood meetings for one project that's 11.7 acres.

Uh, but happy to do it and happy to be out in East Market, such a beautiful community.

Um, what we heard though at those neighborhood meetings were uh discussion on on you know wanting some retail concern with data centers, no more data centers, no more industrial.

Um, and and then we did hear some concerns about not liking apartments, and they wanted open space.

Uh I think the 26-acre park with the 88-foot buffer uh is a great buffer for the mixed use project that we are proposing.

Economic development is supportive of this project, uh supportive of the mixed use, especially with the addition of the commercial.

We align with the Mesa 2050 general plan.

Um, and the plans evolve and sustain growth strategies through infill and walkability.

Uh I think all this is, and you heard with Jennifer, we come forward with staff support.

So we recommend recommendation of approval.

Um with that, we've got two cases.

There were a lot of information.

This is a little complicated.

Uh the authors of the community of the the CP, right, Mary.

Love them and hate them.

Uh there's a lot of well, we have what we have, and so with that uh respectfully request approval.

There's a lot of information.

If you have any questions, please.

I'm happy to answer.

Okay.

Questions, guys?

What do we got?

Jamie, down there, no.

Okay.

You're good.

Justin, you're good.

Uh board member pitcher.

Looks like no, I I'm okay.

I'm I'm waiting to hear from some of the neighbors, though.

Okay.

So we'll go ahead and do that.

We'll uh thank you for the presentation.

I do have a couple of cards up here for people that have requested to speak.

So what we'll do is we'll go ahead and open up the public meeting portion of this.

Um, I'm gonna invite the the two people that have submitted cards to me.

So uh the way that works, kind of uh simply is come on up, uh, state your name and your address for us so we know that you're resident Mesa.

And then uh go ahead and make your statement for us.

Uh, we tr usually keep it at three minutes.

I'll give you a little bit of leeway since it's just the two.

I think we're we're okay with that.

So um enemies.

The first one I have is uh and it okay.

I stink at names, so bear with me.

Gina Faya.

You don't want to speak.

No, did I say your name right?

What's that?

Did I say your name?

I'm kidding.

Yeah, okay.

So you do not want to speak, you are good.

Yeah, okay.

Opposed.

Officially got it.

Okay.

Rich Bailiff Balof.

Balif.

I got close.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

My name is Rich Ballet.

I live at 10562 East Relativity Avenue.

Um thank you for allowing me to speak today.

First of all, I'd like to ask all of my neighbors to stand up so that you can see the group that I'm speaking for.

Um, the opinions I'm giving today are a combination and representative of this entire group of people.

We live in the neighborhood directly south of the proposed department complex.

And I do before my prepared statement, I do want to just address some of the lack of attendance at the community meetings.

Um, those of us that did attend quickly learned it wasn't a collaborative thing.

It felt more like a dictatorship and not um not a working relationship.

The the messages we heard, not in these words, but the messages we received were you should be thankful.

We could have asked for four stories, but we didn't.

We didn't have to put that buffer in, but we did.

You you should be thanking us.

So I think realizing that there wasn't much use in going to these meetings, we decided to attend here instead.

So when we purchased our homes in 2018, we had the opportunity.

So when we purchased our homes in 2018, we had the opportunity, we were presented with the planned development directly north of our homes.

The plan called for a park area north of our lots, extending roughly 250 to 300 feet out and all the way over to the mini storage and safeway complex.

This provided uh a good buffer between our homes and any further development that might happen north of us.

The agenda today, as we know, contains a request that the zoning be amended to replace portions of that park with an apartment complex called homestead at Eastmark.

This is unacceptable to us in our neighborhood, and any claim that we are agreeable to this amendment is blatantly false.

I have heard of representatives from the developer posing the questions.

Wouldn't you rather have an apartment complex here than a data center?

That's really a deceptively worded question designed to get people to answer.

Yes, we want an apartment complex.

But let me be clear.

We do not want an apartment complex.

We do not want a data center.

What we want is the park that was originally presented to us, promised to us, and was a reason many of the people in our neighborhood chose the lots we chose for our houses.

According to the community plan we were presented, the residential neighborhoods of DU6 South, our area, will be single family or mid-density single family.

This is mandatory language, not discretionary.

Note how it specifically specifically says will be, not maybe, not could be, not should be, but will be.

Holding the developer accountable to their commitments by not allowing the skate park and the disc golf park to be called the Great Park when they were built as East Mark amenity parks.

We ask that you once again hold the developer accountable to their commitments.

We respectfully request that the board reject the rezoning amendment, and we also request the rejection of the homestead at Eastmark apartment complex.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Bell.

Appreciate you coming up and speaking.

All right.

With that, that is we'll go ahead and close the uh public comment portion of this.

Go ahead and invite the applicant to come back up to respond to that.

Uh Chair Aris, Commissioners, thank you so much.

In response to the comment, and and I did, I I read comments that were received online.

Um I want to say there were no false promises.

Um, I hear a strong desire for open space, and that's what and they are getting that.

There's always been a uh a vision in the community plan to wibble and wobble to shift and move a little bit.

And the transition area again was just to be designated later.

It was a transition in land use.

There is a beautiful 26-acre community park.

It was supposed to be 10.

It went up 16 acres.

Um the developer is building that and deeding it to the city.

I will tell you the buffer with the mixed-use project with the commercial and the multi-family with an 88, 88 foot, 87 foot.

I think that's what Evan said, so I'm gonna go with Evan.

87 foot landscape offer.

That is the greatest buffer I have ever seen between a single family house and a mixed-use project in the state of Arizona.

And I have the privilege of working in Tucson Flagstaff, Gilbert, Chandler, Phoenix.

All over the place.

So uh really proud of this project.

I think it will be a great asset to the community.

Uh, we did notify again 2,180 people multiple, multiple times.

So respectfully request approval, stand for questions if you have any, but believe this is a great transition buffer use between the intensity of the industrial and the truck traffic that will go with it and the single family home, and a great compliment to the addition of the new 26-acre great park.

Thank you.

Okay.

Actually, I think I was a little quick on it.

I do have a couple just a quick questions for staff.

I think you're good.

Um so reading through a lot of the comments, some of the things that I uh I pretty sure I know the answers.

I think we all know the answers to these, but I do want to get this out there kind of publicly.

So a lot of the comments are about schools traffic.

Um as far as re looking through our report.

Yeah, thank you, Jennifer.

Come on.

Uh when we're looking at the impact statements, schools are all saying we have plenty of capacity, that's not an issue.

I didn't see anything on traffic.

I'm sure that and I'm pretty know what the answer is, but I just want to make sure and get it out there kind of verbally.

Traffic sees nothing that they're worried about with this site as far as from an impact statement.

Jerry Harrison board members.

Um, yes, transportation staff did review this project and didn't, you know, they had comments initially, and those were resolved.

Okay.

Before Jennifer sits, I want to make sure you guys don't have any other questions.

Troy, you're good.

No.

No.

There's no.

What about you, board member pitcher?

Um, no, I I I've still got the concerns I have, but we'll we'll address that in a minute.

Okay.

I think we're good, Jennifer.

Thank you.

All right, I'll say it again.

Now I'm closing the public comment portion.

So uh go ahead, open up this up to the board for discussion.

Um motions.

Anyone want to jump in?

I think we we we need something out of Jamie.

Last meeting.

Nothing.

Good.

Yeah.

Let me let me address one of my issues.

Um, even though the 87.9 uh buffer, you know, is offered, I I am concerned that the this still is a loss of uh uh a large buffer area that that these residents had, and it it's still um smaller than than what they have on the east side of their house.

So uh I'm concerned about the height, you know, this this three-story building there uh that that's um looking into these uh five build five uh homes, backyards, and I'm I'm so concerned about the uh just having the 87.98 um foot buffer now to me that that that's uh pretty small.

So I'm I'm concerned.

I'll go with it, I'll I'll dive in here.

It looks like uh quiet board today.

So I think uh so as I was reading through this, I went through a lot of the history.

I was looking at this.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this is what this happened in the study session we were discussing, trying to figure out what is the definition of a transition zone.

And so as I went back and read through, it really wasn't well defined.

Um Jennifer, I think offered up that uh, and I didn't see that by the way, about it defined as either civic or open space, which then I saw was defined as basically the entire all of East Mark.

And so my my initial first question was okay.

Well, if it's civic or or potentially open, why was it provided as something for a developer to buy?

Uh, you know, this rights obviously follow that as soon as it's sold to a developer.

And so that's one of the things that I was questioning.

Um I also was curious because a it was all that language was built in, and I know a lot of people hear things when it whether you're kind of come into something, there actually was a lot of flexibility built into that early on because they didn't know what was going to be proposed, what was going to be built out.

And so a lot of movement, you know, the road alignment shifted.

Uh, when you look at it, they're actually a right on signal but there was a significant portion of space that was intended to be for looking at it a commercial use.

Um the green kind of thing that we saw that was the park was very kind of squiggly, it was kind of all over the place, it wasn't as deep.

And so I think you know, keeping that in mind as well.

I do think um it's funny.

Actually, I live this in this area.

I live off Signal Butte, I know it well.

Um, you know, I I a lot of the us talk about the need for more restaurants, more I mean, we all talk about it, right?

More commercial, we need more.

We need more of that.

And so that's something that actually I was excited to see that this actually did that, and I applaud staff by by pushing to get more of that because we do need more options out there.

Um, so I with that, and I think that the other thing is is trying to figure out what that transition is, is really what the question was.

And so for me, this is this is not a perfect solution.

I think that um there's a lot of considerations as part of this, but I do think that I'm gonna be in support of it because it is a good transition instead of looking at the industrial that's right there.

And I do, and I think that actually can buffer it in some ways from for I think of like the acoustic, I think of the the separation that this type of a development would have, protecting the the single family houses.

So that's kind of where my mind is right now on it, thinking about what that means to be a transition.

So I don't know if you guys have thoughts or want to talk about that anymore.

I'll just comment real quick that uh usually when I see an apartment uh development come in.

I start thinking about uh parking traffic, site visibility, and I look at this and I can appreciate the mitigations that were taking place with the visibility, uh not looking right in directly into neighbors back windows.

Um the space, the 87 feet or 90 feet is all call it.

I you know, I think it's an effective buffer with the trees that'll eventually grow.

I think that creates it helps to find a new sense of space away from the residential.

It kind of creates that natural break.

Um and I I think about the traffic, it'll go out on rubidium and then out onto the major roads.

So it should be you shouldn't have traffic inside of Eastmark.

So I think that's a a big win.

Um so yeah, I I look at this, I see the need for multifamily throughout Mesa.

Um, and then I like to see when we do see big when we see multifamily development.

I like to see larger ones because I think they're planned better.

They're not as um uh they're not lacking in uh uh the amenities and they're more well planned.

So I like to see a bigger development, and this kind of checks that box for me.

You guys all said it very well.

I think it's uh it's tough when you're have residential um single family homes and you have an industrial, and then you have an open spot between that.

I think that's where you know things like this multifamily is what you fill in.

It's the appropriate way that we kind of step down into and protect that single family.

Um, I think the developer has done quite a bit to take the single single family into consideration, create the open spaces and um respect the I I think I'm not gonna be saying anything new, so I don't need to draw it out, but I certainly think that this is a very appropriate use in this area.

Do you want to see anything or I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion?

I think that we can kind of get to that and see where we land.

Hey, Ben, oh before you do that, you know.

If if we're gonna um I assume you're gonna move to approve it.

I I think we need to take in uh maybe the uh developer take them up on glazing those windows, you know, on that.

I'm sure they're glazed.

I'm I'm thinking you mean frosted.

She said whatever whatever they're gonna do.

So yeah, just so everybody knows glazing means that there's glass.

So frosted means from a visual, there would be so I'll actually let the applicant respond to that as far as frosting.

So visually you can't see through the glass on those that elevation.

Yeah, chair, thank you very much.

Commissioner Pitcher, I believe I said glazing.

I spent too much time with my teenagers, glazing people.

I don't know.

So I apologize for that.

Thank you to the architect to say yes, frosting, and then we had the other stipulation.

Um, if we do move to approve the other modified step from the staff report in terms of the that the trash trash mitigation.

I don't have that language, but if we were just it's already in the revival, it's already in the revised, right?

Okay, good, then we're good.

Okay, thank you.

Um, okay, so uh I'll take a stab at this.

So on item 3A, ZON 26-00155 DU56 South plan amendment, 750 plus minus acres located between East Elliott Road and East Point 22 Boulevard and west of South Signal Mute Road, but not including the area uh north of East Rubidium Avenue and east of South Binary.

Major amendment to the development unit 56 South Development Unit Plan.

This request will modify the boundary of the eastern portion of the DUP to align to the East Rubidium and establish new boundaries for the district land use group and transition area.

The staff recommendation is approval with conditions.

Um I move to approve item 3A, and on I I can do these both together, correct?

Okay.

And on item 3B, uh ZON 25-00693 homestead at Eastmark 11.7 plus minus acres located at the southwest corner of South Signal Mute Road and East Rubidium Avenue.

Major site plan review for the new 261 unit apartment development and 2.2 acres of retail commercial development.

Staff recommendation here is also approval with conditions with one added stipulation on the most southwest building.

So the motion is for that to be approved.

Is there a second on that motion?

I'll second.

All right, we'll go ahead and vote on that one.

Maybe you're okay.

Verbal from board member pitcher.

Yes.

With that, it is, and we do not have Chase here, so I don't know what we need to do on that one.

You'll have to fix that.

Okay, so it's a we're not seeing it, but you're saying it is a 5-0 for the five that are on the board.

So just forstand we're not seeing it visually, but uh do you want to just note that this is just a recommendation?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So with that, it is approved.

Uh just so everybody does understand for you guys specifically.

This is a recommendation from the board moving to city council.

So this is not the end of that road.

Oh no, it isn't.

Oh, you're right.

See?

Oh for the both cases?

I'm a liar.

I apologize.

Okay.

So I was steered wrong.

My bad.

All right.

Well, with that, I we do appreciate you guys being here though.

I really do.

Um, I think with that, is there anything else from staff that we need to be aware of?

No additional update, chairs.

Okay, thank you.

Well, appreciate everybody being here today, especially for a longer meeting.

Uh look for a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, we'll go ahead and vote on that one.

No.

Maybe not.

Why don't we just go verbal?

Jason.

Uh, yes.

Yes.

No.

I was gonna do that, but I'm glad you did.

Board member pitcher.

Yes.

All right, 4-1.

We are adjourned.

I was gonna do it too.

You guys can go ahead and unmute the