Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission endorses adding Gateway District to redevelopment boundary for downtown entry improvements
Summary
The commission found the proposed amendment to expand the town’s redevelopment plan to include the Gateway District in conformity with the general plan and recommended the change to the Town Council; staff said the change would make the Gateway parcels eligible for facade and small‑scale revitalization programs available under redevelopment law.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of compliance to the Town Council for a proposed amendment to the town’s redevelopment plan that would expand the redevelopment boundary to include the Gateway District along Highway 287. Staff said the change would make eight properties at the town’s primary Highway 287 entry eligible for redevelopment initiatives and facade or maintenance grants available to properties within a redevelopment area.
Staff presentation and scope: Senior staff explained that the Gateway District was identified during the 2020–2021 redevelopment plan update but was not included in the formal boundary. The proposed amendment would add roughly 12.5 acres — about 12% of the existing redevelopment area — and would remove a sentence that previously excluded the Gateway District from the formal boundary. All eight parcels are currently zoned B‑1 or B‑2 and staff said the existing uses comply with zoning.
Why it matters: Under Arizona redevelopment statute, redevelopment districts can be used to fund certain revitalization efforts and to provide grants for eligible businesses; staff noted the town’s primary existing programs (façade grant and maintenance/revitalization efforts) are available only within redevelopment boundaries. Adding the Gateway District would make those properties eligible for the same programs and for future statutory opportunities tied to redevelopment.
Commission questions and outcome: Commissioner Lehman asked how property owners would benefit and whether the change could impose new requirements; staff replied owners would be notified and that inclusion does not impose new code requirements beyond current code compliance. Staff said required notices and publications would be mailed and published before council action. Commissioner Woolley moved and Commissioner Lehman seconded the motion to forward a finding of conformity with the general plan; the commission voted 4–0 to recommend the amendment.
What’s next: The Town Council will hold a public hearing and would need a two‑thirds vote to adopt the redevelopment boundary amendment if it proceeds.
