Mesa council continues debate on Park North 120-unit zoning after extensive public comment
Loading...
Summary
After hours of staff presentations, developer remarks and neighborhood opposition focused on traffic, school safety and park adjacency, Mesa City Council voted to continue the Park North zoning case with no new hearing date so the applicant and staff can address concerns and potential design changes.
The Mesa City Council on Monday continued a zoning case for Park North, a proposed 120-unit multifamily development adjacent to Christopher J. Brady Park, after extensive public testimony and council debate about traffic, compatibility with existing commercial zoning and long-term maintenance costs.
The case matters because the developer asked the council to allow 100 percent residential use in a site zoned limited commercial (LC) with a planned area development (PAD) overlay by removing a code requirement that at least 60% of gross floor area be commercial. Staff said the application requires a council use permit to eliminate that commercial requirement and multiple PAD deviations for setbacks, walls and other standards.
City planner Evan Balmer told council and the public that “staff does find that it complies with the Mesa 20 40 general plan as well as section 69 and 22 of the zoning ordinance and the criteria for a council use permit.” The applicant, represented by attorney Chris Webb of Rose Law Group, said the existing LC zoning already permits multifamily uses up to 25 units per acre and that the site’s configuration, deed restrictions and market studies made commercial development unviable. “That is a use that’s already allowed on the site up to 25 units to the acre,” Webb said.
Neighbors and school staff urged council to reject or delay approval, citing vehicle and pedestrian safety at the nearby Highland Junior High School and on Guadalupe Road. Resident Andrew Clayton told the council the developers “do not care that these buildings are gonna be too high, too squashed together with an unsafe [bridge] across from the chaos of bus and car exits,” and he said the project would exacerbate crash risk for students. Multiple speakers cited recent collisions near the school and said the intersection has a higher-than-expected accident rate for its traffic counts.
Vice Mayor Summers gave a detailed critique of the application, saying it “fails to meet the intent, the standards, and the purpose of our zoning code.” Summers and other council members questioned whether a council use permit should be used in effect to rezone the parcel from LC to a residential character, rather than seeking a formal rezoning process. Concerns included the proposed removal of commercial floor-area requirements, building heights up to 38 feet where 30 feet is typical, and long-term city maintenance obligations for landscaping to be installed on park or flood-control property.
Developers and applicant representatives responded to questions about access and traffic. They said the project would include a bridge across the Maricopa County Flood Control District channel as primary ingress/egress, an emergency-only access to the southwest, and 252 parking spaces matching staff requirements. The applicant noted a third-party commercial market analysis (Elliott D. Pollock) concluding retail demand in the market area is already satisfied for decades and said multifamily would generate substantially less traffic than previously approved commercial schemes. The developer also said trees proposed along the park edge were placed there at the parks department’s suggestion and offered to move them to private property if council preferred.
Council members asked staff and the applicant for more time to address the technical issues, neighborhood concerns and the compatibility questions raised in public comment. The applicant asked for a continuance to return with changes; council agreed not to set a date but to continue the case so the applicant and staff can consult with neighbors and explore modifications.
A motion to continue the case (no date specified) passed on a voice vote. The motion was moved by Councilmember Bilsbury and seconded by Councilmember Go Forth. No final approval or denial of the council use permit, PAD amendments or development agreement occurred at the meeting.
Key details from the record that the council and public raised include: the requested reduction of the commercial requirement to 0% via a council use permit; the proposed 120 units in four three-story buildings (two proposed at 36 units each and two at 24 units each); a clubhouse of about 4,000 square feet; 252 provided parking spaces; a development agreement requiring the developer to build and maintain the bridge over the flood channel and to install a pedestrian connection to Monterey/Christopher J. Brady Park; and the developer’s promise to include lease disclosures telling tenants they are adjacent to an active, lighted park with pickleball and nighttime activity.
The council’s continuance keeps the item open while staff and the applicant consider design or agreement revisions in response to traffic, safety, zoning-compatibility and long-term maintenance concerns raised by the community and several councilmembers.
