good afternoon and welcome to the july 27 2022 public hearing of the mesa city of mesa planning and zoning board uh we will begin by taking a roll call of our board members i am chairman crockett vice chair ayers here board member alan here board member sarkissian is absent board member peterson here and board member pitcher here wonderful looks like we have a quorum uh so as our part of our meeting today we have a consent agenda the items on the consent agenda will be moved together and approved or not approved i guess by the board in one motion the items that are off of the consent agenda are um items 3e and 4a so if you're here for those items those will be those will be taken up in turn as the meeting goes along we've received a number of speaker slips and have comments from people on both of these items are there any other are there any other blue cards that we've received in the last few minutes any other blue cards we need to look at pamela have we received any additional blue cards so mr chairman you have all the comments and if if there's anything on the consent agenda that you're here to speak on you you need to quickly let us know and get a blue card up here so that we can take it off consent otherwise as i said items 3e and 4a are going to be taken up in a few minutes after we get done with the consent agenda okay it looks like we're good board member alan has volunteered to read our consent agenda today so a board member alan take it away okay thank you uh the first item is 2a pz22133 revised minutes from the june 8th 2022 planning and zoning study session and regular meeting item 2b pz pz22134 minutes from the uh july 13th 2022 planning and zoning study session and regular meeting item 3a zon 2101 district 4 within the 1800 block of south mesa drive and within the 1800 block of south mesa drive access drive located north of baseline road on the east side of mesa drive site plan review this will allow for the commercial development including a coffee shop with a drive through staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 3b zon22-00045 district 4 within the 100 block of west 2nd avenue and within the 200 block of south robeson located north of broadway road on the west side of center site plan review this request allows for the multiple residents development staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 3c zon2200456 district 6 within the 5000 block of south 71st street and within the 7100 block of east ray road located east of power road on the north side of railroad site plan review this request will allow for the in for an industrial building and the staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 3d zon 22-00490 district 6 within the 2600 to 2800 blocks of south power road and within the sixty eight hundred and seven thousand blocks of east monterey avenue located north of guadalupe road on the east side of power road a site plan review this request will allow for an expansion of monterey park including the development of an express library and this the staff recommendations is approval with conditions item 3e is removed from the consent agenda uh 3f is z-o-n uh district 4 within the 100 block of north robeson within the 200 block of west 2nd street and within the 200 block of west first street located north of main street and east of country club drive a site plan review this request allows for the police evidence storage facility and staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 4a has been removed from the consent agenda uh item 4b is 0n22-00263 district 2 within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of east denver nest avenue and within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of south sun view located east of higley road and north of baseline road rezoned from planned employment park with a planned area development overlay and council use permit pep pad cup to plan employment park in a planned area development overlay pep pad light industrial and a planned area development overlay lipad and site plan review this request will allow for industrial development and staff recommendation is to continue this item to the august 24th 2022 planning and zoning board meeting item number 4c do you want to go first or do you want me to go first why don't you go ahead and read it and then we'll have a couple of comments zon22-00340 district 2 within the 7000 block of east main street within the 100 block of south 70th street located east of power road on the south side of main street rezoned from limited commercial lc and single residents 6 rs6 to multi-multiple residents 2 with a planned area development overlay rm2 pad and site plan review this request will allow for a multiple residence development staff recommendation is approval with conditions okay we do have two comments on this item uh first is mary ellen wood of 18019 east la pasada court zip code 85118 in mesa she is in favor of this item and did not wish to speak and then a comment from john scott williams address 6945 east main street zip 852 he is also in favor of this item and did not wish to speak okay the next item we have is 4d zon220350 district 5 within the 107 107 0-0 block of east hampton avenue and within the 1400 to 1600 block of south signal butte road located north of the u.s 60 superstition freeway on the west side of signal butte road the site plan modification this request will allow for the mixed-use development the staff recommendation is approval with conditions the next item for e is zon22 dash 00436 district 5 within the 10 10 500 block of east hampton avenue and within the 1300 block of south 105th place located west of signal but road on the north side of hampton road or hampton avenue excuse me rezoned from limited commercial with a planned area development overlay overlay lcpad to multiple residents three with a planned area development overlay pad and site plan review this request will allow for multiple residents development the staff recommendation is to continue this item to the august 24th 2022 planning and zoning meeting 4f is zon 22-00481 district 6 within the 8 400 to 8 500 blocks of east pecos road and the 7 200 blocks of south hawse road located south of pecos road on on the east side of haas road rezoned from agricultural ag to light industrial li site plan review and special use permit this request will allow for the industrial development and the staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 5a is zon 21-01156 estates at pioneer crossing uh district 1 within the 3 500 to 3 600 blocks of north belle vista drive and within the 3600 to 3700 blocks of east thomas road located south of thomas on the east side of el vista drive this is a preliminary plat and staff recommendation is to continue it to the 24th made this one's approval with conditions okay i got them mixed up sorry uh staff recommendation is approval with conditions so which one is the continuance oh got it okay got it uh the next item is 5b zon 22-00533 avalon crossing f2 district 6 within the 10 10 100 to 10 600 blocks of east william bill williams field road and within the 6 000 to 6400 blocks of south 222nd street located east east of chrisman road on the south side of williamspill road and the north side of the east 24 gateway freeway alignment this is a preliminary plan and staff recommendation is approval with conditions item 5c is baseline logistics parks part sorry one more time baseline logistics park district 2 within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of east inverness avenue and within the 5600 to 5800 blocks of east south sun view located east of higley road and north of baseline road this is a preliminary plat and the staff recommendation is to continue this to the august 24th 2022 planning and zoning meeting those are the following items on the consent agenda thank you board member alan for reading a very long consent agenda today do i have a motion to approve the consent agenda i'll move to approve the consent agenda as read today do i have a second i'll second that okay let's go ahead and vote okay by your vote of uh five eyes one absent you have passed the consent agenda all right michelle i'll turn the time over to you for board presentations now thank mr chairman and members of the board actually cash cassidy wilsh is the staff planner on this next item zon22-00658 very thank you good afternoon chair members of the board um the case before you today is zoen22-00658 this is a request for site plan review to allow for the development of a hospital the site is located north of elliott road on the west side of ellsworth road here you can see an existing photo of the site it is currently vacant the general plan the general plan designation for this property is um employment and mixed use activity the intent behind the employment and mixed use activity district is to provide for a wide range of employment type land uses in high quality settings the zoning on the site is light industrial per the mesa zoning ordinance hospitals are permitted use in the light industrial zoning district the site plan is for one hospital building at one storey totaling approximately seven to three thousand square feet the site will be accessed from peterson avenue to the south and from the future prairie avenue to the north per the mesa zoning ordinance 228 spaces are required the applicant is providing providing 229. the elevations were reviewed by the design review board on june 14th the design review board was mostly in support of the proposed design at that design review board work session there were three neighbors in attendance who had some comments and questions about the proposed development and use the applicant did conduct a citizen participation process which included letters to property owners within a thousand feet as well as hoas and registered neighborhoods and held a neighborhood meeting in july staff has received four responses from neighbors who some were in opposition of the proposed development some just had some additional questions and clarifications on the proposed use in summary we find that the proposed development complies with the 2040 mesa general plan as well as meets the criteria for site plan review and staff is recommending approval with conditions thank you any questions for cassidy okay oh and uh board member pete uh pitcher yeah i i uh my my uh i've got a family member that works for this company so i need to recuse myself okay so board member pitcher will not be voting on this item so it doesn't look like there's any other questions for cassidy can we have the applicant step forward and and speak to this item good afternoon it's still afternoon yes 4 25 so afternoon uh cassandra airs barry riddell 6750 east camelback road it's our pleasure to be here with you this afternoon uh on behalf of the applicant i'm gonna take just a second and bring up our invitation nope that's not it cassidy can you help me is this the right one yes thank you sorry about that uh we have quite a few uh members of our team also here with us this afternoon i will introduce them for your benefit and in case you have any further questions that i'm unable to answer we have as you met jennifer nunez downstairs during the study session she is our rcao we also have rob laney who is our cfo brittany murphy who is our chief clinical officer brian hatfield uh is our cfo in training uh and also a mesa resident uh we also have mark mitchell and scott sawyer who are here from our construction team and also answer any questions that you may have i'll try not to belabor staffs a very capable presentation but i do want to go through some of the details of the site as we talked about earlier we are located at the southwest corner of prairie and ellsworth road the site is approximately 12 acres uh and it is zoned li uh importantly tonight no rezoning is needed for this site the use is permitted by wright in the light industrial district so we are here in front of you for a site plan review and as you heard earlier today we did have design review approval so you can see in front of you some of the site plan information right now we are proposing a hundred beds uh with a future 20 bed expansion we are proposing 43 lot coverage and this is 228 parking spaces but i think we said we were providing 229 but since 228 is required we've met that requirement uh and it is also as you can see oriented uh diagonally on the site to allow for a substantial landscaping barrier along elliot excuse me ellsworth road and then the parking fields are distributed through throughout the site to break that up uh here you can see the site in a larger context approximately a thousand feet from the residential to the north sixteen hundred feet uh from the loop 202 and uh again to the south you have um the other hospital um so here's a rendering uh that shows that substantial landscape barrier and again that diagonal orientation of the site uh a view a rendering of the site that's dropped into the larger context looking to the north looking to the east looking to the south and then looking to the west you can see the vacant land around here but i think we all have an expectation it won't be vacant for long so we talked earlier this afternoon about some of the security features on the site we have listened to the concerns of the neighborhood so i want to discuss those a little bit more we have it is a controlled facility for access both into the building itself and within the various units we have 24-hour video surveillance for the lobby the outdoor and the common areas there are 15 minute patient checks at a minimum we talked about earlier today that based on the needs of the patient the the checks could be five minutes and it could also be assigned one-on-one to a staff member we have 14 foot tall activity yard walls and a fully secured and locked facility so can a patient just walk out the front door the answer is no if a patient who wants to leave against medical advice they can't do that just walk out the door there is a 24-hour hold determination that is made by the staff and then if the staff determines within that time that the patient should not leave they can be transferred to an involuntary facility as i think many of you know arizona has a shortage of behavioral health beds and resources and this facility meets that need we hope to use this facility to expand the access to quality behavioral health care providing the need for mesa as well as the larger community this shows some of the numbers some of the data statistics maricopa county should have 2 300 plus beds to meet its behavioral health care needs and right now it only has 1 492. that's an 893 bed deficit these 100 beds and hopefully 20 more after that will be able to help meet that need acadia healthcare has facilities two facilities in tucson one in chandler hopefully soon one here we did have citizen participation we were originally going to opt in to the elliott road technology corridor which does not even require the pnc uh approval or a citizen participation process uh but once we heard that there was um interest in the site and in the facility we decided to hold a neighborhood meeting and then file for the site plan review and go through this public hearing process so we received several emails prior to the drb hearing concerning the use and then after that drp hearing we spoke to several residents and told them that we would be holding the neighborhood meeting which we did hold on july 6 2002 as cassidy told you about there were six residents who attended it was held virtually and the concerns regarding the use and the operation and the security of the site were discussed since then we have not had any communication any further communication from the neighbors so that concludes my presentation i'm here to answer any questions again we have a cohort of folks who can also answer any questions that you have specific to the site thank you board members any questions on this item okay thank you thank you uh we do have two people that have indicated a desire to speak today first is crystal chavez crystal are you here while you're walking up once you get to the podium i'll have you state your name and address for the record and then you'll have three minutes to tell us what you'd like us to know thank you my name is crystal chavez i live at 8910 east or portobello avenue i am chose to speak today to let you know that i do not approve of this hospital i do understand the need for a behavioral health facility but due to the location and proximity to the hoa community that is just north of it and there is no we went to the meeting we talked about whether people could leave ama but basic line is the hospital has no right to keep a patient there if they're deemed they can't be transferred at some level a patient will be able to leave ama and they cannot get that they cannot make that patient get into a cab to take them to another facility they will go straight into our neighborhood it's just the fact of it is we have people in our community who realize that this is gonna be an issue it was gonna it is gonna decrease our property values and some have already put their houses up for rent because they do not want to live here anymore i understand that all of the reasons why this looks good on paper but please consider the amount of families dozens of them families and children that will be displaced because they can no longer walk around in their neighborhood comfortably and i thank you for your time and your consideration of my words thank you appreciate it okay next i have justin sullivan who wishes to speak how's it going justin sullivan 9043 east plana avenue um i also oppose the facility i do understand the need for mental health facilities and i do see the deficit of 900 beds my thing is can we put it somewhere else can we put it deeper into the commercial district so it's not right in our backyard there's there's several reasons for that i do know that the land owner sun belt they do have property deeper into the industrial park where the facility could be potentially moved to several reasons i would like the facility moves is the 14 foot wall with constant lighting is very obtrusive to our neighborhood it's almost like looking at a prison you know we have big walls it's lighted it's a locked facility it's just it's a very negative vibe that we're gonna feel in our homes and our neighborhoods there has also been mixed explanations as to what the facility is going to be as far as the potential outpatient facility that is proposed to be a future add-on there is an iop facility where people will come and go and those individuals that are coming and going are coming and going right past our neighborhood so if anyone has a crime mindset the first place they're going to go is to our neighborhood we have 167 signatures opposing this facility our property values will drastically go down as crystal said one of our neighbors has already put her property up for rent because she doesn't want to wait she just wants to get out the safety of our children is the first priority our children are future leaders of america and we have to protect them and i don't want to say what are the chances of somebody getting out i want to avoid all issues or possibilities at all i have my daughter here with me i have three other children at home they are my top priority the safety of them is my top priority so i would request the facility be moved so our children can safely play in our neighborhood and we don't have to worry what if somebody got out because i know everyone has seen that there has been escapes from prisons there has been escapes from locked facilities throughout all of our lifetimes and lastly i'll close with this upon looking into the reviews on this this company they have some pretty negative reviews they have i think roughly three stars and they have some some comments on abusive abusive staffers towards the patients that is all thank you justin thank you let me invite the applicant back up and give you an opportunity to respond to the public comment and i specifically on the lighting issue maybe you could speak to that as well hello uh with regard to the lighting i'll let jennifer and or any of our construction folks speak to the specifics obviously we'd have to comply with any uh mesa city ordinances with regard to lighting and we will uh with regard to the safety i'm gonna let jennifer speak but uh safety is their top priority as well not only for their patients but for the community so i'll let i'll let her speak to that hi i can speak first the lighting um the lighting typically and i don't we'd have to get into the detail with the with the architect designer but typically the lighting in the courtyards is facing into the courtyards not out into the neighborhood so i don't know how bright that would be if you were you know living in the neighborhood behind the facility i don't anticipate that be bright but certainly something we would be open to looking at if that was a bother to our neighbors we really do pride ourselves on being a good neighbor because we see ourselves as there to treat people in the neighborhood and to be a community partner in providing mental health services i want to speak a little bit about letting patients just walk out the door and not being able to force them into a cab and so um i think there's a little confusion there it's a voluntary hospital so any patient that comes to our facility is is seeking treatment and they're saying i voluntarily want to be here and i want to get help and so we see sometimes patients will come or people will come and they're voluntary and a few days in they might say you know i don't want to be here anymore and the doctor has has 24 hours per arizona statute to to do an assessment a psychiatrist would do an assessment of the patient and they would make a determination is this patient deemed a danger to self for others or is this patient is this person okay to go into back to home to their community and if a person is is is at all questionable a danger to themselves or others we will always err on the side of safety and will initiate the legal hold process when you initiate the legal hold process the patient gets transferred to an involuntary hold facility we are not going to be deemed an involuntary hold facility in those instances the patient has no choice but to be transferred current protocol and i don't know if that's changing but current protocol is the the police department come and take the patient and transport them to their next level of facility so it is a secure transport at that point it's it's not a cab the cab reference was to um at discharge we're committing that to the community that we will make sure patients have a right home so if you don't live in east mesa you know it's a growing it's a growing area not a lot of people may we're going to commit that we're going to help get that patient back home to what where their home is to to avoid that that thought of patients you know people could be walking around the community um to address the outpatient we do have plans to provide outpatient services i think that we need it i think that when you're providing an inpatient level of care i think you have to have a full continuum i think you need an opportunity for people to step down or prevent a hospitalization to get the care and treatment that they need and i think people with mental health issues from my career and as a social worker they're not going to be here to advocate for this facility and so i see that really is is my job here thank you board members any questions from the applicant all right thank you thank you verify something you know well we've already why don't you why don't you step to the podium if you do and we'll give you one more minute to quickly clarify i just i just wanted to clarify that in my in my speech here i wasn't speaking specifically to mental health mental health is usually co-occurring with drugs so my worries are for the co-occurring mental health and drug addicted patients because drugs have a way of making people do crazy things i just wanted to clarify that so everyone knew thank you thank you for that clarification appreciate it okay we'll close the public comment now board members discussion on this item board member alan um if i could it's what we're what we're here today is to do if i want to clarify we're here today for a site plan review it's not for the use of the of the facility or what type of a building it's going to be so all we can do is look at it on those terms and i appreciate the neighbors coming out and and i think that hopefully they addressed your concerns i think the 14-foot wall is the only thing i didn't hear anything about i think we talked about that but um that's the only that's the only comment that the neighborhood made that you guys didn't address but um so unfortunately that's what we're here for we can't we can't determine whether the use can go there or not because it's allowed by right so all we can look at is the site plan and whether we're going to approve that or not so thank you board member alan uh i'll entertain a motion at this point if there is one move to approve case zon 22-0658 district 6 within the 3200 to 3 400 blocks of south ellsworth road and within the 9 000 to 9 200 blocks of east peterson avenue located north of valley road on the west side of ellsworth road site plan review staff recommendation as approval with conditions okay have a motion do i have a second a second i have a motion and a second let's go ahead and vote okay well with your vote of four eyes uh no nays with uh board member sarkissian absent and board member pitcher abstaining this item has passed thank you okay are we ready for the next staff presentation yes mr chairman and members of the board the next item is kzon2100129 and cassidy welsh is the planner good afternoon chair members of the board um the case before you this afternoon is zoen21-00129 this is a request to re-zone a property from rs-43 and rs-43 with a historic landmark overlay to rm 40 43 with our sorry rm4 pad site plan review and special use permit this request will allow for a multiple residence development with an accessory commercial the site is located south of mcdowell road and east of gilbert road it is on the prisman farm homestead site here you can see an existing photo of the site it is currently vacant the general plan designation for the property is neighborhood suburban the intent behind the neighborhood suburban character area is for predominantly single residents subdivisions however multiple residents may be approved at major arterials and intersections the current zoning on the site is single residence 43 there is a historic landmark overlay for the chrisman farm homestead a little bit more about that crisman farm homestead that was established by charles crisman senior from the second mesa pioneer company and it was used as the crisman family homestead in 2001 that site received a historic landmark overlay however in 2007 the structures were removed after a fire and in june of 2021 the historic preservation board voted to recommend removal of that historic landmark over may due to the demolition of those historic structures the zoning on the site is now proposed for multiple residents for the intent behind the rm4 zoning is to allow for a variety of housing and multiple residents is a permitted use and limited service restaurants require approval of a special use permit so per section 1152 for limited service restaurants they are permitted in the rm4 zoning district with approval of a special use permit there are some criteria that have to be met in order to receive approval of that sup those include the site being located at an intersection of an arterial and collector a maximum gross floor area of approximately 1 500 square feet and there can be no drive through windows or drive-through lanes the proposed development complies with all of those criteria as a part of the rezone request the applicant is requesting a planned area development overlay for deviations to development standards those deviations include modifications to the required fence height in the front yard modifications to the parking ratio and covered parking requirements reduced landscape setbacks and foundation-based requirements as well as a modification to landscape islands in exchange for the proposed deviations the applicant has provided pedestrian connections to the existing canal trail to the south and southeast a retail component high quality amenities and superior elevations the site plan is for one multiple residence building with 222 units and a 1499 square foot commercial suite the site will be accessed off of an entry off of mcdowell road so a little bit about what's changed since october 27th they modified so in october 27th that request for an rm5 pad was heard by the planning and zoning board that your the board recommended denial and a vote of two to five there were 30 comments received in opposition and several in support the concerns that were outlined were due to the traffic and roundabout compatibility density and height subsequently the applicant made some changes to the proposed request they're now requesting a rezone to rm-4 pad they've also eliminated all of the three-bedroom units in exchange for two-bedroom units which will subsequently reduce the density and number of residents in the proposed development they've also worked extensively with adot and transportation to find alternative solutions to that roundabout it was determined by both ada and transportation the transportation department that the roundabout is the safest solution and they have proposed a modification to that roundabout curb to allow for horse trailers to override the curb or or jump on the curb so that they do not tip the application was heard by the design review board in october of 2021 there were four neighbors in attendance who had concerns over the height the design and landscaping so the citizen participation that was conducted prior to the october 27th hearing included notification to property owners within a thousand feet as well as hoas and registered neighborhoods they held three neighborhood meetings and some additional secondary meetings and calls with uh specific adjacent property owners staff received at that time uh a number of emails and calls as well as a survey ins and petition both in support and opposition and the concerns that were brought up were due to the height of the proposed development density traffic and compatibility we received several letters of support from adjacent property owners specifically the owners to the south who worked with the applicant to develop a good neighbor policy which is included as a part of the conditions of approval for this proposed development those standards included a requirement for opaque balconies limitations on the number of units and height guarantee that the proposed elevations will be of a high quality and then as well as some guarantees for landscaping and lighting after the 2021 review of the case the applicant reached out to several key neighbors who oppose the project to have further discussions the city also hired a facilitator to reach out to the developer and several of those surrounding neighbors and discuss those concerns the applicants also met with members of the lehigh community board they conducted the required citizen participation notification uh two property owners within a thousand feet as well as hoas and registered neighborhoods um at the time that this report was written staff received three responses and support and one is opposition in opposition we have subsequently received two additional emails in support and one in opposition for the proposed development in summary we find that the proposed development complies with the 2040 mesa general plan meets the criteria for a special use permit as well as the criteria for a planned area development overlay and site plan review and staff is recommending approval with conditions and i'd be happy to answer any questions thank you are there questions for cassidy on this item board member allen i do cassidy for just for clarification purposes from the last time we saw this until today um it was been reduced one story correct from three story to two-story or four story to three story chair board member alan no that was a reduction that was conducted as a part of the first review in 2021 so it's three stories that is the max that's correct um and then we've done some modifications to the roundabouts where it's like rolled curb now so that a car can go up on the curb if need be so that was another modification what was the other one there was a reduction uh because it was rm5 and then then to change to rm4 so what in the number of units what's the reduction in the number of units chair board member alan there is no reduction in the number of units but upon a further evaluation the proposed density meets more of the requirements of an rm4 zoning versus an rm5 um and then they also eliminated the three-bedroom units in exchange for two-bedroom units okay so how many units total 222. okay okay thank you any other questions for cassidy on this one okay thank you let's have the applicant come up and uh make a presentation members of the commission my name is adam baugh 2525 east arizona biltmore circle you've seen this before but i think for the benefit of jeff pitcher commissioner pitcher who hasn't seen it before i'd love to give you an abbreviated version but still enough to give you some context for why we're doing what we're doing a couple things i'm going to point out i'm going to discuss a little bit about the unique nature of this property and secondly the why behind some of the changes we made and maybe the history that got us to that point when i look at this property right here there's something that stands out to me really do you see a property of this shape and configuration but if that was the only problem i had you probably would have had develop occur here much sooner looking at a property on an aerial view is totally different than walking the property with your feet once you start to walk the property you see how drastic the topography changes from the mesa bluff to the south it's 50 feet taller from mcdowell road about 20 to 30 feet gilbert road about 20 30 feet and from the adot freeway about 30 feet so we're like a bowl a basin those kind of conditions make it really hard to develop then you have two canals that transect the property and an old row that was relocated when you consider the totality of those situations you have to get creative to develop property and over years there's been different assemblages to make this work but finally we're bringing forth a proposal that's willing to tackle those tough challenges and as a result sometimes you need a little bit of ingenuity and flexibility to pull these herculean efforts off here's some views just to give you an idea of what the depth perception is of this property from mcdowell road for example and you can kind of see the hill um at the bluff at the top uh left corner of that site i'll pass through a couple of these things quickly but it's worth noting that it is consistent general plan it is not in the lehigh sub area plan and we're proposing 39 foot tall building 222 units but that is not where we started when we began this proposal previously we started 320 units and then through the course of the neighborhood outreach process came down to 300 and then down to 260 and just before planning commission last fall trimmed it down to 222 and that change significantly was the result of a significant reduction in building height from four stories down three stories from 50 feet down to 39 feet but that in itself wasn't the only change you see we had to i think understand the concerns from the folks of the south who are immediately adjacent to this project and through that many meetings in evening living rooms and follow-up discussions how about four or five different meetings with them coming up with a list of stipulations that staff has then incorporated into this case and that was reflected in a neighborhood agreement that was presented i think it might be in the packet still and the neighborhood agreement was signed by those folks who lived on that perimeter edge we committed to them to make these changes and they committed to withdraw their opposition but what that did is it significantly reduced the heights the density uh made sure that our uh operations were in a certain manner and we did something i haven't seen done before and i don't know if it's been done since but creating a good neighbor policy which then became a mechanism for the city to enforce things like what kind of how are the back patios used they want to make sure that laundry wasn't strung over the rear the balconies making sure that they're opaque to prevent view into the clutter that might be seen on the back of those porches so those things were a lot of the significant effort that was created for us to get to this point today you can see some of the views renderings that we're hoping to create from this canal escape this is the south side of us that buffers the neighbors to the south to our development by lowering that height we kind of become now tucked in you can see this is the view today from the canal and this is the view hopefully if this were to be approved going forward the difference is subtle we certainly recognize though that this has created a lot of consternation we've been very diligent about addressing those some of those concerns things related to traffic density privacy even some questions regarding crime and transient population the thing that stood out most to us last time particularly was the roundabout and so what we've done is been intentional about how we've addressed some of these things first of all building heights been reduced so the main concern was height before and i don't think i've been able to solve that but i can tell you we've made tremendous improvements to reduce that height so whereas we're at four stories down to three density in that cut going from 320 today down to 222 has been tremendous but the other key consideration here is density doesn't mean anything unless it has an associated impact with it but given that we don't have access to gilbert road you can't say that our tr our project will create tremendous amount of traffic on gilbert road and because we're so close to the freeway we suspect that the majority of our guests will be traveling in and out of the freeway to downtown or tempe or scottsdale where likely the workforce is and so there isn't really that much of a penetration deeper into mesa on your peak times which is in the morning and your peak time in the afternoon it doesn't mean that people won't drive into mesa for the shopping for maybe their kids going to school or park those are occurring at regular hours not the peak time intensity hours where that traffic isn't isn't felt as an impact also worth noting these buildings are about 270 feet of separation so any question regarding privacy is addressed and clearly on the north side of us is a freeway so there's a significant distance between us and anybody to the north or the east or the west what's changed we've contr if we continue to do neighborhood outreach it doesn't mean we've been able to solve the problems but it does mean we've been able to understand concerns better and then figure out how we can address some of those concerns and so through that effort we've changed the zoning from arm five down arm four you may ask well why there was this this lingering concern that we kept hearing that what if somebody came back and changed the site plan and just bumped up their density back to what the rm5 could allow and so to immediately remove that concern we change it down to arm force so that way what we're showing you is what we can build i heard some concerns that somehow a three-bedroom unit could allow two families to live in it and that two families live in a three-bedroom unit wasn't um didn't fit the character of the folks that live in the area so we made sure that we removed three-bedroom units we only had nine but now we have no more three-bedroom units we update our traffic study to reflect the 222 units and there's some interesting information i'll share in the next slide about the traffic but redesigning the roundabout was something frankly i did not understand the first time and i think that was my mistake there's a lot of people who have equestrian lifestyles in this area to me a roundabout is something i just drive in my truck or my little honda civic but navigating a trailer or a semi is a totally different experience and and hearing how these vertical curves are hard to maneuver at different times and it's you don't realize that the drama it could create until you get to a destination we then went forth and met with the city mesa could we avoid a roundabout and just have a direct access and they said it wasn't possible so we went back to adot and city mesa again and revisited is there a different way to design the roundabout and that's when they point us to wickenburg as an example and so i'll be able to show some of those things the last thing that's changed is some significant coordination with srp this is an economic benefit opportunity but it also has to provide a benefit to the community and coordinating with srp on some of these trailhead improvements provides that benefit i will point out here on the traffic study this project along gilberto is only expected to create about 75 daily trips it's because we have no direct access to gilbert road and so you can't say that this is going to create a tremendous impact on gilbert road and the roadways that surround us are designed to carry 40 to 50 000 cars a day but presently and even when you add in the traffic created by ours it's still only operating at about 37 to 46 percent capacity so there's plenty of room in this development to be served by the adjacent streets when you look at the roundabouts these are the curbs i think caused some issues and we recognize that that's a that was a a big issue when we read the comments from last time and we heard the uh comments that were shared at the hearing we recognize that we can make a better option here so working with adot they talked about an apron first of all that apron is a little bit wider but it's used to accommodate larger trucks and horse trailers secondly in addition that apron is a mountable curb which kind of looks like this and this has worked well in rural areas wickenburg is an example if you've likely gone that direction you've experienced it yourself we think this goes a long way to addressing that immediate concern at the end we've also worked closely with adot you can see here the roundabout that's planned and old lehigh road which is over there i guess on the on the right side of that page but with the roundabout coming in and the trailhead connection and the improvements that we're looking to cooperate and work together with srp on we are making um we are deeding land to the city that then can be utilized by srp to make some of these improvements here's some conceptual renderings from an aerial view and that might be changed by their design committee but this is kind of the imagery that we're hoping to accomplish i don't unfortunately get to choose how they design it but at a minimum i can provide the opportunity for it to exist by donating this land to them so that way they can complete the drill out improvements and provide a greater community benefit which allows joggers runners cyclists and horse equestrian uses the other thing we've heard is to make sure that the planting types along the canal are horse friendly apparently again not as a horse person but as i understand it there's certain plants that are toxic to them and so working with our landscape architect and helping that influence the landscape design along that to make sure we remove some of those things so it still becomes equestrian friendly but um beautified at the same time at the end of the day there's tremendous benefits to this development as a bull property it will struggle to find new users the fact that you don't have an access point to guild road is another strict limitation on the site that's likely handcuffed over the years from creating any other type of meaningful development like a commercial or office use but if you could design a site that actually was lower than the height of this hill to the south if you could design a site that optimized the freeway proximity next to it if you could design a site that took into consideration the feedback you heard before then you can create a community that works it doesn't mean though that people just still aren't opposed to multi-family but i think many of those concerns they've heard about multi-family are are heard repeatedly but rarely are born to be truthful and at the end of the day when you're designing something like this and the rents that are required based on the high preeminence you're paying for land the quality of tenant here is hyper increased versus any other circumstance that you might associate with apartments at the end of the day we believe it's consistent the general plan we think that's why staff supports it we think we've gone a long way to try to make changes but i know that it i haven't been able to address every concern but i can say it at a minimum we've worked hard to be responsive to that and so for those reasons we hope that you'll be able to support the case and be happy to answer any questions that you might have thank you for the presentation any questions for mr baugh on this i'm not seeing anything right now maybe after uh some public comment we'll have you back up um okay so i've got a number of people that have expressed an interest to speak on this item and so i'm going to call your name from the the speaker slips that i have i also have comments that uh for folks that want to have those read into the record that they don't want to speak so we'll do that at the end let me start off with uh with those that i think are here to speak in person or on the phone first up is michelle mccroskey if you would step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record and then you'll have three minutes to express your your views on this item all right my name is michelle mccroskey i live at 30 21 north chestnut circle um that is a neighborhood northeast quadrant of gilbert rhoden mcdowell so we're a neighbor i bought our property in 1995 when it was just two lanes gilbert road in two lanes when a stop sign on mcdowell i am a 4-h horse leader i've done that for over 10 years i'm an advisory board member for the lehigh community improvement association i'm the chair of the lehigh horse advisory committee and i share all that with you to tell you three things number one i know horses number two i know horse trails and number three i worked on a number of projects with a city for our neighborhood so i am all about development in our community but i am only up for developments that build and support our community the sun circle trail that runs underneath gilbert road and mcdowell i worked on that project on the cities with the city um the gilbert road project when mcdat told us that we didn't need a horse trail nobody was going to ride up there anyway i worked on that project and i worked on the 202 freeway when adot told us that we didn't deserve any noise mitigation it really wasn't that bad after all and in both of those incidences the city of mesa rescued us they made them put on a horse trail because they recognized our community and the same thing with noise mitigation the 202 freeway so last october we gave you 156 signatures from people that were opposed to this project and since that time yes i was one of the ones that the attorneys met with and even the the person hired by the community so i won't reiterate some of the other concerns but i will nail down the one that is the most concerning and if it's possible for you to put up that roundabout where we showed you that picture i fortunately just got that monday night at 10 o'clock at night had not had a chance to look at that before but in that trail design of the roundabout it's extremely concerning if those of you weren't here in october that interchange that we're talking about was the most complicated interchange with the 202 freeway that's why you have one entrance and exit on the west side of gilbert road and the other one on the north side of mcdowell that's why and so to introduce and it's actually the roundabout i wanted you to show it's in his presentation so i have a few more minutes while she calls that up um if you look at that new roundabout design i can appreciate that it's a wickenburg roundabout i get that but that's not the only problem with that design they're taking away the the light on that and that's not the one either what's the next one keep going michelle you're at three minutes so i need you to wrap up here okay people so my my big thing with that is it's unsafe it just is i know that adot said that if you were going to put 400 cars on this property that this would be the only way that you could accommodate and that's true the idea that you could never use gilbert wrote well that's true if you exceed the the density that that property designed for when they bought it they bought it for r43 with no promise that you would ever change that zoning okay this process to wrap up okay so this project hurts our community it doesn't help them support it and it creates severe traffic problems and safety issues with that roundabout and i have to ask that you decline it thank you for your comments okay next i have robin finn if you'd state your name and address for the record my name is robin finn i live at 3035 north gilbert road in mesa i was under the impression that when this zoning back in october was recommended for the keeping the one acre per house that it was done deal and here we are addressing the same problem no reduction in housing nothing else i didn't even think about the roundabout no lighting available for it you know our daughters and sons ride horses they cross these roads to get to the trail because there's no trail dedicated across the freeway to these trails from our neighborhood i know that tom stensey brought up some of the problems that existed with the roundabout and stuff and unfortunately he's passed away so he can't defend but you can go back to the records and look what he talked about i'm totally opposed to this i believe that there is a market for single-family homes for horse properties in that area and i believe that adot can be forced to allow them to get in and off of on gilbert road as they are now because that's a lighted intersection to get people in and out i understand that you know when you're going to put 229 units there that you're gonna have close to a thousand people that could be potential drivers and now they brought up the part of having two and three families living in these places so that would increase the number of people even more and i could understand why adot would say no you can't use our intersection here but there's quite a problem with the reservation with the different districts that have the lighting responsibilities here at mcdowell and gilbert i mean when something happens and you call in to report it i get transferred to this operator to that operator to that operator because they don't know who has jurisdiction on what there but anyways i'm totally opposed to this i would wish that you would keep the original determination back in october that it's r43 one house per acre and keep it as it is thank you thank you for your comments all right the next slit slip i have is i believe it's wendy finn is that right wendy if you'd get state your name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes all right my name's wendy finn 3035 north gilbert road i'm so opposed to these apartments you can't believe it i'm just anyway my grandparents my great-grandparents my mom their families they all helped settle lehigh if you look up the name johnson crisbon haws jones you'll find them all there my mom just passed away in february she was 99 she lived and died and born and died in lehi um i can't even read my i've got tremors robin of robert and i have lived in our house for 45 years it's a single residence an excellent place to raise our family i could see crying just skyrocketing once maybe not the first few years with the if it passes with the apartments but later on as time goes on you're going to get less what do i want to say desirable people in there you're going to your crime is going to go up all kinds of crimes are going to go up i'm he says well it's not developed it needs to be developed why does it need to be developed we can turn that into a dog park or a children's park or a horse park there's just so many things we can do with it other than apartments anyway i'm so opposed to this i hope you can see to it that this does not go through for the apartments thank you thank you okay next is jamie pierce if you'd state your name and address for the record good evening my name is jamie pierce i live at 2306 east north street i'm live just to the south of the project across the canals i spoke in october last year that i was opposed to it for a variety of reasons and i basically came today because i wanted to see what they thought that they had changed i can see that they're going to do a little bit of modifications to the roundabout but i still think that many of the people that pull horse trailers in that area are very opposed to that i think that the intersection to the east lehigh road that comes off of mcdowell prior to that roundabout is not very far so is there going to be a stoplight there still i mean how much confusion is that going to cause for that intersection for that area um i also wanted to talk about um i was part of many of the conversations in the very beginning about this project and when it was four stories and how we were against the density and all that and he has a good neighbor letter from three people that i was very involved in all of those conversations and those three people basically felt like they're gonna get it anyway so if we don't go with the three stories then we're gonna get four so that's very frustrating because i don't think that those people are really for this project so it's frustrating i don't think there's been a lot of determination on what the water usage is going to be in that area and also no no talk about what happens for that area when it floods when it rains like it did the other day so i'm very opposed to this and i don't think that since october i have not been contacted until a week before this meeting and i do live within the 500 feet so i think a lot of people didn't even know that this was going on and that's very frustrating for a lot of people and it's pretty hard for people to come up here and speak to you guys and tell you how we really feel and you're probably going to vote for it at some point they're going to keep trying they'll be back in six months if you guys vote it down today so maybe we just need to go before the council so that's my spiel thank you thank you next i have marilyn crosby is marilyn here or on the phone perhaps i am on the phone hi marilyn if you would state your name and address for the record you'll then have three minutes absolutely my name is marilyn crosby i'm at 2560 north horn in mesa arizona 85203 which is in the heart of lehigh um i would like to tell you that this project is absolutely not equestrian friendly and it's also 100 not consistent with the mesa general plan which i have read covered to cover a few times after extensive community input in that general planner where it attests the importance of maintaining the sense of of place of surrounding neighborhoods their surrounding neighborhoods are single-family residences which embrace open spaces not multi-dwellings i am opposed to reclassification from rs-43 zoning opposed to the modified roundabout as opposed to a traffic increase rs-43 properties never cease to be in high demand i should know this because i've been in real estate for over 15 years the area has been severely encroached on being taken one piece at a time never adding additional rs-43 lots on others taken this should be seen as an opportunity to fulfill the need for residents and home buyers for more rs-43 instead of forcing more items upon residents that are not conducive to the location or surrounding areas neither the roundabout the project nor the growth increase in traffic is a good idea as you've heard from others roundabouts specifically are not trailer or emergency vehicle friendly i understand that they've changed the curving but that does not change the fact that when i'm pulling a 43 and a half foot long trailer i will merge into both lanes and there will be a driver who is not familiar with pulling a trailer and every single time they will try to jet in the gap of my trailer and the second lane not realizing that my trailer is about to occur exactly where their vehicle is it's a dangerous situation it happens all the time i don't care if they have roundabouts in wickenburg i haul through wickenburg all the time too and it's not fun so that's not an excuse even though wickenburg has a propensity for equestrian activities research also indicates that roundabouts are not safe for cyclists it increases congestion and the list goes on about the negativities of roundabouts this area as you've heard was the complex design issue on the 202 freeway i'm sure you're familiar with that michelle mccroskey already mentioned it so i'll bypass and save your time the area already services hundreds of trailers being hauled to the salt river landfill semi-truck sanitation trucks local residents on day-to-day transit weekend and holiday mountain goers headed north with trailers lake doors and boats you get the point the issues expressed by the community are legitimate and they're real and they're best solved by one thing maintaining current zoning embracing the sense of place in the community which the general plan requires and not trying to morph it into something that the residents never wanted to live by our homes may not be what you choose to live in yourself but the homes are what we chose to live in we wanted to live in rs-43 neighborhoods by rs-43 neighborhoods and consistent with the lifestyle that rs-43 neighborhood provides you will find that there is an outreach of neighbors all over in every direction that are opposed to this project not because we hate development but we believe that they should occur in locations where they are consistent with that that they're around and that is not the consistency of this project whatsoever i yield my time and respect for others thank you thank you very much next i have kim clark kim if you'd state your name and address for the record i'd appreciate it good afternoon my name is kim clark and my address is 3007 north gilbert road mesa arizona my family's been the resident of the lehigh community for 30 years i spoke at the last hearing in october about the historical significance of the chrisman property to the lehigh community i also presented to you community feedback opposing the proposed development and at the hearing last october city staff recommended approval of a three-story 222 unit apartment complex with 400 plus parking spaces which the board did not approve today's city staff is recommending approval of essentially the same proposal approval of essentially the same proposal a three-story 222 unit apartment complex with 400 plus parking spaces the plan has not made significant changes that resolve the concerns voiced by the community including excessive population density a transient rental population potential for increased crime the three storing buildings three-story building elevation adverse impact effects on property values and increased traffic staff's report also did not mention uh certain community feedback previously submitted including a petition opposing the development that had actually 156 signatures and the results of a survey conducted where 59 of 61 respondent respondents did not approve of the development the staff report concluded that the proposed development conforms to city standards this is a generalized standard of conformance that does not address the unique character of the area by any reasonable measure this development is not compatible with the character of the area furthermore the buffer zones do not address the fact that the apartments directly connect to the surrounding neighborhoods through planned access points to the paths along the canal and equestrian trails before a decision is made that will irreversibly transform this community please consider that this is a long established suburban ranch family community characterized by its history acre plus lots enhanced horse and livestock privileges and equestrian trails the lehigh sub-area plan on record with city mates in the city of mesa intentionally outlined objectives to preserve the historic rural character of the area after the october hearing i received feedback from several people they were very proud that the city of mesa actually listened to their concerns and did not approve the zoning change please stay with this decision the proposed development has not changed substantially and concerns voiced by the canadian community have not been resolved thus the developer's duplicative request should not warrant approval one final thought before there was ever a city of mesa there was lehi thank you morgan porter are you here or on the phone yes hi morgan if you'd state your name and address for the record you'll then have three minutes hi my name is morgan porter i live at 2449 north mesa drive right at the intersection of mesa drive and lehigh road just north of it my family has lived and also founded lehigh for the past 125 years and actually further than that rezoning for 200 plus apartment complexes and a restaurant or any type of eatery or social thing like that would be a decision that would result in many distributed detrimental things including the following home values would be reduced to the general eyesore of an apartment complex a roundabout creates traffic that would become a practical impossibility for trailers of any kind and neighborhood traffic would most likely also cause more accidents involving children and horses commercial property is known to drive more traffic to a location they will come from all sides even if there is only one way in and one way out trailers take such a light turn radius that at roundabouts such as the one on brown road i have personally been in and seen trailers almost take out and crush small cars that think they know what they're doing but they don't also to think of a small possibility of accidents that currently happen in my neighborhood have a possibility of being multiplied by 400 plus cars it's heartbreaking to know it could result in me my horses or my loved ones being killed or severely injured due to people not having knowledge of the area people moved to our 43 communities to get away from apartments due to drugs gangs traffic and other crimes involving those items being in real estate hundreds of people look for r43 property to have horses or other animals on if there's a property shortage of something then it is a horrible and poor decision to rezone it to something that can be put somewhere else there are plenty of empty lots that are zoned otherwise in mesa there are many letters of concern and disapproval but there's not even half as many as support as concern of safety of animals children and overall the people the community please do not allow us to proceed it doesn't apply anything to the mesa general plan i get that they have been trying to discover something and make something of the property but it does not just mesh with the area it would be a horrible i can't even say improvement this improvement to the area thank you for your time thank you okay those are those are all the cards i have for people that i think that wanted to speak let me just double check if i'm wrong let me know uh do am i missing someone i didn't fill out a card i'm new to this but if if you would like to speak you will have you fill out a card afterwards you can come up now and speak and then fill out a card when you get done but please state your name and address for the record and then you'll have three minutes and i'll be short of that my name is randy hatch my address is 2505 east lee high road house number 11. so i live in a neighborhood there's 19 homes in our neighborhood grew up in denver moved here 11 years ago my wife's originally from this area and i i i get the fact that we'd love to have things different or leave things the way they are quite frankly i think this is an eyesore for people coming into the mesa area off the b line i mean it's just it's just sitting there granted in the past it was perhaps a nice horse property then was divided by gilbert road as i drive in or out to me it just strikes as an eyesore and there's a lot of people that grew up in the area that would love to stay in the area meaning younger people and apartments kind of fits that mold for them with the modifications that i've seen and the houses much like our neighborhood that looks directly into this area i would much prefer to see this kind of a change versus the we've had homeless people in there we've seen a lot of trash we've seen kids on motorcycles running around and i just see more risk in leaving things the way they are as stated earlier that bowl is a tough app it'll be a tough animal to fit something else in so i think we might be waiting a long time if we don't approve something like this and i think they've come a long ways to try to modify and work with community and i'm i'm very approach i'm very supportive of what they're doing so thank you thank you for your comments okay let me do a little reading now i have a card from connor crosby who is opposed to this item the comment is i have been a resident of lehi for 46 years our family attraction to the community is due to the unique atmosphere of the rural ranch lifestyle agricultural large lots custom homes and equestrian lifestyle all of my friends and neighbors who reside in lehi live here for the same if not similar reasons i am opposed to the rezoning the subject property from rs 43 one acre single family homes to multiple resident high density development the rezoning is not consistent with our community the city of mesa not sure what that says i plan on preserving oh i'm sorry the city of mesa general plan preserving the natural environment recreation and culture of lehigh uh brent preece is opposed to this item he says as a person who hauls large trailers on a regular basis through the intersection of gilbert and mcdowell rhodes i strongly approac oppose the rezoning and addition of a roundabout roundabouts are not meant for large vehicles especially when it is a busy intersection gilbert is a traffic area for large trucks semis and vehicles hauling trailers and the general public entering and leaving the valley apartments will block current residents views and potentially increase crime in the area rezoning will not benefit the surrounding community todd jules looks like is opposed to the item did not wish to speak i've got some emails now that i'll try to quickly read uh this is uh tom stapley good afternoon my name is tom tommy stapley and i live at 2547 east minton street mesa 85213 which is next to the proposed homestead project on mcdowell and gilbert road this vacant area has become an eyesore with homeless people camping and trash being dumped there i strongly support the developers plan for high quality development and appreciate their willingness to work with neighbors to lower the density and improve the aesthetics i especially appreciate their efforts to partner with the city to improve the canal trail system that runs by their property i hope staff the planning commission and the city council will support this case when it is heard thank you tom stapley this is frankie brienholt this is frankie breinholt and i live near the proposed homestead development project under design review in the empty basin at loop 202 in gilbert road my address is 1725 east lockwood street i've lived here for 12 years and grew up just down the street i drive by this site many times a day i am also a contractor developer but have no direct affiliation whatsoever with this project i would love to see this area developed it has been a bit of an eyesore and dust bowl for some time i understand this basin has some significant sight challenges which has made new development difficult so i support the developer trying to tackle these tough development issues in the creation of this new development plan i think it will be a benefit for our area and i hope you will share my support to city staff the planning commission and the city council thank you frankie brian holt susan jarvi says thank you for responding to my email i understand your position i've submitted an online card to be read aloud and i will attend the meeting i don't know if we have a card i'll go ahead and read her email i didn't see a card from her but i'm 85 sure that sign was never posted i exit the freeway at that point many times a week and look right at the property because of my concern over this proposed development i would have seen the sign a neighbor told me about the letter they received and that is the only reason i know anything about the meeting i do hope the board members re-read the minutes from the october meeting i think more than 120 people were opposed and wrote and made some great comments that little pocket of land would sure make a nice office retail restaurant and park project with a beautification of the canals like scottsdale did there are literally hundreds of new apartment buildings being built today from this from this proposed development east to greenfield it is ridiculous and should be a crime that the freeway was forced to be built around the historic orchards which are now being torn down for development where the owners get a greater profit i can only imagine the burden of the burden all that population will add to our schools and traffic it's too much not to mention the state's lack of water and the disregard to the rural history of lehigh it's all very sad thanks for reading to this point okay we have an email now from marjorie martin and it says as a horse owner in the area the rezoning is not consistent with the surrounding area adding additional density the housing area creates additional noise and congestion i am opposed to the rezoning of this area three story buildings will block the view of the homeowners to the south and roundabouts are difficult to navigate with trailers the already busy intersection does not need an estimated 400 additional cars traveling this area on a consistent basis and she's at 1102 east lehigh road mesa arizona 85203 um okay bear with me i've got some more reading to do this is uh to whom it may concern this is a.m barrera at 2118 east minton street mesa arizona 85213 when first becoming aware of the prose project on the subject parcel my reaction was that it would be extremely dense and have a negative effect on the neighborhoods and traffic in the area i have read the letters for and against the project and agree with the homeowners who oppose it the fact that a roundabout would be necessary to move traffic in and out of a single densely populated apartment complex is troubling i've always thought of roundabouts as a way to manage traffic in areas where more than two streets or on off ramps to highways intersect or to improve general existing road traffic but this is different around about to accommodate a congested apartment complex consider the traffic on mcdowell especially when all those apartment residents are limited to a single ingress egress driveway think about rush hour the concentrated number of apartments even with a reduction in number does not mitigate the fact that the footprint of the project is extremely tight within the border of the plot the existing residents in the area would be negatively impacted many of them have counted on the fact that the subject parcel has been until now zoned for single-family residences and they realize that homes could be built in the future but never expected the city of mesa to consider a proposal for such a radical change a change that will negatively impact residents in terms not only of traffic but the loss of their unobstructed view for which they paid a premium then there is the general proximity to parking lot lighting and the noise of a busy dense project below them not to mention an increased risk of crime to consider these things affect desirability of the area and importantly home values having had a meeting with adot before we purchased a lot in the area we wanted to be sure that the proposed 202 would be completed per the published original plan as it was we didn't want to take a chance that the freeway would be rerouted closer to us before we began to build our home so we empathize with the homeowners who would be so negatively impacted by an apartment complex something they never anticipated to change as drastically as this proposal indicates the resulting traffic management impacts many other residents in the area not just those who live closest to the apartments there are better more acceptable uses for the parcel there are also more suitable locations to build apartments with so much local opposition to this project how can the city of mesa even consider giving in to the developer and dismissing the concerns of the homeowners in the neighborhoods please reconsider your position and do the right thing okay now i've got a group of folks who have who are opposed but don't want their comments read uh debbie delp 161 east lehigh road opposed lulu on barrett 2124 east oasis street opposed kenneth olmstead 2052 east minton street opposed daryl eckhart 3019 north gilbert road opposed tamara barrett 2124 east oasis street opposed connie osborne 930 east norwood street opposed laurie owens 2745 east northridge circle opposed and now following folks have comments to be read ralph clark 3007 north gilbert road he is opposed i oppose because i don't want the nature of our community changed a high density development at this site would further erode the culture of our community and compromise its ability to sustain a bird a suburban ranch lifestyle that includes livestock it will be one more step to erasing the history and culture of our community this is not in keeping with the existing lehigh plans that were approved long ago outsiders will profit at the cost of our long-established neighborhoods there are other more appropriate areas to build high-density housing without damaging our historic areas susan lawrence 2509 east hermosa vista drive is opposed i do not support a high-density three-story apartment complex on this small piece of land with 400 plus parking spaces and changing the existing intersection to accommodate this development this development was already opposed by the surrounding neighborhoods in october 2021. becky eckhart 3019 north gilbert road opposed i oppose apartments being built in this area homes are supposed to be one acre or more it needs to be kept that way the apartments will cause more traffic and noise than we are already putting up with since the 202 came into our area lehigh is known as a community of at least one acre per household and we need to keep it that way we need to keep at least one part of mesa to its old school values steve mccall 2050 east oasis street opposed we live in close proximity to the project and strongly oppose the development the project does not appear to have considered with forethought the increased traffic in an area that has worked to blend a more family-oriented neighborhood because of the distance between the top of the hill and the neighborhoods on the other side there is considerable biking and walking of the children across the section of road that is that this development will encroach creating risk i don't believe that there were material changes to the plan to help with our concerns we urged the commission to reject the plan kim kimberly van riper 505 east lehigh road opposed this develop this type of development was not approved by this board for good reason this piece of land is one of two pieces left defined in the lehigh sub area as a quote fringe area meant to buffer non-compatible development for lehigh we appreciate the desire for profit in the game of land acquisition but lehigh simply must be protected no matter how inconvenient what is lost in lehi happens bit by bit so please honorable board vote again in favor of preserving the way of life in lehi this development cannot be undone if approved and lehigh absolutely needs the foresight and decision and decisive action of this board okay getting closer to being finished here emily clark 3007 north gilbert road opposed lehigh is a suburban ranch area extra traffic will be dangerous for horses and the population density is not consistent with the character of our community please don't do this it will spoil something that has always been special to us ob done 501 east linwood street opposed once again this group wants to build apartments that are just not compatible with this area 222 apartments with over 400 parking spots it would be totally out of place in this area there is a reason this neighborhood is zoned for single family residences on one acre parcels this area has been zoned this way for years it is filled with people who enjoy living in a semi-rural setting where they can enjoy having horses and other animals where they don't have to worry about the traffic that an additional 400 cars would bring making it so busy around about becomes necessary just say no christopher porter 2449 north mesa drive opposed rezoning this property from rs 43 to rm4 pad would be detrimental to the surrounding communities for many reasons adding apartments would increase traffic in the area exponentially with an additional 400 plus vehicles the crime and accident rate will skyrocket areas nearby localities where accidents with children and horses are a concern i can say from experience roundabouts like they are proposing are not friendly to vehicles larger or longer than a jeep wrangler which many vehicles with trailers frequent the intersection going to going to the 202 or to the 87. this plan should not be permitted at any cost susan jarvi 2543 north acacia is opposed i oppose because there is only one ingress egress point for the potentially 400 plus residents creating very high traffic for the areas roundabout challenges for trailers increased traffic both 202 ramps east and west three-story apartment buildings are nowhere within a five-mile radius breaking precedent for high-rise building which is not conducive with the surrounding communities high-density community is not compatible to the surrounding low-density communities apartment row is being built from the nursery east to greenfield road on 202 too many apartments not enough water michelle wells 343 east linwood lane opposed the property on the south east of gilbert and mcdowell is still part of lehigh we are community of great historical value the standard is one house per acre the 202 freeway alignment was moved to preserve this property the residents in this area of mesa are concerned about preserving their property values by keeping the zoning in the area as a rural type of property there are many residents in the area who enjoy riding their horses in this area it's important to keep this property at a minimum of one house per acre history tells us that any adjustment will be disastrous for the lehigh culture just a couple of more here uh mary martin pierce 101102 east lehigh road opposed regretfully this plan is too similar to the plan that was submitted a short time ago for rezoning the area of mcdowell and gilbert roads this is an already congested area where many trailers and large vehicles travel all day long roundabouts do not work well with large vehicles the two and three-story buildings will obstruct the view of the homes in the area as well as and the trail views additionally apartments are inconsistent with the surrounding area this is not the place for additional congestion again this is too similar to the rezoning request that was denied a short time ago and uh i think that's all that i have so uh at this time i think we'll close the public uh comment session we'll ask the applicant to come back up and uh if you'd like to respond to anything that you heard you're welcome to do that now yeah i will and a couple of things worth pointing out i certainly respect the history of lehigh this i think as kim said lehigh was here before the city of mesa three things have changed though the introduction of the 202 freeway has significantly altered i think much of lehigh area but specifically here the south side of the 202 freeway and this property is an island unto itself separate and apart from the rest of lehigh when you ask yourself where should an apartment locate i would say on an arterial street next to a freeway the best spot for something like this why it's got close and immediate proximity to an on-ramp and off-ramp less trips in the community secondly one of the reasons why we have such unattainable housing in arizona is the lack of supply nationwide rents increased 10 in arizona 18.8 why we we lack the inventory if i were to put inventory somewhere in the city mesa i would put it near a freeway and near arterial street i would put it on a property that's depressed in a basin where its maximum height of the property is still below the height of the adjacent homes i heard things like views and privacy there is no view behind us to the south that is obstructed by this but lastly when i heard some things here i think it's important to point out when adot sold this land they put a restriction on it they would only allow one home to be built on it to access gilbert road which means if there was any development to occur here it has to go to mcdowell road and no matter i put in i think what i heard some things like why don't you put an office or retail or a park or even a subdivision all those would still require a roundabout it's not this particular development that triggers the roundabout it's the development of the property that triggers a roundabout and these conditions would exist roundabouts work a dot wouldn't provide a letter a testing to that but for the their proof that they've seen it time and time again i know that i think what i heard is there are better more acceptable uses of the property if there are better more acceptable uses of property they certainly would have come a lot of time has passed i think some of the the concerns i heard when i read and i heard some of those addresses they're miles away from the property but one thing in common is a common bond regarding equestrian uses and our efforts to create a mountable rolled curb with an apron goes a long way to address those concerns but i will tell you that no matter what gets built on this property a roundabout will occur here it's the within adot's jurisdiction what adot requires what we want to do is just provide an opportunity to build high quality housing premium units make meaningful use of the property with a development that can absorb the cost of significant engineering and development costs to make it work i know it's not perfect but i think given this weird shape of this property and the topographical conditions that it faces i don't know if you'll achieve perfection on here but what you can achieve is something that's meaningful that has a tremendous economic impact that does not have the associated things i've heard like crime and over overcrowding schools and creating a traffic problem there's been no evidence to support that but clearly evidence that shows that this creates a very insignificant impact on traffic that is lower than the heights of the mountain of the hillside next to it that it provides housing stock that's sorely needed in this area that creates rents that are at a premium level and hopefully brings a better quality people when i think about where my daughter can grow up and live in arizona she's a sophomore in college i worry if she'll be able to live near home because the costs have gone up so much and until supply comes into the marketplace that worry will always exist if i could build something here that was significantly less than what we started with less in height less indents less in traffic i hope that would be something that the community and the commission could support i think that's largely why staff has recommended approval they know this is the best um plan they've seen today and there's been many years and opportunities to bring something before them today up until this moment so for the reasons that we presented to you today the compromise solutions that have been medicated through the zoning stipulations through the good neighbor policy through the changes to the roundabout to the reduction of the three bedroom units to reduction the zoning density that puts a cap nothing greater can happen down the road i know it's not perfect but i think it's a good solution for a really troubled property and so for that i appreciate your support thank you questions for the applicant at this point board member pitcher uh mr baugh board member pitcher may have a question not a question for you where's the uh equestrian trail in this area because i know there's there's one on the north side of the 202 for a while does it come across or i just don't know i think that was a comment made by one of the neighbors that michelle might have discussed her emphasis on trying to create the equestrian trail these canals already exist they can be used by horses joggers runners cyclists all together this view right here might show a little bit more about how let's see here do you have one yeah in the whole area yeah i think i'm gonna go back to it right here okay so there's a trail that goes under underpass under gilbert road and then there's another underpass under mcdowell road and that is the trail this is the trail that goes along the blue line edge of our property that goes into the underpass on gilbert road and continues under the underpass along mcdowell so so does the development uh block or impede any of the trails from how they are right now no it doesn't or it doesn't impede access or the free flow of how they currently are no it does not what it does though it provides a beautification along the trail head so those can still exist i mean you can kind of see in the background here the superimposed image of a horse along this trail with the new improvements that would occur okay just one thing sure daryl once you see champions remember peterson the one thing my name is daryl truett with eps the one thing that we were asked to do and that we have done is currently you can't really access from mcdowell road easily down and go underneath that underpass of mcdowell road we've been asked and we will provide a public sidewalk access that comes off of mcdowell road as well with our entry road into our project and then we'll make a connection over to the east to the underpass at mcdowell road so that's one of the enhancements that will occur as part of the development of the project you can kind of see the brown line that shows the public access that he's referring to the brown's kind of squiggly line cutting through the landscaped rendered area there if i could zoom in i would but i don't think i have the ability here on my phone and uh just just one minute did you have anything else one other question i heard about lighting for the parking how are you going to address that so it doesn't you know shine out i mean is it direct the lighting down to them yeah so that's addressed in our good neighbor policy in addition to the the site plan case it's a zero there's a photometric study part of the case that measures lighting make sure it's at zero foot candles at any property line it's specific to the parking lot we can use low-level lighting won't be an issue you know that the way the process works here the public comment part of the proceedings over with so we don't i would like to point out one thing well these guys are not mentioning well is the horse trail that goes down gilbert road okay but we're going to get access to theirs they don't even address it they just ignore it they don't think it exists and by building a roundabout there'd be no lights to stop the traffic for the horses okay thank you um so discussion board members on this item i'll i'll give it a shot i um see where do i back up and start um i i think that the developer has done a great job with um the design of the project i never had any issues with it before my only issue was the roundabout that's where i had concerns and to back up a little bit further um i grew up in that area i grew up in the lehigh area my family was the original pioneers that came down settled that area so i have a a huge my heart's there right so i understand what you guys are going through and i but i also understand development it changed the the whole landscape of lehigh when that freeway went in it changed everything i retired from the city of mesa and i worked with historic preservation so i knew when it was a christmas property and i knew when the developers bought the property i've kind of been watching this for a long time in a lot of years and my only concern was the roundabout and and so at this point i'm going to support this project because i believe that i kind of reluctantly or cautiously i guess support it because of you know i i travel through there all the time my parents still live down there so i still go down that mcdowell all the time so and sometimes pulling a trailer sometimes not pulling a trailer but i am i think that they've really tried to design that with that uh rolled curb so that you could get through there um so at this point that's where i'm standing is and i know it still has the opportunity to go to city council so you know if you don't like the decisions made here today whatever it might be you always have the opportunity to go and talk to our city council members but that's where i stand on it is i i'm supporting this right now thank you board member peterson thank you chairman the uh so so this is a this is a tough site for a lot of reasons and uh that we've talked through and as uh as our purview as the planning and zoning board which is largely technical the through the the design elements the the revisions that have been made staff recommendation of support support from adot and city mesa on the on the roundabout those uh those weigh heavily uh the the the element of on the the land use side of um demand for diverse housing products is is something that as a community um we we face and that we all need to be addressed and i do as shelly mentioned with the freeway where it changed everything and the the comment that this parcel is to some degree an island unto itself that that weighs heavily because of how the uh the traffic goes directly to mcdowell directly to the freeway and um and so so those are all factors that are the way heavily for me on this thanks yeah is that better yeah i was one of the two votes in favor of this application back in october um and i'm gonna support it again today i think that and i grew up in mesa just up the road i grew up just off gilbert road and so i've been around this area my whole life i i do i agree with the developer the applicant that it is a challenging piece of property to do something with and i in it is my opinion the developer has listened to the concerns i understand that that the the homeowners that are here tonight would rather have a different use completely there but the developer has listened to concerns about height about density about preserving the horse access through their working with salt river project to uh work on the the canal bank there to beautify that to do a water feature coming off the mesa working with adot on the roundabout to further modify the design to accommodate the concerns so in my in my view given the challenges of the property and a an applicant that has been willing to listen and to try to address concerns that's that's an important factor in my mind so i understand that's not the wishes of the folks that are here tonight but that's that's my perspective so if we don't have any uh board member heirs do you have anything or are you going to make a motion okay i i will entertain a motion on this item at this point so i would move to approve item 4a 0121-0129 district 1 within the 2200 and 2400 blocks of east mcdowell road on the south side located east of north gilbert road on the south side of east mcdowell road rezoned from single residence 43 and single brennan's residence 43 with a historic landmark overlay to multiple residents for the planned area development overlay site plan review with a specially used permit and this is uh staff has recommendations approval with conditions okay have a motion do i have a second second okay i have a motion in a second let's vote on this item okay by your vote of five eyes no no's and one board member absent we've passed this item michelle do we have anything else for the board to consider tonight mr chairman and board members i would just uh want the audience to know that this is a recommendation of approval and they still have the opportunity to go to city council and pamela do we have an idea when this will go to city council it could possibly it be introduced on august 22nd with action on august 29th thank you so so that the much know about this change there's supposed to be a big white sign and it it's not there let me let me let the the applicant is here why don't you get with the applicant and staff on that and make sure that all of you are on the same page notifications okay thank you michelle thank you for pointing that out about this going to council this is a recommendation and the council will consider it so thank you thank you for being here and providing your input it is very helpful to us although i know the result maybe is disappointing tonight so michelle anything else for the board no mr chairman no other comments or updates okay thank you i will entertain a motion to dismiss i would move i have a motion do i have a second second second let's vote all right by a vote of five eyes no no's with one absent you've dismissed our meeting thank you [Music] you