Mesa Planning Board Approves Price Manor 2 Rezoning for 41 Homes Despite Lehi Horse Safety Concerns

Planning Board Approves Price Manor 2 Despite Lehi Residents' Horse-Safety Objections and Allegations of Misrepresentation

The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board voted 5–0 to recommend approval of the Price Manor 2 residential rezoning on August 14, 2025, clearing the way for a 41-lot single-family gated community on 6.12 acres north of McKelps Road and east of Center Street. The decision came after sustained public testimony from Lehi-area residents who alleged the developer misrepresented access plans and density commitments made at a May 27 community meeting, and who expressed grave concerns about traffic overflow onto Lehi Road endangering the region's approximately 700 horses—the highest concentration in Arizona.

The board moved forward despite these objections, with board members noting that the project falls below the threshold for a mandatory traffic study and that the exit-only gate on the Pasadena side represents a reasonable compromise between neighboring subdivisions. The applicant, represented by attorney Sean B. Lake of Pew & Lake, PLC, on behalf of developer Jiren Sweeney at Brighton Homes, agreed to provide voluntary disclosure to future homeowners of proximity to horse-rearing areas and to construct a 10-foot decomposed-granite trail along Center Street for equestrian use—but made no changes to the site plan regarding traffic routing or density.

Key Speeches

"They told us that it would run through and in and out through to Pasadena, that there's no way that they would, you know, just have an exit. And that's what they both said to us. So, I don't know. I was raised not to lie, but they're they're flat out lying about it." — Tim Warden, resident at 424 East Lehi Road, speaking to alleged misstatements at the May 27 community meeting

"We have about 700 horses, believe it or not, in Lehi. We have the highest concentration of horses in the square miles of probably any area in Arizona and certainly Maricopa County.... We cannot handle that much more traffic. You're going from 18 homes to I think you said 41. That's like double.... We've had three fatalities, equine fatalities, and every single one of them has involved Lehi Road." — Michelle McCrosski, 4-H leader, organizational leader for Lehi Ranch 4-H Club, and Mesa Transportation Advisory Board member

"One of the problems I'm having with this at this point, in addition to what everybody else has been speaking about, is the misrepresentation of the community participation meeting. The papers that were filed with the city omitted much of the conversations that were had, much of the issues that were discussed, and the questions that were asked, primarily the questions asked by Lehi residents." — Kim Van Riper, chair of the historic preservation committee of the Lehi Advisory Board and resident at 505 East Lehi Road

"We will have that along Center Street. Um, there was discussion at the neighborhood meeting about the exit or not exit on Pasadena and you have the neighbors who live directly to the east who didn't want to have any access to the east because they're directly adjacent and didn't want to have any traffic. But if you close that access then the Lehi people the people who live further in the Lehi area were concerned that closing that off would force people to go right on center and along Lehi Road. So then you have a compromise." — Sean B. Lake, attorney for applicant, explaining the exit-only gate decision as a negotiated compromise between Pasadena-adjacent neighbors and Lehi residents

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Planning official Jennifer outlined the 6.12-acre site north of McKelps, the rezoning from RS9 PAD to RSL4.5 with new PAD overlay, the 41-lot single-family development with private streets, and the 8-foot screen wall around an SRP well site. Staff noted the applicant had held a May 27 community meeting with "a number of residents" expressing concerns about traffic, density, and the Pasadena gate; some neighbors voiced support. Staff recommended approval with conditions.

• Applicant presentation: Sea Lake presented a 20-year history of the property—zoned RS9 since 2005, repeatedly graded and abandoned by successive owners unable to make the project pencil at that density. He positioned Price Manor 2 as a viable complement to Price Manor 1 (also Brighton Homes, also RSL density), separated by the ADOT retention basin to the north and a mobile-home park (RM4) to the south. Lake emphasized the 6.7 dwelling-units-per-acre density falls below the 7.26 dua threshold in the general plan's traditional-residential category and represents a reasonable transition from dense RM4 to larger-lot Lehi properties (RS6, RS9, and agriculture) to the north and east. He stated that most traffic would exit via Center Street—the "path of least resistance"—to McKelps Road and avoid Lehi Road entirely. The exit-only Pasadena gate, he said, accommodates emergency vehicles and waste collection while preventing through-traffic into Lehi.

• Public comment: Five speakers testified. Allison Hixon (211 East Leland Street), a neighbor on the corner of Pasadena and Leland directly overlooking the vacant site, spoke in favor, noting the dusty lot had sat vacant for years and that the Lehi Sports Complex had not created the traffic problems some had feared in her area. Marilyn Crosby (2560 North Horn, Lehi) rebutted claims about a 20-year-old zoning history, emphasizing that density step-down commitments were made "within the first three years" (i.e., recently), citing a letter from Otto Schild. She noted that the sports complex generated a near-miss incident on the first game (four horses nearly hit) and multiple other incidents and fatalities. Tim Warden (424 East Lehi Road) alleged that Lake and Sweeney had promised at the May 27 meeting that the Pasadena gate would be "in and out," with fenced horse-safe areas, and accused them of lying about the change. Michelle McCrosski (3021 North Chestnut Circle, Mesa; 4-H leader and Mesa Transportation Advisory Board member) documented ~700 horses in Lehi, three documented equine fatalities on Lehi Road, and the impossibility of adding traffic-calming measures (e.g., stoplights) to Lehi Road because of its design (no sidewalks, riding paths on both sides). She urged a "no" vote and called for the property to remain RS9. Kim Van Riper (505 East Lehi Road; chair, Lehi Advisory Board historic preservation committee), speaking online, alleged the community-meeting minutes omitted key Lehi resident questions and offered to provide a voice recording for transcription. She called for disclosures in CCNRs or affidavits regarding dust, odors, and noise from rural agricultural uses and noted the Lehi Advisory Board had not been treated as stakeholders or even notified of the hearings.

• Applicant rebuttal: Lake reiterated the 10-foot DG trail commitment and clarified that horses were not on the property itself but in the surrounding area, not adjacent unless one counted the ADOT basin. He said disclosure would be provided voluntarily in the public report, CCNRs, and to buyers. He defended the exit-only gate as a compromise: the Pasadena neighbors (directly east, including Hixon) opposed any access; Lehi residents feared closure would force all traffic onto Lehi Road. The compromise splits the difference. Lake also rebutted the misrepresentation allegations, saying the city (not the applicant) now handles notice requirements and that the filing complied with state law and city ordinance.

• Board discussion: Chair and board members noted tradeoffs: double the density of an earlier iteration, but a gated community with restricted flow and an improved 10-foot equestrian trail vs. the baseline condition. One member expressed appreciation for Allison Hixon's support as a direct neighbor. Another noted that one-story and other comments about developments adjacent to the Lehi District raised understandable concerns, but stated that the density, "while a little bit more dense," is not "drastically different" and the project is "meeting in the middle in a lot of ways." This member noted that traffic studies are required only above certain thresholds and that even if done, a study would not likely change the site plan; it would only show traffic counts and flows. The chair summarized that the project provides a good transition between RM4, RSL lots, and Lehi properties, and the DG trail is an improvement to existing conditions.

• Vote: One board member made a motion to approve. The vote was initially announced as 5–0 with one absence (board member Blakeman). However, Blakeman then stated she had not abstained; confusion ensued about whether she was absent or present. A revote was conducted, and the motion passed unanimously (the final tally shown in the transcript is 5–0, with one member noted as absent).

Opposition

Number of speakers: Four against (Marilyn Crosby, Tim Warden, Michelle McCrosski, Kim Van Riper).

Main concerns:

1. Broken promises on access: Residents alleged that at the May 27 community meeting, the developer promised two-way (in-and-out) access via the Pasadena gate and creation of fenced areas for horse safety. The current plan proposes exit-only Pasadena access and no horse-specific amenities beyond the general DG trail.

2. Violation of prior density-step-down commitment: Marilyn Crosby and references to Otto Schild's letter alleged that city staff and the developer had represented (in recent years, not 20 years ago) that Price Manor 2 would provide a "step-down buffer" in density between the denser Price Manor 1 (RSL3.0) and the Lehi community (larger-lot rural residential). The current proposal (RSL4.5) allegedly contradicts this.

3. Equine fatality risk: Michelle McCrosski presented evidence of approximately 700 horses in Lehi, the highest concentration in Arizona, and documented three equine fatalities on Lehi Road. She asserted that traffic from 41 new homes (roughly double the 18–20 in Price Manor 1) would inevitably spill over onto Lehi Road despite the applicant's claims that most would use the Center Street/McKelps route.

4. Inadequate traffic study: Residents called for a traffic study before approval. They noted that even if one had been done, the applicant stated it would not change the site plan—raising the question of why a study was not conducted given the unique hazards (horse riders, children on horseback, high equine concentration).

5. Noise, dust, and odor from adjacent rural uses: Kim Van Riper requested that CCNRs or affidavits disclose that future residents might experience dust, odors, and noise from rural agricultural uses (horses, livestock). She noted the applicant initially indicated willingness to address this but then ceased communication.

6. Lack of stakeholder communication: The Lehi Advisory Board was not notified of the hearing or treated as stakeholders, despite the property abutting the Lehi heritage neighborhood overlay on its northern border. Residents learned of the application by word-of-mouth.

7. Misrepresentation in official filings: Kim Van Riper alleged that the community-meeting minutes submitted to the city omitted key questions and concerns raised by Lehi residents, offering to provide a voice recording to prove the discrepancy.

Most compelling arguments: Michelle McCrosski's testimony, backed by her roles as a 4-H leader and Mesa Transportation Advisory Board member, was the most detailed and credible on the equine-safety issue. Her documentation of three fatalities, the region's extraordinary horse concentration (700 in a few square miles), and the impossibility of adding traffic controls to Lehi Road made the density increase and traffic-routing plans appear reckless. Tim Warden's direct allegation that the developer had promised "in and out" access and horse-safe fencing at the public meeting, and then lied about those commitments, was the most inflammatory claim, though unrecorded and uncorroborated at the hearing itself (Kim Van Riper's offered voice recording might have provided corroboration had it been played).

Organized groups: The Lehi Advisory Board (represented by Kim Van Riper) and the Lehi Ranch 4-H Club (represented by Michelle McCrosski) were the organized entities, though both testified after learning of the application informally rather than through official notice.

Support

Number of speakers: One in favor (Allison Hixon).

Main support: Allison Hixon (211 East Leland Street), a resident on the corner of Pasadena and Leland directly overlooking the project site, spoke in favor of the development. She noted that the site has been a vacant, dusty lot for years and that developing it into "a nice neighborhood" is preferable to "a horrible dust bowl." She acknowledged that neighbors prefer no traffic on Pasadena but agreed with the applicant that exit-only access is a reasonable compromise—unlikely to generate return traffic since residents cannot enter that way. She cited her own positive experience with the Lehi Sports Complex, noting that despite some neighbors' concerns about sports-complex traffic, her area (adjacent to the complex with clear sight lines to the lights) saw traffic flow to the south on Center Street with no adverse effect on her property. She praised the applicant, Jiren Sweeney, for going "above and beyond" to help the neighborhood and make the project profitable while respecting existing residents' concerns.

Board sentiment: Board members expressed empathy for the Lehi residents' concerns but emphasized that the project meets zoning criteria, falls below traffic-study thresholds, and represents a reasonable density transition. The chair noted improvements (gated community, improved DG trail) compared to prior layouts. One board member stated the development "is meeting in the middle in a lot of ways" and would support moving it forward.

Project Details

• Case number: Z25-0000304 (Price Manor 2)

• Applicant / developer: Jiren Sweeney, Brighton Homes

• Attorney: Sean B. Lake, Pew & Lake, PLC (1744 South Val Vista, Mesa)

• Location / address: Approximately 1,620 feet north of the northeast corner of East McKelps Road and North Center Street; north of McKelps Road, east of Center Street; stretches from Center Street west to Pasadena Road east; adjacent to Price Manor 1 to the south.

• APN: Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: RS9 with PAD overlay → RSL4.5 with new PAD overlay

• Density / units / square footage: 41 single-family lots on 6.12 acres; 6.7 dwelling units per acre (below the general plan threshold of 7.26 dua for traditional-residential category). Individual lot sizes exceed minimum requirements for the RSL4.5 district.

• Changes from previous version: The applicant referenced a prior "layout" of the property but did not detail specific changes. The current site plan features:

  • Gated community with private streets (principal PAD deviation)
  • Main ingress/egress via Center Street only
  • Exit-only gate on east (Pasadena) side for emergency vehicles and waste collection
  • 8-foot screen wall around SRP well site (second PAD deviation)
  • 10-foot decomposed-granite trail along Center Street for equestrian use
  • Shared amenities and pedestrian connection with adjacent Price Manor 1
  • Single-family detached homes with two-car garages

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 5–0 (one board member absent; initial confusion about attendance, then revote conducted, resulting in unanimous approval)

• Yes: Board members voted unanimously; individual names not provided in transcript.

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: Initially, board member Blakeman appeared to be absent, but then clarified she had not abstained. After a revote, the final tally was unanimous with one member absent.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend approval of the Price Manor 2 rezoning and site plan to the City Council. The project will now move to City Council for final approval (no date specified in the transcript).

The applicant agreed (voluntarily, not as a binding condition) to:

• Provide disclosure to future homeowners of proximity to horse-rearing areas
• Construct a 10-foot decomposed-granite trail along Center Street for equestrian use (consistent with Price Manor 1)
• Coordinate with SRP on final landscaping along Center Street around the well site

The applicant made no changes to the site plan regarding traffic routing, Pasadena-gate access, or density in response to opposition testimony. The exit-only gate design remains unchanged.

The board's recommendation is not final; City Council approval is required before the rezoning and preliminary plat are effective.

Controversies & Context

Density step-down allegation: The most substantive controversy is Marilyn Crosby's and Otto Schild's (by letter) assertion that when Price Manor 1 was approved, city staff and the developer committed to a lower density on the adjacent Price Manor 2 site as a "step-down buffer" to the Lehi community. Crosby stated this commitment was made "within the first three years" (i.e., recently), not 20 years ago. Sean B. Lake countered that the original 2005 zoning was RS9, and that over 20 years, multiple property owners failed to make it work; he positioned the RSL4.5 density as a reasonable compromise that still represents a transition between the denser RM4 to the south and larger-lot Lehi properties to the north and east. However, Lake did not directly address whether city staff or the developer had made a recent step-down promise—he reframed the issue as a historical one from 2005. This evasion lent credence to the residents' claims.

Misrepresentation of community meeting: Tim Warden and Kim Van Riper alleged that at the May 27 public meeting, Sean B. Lake and Jiren Sweeney (or his designee) promised two-way Pasadena access (not exit-only) and fenced horse-safe areas. Lake did not deny these conversations; instead, he stated that the exit-only gate is a "compromise" between the Pasadena neighbors (who wanted no access) and Lehi residents (who feared closure would force traffic onto Lehi Road). By reframing the exit-only design as a compromise, Lake implicitly conceded that the prior promise may have been different. Kim Van Riper offered to provide a voice recording of the May 27 meeting for transcription, suggesting she had documentation of the applicant's alleged misstatements. The board did not act on this offer, raising questions about whether the official record is accurate.

Lehi Advisory Board non-notification: Kim Van Riper asserted that the Lehi Advisory Board was not notified of the hearing despite the property abutting the Lehi heritage neighborhood overlay. Sean B. Lake stated that the city (not the applicant) now handles notice and that notice complied with state law and city ordinance. However, the transcript does not clarify whether the city's notice procedures included the Lehi Advisory Board or whether a special stakeholder notification was required given the abutment to the heritage district. This remains a gap in the record.

Horse concentration and traffic risk: Michelle McCrosski's testimony about ~700 horses in Lehi and three documented equine fatalities on Lehi Road was not contradicted by the applicant or staff. The applicant's assertion that "most" traffic would use Center Street/McKelps rather than Lehi Road was based on intuition (path of least resistance) rather than a traffic study. No formal traffic analysis was presented to substantiate this claim, and the applicant stated it was below the threshold for a mandatory study. Board members accepted this rationale, but the lack of empirical data—especially given the unique hazard (equine fatalities)—gave the appearance that the applicant and board prioritized approving the project over verifying safety claims.

Lehi vs. non-Lehi zoning: Sean B. Lake emphasized repeatedly that the property is zoned as "traditional residential" (not "rural residential" or within the Lehi subarea or heritage neighborhood) and thus subject to different general plan standards. While technically true, this argument was circular: if the property were reclassified as Lehi, the standards would change. Lake was defending the existing zoning categories, which had been drawn before the Lehi heritage neighborhood was formally designated (a recent action). Residents perceived this as a technicality used to sidestep the spirit of Lehi's preservation.

General Plan alignment: Staff and the applicant noted that the 6.7 dua density complies with the general plan's 7.26 dua maximum for traditional residential. However, Marilyn Crosby's invocation of a recent density step-down commitment suggested that even if the density is technically compliant, it may violate a more recent policy commitment made in the context of Price Manor 1's approval.

Duration

• This item (Price Manor 2, Item 4B): Approximately 55 minutes (staff presentation ~5 minutes; applicant presentation ~20 minutes; public comment ~20 minutes; board discussion ~5 minutes; vote ~5 minutes)

• Total meeting: Approximately 2 hours 15 minutes (consent agenda, item 4A, item 4B, items 5A/5B, discussion, votes, and administrative closure)

Other Notable Items

Item 4A – Gateway Park: Unanimously approved with a statement from board member Blake Bennett (details not provided in transcript; appears to be a 33.3-acre rezoning of RM4 and limited-commercial parcels to limited-commercial and light-industrial uses with a 235,600-square-foot industrial and future commercial development).

Items 5A and 5B – Main Street General Plan Amendment and Rezoning: Unanimously approved (6–0). A minor general plan amendment changing 3.7 acres at 4062 East Main from urban-center to urban-residential place type, and a concurrent rezoning of 7 acres to allow a 137-unit attached single-residence development. No public comment or controversy noted.