Mesa board tables data-center zoning amendments after industry and developer concerns
Loading...
Summary
Multiple developers, site selectors and industry groups urged clarification and more stakeholder engagement on a proposed Mesa ordinance regulating data centers; the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to table the text amendment to allow time for additional review and stakeholder meetings.
The City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board on June 11 opened extensive public comment on proposed zoning text amendments that would regulate data centers in Mesa and then voted unanimously to table the ordinance for further stakeholder engagement and clarifications.
Speakers representing developers, data center operators and industry associations urged the board to pause the ordinance’s advancement until language ambiguities, grandfathering of vested projects, operational standards and specific development standards were clarified.
Ben Graff, speaking for Nova Holdings LLC, described his client’s situation where entitlements and a final site plan are in hand but construction has not yet started. Graff said his client had already invested significant sums and asked for clarity on grandfathering and waiver provisions. “Nova has already invested to date $100,000,000 into the purchase of the site and the development,” he said, and asked that the ordinance make explicit that projects with vested rights can continue under the standards in effect when they received approvals.
Representatives of industry groups and large operators echoed that request. Emily Rice, vice president of government relations with B3 Strategies, representing the Data Center Coalition, asked the city to continue stakeholder engagement and “respectfully request a pause on this effort to ensure that a full range of stakeholders can be engaged...prior to this ordinance being considered by city council.” CyrusOne’s representative, Sean Leroy, said his company had followed staff guidance to obtain prior approvals and asked that the ordinance explicitly protect vested rights for projects that received site-plan or special-use approvals under the prior code.
Other industry speakers raised technical and operational concerns. Jones Lang LaSalle’s Mark Bauer described the scale of current and planned investment in the Elliot Road corridor and said developers typically pay for major utility upgrades. Design professionals urged the board to reconsider or refine proposed dimensional and operational standards—examples included a proposed 400-foot setback, a 60-foot height limit, and a 1-per-1,000-square-foot parking ratio—all of which industry speakers said could be impractical or create unintended negative consequences. Butler Design Group project manager Jay Irvin and others urged a collaborative stakeholder meeting before forwarding the ordinance.
Board members and staff acknowledged the volume of comments and last-minute changes to the draft ordinance. At the hearing Planning staff were credited with responsiveness; board members nonetheless said the ordinance still appeared to be “in flux” and needed more time for review by both stakeholders and board members who were absent. A member of board staff flagged the difficulty of applying a sharp 10% footprint cap for accessory data uses (for example, when data functions are ancillary to an employer’s primary business) and raised questions about how the draft defines a data center and applies accessory-use rules.
Vice Chair Pitcher moved to table the item to allow additional stakeholder engagement and for board members to review outstanding edits. The motion was approved unanimously. The board indicated the ordinance will return after staff and industry participants have had an opportunity to reconcile language on grandfathering, site-plan waivers, screening and operational standards.
Speakers at the hearing urged the city to convene a stakeholder meeting to address a specific list of issues: clear grandfathering language for approved projects, explicit rules for administrative minor changes, clarification on whether certain infrastructure items (battery storage, substations, backup generators) are permitted as of right, refinements to setback, height and screening requirements, and a performance-based approach to parking and mechanical screening. Staff acknowledged many of those points and said some edits had been made in response to stakeholder conversations but that additional clarification was still needed.
The board’s tabling vote pauses the ordinance’s scheduled advancement to the City Council and sets the issue for further staff-led stakeholder work and reexamination at a future board meeting.
