Mesa Board Unanimously Approves San Antonio Tire Shop Rezoning and Site Plan, but Conditions Parking Review Before Council

All right, welcome everybody to the June 10th, 2026 City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. Uh we'll begin with our meeting with asking all board members to go ahead and put their uh microphones on for me. Thank you very much. And uh we'll call the meeting to order and we'll begin with our roll call. Chairs is present. Vice Chair Peterson here. Board member Pitcher here. Board member Montes here. Board member Blakeman here. Board member Carpenter here.

And board member Farnsworth here. All right, we do have quum. We have everybody here today. So, we'll call meeting order. And uh as part of the first part of the agenda to do today, we do have a consent agenda that will be read into the record and acted on all in one motion. So, uh to repeat, none of these items will be discussed individually. I think we know which getting pulled off. Nothing. We're good on everything else, right?

So, we'll ask principal planner Cassie Welch to read our consent agenda into the record today for us. Thank you, chair. Um, item two, approval of the minutes from the previous meetings. 2 A, the planning and zoning minutes from May 27th, 2026, Planning and Zoning Board. Item 3A, Z126-000033 Faith Christian School, 9.9 acres, located at 3761 South Power Road. council use permit and amending conditions of approval numbers 1 2 3 4 5 8 12 and 13 of ordinance number 4646.

This request will allow for a private school staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Thank you, Cassie. Appreciate it. [clears throat] Excuse me. So, I'll look for a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Looks like she got those. All right, we'll go ahead and vote. Evan's getting us lined up. There we go. I'll look for a verbal from board member Farnsworth. Yes. With that, the consent agenda passes 70. All right.

We will now move into the other couple items on our agenda for the day. Move over to item uh 4A, the San Antonio tire shop. Look for a presentation from Are you doing? Oh, I'm looking for the wrong person. Cassidy, come on up. You shouldn't have left. Chair, would you like me to give the presentation again? Anybody need to hear anything from the No, I think we're good on this. Okay, why don't we go ahead and just have the applicant come up? Okay.

I think you know to state your name and address and all that fun stuff for us. Thank you, chair and board [clears throat] members. Uh my name is Alex Hayes, 2121 East Highland Avenue here on behalf of the applicant at the San Antonio Tire Shop with our request uh for a reason and general plan amendment. I think I think this is just the general plan item, but if one presentation for both items, that's okay. And our presentation's up here, but hopefully is that I don't see hours. Top one.

Oh, there's an presentation. Oh, I didn't get navigated presentation. I sent it to Emily, but I actually have it on a a zip drive. You could. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Y to me. Unbelievable. Is that it? That's it. Okay. Who would have thought being prepared actually helps for once? Um, okay. Again, for the record, Alex Hayes, 2121 East Highland Avenue. Um, you know, this is a little bit of a unique situation.

The San Antonio Tire Shop is a a small localowned business owned by uh father and son Aliso Guadama and Waqin Guadama. and they bought this property about two years ago with the understanding that this or their understanding that this property permitted the use of a of a tire shop. This they were told by their broker, you know, the broker's opinion is I'm sure you've heard that story before that an applicant was told by a broker that a use was permitted.

But, you know, they also looked around this intersection. They saw commercial uses around the intersection. They looked across lawnmower. saw our tire shop and they looked at the site and and the commercial use that existed on the site and they just um thought their use was permitted. Now, that doesn't excuse or allow the use, but I think we can forgive them for for thinking that. Again, ignorance is not a defense from the law.

Um you know, it doesn't give them any additional entitlements or development rights. That's why we're going through the process with the city now. What brings us before you here today. Um but you know when when you look at this site and you look what's around it, you can understand why they would think that commercial use is permitted here. And what they benefit from or what what I think the board benefits from today is that this site has actually been in operation for over a year.

And so while the use isn't permitted, we have an understanding of of the impacts of this use. And you know what we're talking about is not theoretical. we can actually look at what the use is today and and to date they have received zero complaints from the surrounding area. There's been no uh complaints about their operations.

And so I think with that in mind um the improvements that we're proposing here today as part of you know the reszone and the site plan process will only improve this site and only improve their operations. And I think we can have a a safe assumption that they will continue to have be a compatible partner with this community and a compatible use with the um other commercial uses that exists around this intersection. So the site is located at the southwest corner of University Drive and Longore.

Um as you can see, it is a commercial intersection. You've got retail uses on the northwest corner. Uh you've got retail and restaurant uses on the northeast corner. Um you've got a tire shop existing on the southeast corner. And then on the southwest corner of the subject site, you have today the San Antonio tire shop. And this was originally developed as a gas station. You can see that canopy still exists today. And then it was operated as a uh carpet wholesale uh operation.

This site has a general plan uh place type designation today of urban residential. Um, you know, this whole area was actually had a designation of neighborhood and then uh as you know, the the city updated the the general plan uh just a couple years ago and kind of revamped their land use map and and created new new place types and designations and and this site was designated as urban residential. Now, urban residential permits LC zoning district.

does not uh include convenience use, which includes the minor auto repair um use as a as a principal use. And so staff's recommended that we uh apply for a general plan amendment to urban center. Urban center is a a place type that's used throughout the city. It's a it's a common place type.

You see it um very predominantly along Main Street, a lot of commercial corners, and you see it next to uh residential designations and place types, including traditional residential and and certainly urban residential. Now, when the general plan land use map is created, it's kind of a high level uh planning guideline for properties, it doesn't look at like a parcel by partial use case.

So, it this ordinance has a provision for or a process for amending that general plan to accommodate redevelopment opportunities and unique circumstances just like this one. The property is zoned uh commercial. It's it's office commercial. This is the uh this OC zoning district has been applied to the property since it was originally annexed. We are requesting to reszone to LC limited commercial. That's the same zoning district that you see on the other three corners of this intersection.

And I know the planning staff and I think the board received a letter um suggesting that this might be spot zoning. And I would actually contend that the existing zoning is is more spot zoning than what we're uh requesting here today given that the LC is the same zoning that you see on the balance of this intersection. Um and this has been a long-standing commercial corner.

Uh looking at the historical aerials I I think going back to like the late60s I believe is when the the gas station first came to this site. that 1986, 40 years ago, was kind of the clearest aerial I I could find that showed the site was developed in the way that it exists today. And as I mentioned, it was originally developed as that gas station, then transitioned uh to the to the wholesale operation.

Then, of course, uh the applicant acquired this property a couple years ago um for that tire shop use based kind of on their historical understanding of the commercial uses here. This is a a street view of what the property looked like I think right before they acquired it when it was still being operated as that uh carpet warehouse. This is largely how it looks today.

And just to uh recap our three requests today before you are the general plan amendment uh the reszone with the biz overlay vis overlay and with infield development and especially on a small partial like this a small corner parcel that has you know two um street frontages. It's practically impossible to develop it per the ordinance development standards.

And so I think wisely the the city uh zoning ordinance has tools to deviate from those development standards to allow for projects like this adaptive reuse projects infill redevelopment especially one that utilizes an existing structure and has site constraints like its small size and its two street frontages. There are standards you know like parking spaces and drive aisles need to be set back 50 ft from the ride ofway. In this case you know the site is essentially 125 ft by 125 ft.

it would be practically impossible to to uh accommodate that standard. So there there are there are a number of of um deviations requested via that BZ overlay, but um all of our are necessary to accommodate any kind of development on this site. And then lastly, the site plan review to kind of lock in the the proposal that we are bringing forward. So this proposed development um will support a locally a quality locally owned business.

Um, it allows for adaptive reuse of the existing buildings on this site. Something that's really encouraged by by the city, by the city's general plan. Um, promoting, you know, reinvestment and revitalization of some of these older, more dated commercial corners. And this is going to substantially improve this this site and this corner. Um, and it'll do so with enhanced landscaping, all um, you know, desert compatible uh, drought tolerant landscaping.

um use of the kind of breeze block screening along the street frontages, additional improvements to the building facads via paint and public art with a mural along the lawnmower um street frontage in that east elevation. It's going to improve the safety and the operation of the site circulation by removing the two curb cuts. And again, as I mentioned, you know, with a with a site like this with this infill redevelopment, some deviations are are simply required.

No matter what the site develops is as it would require deviations, whether it's, you know, through the resone process with this BIZ overlay or if it were to be developed, you know, you'd need a substantial performance improvement plan um to bring it up as close as possible to the current code. A little more about the site details. Those X's, you can see the existing curb cuts that are going to be removed.

again improving the kind of the way this site interacts with the street, improving the safety, improving the circulation on this site. Uh customers would access this site via university um and would circulate, you know, bringing their cars in would enter the service bays that that front university drive and exiting they would uh circulate around the buildings out to Longmore. Um the service bays are on the west side of the building.

Tire and equipment storage which is all indoors will be in on the east side of the building. Um you can see that that breeze block again um provides a kind of additional aesthetic value on that street frontage in addition to the landscaping. You see an improved customer waiting area outdoor. They also have an indoor air conditioned waiting area for customers. Improved kind of corner representation relationship to that street corner.

And then uh that [clears throat] uh public art that mural that will be on the the east elevation along Longmore parking you know per code that is does require 11 spaces. We're requesting via that uh B overlay a reduction to four spaces also includes the two service bays um and additional bike parking. The four spaces really are sufficient for the operation of this business. They they their customers are always waiting on site. Their tire installations repairs take about 15 to 25 minutes.

So, they're kind of in and out. They don't really need a lot of staging. They don't keep cars overnight. So, there's not a substantial need for um additional customer parking on site. And because they're currently operating, they they know that, you know, this parking count will meet their their needs on the site. some additional perspective renders that kind of really I think demonstrate the the significant improvement that would be made to this site.

Uh I think it's really attractive um street frontage and they've I think they've done a good job being able to re revitalize this building uh and what is a very dated uh commercial corner. Gives you a better perspective of that mural on Longmore. We did uh our citizen participation sent notices to property owners within a thousand feet of the site. Um, as staff mentioned, we'd had a a initial neighborhood meeting last year. Didn't have any attendees come to that meeting.

We held a a second neighborhood meeting uh just a couple months ago. We did have a few attendees there. I think a number of them are here here today. Um, and some of their comments were that they didn't like commercial zoning on this site at all. Even you know I obviously our contention is that the site is already zoned for commercial use and the site is currently operating with this business and really they didn't really express many concerns about the actual operation of the business.

I think it was really more uh a conceptual reaction to uh commercial zoning on the site and you know there was also some comments about uh 247 use on the site and I'll I'll talk about that briefly. Um the site does not the business does not currently operate 247. They would like to have the ability to do that to be open 247 because they do have a a mobile service operation and they would have you know one person there overnight to allow the mobile service operation to to come in and get tires.

Um maybe bring a vehicle but it it would not be um this is not kind of an allnight operation every night where there's cars coming in and out. um customers don't leave their vehicles overnight. So, it would be a very um sparingly used um operation if it did occur after normal business hours. Um noise and light pollution was another um comment we heard as well as for potential for uses beyond tire repair.

And we were able to I think explain that the minor auto repair use does limit the type of uses um you can do. The major auto repair, major auto repair is another category that would not be permitted on this site. They also do have another operation about 5 minutes from this that that does do more substantial auto repair. So, they have an option to do that elsewhere. So, it would not need to occur here on site.

But coming out of that meeting, we did we had a good neighbor policy, but but um we wanted to revamp that to more specifically address uh some of their specific concerns. Um and so we reiterated that you know all noise gener generating operations all all the service of the vehicles was going to occur inside the four walls of the building. Um the building is designed uh the construction will meet the the code requirements uh for sound attenuation of 25 dB.

They've proactively acquired electric tools instead of the air compressed tools which are are typically more um generating more noise. All the light fixtures will be shielded and and down lit so they're um not creating noise pollution even though this is an existing commercial corner. Um they will have no storage of of tires or equipment outside. It'll all occur inside inside the building or offsite.

Um and then they provided contact info for uh the operators of this business in case there are any community concerns or comments that that need to be addressed.

um you know I think very importantly uh because this business has been in operation they've been able to to um you know work with their neighbors in the community and they they we went to uh the directly adjacent neighbor the person most affected by this business and they were able to offer a letter of support for this business because they understand that that they are a good neighbor.

And so to wrap it up and and happy to answer any questions you have, but this project will bring substantial reinvestment uh to this corner. It's a use that is compatible with the other commercial uses on this corner. It's a great adaptive reuse of of a pretty challenging infill site, which uh is is very much in line with the goals of of the Mesa general plan. It's compatible with those uses other commercial uses uh and it supports small business in in Mesa.

So, um, appreciate your support for this project and happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much. Questions for the applicant from the board. Chase, anything for you online? No, thank you. Yes. So Alex, thanks for that presentation on the maybe talk a little bit about you the good neighbor policy and how that applies to what what that applies to and then and then in particular if the the parking um becomes an issue how that gets addressed through that policy.

So the parking is not specifically addressed in the good neighbor policy, but um you know they they based on their operational experience and needs, they don't view the number of parking spaces on site to be an issue. They customers are are you know they come in and it goes into the bay and they wait for 15 or 25 minutes and they get in their car and they leave. They don't allow them to leave overnight. So there's not really a need for staging of vehicles.

Um, in the event that there was, you know, there this business did become fantastically successful and they needed additional parking, there is a church on the other side of Longmore that has a a very large parking lot. They don't have any parking agreements with them today, but I think that would be an opportunity in the future if if parking did become an issue. How uh I I I guess in Okay.

So, so that's a a backup plan if the and and maybe for staff too if the w with with this 11 to four on the parking spaces. What what is the process or recourse if if parking in adjacent areas becomes an issue? How what what's is there some Yeah. What what what recourse do neighbors have or anybody else?

um chairs, [clears throat] uh Vice Chair Peterson, I think that the the recourse if it starts to be a a parking issue is that um we would there there could be code violations if if they are parking illegally around the site. Um [clears throat] I'm not sure from a an entitlement perspective that there's anything that we could go back. We could potentially look at a condition of approval to reassess the site in six months and see what issues may have arisen.

Um Evan, I'm not sure if you have anything you want to add. Uh sure. Thank you, Mary. Uh chair, board members. Um so good good question. And so if they are not operating within their operational um you know characteristics in in general if this was in like a neighborhood and and you had streets where you could park um we would look at that but you can't park on on lawnmowers. So I think Alex makes a good point.

There are a number of of vacant properties around or underutilized properties around this specific property where they could explore shared parking agreements and things like that.

uh staff has an approval process for that and it's administrative use permit and it requires um a signed and recorded parking agreement to ensure the the long-term viability of those parking spaces should they should they be needed and that would be an option but you know again it sounds like operationally this this would work but if it is a concern for neighbors the process for that would be code compliance but I do think there are some opportunities to address that in the neighborhood.

Okay, thank you. I think let me add to that, Alex. I don't know if you're going to jump onto another question, but I think if if operationally everybody feels like this is good, I don't see any reason why it could not be part of the good neighbor agreement, right? There could be something that discusses that.

I'm not saying necessarily that this has got to be something that's put down as a, you know, going and getting actually parking agreements or anything, but I think that that if if they're very confident that addressing it in some way is probably a good olive branch at this point. So, just my two cents on that one. Yeah. Thank you, chair. We can look at opportunities to put something in the good neighbor policy.

And so chairs, that could be something that the the board adds as a condition of approval um if that's how the board so chooses to move forward. So that that modification could be made before we went to council. Yeah. Sorry. Yes. One one more question for either Alex or staff. So, so how did and and I get instead of session we talked there was a time gap, but what what triggered how did we get to where this um where this applicant where this application came in for both zoning and general plan?

I guess was it a code enforcement thing or or what what triggered being here today? Thank you, Chairs, Vice Chair Peterson. Um, so maybe backing up a bit, we Alex mentioned and he had some historic aerials about how the site was, it's been a service station. Um, it's been other tire shops. Even the carpet wholesaler was actually also not a permitted use in the OC district. And I think a lot of that is a function of when it was annexed, all four of those those corners had the same OC zoning.

And over time, they've come in and reszoned to LC, and for whatever reason, this one didn't. So, the zoning on this property has been an issue for many, many years. And I think what triggered this was a a a portion of time where it was vacant. And I'm not 100% if a code case was issued or not. But the zoning has been an issue for for a long time.

So, if it was not this applicant and it was another applicant for another use, they would also likely have issues with the zoning um and the general plan. The general plan is because of of that reszoning request. So, this is really kind of an opportunity to clean up the zoning on this site that has been an issue for for decades, frankly. Okay, gotcha. Thanks, Cassie. Yeah, sorry.

Uh, chair, board members, uh, what specifically brought staff's attention um to this was a a code case for a sign for their sign violation. Got it. Okay, you're good. I have a question just for my friend staff or whoever. If it wasn't this applicant, it is zoned for commercial. So, what else could be built here? Chairs, board member Montes.

So, office commercial is actually the the least intense um commercial district and it's really limited to kind of just like it sounds primarily office uses, low very low inensity commercial uses.

So um obviously no no auto repair um you know some of the restaurant uses maybe all the restaurant uses are restricted it's it's a very narrow use pallet in in OC but it would still remain commercial it would it would remain commercial at at the lowest designation okay and I think one thing to point out to I don't know if we know the transition with the different general plan the different designations that came through when it became I don't know if we know when it became name OC.

Prior to that though, there were different commercial designations that were a different definition. Thanks, Chairs. That's actually a good question. So, it has always had the same zoning district from when it was annexed in 1958. I want to say the the name of it has changed. We used to do like C1, C2, C3. It's all broken down in different categories since then, right? But the but the commercial use category has always been the same. Yeah. Does that make sense, Jess? Yeah.

So, I think that's really important to kind of to note that this has always been commercial. The way it's branched off into different segments has changed, right? And unfortunately, this poor little site has not kept up with those changes. And I think that's kind of why we're here. So, so, so then it it it never was office, right? Of all these past uses, we So, it so it never did comply with SOC category at any point. chair, vice chair.

Um, uses can change here and there in in zoning ordinances as you know, every once in a while a city will overhaul a zoning ordinance. So, the uses can can fluctuate a little bit, but there was never a point where this was allowed for auto use or more intense uses like wholesale or any of those sorts of things. Yeah. Gotcha. But at the same time, when it was annexed in, it wasn't office at that point. So if if that category changed over time, it it's the the use was the use.

It came in as C1 and it was probably a vacant parcel that it was zone C1 in the county. So when we annexed it, we gave it our our comparable C1 zoning district, which is now called office commercial. Gotcha. But then it got it had a gas station for a long time. So that's what it started. I think is that what it started with, right? It was a gas station. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's been a it's been a number of uses and likely none of them were in conformance with the zoning. Okay. All right.

I don't think I have anything unless you want to talk to any of these points or things that we've discussed and we go just open public comment and then get you back up. So, I'll let leave it up to you. Yeah, we can go to public comment and I'm happy to address the questions then. All right, we'll go ahead and do that. Great. Thanks. All right. So, we'll go ahead and open this uh item up for public comment. So, what I'm going to be doing is I have uh quite the stack of blue cards here.

What we'll be doing is inviting people to come up uh to make a statement if they've uh asked to be able to do so. Um so, a couple things here. We do have quite a few. So, what I would like to kind of reiterate with everybody is so when you come up, um there's also it looks like one person wrote out almost all of them. So, I don't have the accompanying information that comes along. So, when you come up, you need to come up, state your name and your address so we can have that on the record.

And then each of you will get three minutes to be able to make a statement. Um, and then, uh, we'll move on to the next person and we'll kind of hit everybody in here. Uh, once those comments are done, we'll be able to bring the applicant back up to be able to respond to comments. Does that make sense everybody? All right. Yeah. So ask a question. It says here a spokesperson may be allowed 10 minutes and that would be me. Is okay.

So is is every single person on here is that what we're saying is you're you're saying every card that I have up here is for 10 minutes for yourself. No, I'm the spokesperson for the group and according to your procedures here if possible designate a spokesperson which allows Yes, that's true. What I'm asking, ma'am, is if there's Does everybody here agree that she's your spokesperson? Yeah. No, no, I understand. I'm just ask So, is anyone here want to speak on their own?

Will they be disallowed from speaking? If I speak on their If you're doing it on their behalf, that's the point. If you go 10 minutes, then that's I mean, there's And and by the way, you could still have your 10 minutes. I'm not saying you're not going to get that, but I do want to know if there's other people that like to speak for themselves. I think everybody does. Well, then then it's not a spokesperson that then everybody should and the three minutes. So here here's what I'll do.

We'll make it a little bit easier. I'm going to go ahead and go through the list and call what was your name? My name is Tess Taylor and I can reduce my comments to about 3 minutes. No, you're good. Hold on. Hold on. You're good. So, let me find you in here. Test Taylor. Okay. I'm gonna go, you're at the bottom of the stack because what I'm going to do is I'm gonna invite if I say your name and if you're good to have her speak for you, that's fine. Just let me know.

If not, I'll allow others to kind of come up. If I I'm guessing that there's not going to be that many of you that would like to have your own time is I'm just going to take a guess. So, chairs, can I just ask, are you asking staff to uh time the comments? Are you looking to time the the public comments? We'll do everybody before that. Yeah, we'll do the three minute time. Okay. Just Evan needed to know that you're the you're the watch keeper. All right.

So, uh the first I have on here is Reed Dunn. Reed, come on up and state your name and address for us, sir. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Reed Don. I've lived at my current address at 466 North Peon Lane for 57 years. Four boys and one girl. There is a planning and zoning report. It looks like this. At the bottom of that report, it says a staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Mesa 2050 general plan.

the criteria in chapter 21 regarding bonus intensity zone BIS overlays and the review criteria site plan review outlined in Mesa zoning ordinance MZO that's found in section uh 11695. There is a statement. The statement goes like this. Defective data dictates disastrous decisions. You're called upon to make some very good important decisions. On page six of that said report there is a chart.

The chart states the MCO and the BIS proposed size of the parking spaces says should it be 12 feet on the MCO the BIS? What's being proposed? 11 feet. That's pretty good. That's 92% result of what it was required to be. Next item requires parking spaces by use 11 spaces. The BIS proposed four spaces. You only get 36% of what was originally required. Setback of cross drive aisles 50 ft. Well, you only get 36% because the BIS is 18t instead of 50. Perimeter landscaping 15t.

Well, that's pretty good because that's 80% the BIS that's being proposed is 12 feet and the minimum east is 11 ft. Well, that's 73%. That's pretty good result at the bottom. The required landscape yards 20T on the west. What do you get for your VIS? 25% of that and on the south six feet 30%. My final item that I wish to suggest your attention be turned to. This is in the GPA version. citizen pre participation chance for us local folks to give input.

It doesn't seem that there was too much of a chance to do that. Down at the bottom of page four, neighborhood meetings. neighborhood meeting was held on June 12, 2025 and there were no attendees present at that meeting. Where was it to be held? How were these people to be notified that they could attend should they choose? And what proof do you have that there was no data? Mr.

D, you've gone over your Just so you know, you've gone over your three minutes already, so you could wrap it up really for me. Oh, okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate the comments. Um, the next I have is James Adameck, did I get that right? Yeah. One for two so far. Uh, am I standing right? That's good. Yep. No, you're good. And then just state your name and address for us. Yes, sir. Uh, my name is James Adam. Address is 311 North Henkle. Uh, it's the culde-sac to the east.

Uh so chair errors and members of the planning and zoning board, I'm here to address uh I'm here to state my opposition to the plan. Um made a few notes because I'm not good at public speaking. Um but just looking at first at the the general plan amendment process. This is the only urban center that would be around this area. The closest ones that you can find besides this are all adjacent to the light rail, one mile south.

And this comes up in the planning and zoning report for it's GPA 2600111. The uh the staff themselves mention that across approximately 9,300 acres of land directly east, west, and south is all urban residential. So, this is most certainly an outlier type within the surrounding area. Um, you have to go all the way south down to light rail to find any other urban center. Um along with that in the all my print outs, excuse me, uh my printouts here we have in the zone 25001 report.

Um the staff mentions that surrounding uses are worship, medical offices, motel, and vacant land. Again, the only medical offices and motel that you can find are one mile to the south. Everything predominately around here is residential areas and neighborhood centers. Um, potentially a mistake was made. If you look on Google Maps, uh, across the street there's mistakenly a place that's designated as a dentist's office.

Uh, so that would be I have a note in here somewhere, but I believe it's 1550 West University Drive is the site across the street. The dentist's office is actually 1550 East University Drive, which is four miles to the east. So, there are no medical uses directly adjacent to this. This is purely residential area and then neighborhood centers.

Um, and then just I'm not I don't I'm not familiar with the zoning process, so I took a look at other zoning amendments that were done in the past year just on the website. Um there were the one that I can find the most adjustments for on the January meeting. There were eight uh business exemptions made for a zoning request that was put in in January. This site has 15 zoning adjustments for the BIS and that's after you make the change to make it an urban center instead of urban residential.

So, I'd ask the board to consider that if you need to change the place type and then also make 15 amendments, maybe we're trying to force a square peg in a round hole. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, Mr. Adam. Appreciate your comments. All right. Jose Hernandez. Good afternoon. My name is Jose Hernandez. My wife and I own the property behind the tire shop, 1612 West Bedford Street.

Uh our concerns are uh the limited parking and forcing clients to park on Longore, which is illegal to park, and forcing them to park on our street, which is Bedford. Uh my neighbor and I are the first two houses on that street, so people would be taking up our parking spots. My other concern is at the moment the tire shop is in operation and we have tires above their property wall. Um quite a lot. Um I know they talk about maybe put them in inside.

Um but as of right now looks pretty bad and obviously the 24-hour noise that possibly could happen during these operations of tire work during the night. That's it. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Hernandez. Appreciate your comments. Wendy Madison. Hi, Wendy Madison at 306 North Hankle, which is uh the next street east of of Longm.

And um I agree with everything that everybody said, so I don't want to take a lot of time, but um when I received this in the mail to look at it, and the building is somewhat of an eyesore at this point in time, um it has been for quite a while. And I thought, okay, well, this looks pretty nice, but they must be going to buy the properties directly behind it or something because there isn't any way this is going to fit on that space of land.

So, and now I'm hearing that it's because spark parking places have been reduced to four and and so on, but I I don't know if you've been able to go visit the property or not, but I just don't see how this is going to happen. First of all, it's all concrete at this point in time and there's a lot of vegetation here and um so I was at first I thought, "Oh, this looks great. that'll make the whole neighborhood look better if this is on that piece of property versus what's there.

But now I looking at it again, I drive by it every day multiple times and I look at it and I'm like there is just isn't any way this is going to fit on that property. It's not going to look like this when it's finished. So I feel like this is false advertisement. When it came to my home, I'm busy.

I still work long hours every day and I didn't have time to go to those meetings because of my work schedule and um partly because I thought this would look better but now I realize I don't think this is going to fit. So I don't know if anybody can answer that. Has this all been measured out? Is this Have we looked at this? I don't think this can fit on that piece property. So, and I'll I'll just seed [clears throat] my time to Tess or somebody else that wants to speak longer. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss M. Appreciate your comments. Um, Edward. Okay. Oli. Did I get that right? Close enough. Tell me how you say it. Uh, Eli. Elki. All right. Okay. I'm Edward Elkkey. I live at 444 North Choya Lane. I've been there for 65 years and I see no reason that we need a 24-hour tire shop in the neighborhood and that's my opinion. Sure. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Eli. I got it right this time. Appreciate your comments. All right, I've got Matt Taylor. Can't mess that one up. Hello.

I live um probably about 100 yards from the tire shop on my second house off of university on Hankle and uh I stay up late sometimes and we already have riff raff walking around at 2 or 3 4 in the morning uh from the apartments. I think having this tire shop open 24 hours is just one more potential nexus for people to gather around or to attract people and I'm opposed to it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Appreciate your comments. Next, I've got Don K. No, Don. Oh, is that you? K.

It just says Don initial K. I didn't fill it out. It was on an error. Would you like to speak? I guess so. I'm here. Uh, I've been in 1859 West Fifth Street since 84 and uh, I guess I don't want this to happen. Thank you. All right. Thank you. What was your last name? A L I N K. May appreciate your comments. Read done. You already got Am I starting over here? How'd you sneak back in here, Mr. Dunn? Done. Dang it. I got it wrong again. I don't learn from my mistakes. Veronica Aaron.

I think there's two Mr. Dones. Hi, my name is Veronica Aaron and I'm at 1604 West Bedford Street. So, I'm directly behind the tire shop. Um, my concern is everything that my neighbors have said, you know, the exiting, where is that going to exit the parking? Um, the activity at night. Obviously, I'm right behind the place.

So, I didn't see in in the uh diagram that that was there where is traffic supposed to exit because from from what I can tell there's no it's the alley right behind the shop and then my house and then my other neighbor's house, you know, so where is that supposed to exit? And like my other neighbor, initially I thought the same thing.

Well, it's an upgrade that what it looks like right now, but yeah, how is that going to it doesn't doesn't look like it would fit unless it's going to be very small. So, those are my concerns, too, with the activity. And I think we already have like a couple of shops that are open 24 hours. So, I don't understand why there would be another a third one within a mile of each other. So, that's my input. Thank you, Miss Aaron. appreciate your comments. I've got Roxan Jetson. Make sure I do.

Hi, I'm Roxan Jetson. I'm at 336 North Henkle. I'm the third house in from university and I've lived there for 17 years. Um, I love my neighborhood. good. I love my neighbors, but we're having non-stop problems the way it is with the apartments and the parking especially. Um the overflow from the apartments is a nonstop struggle. We're also the the nearby Whimo stop too. It's 247 of Whimos coming through. um at least they don't seem to have any issues.

But having this shop open for business, number one, it's just a teeny place there. There is not room for this type of a business. And I heard some promises. I didn't hear anything that would be, you know, what if they didn't do these things, you know, that they are saying, well, we'll do this, we'll do this, but that there's no guarantee that after they get the permit that this happens, but having people out, what do you do when you go get your tires changed?

You either have somebody come over and pick you up or you go standing around or walking around. I I like to walk, so I'd be walking all over. I don't need people walking all over through our neighborhoods in the middle of the night. We have enough of that to deal with. We don't need that. The business that was there before, I never saw the um I heard you say it was a gas station. I've only known it as a carpet place. I have never seen more than two vehicles at that place at any given time.

There there was not much going on. the other everything else after like five o'clock seems to be super quiet around there. Um, you know, we haven't had issues, but I don't see a need for a 247 tire shop on a little teeny corner and it is small. It's it's, you know, like a house in Gilbert where it's just crammed in on top of each other. Um, and I guess that's for for the most part that's it. You know, these are small older homes, older neighborhoods.

I don't think we're trying to get in the business. [clears throat] I we have enough apartments coming in all day long. All we hear is the grinding of the tools building the apartments down by Maine and on Dobson. You know, I don't think we need more businesses in our neighborhoods. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mrs. Jetson. Appreciate your comments. Uh, Joe Albert. No. Joe Albert. Nope. Jared Butler. No. Butler. Okay. Oh, he's outside. All right, Tess Taylor, looks like you are the last one.

Thank you. I won't take 10 minutes, but I do have documents for all of you. And um for the board member who's not present, I have a thumb drive if you'd like to either email or put it on the overhead. Mr. Bomber, I don't know how you like to handle that. But may I please enter and for the clerk? And would you like a thumb drive or Okay, it's Cassidy, right? Okay. Thank you. in order. Okay, thank you. I have too much paper. Can I begin? Yes, please state your name and your address for me.

Yes, my name is Tess Taylor and I'm in within the impact zone. I received a notice of this of the public meetings. I'm on the mailing list and uh can you hear me in the cheap seats? Very good. All right. Good afternoon, Chairman Ayes and members of the board. My name is Tess Taylor. I'm a Mesa resident, an adjacent residential property owner, and I was born and raised in this area. I'm not going to read the memo to you which uh contains the uh uh regulatory citations.

I'm just going to summarize. I have watched this corridor change over the decades. Some of those changes have been positive and some have not. That's why I'm here today. I do not oppose redevelopment, infill, or responsible economic development. I do oppose granting inappropriate entitlements on an inappropriate site and I respectfully request denial of these applications.

I would like to insert one comment uh based on the remarks we heard from the applicant's representative earlier and regarding the fact that the current applicant didn't know that the uses he intended were not allowed. And I wonder how uh a successful businessman like the applicant who already operates at least five other tire locations could be taken in. and I do regret that he was defrauded, but that is not the city's burden or the residential neighborhood's burden to bear.

That is a private matter. I organize my uh objections and the objections of the people behind me into four categories. The first is failure to meet the burden of proof. This burden is on the applicant and not on neighboring residents. There has been no demonstrated public need, no market study, and no demand analysis. There's no evidence that another tire facility is needed, much less a 24-hour one.

The public records indicate the applicant already operates multiple tire shop locations, including one only a few blocks away on Broadway in Mesa. In addition, another tire shop, Pina Tires, already exists immediately adjacent to the subject property. no demonstrated significant public benefit and the biz overlay findings require significant social or economic benefit to the city. Staff conclusions are not evidence. So where is the evidence supporting the required findings?

The applicant has not met this burden of proof. Number two, constrained and undersized site. You will see the applicant's admission on the first pages of the narrative that the property is quote an undersized parcel that presents numerous development challenges end quote. The property contains only.39 acres. Yet the application seeks intensified operations, reduced parking, and additional entitlements.

There has been no parking study, no operational analysis, and no evidence demonstrating how intensified use will function on this site. The requested relief appears driven by the site limitations rather than by planning merit. The solution to a constrained site is not additional entitlements. So again, where is the evidence? Number three, you would be approving the land and not the applicant. I will assume that the applicant is acting in good faith. However, this board is not approving a person.

It is approving permanent development rights. Those rights run with the land. This property could be sold, leased, or transferred at any time, and future owners would inherit those entitlements. The statements made during this hearing do not run with the land, and the application should be evaluated based on what it permits and not on what the current applicant says he intends. Number four, long-term neighborhood impacts.

You've heard a number of them here today, but this decision is not just about one parcel. It is about the direction of this neighborhood. This site directly abuts established residential neighborhoods and residents would live with these entitlements if granted long after the current applicant is gone and bear the cumulative and permanent adverse impacts of increased vehicle activity, operational intensity, late night operations, noise, lighting and traffic among others.

A mural, landscaping, and decorative walls may improve the appearance, but they do not change the underlying land use. This board must evaluate the most intensive use that could lawfully occur under the requested approvals. The record does not demonstrate the public benefits sufficient to justify the long-term impacts. In conclusion, again, the applicant has not met the burden of proof.

The applicant admits the site is undersized and presents development challenges and the requested relief appears driven by site limitations rather than by planning merit. This board would be approving permanent development rights that run with the land. For those reasons and for additional reasons set forth in my written submission before you now, I respectfully request denial.

And before I yield the pod uh the podium, Chairman Ayes, because the applicant is afforded rebuttal after public comment, I respectfully request from you, the chair, an opportunity to briefly address any significant new factual assertions that may be raised later in the hearing so this board has the benefit of a complete record. Thank you. And then unfortunately, I can't allow you to come up afterwards. That's not part of the uh the way that works. So I do apologize. God, I would ask.

Okay, that is it for the public comments. I appreciate everybody coming in today and taking the time out of your day. I know that's a lot. Uh so it is appreciated for all of you guys to come in and participate in the process. That's really important actually. So uh with that, I think what we'll do first is we will invite the applicant up now to respond and provide some comments based on all of your guys' statements and questions. And thank you, chair. Might just bring presentation back up.

I don't know if I need to reshare the screen. I don't know why you just look behind me. It's a green screen. I haven't seen that angle before. I don't remember. Thank you, chair and board members. Um I I appreciate all the comments from everybody here today and I I know you know when you have get something in your mail saying the property is going to be reszoned and it's going to be new development. I change it can be alarming to people and there's you just don't know what you don't know.

In this case I think we actually do know what exists on this site. And if you look at this, this this is what the site exists like today. This is it's a commercial corner. And what we're proposing is a substantial reinvestment in this property. And I I heard I think some compliments about this proposed development from from um neighbors in the area and maybe some skepticism that that this is how it will actually look. And it can look like this. Staff has reviewed it.

It it's this is what our site plan shows, what our landscape plan shows, but it will only look like this at substantial cost to the property owner and the business owner. This this represents a significant reinvestment in this property and in this corner. And I think they can do this and and make bring a benefit to this community and and to the city and this area with a successful small business. It is a commercial corner. We're we're not changing this from residential to commercial.

this is already a a commercial use. Um we're just asking for a different commercial designation to accommodate a use that is occurring on site today that I I don't you know there haven't been any complaints about that particular use as it relates to you know the the specific entitlement and the deviations requested.

I I get that it looks like a lot of of of requested changes and it is, but that's a reflection of the evolving zoning ordinance and how that would apply to a parcel like this that's about a third of an acre with two street frontages. And the way that ordinance applies to this, it it just makes it practically impossible to develop without without some relief. the general plan and I think the city in general wants to see reinvestment in sites just like this one.

It encourages redevelopment, infill, adaptive reuse and and bringing new investment and uh jobs to to um dated commercial corners and areas that that really need it. Um you know, there were some comments about the urban center general plan designation. Um, you know, I know I think everybody's kind of trying to figure out how the the new general plan and the place types work, but you do see this place type on a lot of commercial corners and adjacent to residential uses.

So, I don't think um that is is really an extraordinary circumstance for this to be uh a place type like urban center. Um, and then I think maybe the biggest concern I've heard is the 247 operation here and and I understand that. I understand why you would hear 24/7 tire shop and think, "Oh my gosh, that is going to be such an impact on my daily life if you live around this site." But the reality is they're not. This is not like servicing vehicles in and out all night long.

They they have their part of their business model is this mobile service operation. That's a vehicle that will go out and do um tire repairs, say if there's an accident on the 202 or or wherever. And this shop will be open to supply tires to those that mobile service operation. And if they need to bring a vehicle on site, that might happen, you know, once a week or once every couple days. This is not a, you know u a steady stream of vehicles coming in and out.

Um, so I get I think that sounds scarier than the reality of that really is. Um, as far as tires being stored on site now and and being visible from the neighbors uh behind this property, that will change if this is approved. Um, regardless if this is approved or not, because if it's not approved, then this uh business goes away. And if it is, all these uh equipment and tires will be stored inside the building or offsite. That's a requirement of our um approval. It's a condition of approval.

It's part of the good neighbor policy. So, there will be an enforcement mechanism for that. Um, so I mean I I I get some of the the concerns, the kind of the reflexive concerns from some of the neighbors, but I think the reality is that this is not a substantial change for this area. The LC zoning is the exact same zoning that exists on the other three corners of this intersection. There's concern that maybe this could be another use that's permitted in LC.

That same situation or circumstance exists on all four uh corners or other three corners on this uh intersection. So, uh, I think, you know, approving this project or recommending approval will will bring forward a great adaptive reuse of this site, significant reinvestment in this property and will greatly improve the the aesthetic value of uh, you know, the experience of this corner and this property. So, happy to answer any additional questions you have. All right. Thank you, Mr.

Questions for him from the board at all? Yeah, you do. Anything on this one? Okay. Would you mind putting the um good neighbor policy up there? Yeah. And this is a question for for Evan. Is this good neighbor policy binding on successors entitled? Um thank you chair um board member pitcher. That is actually a point that I wanted to make.

So there are conditions of approval that require compliance with the good neighbor policy, the site plan, the landscape plan, the elevations, all work occurs in the building that the lighting be shielded. Um and and the person that spoke is right that runs with the land. So any development on this property would need to be in in conformance with all of those different conditions of approval. So it would be binding on them. Okay. Is that your only question? I'm sorry. Is that your only question?

No. Then the other thing, you know, I was I was concerned about the uh the neighbor, you know, directly behind about the parking parking on lawnmower and you know, it you're you're going to have it looks like a couple of employees then, you know, I don't know where they're going to park and then you've got, you know, you you've got the the people that come in. You know, parking is maybe an issue.

So, I think that that that may be something you need to add to the good neighbor policy that that you need to to deal with that. maybe have a parking agreement because I I I can see people doing exactly that. They come in, they have to, you know, they're gonna need to go somewhere. So, yeah, chair and board member pitcher, the I think the reality is when you come to a a operation like this, your vehicle is the is the what's being serviced on site.

So, you're not going to park on on an additional street and then walk over to the business. you're bringing in and you're I think primarily they operate on an appointment basis. So people come, their car goes into the service bay, they wait in the either in the outside customer waiting area or the indoor air conditioned area and then drive off when they're when they're done. And again, it's about 20 minutes.

So um they haven't needed to you to stage cars or have any issue with cars needing to park off site, but we'd be happy to look at including the good neighbor policies. you know, in the event that this does become a problem, we would um work on a parking agreement with Yeah. I mean, having haven't had my tires done, not not there, but at at other locations, you know, that's what happens.

You get a whole bunch of people that and there's not enough babes for the people that come in and so they have parked somewhere. And so that that's that's my concern. Yeah, we can look at options for that in the good neighbor policy. I have a follow-up question. Oh, sorry, my pen. Um, it's been in operation for a year and a half.

Have we had complaints on the parking that did the resident say that there was parking in the I don't I think they might have left the one who's living right there like if they've already experienced that because it's been in operation a year and a half. So, have have we gotten any complaints from the city? Chair board member Montes, the complaint to to Cassy's point, the complaint that came in was related to the sign.

I am not aware of of any complaints related to parking because it's in operation right now for the past year and a half. Correct. That is correct. So there hasn't been any complaint with already parking being an issue on in front of the residents. No, not to my not that you're knowledgeable or member Carpenter or did you have something else? Sorry, J. No, that was one of my followup. Yeah, just uh kind of following that same line of thinking since the business has been in operation.

[clears throat] Has the 24-hour aspect been in operation as well? And has there been um after dark noise complaints about that aspect? Probably no complaints, but has there been comment, I guess, about that? Yeah. Uh Chair Boarder, good question. Um it it was operating 24/7 up until the uh sign complaint and then they stopped the over being open overnight, but to my knowledge there have been no complaints about that overnight operations. Thanks.

Uh, and then just to follow up, I I I like how the um the site's configured so that it eliminates the two driveways and directs the cars around and then spits them out on Longm. Um, a lot of entries and exits right next to an intersection like that I I feel could be troublesome. So, I'm curious if that aspect's in effect right now or if that is waiting to be uh utilized and planned. Chair, board member, it is not.

That would be um the circumstance on the site once this is approved and the site is kind of redeveloped per the site plan. Okay. Thank you. Nothing has changed you guys. I know you have you have Yes. So, so on the explain on the hours of operation, so the 24 hours has not been for a while and you said that um that there's abilities for this mobile service to operate in adjacent. So, so is this and and there there was a lot of concern from the neighbors on the 24hour portion of that.

What is what what what's the flexibility of the applicant for for not doing the 24hour for just sticking with the 88? Chair, board member Pearson, the the their desire is to be able to have that flexibility to be open uh 247 especially to start to you know support that mobile service operation. Um so that would that would be the request to be able to have that ability. What's the first staff are there on that corner? Are there any other businesses that are 24 hours in that corner?

Uh, chairs board member or sorry, vice chair Peterson. I'm not aware of the business hours of the surrounding businesses, but I would say north of this is a a group commercial center with a variety of businesses that could be open 24 hours or have extended hours to, you know, 10 11 at night. I'm not aware of of this all the neighbors hours of operations, but maybe if I could clarify just a bit.

Um, so the it sounds like the mobile tires is is they bring a truck here to get the tires that they need to then repair a car on the side of the road. Is that fair? That's correct. Okay. Do do you need to be open for that or is that I mean to Well, technically it's open, but what they're saying is the garage is not open. So, so is that open or not open? Because by the business is not open, right? So, if you could you can stock or or unstock or move stuff during off hours. It is open.

Uh, Vice Chair Peterson, it might help if the applicant could explain a little bit more about like the maybe the standard hours of operation like how often is it just open to the Sure. This is uh walking Guadama is gonna come address that. All right. Hey, good afternoon. Um I just wanted to clarify right now um the standard hours of operation are from 8 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. before the sign violation that we received. Um we were operating 24 hours.

And during that time period, we had just recently moved in and we had started working on it. And during that time, we did not receive any complaints. And we actually spoke to the neighbor next door. He became our good friend, as well as the tire shop next door as well. Um, and like I said, we didn't receive any complaints. We thought everything was okay until that sign violation, which eventually turned into the reszoning, um, as Alex has been speaking on.

And the whole reason we want that flexibility for 24/7 is because um as mentioned before we have another tire shop on Elma Square and Broadway just up the street and that one is also 24/7 providing um a full service. So that is zoned for um major auto repair. The the current site 1609 is um we we really only want it to be a tire repair. We're not looking to do any big um engine modifications, nothing like that. Just um basic service center like a Jeffy lube you can think.

And we do have a mobile service, a truck operating already that's 24/7. But uh we do also secondhandedly use that shop right now to store the tires is I don't know if you guys can see on the plan but on the plan where the storage and equipment center is. Um it's it's pretty big actually. It's bigger than the actual like work working area. Um this is it's the little garage door that's by itself right below that sign. the green. Um, we actually stock up a lot of our inventory right there.

Inventory that we can stock up on the on the other tire shop behind us. And these are the only two shops in Mesa that we have. So, our only other option would really be to head over down to um 32nd Street and Bambiran over in Phoenix or um Chandler location, which is about 20 minute drive. So that's just going to increase our weight times and have people wait longer than um necessary on the road or highway. So that's just something that we don't want to happen.

And if we were able to have at least one or two people open during the night to attend any cars that might need like for example flat repair or to access the tire storage that we already have there um indoors, which is completely compliant um you know that would just be great. But other than that, we don't um it's not a necessity to have it fully functioning 24 hours, but it just it'll be it'll be something nice to do.

And like I said, we we try to keep a good um relationship with our neighbors around us. Um we weren't aware that the neighbors behind us did not like the tires up above the the the fence. Um so we can take care of that. We we're willing to work with them. It's just um if a question of the matter if they're willing to work with us. So thank you. And then just one of the neighbors asked a question on the exiting that is not in the alley, right? That's still north of the alley.

The alley is separate from where the exit will be on the site plan. That's correct, chair, board member. It is on the bottom here. Yeah, the drive is is on property. Okay. Okay. Those are all my questions. Board member Farnsworth, any for you online? No, no further questions. Good discussion. Thank you, everyone. Um, I don't think Yeah, I don't I think most of I I don't want to beat the the horse here. So, I think we're good from questions from my perspective unless there's anything else.

No, we're good. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, we'll go ahead and close public comment portion. So, um, before we dive into this, what I I want to kind of just really quickly for everybody that's left in the room, help you guys understand kind of process. So, we're recommending body to city council. So, we're going to go ahead and have a discussion. We will make a motion and either, you know, recommend approval or do not recommend approval of this case. Regardless, it moves forward.

City council will be making the determination on this at the end of this process. So, we're, as I said, we're just a recommending body. So, whatever the outcome is, it'll go to city council at some time frame that I don't know yet. So, with that, I will go ahead and open it up to the board for discussion or for a motion at this point. Anybody have anything they'd like to discuss on it? Yeah, maybe just uh to flow of thought.

I guess th this one's uh a unique one for sure because I mean most cases we're getting are [clears throat] a potential new build site or a change of a site. And so a lot of the the anticipated issues are there's no track record, right? In this case, it's been operating for a while. So, so there is some track record there, which is which is good. I I think frankly I think works in the the favor of the applicant for for making the site work.

The um the the zoning um I mean it it uh yeah feel feels like it's catching up on a lot of past time where maybe who knows how long ago, but yeah, it it probably was never compliant with the with the commercial office uh category in the first place. Um I do think on the the good neighbor policy of um to the degree that it's um it so so it already talks about the hours of operation. So, it looks like that's already in there as far as complaints and and working through there.

I I I I do think the the parking needs to be added to that too just because it it's so few and I think all of us are like we're used to like you're saying Jeff at discount tire you go there and you can't there I mean there's it's just jammed and and you can't and I don't it sounds like this operates a little bit differently but but it still is hard to to think that only four spaces is it is going to be that's all that's ever needed. So, those are my thoughts. Anybody else? No.

And I and I agree with you. I I think that the uh the parking should be added as as a part of the good neighbor side of it. Um you know, just just because there's there's a possibility of all that, you know, a lot of people in there. [snorts] And and I think that um you know the the limit you know the from 11 to 4 you know permits this uh site to look like it is and to be improved like it is.

So I I think if if we add the good good to the good neighbor on the parking side I think that'd be a good idea. Yeah. And and then on on the upside these the improvements proposed are going to have a significant positive enhancement to the intersection. And so I I I see that as a real positive where if the case doesn't get approved then that doesn't happen, right? It just continues to be dilapidated and and goes downhill. So So there's that. Yeah, there there's a lot to weigh on this one.

Anybody else have anything you want to talk about? If I if I might I would just maybe echo the sentiments of um Troy that you know this is really I think something that's needed to be addressed for a long time and so I'm I'm glad to see it being addressed finally and um I do I do also agree with the added stipulation around the parking agreement. The other thing that I'm I'm weighing in my mind is let's maybe apply some better definition to allowable oper operations 24 hours.

Um I do think that there's some merit to the concern about loosely allowing all operations um and maybe the need to constrain it to more of the call it stocking and detocking um of materials perhaps. So, I don't know if that needs to be added in as a stipulation or if it needs to be added in as part of the good neighbor policy. Um, but I think that's the only other remaining piece that I remain unsettled about.

Otherwise, I I think that this is a a really positive move for both the city um correcting a a zoning thing that's been hanging out for a long time as well as ultimately beautifying the area in the in the intersection. Thank you, board member Farnsworth. So, with that, I mean, I'll add a couple comments here to it. So, it's this is an interesting one from a history perspective.

I agree pretty much consistently what I've heard from the other board members as well that, you know, this has been it's catching up, right? This is one of those ones that's been kind of hanging out there for quite some time. And I do think um I also appreciate it is a very constrained site. I know a lot of you guys have brought that up as well. Um, you know, Miss Madison, for example, was talking about all these changes, didn't think that this could work on this site.

I think all of the deviations that have been asked is exactly why it works. It has to do all those things to make it look like that. And so, those are the requirements. And I would also echo that the the parking is something I do have concerns about. I do not have concerns necessarily with the 24-hour operations of this. Um, I am very familiar with the site. I used to live right up the street on Longmore, across the street from Whittier. I know this location very very well.

Um, this has operated for close to two years. Um, uh, I was listening very in carefully to a lot of the comments. It was interesting. Um, a lot of the the things that I heard that were concerns and issues around the site were not necessarily this site. I heard about the apartments, the parking, the overflow parking. I heard about the thief.

So, there was not a lot of specific things about this site other than 24-hour operation and a couple other things um that we've kind of already kind of discussed a lot. And so, with me, I'm not necessarily concerned. I I understand the 24-hour operations. I It's not a garage that's running 20, you know, 24 hours. If that was the case, I think that's one thing.

So, what I would say is um you know, I think from the perspective of what you guys have said already with the good neighbor policy, I would agree with that. I think that we relook at that specifically in regards to two items though. I think the parking we've we've discussed and we kind of hit on that specifically the offsite. We want to make sure that we're not doing that to these neighbors and pushing that out.

Uh, secondarily, I think, and I do appreciate the applicant talking about the screening in the backyard and the willingness to look at that, make sure those tires, but I think that's something that can be added from a visual from the backside. Make sure that they're, you know, those neighbors are Well, they go away with the Yeah, they'll go away. Oh, that's true. They do go away with the road. That's And the good neighbor policy had it. Oh, good point, guys.

Um, so that Yeah, I you know, I think, you know, I'm a big fan of of adaptive reuse. I like projects that take things that uh needed new life. Um and so I think this is one of those specifically. So I would say uh at this point, yeah, a re look at that. Um I don't know if we want to add that in there or if we can just stipulate that it would be something that would be explored before council. Is that a good way to [clears throat] Yes.

Uh, Chair Ers, um, for a variety of reasons, I wouldn't recommend that you step an addition to the good neighbor policy and instead address the parking in a standalone stipulation. Um, we've just been messaging, I think Evan has a creative solution where, uh, currently the code has alternative compliance for offsite parking that in addition to a shared parking agreement could be valet.

there's there's a number of options that wouldn't lock the applicant into the future action of a third party that they can't control. Yeah. Um and so that I I think that would be the suggestion uh to handle that and it would make enforcement easier as well. Yeah. And I think that's a great Yeah. And I'm that's why I didn't want to actually stipulate that because I I think if if the they're saying that operationally the four is fine, I'm going to trust that for now.

But what I want to make sure that we do is is have something in place for the case when if that does not, you know, do that. So, um, so the stipulation would be to add, um, a reook at the good neighbor policy in regards to off-site parking. Is that fair? Uh, no. Instead, it would be an addition of a [clears throat] it would actually, correct me if I'm wrong, Evan, it would actually remove from the BIS a deviation for parking.

So they would comply with the 11 spaces, but four could be on-site, the others would be offsite in a variety of different okay ways that are already permitted under the code. So that's where that flexibility would come in. Okay. So the removal of that and that's done through an administrative use permit. I think everyone Yes, please.

Um I'm just wondering thinking it through a bit if there is maybe a possibility to do a condition that if the force bases don't work it we would we would look at alternative compliance. Yeah. And not require regardless that it that yeah it's if it becomes an issue or I don't know how that works.

And and so if I can, Chairs, as I as I was as we were chatting, um if there was something that could be put into the good neighbor policy and as a separate stipulation saying that if the parking does not, you know, if there are code violations or there are issues that arise as the development, you know, operates, then within 30 days, they have to resolve or within a time frame, they have to resolve that through one of the alternative parking um options [clears throat] that are available through the code.

Something to that effect. I can tell. Yes. Sorry, I'm I'm trying to think through um we the problem being that you don't want to grant by right through a BIS less parking than might ultimately be needed. And so it's that mechanism to later come back that I'm thinking through in my head. But uh with your vote, if you include sufficient information that your recommendation is contingent on a future resolution, if parking is a problem, staff can certainly work on a solution in the interim before.

That's enough. Clarify specifically what it is. Yes. Got it. Okay. Okay. Before we go to council. Before council before Yeah. We want Yeah. Does that make sense? Good. Yeah. What are you guys all thinking? Everybody good? Yeah. Yeah. Get that. Okay, I'll go ahead with the motion unless anybody has comments and go ahead and vote for and all of these these modifications on the zoning case, right? Not the GPA.

So, do we have to vote for those separately or can I Well, we have to vote for it separately, correct? Yeah. But the stipulation would be on the the zone. Okay. So, first off is um motion to approve PZ26049 uh GPA 26-00111 San Antonio Tar Shop 0.4 acres located at 1609 West University Drive, Minor General Plan amendment to change the place type from urban residential to urban center. Approval with conditions. Yeah, get in the microphone a little bit.

and recommendation is approval with conditions. All right. So, is there a second for the motion on item 4 A? A second. All right. We'll go ahead and vote on item five. 4 A. Sorry. Excuse me. I get a verbal from you, Chase. Word me. All right. With that, it passes unanimously. 70. And then you're Okay. Yep.

And then item 4B, Z 25-00110 San Antonio Tire Shop, 0.4 acres located at 1609 West University Drive, reszone from office commercial to limited commercial with a bonus intensity zone overlay and site plan review. This request will allow for an approximately 4,5T minor automobile repair facility.

Uh recommendation is approval with conditions with the added requirement that staff work out uh parking solution if the force spaces is an issue uh during operations before uh the case goes to city council. Was that good? Good. Okay. So, is there a second on that motion on item 4B? Second. All right. We'll go ahead and vote on this one. Board member Farnsworth. Verbal vote. I saw a yes. Say it again just in case. Yes. Thank you. All right. All in. All right. With that, it passes as well.

Unanimously 70. That is all the items on our agenda today. Is there anything from staff that we need to discuss, Jerry? There's no additional updates. Thank you. All right. Thank you everybody for being here today. So, um, look for a motion to adjurnn. So, moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor. Board member Farnsworth. Yes. With that, still not a no on those, but we are journ. Thank you everybody.