Mesa planning board recommends rezoning to keep San Antonio Tire Shop, adds parking and neighborhood conditions

The City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board on June 10 unanimously recommended approval of a general-plan amendment and rezoning that would allow the San Antonio Tire Shop to remain and redevelop at 1609 West University Drive.

The board voted 7-0 to forward a minor general-plan amendment (GPA26-00111) to change the place type from urban residential to urban center and to recommend rezoning (BCON25-00110) from Office Commercial to Limited Commercial with a Bonus Intensity Zone overlay and site-plan review for an approximately 4,015-square-foot minor auto-repair facility. Board member Pitcher made the motion; the board passed both recommendations with conditions that require staff to work out parking solutions and to attach Good Neighbor policy conditions that run with the land.

Why it matters: the decision would allow a long-running local tire business to stay and invest in a small, constrained corner parcel the applicants say has historically housed commercial uses. Neighbors urged denial, citing traffic, insufficient on-site parking and the potential for nighttime activity; the board’s conditions aim to address those concerns before the case reaches City Council for final action.

What the applicants asked for and what they said Alex Hayes, representing owners Alicia and Joaquin Guadarrama, said the application combines a minor general-plan amendment, a rezoning to LC with the BIZ overlay, and a site plan review to permit adaptive reuse of the undersized parcel. Hayes said the site has been a commercial corner for decades and that proposed improvements — removing two curb cuts, enhanced desert‑compatible landscaping, breeze‑block screening, facade improvements and a mural — would substantially improve the corner and site safety. "This project will bring substantial reinvestment to this corner," Hayes said during the presentation.

The application requests several deviations to accommodate the small site, most prominently a reduction in required parking from 11 spaces to 4 under the BIZ overlay. Hayes and applicant Joaquin Guadarrama said the operation is primarily appointment-based, with typical service times of 15–25 minutes, and that tire and equipment storage will be indoors.

Neighbors’ concerns Residents who live adjacent to the site spoke during the public-comment period and urged the board to deny the entitlements. Reid Doan warned that planning figures in the staff report understate impacts and told the board, "Defective data dictates disastrous decisions." Several speakers said the parcel is too small for the intensified use, highlighted the reduced parking count and said the potential for late‑night activity would harm quality of life. Jose Hernandez, who lives behind the shop, said limited parking could force customers to park on neighboring streets and noted that tires are currently stacked above the rear wall.

Tess Taylor, who presented a written memo and spoke for several neighbors, asked the board to deny the application on four grounds, including that the applicant had not met the burden of proof and that the board would be granting permanent development rights that "run with the land." "The applicant has not met the burden of proof," she said in summary of her remarks.

Applicant response and operational clarifications In rebuttal, Hayes reiterated that the current use is commercial and that, if approved, a condition would require interior storage of tires, shielded down‑lighting and construction to meet a 25‑decibel attenuation standard for activity inside the building. Owner Joaquin Guadarrama said the shop’s standard posted hours are "from 8AM to 8PM," and that while a mobile service truck operates 24/7, on‑site overnight activity would be limited to supporting that mobile operation, not a steady stream of customer traffic.

Board discussion and conditions Board members and staff discussed how conditions would be enforced and whether they would bind future owners. Staff confirmed conditions of approval (site plan, Good Neighbor policy, landscape plan, lighting and other conditions) would run with the land. Because the application seeks fewer on‑site spaces than code requires, staff and several board members recommended requiring an administrative follow-up — such as an off‑site/shared parking agreement or alternative compliance — and a mechanism to reassess the site if parking becomes an operational problem.

Votes and next steps The board made two separate motions: one recommending the general-plan amendment and a second recommending rezoning and site-plan approval. Both motions passed 7-0 with the added direction that staff work out a parking solution if the four on‑site spaces prove inadequate and that the Good Neighbor policy be clarified to address parking and rear‑yard screening before the case goes to City Council. The board is a recommending body; City Council will make the final determination at a later date.

What remains unresolved Neighbors continue to question whether the reduced parking will be sufficient over time and whether nighttime flexibility could draw unwanted activity to the area. The board’s recommendation ties those concerns to enforceable conditions, and staff will return the case to City Council with the board’s recommendation and requested parking stipulations.