Mesa Planning Board Denies 30-Unit Greenfield Townhome Project 5-2

Mesa Board Denies Greenfield 30-Unit Rental Project, Citing Three-Story Precedent Gap, Canal Safety, and Stale Neighborhood Input

The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board voted 5–2 on November 12, 2025, to deny a rezoning and site-plan application for a 30-unit rental townhome complex on a 1.9-acre triangular parcel at approximately 250 feet north of the northwest corner of East Brown Road and North Greenfield Road. The decision turned not on blanket opposition to infill housing, but on three specific design and process concerns: the absence of any three-story residential precedent in the surrounding area, inadequate setback and fencing protection along a canal fronting existing single-family homes, and the applicant's refusal to hold a new neighborhood meeting despite 3.5 years passing since the last one in April 2022.

The project's denial represents a rare moment where a well-credentialed local developer and architect—both Mesa residents who have built multiple award-winning multifamily projects—encountered board resistance rooted in site-specific design standards and process fairness rather than blanket density objections.

Key Speeches

"I'm not in support of the plan as it currently stands, but I'm open to if someone has a motion they would like to present. If not, I'll make a motion to deny the application as it currently stands." — Vice Chair Peterson

"We're not here to shove a project through. We're here to create housing in the missing middle so that my 28 nieces and nephews have a place to live in the coming decades. Um, I've done my best to directly contact people that have expressed to me concerns on this project as their former neighbor." — David Johnson, Project Owner

"If there's a neighborhood meeting is what this hinges on, um you can certainly put that as a stipulation of approval that we can hold another neighborhood meeting and we're happy to do so." — Dave Richens, Applicant Representative

"Three-story elements here are there—there's nothing three-story in anywhere around. It's the adjacent the Forpaws to the north is a second story. The other commercial Walmart may be taller, but it's a single-story element. So there's really no three-story precedence in this area. So that's a three stories is a huge roadblock for me on this site." — Vice Chair Peterson

"Even though there's a gap, the gap is there will never be anything vertical in the canal because of operating in a canal that they always keep it clear. So that sight line will never have trees or those types of things to soften it. That's a large concern." — Vice Chair Peterson

Timeline

• Application filed: Date not specified in transcript, but applicant notes it has been "on the books for over four years in the city of Mesa."
• Prior neighborhood meeting: April 14, 2022.
• Study session: Planning board reviewed project in closed study session before this hearing.
• Applicant presentation: Dave Richens presented project context, traffic analysis (estimated 360 car trips per day vs. 19,600 existing on Greenfield Road), crime prevention design, and privacy buffers across the canal. Architect Jacob Kluff and Tim Boil (Atmosphere Architects) fielded design questions.
• Public comment: 12 speakers, approximately 60–90 minutes combined. All 12 were opposed or expressed serious reservations. Speakers included adjacent property owners, HOA president, and several residents who purchased homes after 2022 and had received no prior notice.
• Applicant rebuttal: Richens addressed concerns about viewshed, property values, crime, and traffic. Owner Johnson offered mid-hearing to explore design tweaks (potentially converting upper-floor balconies to roof decks). Richens declined to delay for another neighborhood meeting, citing lack of material project changes since 2022.
• Board discussion: Five board members spoke. Vice Chair Peterson led opposition; board members Blakeman, Carpenter, and Farnsworth expressed concerns about three-story precedent, canal safety, and process adequacy. Board member Pitcher appeared sympathetic to balcony redesign but shared concerns about lack of neighborhood re-engagement.
• Motion and vote: Vice Chair Peterson moved to deny. Motion seconded. Vote called: 5 yes (denial), 2 abstentions.

Opposition

Number of speakers: 12 speakers who opposed or raised serious reservations; several more submitted blue cards noting opposition without speaking (Frank Gomez, Carol Arbathnaugh, Roger Arbathnaugh, Monica Degraphth, Donna Lepler, Jody Oaks initially).

Main concerns:

1. Three-story elements unprecedented in area: Multiple speakers and board members emphasized that no three-story residential or even commercial structures existed within visible proximity. The Walmart is single-story; Forpaws Pet Resort is two-story. This creates visual and architectural discontinuity.

2. Privacy invasion from balconies overlooking backyards: Neighbors on the west side of the canal reported they would have two- and three-story units with balconies directly overlooking their single-story homes and yards. Elevation differences meant the development's second and third floors would afford clear sightlines into adjacent backyards. One neighbor (Jody Oaks) noted she could already see "the very tippy top of heads" crossing the canal from her current elevation; three-story units would see "directly into the entire backyard."

3. Inadequate canal-side fencing: The project proposed only 4-foot cable and steel fencing along the private yards abutting the canal right-of-way. Board Vice Chair Peterson cited the drowning deaths of children in the canal within his tenure in the neighborhood and expressed serious concern that children could easily climb over cable fencing to access the canal.

4. Minimal setbacks on west side: The rear setback on the west property line (canal side) was documented as 3 feet 11 inches at its minimum, flaring to 8 feet. With balconies cantilevering 5 feet further, residents on upper floors would be approximately 9 feet horizontally from the property line. One speaker noted this was inconsistent with the 15–30 foot setbacks common in the adjacent single-family neighborhood.

5. Stale neighborhood meeting (April 2022): With 3.5 years elapsed and multiple new homeowners in the area (one speaker noted seven new homes purchased since 2022), the applicant's decision not to hold a follow-up meeting before the public hearing was seen as violating good-faith "good neighbor" practice. Board member Pitcher and others noted that similar concerns raised in 2022 minutes were being re-raised today, suggesting applicant knew the objections but chose not to re-engage.

6. Traffic impacts on congested Greenfield Road: Multiple speakers noted that Greenfield Road already experienced heavy congestion, complex left-turn patterns (particularly at Greenfield and Hackamore), and recent traffic fatalities. An airline crash one year prior was cited. The 30-foot driveway ingress/egress was seen as narrow and prone to backup, with residents likely to use Hackamore to cut through adjacent neighborhoods rather than turn left onto congested Greenfield northbound.

7. Incompatibility with established single-family character: Speakers described the neighborhood as characterized by half-acre to one-acre lots, mature trees, low density, and family-oriented usage. One speaker noted that the neighborhood was selected by residents specifically for space and separation from neighbors. A 30-unit rental complex—even at relatively low density—was viewed as a jarring change in character, particularly given the elevation and visual exposure across the canal.

Most compelling arguments:

• Canal safety hazard: Vice Chair Peterson's invocation of drowning deaths and the inadequacy of 4-foot cable fencing to prevent child access to the canal struck the board as a concrete, life-safety issue beyond typical urban-infill trade-offs. The applicant had no meaningful response.
• No three-story precedent: This became the board's most consistent objection. The absence of any visible three-story structure in the vicinity meant the development would stand out visually and architecturally in a way that seemed at odds with the stated policy of "infill" and compatibility.
• Stale process: The combination of a three-year-old neighborhood meeting, multiple new residents who had purchased post-2022, and the applicant's explicit refusal to re-engage despite board hints that a new meeting might be welcomed, signaled poor faith to board members who cited "good neighbor policies" the city promotes.

Organized groups: Park Avenue Estates HOA, represented by HOA President Rich Ruskin, coordinated some input but did not formally oppose. Ruskin requested the board require "more scrutiny" and "more involvement of this community."

Support

No speakers testified in favor of the project. The applicant and architect presented the project; no members of the public offered support. Staff recommendation was approval with conditions (implied from consent-agenda procedures).

Project Details

• Case number: ZON21-000066
• Applicant / developer: David Johnson (owner); Atmosphere Architects (design firm) with Tim Boil (lead architect) and Jacob Kluff (designer)
• Attorney / representative: Dave Richens (formerly Mesa City Council member; served as applicant representative)
• Location / address: Approximately 250 ft north of the northwest corner of East Brown Road and North Greenfield Road; also described as 1.9-acre triangular parcel west of the canal along North Greenfield Road
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: RS35 (single-family residential, 35-foot minimum lot width) → MR3 (multiple residence three) with PAD (planned area development) overlay
• Density / units / square footage: 30 units; density not stated as units per acre, but 30 units on 1.9 acres ≈ 15.8 units/acre. All units three-bedroom, two-to-two-and-a-half bath. Project described as "luxury style" rental townhomes.
• Changes from previous version: Applicant stated "no major changes" since April 2022 neighborhood meeting. Owner Johnson offered mid-hearing to explore converting upper-floor balconies to roof decks to mitigate sightline concerns; applicant declined to delay application for redesign.
• Setback reductions sought: Yes. Rear setback on west side (canal) requested as 3'11" minimum (flaring to 8'). Front/north setback also reduced; applicant cited natural setbacks from canal and freeway. These reductions required variance or flexibility.
• Parking: Applicant stated "much parking" provided; board member Carpenter noted parking appeared adequate and did not express concern about spillover into adjacent neighborhoods.
• Access: Single 30-foot driveway on north side of property where canal intersects Greenfield Road; emergency egress on north side closer to Mclellen. No access or pedestrian connection to west or east neighborhoods.
• Open space: Private balconies required by city code on each unit; applicant initially proposed these on all units including west-facing (canal) side. During hearing, owner Johnson offered to convert upper-floor balconies to roof decks as a concession. Site plan otherwise showed minimal public or community open space.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 5 yes (denial), 0 no, 2 abstentions
• Yes (denial): Vice Chair Peterson, Board Member Pitcher, Board Member Blakeman, Board Member Carpenter, Board Member Farnsworth
• No: None
• Abstentions: Not named in transcript; two board members did not vote for denial (Chair Ays was absent; one other board member abstained)

Note: The board's vote was on a motion to deny. A "yes" vote meant voting for the motion to deny the application.

Outcome & Next Steps

The application for rezoning and site plan review was denied. No continuance was granted; the applicant did not request one. No conditions of approval were imposed because the project was denied outright.

What comes next: The applicant may:

1. Resubmit a revised application with design modifications (e.g., removing three-story element, adding three-foot block fence instead of cable fence, lowering density, redesigning balconies).
2. File an appeal to City Council (if appeal rights exist under Mesa code).
3. Abandon the project and sell or hold the land.

The owner/applicant showed willingness to negotiate during the hearing (offering to convert balconies to roof decks), but the board's concerns went beyond design tweaks. The three-story element and canal safety issues are structural to the project's current footprint and density.

Controversies & Context

Historical context: This parcel has been vacant for "many years," according to Richens. The application was filed over four years ago and has been in review for 3.5 years at minimum (since April 2022 neighborhood meeting). Richens cited lengthy entitlement timelines as a reason housing costs are high in the United States and encouraged the board to "put steel in our spine" and approve infill projects despite neighbor objections.

Applicant's framing: Richens and Johnson presented this as a "missing middle housing" project—a step between expensive single-family homes and apartment complexes—needed to allow adult children and grandchildren of current residents to afford to live nearby. Richens emphasized that only 2/10 of 1% additional traffic would result, that 120 residents would live there, and that the development would reactivate a tax-roll-empty parcel. Richens compared the project to successful multifamily-next-to-single-family examples in Gilbert (Avana Gardens at Valor Vista Lakes, Copper Point Apartments at Brown and Stapely on the Consolidated Canal) and argued that similar projects with less-than-100-foot buffers had not harmed property values.

Board member perspective (Carpenter's view): Carpenter sympathized with the applicant's housing goal and the market reality that triangle infill parcels are difficult to develop. He noted that the applicant had parked many units on the books and that this is the type of infill the city should be encouraging in principle. However, he acknowledged the board's obligation to impose design standards consistently and that three-story elements at this site were inconsistent with surrounding context.

Neighborhood concerns rooted in legitimate planning issues: Unlike blanket NIMBY opposition, the neighbors' objections centered on specific design precedent (three-story height), life-safety (canal fencing), privacy (balcony sightlines), process (stale neighborhood meeting), and traffic (congested Greenfield Road). Several speakers acknowledged the need for housing but argued the site and design were mismatched to the existing neighborhood character. This distinction was reflected in board member comments, which did not dismiss multifamily housing but questioned this project's specific design and context.

"Good neighbor" policy tension: The applicant and board disagreed on whether a new neighborhood meeting was required or prudent. Richens argued that the city did not require it and that the product was unchanged, so it was unnecessary. Board members countered that good-faith engagement—particularly with new residents who had purchased after 2022—was a norm the city was moving toward and should have been followed. Richens's refusal to delay for a meeting was likely a turning point; had the applicant agreed mid-hearing, board member Pitcher suggested he might have voted for approval with that condition.

State policy context (implicit): Richens cited Arizona's housing cost crisis and the need for "missing middle" solutions, alluding to state-level pressures for cities to approve diverse housing types. However, the board did not accept a state-mandate-to-approve argument; they applied local design standards and process norms.

Comparison to prior denial: Richens and board member Pitcher both referenced a similar Atmosphere Architects project on Greenfield Road at McKelops that the board had denied approximately 18 months prior. Richens tried to distinguish that project (citing a median and different traffic conditions), but board member Peterson suggested the two sites had similar issues, and the prior denial signaled the board's resistance to this design type on major arterial parcels with canal buffers.

Duration

• This item (4B Greenfield Multifamily): Approximately 120–150 minutes (applicant presentation ~30 min; public comment ~90 min; board discussion and vote ~30 min).
• Total meeting: Not stated in transcript, but likely 3–4 hours given consent agenda (6 items approved, 2 continued) plus this 30-minute item in the middle.

Other Notable Items

Consent agenda (Items 2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5A, 6A, 6B): Five items were approved (AWS Phoenix PHX062 substation with conditions; 623 South Mesa Drive 15-unit rezoning; Fujifilm P80 industrial expansion; Dutch Bros coffee-shop modification; AWS PHX065 utility permit; Mesa Connected TOD plan adoption). Two items—Cadence DU (302 units on 17 acres) and Lincoln (113-lot attached single-family)—were continued to December 10, 2025. Public comment from one resident (David Jarvis, 5929 East Duncan Street) was noted in support of the Fujifilm expansion. No controversy attended the consent items.