The developer of an east Mesa property slated for development just outside the upscale Las Sendas community came one step closer to bringing his plan to fruition - but not without a fight.

Despite vehement protests from Las Sendas residents about site plans for the 51-acre parcel, the Mesa Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously in favor of recommending the revised plans Thursday night.

That's a far cry from the last time the proposal went up for a vote. The board had rejected the previous plan on grounds that it didn't follow the original Las Sendas master plan to appease residents.

Neighbors have expressed concerns about the revised plans for the northwest corner of McDowell Road and Ridgecrest on two key points: building height and drive-through lanes on some buildings.

Those issues also made up the bulk of Thursday's discussion. The site plans include four- to six-story office and parking structures.

City officials say the site plans meet the required guidelines, and that height would not be a deterrent to the overall objective of the project: to create a quality development with potential for generating employment through a mix of office, retail and residential components.

"This plan is more in line with what the city wants," city planner Tom Ellsworth said.

Economic development director Bill Jabjiniak cited a projection that the parcel would inject 1,800 jobs into the city's economy. Jabjiniak said he agreed that the parking structures' height is not complementary to the neighborhood, but there is a need to fit them in the plans.

"You have to think vertically, you have to think of parking," he said. "From jobs' perspective, we're in the right direction."

While presenting the site plans, architect Barry Berkus of Berkus Design Group described the project as something Las Sendas neighbors would be proud of, with its European village style, a dry creek walk and a garden environment.

He noted that the residents' concerns are not uncommon.

But residents including Dennis Bassi told the board that the six-story height would be a "deal breaker."

They also attacked the developer for what they termed inconsistencies between the site plan and the project narrative. The latter includes mention of potential drive-throughs, but the site plan doesn't. Attorney Kay Bigelow, representing the Las Sendas Homeowners Association, said if drive-throughs were to be included, that should be brought back to the board and input sought from residents.

That's one condition stipulated by the city staff in recommending approval, given the stiff opposition. So if the developer changes the site plan later to include a drive-through, it would head back to the planning board.

Zoning attorney Reese Anderson, representing the developer, Chris Arnold of JCA Holdings, said that was always going to be the case.

"We were never trying to slide that in," Anderson said after the meeting.

Board members, including Ken Salas and Chell Roberts, repeatedly asked the developer whether there could be some compromise on the height. Anderson said that's something the market would ultimately dictate.

Board member Randy Carter also asked if there was any pressure to insist on six stories in order to get City Council approval, as residents have indicated has been the case.

Arnold said there was no pressure.

"We may not entirely agree that six stories work, but if other people are correct and there is a market for six stories, then we can agree and go for six, but we want flexibility," Arnold said.

Board chairman Rich Adams said the site plan is a far cry from what's typically seen in Mesa.

"What we see here is a huge improvement from Lindsay and Main, for example," Adams said.

Disappointed residents said they still hope to convince the council otherwise.

Representing the LS 51 Committee, a neighborhood group opposed to the plans, Greg Marek said he was disappointed that the board did not take an in-depth look at the height simulations the developer had presented, which showed what the views would be like once the structures were built.

Marek added they still hope council members would listen to their concerns.

"They still need six votes to approve it," Marek said, referring to the legal protest some residents have filed. That protest means six council members would need to approve the proposal, instead of the usual majority of four.

The council is expected to discuss and vote on the proposal at its May 19 meeting.