Thank you.

Welcome to the Mesa City Council meeting for July 27, 2026.

All of our council members are present.

We'll begin this meeting with an invocation by Pastor Michael Haydn of the La Mesa Ministries, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by James McBride from Boy Scout from Troop 54.

So if you'd all please stand.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Pastor.

Thank you for the honor of being here and an honor to represent La Mesa Ministries.

Let us pray.

Heavenly Father, we thank and praise you for this day that you made.

We rejoice in it.

And uh thank you.

Uh for all my brothers and sisters here and for the leaders that you've raised up for such a time as as this.

I pray that you fill them with your spirit, which is one not of fear and timidity, but of power and love and self-control, a spirit of uh wisdom and peace.

And so uh give uh your leaders here wisdom and discernment uh so that we uh your people here in Mesa can live uh thriving and peaceful lives.

And so to that end, we entrust uh these leaders to you uh the decisions this night, and we lift up this prayer in the mighty name of Jesus.

Amen.

Thank you.

Thank you for the blessing.

James, you want to come forward and use the microphone?

Lead us in the pledge, and your dad can help you if you need.

You can do it.

Yeah.

Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

On my honor.

And to the public for which one nation under God, in a visible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, James.

I'm gonna, James, I'm gonna let you know I had your dad as one of my boy scouts back in the day.

So that's how far back it goes.

All right.

Thank you for coming, Mr.

Lines, and you're welcome to stay as long as you like.

With that, um, before we do our consent agenda, I do have the names of one person that will be speaking that are citizens present, and that's Mr.

Wynn Stanley.

So we'll get to Mr.

Wynn Stanley later.

With that, we'll take item one to the consent agenda.

Mr.

Zalanka, will you come forward and read the consent agenda?

Evening, Mayor and Council.

These are the items on the consent agenda.

All items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group and considered by the council and enacted with one motion.

There will be no separate discussion unless a council member or citizen requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item.

Item two A is approval of minutes of previous meetings as written.

Item 3A is action on a liquor license application for Aldi, located at 6853 East Elliott Road.

Item 4A is approval of a three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for original equipment manufacturer and aftermarket refuse truck parts for the Fleet Services Department.

Item 4B is approval of a one-year use of a cooperative term contract with three one-year renewal options for instrument service and preventive maintenance for the public safety support department.

Item 5A is approval of a resolution to enter into a development agreement.

Government property and improvement uh lease and other deal documents to facilitate document uh development of an ACU hotel by Marriott in the northeast corner of Main Street and Centennial Way.

Item 5B is approval of a resolution to enter into an intergo intergovernmental agreement with the city of Phoenix for next generation 911 policy, routing function backup services for police fire and emergency medical communications.

Items five C has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 6A is approval of an ordinance, amending table one of Title V, Chapter 17 of the Mesa City Code to remove the public safety uh public safety impact fee category column to confirm the discontinuation of this fee.

Item 6B is approval of an ordinance amending sections 10-4-5 and 10-4-6 of the Mesa City Code to modify the existing speed limit from 40 to 35 miles per hour on Mesa Drive from Bates Street to Lehigh Road, and from 35 to 30 miles per hour on Mesa Drive from Bate Street to the North City limits as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board.

Item 6C is approval of an ordinance amending sections 10-4-5 and 10-4-6 of the Mesa City Code to modify the existing speed limit from 45 40 to 35 miles per hour on Horn from Brown Road to McCullough's Road and from 35 to 30 miles per hour on Horn from McCallops Road to the North City limits as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board.

Item 6D is approval of an ordinance regarding proposed amendments to the Mesa City Code Title 11 pertaining to zoning code refinement text amendments.

Item 6B setem 6E has been removed from the consent agenda.

Items 7A and 7B have also been removed from the consent agenda.

Mayor and Council members, these are the items on the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Mosley, just to confirm.

We have items uh 5C, 6E, 7A, and B off the consent.

Correct, Mayor.

All right.

I'll entertain a motion to approve the cassette agenda as read.

Thank you, Mr.

Edia.

Second by Miss Duff.

Please cast your vote.

All right.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

We'll go over to 5C.

We have one spur spokesperson, uh Justin Judkins.

Justin, you want to come forward?

Mayor and Council.

Before we have the first member, could I just make a statement?

Oh, yes.

Um.

Mayor and council.

This is uh for 5C is regarding the Falconfield Airport landing fee.

Um the resolution tonight is to delay implementation of the landing fees for Falcon Field.

Staff proposed and council adopted the landing fees to make Falconfield Airport as financially self-sustaining as possible.

To be clear, the fees are not to reduce noise or flight traffic discriminate against a specific user or favor one user over another similarly situated user.

That is not allowed under the federal law.

Rather, the fees are to recover costs for use of the airport.

Simply noise reduction and flight traffic is not part of our reason for the proposed fees, and it's not part of our agenda.

So I just asked that the members of the public be thoughtful as they make their comments in that regard.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

Um Justin.

Come on up.

Thank you for your patience.

Thank you for uh letting me talk.

Just identify yourself, and you have three minutes.

I'm Justin Judkins, and I won't take that long.

Um, as I understand we are uh we're here voting on uh extending uh the implementation of landing fees by 90 days.

Uh and I I simply wanted to ask uh a question rhetorical, don't have to answer it.

But um why delay?

Um we have uh about two million dollars revenue annually.

That's what we've we've projected.

So 90 days is about 500 K.

Um, and we have already established uh that um we're in compliance with our federal obligations.

Um we spent about six months doing this.

Um and the third thing is um I believe we've already told the FAA uh in our July second letter that um we wouldn't be delaying the uh the implementation of these fees for their their part 13.

So um I just I just ask rhetorically why why delay?

We're leaving money on the table.

Well, thank you for your comments and we'll answer Mr.

Smith.

You want to stand there, Mr.

Jones.

Mayor and council, there's been a both a federal lawsuit and a FAA investigation started over these fees.

Uh also the director of compliance from FAA also requested the city to delay the implementation in response to all of that.

The city uh retained outside council, national council from Boston, uh, who specializes in this particular area to respond both to the federal lawsuit, which we've already responded in part, um, but that is ongoing, and also to provide an independent review of the fees.

Um, and and and this uh this this delay in the implementation is to give an opportunity for our outside council, a national expert to provide that independent review and to determine whether to provide confirmation on the fees or to propose and recommend new fees and to allow that uh opportunity to occur, and and our national council has requested that specifically.

Um so uh I would encourage council to provide that additional time for that independent review of our national expert.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

Mr.

Judkins, I can't see you.

Is that satisfy some of your okay?

And there's more to come.

So uh we're delaying it up to 90 days, and hopefully we could get it done sooner.

All right.

With that said, Council, any comments?

If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve item 5C.

Council, Ms.

Goford.

Yeah, I just wanted to make a quick comment.

Um I I understand the request from our outside legal council for an independent review.

I do understand that request.

I also understand and I know that the city is still absolutely committed to the implementation of landing fees.

However, um I am not uh in supportive of additional time and extended delay for this.

So I will be voting against this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

We understand your consternation.

With that, uh council, I'll entertain a motion.

Is there any comments from council?

If not hearing any, we'll entertain a motion to approve item uh 5C.

Well, I have it there.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mr.

Heredia.

Please cast your vote.

Okay, motion passes.

Thank you.

And next we'll move over to item 6E.

6E is a faith Christian school on 9.9 acres located at 3761 South Power Road, a council use permit for a private school, a modification of conditions of approval.

With that, we have one speaker.

I have uh Jason Smithson.

Jason, are you here?

You want to come up and you've been here before?

You know you have three minutes.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Mayor, Council members.

Tonight I'm here to speak in support of Faith Christian School.

On Friday, I had the privilege of touring the campus with head of school Jenny Smith and board president Justin Gregg.

It gave me the opportunity to learn not only about the school's history, but also about its vision for the future.

What stood out immediately was a passion commitment and purpose behind this school.

As Jenny walked me through the campus, she wasn't just showing classrooms.

She was explaining how each space was intentionally designed to help students grow academically, socially, spiritually, and personally.

It was clear this is far more than a school.

It's an investment in our children.

I learned the school has maintained a student retention rate of over 90%, along with an exceptionally high teacher retention rate.

Many former students have returned as educators, which speaks volumes about the culture they've built.

I also learned this will be the first time in the school's 31 year history that the students have their own gymnasium.

One aspect that especially impressed me was their commitment to serving a wide range of families.

They have created a dedicated classroom for homeschool students, allowing these families to bring their children to into a classroom environment twice a week while also being allowed to participate in activities and athletics.

I was equally impressed by their commitment to making education more accessible.

They work with families to bridge financial gaps and accept ESA scholarships, allowing more parents to choose the educational setting that best meets their children's needs.

As the father of a child with autism, the highlight of my visit was learning about their STEP program, which provides services for students with special needs.

Programs like this are uncommon in private schools and even more uncommon in faith-based schools.

Seeing that commitment to serving students with diverse needs left a lasting impression on me.

I support school choice because I believe public schools, charter schools, private schools, and home schools all have an important role in our community.

No single educational model is the right fit for every child, and families deserve the opportunity to choose the environment where their children can thrive.

Beyond the educational benefits, I also believe this project will have a positive economic impact.

The school will bring families into the area, which will support neighboring businesses, including local restaurants, retailers, and other nearby services.

Tonight I'm asking you to approve the permit.

Faith Christian School has spent more than three decades serving families, and this campus represents an opportunity to continue that mission while strengthening the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Smithson.

Any comments from council?

I have a quick comment.

Um I actually called and talked to Stacy, and she said that this is like one of the best problems you could have.

They just outgrew their old facility.

And I have two dear friends that were teachers at Faith Christian School until they started their own families and you know went off to be moms, and it's just a really incredible um education institution, and I'm very grateful that they've they've had the opportunity to get so big that they have to move to a larger facility.

So Jason, I'm glad you got the opportunity to go toward the school with them.

They're an incredible place.

Yeah.

So thanks.

That's all.

Thank you.

All right, council hearing nothing else said entertain a motion to approve item six E.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Second by Mr.

Adams.

Please cast your vote.

Mr.

Adams.

There you go.

Thank you.

Motion passes unanimously.

Next, uh we'll hear item 7A and 7B together.

Um that is uh San Antonio tire shop point four acres located at 1609 West University Drive.

Includes a minor general plan amendment to change the place type from urban residential to urban center.

And with that, um, would it be possible to have a presentation?

I know there's a lot of speakers here, but I think it would behoove us to just listen to the presentation.

There have been some changes.

Evan, you want to thank you for popping up and couldn't see behind the screen there.

But um why don't you give us an uh an overview and between you and Rachel and Mary, we can go through this.

Okay.

Uh Mayor, would you like a presentation on each agenda item?

Or if it it works better for you, I can speak to both 7A and 7B.

Let's do them both together.

Okay, we will do that.

And hopefully, if there's questions from the neighborhood, they can ask that as well.

Oops.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor, Council.

This is case ZON 25 110, item 7B on tonight's agenda.

Item 7A is the companion general plan amendment case.

This specific case is there are two requests here.

One is to rezone the property from office commercial to limited commercial with a bonus intensity zone overlay.

They're also requesting site plan review.

The other case, GPA 2601117A on the agenda, is a minor general plan amendment.

The subject property is a uh just under half an acre, four tenths of an acre.

It's located at 1609 West University Drive, which is the southwest corner of University and Longmore, which is just west of Alma School.

The current general plan place type on this property is urban residential, and the growth strategy is evolved.

Item 7A on the agenda is a request to change that place type from urban center, excuse me, from urban residential to urban center.

And the reasoning behind that is minor auto repair, which is how we classify tire um tire shops, is classified in the general plan as a convenience service.

Convenience services are not identified as either a primary or a secondary use in the urban residential place type, but it is a primary use in the urban, excuse me, the urban center place type, which facilitates the rezoning of this property.

What I would note is although the request is to change that place type from urban residential to urban center, it doesn't change the kind of the fabric of development in the area.

When you look at the context of the area, it is consistent with what would be an urban center.

It's a it's a denser area of town.

There's commercial along the frontage, um, universities and arterial where you primarily see urban center place types.

The zoning on the property, the the subject property is cross-hatched on the map here.

As I mentioned, is is office commercial.

Um you'll notice that the four of the four corners of that intersection, three are zone limited commercial, and this is the only one that is owned office commercial.

This property was annexed in 1958 into the city of Mesa with a C1 zoning designation, which is the office commercial is the modern equivalent of C1.

All of the other corners of that intersection have rezoned in the 70s and the 80s to limited commercial.

So they all started as OC and they are now limited commercial.

The San Antonio tire shop is is currently operational.

This is looking, we're in the intersection, and this is looking um southwest into university and and longmore.

Here you can see the proposed site plan.

There are two elements that I want to point out here that I think are important.

First, is they are proposing a total of four parking stalls for this use.

They submitted operational information and talked about the average number of customers that they serve and hours of operation, and have found that four parking spaces is sufficient for their specific their specific need.

When this was at the planning and zoning board, planning and zoning board recommended approval unanimously, but did have some concerns about parking.

So we included an updated condition of approval number four in this ordinance related to parking.

And what it essentially says is that if there's on-street parking and they're found in violation, they need to within 30 days request to amend that parking.

There are a number of ways that they can do that.

One is through an administrative use permit.

The most common way is off-site parking.

There's you know some large properties around them that have excess parking, so they could reach out if if parking became a concern.

The second point that I want to mention is the end they're entering the site from university and exiting on Longmore.

The reason that is important, one of the when you look at this aerial, you can see there are two um curb cuts on university, and there's two on Longmore.

Here's the one here and the one behind the building.

So as part of the request uh for a bonus intensity zone, they're actually closing two of these access points closest to that intersection, which is will reduce traffic conflicts and actually increase safety at the area.

Here you can see the landscape plan.

Um the applicant is proposing a substantial amount of landscaping along the frontage of of both university and longmore, as well as behind the building to the south side of the site.

The trees include Desert Museum, Palo Verde, Canary Island Palms, and assorted shrubs.

This is kind of what I really want to focus on.

So here are some renderings of the site, and this is a bird's eye view from that intersection of university and longmore.

When I mentioned the site was annexed in 1958, when you look at historic aerials, this building was constructed sometime before 1961.

So the late 50s, very early 60s.

So this building is you know 60 plus years old.

And instead of rehabbing the building and making it look like a modern building, the applicant is really kind of leaning into the mid-century modern aesthetic.

The color palette is consistent with that.

Um I think the most prominent feature of the site is actually the breeze block wall on on Longmore in University, which serves two purposes.

One is it's a required screen wall for parking.

Two is it increases the aesthetic of that site to make it more period correct and matches with the architecture, and it really kind of helps helps that that corner really kind of pop.

Here you can see two additional renderings.

The one on the left side of the screen looking south, that so that's going to be facing Longmore.

Another improvement that the applicant is proposing is a large mural on Longmore to really create an inviting space.

Again, you can see the landscaping.

The customer area on the right underneath the gas canopy, they're providing a dedicated area for customers to wait.

So it's shaded, there's a bench, there's there's places to wait.

As part of this request, the there is a bonus intensity zone that has a number of requests, and and I'm happy to get into any of these if council has specific requests.

I would note two things about this.

One is most of these deviations are the result of non-conforming conditions at the site.

So the building was built in 1961.

Things have changed over time, and the applicant is proposing to reuse the existing building rather than to scrape and to rebuild.

But even if the site were to be raised and rebuilt, the size of it really constrains any development.

So whether it is an office building, um, if it was a restaurant, if it was some other commercial use, in all likelihood, they would also be requesting a bonus intensity zone, just given the size of the site and the constraints present on the site.

The applicant did a substantial amount of neighborhood outreach.

Um they notified property owners within a thousand feet of the site.

They held two neighborhood meetings, one in June 2025 that had no attendees, and then a second in April of 2026, which had a number of attendees.

And you can see in the citizen participation report, there were questions and concerns related to parking, lights, um, noise, and just the general use of the property.

This went to the planning and zoning board.

Um again, they recommended approval seven to zero, but um we had a number of residents there to speak as well and heard some of the same concerns.

So there's parking concerns.

At one point, the applicant was was proposing 24-hour service.

I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second.

Um, public safety, existing code violations and visual blights, the failure to meet the need or or to prove that there's a demand for this use here, and failure to demonstrate need for a general plan amendment and consistency with area plans.

I'd like to touch on a few of those just a little bit more.

And again, based on the conversation that we had last Monday at council, there were a number of points that were raised.

The first that I want to address is the 24-hour operation.

So when this was originally presented to council, the model was 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

It functions just like a normal tiger shop.

You can drive up and and then they do your tires from 8 p.m.

to 8 a.m.

Uh was proposed to be an on-call roadside assistance essentially.

If you have a flat tire on the side of the road, you can call these folks and they come and pick up your tire and and and do that work.

Um the applicant has has since removed that from the request.

So they are no longer requesting 24-hour operations.

It would just be their normal business hours, which are 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

They've updated the good neighbor policy to reflect that, and and compliance with the good neighbor policy is also a condition of approval of the zoning case.

Um, the other thing that we heard actually on hours of operation really quick, I believe it was Council Member Adams asked about the hours of operation of the existing tire store on the southeast corner, directly opposite.

Um, it looks like that it's Corona tires, and they're operating um from 8 a.m.

It looks like that it's Corona tires and they're operating from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

They have similar operating hours as San Antonio tires.

So we did get that information from PD, and the request was what has happened at San Antonio tires and also what has happened across the street at uh Corona Tires.

San Antonio Tires had one call for service directly related to this business on April 27th, 2025, and no police report was written.

Another point that came up, code compliance.

San Antonio tires had one code case open in March of 2024 for an unpermitted use, this specific use that we're discussing today, and they've been in the process since that point, going through pre-submittles and in iterations of their planning review to get to this point.

Panetta tires had cases opened in 2021 for unpermitted use, unpermitted construction, and sign code violations, those were remedied voluntarily by the property owner.

They had an additional case also in March of 2024 for sign code violations.

I believe it was related to window signs.

So the limited commercial zoning district does not allow for outdoor storage of goods or equipment.

So any tires that are stored outside currently would need to be located inside.

You just can't have outdoor storage in LC.

There's also lighting requirements that limit spill lights onto adjacent properties.

There's a requirement for uh minor auto repair that all noise generating uses be located within an enclosed building.

Those are all requirements of the LC district.

We also included those as conditions of approval on the zoning case just to draw attention to those and make sure that that they are very apparent.

With that, staff um does find that it it complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan designation of their requesting of urban center.

It also meets the criteria of chapter 69 for site plan review and chapter 21 for a bonus intensity zone overlay.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

As I mentioned, the planning and zoning board also recommended approval 7 to 0 with that additional condition related to off-site parking that staff has included.

Uh, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions council might have.

Okay, council.

I have one for you before council.

Um do you know if the fuel tanks have been removed from the parcel?

Um mayor council, that is that is a good question.

Um I'll let the the applicant get into that one a little bit more.

Okay, great.

Council, if there's no questions right now, I can move to citizen comment.

Or Ms.

Taylor.

Okay.

Good.

Okay.

Yes.

Um just highlight again the difference between urban residential and urban center.

You can you made sort of a comment that they're kind of the same.

This is going from residential urban residential to urban center does not significantly change the area.

I'd like to understand that.

Um thank you, Mayor, Councilmember GoFor.

Sorry, I could have been a little more clear with that.

So the request is is a change to the general plan from urban residential to urban center.

Um the purpose of the urban center place type, you usually see those in um denser parts of the cities that have more of a mixture of uses.

They're usually located on arterial intersections close to transit, which is is the case for this property.

It's on university, it's it's near transit.

This is one of the more dense areas of the city.

What I I think the point I was trying to make was that when you look at this contextually, this the requested change to urban center on this small parcel doesn't materially change the the development patterns in the surrounding area.

So what are the other three corners?

Um the the northern two are neighborhood center and the one directly across the streets, the other tire repair is uh urban residential.

So I'm I'm curious then why we didn't change since we just did the 2050 plan a couple years ago.

Why did we leave this urban residential at that time and not determine it should just be urban center based on what you said?

Um you know that that's a good question, Councilmember Goforth.

And and when we were developing the general plan, um actually Rachel developed the general plan.

So I am going to go ahead and defer to her.

Right under the bus.

Yeah.

Mayor, council member go for it.

So development of the place types, it's it's pretty nuanced.

There's several factors that go into determining it.

So one, we had to look at the existing, what was the character areas to try to make those as consistent as possible, but then we have to look at the existing zoning to make sure that it's consistent.

We need to try to make it match kind of our ultimate vision for what we want in the area.

But I I think most importantly for these properties to keep in mind is is when we're doing this, we want to make sure that we're not pre-zoning a property.

So when we're looking at creating place types, we're not looking parcel to parcel and specifically creating a designation for each one of those.

We're looking at how they fit into the context of the larger area.

So for the urban residential, it does have supporting commercial uses, and those are usually located along your arterial roadways.

Um, but we wouldn't go in and specifically look and say, well, that is a and at the time I don't know if it was operating as a tire shop, but we wouldn't say that's operating as a tire shop, so we should zone that specific parcel of this with this larger area as um, and not I shouldn't say zoning, um, designating it as a different place type.

Does that hopefully answer your question?

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

I probably should piggy off peggy back off that one really quick, Evan.

Um, is there a reason that Paneda, the other one that's next to it, that we don't have them as urban centers since they're zoned as urban residential or what is the trigger that would would they have to do work at their location?

Um thank you, Mayor, uh Councilmember Taylor.

That's a that's a great question.

So to speaking to Rachel's earlier point, we didn't necessarily go parcel by parcel, um, which is how it is is zoned, or excuse me, how wide the place type is urban residential.

The zoning on that property is limited commercial.

So if they came in and uh wanted to do something on that site that was still auto repair related and required a rezoning, we would also need to address the general plan.

Okay, and then um before public comment, I had two technical questions I thought might clarify for other people.

I'm not sure.

Um, what is the maximum amount of parking from urban center in a lot that size?

Is did they kind of max out the their parking spaces?

Um mayor council member Taylor, uh so are you talking about the number or the dimensions?

The number of parking spaces.

Sorry, I should have clarified that.

Yeah, so the the number of spaces, the four spaces serves two purposes.

One, it it works operationally for them.

Um two, is it also allows for this landscaping that you see on the so on university and longmore?

Reducing the parking a little bit allows for improvements to be made on the site to it's a substantial reinvestment to an aging building, and reducing the parking a little bit allows for opportunities to make a cool infill redevelopment parcel.

Okay.

And then my next question kind of is on top of that one.

I just I had somebody ask about the urban center, and I chatted a little bit with Scott about it, and I said, well, I think the only concern was with that place type, you can build up, but then because that lot is so small, I guess it can't really accompany a vertical build up because you would technically have to have more space.

Yeah, this so we don't have to worry about the verticals.

This is it, this is a hard parcel.

It's less than half an acre, which is very small in development terms.

So you know, technically the maximum height in the LC district is 30 feet, but to utilize all 30 feet, you have to be able to park that square footage, you have to be able to landscape the perimeter.

Um that's what I was getting at, where if like let's say the property owner said, I'm gonna scrape the site and redevelop it as you know, a uh a restaurant or an office, it's highly likely that they would still need to rezone the property because it's so physically constrained, they're not gonna be able to get all the parking that they need to meet all of the different development standards.

So, from a really simple perspective, is it safe to say that as we as someone wants to build up, they have to build out, and this doesn't allow build out, so you can't build up.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Simple minor.

Okay.

All right, thanks.

I just needed a basic that was my only question.

Thank you.

Mr.

Reddy, I think Evan or or maybe Mary, uh, what's our experience?

I I know we or just our our work around uh when a parcel is not uh under conform to what they're they're they're running as a business, right?

I think Mr.

Adams uh mentioned this in the previous meeting as well.

Why why would they be uh operating if they're not conforming?

What's your experience or how do how do we work with assuming especially in these areas of downtown and West Mesa?

Um there's other parcels that we've run into.

I remember several over my uh last nine years that they're not particularly conformed to what the parcel is zoned for and they're running a business, but you know, city staff or the city has worked with them to make sure they're conformed.

Uh so what's the um I guess the approach that we take in?

I think we're taking in this and when we had identified through a code compliant that there was there they weren't conforming to the the zoning, right?

And now we're trying to work with them to create a uh you know, a better infield product in in this area, right?

So uh just maybe uh trying to explain some context uh based on my experience, but maybe you can elaborate on that end.

Yes, thank you, Mayor, Councilmember Heredia.

Um that that's a good point.

So we always try to work with property owners.

So if somebody gets a code compliance um case for a use that's not permitted, usually what happens is the code officer refers them to planning.

Um and we try to work with them to bring their site into conformance, and there's a a number of ways that that you can do that.

You know, if it's a developed site and you're adding uh you know a building to it, you could do a substantial conformance improvement permit.

There's a there's a number of ways of doing that.

The rezoning was the the best in this scenario for two reasons.

One it can address all of the the nonconformities, the setbacks that just don't meet requirements and and all of those sorts of things.

But then two, it allows for for new deviations to the site, so things like uh parking, which allows for them to be able to make those improvements um in and reinvest into the site to do the breeze block and the landscaping and and the site improvements.

Um the the process can can take a little while.

So, you know, when you guys see it, this is is the end of the process.

It starts with a pre-submittal.

So an applicant has to put together a site plan and they sit with staff and they get feedback, and then they make a formal submittal, and it's an iterative process.

So although the code case was filed in 2024, the applicant has been pretty diligently working on this specific property to get to a point where we are today.

It's a difficult property in you know, it's a rezoning with a lot of deviation, so there's a lot of work that goes into that on the applicant's part.

But we we treat this applicant just like we do every other applicant that comes in.

We try to help people um be in conformance, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh just a couple of questions, Mr.

Ballmer, while you're at the podium.

Um so am I correct in assuming that this business has operated somewhere between 18 and 24 months at its location, as has the Pinato tire shop.

It's pretty both are pretty much operated for at least a couple years without incident or complaint other than what you just what you displayed earlier.

Uh mayor council member Adams, that's correct.

Okay.

Um the reason that we're considering this is there was it came to our attention that there was an issue with the sign, which opened up the case in the matter that we're considering tonight.

That is correct.

The actual code complaint was was for the use, so a code officer was out there and noticed that the property zoned OC and we were we're doing a use that's not permitted, and that's kind of what precipitated this.

Okay.

Uh but other than that, uh, you've you've checked with the police department, you've checked with code.

It it operated without incident or concern for uh 18 months, 24 months or so.

That is correct.

Um my understanding is this building was built somewhere in the early 60s.

Did you say 1961?

It was annexed in 1950.

I was researching historic aerials, and the building appeared in 1961.

So late 50s, early 60s in that in that time frame.

A very different town we were at that time, and we probably didn't have quite the constraints on parking and other things that we consider today, and that may have been on the outskirts of town.

It very much was on the outskirts of town.

Okay.

So um was that the only questions I have for you, Mr.

Ballmer.

Thank you.

Good.

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead, Mr.

Well, I I just wanted to understand the time frame, and I would thought maybe I was gonna get it with Rich, but I don't think I did.

So they've been operating two years and working, so they hadn't been operating very long before the code complaint came up.

Uh mayor council member go for it.

They began operations in February 2024.

So not in the code case was March, so no, they had not been.

So just after they purchase the okay.

Thank you.

Uh hearing nothing else right now, Miss Taylor.

Let's let's bring up the applicant, the attorney.

Uh, if he'll come forward and speak on behalf of the applicant, then we'll hear from the neighborhood.

Or from council and then the neighborhood.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh, my name is Alex Hayes, 2121 East Highland Avenue.

Um, as is often the case, I don't have a lot to improve upon what uh Evan Ballmer just presented.

I think he did a great job kind of summarizing our our request and and what this project is.

It's probably a couple of things um I can maybe uh reiterate or provide some additional context for.

Um, but you know, firstly, last week I think there was some good discussion about this project at the ordinance introduction.

Um, a lot of good questions and comments, not only from council, but during uh public comment.

And you know, we we were able to take that feedback and and go back and revise um our uh kind of operational plan and and specifically the hours of operations.

I know that was uh really the primary concern that we heard um from the uh folks who came out and spoke.

Uh and so we've built that uh into our good neighborhood, good neighbor policy that uh no on-site service will occur uh at this location after 8 p.m.

So that the it'll be during normal business hours, 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

And the good neighborhood neighbor policy says that um no work could occur after that, and we do have a condition of approval uh requiring conformance with that good neighborhood policy, so there will be an actual enforcement mechanism associated with that.

Um, this site is and and has been a commercial corner.

It it um, you know, there are retail and restaurant uses on the north side of university.

Uh currently minor auto service uses on the south.

It has always been that way since as was been discussed since it was annexed into uh the city.

The other three corners actually, when they were annexed, had the same OC zoning.

They have have been rezoned over the years.

Um this is just the last site that has not been rezoned, even though it has really had LC type uses um throughout the years, a gas station, uh carpet uh wholesaler, other uses that are typically uh more associated with LC rather than the office commercial.

Um when the applicant San Antonio tire shop bought it a couple years ago.

I think you know, they mistakenly were under the impression that this use was permitted there, and it doesn't excuse it or make it permitted, but I think you can understand why they would think that when they looked at what was had occurred here and what was currently occurring along the other um three corners of this intersection.

Um and as has been noted, they they are currently operating uh as as councilman Adams said without uh incident or complaint over the last two years.

Um they do uh you know endeavor be a good uh neighbor and compatible with their surrounding uses.

I think that's perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that the one adjacent property to this parcel wrote a letter of support for this project.

So I think it shows that they can be compatible with with their neighbors and um with the surrounding area.

And I I think it's important to know to note that you know, by going through this entitlement process and and bringing this project this property uh as close to conformance as can be done on a on a small infill site like this.

It requires significant investment and and will significantly improve this site.

Um the the site aesthetics, the site security as was very safety, as was noticed uh noted with the removal of those two curb cuts, the addition of the enhanced landscaping, and then some public art that will be uh provided on the east elevation along Longmore, uh, which you can see there.

Um so you know, we've we've really tried to work with the neighbors.

We had that initial neighborhood meeting last year.

Uh we didn't have any attendees.

We held a second one.

We had uh about 12 people show up and and um raise some questions about whether the site should be zoned commercial at all.

Um the parking, uh noise and light pollution, uh, the potential for other uses beyond kind of minor auto repair, which we uh were able to explain that that is a separate use category in a separate zoning district.

And then that question about the 24-7 operation.

So I think we've been able to address those with our good neighbor policy.

Um ensuring that the uh you know project complies with the um lighting requirements, uh sound requirements that the all the work occurs indoors.

Um they have also included in this good neighbor policy that they'll use electric equipment instead of air compressor-based tools, which significantly reduces the noise uh associated with the use.

And they provided contact information um with this good neighbor policy for the residents if there ever is a complaint or any other questions that they might have about the operation.

So this, you know, approval of this project will allow for uh a continued operation of a good local small business.

Well open up the door for additional investment into this site, um, improve the aesthetics of the property, improve its relationship to the street, um, and it you know supported by its its most adjacent neighbor, uh, and we're grateful to have the support of staff and and the unanimous recommendation from planning and zoning board.

So um tried to get through that quickly, respectful of your time, but happy to answer any questions you have.

All right, Miss Taylor, did you have a comment?

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Hayes.

Um so just to clarify, no 24-7 operations, right?

It's just gonna be 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

And then I notice they have a mobile service, but they're not gonna bring the cars back over to this location to do work at this location.

Is that correct?

Mayor, council member tailored that that is correct.

They they will um agree to forego the any effort at a 247 operation and they do have another site on um Broadway, and and they'll be able to just kind of move that activity to that other location.

Thank you.

That was probably the biggest concern from the residents that I spoke to after the meeting, and I just wanted to make sure we clarified that.

But also, uh Mr.

Hayes, if I may have a moment of your time.

In the last meeting, I I stated that I did some Google research on this while you were up here talking, and I um I in effect accused you of not being transparent with the the people at the meeting, including the council, and saying that it was a 24-hour shop, and um I owe you in a public apology, so please forgive me.

I was looking at the Broadway location, and I thought I was looking at the correct location when I made that statement, and um I apologize for my calling you out and and I hope that you will forgive me for being so um incorrect.

Mayor, council member Taylor.

I I appreciate that easy mistake to make, and uh, but I I appreciate you saying that thank you for your grace on that situation and for answering my questions.

Well, it keeps them on their toes, so my bad.

Uh I had a question on the fuel tanks.

Do you know if they have been removed uh remediated?

Yeah, mayor.

I I asked the property owner and they uh did not know if that has been removed.

There's been a few different owners since the gas station operated there, and uh, I'm not sure if that's still there.

Yeah, that'd be good to know because if not, I know the state helps with that remediation of fuel tanks, but hopefully it's been done years ago because I'd hate for all this work to be done and then have to be torn up.

Vice Mayor.

Uh on that point, what was this before your client purchased it?

You're do you recall?

I do.

Mayor Council Member Summers, I believe the most recent use was the carpet uh wholesaler.

So it was a carpet wholesale before okay.

Yeah, my mother liked to buy carpet there.

How long did it operate it as a carpet sales facility?

Long time.

Couldn't tell you.

Long time.

And then prior to that, this was originally a uh garage, right?

A uh service station.

I believe the gas canopy goes back uh I think at least 40 years.

Um the the um the clearest aerial that I could find was from the 80s, but um it's been in in place since then.

Okay.

I I might be able to shed a little light there.

I recall the carpet and flooring wholesaler or the retail outlet being there.

Probably at least 20 years.

I did business with them on a couple of occasions in the 90s, early 2000s.

All right.

Couldn't give you the year or the month, but uh that was a time when I had some rental properties and had need for carpeting from time to time.

And um if I thought long enough about it, I could tell you the guy's name.

But uh he ran a nice little business there and you know, had remnants and things, but it was a good long time.

And prior to that it was a service station.

I'm I'm not old enough to remember that last mayor.

You didn't bring your horse there or um in all seriousness on page one.

So at least on the documents that I have uploaded here, maybe I need to uh reload them, but it still talks about uh the operation would be from 8 p.m.

to eight a.m.

I'm site management present, and the paragraph below that discusses the mobile tire repair services after.

So has this been amended uh to reflect the new where it's gonna be in operation eight to eight, not a 24-hour there a an amended good neighbor policy was submitted that has the uh statement that no on-site service will occur after each.

Okay, I'll I'll look for that.

I do this.

I may need uh recycle line, but I just want to make sure do you have that updated, Mary Aaron?

Um mayor, uh council members that good neighbor policy has been resubmitted to us.

I'm trying to it's a separate document that isn't part of the submitted documents that we've uploaded to council, but we do have that updated good neighbor policy.

Any chance we can email it to us right now?

Yeah.

Because I have the old one.

Dated uh July 22nd.

Is it uploaded to where it could be put on the screen so people can look at it or not?

Mayor, Vice Mayor Summers, it is a standalone document on the agenda item.

So if you um open up the agenda, there's a document that just says good neighbor policy.

I believe it's the last one on the list.

Correct.

And that's what I'm looking at at dated July 22nd, 2026, and it sounds like there might be a more updated version.

Mayor, council member, the July 22nd should be the most recent good neighbor policy.

So how does it then restrict 24 hour um service?

Mayor, I guess maybe that that paragraph, the third paragraph under op uh operations.

San Antonio Tire Shop also provides mobile tire repair services, which significantly reduces the need for vehicles.

So I I kind of see where that's going.

It's like we don't always have to be here on site, but also suggests to me a little bit of a 24-hour service.

Am I understanding that 24-hour service does not run out of here?

Mayor, council member, that language was from the original Good Neighbor policy.

Um the additional language that was added was saying no service between 8 p.m.

and 8 a.m.

Perhaps we should have removed that paragraph, but I think the the intent and the reality uh the practical effect is still the same that nothing can occur after 8 p.m.

And Mayor.

Okay, I see it above it.

Mayor Alex, I think you have you have this um a side with the correct thank you.

If you could pull up that tax, I think that would help to clarify.

Okay, it's the paragraph, it's the line above it is what's referring to not being a 24-hour service.

San Antonio Tire Surp agrees not to perform any customer service work on site between the hours of 8 p.m.

and 8 a.m.

That's the restriction for 24.

Councilmember, uh that's correct.

Are they still able to dispatch out of that facility or are they intending to only dispatch out of the facility a mile and a half away?

Mayor, council member, they will not be pursuing any uh activities out of this site after 8 p.m.

Okay.

I I think that to me at least, the way I read it, that that particular point isn't quite clear the way this is written.

Yeah.

I would have to agree with them.

I so are we saying that the typical business hours between 8 a.m.

and 8 p.m.

this the line he just read usurps and now overwrites that significantly reduces the need for vehicles to be transported to this site.

Like that's no longer a concern we have to have.

And Mayor and Council Member, I don't think I think it's possible to read that last paragraph without any, you know, relation to the hours of 8 p.m.

to 8 a.m.

And they can still maybe have a mobile operation during daylight hours.

Sure, from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

they could do their mobile work and everything.

We're just I I'm just trying to make sure there's definitely not gonna be any operations after 8 p.m.

at all lights out, kind of a thing.

Mayor and council member, I think the that is our intent with the language and happy to state here for the record that they do not intend to have any operations after 8 p.m.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you so much.

Okay, Mayor and Council, if I could, and maybe the applicant would be willing to agree to this to change that sentence um and resubmit, and that the approval if you approve it tonight, it would read this San Antonio Tire Shop agrees not to perform any customer service work on or dispatch from the site between the hours of 8 p.m.

and 8 a.m.

Is that agreeable?

So if you vote to approve tonight, it'll be with that change, that clarification, and then you can resubmit tomorrow.

Um and the intent of any motion to approve will have that additional language.

That works for us.

Okay.

Satisfied.

Thank you.

Very good for the detail.

Okay, we're gonna hear from the neighborhood.

Um first um there's 17 of you who would wish to speak.

Uh I have uh Miss Tess Taylor, if you want to come forward, uh followed by Brent Done.

The reason we had this presentation is so that you're fully aware of the changes and uh see what you have.

Uh we can have any questions from you to answer.

So Ms.

Taylor, I understand you're gonna be a spokesperson for the group.

Um if I don't know what the mechanism is to determine that, but yes, please.

Okay.

Well, we'll start with you first.

Following Ms.

Taylor for three minutes will be uh is it Brent Doan?

So um the handouts or memorandum includes exhibit A, which summarizes disqualifications from the required development standards, and appendix A, which summarizes the applicable Arizona State Framework governing municipal zoning decisions.

So when you have them before you, let me know, and I will start.

Okay.

Hold on.

I was handing you materials and you started the clock.

Can we put me at three minutes, please?

Would you be so kind?

I I wanted to.

Why don't you start and then we'll we'll cover it, okay?

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Council members.

Tess Taylor here, born and raised in this neighborhood where I am a homeowner and I speak for many of my neighbors who oppose these applications.

This case is not about whether another tire shop should operate here.

It's about whether the applicant has justified changes to Mesa's general plan and zoning map.

Tonight, that decision belongs to you.

These applications should be denied for three reasons.

First, the applicant has not met the required burden of proof.

The applicant bears that burden of demonstrating that these legislative changes are justified and serve the public interest.

The record does not support that showing.

There's no market study, no demand analysis, no evidence another tire shop or 24 hour operations are needed.

And second, this project does not fit the adopted planning framework.

The applicant asks the city to solve the property's limitations through legislative amendments, a biz overlay, and numerous deviations from Mesa's development standards.

Those standards distinguish projects that belong on a site from those that do not.

Amendments should not become the means by which projects are made to fit properties that do not satisfy Mesa's adopted planning standards.

Otherwise, the standards are rendered meaningless.

Third, approval would establish a planning precedent, and approval would amend Mesa's general plan and rezone this property.

Those actions extend beyond this parcel and establish a precedent for future applications seeking similar relief.

Tiss, could you hold your uh can you start the timer at two minutes, please?

Continue.

Thank you, sir.

If the applicate applicant withdraws a request for 24 hour operations tonight, that does not cure the fundamental deficiencies in this application.

One operational concession does not justify the remaining amendments or eliminate the precedent they would establish.

This council's responsibility is to apply Mesa's planning framework and not rewrite it whenever proposal requires legislative relief.

And so the question before you tonight is simple.

Has the applicant demonstrated that these amendments are justified and serve the public interest.

The record says no.

For these reasons and for those set forth in my memorandum and updated fact sheet given to you tonight just now, I ask that you deny the general plan amendment, rezoning, and all related entitlement requests.

And since I have one minute and ten seconds, I'd like to comment on several assertions that were made earlier.

I would like to commend Mr.

Balmer, the assistant planner of the City of Mesa, for his detail and thoroughness, and he has been extremely helpful to me.

However, assertions that he made earlier today that the difference between urban residential to urban center or the conversion, quote, doesn't change the fabric of the area.

I disagree with thoroughly, and I believe my neighbors will as well.

There was also a point raised that this operation has operated without incident or concern.

That is not a criteria for a general plan amendment or is rezone.

And finally, I would mention that in the good neighbor policy version I have, and I'm not sure if it's changed because I couldn't see what was up on the screen.

Quote, there will be anywhere from two to four employees on site at any given time.

End quote.

And yet they want to reduce from 11 parking spaces to four.

We ask that you vote no tonight and on all entitlements.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tess.

With that, uh Mr.

Doan.

There are several dones here tonight.

A Brent.

How about a Brent Dome?

Followed by Evelyn Rivera.

Thank you.

And you'll be speaking on both 7A and 7B.

Mr.

Doan.

I'm the third generation that has grown up in that neighborhood on that property.

First, when it was a vineyard and dairy farm, and then as a child, I grew up in that neighborhood.

I delivered Mesa Tribune and the Spur Shopper, probably to every single house in that neighborhood at one time another.

And yes, it was a gas station because it had the poll disc barks root beer anywhere else could find in the vending machine.

But Mesa was very different at that time.

There was nothing but farmland between there and Tempe for miles.

Tess has already gone over all the legal stuff, and I'm not gonna even try, but I will point out this.

And really, do we need two tire centers on corners from each other?

Especially since the applicant has another center a mile and a half away.

I'm sorry, it's not needed.

But the real issue is you are putting us as a neighborhood at risk because you are taking away what we have right now as rights that protect us from who knows what's gonna happen in the future.

Who knows?

Maybe they're gonna have those stupid drones you talked about landing there.

But the fact of the matter is, it isn't the council, it isn't the planning commission, and it certainly isn't the applicant's neighborhood.

It is our neighborhood.

And the nice things that were said by the law firm, I'm sorry, they didn't even have it straight.

He didn't have his documents straight.

And you're asking us to look at that and say, oh, we have confidence that this will be correct.

I'm sorry, I call bull crap on that.

If it isn't firm, if it doesn't meet, which it doesn't, don't change it.

Thank you, Mr.

Doan.

Uh Miss Rivera, Evelyn, followed by Carol West.

Hello, Evelyn.

Looks like you got some support new.

My name is Nay, I'm the significant other.

So we're in this together.

Okay.

Evelyn.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Evelyn Rivera.

I am a Mesa resident who lives about 100 yards away from this project.

I agree with everything Tez Taylor says.

Um, this is too much and small of a space.

We don't want the noise, the traffic, congestion, parking problems, exhaust fumes, and chemicals.

This is not a good fit for our residential neighborhood, especially with raising my children here one day.

Um pretty short, but thank you so much for your time.

I ask you, please vote no on this item and all the entitlements.

Thank you, Evelyn.

Thank you.

Uh Miss West, Carol West, followed by Reed Done.

Okay, so I'm kind of changed mine a little bit because my biggest concern was the 24 hours.

I absolutely didn't want the 24 hours, and so that was a big concern.

Um especially after I identify, you know, I they identified a lot of 24-hour businesses that have issues being legitimate.

So that was one of that was my biggest concern.

So I really appreciate you changing it so that they absolutely say, Mr.

Butler, that it does not, it they cannot work after eight o'clock.

So that was my biggest concern.

Um I, you know, I am concerned that it's a very small property and insufficient parking.

So I would really like to have it in writing and make sure that they've already checked with the church across the street where there is additional parking to make sure that that is available to them.

Because if there's only four places, they have two employees, then you can only have two cars.

That's not a lot.

So that's another concern of mine.

Um everything else you've already addressed.

So those are my biggest concern was the 24 hours.

So thank you.

Thank you, Miss West.

Uh Mr.

Don Reed.

Thank you for your wonderful hospitality.

My name is Reed.

My last name is Done D-O-N-E.

I look at you.

I'm pleased with what I see.

And you in turn look at me, and you see a 92-year-old father.

I've spent 68 years living and raising a family of five kids on that property, that neighborhood.

I see seven people, wonderful people, that have got a job tonight to make a decision.

Are you gonna accept the planning staff's format?

And what they say.

The planning staff says, I in favor of the tire shop zoning changes.

I ask who on the council will obey them.

Will it be you or you or you or you or you or you?

It's yet to be seen.

The planning staff, per the record, gave my council no market study.

There's nothing on this paper.

No demand analysis.

Nothing either on this paper.

No public need analysis.

Does the public have needs?

Yes.

No economic impact analysis.

Again, another blank piece of paper.

So what data will each of my counsel have to warrant a yes vote?

I taught physical sciences for 29 years.

I said simply in class.

Your conclusion can't be any more better than your data.

They believed me, and I believe you do too.

Will my council choose to swallow the staff's data-less conclusion?

When the re-roll call vote is displayed above you tonight, above the audience.

Whose name will be showed as voted yes in favor of the tire shops.

Zoning changes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Doan.

Uh James the Damick, followed by Jose Hernandez.

And then uh Charmaine McClee is third.

So James, Jose, and Charmaine.

Or Charman.

I have printouts of an email I sent.

Is that okay if I pass it around?

I send them over the the weekend.

I want to make sure you're able to see.

Sure.

And it took all right.

So while that's being passed around, uh Mayor and Mesa Chair, uh sorry, Mesa City Council.

I want to thank you guys for your time and your attention to this manner.

Um in particular, uh Councilmember Taylor.

I want to thank you for following up on my primary concern, which is these place type changes.

Uh, you've heard staff today say that these are minor changes, and the printout in front of you from the Mesa General Plan highlights the three different, I believe primary uses is the phrase that's allowed there.

So the three different primary uses that are enabled by an urban center.

And those are entertainment and recreation, convenience services, and medical facilities when compared to an urban residential zone.

So my primary concern with this plan is that we are we're putting an urban center where there isn't one on the map.

Um the closest one is down by the light rail station, and there is nothing else on university at that corner.

We have urban residential, we have traditional residential, and we have neighborhood centers.

So all of those allow for small businesses like restaurants, like convenience stores to operate.

Um this is a two-page email.

Apologies for the for the length, but on the other side, um, some of the things that are called out in the Mesa General Plan as being allowed in these different primary uses.

Um let's see.

Uh entertainment and recreation allows for hotels, motels, and concert halls.

Convenience services allows for gas stations, oil change facilities and automotive repair, and medical facilities allows rehabilitation centers.

Um as I write in the email, there's just no chance I would have bought the property that I did a year ago if I thought that I'd be living next to a hotel or a concert hall or a rehab center in the coming years.

And as we've seen expressed in the meeting today, surrounding zoning is a a primary indicator of a primary justify justifier of plan changes.

So you've seen the applicants and the staff pointing to limited commercial zones in the area as reasoning why this point is also allowed to be zoned as limited commercial.

If you make this place type an urban center instead of an urban residential, you are drastically altering the characteristic of the neighborhood to where I could be living next door instead of a storage facility to a rehab center or a hotel.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, James.

Uh Jose.

Hello, Jose Hernandez.

And oh, I'm sorry.

I thought it was I'm Charmaine was next.

You're welcome to go.

Oh, thank you.

Because I thought that I was next.

I'm sorry.

And thank you for being part from being here.

I've lived in this area 67 years in the same house.

I have seen it grown that area.

I have seen business come and business goes.

And it is a residential area.

It goes from Main Street to uh Rio Salada to the Dobson in area and Alma School Road.

It is a business.

This is where we live.

And this I I was against the 24 hours.

That was my main issue here when I was thinking.

But then other things started to come up, and I wondered wait a minute.

This is not for us residents, as everybody has said.

And why I understand you trying to plant redeem lower zoning.

I understand that, because we are want businesses here to support our area.

And this also is the beginning of Mesa coming in from Scottsdale in Tempe.

And we've got wonderful freeways, and we've got the colleges, and we've got the light rail, and we've got everything to service us people here living in the area.

And I worked hard on Riverview, and I worked hard on the Cardinal Stadium.

So I'm interested in what the city wants.

I am really concerned about because this small piece of land here has not grown.

And for us to change that, I'm worried about changing that zoning on that small piece of land.

I think it could be used much better for something else than a tire place than it is for than a business.

That that the area here is going.

And I know university was a two-way road.

And when I moved out there, and it is gonna end up gonna be where it is today.

And that's why we built our house block in.

And we got the we're right back up against the uh shopping center there.

So and the noise was gonna bother me too first.

It doesn't.

Eight o'clock or ten o'clock comes, the quiet.

I think a city ordinance, I'm not sure.

So this is this is this is not the type of business I think we need here.

And he says at one of the meetings, says, oh, well, we might we are kind of considered planning it to store our tires for his other business.

And right now he's got tires packed behind his building, clear to the roof, and that poor person lives behind him, sees it.

Doesn't I have enough for him to store tires?

And then another thing that concerns me is that tire company and mechanical running business really go together.

Are we open for just a catastrophe that could happen?

There's different equipment works on a pipe fixing their car our shows and that.

But anyway, I'm really concerned, and then another thing, and I only got nine seconds, so I'm gonna say it real fast.

When was his issue to run that business?

His issue on I have got that it wasn't come July 22nd, 26th, and yet he's been running for two years.

Did he have a city license that you collect taxes from that helps take care of the city's function?

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss McLeave.

Uh Jose Hernandez, is Jose still here?

All right, Sandy Doan.

Is Sandy here?

After Sandy is Sandy Pierce, followed by Joe Albert.

Sandy.

Yes.

Welcome.

You've been here a long time, haven't you?

Thank you.

I don't have much to add.

Um a lot of my uh things that I were gonna say was addressed earlier.

But um the biggest thing I just want to uh impress upon you is that uh um many residents have been in that area for over 20 years, and they want the property to main remain a nice quiet neighborhood.

We're happy there, and that's basically our concern is the neighborhood stays quiet and peaceful like we're used to used to having.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy.

Sandy Pierce and Joe Albert.

Is Sandy here?

Pierce.

Okay, okay.

And then following Sandy Pierce's Joe Albert.

Sandy, welcome.

Hello, thank you for for taking the time to listen to us all.

Um I've lived in the neighborhood for 40 years, or nearly 40 years.

I raised my kids there.

Um, and now I have grandchildren that that visit me often.

And I just like, you know, I would like to keep the neighborhood a neighborhood.

And I understand the need for businesses in the area, and and that's fine, but I guess I'm my main concern is what the zoning change, what door that opens for that neighborhood in the future.

So I'm asking you to please vote no on the zoning change.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy.

Joe Albert.

Joe not here.

Uh Matt Taylor, followed by uh Mark Doan.

Matt Taylor and Mark Doan.

Welcome, Matt.

Thank you.

Uh my name's Matt Taylor.

I grew up in that neighborhood, uh moved away for 15 years and went back and bought a house that's probably 150 yards from that business, roughly.

And uh I just don't see the need for another tire shop that close, and I don't want uh I just don't I don't want any more changes like that.

So thank you for listening to me.

You're welcome, Matt.

Mark Doan, followed by Nolan West.

Is this three generations of dones?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um Light Rail was mentioned about being part of the changes.

It's done a mile down the road.

It does shouldn't count for the university site.

And uh just please vote no on the changes to the site.

It won't help the neighborhood at all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Uh Nolan West, Nolan, and then Nathan Taylor after Nolan.

Welcome, Nolan.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mayor and Council members appreciate your time.

Um I spoke last week and had concerns.

Uh a lot of my concerns have been addressed.

I had concerns about the 24 hours that's been addressed.

Uh had concern about the storage that currently uh tires are stacked outside and everything, but that if they're required to store it indoors, then I'm good with that.

Um again, the parcels too small, not a lot you can do about that.

Not a lot you can do about that.

But after, you know, seeing what the money that they're willing to put into that corner and uh the upgrades to the corner.

Uh I'm in inclined to say that I would rather see that business go in than the building to sit there empty the way that it is at this point.

And so I will leave it up to you to make a good decision on how best to use that property.

Uh I am concerned about you know the the uh noise in the neighborhood.

Uh but uh if they're only open at the regular hours, then most of the other businesses are open, that shouldn't be a problem.

So thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Nolan, for coming up.

Uh Nathan Taylor, Nathan here, followed by Roxy Jetson, and our last speaker be Wendy Madison.

So Nathan, Roxy, and Wendy.

Welcome, Nathan.

Good afternoon, good here.

Um, so the biggest thing is the zoning.

If you change that zoning, like Sandy said, like James said, you open up that possibility for anything in the future.

Okay, so you have four parking spots, right?

Any successful business, four parking spots is not a lot.

There's gonna be traffic that just overlays each other.

So if you open up the zoning, you change it, you change the dynamic of the neighborhood.

So if you guys could please vote no, that would be incredible.

Okay.

Thank you, Nathan.

Roxy.

Followed by Wendy Madison.

Hi, my name is Roxanne Jetson, and I live just a short ways around, and a lot of my neighbors are here, and I have excellent neighbors.

It's an excellent place to live.

Um, people come over and they're just amazed at, you know, what a nice old-fashioned friendly neighborhood.

It's a front yard neighborhood.

And we'd like to keep it that way.

We don't want the zoning changed for the reasons that you know what happens after the zoning is changed.

There's no controls, there's no nothing after that.

What if all these things that we've heard that can happen or that they're gonna do to make sure that there's no issues?

What if they don't happen?

You know, what if I don't know that anything would come of it?

And you know, who's to say what the next business is gonna be when they leave and what is the purpose of it?

Why should a tire shop go into this little tiny place?

There's already a tire shop there, they already have one a mile and a half away.

What is the need for a tire shop?

A second tire shop in that residential neighborhood on such a small lot.

And yeah, right now I drove by the place yesterday, and yep, there's tires stacked to the hill.

Um, you know, I I don't see that there's a need for any of that.

Um I just don't see that there's a control over it after the zoning is changed.

Um I guess you know, I don't know how many other ways that can be said.

All of the other neighbors have said the same.

But um, I would appreciate if you voted no, keep the safety and the security of our neighborhood.

Keep we've lost the downtown, don't let us lose the neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Jesson.

Uh Miss Madison, Wendy Madison.

Copy that.

Okay, that completes all our speakers for uh items 7A and 7B.

Council, do you have any further questions that you have for staff?

The applicant.

Uh who wants to lead out.

Mayor, just a few things that I've heard that maybe staff can address it and the applicant can address as well.

Um from this first of all, uh, there seems to be a lot of trepidation about when we change zoning, that's going to allow different uses to come in.

For example, there was a mention of hotels, rehab centers, uh, what's that next business going to be?

So, what is the zoning change allow and restrict uh moving forward?

Um there was a separate question on a business license.

I believe they did not have one, but should be getting one as a requirement.

And then the last speaker talked about control after the zoning is changed, which I interpreted to be a code compliance question is how do you enforce to make sure that the stipulations built into the good neighbor agreement are enforceable.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor Summers.

I might uh lump the number one and number three together.

So zoning restrictions.

So this is a if it's approved, uh it would be rezoned from um office commercial to limited commercial with the BIZ.

All of those conditions of approval require compliance with the documents that were submitted with this case.

So it would be the landscaping, it's the breeze block wall, it's the elevations, it's all of those things, it's the good neighbor policy, it's all of the those requirements that are specific to this specific user.

Um let's say we get you know five years down the road and and they've moved on, and you get somebody who comes in here and wants to do a hotel or some other use, those conditions of approval really tie it back to what is being presented to council today.

If they wanted, you know, some future user wanted to modify that, they would be coming back to council to request a rezoning at minimum to modify the conditions of approval and the site plan and all those other elements.

As far as the controls after zoning, yes, that would be correct.

So it would be code compliance would enforce um all of the the requirements of our zoning ordinance and the conditions of approval specific to this ordinance and this specific property.

You also had a question about licensing.

Um if I if I could, Mayor and Evan, before you move on.

I also wanted to say just given the site of the size of the site at 3.36 acres under 0.4 acres, it would be challenging to get some of the uses that are allowed, like a hotel or rehab center that are allowed in the LC district on a site like this.

So not only do they have to follow the site plan and and that the project will be stipped to, but there's also limitations on the site on the kind of use that we're we would likely see on this site.

Yeah, and I don't want to go down rabbit hole on rehab centers because that's a whole level of federal and state uh overrides of local control.

Trust me, we've we've seen issues.

But what about uh I mean for the size of the they could come in and knock it over for a Starbucks?

Would that be permitted, or how would how would they have to do that?

Because that's going to be a whole new requirement for parking and uh the uh audio boxes, that type of thing.

Um mayor, vice mayor summers, that's actually a great example.

So um uh drive-through a Starbucks or any uh any drive-thru is technically permitted in the LC district, uh, but it would require modifying this underlying zoning for all of these conditions of approval that that require compliance with the site plan and the elevations, and then there would be additional requirements related to a drive-thru and queuing and parking and stacking and and all of those sorts of things.

And when you look at a site as small as four tenths of an acre, it would be very difficult to fit any any sort of drive-through there and meet all of the requirements for for queuing, for parking, for landscaping, all of those things.

So suffice it to say it would have to come back to council for legislative act related to the site plan and zoning and some, and then dependent on what that example would be.

That's correct.

Can I jump in real quick?

Only if certain things are triggered, correct?

We just had an amendment, uh text amendment.

It's that's not a given.

So, mayor, council member go forth, that's correct.

And if we remember the three the three-part tests, so there would be a condition stipping it to a site plan.

If a Starbucks went in, traffic would likely increase by a percentage, and they'd have to show us a TIS saying that a tire place and a Starbucks have the same amount of traffic, and then the change of use.

So they would trigger all three of those.

So again, yes, it would depend on the use that's coming in, but likely a Starbucks would trigger something like that.

Um, a lot of the other uses that are currently allowed in the LC district would likely trigger that kind of.

Well, I don't think we're here to say yes or no on that.

We haven't seen that.

But I think it's important to say it does not automatically come back.

It has to be triggered under that's correct.

Thank you.

So that raises the question what would be permitted?

What could get in there without having to trigger those examples?

Do we have examples of that kind of thing?

Um mayor, vice mayor summers.

I suppose a different tire shop could could come in, but we still have you know a condition of approval related to the good neighbor policy and the hours of operation.

Um there's compliance with the the building elevations and in the site plan.

So you know, there there might be be tweaks to that, but all of those conditions of approval would would still be applicable.

Okay.

So uh Evan, that that triggers uh one of my thoughts is if for some reason we approve everything tonight that the tire shop chooses not to go discontinued business, and what type of businesses could be with this type of zoning overlay.

Mayor, the the limited commercial zoning district allows for most of the commercial uses.

So it's it's general retail, it's office, it's it's restaurants, um, you know, hospitality, all of those uses are are permitted in in the LC district.

Um but again there are our conditions of approval and I guess I'll call them guardrails that really dictate the development of this of this proposal as as described to council.

Is there a way that we could this would be uh use the word stipulation that if the tire shop discontinues business there, does that can we uh pull that zoning back or look at it to where uh the right type of business goes in there in the future?

I don't I don't know how the best way to explain that unless uh Mary and Jim and So Mayor and Council, yeah, there's no way to sort of automatically reverse zoning.

Um but as you as you're struggling with the additional uses that are allowed by the zoning district.

If council wanted to, we could um council could continue this case.

We could do a development agreement.

A development agreement gives you more power than um stipulations on zoning, and we could um limit the use to only this additional use um for that sort of effectively is its underlying zoning plus the tire shop, none of the other uses that are allowed in the LC district.

And so we've effectively done that through a development agreement.

And so we could do that um to just belt and suspenders.

I I I do agree though that uh there's a practical aspect of this when you the the first step to stepping to the site plan, um, they are gonna have to come back if they try to if they if they can't use that building as it is, they're gonna have to come back.

Um, and that is a rezoning to change that step with the additional caveat that Mary pointed out that it has to trigger those three factors.

Um and so you know, you know, I I can't guarantee you it's always gonna have to come back on every scenario because I can't think of all of them right now, right?

And so, but if you want to sort of bount suspenders, a sort of extra protection, um it would be through a development agreement.

I think that's really ideal to confine the property to a tire use.

In fact, the residents are upset for a tire use, would like to see another use at point four acres.

It's gonna be extremely difficult to find a use that will fit.

Um, and there's another concern I have about other uses is we don't know environmentally because it's been a gas station in the past, what that land could be just dead for other uses because the environmental aspect we don't know that, but it's a possibility.

Mr.

Adams.

Well, thank you, Mayor.

I have a few questions for the applicant and Mr.

Balmer, then a few comments.

So let me see where I want to start.

Um so Mr.

Ballmer, let me just ask you a few uses.

If the tire shop for whatever reason doesn't continue, could a smoke shop check caching store or a bar, for example, operate there.

Uh Mayor Freeman, Councilmember Adams, so smoke shops are are considered just general retail, uh, which is a permitted use in the LC district.

Check casing check caching um requires a council use permit in the other one was a bar.

Restaurants um and bars are permitted in the LC district.

So somebody could open a bar that would buy right operate within the the uh time frame of its liquor license.

Um that that kind of goes back to to those conditions of of approval.

So if if they were to modify the site, we have the conditions of approval related to the site plan, all of those those things that that we just discussed.

So that would be a change in use.

Um it could trigger increased traffic, and depending on the the size of the change, that would would likely be a legislative modification.

Okay, thank you.

I'm um I'm I'm just gonna share some of my thoughts on this and my my uh my methodology of thinking through this just for clarity.

I'm I'm hearing uh in in I want to thank everyone who emailed and who spoke.

That's very helpful to get input from the neighbors.

Um I saw a lot of concerns about the 24-hour operation, and to my understanding, it has been resolved.

Uh this business is proposing to operate now from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

Correct, counsel.

Okay.

No, no dispatching service trucks, no the the doors close at 8 and they stay closed until 8 a.m.

Okay.

So I'm I'm hearing a lot of objection to a tire shop, but I'm not hearing one single thought, and forgive me if I've uh missed it.

Nobody wants a tire shop, but nobody can really uh describe what they'd like to see there.

Um I'm wondering is a vacant building preferable to the tire shop, which uh we we've heard has operated until this case came to us without complaint or police activity, save for two calls that didn't result in police reports.

I'm wondering if let's say hypothetically, let's say the gas station that initially opened in 1961 never closed.

Would we be hearing objections to its continued operation?

I don't know.

Um that's a hypothetical.

What I see here is I see an applicant who's willing to invest significant dollars to improve what is fairly well from what I can see from Google Street View and the last time I drove by, uh, not a very attractive building or site.

Um again, no one I I haven't heard anyone suggest a better use, and um I don't think any of the three that I mentioned would be any better for the quality of life in the neighborhood.

Certainly a Starbucks, if if it were permitted, would generate a tremendous amount of traffic, and you'd have to listen constantly to welcome to Starbucks.

What can I get for you over the squawk box?

Um here, Mr.

Ballmer, I want to come back to you.

It seems that the zoning change, and and the vice mayor alluded to this, causes a great uh amount of fear of the unknown.

And I'm trying to wrap my mind around it's hard to define what that unknown is, but is it fair to ask you to speculate what would be what would be a permitted use that would be more disruptive than the proposed tire shop?

I I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm just if you can speculate a little for me.

Uh sure, Mayor, uh Councilmember Adams.

You know, I I think your your Starbucks example is is a good one because you're gonna have an increased amount of traffic, you're gonna have cars queuing, you're gonna have the the ordering.

Um you're gonna have a lot more traffic, a lot more activity at that site than you would um a tire shop.

I also think it's important to make a distinction between um small auto repair, like tire shops, as opposed to major auto repair, which is you know, paint booths and you know, swapping the transmission out.

I think that would also be a more disruptive use based on the the scale of of the activity there.

So you I think there are a lot more destruct dis um disruptive uses that could be proposed as opposed to the tire shop that has been in operation.

Well, thank you.

I I appreciate you speculating that with me.

Um the other thing I've I've heard is safety and security concerns, and I may be very naive about this particular topic, but I'm trying to understand how a tire shop generates safety and security concerns outside of the traffic that it might generate with people trying to turn in to have their tires serviced.

Uh we've heard nothing from PD from our police department about crime at the site.

So I'm again just sharing my thoughts on this thing, just trying to struggle through it.

I'm trying to be very sympathetic and uh uh understanding of the neighbors' concerns, but I I I can't see and oh, the other thing I would address question, why a tire shop?

Well, I suppose that's a question for the free market.

Apparently, someone's been operating a tire shop for 18 to 24 months, and they haven't closed it yet, so uh apparently there's a healthy competition going on there.

I don't know why a tire shop there.

Maybe the fellows who own San Antonio tire shop think they can make a profit and they can compete with the Paneda.

I don't know.

So those are those are just my thoughts as I struggled through this, and I I appreciate your uh council member, if I may comment on that last point.

Yes.

That there are some um questions about you know, market studies or demand analysis.

In this case, we have the unique opportunity to see the business actually thriving over the last 18 months, and it it to your point about the free market, it's worth it to them to continue operating, and I think that they think there's sufficient demand, and it's enough of a compliment to their existing business that they want to operate here.

Well, I appreciate the comment, and I agree with you.

I mean, I think if if there was no need and there was no demand in the market, the thing would have failed long time ago.

My opinion.

I don't anyway.

Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome.

Anyone else?

I'll just I'll just say I heard one uh person talk about outdoor storage, the tires on the back of the building stacked really high where the neighbor behind could see.

Is that something in one of the stipulations not to do that?

I don't know what's it uh allowed for outdoor storage like that on tire storage.

Is there a height limit or uh anything?

Yeah, Mayor, uh the LC district is is pretty clear that it just says no, no, no outdoor storage.

You can have outdoor display, um, so tires or if it was a retail store, the things that you're selling, but they have to be brought in or inside everyone.

So just no outdoor storage.

Is that written in the stipulation at all about outdoor store storage?

It is.

Okay.

And Mayor, where the those tires are currently.

Um the site will be kind of redesigned with the circulation going around the back of the building, and so those tires will be moved indoors into uh a um storage area and then also stored off site if need be.

Okay.

Miss Taylor.

Um I was reading over the the bonus intensity zones.

And can you just I'm sorry, Evan, can you remind us why this applies to this location?

Because I was reading that generally a tire shop's already permitted under light commercial, light industrial zoning districts.

Uh the the bonus intensity is generally for something maybe bigger or more unique.

So I I'm sorry, I can't remember what you said originally.

Oh, yeah, no, no problem.

Uh, thank you, Mayor, Councilmember Taylor.

So the the bonus intensity zone overlay is to address the existing non-conforming conditions on this idea.

In essence, there's a a building that's you know, pushing 70 years old that doesn't meet the current standards of her setbacks for landscaping.

The bonus intensity zone is a way to deviate from those standards.

But the kind of the flip side of that is that it's it's to encourage um reuse um in field development of high quality projects.

So it isn't just I have DV, I have nonconformities, I need deviations.

The conversation is I have nonconformities and I need deviations, but I'm doing things like increasing the landscaping, I'm bringing things closer into conformance.

I'm doing this decorative breeze block wall, I'm I'm adding public art.

So there's a trade-off associated with that.

I think I'm just this one's really tough for me because I'm a free market capitalist girl, and I see this is a local business owner.

Our our Mesa general plan, we have to adhere to it through the ARS, but it's also a living document, so I'm torn on that one too.

It can be amended.

Um I see that the reserve reservation from the residents is kind of the fear of the unknown of like what happens if this business closes shop and the place types changed, right?

Yeah.

And I see their concerns about safety, I'm assuming because there are um there are speculations, deep speculations online and in general, if you do some research about nefarious activities that can happen in certain industrial place types, to say that as nicely as possible.

Um, however, at the same time, what I'm thinking is if this closes down, because I believe you said if this doesn't pass, then they are potentially going to close up shop.

I live in a district where blight has taken effect from closed-up businesses.

And I will I will speak out of my personal experience in driving my district in the evenings and at night, and I can say because I have empirical evidence that when a commercial building is empty and it stays empty for a long time, and nobody wants to take up that space, there are real nefarious activities that take place there, and you end up with the cost of public safety having to come in and handle issues with drug dealers and people squatting on the property.

Um code compliance has to get involved.

It becomes an even bigger problem, and it doesn't make the neighborhood any safer, it makes it much worse, and people end up wanting to leave because they're so frustrated.

Um I see that this this owner has invested a lot of money in this proposal to make this look like a beautiful tire shop.

Um and improve the property.

I'm torn because I want to respect the residents' concerns, but I'm also torn because this is a business and it's already operating, and some of the concerns have been addressed.

It's not going to be open 24 hours.

They're not going to bring any vehicles on site to do work at night.

It's going to have limited light production, that it can it can even shine brightly at night.

It's got better landscaping.

Um I don't want to see blight happen in that area.

I don't want people to see squatters in that location because that changes the feel of a neighborhood drastically.

Um so I'm just I'm basically speaking from my heart of conviction of where my mindset is.

Umber, can I comment on that?

Um I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I mean, the the I hear the concerns from the neighbors, but um the reality is this is a commercially zoned property today on an arterial at a commercial intersection.

This is not you know the middle of a residential street or it's not a park today.

This is already a commercially zoned property.

The general plan does have policies and goals that encourage um adaptive reuse and infill redevelopment to for to solve the exact problem that you're talking about is to encourage reinvestment in areas that aren't otherwise receiving it.

And so the request today, you have a person operating a successful small business.

Approval of this request today would allow them to continue operate and significantly invest more in this property to improve uh this corner and it make it a safer, better looking at the and and we can't go vertical because we can't go horizontal.

And as I think council member Summers pointed out, um what was mentioned, and I I saw the concern about like rehabilitation facilities, those have bigger stipulations that come with them.

You can't just drop one in that space.

If it was going to be, I'm just reiterating this to make sure I'm clear on everything.

If it was going to be reused as like a small restaurant location, then there's other stipulations that apply for traffic flow, congestion, things of that nature.

Um are we worried about parking anywhere on the arterial streets?

Are we concerned about anything like that?

Like people just trying to, I don't know, slide into the neighborhood and park while they wait for their car to get worked on.

Councilmember Taylor, I'm glad you asked the question.

So I I've neglected to comment on that.

So that the question, first of all, they feel very comfortable with the parking that we're requesting to be operationally sufficient for their use.

Um and they have experience on-site and with other uses.

The reality is it's a quick service operation.

They could customers come in, there takes 20 minutes, they wait on site, and then they drive off.

However, there was some concern about um, you know, what if it's not enough parking?

And I think there's a couple responses to that.

One, they have that other site nearby, you know, a couple two and a half miles away.

If they start getting an influx of of a lot of customers, they can send them over there.

Secondly, we added an additional condition of approval after the planning and zoning board that says if there are any adverse impacts associated with the the parking reduction that we've requested.

There's queuing in the in university or in Longmore, or there's parking on the side streets, then the applicant, San Antonio Tire Shop will be required to um get approval of an alternative uh compliance parking plan, essentially to bring it into conformance with one of the tools that the the ordinance provides.

So there is an enforcement mechanism if this is does become a problem.

But again, they in their experience operating this business are confident that it won't.

Okay.

And then if they don't comply with what they have shown us through their um their renderings and everything, that means code compliance comes in, that's correct.

Okay.

No more questions.

I I think that's very helpful.

Thank you.

Uh may maybe I'll summarize some things in my thoughts.

You know, we would not be having this discussion if during the pre-submittal the applicant decide, hey, it's not worth continuing forward in this whole process and meeting all the uh needs of of this community and the business.

Uh yesterday I was there at 8:30 in the morning watching the business, seeing how it was operating, seemed to be very clean.

I was there at uh 5 a.m.

this morning, just making sure that everything was similar, uh no business being conducted.

Supposedly they started at uh 8 a.m.

Uh my question was a carpet store was there for decades.

Was that a conforming uh zoning part there?

Was it non-conforming to your memory?

You know, uh Mayor, I'm not familiar with the zoning ordinance that was in place when the the carpet business went in initially, but what I would say is if a wholesale because it was wholesale, if a wholesale came in and wanted to locate on this property today, it would not be permitted.

It would not be permitted.

You know, going back for a little bit of history.

You know, going back for a little bit of history, I remember in the mid-1960s, I drove by this service station going to Webster School and elementary school on a bus and wish I could stop and get a Barks root beer, but that didn't happen.

But at the end of the day one of the things that as a council we've been working really hard on upgrading the character of our on all use declining neighborhoods that are uh that needs some love and one of the things that I was not in favor of this uh proposal because uh of the if it was going to continue the same look of the business uh the buildings themselves with no architecture no landscape which they have invested quite a bit of money into that and will during this process um the other thing that I think is important that I don't like the stipulation of having to utilize the church next door for overparking you know if they do too but that's my opinion I don't I don't you know if the church went away someday does that stipulation still in effect uh for that property and parcel uh we heard about uh noise concerns I know that maybe not a lot of compressors but yet changing tires do take compressors and to to do that type of work the the other thing thing to me is screening the outdoor storage and so many stipulations just to make this business uh conform to this whole process that's that's what's conflicting to me is is doing that uh so many stipulations for this business to to be successful there so that's just my thoughts uh my vote will reflect where I'm at but uh I'm right now not in support of this uh amendment uh this resolution because I I just don't like all the stipulations there I've listened to the neighborhood I think the neighborhood has some valid concerns I think it's important for us to listen to those concerns that's who we represent who votes this however I understand the planning and zoning 7-0 vote uh they went through that uh very decisively apparently it's came to our level you know it didn't go to the board of adjustment it came to the city council for consideration so that's that's where I'm at uh right now but um counsel there's nothing else uh I can ask Mr.

Smith okay all right thanks mayor just go for it um kind of where I'm sitting is a couple of things uh we just completed the general plan two years ago it is approximately two years ago we designated it the urban residential place type nothing has changed in this place that I can see other than there's a user that doesn't comply but nothing else in this area has changed and and residents they look at that plan um and they rely on it they rely on those designations and so to me you have they haven't met the compelling uh reason to change this designation and to to amend the general plan um and I also see no basis for a B I Z I know it's a trade off but what's been added I appreciate some of the landscaping and the investment but that doesn't rise to the level of a BIZ that's that's nice that's quality but for to me the BIZ is uh really requires a higher trade off a unique innovative superior quality you've you've you've made a nice development but not enough for that for that uh trade off of and and warrant the BIZ so that's where I am right right now it's pretty simple um you haven't met you haven't met the threshold for me thank you Miss Taylor did you have a comment may I may I just comment on the on the BIZ uh sure the the reality is the site is a third of an acre with on on a corner with two street frontages so it I think it's literally impossible to develop without some relief from the zoning ordinance so you're gonna have you're gonna need some tool whether it's PAD PAD or BIZ overlay to build anything so any anything that this site is going to be used for is going to require some one of the tools that's provided in the ordinance to um I mean there's a for as an example one of the requests there's a requirement in the ordinance that uh parking in and dry aisles perpendicular to uh dry vials accessing the right of way have to be set back 50 feet the site is 135 130 feet deep and 125 feet wide you you just can't put anything on there in that case so you need to use some tool and there's a variety of those uh examples with this site and especially when you're doing adaptive reuse when you're trying to reuse and repurpose existing buildings you need to have deviations from the I understand that that I I would agree but I still don't think I don't think we've to use the language I don't think we've hit unique innovative or superior quality Mr.

I don't think we've to use the language, I don't think we've hit unique, innovative or superior quality.

Mr.

Radio.

Um, you know, I think I appreciate the the residents uh chiming in here and uh you know, for at the beginning, I think I met with the applicant and the attorney maybe a year and a half ago or maybe less.

Um and um I wasn't sure.

I wasn't sure on what was gonna be developed or you know, improved upon.

You know, we uh in West Mesa, we we've struggled with corners and and uh commercial corners and um I stressed on the applicant that it's gotta be improved upon, and you know, that's what they did and landscaping and what they they were able to uh you know do with that small acreage.

Um I think it it was for me at least um the work that uh I would have liked to see if uh you know they kept on going and pursuing this and uh and they did.

Um and so I you know that was my position is you know we need to improve you know this infill small lot uh and aesthetics, and I think that the plan did that.

Um, my fear if we deny it, and what we've seen in the past that it's gonna get vacant, and the vacant uh parcels in particular you know central and and west mesa have been a uh a struggle to get um uh private uh entities to uh develop and in quality ways.

Um and though we've made great strides over the years, uh especially uh since I've been here, um, it's still uh leaving it to the free market and and private developers to take on uh these these parcels and create uh you know a good looking infill site, right?

And and that's what my fear is uh we have a uh a product that you know they are gonna invest in and and in uh in the property and really look better than what it is now.

I think that's that's definitely uh uh something that I took into account.

Um I I like the good neighbor policy because that brings enforcement opportunity for our code compliance to keep the uh this business in check.

Um and we know that we have um uh uh problems in with other commercial buildings that where we don't have any uh you know uh uh good neighbor policies or it it's hard to you know keep on making a case uh with uh with this policy, you know, at least we have uh strong enforcement opportunities.

Uh it still has to go through a process, I understand, but it's it gives us a uh uh a good uh uh step to ensure that they are compliant and respecting the neighbors uh and ensuring that they are uh committing to improving uh and and making sure they don't have any violations moving forward.

And so for me, uh I think they've they made um the needed adjustments and needed uh um changes to improve upon this site.

That is uh again a hard site.

I think it's uh to expect something that uh I think would be difficult, and I think my fear will be uh a vacant site if this is not approved.

Um it's gonna be uh you know, especially with um, you know, a developer seeing a meeting like this, and you know, I don't know who who would you know take on the site and develop something, right?

Um, and so that that's my fear, and we would see even further, you know, complications in in the neighborhood.

So I I support this uh this uh uh both uh 7A and 7B and and hopefully my my colleagues see this as well.

So thank you, Mr.

Reddio.

Uh Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll I'll be brief in my comments.

I agree with Councilmember Heredia on a number of points you just made.

I think that um my sense is if we deny this, we're going to have a vacant building on this corner that will probably sit there vacant and become an attractive nuisance.

We've seen it before.

And I think it becomes even more difficult to attract someone who's willing to invest capital to build something.

As it was mentioned earlier, if someone was considering investing on that corner and they watched the replay of this meeting, they would probably take their checkbook and run.

Because it seems like no change is desired.

And again, we have uh an ongoing business.

Granted, the business started, not through the proper channels, but let's consider for a minute.

These are guys that sell tires.

They fix tires, they mount tires.

They're not attorneys, they're not businessmen.

I believe counsel mentioned at the meeting last week that they took the word of a commercial broker, which had they been more astute businessmen, perhaps they wouldn't have.

But let's assume everybody acted in good faith.

So I think I think we're looking at a vacant attractive nuisance.

If we deny it and they have to close shop.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Uh with that, I'll close comments and I will entertain a motion.

The motion will be to approve items 7A and 7B.

And we'll move forward from there.

So with that, we have a motion for Mr.

Reddy, a second from Vice Mayor.

Please cast your vote.

Ms.

Taylor, motion passes four to three.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody from the neighborhood from coming.

Next, we'll move over to item 8A and 8B.

Uh Council, we had quite the discussion down in the study session on that.

Is there any further discussion?

Otherwise, I will like I mentioned before.

I can call for a motion to approve uh item 8A.

And if the motion passes, then we move forward.

We're done.

If it doesn't, then we'll go to A B.

Okay, so is there a motion to approve item 8A?

Thank you, Miss Duff.

That I missed, go forth.

Please cast your vote.

Okay.

Well, that motion passes uh four to three.

So we're done with that.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Item nine is uh from items citizen present.

We have one person speaking.

Mr.

Win Stanley, are you sure you want to speak after all this?

Mr.

Mayor, uh I also spoke after the uh fees for the Falcon Field.

Ah, and I saw the same tired faces, so I will cut this very short.

And I'd like to suggest a movie for you guys to watch the next time you're looking for a movie.

Seriously.

It's called Still Mine.

It's a 2012 movie starring James Cromwell and Genevieve Bougeau, based on a true story about an elderly farmer who builds a safer home for his wife as her health declines.

It's heartwarming and a family movie, and I promise you will enjoy it.

When it's over, you will understand why I'm suggesting it for this audience and maybe even staff to watch it.

The movie, still mine, is available on Amazon Prime Video Streaming, or you can borrow it from our library using Canopy or Hoopla.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Wynne Stanley.

That's all we have tonight.

Council, is there a motion to adjourn?

Thank you, Ms.

Duff.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.