Council hears debate over 66‑unit Beverly-area project; applicant told to clarify for‑sale vs. rental plans

A proposed 66‑unit apartment project north of Main Street near Beverly Park drew extended discussion Thursday as council and neighbors weighed density, design and whether the planned units would be offered for sale or rent.

Planning staff presented the rezoning request, ZON24638, which asks to change the property from RS‑6 (single‑family) to RM‑4 (multi‑family) with a planned area development overlay and site‑plan review. Staff said the applicant reduced the unit count from 68 to 66 and introduced mid‑building breaks and design changes intended to address earlier council feedback about massing. The staff report recommended approval with conditions; the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval by a 5‑0 vote.

Why it matters

The site is adjacent to transit and is in a station‑area character on Mesa’s general plan, which staff said supports higher intensity development near light rail. Neighbors raised concerns about density, traffic on Beverly, pedestrian safety for children walking to school and environmental effects; staff said a traffic study had been completed and routed to the transportation department for review.

Details presented to council

- Project scope: The request covers a property north of Main Street, east of Alma School Road and north of Beverly Park. The current plan seeks 66 units with primary vehicle access from Beverly and a second access for emergency and solid waste. Staff said the project provides roughly 8,000 square feet more private open space than code would require and that some deviations would be needed for garage door counts, lot coverage, landscaping setbacks and building separation.

- Design changes: The applicant reduced density by two units from the previous submission, and added physical breaks between long building runs to reduce massing. Staff showed the February elevations and the revised elevations, noting changes to break up the façades.

- Planning review: Staff said the project complies with the Mesa 2040 general plan and relevant zoning code chapters for site plan review and a PAD overlay; the Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval 5‑0.

For‑sale vs. for‑rent debate

A majority of discussion centered on whether the units would be for sale or for rent. Planning staff said the project, as currently submitted, is a rental product and that converting to for‑sale would require a subdivision plat and additional deviations; staff said a for‑sale proposal would come back to council for approval if the applicant pursues it. The applicant’s representative said the developer’s intent is that the product could be for sale and that the project has been designed to allow for a possible future subdivision, but planning staff cautioned that a conversion would change setbacks, utility arrangements and other technical requirements.

Council direction

Several council members said they preferred for‑sale townhomes in general but agreed the city should not condition approval on a promise to sell. Council asked the applicant and planning staff to meet and clarify the applicant’s intention and what steps would be required to make the units for sale; staff and the applicant agreed to provide an update before Monday’s meeting. Council also asked for a clearer public presentation by the applicant at the council hearing so neighbors could ask questions.

Community concerns and staff response

Residents and council members raised safety concerns for children walking to nearby schools and for park users; staff said sidewalks and internal pedestrian connections are provided and that transportation had reviewed the traffic study. Staff and multiple council members said adding residents who use the park and sidewalks could increase “eyes on the park” and reduce undesirable behavior. Planning staff also noted extensive citizen participation: notification to owners within 1,000 feet, a neighborhood meeting with 12 attendees and multiple emailed comments and public testimony at Planning & Zoning.

What happens next

Staff recommended approval with conditions. The application remains on the council calendar; the applicant and planning staff were directed to discuss the for‑sale/for‑rent question and return with clarification at the upcoming council meeting. No final council vote was recorded during the study session.

Ending

The council’s primary direction was procedural: clarify tenure (for sale vs. for rent), resolve technical subdivision and utility issues if the applicant intends to pursue for‑sale units, and present a clear site plan and answers to neighbors’ questions at the Monday hearing.

Quotes

Evan (planning staff): “They reduced the density by 2 units and created physical breaks to work on the building massing and make it more visually open.”

Tim Boyle (applicant): “When the owner first came to me, he said, I wanna do a for‑sale project… The intent is that these will be for sale.”