Mesa Planning Board approves 45-unit townhome project despite 453-person opposition petition

Mesa Planning Board Approves Contentious 45-Unit Townhome Project Abutting Retirement Community—Conditioning Approval on Good Neighbor Policy Enforcement

The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved a rezoning and site-plan review for a 45-unit townhome development at the southwest corner of Sasson Road and Main Street on April 9, 2025, despite organized opposition from 453 residents of the adjacent Mesa East 55+ retirement community. The board granted approval contingent on the applicant's compliance with a negotiated good neighbor policy—a binding lease and enforcement mechanism designed to restrict occupancy, parking, noise, and facility access. The decision marks a rare case in which a developer substantially modified its project in response to community concerns, yet the organized opposition persisted to the hearing itself.

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Planning staff outlined the rezoning request from Limited Commercial (LC) to Multiple Residents 2 (RM2) with Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay for a 45-unit, three-bedroom townhome development. Staff noted the property has been zoned commercial for 40 years but remained undeveloped; the 2050 Mesa General Plan designates the area as a "neighborhood center place type" that allows residential uses as supporting infill development. Density proposed: 12.8 dwelling units per acre (below the RM2 maximum of 15 DUA). Staff recommended approval.

• Applicant presentation: John Giles, attorney with Rose Law Group, PC, represented the applicant and developer Elliot Barkin. Gillespie emphasized the site's commercial challenges—infill size (3.5 acres), access constraints on Sasson Road due to proximity to the Sasson/Main intersection, and 40 years of unsuccessful commercial development attempts. He detailed design features: single access on Main Street, 105 parking spaces (2.33 per unit, exceeding the city's 2.1-per-unit requirement), 40-foot setbacks from the Mesa East property line (vs. city requirement of 30 feet), interior parking design, absence of upper-story balconies, mixed-material architecture (stucco, hardy board, brick, tile, glazing, concrete), and an 8-foot perimeter wall (vs. standard 6 feet). He also presented a traffic study concluding that residential use generates "at least five times" less traffic than potential commercial alternatives (medical office, retail, coffee shop), and acknowledged a public alley on the south side that the developer would maintain and improve.

• Public comment: Six speakers addressed the board over approximately 30 minutes. All six opposed the project. Speakers represented Mesa East HOA leadership and neighboring residents along Abalene and 74th Place/74th Street.

  • Dean Senny, Mesa East HOA President: Presented the organization's formal opposition on behalf of 453 petition signers. Key concerns: (1) incompatibility of unrestricted multifamily rental housing with a 55+ age-restricted community character; (2) traffic generation, citing motorcyclists using Abalene as a shortcut to avoid the Sasson signal; (3) potential property-value depreciation for retirees who have invested retirement savings; (4) safety and noise conflicts related to younger residents vs. seniors; (5) pressure on infrastructure (roads, emergency services, recreational facilities not designed for non-senior demographics); (6) water drainage issues—runoff from Main Street flows through a public alley into Mesa East property via openings under a shared wall, potentially exacerbated by the development's hardscaping; (7) the alley maintenance surprise—Mesa East had not maintained the alley in 50 years and did not expect to assume obligations. Senny also acknowledged the applicant's good-faith gesture on the 8-foot wall and noted that the developer had offered to take the alley maintenance obligation, which Senny indicated was acceptable.

  • Robert Kamo, resident at 7532 East Abalene: Former Marine Corps officer, firefighter, and condo-association president. Objected to the all-rental model, citing experience managing 132-unit condo complex where renters repeatedly violated occupancy limits (stuffing 6–7 persons in units zoned for 4) despite lease restrictions, and noting no on-site manager would exist to monitor violations. Expressed concern about low-income renters, drug use, and the inadequacy of off-site complaint procedures. Stated that the retired, owner-occupied nature of Mesa East contrasts sharply with "renters [who] are a pain."

  • Brad Call, resident at 7450 East Abalene: Described the project as "totally uncharacteristic of the neighborhood" and a "drastic sea change." Predicted overflow parking on Abalene (noting 45 units × ~4 residents per unit = ~180 people, with guests and parties requiring additional parking beyond the 105 spaces provided). Noted that an 8-foot wall did not deter him as a child in Tucson. Predicted residents would climb the wall or find other ways around it.

  • Jeffrey Stormquist, resident at 258 South 74th Place: Highlighted 74th Place as a main pedestrian corridor through Mesa East (connecting north and south entrances) where residents—including his elderly wife with a cane—walk daily without sidewalks. Expressed concern that additional traffic would pose safety risks to seniors who cannot react quickly. Worried that the development's recreational amenity area near the entrance would entice children from the development into Mesa East's courts and pool, violating the good neighbor policy's intent. Stated consensus opposition: "I haven't found one person in Mesa East that isn't at least been in favor of" opposing this development. (Note: "in favor of" here means "against"; context suggests Stormquist meant "opposed to.")

  • Michael Smith: Stated that prior speakers had already covered his concerns; declined to speak.

  • Blake Schiff, resident at 321 South 73rd Place: Focused on senior safety. Walking is seniors' primary exercise, typically early morning or evening—times when working-age residents would be entering/exiting. Predicted residents would cut through Mesa East to reach Broadway (the quickest route), despite the lease restriction, citing "human nature."

• Applicant rebuttal: Gillespie addressed three points: (1) Drainage: Preliminary grading and drainage plans show the development will retain water that historically flowed from Main Street into Mesa East, solving the drainage concern by directing it to on-site stormwater basins. (2) Alley maintenance: The developer will take the maintenance obligation, trim back existing trees as needed for utility access, and coordinate with the Mesa East HOA on preferences. (3) Parking and traffic flow: The good neighbor policy restricts parking to on-site spaces; no path exists for residents to turn left onto Broadway from the site (they must turn right onto Main Street, then right onto Sasson to reach Broadway), making a shortcut through Mesa East nonsensical. Rent estimate: $2,400/month, a "significant" market-rate amount expected to attract stable tenants. Elliot Barkin will hold the property as a long-term asset, ensuring on-site management. Direct contact information will be provided in the good neighbor policy for residents to report violations.

• Board discussion and questions: Board Member Pitcher asked how occupancy limits and noise standards would be enforced. Gillespie confirmed that the city of Mesa ordinance limits occupancy to four unrelated persons per unit (with exceptions for families), the good neighbor policy incorporates lease-enforcement mechanisms, and the management team holds the primary enforcement obligation via lease violation and expulsion. Pitcher also asked about access to Mesa East facilities; Gillespie confirmed a single-page disclosure in the lease prohibiting use of Mesa East amenities and warning of expulsion for violations. Another board member asked about private yards behind south-facing units; Gillespie confirmed 600-square-foot enclosed private spaces (exceeding the 120-square-foot city minimum) with two trees per unit planted on-site. The board then discussed the merits: one member noted the 40-year vacancy and vacant-lot blight risk; appreciated the appropriate density (not "10 pounds in a 5-pound bag"), on-site parking, traffic flow centered on Main Street (not Sasson), and the applicant's view-section diagrams and site-plan design.

• Motion and vote: A board member moved to approve Item 4A (Z24-01020) for rezoning from LC to RM2 with PAD overlay and site plan review for 45 units. Board Member Pitcher suggested adding a stipulation requiring compliance with the good neighbor policy. The motion was amended to include "compliance with the good neighbor policy as submitted" as a formal condition of approval. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (individual votes not recorded in transcript).

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 5 (Michael Smith declined to speak, noting prior speakers covered his concerns; 6 cards were called but only 5 voices were heard).

Main concerns:

1. Character incompatibility: Introduction of unrestricted multifamily rental housing fundamentally alters the character of an established 55+ age-restricted retirement community, creating a sharp demographic and use mismatch.

2. Traffic and shortcuts: Motorcycle traffic and general vehicle cutoffs already occur on Abalene (to avoid the Sasson signal); additional residents will increase shortcut traffic, especially given that the quickest route to Broadway runs through Mesa East.

3. Property value impact: Retirees have invested their entire retirement savings in homes; adjacency to a rental development may depress values for owner-occupied properties in a 55+ community.

4. Renter behavior and enforcement: Speakers with property-management experience (condo association president, former firefighter) cited routine violations of occupancy limits in rental communities. Off-site management cannot monitor on-site behavior; four-person occupancy limits are often ignored (experience: 6–7 occupants observed). Potential low-income renter profile could introduce drugs and other undesirable behaviors. No on-site manager exists to respond immediately.

5. Senior safety and pedestrian risk: Mesa East residents, many elderly and slow-moving (some using canes), walk Abalene and 74th Place/74th Street without sidewalks. Increased traffic poses collision and reaction-time risks to seniors who cannot evacuate quickly.

6. Facility encroachment: Development's recreational amenity near its entrance will tempt children to use Mesa East's gated facilities (pool, pickle-ball courts), despite lease prohibition, creating enforcement disputes and safety concerns.

7. Water drainage and infrastructure strain: Existing water runoff from Main Street flows through the public alley into Mesa East via wall openings; additional hardscaping will increase runoff. Infrastructure (roads, emergency services, recreational facilities) is designed for a 55+ demographic and will be strained by younger, non-senior population.

Most compelling arguments: Renter-behavior enforcement (based on property-manager experience with occupancy violations) and senior pedestrian safety (elderly residents with limited mobility facing increased traffic on neighborhood streets without sidewalks).

Organized opposition: Mesa East Property Owners Association; 453 residents signed a petition (to be forwarded to city council).

Support

The applicant and staff supported the project. No public speakers voiced support, though the board ultimately approved unanimously.

Applicant arguments:

• 40-year commercial zoning with no development indicates commercial use is infeasible; residential infill is a better use than continued vacancy.
• Residential use generates far less traffic (5× less, per traffic study) than likely commercial alternative (medical office, retail).
• Development density (12.8 DUA) is below the RM2 maximum (15 DUA) and is "appropriate" for the infill site.
• Parking (105 spaces, 2.33 per unit) exceeds city requirement (2.1 per unit), eliminating incentive for spillover parking onto Abalene.
• Single Main Street access (emergency/service access on Sasson only) directs all traffic away from Mesa East.
• Architectural design is contemporary and thoughtful (architect won Mesa best-architecture award last year), with mixed materials and no upper-story balconies, minimizing visual impact.
• Developer (Elliot Barkin) intends long-term ownership, ensuring stable, responsive on-site management.
• Rent estimate ($2,400/month) targets market-rate (non-low-income) tenants, supporting stability and behavioral norms.
• Good neighbor policy provides lease-enforcement teeth on occupancy, noise, parking, and facility access, with direct contact for complaints.

Board support: One board member praised the vacant-lot problem (blight, undesirable uses), appropriate density, interior parking design, traffic flow, and applicant's professional presentation (view diagrams, site plan quality). Another member stated reliance on the good neighbor policy satisfied concerns raised in public comment.

Project Details

• Case number: Z24-01020 (also noted as Z24-00913 in consent-agenda reference, but primary case is Z24-01020).

• Applicant / developer: Elliot Barkin (developer); John Giles, Rose Law Group, PC, 7144 East Stson, Scottsdale, Arizona (attorney).

• Location / address: Southwest corner of Sasson Road and Main Street, Mesa, Arizona.

• APN: Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Limited Commercial (LC) → Multiple Residents 2 (RM2) with Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay.

• Density / units / square footage: 45 three-bedroom, two-story townhome units; 12.8 dwelling units per acre (below RM2 maximum of 15 DUA); 3.5 acres (approximate).

• Parking: 105 spaces total (45 single-car garages + 60 surface spaces); 2.33 spaces per unit (exceeds city requirement of 2.1 per unit).

• Access: Single primary access on Main Street (median-cut aligned); secondary emergency/service access on Sasson Road (no residential through-traffic).

• Landscaping: 47 trees on south perimeter (vs. 31 required by city); approximately 20 trees planted as 36-inch box trees for faster maturity; two trees per unit in 600-square-foot private enclosed yards.

• Setbacks: 40 feet from Mesa East property line (vs. 30-foot city minimum for LC-to-RM2 transition); 20-foot alley buffer between development and Mesa East property line.

• Wall: 8-foot perimeter wall on south side (vs. standard 6-foot).

• Amenities: Playground, turf area, barbecue, and open space near main entrance.

• Changes from previous version: Not applicable; no prior reconsideration noted. The applicant made concessions during the citizen participation process and pre-hearing negotiations, not as a result of a prior denial.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: Unanimous approval (recorded as "aye" votes; individual tally not stated).

• Yes: All present board members (Chair; Vice Chair Pitcher; Board Member Peterson; Board Member Blakeman; Board Member Carpenter). Board Members Montes and Farnsworth were excused.

• No: None recorded.

• Abstentions / absences: Board Member Montes and Board Member Farnsworth excused (absent).

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning and Zoning Board approved the rezoning from Limited Commercial to Multiple Residents 2 with Planned Area Development overlay, and the site plan review for the 45-unit townhome development. The approval is conditioned on full compliance with the good neighbor policy as submitted. The policy includes:

• Occupancy limit: four unrelated persons per unit (enforced via lease violation and expulsion).
• Parking restriction: on-site parking only; no use of neighborhood streets.
• Amenities: residents are explicitly prohibited from using Mesa East HOA facilities (pool, pickle-ball courts, etc.), with expulsion for violation.
• Noise: adherence to city of Mesa noise ordinance standards.
• Disclosure: single-page lease disclosure notifying all residents of the adjacent age-restricted community and facility-use prohibition.
• Direct contact: management team and developer contact information provided for complaint reporting.
• Lease enforcement: Elliot Barkin's management team holds the primary enforcement obligation; violations trigger lease enforcement and potential eviction.
• Alley maintenance: Developer takes obligation to maintain and improve the public alley on the south property line (decomposed granite surface, utility coordination, tree trimming as needed).
• Drainage: Preliminary grading and drainage plan retains stormwater on-site (prevents historical southward runoff into Mesa East).

Next step: The 453-person petition signed by Mesa East residents will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration. City council may choose to appeal, impose additional conditions, or ratify the Planning and Zoning Board's approval. The project is now in the design-development and permitting phase subject to the good neighbor policy conditions.

Controversies & Context

Incompatibility and density transition: The core controversy centers on the rezoning of a commercial site to multifamily rental use adjacent to an established 55+ age-restricted retirement community. Mesa East has occupied the site for approximately 50 years and maintains strict age-of-occupancy rules (residents aged 55 and older). The introduction of unrestricted rental housing creates an immediate demographic and lifestyle mismatch: working-age, younger renters with children vs. retirees on fixed incomes prioritizing quiet, safety, and age-peer community. While the city's 2050 General Plan permits residential infill in neighborhood centers, the plan does not address the specific context of a mature age-restricted community abutting a rezoning site.

Renter vs. owner-occupied behavior: Multiple speakers raised concerns specific to rental vs. owner-occupied models. Robert Kamo, a former condo-association president with management experience, testified that lease occupancy restrictions (four unrelated persons) are routinely violated in practice (six to seven occupants observed), and off-site management cannot monitor or enforce in real time. The applicant countered that the good neighbor policy adds "teeth" to lease enforcement via expulsion for violations and direct management contact. However, the policy relies on neighbors reporting violations—a reactive, not preventive, model. This tension remains unresolved: the applicant promises $2,400/month market-rate rents and long-term ownership to ensure stable, quality tenancy, but the speakers' experience suggests enforcement is difficult.

Traffic and shortcut routing: Speakers cited existing traffic problems (motorcyclists using Abalene to avoid the Sasson signal) and predicted that residents would cut through Mesa East to reach Broadway—the quickest route—despite the good neighbor policy prohibition. The applicant's traffic engineer study concluded that the quickest route from the site to Broadway requires turning right onto Main Street and then right onto Sasson, making a shortcut through Mesa East geographically unnecessary. However, the applicant acknowledged that "human nature" may override rational routing, and the policy cannot prevent determined shortcuts. This remains a compliance risk tied to tenant behavior and enforcement.

Property values and investment impact: Retirees in Mesa East have invested significant personal wealth (retirement savings) in homes in an age-restricted community. The adjacency to a 45-unit rental complex is feared to depress valuations. While no appraisal evidence was presented, the concern reflects a real dynamic in age-restricted communities: the cohort's financial security is often tied to home equity, and neighboring uses perceived as incompatible (noise, traffic, younger demographics, rental instability) can reduce marketability. The applicant did not directly address property-value impact, framing the project instead as a market-rate rental targeting stable, mid-to-upper-income tenants.

Drainage and alley maintenance: The 20-foot public alley on the south property line has been unmaintained by Mesa East for 50 years; Mesa East residents stated they were unaware of a maintenance obligation. Water from Main Street historically flows through the alley into Mesa East via openings under a shared wall. The applicant's drainage plan will retain that water on-site, improving the situation. However, the applicant's offer to assume alley maintenance (decomposed granite surface, trimming trees for utility access, coordination with utilities) was presented as a concession during negotiations, not a city requirement. This raised the question: does the applicant's commitment create a precedent for future infrastructure maintenance by private developers? And is the alley maintenance obligation enforceable if ownership changes?

Good neighbor policy as enforcement mechanism: The board's conditioning of approval on compliance with the good neighbor policy marks an unusual approach: rather than traditional zoning code enforcement, the city is relying on a private lease-based policy and developer self-enforcement. The policy is not a formal city ordinance; it is a contractual commitment between the applicant/developer and tenants. City staff will enforce violations through lease and expulsion mechanisms, but only if neighbors report violations. This shifts enforcement burden from proactive municipal inspection to reactive neighbor complaints—a potential weakness if neighbors are hesitant to report or if management is unresponsive.

State preemption and municipal authority: Arizona state law allows planned area development overlays to modify standard code requirements, and the board approved alternative compliance (exterior material percentages) to the code's masonry-pattern mandate. The applicant's design flexibility in this regard reflects state enabling authority, but the good neighbor policy—a lease-based, non-code instrument—sits in a legal gray area: it is enforceable as a contract between lessor and lessee, but its enforceability against subsequent owners or upon change of management is unclear.

Duration

• This item (Z24-01020): Approximately 80–90 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, six public comments at ~3–5 minutes each, applicant rebuttal, board questions, board discussion, and vote).

• Total meeting: Approximately 110 minutes (including consent agenda, one case, and adjournment).

Other Notable Items

Consent Agenda – Medina Station, Parcel B: A 353-unit multiple-residence development on 10.3 acres located approximately 775 feet east of the southeast corner of South Signal B Road and East Southern Avenue was approved unanimously on the consent agenda. No discussion or public comment occurred. This much larger development was approved without the controversy or conditions imposed on the smaller Sasson Road project, illustrating that project scale, context (adjacent uses), and organized opposition drive board scrutiny and conditions.