Council introduces two residential rezoning proposals amid neighborhood concerns about density and outreach
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The council voted unanimously to introduce two zoning items — a rezoning for a multi‑lot for‑sale development on East Main (7B) and a rezoning and preliminary plat for Price Manor 2 (7C). Residents urged larger lots, raised traffic and equine‑trail concerns, and one speaker asked for corrections to the applicant's citizen participation report.
Mesa councilmembers moved Sept. 8 to introduce two residential zoning items for future hearing after mixed public comment about density, community outreach and traffic.
Item 7B (4062 East Main) was introduced after staff clarified the applicant has submitted a preliminary plat and that the proposal is for attached, for‑sale townhouse product rather than rental apartments. Several residents said they oppose three‑story units and expressed concern about increasing rental density in East Mesa. Mary Medina told the council she was "becoming really alarmed at all the 3 story apartments I see being built all over East Mesa" and urged caution; staff responded that the proposed project is for sale product and the current request would reduce density compared with the property's current RM‑4 entitlement.
Item 7C (Price Manor 2), a rezoning and plat application north of McKellips on North Center Street to allow a 41‑lot single‑family development, also drew several speakers. Kimberly Van Riper and other neighbors asked for a corrected citizen participation report and said outreach had not accurately recorded concerns including livestock proximity, traffic and fencing. Van Riper asked the applicant to "reengage public participation appropriately" and to amend the report to reflect community questions about horses, noise and at‑issue intersections.
Applicant Sean Lake told the council the developer has met neighborhood groups, offered to consider fencing and trail accommodations, and remains open to further discussion: "We have listened. We continue to listen," he said, and offered to meet with neighbors in the coming weeks.
Councilmembers said they wanted more detail about the citizen participation process but moved both items forward for formal introduction so public hearings could occur on the scheduled date. The motion to introduce both zoning items passed unanimously, and staff noted both items will return for subsequent public hearings where neighbors can present additional comments.
What happens next: both items are scheduled for future public hearings (introduction only on Sept. 8); staff will bring additional details about citizen participation and project plats back to council at the hearing date.