Mesa council to vote on rezoning for new single-residence property

By Connor Van Ligten
Mail

The Mesa City Council is set to vote on a rezoning for a new single-residence property development during its upcoming meeting.

The area in question is about 1,100 feet south of the southeast corner of East McKellips Road and North Val Vista Drive. The meeting starts at 5:45 p.m. April 21 at 20 E. Main St.

The application was made by Sean Lake and Sarah Prince of Pew & Lake PLC on behalf of site owners Eric and Jentry Dixon.

The request is to rezone the area from single residence-35 to single residence-35 with a bonus intensity zone overlay to allow for development of a new single-residence property called Dixon Property. According to council documents, the project site consists of two lots, one with an already existing home that and the other being vacant space. The applicants are requesting the new single-residence property be built on the vacant lot.

According to board documents, property owners near the project site were notified. Some property owners expressed concerns about the property potentially disrupting irrigation control valves near the project site.

Melanie Alarcio, a Mesa-area doctor, spoke at a planning a board meeting Feb. 26 on her issues with the development as someone living nearby.

“Why did the city allow for this property to be split knowing that the backlot has no direct access to the main street and is now disrupting the neighborhood?” Alarcio said. “The city created this issue, why am I the one being adversely affected by this?” Alarcio said.

Lake also spoke at the meeting and responded to Alarcio’s concerns.

“Melanie is a very nice lady, I met with her and her husband and son. They live in the red house at the end of that private drive. I found it interesting that she uses the private drive to get to her lot in the back but she didn’t want the board to approve Mr. Dixon to allow him to use the private drive,” Lake said. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I would hope that Mr. Dixon would be afforded the same rights.”