A deal the city made several years ago with residents of an east Mesa community to keep auto dealerships away from their immediate neighborhood has sparked debate among council members as the landowner seeks to reverse that agreement.
Monday night, the council agreed to delay introduction of an ordinance which would revoke an earlier decision to restrict uses on a narrow 3-acre site next to an auto mall to restaurant or office development.
Some neighbors have been vehemently opposed to the revocation of the 2001 agreement, which they say was made in the first place because they wanted a buffer zone between their homes and the high intensity lighting and commercial signage that’s usual for a dealership.
But a representative of Cardinale Automotive Group, the landowner since 2005, says times have changed, they haven’t been able to attract any restaurants, and a car dealership is most likely to develop on the site, located on Superstition Springs Boulevard and East Test Drive near the U.S. 60.
Mayor Scott Smith said that the passage of time and changed circumstances mean a deal can be revisited, but he wants to make sure there are no misunderstandings about exactly what concessions landowner Joe Cardinale would have to agree to for a car dealership to be palatable to residents seven years later.
“A bargain that was made yesterday or last century can always change, but we have to respect the fact that there was a deal made,” Smith said, adding that the burden to change that deal needs to be high.
“If we’re going to change a bargain that was made, I think we need to err on the side of specificity and be very exact as much as we can in this ordinance,” Smith added.
The proposed ordinance would remove the existing restriction placed on the site when the original plan was approved in 2001. However, Smith said the language in the proposed revision is not specific enough to mitigate resident concerns.
In 2001, the City Council had agreed to the restriction at the behest of neighbors from the Superstition Lakes community, who still say a car dealership would make their lives miserable.
At the time, the land was owned by Scottsdale’s DMB Associates, master developer of the Superstition Springs area. In 2005, Cardinale Automotive Group bought that land. Cardinale also owns a Mazda dealership in the Superstition Springs auto mall.
The council would like to include items such as a detailed landscape plan, and other ways to placate the residents, as part of the new ordinance.
David Ward, an attorney representing Cardinale, said that the site only has access off of East Test Drive and most standalone restaurants tend to locate in areas with other kinds of activity.
“Also, it’s rather simplistic to say we were promised something and we shouldn’t have anything else but this promise,” Ward has said.
On Tuesday, Ward said that the company is willing to meet council members and neighbors and “be able to provide both parties the types of assurances they’re looking for to mitigate their concerns.”
But that is not enough, said Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh, who was on the council in 2001 when the original promise was made.
“The fact is that car dealers are generally not good neighbors to homes – it’s too much light and too much noise,” Kavanaugh said. “No stipulation can convince me otherwise.”
Residents also are not confident that Cardinale’s landscaping buffer plan would work because past assurances, they say, have not been fully met.
Councilman Scott Somers, who represents the district where the site is located, hopes to reach a compromise between both parties involved.
Somers believes this is one of those tough cases where neither party appears to be in the wrong, but the needs of both entities have to be kept in mind.
Somers said even if the city were to allow an auto dealership, it would have to make site plan restrictions, which could lead to a “chicken and egg problem” because Cardinale hasn’t yet lined up a dealer for the site.
“So we don’t know if the stipulations we place will restrict the users Cardinale is trying to attract,” Somers said. But opening the site to any type of industrial use, for which the site is zoned, may not be a good choice either because that could make things worse for the residents, he said.
Earlier, Superstition Lakes condominium residents Dale Holland and David Peterson had both expressed frustration at the owner’s attempt to redo the ordinance. The question for Mesa’s council, they say, is one of government integrity.
“We went through a huge deal with the dealership,” Holland said. “They promised us that they would maintain those two lots against our entry and they have strict restrictions, the city made that promise to us – how can they go back on that.”
For now, the mayor and council members plan to meet both parties to thrash out concerns. Following that, a reworded zoning ordinance is expected to be reintroduced in December or January.
So, in other words, the car dealers are supposed to take a royal beating on this property because they thought someone would move in??!!? Face it, that little chunk of land is useless for anything but a car dealership.
Just make them turn the lights down at night. There’s hardly a sound issue is the service is away from the residents… the apartment renters.
I’m sorry, but a deal is a deal. People bought these homes with a 30-year mortgage, in most cases. The original deal should be upheld. If things like this continue to happen, ordinances will have to be passed with homeowner buyouts included. Just think what a mess that would be. It isn’t even 10 years later and already they want to go ahead with what they originally had planned.
Face it. Developers run this entire area. They come in and make their millions and then go home to their palacial estates where there is no congestion, noise, or bright lights. I wonder what they would be doing if someone wanted to do this behind their homes.
“David Ward, an attorney representing Cardinale, said that the site only has access off of East Test Drive and most standalone restaurants tend to locate in areas with other kinds of activity.”
Cardinale bought the land in 2005, FOUR YEARS AFTER the agreement was made. He knew then the restrictions and he SHOULD have known wheter a restaurant would make it or not there (since it is restricted to restaurants). Buyer beware.
Here we go again. We have property rights, and this is there property and should get what they want………with stipulations. Well, that is how the general public thinks about things. Its my home, boo hooo, on no. You live by a busy freeway with lots of traffic out there. That is going to generate more noise then this dealership. There is a way to work this out and create the right type of plan for the parcel.
Im sorry Dennis K, these two uses can co-exist if they do it right. Your wrong about that.
OK: so you would like the council to break a specific promise and commitment made to those homeowners? Where is the integrity in that?
Dennis Kavanaugh
Dennis, how about looking into what improvements could be made, such as lowered lighting poles with less lumination, no PA speakers aimed towards the homes so they won’t have to listen to “sales, line 4, parts line 5″ all day long, and how to locate the service department so it’s the furthest away from the homes. I’m not saying a compromise can be reached, but it’s worth looking into with a lot of input coming from the homeowners.
Dennis, where was the council’s integrity in 2001, when it went ahead and filed a lawsuit against Randy Bailey to illegally take his property? As a matter of fact, you were involved in that whole mess because you were on the council at the time.