Mesa approves 36-unit Beverly Apartments affordable housing project near light rail station

Beverly Apartments Approved Despite Tripled Traffic Predictions; Data Center Ordinance Tabled Over Grandfathering Ambiguity

The Mesa Planning & Zoning Board approved a 36-unit affordable housing development near the city's light rail station on June 11, despite resident warnings that the project would triple neighborhood traffic and endanger pedestrians, cyclists, and children. In the same meeting, the board postponed a contentious data center ordinance text amendment after six industry stakeholders, including a $100 million invested developer, testified that the proposed standards contained dangerous ambiguities about which existing approvals would be grandfathered and whether the definition of "data center" would inadvertently restrict common business operations.

The Beverly Apartments decision proceeded on the strength of traffic engineering testimony that showed projected volumes (600–700 vehicles per day on a residential local street) would fall within acceptable Mesa standards, despite the applicant's concession that project economics depend on the 24-unit expansion from the current 12-unit facility. The data center ordinance—addressing industrial zones where billions in tech investment is now concentrated—was deferred two weeks to allow board members absent today and industry partners to scrutinize language that staff acknowledged had changed within the prior 48 hours.

Key Speeches

Beverly Apartments

"While we recognize that growth is part of Mesa's future, we remain deeply concerned about the scale, pace, and impact of the two proposed developments on Beverly. Our top priority is safety, especially for pedestrians, school children, seniors, and people with disabilities. These streets aren't just roads. They're part of daily life. People walk their dogs here. Children ride bikes. Parents push strollers. Potentially tripling traffic to over a thousand daily trips will put lives at risk and permanently change the character of this neighborhood." — Madison Reynolds, Beverly resident and community representative

"We currently have 12 units on site. This has been used for multifamily for a very long time. Our proposal is to go to 36 units. The major thing that's changed over the past several decades is that the city invested incredible amounts of time, energy, and resources into developing the light rail. And so this area is fundamentally different than it was." — Taylor Earl, Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C., applicant's attorney

"When we get to 500 to 750 to 800 [vehicles per day], you're kind of in that tier where it's a little bit more moderate, but definitely within, you know, acceptable range. Once you get into that thousand vehicles per day, it's not really more of a capacity issue. It's more of a quality of life type of situation." — Ryan Hudson, City of Mesa Transportation Department, traffic engineer

Data Center Standards

"NOVA has already invested to date $100 million into the purchase of the site and the development. And although there have been comments about the lack of jobs that go with data centers, let's talk about investment for a moment because we are projected to exceed three billion—billion with a B—in costs and investment in Mesa construction by the time this data center is built." — Ben Graph, Corals & Brady, representing NOVA Holdings LLC

"Given these significant investments, Cyrus 1's development rights have now been vested and are thus fully grandfathered under the law in existence when the city approved Cyrus 1's site plan and special use permit. Our worry is that the current text in its current form of the ordinance does not clearly match the city's intent." — Sean Loy, Cyrus 1

"I I don't know that this doesn't feel like it's fully baked yet. Uh there's a lot of companies listed as having public input. Some of those companies showed up today. And so it doesn't feel like that all the parties that were listed as having dialogue that there's an agreement." — Board Member Blakeman (on data center ordinance)

Timeline

Beverly Apartments (Items 4A, 5A)

• Applicant presentation: Taylor Earl (Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C.) introduced the project as expansion of existing 12-unit affordable housing complex to 36 units, 1.3 acres at 120 North Beverly, positioned as low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) development at 50% AMI; emphasized light rail proximity and reduced car dependency target.
• Staff recommendation: Approval with conditions (per board motion language); concurrent rezoning from RM2 to RM3 with PAD overlay and site plan review; general plan amendment from Traditional Residential to Mixed Residential, both with sustained growth strategy.
• Public comment: One speaker, Madison Reynolds (3 minutes), representing Beverly community; objected to tripled traffic (potentially over 1,000 daily trips), safety risks to pedestrians/children/seniors, and density on a residential street; offered three alternatives: reduce density (24 units for Beverly Apartments), gate Beverly street to prevent cut-through traffic, or postpone project.
• Traffic engineer testimony: Ryan Hudson (City of Mesa Transportation) testified that existing traffic on Beverly ranges 400–500 vehicles per day; proposed 36-unit project would generate 200–240 trips conservatively; combined volume would reach 600–700 vehicles per day, within "acceptable range" for local residential streets; noted Mesa speed hump policy triggers study at 500 vehicles per day threshold, and that 750–800+ vehicles per day enters "quality of life" concern zone but not capacity constraint; mentioned speed cushions as viable traffic-calming mitigation, pending council direction.
• Applicant rebuttal: Earl emphasized affordable housing mission, low-income household reduced car ownership (national data), light rail reliance, and small incremental addition (24 units to existing 12); stated that reducing project by 12 units would have no material traffic impact but would jeopardize project economics; argued that light rail stations require density to function; acknowledged neighboring Lofts development at 66 units was outside scope but noted city had declined to gate Beverly per community request.
• Board discussion: Board Member Peterson asked for traffic engineer assessment; Board Member Carpenter queried traffic study scope (north/south coverage); no other board members raised objections during discussion.
• Vote: Motion to approve both Z24-0152 (rezoning) and 25-00203 (general plan amendment) passed unanimously with three board members absent (Chair Ays, Board Member Montes, Board Member Farnsworth).

Data Center Text Amendment (Item 7A, PZ25057)

• Staff recommendation: Approval with conditions (implicit in Rachel Phillips presenting). Amendment modifies ordinance to establish design, setback, height, parking, and screening standards for data centers in GI (General Industrial), HI (Heavy Industrial), and LI (Light Industrial) zoning; includes waiver provisions and clarifications on applicability to previously approved projects. Staff acknowledged last-minute text revisions within 48 hours prior to hearing.

• Public comment: Six speakers representing approved or planned data centers and industry coalitions (approximately 30 minutes total):

  • Ben Graph (Corals & Brady, NOVA Holdings LLC): Cited $100 million prior investment and $3 billion projected construction value; praised staff responsiveness but flagged ambiguities in waiver language, applicability to administrative site plan changes, treatment of substations and power equipment as "of right" uses, and potential loss of grandfathered rights if rezoning occurs from LI to alternative district (e.g., LI/conditional use permit).
  • Emily Rice (B3 Strategies, Data Center Coalition): Emphasized data centers as foundation for AI and advanced manufacturing economy; noted 36 member companies (half with Arizona presence); requested stakeholder engagement pause, noise standard flexibility (decibel ranges by zoning), generator flexibility for utility partnerships, and variances to development standards to support semiconductor and cybersecurity sectors; cited $11 billion GDP contribution in 2023 and 14,430 direct jobs statewide.
  • Sean Loy (Cyrus 1): Outlined 68-acre site in Elliott Road Tech Corridor, approved July 2024 by planning and zoning board with conditions (screening, landscaping, architectural enhancements), now pursuing building permits; expressed concern that ordinance text does not clearly preserve grandfathered rights under law-at-time-of-approval; referenced letter from counsel Perkins Kuey (June 10, 2025) and requested explicit clarification in ordinance language before council forwarding.
  • Mark Bower (Jones Lang LaSalle, National Data Center Solutions): Recounted evolution of data center power demands (10 megawatts in 1990s → 300 megawatts to 1 gigawatt today); highlighted Meta's 200-megawatt installation expanding to 400 megawatts on same footprint; stressed that developers, not utilities, are now funding billion-dollar power upgrades (e.g., current Elliott Road upgrade paid by data center operators); urged city to embrace sector and not let ordinance negatively impact developers partnering with APS/SRP.
  • Jay Irvin (Butler Design Group, local architecture firm): Listed practical concerns: 400-foot setback "significant departure" from typical GI/HI/LI standards (15–30 feet); 60-foot height limit may hinder functional design requiring greater internal clearances; one space per 1,000 square feet parking ratio excessive (example: 16-acre, 240,000 sq ft facility would require 240 spaces, vs. real-world need of ~30); mechanical yard placement requirements contradictory (away from entrances, public facades, residential, and roads leaves no feasible location); screening via tall masonry wall may create worse visual issue than equipment. Requested stakeholder convening and collaborative discussion.
  • Tom Maples (7x24 Exchange, Arizona chapter representing 60 member companies): Requested stakeholder meeting and public discussion before votes; emphasized robust Arizona data center ecosystem (Uber, SRP, advanced air mobility); noted GI/HI zoning is less than 0.75% of city land; highlighted parking concern (example: 16-acre, 240,000 sq ft facility with ~16 employees should require ~16–30 spaces, not 240); urged flexibility rather than forcing businesses into waiver pursuit.
  • Sepand Alazada (Arizona Technology Council): Echoed stakeholder requests for time and collaboration; linked data centers to AI economy and state economic innovation; shared personal anecdote of car accident in remote Phoenix area where hospital staff accessed pre-existing medical records via data center server, connecting ordinance to life-safety outcomes; urged comprehensive stakeholder engagement.
  • Rachel Phillips (planning staff): Did not speak during public comment; present to respond to technical questions.

• Board discussion:

  • Board Member Blakeman raised multiple concerns: (1) definition of "data center" (facility storing/managing servers, networking equipment, components, related infrastructure, office space, staff areas) tied to accessory-use criteria (no more than 10% of building footprint) leaves insufficient room for typical IT operations and may inadvertently restrict employer expansion; (2) criteria requiring data center not to lease services to third parties feels too restrictive if primary criterion is non-lessor use; (3) criterion prohibiting separate standalone structure unexplained; (4) lack of full stakeholder agreement noted ("doesn't feel like all parties listed as having dialogue are in agreement"); (5) screening standards agreed to need refinement—favored performance-based approach (e.g., city water tanks) rather than blanket height-based fence requirement; (6) parking ratio (one space per 1,000 sq ft) should be user-determined via PAD process given site-specific criteria; suggested minimum land-area revision (currently 5 acres) could be clarified now rather than deferred 6+ months; noted Chandler precedent of PAD-dominant zoning allowing flexible determination.
  • Board Member Carpenter voiced concern about lack of proof that ordinance covers all stakeholder classes: (1) built data centers presumed to be unaffected; (2) approved-but-not-yet-built projects (NOVA, Cyrus 1) concerned about applicability; (3) unknown group with today's development rights but not yet approved may not be aware of potential impact or have had chance to comment. Questioned whether full-information transparency existed prior to vote.
  • Board Member Peterson (specific comment not individually attributed) appeared to support deferral based on board member discussion.

• Motion and vote: Board Member Blakeman moved to table PZ25057 until June 25, 2025 meeting to allow absent board members (identified as Peterson, Montes, Farnsworth—though Peterson was present; likely reference to Ays and Farnsworth, plus one other) and stakeholders additional time to review revised text amendment language. Second (unattributed). Motion passed unanimously.

Opposition

Beverly Apartments

Number of speakers against: 1 (Madison Reynolds)

Main concerns:

1. Tripled traffic volume (potential 1,000+ daily trips) on narrow residential street not designed for such volume
2. Safety risks to pedestrians, schoolchildren, seniors, and people with disabilities
3. Overdensity on a residential street; character change permanent
4. Current traffic study accounts only for Lofts development, not both projects combined; incomplete data
5. Speed cushions treat symptom, not cause; real issue is overdensity
6. Conflict with Mesa's Safer Streets Initiative (30% reduction in crash deaths/injuries by 2030); tripling traffic runs counter to goal
7. Concerns about financing-driven density that overwhelms neighborhood safety capacity

Most compelling arguments:

• Madison Reynolds' framing of Beverly as lived space (dog-walking, children's bikes, stroller-pushing) vs. abstract traffic flow; invoked safety of vulnerable populations
• Request for traffic study conducted during school year to reflect true impact
• Three concrete alternatives offered: density reduction, gating, or project deferral

Organized groups: Beverly community (implicit but not formally named organization)

Support

Number of speakers for: 0 (no affirmative public testimony)

Board/staff support:

• Traffic engineer Ryan Hudson testified that 600–700 vehicles per day falls within acceptable range for local residential streets (tier 2 of 4: 500–750/800 is "moderate" but "acceptable")
• Applicant Taylor Earl emphasized (a) light rail proximity and city's light rail investment making density appropriate; (b) affordability mission and low-income household reduced car ownership; (c) incremental nature of addition (12 → 36 units, not ground-up development); (d) light rail dependency reducing car trips vs. conventional multifamily
• Board members did not speak in favor during discussion; motion passed without objections, suggesting implicit acceptance of staff recommendation and traffic testimony

Project Details

Beverly Apartments (Items 4A, 5A: Z24-0152 and 25-00203)

• Case numbers: Z24-0152 (rezoning), 25-00203 (general plan amendment)
• Applicant / developer: Taylor Earl, applicant representative; Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C., counsel; developer not separately named in transcript
• Attorney: Taylor Earl, Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C. (address: 3101 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona)
• Location / address: 120 North Beverly; approximately 715 feet north of the northwest corner of West Main Street and North Beverly
• APN: Not stated in transcript
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: RM2 (Multiple Residence, Two) → RM3 (Multiple Residence, Three) with PAD (Plan Area Development) overlay and site plan review
• General plan change: Traditional Residential (with sustained growth strategy) → Mixed Residential (with sustained growth strategy)
• Density / units / square footage: 1.3 acres; current 12 units; proposed 36 units; total of 24 new units (a 200% increase); no total square footage stated
• Changes from previous version: Not applicable; no prior rezoning history mentioned

Data Center Text Amendment (Item 7A: PZ25057)

• Case number: PZ25057

• Applicant / developer: City of Mesa (staff-initiated text amendment)

• Attorney: Rachel Phillips, planning staff (no external counsel identified)

• Location / scope: Applies to data centers in GI (General Industrial), HI (Heavy Industrial), and LI (Light Industrial) zoning districts citywide

• Current regulation → Proposed regulation: No prior data center-specific ordinance; text amendment adds Chapter 11-113.1 et seq. standards

• Key proposed standards (per public comment and board discussion):

  • Setbacks: 400 feet (flagged as "significant departure" from typical 15–30 feet in GI/HI/LI)
  • Height: 60 feet maximum (flagged as potentially hindering design clearance for cooling/infrastructure)
  • Parking: 1 space per 1,000 square feet (flagged as excessive; real-world need estimated 1 space per 16–30 spaces for typical facility)
  • Screening: Mechanical yards to be screened via solid masonry wall tall enough to conceal highest equipment (flagged as potentially creating visual problems)
  • Accessory data center: Capped at 10% of building footprint (flagged as restrictive for employer IT operations)
  • Waiver provisions: Ambiguously worded; applicants uncertain whether waiver applies to projects with site plan approval, administrative changes, rezones, or conditional-use permits
  • Grandfathering: Text alleged by commenters to lack explicit protection for projects approved pre-amendment (e.g., NOVA's site plan, Cyrus 1's July 2024 approval)

• Changes from previous version: Multiple revisions within 48 hours prior to meeting; specific prior version text not available in transcript

Vote Breakdown

Beverly Apartments

• Final: Unanimous (3 absent)
• Yes: Board Member Peterson, Board Member Blakeman, Board Member Carpenter, Vice Chair Pitcher (implied; typically the presiding officer votes)
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: Chair Ays (excused), Board Member Montes (excused), Board Member Farnsworth (excused)

Data Center Text Amendment (Motion to Table)

• Final: Unanimous
• Yes: All board members present (Board Member Blakeman, Board Member Carpenter, Board Member Peterson, Vice Chair Pitcher, plus unidentified additional members)
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: Not stated; Chair Ays, Board Member Montes, Board Member Farnsworth noted as excused at roll call but specific vote tally not recited for table motion

Outcome & Next Steps

Beverly Apartments

Decision: Rezoning (Z24-0152) and general plan amendment (25-00203) approved unanimously; development may proceed as proposed with 36 units on 1.3 acres.

Conditions: Implied in staff recommendation; board motion language omitted specifics but motion stated "approval with conditions." Speed cushions offered as traffic mitigation option (council-directed, not mandatory).

Next steps:

• Applicant may pursue site plan and building permits
• City council may consider speed cushions on Beverly and adjacent streets if community petitions under Mesa speed hump policy (requires in-depth process per traffic engineer testimony)
• No continuance scheduled

Data Center Text Amendment (PZ25057)

Decision: Tabled until June 25, 2025 meeting.

Rationale: Board Member Blakeman (moving to table) cited need for absent board members and stakeholders to review revised language; concerns that definition and accessory-use caps, grandfathering clarity, waiver scope, setback/height/parking ratios, and screening standards remain insufficiently vetted.

Next steps:

• Stakeholders (NOVA, Cyrus 1, data center coalition, architecture/design groups, 7x24 Exchange, Arizona Technology Council) to submit written comments and suggested revisions by June 25
• Board members to review revised text amendment and stakeholder input
• June 25 board meeting will reconsider PZ25057; further deferral possible if issues remain unresolved
• Council forwarding (and eventual council vote) contingent on board re-approval

Controversies & Context

Beverly Apartments Traffic & Safety

Community concerns: Madison Reynolds' testimony framed the project as a threat to lived neighborhood experience, focusing on vulnerable populations (children, seniors, people with disabilities) and the permanence of traffic-induced change. She positioned the concern as "safety over speed of development," implying the city prioritized project approval velocity over resident protection.

Developer counterargument: Taylor Earl reframed density as essential to light rail viability; noted the city had already rejected gating Beverly; argued that reducing 36 units to 24 would not materially reduce traffic but would impair project economics (implicit reference to debt-service requirements tied to unit count). He emphasized that low-income households generate fewer vehicle trips nationally and that the project was intentionally designed to minimize car dependency through light rail proximity and financial literacy programming.

Traffic engineer's role: Ryan Hudson's testimony—that 600–700 vehicles per day falls within acceptable local street standards—effectively closed the board's technical objection pathway. No board member questioned his methodology or thresholds. The "acceptable range" framing aligned with applicant position.

Context: The Lofts development across Beverly Street (66 units, applicant's project not in scope) was cited by community but not formally heard. Madison Reynolds noted the traffic study covered only Lofts, not cumulative impact, raising a data transparency concern. The city had previously declined to gate Beverly per community request, narrowing resident mitigation options to speed cushions (a voluntary, cumbersome process per Mesa policy).

Safer Streets Initiative tension: Madison Reynolds cited Mesa's 2030 goal to reduce crash deaths/injuries by 30%, arguing that tripling traffic contradicts this goal. The board did not directly address this framing; implicit assumption may be that speed cushions/calming devices offset volume risk.

Data Center Ordinance: Grandfathering Ambiguity & Unintended Consequences

Core controversy: Stakeholders (NOVA, Cyrus 1, industry coalitions) testified that the proposed ordinance, though aimed at future data center standards, posed unintended risks to already-approved projects. Ben Graph highlighted a specific scenario: if NOVA (with site plan approval) rezones from LI to a different district (e.g., LI with conditional use permit), the ordinance text does not clearly state whether grandfathering survives.

Definition problem: Board Member Blakeman identified a definitional trap: the ordinance defines "data center" to include "office space, staff areas necessary to support digital data operations," which could collide with the accessory-use cap (10% of building footprint). A large employer expanding its IT operations in an industrial building could inadvertently cross the accessory threshold and lose the right to proceed under the new code.

Waiver ambiguity: Ben Graph noted that waiver language was revised within the prior 48 hours but only in one section; uncertainty remained about whether waivers applied uniformly to administrative site plan changes, rezones, or conditional-use permit situations.

Stakeholder representation gap: Board Member Carpenter flagged that commenters represented approved-but-not-yet-built projects and industry coalitions, but no one testified on behalf of landowners with today's development rights who had not yet applied (or who were unaware of the ordinance). This raised a question about whether the ordinance's full stakeholder universe had been consulted.

Chandler PAD precedent: Board Member Blakeman cited Chandler's 30-year practice of PAD-dominant zoning, allowing site-specific flexibility on parking, setbacks, and other standards rather than one-size-fits-all caps. The implication: Mesa's proposed rigid standards (400-ft setback, 60-ft height, 1 space per 1,000 sq ft) may be unnecessarily restrictive if a PAD framework already enables customization.

Economic & state-interest context: Multiple commenters tied data center policy to Arizona's AI economy, semiconductor sector, cybersecurity industry, and utility partnerships. Mark Bower noted that developers (not APS/SRP) are now funding billion-dollar power upgrades. Sepand Alazada made a personal safety argument: a data center had enabled hospital access to his medical records after a car crash. The data center sector has invested billions in Mesa's Elliott Road corridor and is seen by economic development advocates as integral to the city's future. The ordinance's perceived over-restrictions risked signaling that Mesa was not serious about retaining or attracting this sector.

Staff responsiveness: Ben Graph praised Rachel Phillips' responsiveness and willingness to incorporate feedback; this praise, combined with the acknowledgment of 48-hour revisions, suggested staff was actively trying to address concerns but that the pace and complexity outpaced consensus-building.

Historical & Policy Context

Light rail proximity as density justification: Taylor Earl's argument that the light rail station is a "quarter mile" away and that Mesa's city investment in the light rail system justifies infill density near stations is standard new-urbanism/transit-oriented development (TOD) doctrine. The board appeared to accept this without challenge, even as residents objected to the specific street impacts.

Affordable housing alignment: The Beverly Apartments LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) status at 50% AMI appears to have provided implicit policy support. The board did not weigh this in favor during discussion, but the absence of objection to the affordable housing component (vs. objection to traffic) may suggest tolerance for density justified by affordability.

City priorities alignment: Both decisions (Beverly approval and data center deferral) can be read as the board trying to balance growth/economic development with legitimate citizen concerns. Beverly approval suggests the board favored the light rail/density/affordability policy goals over traffic mitigation. Data center deferral suggests the board recognized that moving too fast on a sector-defining ordinance risked alienating a multi-billion-dollar industry.

Duration

• Beverly Apartments item (4A, 5A): Approximately 25–30 minutes (public comment ~3 min, applicant rebuttal ~10 min, traffic engineer testimony ~10 min, board discussion minimal)
• Data Center Text Amendment item (7A): Approximately 50–60 minutes (six public commenters at ~5–6 min each, ~30–35 min total; board discussion ~15–20 min)
• Consent agenda (items 1–3, 6): Approximately 10 minutes
• Total meeting duration: Approximately 90–110 minutes

Other Notable Items

Consent Agenda (Items 2A, 3A, 6A, 7B, 7C): Unanimously approved in single motion without discussion. Included: (1) minutes from May 28, 2025 meeting; (2) Culver's 1.5-acre site plan modification for 4,100 sq ft limited-service restaurant with drive-thru at northeast of East Mcclops and North Gilbert Roads (approval with conditions); (3) Mountain Vista 24.7-acre preliminary plat creating seven commercial lots at ~1,900 ft west of East Hampton/South Signal Beat intersection (approval with conditions); (4) PZ25055 amendments to chapters 81 and 87 (adaptive reuse permits: modified eligibility to parcel-level, expanded zoning districts, clarified development standards, modified housing definitions) — adoption recommended; (5) PZ25056 amendments to chapters 30, 31, 87, 88 (accessory dwelling units and home occupations: modified floor-area and setback requirements, clarified home-occupation standards) — adoption recommended. No public comment or board discussion.

═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════