Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Employment District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesa staff propose rewritten Employment Opportunity zoning to support ASU innovation projects
Summary
City planning staff briefed council on replacing Chapter 14 of the zoning ordinance and amending Section 1186.1A to broaden the Employment Opportunity (EO) district for large employment campuses and mixed-use projects, including partnerships with political subdivisions such as Arizona State University.
Rachel Phillips, Assistant Planning Director, told the Mesa City Council on Sept. 4 that staff proposes to repeal and replace Chapter 14 of the zoning ordinance and to amend Section 1186.1A, the use-type classification, to increase flexibility in the Employment Opportunity (EO) district.
"This item on the agenda is an amendment to the Employment Opportunity District, which is chapter 14 of the zoning ordinance," Phillips said. She said the EO district has been used only twice in Mesa to date and that the proposed rewrite would clean up text, adjust place-type references, remove minimum-area barriers for expanding existing EO districts, and allow the district to accommodate mixed-use developments that include governmental and commercial components.
Butler, a city staff member, explained how the change would support a partnership with Arizona State University. "This zoning needed to be in place before we could finalize our agreements with ASU," he said, citing the Innovation Zone at ASU's Polytechnic campus as the kind of project the EO tool was intended to unlock. Butler advised the council that, if the council adopts the text changes, a development agreement or intergovernmental agreement (IGA) would follow with specific parameters such as phasing and limits on commercial versus governmental uses.
Councilmembers pressed staff on specifics. Councilmember Adams asked how many contiguous parcels of 140 acres or more exist in Mesa; Phillips replied that fewer than five parcels of that size currently exist in the city. Councilmember Goforth and others sought assurance that job generation would be required or incentivized; staff said employment parameters would be defined later in EO development plans and associated agreements once proponents submit project-level materials.
Councilmembers and staff discussed the rationale for the 140-acre minimum (previously 160 acres) and the availability of other overlay tools for smaller projects. Phillips and Butler said the EO amendment is intended as a groundwork measure to allow large, high-employment projects to move forward and that specific, enforceable requirements (for example, employment targets or sequencing rules) would be included in subsequent development agreements or IGAs.
Next steps: staff will return draft language for introduction on the regular agenda and, if adopted for introduction, the council would later consider development agreements and site plans with project-specific constraints. The council did not take a final vote on the code change during the Sept. 4 study session.
