The Mesa City Council voted 5-2 at their most recent meeting to approve rezoning property for a proposed 41-lot development.
Council members Alicia Goforth and Rich Adams were the lone no votes at the council’s Sept. 22 meeting.
The proposed 6.5-acre, 41-lot development, known as Price Manor II, will be north of the northeast corner of East McKellips Road and North Center Street.
The request is to rezone the site from single residence-9 with a planned area development overlay to small lot single residence 4.5 with a new PAD overlay for a 41-lot single residence development.
The request was made by Sean Lake of Pew & Lake PLC on behalf of site owner Thomas Ahdoot.
According to a council report, each of the 41 lots will range in size from 4,333 to 5,249 square feet. There is also a planned adjacent development called Price Manor I to the south of Price Manor II.
Price Manor II will have two amenity areas with seating, a dog waste receptacle, turf, ramadas, grills and picnic tables. Price Manor I’s amenities, including a pickleball court and play structure, will be shared with residents of Price Manor II. The lots will come with six types of elevations, including Spanish style and ranch style, and two types of floor plans.
After nearby property owners were notified earlier this year, a neighborhood meeting was held May 27 where residents shared concerns about increased traffic and density in the neighborhood as a result of the development.
At the council’s Sept. 8 meeting, members of the public spoke to share their concerns about the development. Multiple members of the Lehi community in Mesa, which is northeast to the site of Price Manor II, spoke at the meeting.
“The citizen participation report should have been amended to include the discussed issues such as livestock concerns, rail fences that were discussed, speed and traffic disclosures ... and concerns with the Lehi Center Street intersections, which is a major thoroughfare for equine traffic access to the river,” said Mesa resident Kimberly Van Riper.
Van Riper expressed concern that she felt the Lehi community’s voice wasn’t taken into consideration during the project, and many qualms or criticisms people had with the development were not included or mentioned in citizen participation reports.
“No mailed notices were sent to any Lehi board members and email of communications were not included in the report,” Van Riper said. “Because of this, the opportunity to see community concerns addressed was simply not possible. What should have been a constructive process left Lehi without a voice and left many serious concerns omitted from reports and records.”
At the Sept. 22 meeting, Adams, one of the two no votes, affirmed his support of the Lehi community and expressed that he felt their concerns were valid.
“This is a situation where we have some genuine people who have organized over many years to protect their community,” Adams said. “They’re here saying in all sincerity that they don’t feel the process was done correctly. I have no reason to suspect that what they’re saying is false.”
Goforth, the other no vote, also spoke at the Sept. 22 meeting and said she felt the process to gather community feedback was not conducted properly.
“With the citizen participation process, we have to get that right. Whether it was letters not received or summaries of concerns not included, I’m not getting satisfactory answers from that,” Goforth said. “And we have to have a process that’s consistent and transparent that our residents can count on every time so they trust our decisions. I would like see that process done in a consistent and transparent manner, so I won’t be supporting this.”
Members of the public also spoke at an Aug. 13 planning and zoning board meeting to share concerns about traffic impact.
Kim Warden, who lives in the Lehi community, spoke at the meeting, expressing concern that the development is infringing on the Lehi community with increased traffic and also a danger to possible animals that residents may own, including horses.
“We shouldn’t be mistreated over it, because we are a unique neighborhood and we want to keep it that way,” Warden said at the meeting. “We keep fighting for it, but every time we turn around, somebody in the city or another developer comes in and keeps taking a little bit out of it each time.”
Lake, speaking at the meeting, said the developers have to take caution with how to control traffic flow as a result of the development, due to conflicting concerns from multiple communities, including Pasadena and Lehi, that would be affected.
“There was discussion at the neighborhood meeting about the exit or not exit on Pasadena, and you have neighbors who live directly to the east who didn’t want to have any access to the east because they’re directly adjacent and didn’t want to have any traffic,” Lake said. “But if you close that access, then the Lehi people are concerned that closing that off would force people to go along Lehi Road.”
Lake said one of the proposed solutions would be to have an exit only on the east side of Pasadena, so that traffic wouldn’t come into the area.
Planning Board member Jeff Pitcher asked Lake about possible animal/agriculture uses adjacent to the development.
“Mr. Lake, you said that you’re happy to provide the disclosure of adjacent agriculture and animal uses. In what format is the applicant planning or committing to provide that disclosure?,” Pitcher asked.
Lake responded clarifying that there weren’t any adjacent animal uses that were nearby.
“There are not horse properties adjacent to this property unless you include ADOT retention basin, and I don’t think ADOT’s putting horses on that anytime soon,” Lake said. “We are in a horse area and we can disclose that in our public report.”
By 
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here