| File #: | PZ 20129 |
| Type: | PZ Minutes | Status: | Agenda Ready |
| In control: | Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing |
| On agenda: | 10/28/2020 |
| Title: | Minutes from the October 14, 2020 study session and regular hearing. |
| Attachments: | 1. October 14, 2020 Study Session Minutes, 2. October 14, 2020 Meeting Minutes |
________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Audio recordings of the Planning & Zoning Board Meetings are available in the Planning Division Office for review. They are also “live broadcasted” through the City of Mesa’s website at www.mesaaz.gov
THE STUDY SESSION MINUTES TAKE UP 12 PAGES It lasted about an hour 2:30-3:31 pm
THERE ARE 5 PAGES OF MEETING MIN UTES FOR THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Note who prepared the minutes:
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ Nana K. Appiah, AICP, Secretary Planning Director
Here is Item 5:
. Planning Director's Updates.
• Status of on-going review of text amendments to the 2040 Mesa General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Dr. Appiah provided the board with the status of the text amendment projects and as he stated earlier, staff has met with City Council twice to discuss all the proposed changes.
There were a couple of edits or modifications that we received direction from the City Council on. One had to do with the discussions that we had that our code is very ambiguous when it comes to Residential uses in a Commercial District.
For example, in a Limited Commercial or General Commercial district, which allows certain residential uses in those zoning districts, there is a minimum percentage of commercial uses that is required to be developed. However, in certain situations, we do get a request where they want to develop more residential within that zoning district that is beyond the percentage required of 40% commercial development and 60% residential. In certain situations, we get developers requesting to develop more residential than the commercial and want to exceed the required 60% of residential development. In the past, staff has processed those requests as a CUP (Council Use Permit). The code was not clear if you can use that process of a CUP and staff had struggled with clarity of interpreting the code for such requests. The amendment to the code will make this process clear and clean and will also help the development community. This will make it clear that in situations where the developer is requesting to exceed the minimum or the maximum residential, a CUP will be required because this is more of a Legislative decision.
10
During the discussion with Council, the directive staff received is to change or flip the percentages around so that commercial changes from 40% minimum to 60% and residential from 60% to 40% minimum. This is because in those zoning districts, specifically for commercial with residential as an accessory, the title of those uses is residential uses in Commercial District and not vice versa. Council wanted to be able to have the authority or the ability to give some latitude in terms of looking at it on a case by case basis. In some situations, it may be okay to have a greater percentage of the site as residential.
With that, we are going to be making proposed changes to change that section of the code which discusses percentages. This item will come before this Board on October 28th for recommendation to Council. In the meantime, if the Board has any questions, they can reach out to him or Rachel.
The other part of the amendments coming before the Board is the change to the Administrative Site Plan Review for uses that are permitted in the zoning district. We have had extensive discussions with Council regarding this amendment as well. A couple of concerns Council members expressed are that certain uses that are permitted by right in some of the zoning districts. For example, boat and RV storage, mini storage, and assisted living facilities. So with that, we informed Council some of the text amendments is changing those uses from permitted by right to requiring a CUP (Council Use Permit) so that will fall outside the parameters of approval by the administrative staff.
Another text amendment we will be addressing is Assisted Living facilities and the location of these facilities. This was also a directive from Council to review the requirements of the Assisted Living Facilities because they had concern why they are being located at major intersections. Also, there had been various discussions from developers interested about developing the facilities and they wanted to make sure there is adequate separation between those uses so that we do not class the uses in certain areas and clarify a required distance between the uses. One of the changes is to require specific distances for the Assisted Living facilities similar to the requirements for gas stations. We will also require a setback distance separation from major arterial or roadway intersections.
The final amendment is the General Plan text amendment and Council is in support for all of the changes we are proposing.
This will help clarify some of the ambiguity that has been in the General Plan with the Character designations and help both the development community but also make it clear what is intended in those character areas.
>>>> Dr. Appiah stated staff is planning to schedule the General Plan Amendment for this board to consider at a special meeting scheduled for November 9, because we are required to hold two public hearings for the General Plan amendments.
> The second meeting will be for the final recommendation to City Council and is scheduled for November 18 at the regular meeting of this board.
> The discussion for the other text amendments, will come before this board for consideration and recommendation on October 28th.
The study session for this meeting will be a little longer because the text amendments will be on the agenda as well as several site plan reviews. Dr. Appiah stated they have provided the documents for the board to review. He reminded the board they can contact himself or Rachel, if you have any specific question on the text. But we also have, we will plan to have adequate time during the city session to answer any questions they may have.
11
Boardmember Villanueva-Saucedo stated she did not have a question, but wanted to state she appreciates the efforts of staff to get everything to them ahead of time. It is super helpful and appreciates the efforts to streamline the work that they do. Ms. Villanueva-Saudeco stated the review is not just checking off boxes. She understands this is was a laborious process and feels one that will benefit everybody in the long run.
but
No comments:
Post a Comment