Mesa continues 68-unit Lofts at 121 North Beverly pending density negotiations with applicant and neighborhood

Mesa Council Continues The Lofts Development Amid Neighborhood Protests; Hears Contentious Non-Discrimination Ordinance Debate

On the evening of April 7, 2025, the Mesa City Council voted to continue the controversial 68-unit multifamily residential project known as The Lofts at 121 North Beverly, shelving an immediate approval-or-denial decision in favor of a negotiated path forward. The motion, made by Mayor John Giles and seconded by Vice Mayor Summers, passed without recorded individual votes. The continuance decision reflected the council's desire to allow applicant Tim Boyle, the immediate neighborhood community, and city staff to work toward reducing density and modifying the project's design before returning for a new public hearing with proper notice.

The decision capped more than three hours of intense public testimony—23 speakers and more than 30 written comments—that divided along predictable lines: neighbors in the historic Westwood area objecting to traffic, loss of character, and perceived threats to children's safety, versus pro-development voices arguing that older neighborhoods require density to remain economically viable and that infill projects are essential to Mesa's housing future.

The same meeting also surfaced a second major controversy: widespread public comment on the city's 2021 non-discrimination ordinance, with speakers splitting between those demanding its repeal (citing transgender bathroom-access liability) and those defending it as vital protection for LGBTQ+ residents and workers.

Key Speeches

On the development, opposed neighbors offered detailed architectural and traffic critiques:

"Its approval would be a serious breach of the responsibility this council holds to protect the communities it serves. My home was built in 1944. The house on the development site was built in 1930. The neighborhood is not just aging, it's historic, its living heritage. And that's exactly what this development threatens to erase." — Brett Stevenson, 1025 West Second Place

"I would hope that if I was going through such a challenging, stressful neighborhood development that these young people would also come and support me…but every citizen that I've almost every citizen that I've spoken with is not for more high density rental units. This is not what builds good neighborhoods." — Alex Ranich, District 5 speaker

Applicant Tim Boyle countered that the project was designed with care, that he and his partner Jeremy Roelly had spent decades in the neighborhood, and that the architecture—inspired by racing pigeon lofts—was intentional, not profit-driven:

"This proposed development is based on a heavy involvement in this area. This is not a driveby acquisition of something done by a corporate banker at 30,000 ft. I've spent my whole life on that street." — Jeremy Roelly, property owner and applicant partner

On the non-discrimination ordinance, Michael Sodto, president and CEO of Equality Arizona, testified:

"I am a transgender person. I use public restrooms as all human beings have need to do. In fact, I used the men's room earlier today before this meeting here in this building. The Williams Institute cites through studies and research of decades that transgender people are more than four times likely to be assaulted in a public restroom than any other type of person, including non-transgender people." — Michael Sodto, Equality Arizona

Liz McDonald, a Mesa parent with a gay son, defended the ordinance:

"It did get passed in 2021 and there has not been one civil case that has been brought because of it…It is a lovely thing for my gay son and for Landon to know that if something if there was a bad actor that they would have some recourse." — Liz McDonald, District 1

Timeline

The Lofts at 121 North Beverly Item (6A):

• Mayor's opening statement: John Giles proposed a continuance to allow applicant, neighbors, and staff to negotiate density reduction and design changes, citing prior experience with neighborhood-developer collaboration.

• Jeremy Whittaker stance: Expressed strong support for hearing from neighbors, citing past successes when neighborhoods and developers worked collaboratively to produce better projects. Wanted voices "engaged" rather than simply opposed.

• Jen Duff position: Stated support for the proposal as presented (no reduction), noting that zoning criteria, not for-sale-vs.-rental status, should govern approval. Wanted to hear from neighbors before any action.

• Councilmember Adams' view: Leaned toward listening to speakers and finding compromise, but expressed willingness to hear applicant and staff before deciding.

• Public comment: 10 speakers for or mixed; 33+ written oppositions; approximately 60–90 minutes of testimony.

  • Against: Brett Stevenson, Daryl Bradshaw, Linda Spy, Mike Ziggler, Evelyn Herman, Madison Reynolds, Alex Ranich, Owen Wood (conditional opposition if rentals).
  • For or accepting: Stephen Harris, Kyle Greenhall, Jeremy Roelly.
  • Key themes: Traffic congestion at Beverly and Second Street intersection, pedestrian safety for schoolchildren, property-value impacts, neighborhood character loss, on-street parking overflow, concern over rental vs. ownership status, inadequate park and street infrastructure.

• Applicant presentation: Tim Boyle presented 5–8 minutes of slides covering project design, precedent developments (The Allen, University townhomes), traffic study findings (446 daily trips, 35 PM peak hour trips = ~one car every 2 minutes), crime statistics, property-value stability, and parking ratios. Emphasized that the architecture was inspired by racing pigeons, that the project included 2–3 story units with 2-car garages, that trees would screen views into neighbors' backyards, and that the project was always intended for sale (though implementation method not yet finalized).

• Staff recommendation: Planning Director Mary Balmer and Evan Guyett clarified that the current application is for a rental multifamily project; conversion to for-sale condos would require a separate application later. Noted the applicant had reduced density by 2 units since February meeting. Stated the project is at 21 units per acre, described as "medium density, not high density." Mentioned design simplification and coordination with city architect.

• Transportation staff: Eric Gadarian (interim transportation director) addressed the proposed cul-de-sac on Beverly. Explained that a cul-de-sac from Main Street to near Second Street would be ~1,300 feet long, versus the city code maximum of 400 feet. Emergency services access and public right-of-way turnaround requirements make retrofitting infeasible. Confirmed that added traffic and congestion would likely slow vehicles and improve safety, but that prior speed studies did not warrant speed humps or cushions under city warrants.

• Council member questions: Councilmember Spillsbury questioned whether congested streets actually slow traffic and reduce crashes (yes, in theory). Councilmember Adams pressed on why this is called "transit-oriented" when it has 120+ parking spaces and generates 446 daily trips; questioned if it would generate the same traffic elsewhere. Adams also raised the applicant's claim of for-sale vs. staff's rental framing, and asked City Attorney Smith for guidance on zoning criteria.

• City Attorney guidance: Mr. Smith clarified that zoning does not and cannot require ownership vs. rental. However, he noted that if the applicant represented it would be for sale, staff should allow them to pursue the steps necessary to make that possible. Smith emphasized that the concerns (density, traffic, property values, crime) apply equally whether rental or ownership. He also noted that council has full legislative discretion to approve or deny.

• Motion to continue: Councilmember Adams moved; Vice Mayor Summers seconded. Discussion followed. Jen Duff and Councilmember Adams both stated opposition to the continuance, with Adams arguing that for-sale vs. rental should not be a criterion and that continuance would increase carrying costs and make the project less feasible. Jeremy Whittaker expressed support for continuance if both sides were willing to negotiate. John Giles reiterated that staff should facilitate the potential for ownership that the applicant claimed.

• Vote: Motion passes. Individual council member votes not stated in transcript. Vice Mayor participated by Zoom.

Non-Discrimination Ordinance Comment Session (after development item):

• Public speakers: 9 citizens provided comment on the 2021 non-discrimination ordinance.

  • Calling for repeal: Antinette Andrew (Christian values, cited Deerfield, Illinois locker-room incident, alleged assault liability); Dorine Taylor (questioned lack of constituent vote, cited Title VII Civil Rights Act, claimed ordinance creates civil liability for dissenters).
  • Defending ordinance: Allison Burton (special education worker, sister who is visually impaired, spoke of diversity and inclusion); Landon Phillips (transgender resident, said ordinance enabled him to live safely and contribute); Liz McDonald (mother of gay son, noted zero civil cases filed under ordinance, emphasized balanced privacy and religious-liberty protections); Michael Sodto (Equality Arizona CEO, cited Williams Institute data on transgender assault risk, noted no documented cases of trans assault on cis persons in bathrooms, called ordinance a symbol of Mesa's inclusivity).

• Outcome: No vote held. Comments entered into record.

Other Public Comment Items:

• Los Sendas pedestrian safety: Lawrence Newton presented detailed concerns about lack of crosswalks and stop signs in the Los Sendas residential area. Referenced a recent death of an 81-year-old trying to cross the street, his own near-hit by a speeding vehicle, and the need for paint and stop signs at multiple intersections. Provided hand-drawn map to council.

• Council Member Spillsbury targeting campaign: Monica Phillips, a registered Republican, addressed Turning Point USA's campaign against Councilmember Julie Spillsbury, calling it outside interference in local elections and urging residents to stand against the campaign. Speakers rallied to defend Spillsbury and local control.

• Budget overspending: Carrie Davis questioned why the city's proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget forecasts overspending of $53.7 million, contrasting it with state House Republicans' plan to eliminate waste and reduce government scope.

Opposition

Number of speakers: 33+ written oppositions; at least 6–8 speakers against the project in person.

Main concerns:

1. Traffic and street capacity: Beverly Street between Second and Main currently carries ~500 vehicles per day; project would add 400–500 trips per day (200 more cars equivalent), nearly doubling capacity. Second Street intersection is already dangerous; narrow right-of-way cannot accommodate 2-car passing.

2. Pedestrian and child safety: Hundreds of schoolchildren cross Beverly and Second daily. Project exit onto Beverly near Beverly Park creates car-pedestrian conflict zone. No traffic signal or stop sign; accident history cited (wall still damaged from prior crash).

3. Neighborhood character and scale: Westwood is historic, low-density, residential. 2–3 story multifamily with 68 units is "incompatible" with 1930s–1940s single-family character. One resident noted homes built in 1930s–1944; neighborhood was not designed for this density.

4. Property-value impacts: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia study cited showing adjacent homes see reduced appreciation near high-density rentals. (Applicant countered with comparable projects in Mesa where values remained stable, but no study-vs.-study resolution reached.)

5. Rental vs. ownership: Strong concern that renters lack "accountability" and "investment" in neighborhood. High turnover, absentee corporate management, transient population. Residents indicated they were led to believe units would be for-sale homes, not rentals. One supporter (Owen Wood) said he was for the project when he thought they would be homes; against if rentals.

6. Park and street infrastructure: Beverly Park already under-lit, high-crime. Project offers no enforceable investment in park expansion or renovation. No commitment to public realm improvements.

7. On-street parking overflow: 160 parking spaces in project may not be sufficient; spillover onto narrow Beverly Street would block traffic further.

Most compelling arguments:

• Daryl Bradshaw's point that there are ~3,000 existing apartment and condo units nearby (within Elma School, Maine, University boundaries), all with access to major thoroughfares. This project's single access point (Beverly) is disproportionately burdensome.
• Linda Spy and Mike Ziggler's emphasis on the intersection of Beverly and Second being already dangerous, with the project's exit/entrance directly uphill from where children cut through the park to school.
• Brett Stevenson's invocation of the neighborhood's historic character and the lived experience of families raising children in a walkable, quiet setting that would be irrevocably changed.

Organized groups: No formal opposition organization named, but clear grassroots coordination: neighbors had held meetings with the applicant, conducted traffic counts, and shared technical studies.

Support

Number of speakers: 3–4 persons spoke for the project; 1 (Owen Wood) was conditional on ownership.

Main arguments:

1. Infill is necessary for housing supply: Jeremy Roelly and Tim Boyle both emphasized that older neighborhoods must accommodate density to remain viable economically. "Infill projects, as you can see, when you drive around, they don't pencil out at low density."

2. Applicant's personal stake and intention: Both Roelly and Boyle grew up in or near the neighborhood, attended Westwood High School, and have long-standing ties. Architecture inspired by family history (pigeon lofts). Not a corporate developer extracting value.

3. Comparable precedent projects show no harm: Applicant presented The Allen and University townhome projects as evidence that multifamily infill does not depress surrounding single-family property values. Both projects' adjacent homes remain valued at ~$450,000+.

4. Crime does not increase: Applicant presented crime statistics for The Allen pre- and post-construction, showing no significant increase.

5. Design quality and livability: 1,400–1,600 square foot units with 2-car garages, flex space, large master suites. Designed to "feel like houses." Comparable to luxury condos but with better entry/exit than parking-garage models.

6. Pro-development philosophical position: Kyle Greenhall, closest neighbor to the site (101 North Beverly), supported the project, noting he had funded two traffic studies and speed-bump efforts himself. Invoked "pluralist society" and importance of allowing people who want to live in Mesa to do so.

7. Park safety improvement: Tim Boyle argued that placing 3-story units overlooking Beverly Park (eyes on the street) would deter crime and improve park activation.

Organized groups: None identified; support appeared to be individual pro-growth advocates and affected neighbors.

Project Details

• Case number: Not explicitly stated in transcript; referenced as "6A" on April 7, 2025 council agenda. Prior reference to "zoning case" but no formal case number provided.

• Applicant / developer: Tim Boyle (applicant/architect); Jeremy Roelly (property owner/developer partner). Both are long-term Westwood residents.

• Attorney: Not named in transcript. City's attorney Mr. Smith provided legal guidance.

• Location / address: 121 North Beverly, Mesa, Arizona. In Westwood historic neighborhood, bounded roughly by Second Street (south), Beverly Street (east), Main Street (north), and other residential blocks (west).

• APN (Assessor Parcel Number): Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Not explicitly stated in transcript. Applicant reference to "reasonzoning" and design review board approval suggests a zoning change application; specific zoning designations not named.

• Density / units / square footage: 68 units total (reduced from 70 units at an earlier February meeting to address massing concerns). 21 units per acre. Units are 1,400–1,600 square feet. Mix of 2-story and 3-story townhome-style units, each with 2-car garage. 160 parking spaces provided (versus 7 spaces per code requirement, though applicant notes near light rail so could request reduction).

• Changes from previous version (if reconsideration): Applicant reduced density by 2 units (from 70 to 68) in February meeting to "break up massing." Design "simplified" without losing "integrity" of pigeon-loft-inspired architecture, per staff comment.

• Amenities: On-site pool area, private outdoor space, 2-car garages per unit, proximity to Beverly Park (applicant argues park functions as extended amenity). No dog parks or on-site recreation mentioned as a trade-off for park proximity.

• Intended occupancy type: Currently proposed as multifamily rental. Applicant represented it would eventually convert to for-sale condos, but that would require separate future application and different approvals (subdivision, conversion, retention/utilities work). Staff clarified no for-sale application is pending; today's vote is for rental project only.

Vote Breakdown

The Lofts at 121 North Beverly — Motion to Continue:

• Final: Motion passed; no roll-call vote recorded in transcript.
• Yes: Presumed Mayor John Giles, Vice Mayor Summers (by Zoom), Councilmember Jeremy Whittaker.
• No or abstain: Councilmember Mark Freeman, Councilmember Jen Duff, Councilmember David Luna, Councilmember Kevin Thompson, Councilmember David Luna (or others; individual votes not stated).
• Absences / excused: Councilmember Francisco Heredia excused.

Note: Individual votes not explicitly named in transcript. John Giles made the opening suggestion for continuance; Vice Mayor voted "I" (yes) when polled; subsequent speakers indicated support (Jeremy Whittaker) or opposition (Jen Duff, Adams) to continuance, but formal roll-call vote was not read into record.

Outcome & Next Steps

The council voted to continue the project without a specific return date. John Giles directed staff to grant flexibility for a new public hearing once issues are "sufficiently addressed," provided proper notice is given to neighbors and interested parties.

Key commitments and next steps:

1. Applicant, neighborhood, and staff to negotiate density reduction and design modifications.
2. Applicant to clarify for-sale vs. rental path; if proceeding with ownership option, to begin necessary approval steps (subdivision, condo conversion, utility/retention studies).
3. City to follow up with schools regarding traffic and safety impacts (staff stated they would contact schools the next day).
4. Traffic-calming measures (speed humps, cul-de-sac feasibility) to be explored, though cul-de-sac on Beverly deemed impractical due to length and emergency-access requirements.
5. Return to council with revised project and proper public notice at a future date (no specific month or timeline given).

Conditions or requirements not yet established: None formally stated; continuance is intentionally open-ended to allow negotiation.

Controversies & Context

The Lofts Development Controversy:

The project encapsulates a classic infill vs. neighborhood character tension. Westwood is one of Mesa's oldest residential areas, with homes built in the 1930s–1940s. For decades, it has been low-density single-family residential. The proposed 68-unit development, at 21 units per acre, is by far the densest project proposed for the immediate area. Nearby projects (Copa, referenced by neighbors as 35 units) and new construction along major corridors have increased traffic on secondary streets like Beverly.

Neighborhood residents argue they were not consulted in advance and that the project was presented as for-sale homes, not rentals. Applicant counters that three in-person neighborhood meetings were held, that traffic studies were commissioned, and that the project's design (garages, town-home feel, pigeon-loft architecture) reflects care rather than profit maximization.

City staff appears caught between enforcing zoning criteria (which the project meets) and respecting neighborhood concerns (which are valid, even if not strictly zoning-related). The Mayor's suggestion to negotiate density reduction is pragmatic but also shifts burden to the applicant to make the project pencil at lower density—a difficult task in an inflationary environment.

Non-Discrimination Ordinance Controversy:

Separate from the development, the meeting surfaced deep community division over the city's 2021 non-discrimination ordinance. The ordinance expanded protected classes to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and created a cause of action for discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit.

Opponents, citing religious liberty and privacy concerns, called for repeal. They referenced a case in Deerfield, Illinois, where a transgender student's use of a locker room matching their gender identity allegedly forced cisgender girls to change in the same space, claiming it violated their privacy and constituted assault under Illinois law. Opponents also cited potential liability and claimed the ordinance was passed without constituent vote.

Supporters, including LGBTQ+ advocates and allies, argued that the ordinance includes specific protections for bathrooms, locker rooms, and private spaces; that it balances religious liberty and freedom of speech; and that there have been zero civil complaints filed since 2021. They emphasized that the ordinance is essential to ensure LGBTQ+ people can access public accommodations, workplaces, and housing without discrimination—a safety and dignity issue.

No council action was taken on the ordinance. Comments were entered into the record.

Council Member Spillsbury Targeting:

Monica Phillips, a registered Republican, raised concerns about Turning Point USA's campaign targeting Councilmember Julie Spillsbury's re-election. Phillips argued the campaign represents outside interference in local elections and is a form of intimidation. She urged residents to oppose the campaign and support local control of elections. Antinette Andrew countered that the campaign was not funded by Turning Point USA but by a local individual, and that criticism of the ordinance is not "bullying."

Duration

• This item (The Lofts): Approximately 2.5–3 hours (public comment, applicant presentation, staff presentation, council discussion, vote).
• Total meeting: Approximately 3.5–4 hours (including CASA recognition, consent agenda, citizen comment on various topics, non-discrimination ordinance comment, Los Sendas pedestrian safety, budget overspending, Spillsbury campaign targeting).

Other Notable Items

Los Sendas Pedestrian Safety: Resident Lawrence Newton presented detailed concern about lack of crosswalks and stop signs in the Los Sendas residential area, citing recent death of an 81-year-old attempting to cross the street. Newton provided hand-drawn map showing six key intersections needing crosswalks and stop signs. Council received the map but took no formal action.

Non-Discrimination Ordinance: Multiple speakers (9 total) addressed the 2021 ordinance. No vote held; comments submitted to record. Pro-LGBTQ+ speakers defended the ordinance as essential protection and noted it includes specific bathroom/locker-room privacy provisions. Opponents called for repeal, citing privacy and liability concerns and alleging lack of constituent vote.

Budget Overspending: Carrie Davis noted that the proposed FY 2025–26 budget forecasts a $53.7 million deficit, contrasting with state House Republicans' plan to eliminate waste and reduce government spending. No council response or action.

Council Member Spillsbury Campaign Targeting: Monica Phillips and Antinette Andrew debated Turning Point USA's campaign against Councilmember Spillsbury. Phillips framed it as outside interference; Andrew contextualized it as local constituent concern. No formal council action.