On April 9, 2025, the City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board approved a rezoning and site plan review to allow a 45-unit, two-story townhome-style multiple-residence development at the southwest corner of Sossaman Road and Main Street.

Staff told the board the request (ZON24-01020) would reclassify the property from LC (Limited Commercial) to RM-2 (Multiple Residence 2) with a planned area development overlay and that the project’s proposed density of 12.8 dwelling units per acre is below the RM-2 maximum of 15 units per acre. Staff recommended approval, finding the proposal complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan and applicable provisions of the City of Mesa zoning ordinance.

The board’s action follows a staff presentation, an applicant presentation and public comment from residents of the adjacent Mesa East age-restricted community. Opponents said the development would change the character of the 55-plus neighborhood, increase traffic and create noise and parking pressures. The applicant and staff cited design and lease controls meant to address those concerns, and the board’s approval included a condition that the project comply with the submitted Good Neighbor policy.

Details of the project and board discussion

Staff described the proposal as a 3.5-acre infill project with 45 three-bedroom, two-story units, primary access centered on Main Street, and a secondary access on Sossaman Road limited to emergency and solid-waste vehicles. The site plan shows 105 parking spaces in total (45 single-car garages plus 60 surface spaces), a proposed on-site amenity area near the entry, internal landscaping and perimeter trees, and private yards for units adjacent to the Mesa East community.

The applicant’s attorney, John Gillespie of Rose Law Group, said the site has been zoned commercial since 1985 and that the applicant believes a residential use is more feasible than commercial given the lot’s size and configuration. Gillespie noted the project provides a larger-than-required setback from the single-family/manufactured-home neighborhood to the south and emphasized interior parking and architectural features intended to limit impacts on neighbors.

Measures offered by the applicant to respond to neighborhood concerns included an 8-foot wall along the project’s south property line (the developer is also proposing to improve and maintain the public alley), an increased landscape buffer (47 trees proposed versus 31 required, with roughly 20 being 36-inch-box specimens), private rear yards of roughly 600 square feet for units facing the Mesa East community, and a Good Neighbor policy that will be part of the project approval and enforcement through lease terms.

Applicant materials and staff response

The applicant requested alternative compliance on exterior material requirements, arguing the elevations will include five distinct materials (stucco, brick, hardy board, concrete roof tile and glazing) and that material distribution across elevations provides the required variety. Staff included that request and the applicant’s justifications in the staff report.

Gillespie also said the developer’s civil engineers will retain on-site stormwater so historical drainage to the south will be managed on-site, which he said would reduce runoff into the existing neighborhood drainage path. The developer provided a traffic memo asserting a residential development would generate substantially less traffic than many possible commercial uses of the parcel.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

Residents of the adjacent Mesa East age-restricted community — represented in the hearing by Dean Seney, president of the Mesa East Property Owners Association — opposed the project in public comment. Seney said the community is a “well established 55-plus retirement community” and raised concerns about traffic cut-throughs, property values, increased demands on infrastructure, and water runoff into yards. The neighborhood submitted a petition of roughly 453 signatures and reported about 330 attendees at the applicant’s neighborhood meeting, according to the staff packet.

Other residents who spoke directly echoed traffic and safety concerns for older pedestrians, questioned whether lease enforcement would be effective, and objected to the change from commercial or age-restricted uses to market-rate rentals.

Developer commitments and management

The developer said units are expected to rent at market rates of about $2,400 per month, intends to retain long-term ownership, and will provide a management contact for neighbors to report problems. The Good Neighbor policy and lease terms described by the applicant include a disclosure that residents are prohibited from using Mesa East HOA facilities, a restriction reflecting the south-side community’s age restriction, and lease clauses intended to enforce occupancy limits. Staff noted the city ordinance that limits unrelated occupants to no more than four per dwelling applies where relevant.

Board action

After discussion, a board member moved to approve ZON24-01020 with staff-recommended conditions and an additional condition requiring compliance with the submitted Good Neighbor policy; another board member seconded the motion. The board voted to approve the application; the meeting record did not include a roll-call tally in the audio excerpt provided. The motion’s approval was announced by the chair.

What happens next

The board’s action as recorded in this hearing moved the case forward per the board’s role; the transcript does not record any subsequent administrative steps or final appeals. The record includes a number of staff and applicant commitments (drainage retention, alley maintenance, and the Good Neighbor policy) that will be part of the project file and any conditions of approval. Further municipal steps, such as formal municipal council review or building permit review, were not specified in the transcript excerpts provided.

Ending

The board closed the public hearing after the vote and adjourned the meeting. Several residents stayed to discuss follow-up steps with staff and the developer, who stated a willingness to continue coordinating with the Mesa East HOA and neighbors.