Council introduces Carmelo (Blandford Homes) annexation and rezoning after lengthy neighborhood comments

The Mesa City Council voted to introduce two items related to the proposed Carmelo subdivision by Blandford Homes, setting the case for a hearing on Feb. 3 and prompting extensive public comment from nearby residents who said the project’s density and street access would change long‑standing neighborhood character.

Several residents who live adjacent to the 29‑acre project spoke against the proposal during the public comment period, saying the proposed lot sizes and two‑story homes would be inconsistent with surrounding one‑acre and larger lots. Lisa Carruth, who lives roughly 60–65 feet west of the site, said the developer’s comparison omitted immediate neighbors because they are in a county island: “By voting yes, you’re actually voting for 10,000 square foot lots, which are surrounded by larger half acre and 1 acre” parcels, she told council.

Other speakers cited traffic safety, schoolbus stops on unpaved shoulders and limited neighborhood access. Paul Kennedy said Thunder Mountain Estates has one entrance and exit and warned that locating the development’s access across from the subdivision would increase congestion and crash risk. A resident suggested moving the new subdivision entrance to Waterbury Street to reduce conflicts at McDowell Road.

Planning staff described how the city’s Desert Uplands guidance can be met in two ways: larger, individual lots with preserved disturbance envelopes (roughly one acre/35,000 square feet) or smaller lots with shared common open space (for example RS‑15 with 20%+ common open space). Evan Balmer said the applicant is pursuing the smaller‑lot approach and is proposing just over 20% site open space arranged to avoid lots backing directly onto one another. Balmer also confirmed that the Planning and Zoning Board added a condition limiting single‑story homes on the Waterbury and Culver perimeters to mitigate height impacts on adjacent neighbors.

Eric Hedarian, assistant transportation director, stated that McDowell Road is under county jurisdiction and that Mesa typically installs and maintains street lights where needed for arterial roadways; he said the latest county counts on McDowell (2019 data) showed about 4,000 vehicles per day and that the road’s capacity is considerably higher (staff cited roughly 12,000 vehicles per day). Hedarian also recommended aligning driveways across from one another to reduce conflict points and improve visibility.

Councilmember Goforth, whose district includes the site, said she reviewed the application and the city’s governing documents and concluded the project falls within the city’s zoning options and general plan. She noted the applicant reduced unit counts during review (council conversation referenced reductions from an earlier 81 units down to numbers described in the project package; speakers reported different figures during comment) and said the change brought the proposal closer to densities the council has allowed in nearby areas. She said the parcel is about 29 acres and the applicant’s current proposal is closer to two dwelling units per acre in the project area, though opponents urged lower density.

After staff and public comment, Councilmember Pillsbury moved — and Councilmember Summers seconded — a single motion to introduce items 9A and 9B together for formal hearing on Feb. 3. The council approved the motion to introduce the items; no final rezoning or annexation decision was made at this meeting.

Councilmembers and staff noted a number of outstanding technical matters that will be resolved in future hearings or staff reports, including exact traffic mitigation measures, driveway alignment in the street plan, lighting design consistent with the city’s Dark Sky requirements, and the final open‑space arrangement for wildlife corridors.