Mesa — The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board voted on Nov. 12 to recommend denial of a rezoning and site‑plan for a proposed 30‑unit multifamily development at the Greenfield Road triangle, after neighbors and several board members said the project’s scale and sight lines into adjacent yards made it incompatible with the surrounding single‑family neighborhood.

The application sought to rezone roughly 1.9 acres from RS‑35 (single family) to MR‑3 with a planned area development overlay and site‑plan review to allow a 30‑unit multiple‑residence development. Developer and applicant representatives told the board the project is a ‘missing middle’ housing type, with gated access, crime prevention through environmental design features and balconies that provide required open space.

Neighbors said the design would erode privacy, increase traffic on the already busy Greenfield Road corridor and create safety risks next to the Consolidated Canal. "This project is proposing putting people right on top of each other. It does not fit the neighborhood," said Wendy Wise, a resident who said her backyard directly abuts the canal.

Applicant representative Dave Richins said the project would generate "under 360 car trips per day" on a roadway that carries about 19,600 vehicles daily, and argued the development would add a modest number of school‑age children and bring an underutilized lot into productive use. "We just asked for a positive vote so we can move this project," Richins said, adding the design includes buffers and CPTED measures to reduce crime risk.

Owner David Johnson told the board he had attempted outreach and was open to design tweaks, including alternatives for upper‑level patios if that would reduce views into neighbors’ yards. "We're not here to shove a project through. We're here to create housing in the missing middle," Johnson said.

City planning staff clarified several technical points on the record: setback measurements are taken from property lines or the canal right‑of‑way (not the canal centerline), the tightest setback along the west property line is roughly 3 feet 11 inches in a pinch point and the first‑story face is about 8 feet from the property line in other locations. Staff also noted the submitted plan indicates the utility line along the canal is proposed to be undergrounded.

Board members weighed those technical clarifications against visual and safety concerns. One presiding board member said, "3‑story elements ... is a huge roadblock for me on this site," noting there is no three‑story precedent in the immediate area and the canal right‑of‑way will not grow tall trees to soften sight lines. Multiple members said an updated neighborhood meeting would have been appropriate given population turnover in the neighborhood since an earlier meeting in 2022.

After deliberations, a motion to deny the applications was read into the record and seconded; the motion passed with five votes in favor and two abstentions. The board's denial will be forwarded to City Council as the board’s recommendation.

The applicant indicated a preference for an up‑or‑down vote at the hearing rather than a continuance, though the owner said he was open to tweaks that might address neighbor privacy concerns. City staff did not provide a date for City Council consideration at the meeting.