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

The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 26 recommended approval of a rezoning for a 2.5-acre property on North Val Vista Drive that will create a flag lot to allow construction of a new single-family residence.

Staff said the request — rezoning from Single Residence 35 (RS-35) to RS-35 with a Bonus Intensity Zone (BIZ) overlay — would reconfigure a currently landlocked parcel so it meets the city’s frontage requirements. The board voted 4-0 to approve the case with conditions.

The zoning request includes specific BIZ deviations to accommodate the site’s existing conditions: a reduced minimum lot width for the flag “pole” portion of Lot 2 (proposed at about 20 feet instead of the RS-35 standard 30 feet), a one-foot setback for a detached accessory building on Lot 1, and a seven-foot fence along the existing front that exceeds the ordinance maximum. Staff recommended approval with conditions after finding the proposal complies with the Mesa 2040 general plan and applicable zoning code provisions. Staff said, “staff finds that the request complies with the Mesa 2040 general plan.”

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing said their principal concern was continued access to flood irrigation infrastructure that serves multiple properties south of the site. Barbara Markoski, a long-time resident, told the board: “I’m requesting, as a condition of rezoning the property, that the board make irrigation access in writing, a condition for recommending or granting this rezoning.” Speakers said the irrigation system is served through a private drive that crosses the affected parcel and that the system is delivered on a rotating schedule by Roosevelt Water Conservation District.

The applicant’s representative said the owner, Eric Dixon, has agreed verbally to allow irrigation access and to relocate and repair a leaking valve at his own expense, and that he is willing to work with neighbors on a cross-access agreement. The applicant’s representative said, “We would object to using the city’s, exaction authority or power to require a property owner to dedicate an easement that is not has no nexus or connection to what is being asked,” while also noting condition number 1 calls for a cross-access easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2 and that the owner is willing to sign an agreement if the southern property owners also sign.

Staff clarified that the cross-access easement required by condition 1 applies to the two resulting lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) and does not, by itself, compel an easement to the adjacent southern parcels; staff told the board the landlocked parcel was recorded with the county in the past without an administrative city review. Several neighbors asked that any agreement preserving irrigation access be recorded in writing so it would bind future owners.

The board member who made the motion described the item as consistent with the neighborhood character and noted that many access and irrigation concerns are private-property matters between owners; the motion passed unanimously 4-0.

The board’s approval was a recommendation; the item’s conditions require cross-access between the new lots and other standard conditions outlined in staff’s report. The applicant and neighbors were instructed to continue private negotiations about the irrigation access; the owner said he had offered to relocate the valve closer to the driveway and widen the curb cut and driveway approach as part of the project, but said he could not force a private neighboring property owner to sign an agreement.