Mesa City Council to consider 41-lot development at Sept. 22 meeting

By Connor Van Ligten
Mail

The Mesa City Council voted 7-0 on Sept. 8 to hold a public hearing Sept. 22 on a rezoning for a proposed 41-lot development.

The proposed 6.5-acre, 41-lot development, known as Price Manor II, would be north of the northeast corner of East McKellips Road and North Center Street.

The request is to rezone the site area 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 would 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 would 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, would be shared with residents of Price Manor II. The lots would come with six types of elevations, including Spanish style and ranch style, and two types of floor plans.

After nearby property owners were notified, 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.”

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.”