City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing

On September 28, 2026, the Mesa Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing to consider a consent agenda and a contested rezoning case for a 30-unit townhome development (ZON 21-00066, Greenfield Multifamily). After public testimony and board deliberation, the board voted 4-3 to approve the rezoning with conditions.

Consent Calendar

• Item 2A: Approval of the September 9, 2026 Planning and Zoning Board meeting minutes.
• Item 3A (ZON 25-00895): Terribles Commercial Development – rezone of 1.3 acres from Planned Employment Park with PAD overlay to Limited Commercial with site plan review and special use permit for a convenience market and service station. Staff recommended approval with conditions.
• The consent calendar was approved unanimously via voice vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Wendy Wise (4222 East McClellan Circle) opposed the project, citing incompatibility with surrounding single-family homes on large lots, height (three stories), privacy concerns, traffic, and loss of neighborhood character. She argued a lower-density commercial use would be more appropriate as a transition.
• Darren Jensen (1503 North Orlando) opposed, emphasizing security risks from elevated sightlines into backyards, overflow parking in the neighborhood, and the project not matching the existing zoning that drew him to the area.
• Janet Coate (1455 North Orlando, speaking for herself and husband Tim Cody) opposed, raising financial impacts (property value decrease), plane crash risks from nearby Falcon Field, privacy/surveillance from three-story windows, transient rental population, and inconsistency with the Mesa 2050 plan. She warned of legal precedent and city liability.
• Chase Winterston (4233 East Hackamore Street) opposed, adding concerns about power lines and drainage.
• Lorely Lane Kildy (4228 East Hope Street) opposed, describing the lot as oddly shaped and the attempt to fit 30 units as too dense. She noted that many opposed residents could not attend due to daytime meeting hours.
• Rich Vales (4222 East McClellan, #11) opposed, drawing a parallel to Scottsdale's overdevelopment that pushed him to Mesa, calling the project greedy.
• Lenore Dye (422 East MacLean, #10) opposed, citing safety from a past plane crash and disappointment that the developer's neighborhood meeting did not reflect strong opposition.
• Ginger Blum (1426 North Orlando) opposed, estimating that 30 three-bedroom units could bring at least 60 children, creating inadequate play space and safety issues.
• Jason Oaks (1521 North Orlando) opposed, questioned the six-foot block wall effectiveness, noted coyotes and safety along the canal, and argued that three stories are out of character – nearby multifamily is all single-story.
• Mark Hunsaker (424 East Hackamore Street) opposed, stating the elevation difference means second-story windows will look directly into neighbors' yards across the canal despite distance. He noted homes on that site would have standard setbacks, while the proposed PAD allows closer placement.
• Additional opposed speakers (April Gunnon, Karen Saharis, Untaker, Amanda Wannerson, Chris Porter, Holly Whiteman, Sally Packard, Sohi Williams, Jody Oaks, Mason Lenkilde) either spoke briefly or were noted for the record as opposed.

Discussion Items

• Applicant Presentation (Andy Funk and Michael Miller): The applicant summarized changes since the prior hearing (November 2025): two additional neighborhood meetings; removal of second-story balconies on the canal side; replacement of view fence with 6-ft CMU block wall; shifting buildings away from property line; splitting buildings to allow more trees; adopting DRB recommendations for traditional facade and roof design. They argued the site is appropriate for infill on an arterial road (Greenfield Road) and noted a 136–345 ft buffer from neighbors, a canal barrier, and traffic flowing directly onto the arterial.
• Board Questions and Comments:
  • Board member Hills noted the need for multifamily but expressed concern about the number of zoning modification requests (10–11) and regretted the removal of the view fence that embraced the canal.
  • Board member Carpenter raised the height issue: three-story buildings are unprecedented in the immediate area; the applicant explained that a two-story layout would have placed backyards into the right-of-way, forcing them to use three stories along Greenfield.
  • Board member Wagner observed that two-story units along the canal (with three-story behind them) help mitigate privacy concerns.
  • Board member Trexler supported the rezoning principle but found the list of modifications excessive.
  • Vice Chair Pitcher was concerned about density along the canal, saying two more trees were insufficient.
  • Board member Montez thanked the applicant for efforts over four years and noted the vacant lot could become something worse.
  • Board member Carpenter (continued) cited a staff presentation that the 2050 General Plan designates the site as Urban Center (more intensity) and that the proposed units (3-bed, 2-bath, 2-car garage) are modest and larger than many homes. He also noted that residential uses generate less traffic than commercial ones.

Key Outcomes

• Motion: Board member Carpenter moved to approve Item 3B (ZON 21-00066) for the Greenfield Multifamily project, recommending approval with conditions. Board member Montez seconded.
• Vote: 4 in favor (including Montez), 3 opposed (including Vice Chair Pitcher). Motion carried.
• The meeting was adjourned following the vote.