Council hears Park North rezoning, staff recommends approval with conditions; traffic and maintenance concerns raised

Planning staff presented a rezoning, planned area development overlay, council use permit and site plan for Park North (case ZON24708) at the Mesa City Council study session on June 2. The project proposes multiple-residence buildings adjacent to Christopher Brady Park and includes a development agreement to address landscaping, pedestrian connections and park-adjacent improvements.

"This is case ZON24708...they're also asking for a council use permit and site plan review," Mr. Balmer, planning staff, said while describing the requests. He told council the applicant requests deviations from commercial floor-area requirements in the LC zoning district and that staff and the planning-and-zoning board recommend approval with conditions.

Key project details and staff conditions: The staff report says the site is currently zoned LC with a PAD overlay and that the applicant seeks a new PAD that would allow deviations from certain development standards. Staff described the site plan as having four buildings, "2 with 36 units and 2 with 24 units," and a roughly 4,000-square-foot clubhouse; the staff report also says the application was reviewed under the Mesa 2040 General Plan. The staff report and the development agreement require the applicant to install and warranty trees and irrigation on the park property for one year, construct a pedestrian connection into the park, and notify future lessees that they are adjacent to a park and may experience noise or lighting.

A notable inconsistency in the record: At one point in the staff presentation the project is described as a "20 unit multiple residence development," while the site-plan figures presented later show multiple buildings sized at 36 and 24 units. The transcript contains both descriptions; the council discussion did not resolve the discrepancy during the study session.

Access, parking and infrastructure responsibilities: Staff said the site will have a bridge over the Guadalupe drainage channel that the applicant must construct and maintain. "Yes, it is the responsibility of the applicant to 1, install and then, 2, maintain that bridge for its lifespan," Mr. Balmer said, and staff confirmed the city would not take responsibility for the bridge. Mr. Balmer also confirmed parking meets the required ratio: "2.1," he said when asked about parking ratios. Staff noted the apartment property will include a wall along the park boundary built on the apartment property, and that an emergency egress easement to the west connects to a neighboring commercial property.

Traffic and safety concerns: Several councilmembers and staff discussed traffic on Guadalupe Road. "There is plenty of capacity on Guadalupe," Eric, traffic staff, said, adding the intersection of Power and Guadalupe was reviewed in the city's safety action plan and was slated for a midterm upgrade "probably a couple years out" regardless of the project. Traffic staff said the upgrade would include restriping and conversion to protected left turns with dual left-turn lanes; staff also told the council that commercial uses typically generate "50 to 70% higher" traffic than residential uses over the day.

Public outreach and recommendation: Planning staff said the applicant conducted neighborhood outreach, including two meetings, and the city received numerous emails in opposition as well as two in support. Staff concluded the proposal complies with the Mesa 2040 General Plan and zoning criteria for a council use permit and recommended approval with conditions; the Planning and Zoning Board also recommended approval with conditions. No final city council decision on the rezoning, CUP or development agreement was made at the study session; the item was set to be discussed further at the upstairs meeting.

What council asked for or directed: Councilmembers requested the traffic study; one councilmember said Guadalupe's traffic capacity is 12,000 and the rating is for 40,000 per day and said she forwarded the traffic study to a colleague. Councilmembers asked who would maintain park-adjacent landscaping and pedestrian paths; staff said the applicant would warranty construction for one year and the Parks Department would maintain the connection thereafter.

Next steps: The item was moved off consent for fuller discussion and presentation at the regular meeting upstairs. Final council action on the rezoning, PAD, council use permit and development agreement remained pending following the study session.