Soilworks products are the industry’s top standard due to our insistence on creating high performance soil stabilization and dust control products that stand up to rigorous testing – both in the lab and in the field. Our commitment to quality and performance has led to our involvement and testing in hundreds of real-world situations. The following library of reports, presentations, specifications, approvals and other similar documents provide you, our customer, the transparency and dependable assurance that is expected from Soilworks.
John S. Gendron Hearing Officer
August 24, 2010 – 1:30 p.m.
View Conference Room, 2nd Floor
55 North Center Street
Mesa, Arizona, 85201
Staff Present Others Present
Mia Lozano-Helland Vince DiBella
Brandice Elliott Keith Rich
Angelica Guevara Declan Murphy
Lesley Davis Mark Anderson
Case No.: ZA10-031
Location: 230 South Country Club Drive and 458 3rd Avenue
Subject: Requesting a Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit to allow the expansion of an existing bus maintenance facility in the M-2 and TCB-2 zoning district. (PLN2010-00229)
Decision: Approved with the following conditions:
Summary: Carl Bloomfield represented the case and no further comments. Mr. Gendron clarified the scope of the project and asked questions regarding facility and the number of years the business has been at this location. Mr. Gendron inquired about the existing structures on the site and their future use. Discussion continued regarding existing and future signage. Mr. Gendron further discussed the conditions of approval.
Staff member Lesley Davis provided the staff report and recommendation. She also commented on an existing chain-link fence that was not included in the approval. She further stated that the use of chain-link fencing is not allowed by the City of Mesa Design Guidelines and that the applicant must apply for an Administrative Approval. Mr. Gendron approved ZA10-031 with staff conditions.
Finding of Fact:
1.1 The site is located on the west side of Country Club off of the frontage Road just south of 2nd Avenue (230 S Country Club Dr). The site also has access off of 3rd Avenue (458 W 3rd Ave). It currently has two different zoning districts with the front piece along Country Club zoned TCB-2 and the back portion that fronts on 3rd Avenue zoned M-2. It is an existing bus maintenance facility and both zoning districts accommodate the existing use.
1.2 This is a minor expansion of the existing use, to construct a covered area on the north side of the existing building off of 3rd Avenue. This canopy is utilized to wash the buses.
1.3 The surface for the bus parking area is identified as a dust proof surface. The applicant is using a material called “Durasoil” for the remainder of the circulation areas. The Zoning Ordinance requires asphalt, concrete, paving stone or masonry surface for parking and maneuvering areas. Staff did not support the use of the “Durasoil” material in the bus circulation areas, but supported the dust proof surface for the areas utilized for bus parking.
1.4 Compliance with current Code requirements results in significant alteration or demolition of the site and the existing office building at the southeast corner along the Country Club frontage road. Consequently, the allowed setbacks are commensurate with existing setbacks for the area and on this site.
1.5 With the exception to the setbacks and foundation base for the small office building along the Country Club frontage road and some additional minor deviations to landscape in the rear and the parking surface for buses, this development does comply substantially with current Code requirements.
1.6 The applicant provided code required amounts of landscape plant material along both street frontages.
1.7 The applicant is utilizing the existing chain link fence with slats along the 3rd Avenue frontage and is adding tan slats to the existing chain link fence adjacent to the Country Club frontage road. This chain link fence does have razor wire at the top, and appears to be in compliance with code that the razor wire be above 6-feet in height, however the Design Guidelines state that chain link fencing is not allowed. Staff did not support the use of chain link fencing material with slats because the rear is a storage yard. The applicant will submit a separate Administrative Design Review request to the Planning Director for consideration of the chain link in lieu of a masonry wall.
1.8 The project, as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, provided substantial conformance with current Code.