Mesa board approves rezoning for Dixon flag lot; neighbors press for written irrigation access

The City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 26 recommended approval of a rezoning request to split and develop a 2.5-acre property on Val Vista Drive as a flag lot, a move neighbors said must include written guarantees for irrigation access.

The board voted unanimously to recommend rezoning from Single Residence (RS-35) to RS-35 with a Bonus Intensity Zone (BIZ) overlay to allow development of one new single-family residence on the eastern portion of the parcel. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including a required cross-access easement between the newly created lots.

The request, presented by city planning staff, would reconfigure a currently landlocked lot so the narrow, flagpole portion fronts Val Vista Drive. Staff said the BIZ overlay would allow specific deviations from the RS-35 standards to accommodate the geometry and existing site features. The application seeks reductions including a 20-foot minimum lot width for Lot 2 (the RS-35 minimum is 30 feet), a 1-foot setback for an existing detached accessory building on Lot 1, and a 7-foot front-yard fence that exceeds the usual height standard.

Neighbors who live south of the property told the board they rely on a private driveway and shared access across the site to reach irrigation control valves for the Roosevelt Water Conservation District flood-irrigation system. Barbara Markoski, a long-time resident of Annalen Estates, told the board, “Access to all the irrigation boxes and standpipes with gates and valves along the system must be accessible to all users at all times,” and urged that any rezoning include a written access agreement so access survives future ownership changes.

Applicant representatives told the board the owner, Eric Dixon, has discussed access with neighbors and agreed to relocate and repair an irrigation valve at his expense, and to work with neighbors on cross-access and driveway improvements. The applicant’s attorney said the owner is “willing to work with them and sign an agreement for that cross access,” but objected to a condition that would force a dedication of private property without the consent of the adjoining owners.

Staff clarified that the landlocked parcel was recorded at the county without city review and that an administrative land-split process would normally apply; the proposed cross-access requirement appears as condition 1 in the staff report and is between Lot 1 and Lot 2 (not a requirement to obtain an easement from the neighbors south of the site). Board members asked applicants and neighbors to continue working toward a written cross-access agreement; the board’s approval was a recommendation to the city council to approve the rezoning with the staff-recommended conditions.

The board’s approval does not itself create an easement to the irrigation valves for neighbors; the transcript shows neighbors asked that access be made a written condition of rezoning to protect long-term use. Staff recommended approval with condition language requiring cross-access between the two created lots and noted that any third-party easement across neighboring property requires the neighbors’ agreement.

The board’s favorable recommendation now moves the case to City Council for final action. The staff report and hearing record note the applicant completed the public-notice and citizen participation steps; neighbors raised access and construction-impact concerns during public comment and the applicant agreed to continue negotiations with adjoining property owners.

Clarifying details from the hearing: the property is approximately 2.5 acres; the requested minimum lot width for the flag portion of Lot 2 is 20 feet (code requires 30 feet); an existing detached accessory structure would be located about 1 foot from a proposed new property line unless the BIZ allows an adjustment; neighbors reported the private drive and irrigation access have been used for decades; the applicant agreed to relocate and repair a leaking irrigation valve at his expense and to install a gate in a new wall for valve access. The staff condition requires a cross‑access easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2; any access rights that involve third-party parcels to the south must be negotiated with those property owners.

The board’s action was a recommendation to the City Council; the council will make the final decision. The record shows the board approved the rezoning recommendation unanimously with the four members present.