Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears Carmelo subdivision proposal: 65 single‑family lots, 22% open space and single‑story edge condition
Summary
Planning staff presented the Carmelo (Carmelo Z2301003) rezoning and annexation request to RS‑15 with a PAD overlay, describing 65 single‑family lots, an emphasis on open space and single‑story homes at specific edges; Planning and Zoning recommended approval 6–1.
Planning staff introduced a request called Carmelo (case Z2301003) at the study session, asking for annexation and rezoning from agriculture to RS‑15 (single‑residence) with a Planned Area Development overlay to allow a 65‑lot single‑family subdivision on about 28 acres in the Desert Uplands character area.
Mary (planning staff) and Evan (planning staff) told council the parcel is on the south side of McDowell Road east of Hawes in District 5 and was reviewed under the Mesa 2040 general plan. Evan said the PAD is intended to secure an increased level of design quality through reserved open space — the plan proposes roughly 22% open space on the site — and through architectural standards. The developer (Blandford) provided about 47 different possible floorplans/elevations to increase variety; pavers for driveways and increased architectural detailing were described as part of the quality standard.
Why it matters: the site is in the Desert Uplands area, where staff said lower‑density character is a priority; the applicant reduced earlier proposals after neighborhood feedback from 84 units to 65 units (about 2.27 dwelling units per acre). The planning and zoning board recommended approval of conditions by a 6–1 vote, including a condition requiring single‑story development on Waterbury (east boundary) and Culver (south boundary).
Substantive details and council questions
Evan reviewed how the developer reconfigured lot sizes to place larger perimeter lots along adjacent development and smaller lots internally; the smallest lots on the plan are about 10,400 square feet. Evan said that when compared with other nearby city subdivisions, the proposed density is within the local range for developments on city infrastructure. He noted an earlier iteration of the plan placed the primary access on Hawes, which neighbors opposed; the applicant moved the primary access to McDowell and added a secondary emergency access to Hawes.
Councilmember Spilsbury and others asked about street widths, visitor parking and the size of driveways. Staff replied the private streets will be consistent with city cross‑section standards (approximately 35 feet curb‑to‑curb was noted) and that driveways will accommodate two cars. Council members flagged traffic counts on McDowell and staff noted that adding 65 homes equates to an estimated 650 daily trips using the standard of roughly 10 trips per single‑family home; staff characterized that increase as negligible relative to existing counts on McDowell.
Neighborhood engagement and conditions
Staff described two neighborhood meetings and changes made in response to public input, including lowering unit count and shifting access. The planning and zoning board added a condition at their hearing that corner lots along Waterbury and Culver be single‑story to increase compatibility with adjacent properties; staff incorporated that recommendation into their recommended conditions.
Next steps
Staff recommended approval with conditions; the item will return to council for action at the noticed public hearing. If council approves, subsequent platting and site plan review steps will follow to produce final lot maps and home elevations.
Ending
No final council vote was taken at the study session; the case remains scheduled for public hearings where council will consider the rezoning, annexation and PAD conditions.
