Mesa council approves Sienna Ridge rezoning despite concerns about garage size and on‑street parking

Mesa City Council approved rezoning for Sienna Ridge, a 20‑unit multiple‑residence development north of the northwest corner of East Broadway and South Ninetieth Street, following a 5–2 vote Aug. 25 that came after council members raised concerns about proposed garage dimensions and the potential for on‑street parking. The motion to approve was moved by Miss Bilsbury and seconded by Miss Go forth; the council vote passed 5 to 2.

Council members said the key concern was quality of life for future homeowners if garages are too shallow to accommodate modern vehicles. The Vice Mayor said, “These undersized garages will not comfortably fit many of the cars that families have come to rely on and [leave] homeowners an impossible choice of whether to use the garage for storage or to be able to park their vehicles.” He added that without driveways the parking could “end up bleeding out onto the street.”

The issue mattered because the developer requested deviations from the city’s standard garage dimensions. Council discussion cited the city code requirement of a 20‑by‑22‑foot garage. Staff described the proposed alternatives presented by the applicant as either roughly 19 feet 2 inches wide by 20 feet deep or 25 feet wide by 20 feet deep; staff and council members noted that the proposals meet width or overall square footage in some unit plans but remain shallower than code in depth. A staff member present corrected an initial misstatement about which dimension constituted the deviation and said the changes affected garage depth across several unit plans.

Councilmember Adams said he was sympathetic to both sides, noting that some residents’ vehicles would not fit but that district council supporters backed the project. “I’m not unsympathetic to the vice mayor’s concerns… I think it’s something that we should keep our eye on closely,” Adams said. Councilmember Pillsbury said guest parking on the site appears sufficient to address some concerns but reiterated that multifamily attached garages present a different planning question than standard multifamily parking.

Discussion during the meeting included back‑and‑forth about unit counts and which plans exceeded or fell short of code dimensions; one council member noted apparent inconsistencies in unit counts across the four plan types under review and was corrected by staff. The record shows council members asked staff and each other for clarity on how many units would be deeper than code and how many would be shallower; staff answered that depth changes applied across several unit types.

No public speakers registered on the rezoning item. The council’s approval allows the project to proceed under the rezoned designation as presented; the council did not adopt additional conditions on garage dimensions. Councilmembers who spoke said they expect staff and the council to monitor how parking functions as the project advances.

The item was considered during the regular council meeting and concluded with the formal vote; no follow‑up motion to revisit garage dimensions was recorded.