Brand new house.

Don't be shy.

You know what I'm going to say?

Don't do it much, but we're not doing that.

Tonight is October 28th, 2025.

Thank you all for being here.

This is the Development Review Commission.

I am Andrew Johnson.

I am the chair of the Commission.

The Development Review Commission is created to hold public meetings and hearings to provide analysis and recommendations to the City Council regarding general land use policies and applications where the commission has recommendatory power and to render final decisions on specified applications where the commission has final decision-making power, including but not limited to all aspects of a proposed and future development.

The development review commission recognizes that the creation of a desirable environment through the city for residents, residents, business, and industry is a prime requisite for the interdependence of land values, aesthetics, and good site planning by promoting harmonious, safe, attractive, and compatible development that is therefore considered to be in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare.

Any person agreed by a final decision of the development review commission may appeal, may file an appeal to the city council within 14 calendar days after the development review commission has rendered its decision.

We ask you to fill out one of these cards and you can bring that up to Miss Berry here up at the front.

Staff will assist in monitoring that time.

Also please note that the WebEx chat box is not monitored or moderated.

Okay, tonight uh I will review uh our agenda.

We have met in our study session and developed the consent agenda.

I will discuss each one of those consent agenda items and offer an opportunity if someone wishes to speak on one of those tonight, then I can pull that from our consent agenda.

But if we do have it on our consent agenda, we will vote on that consent agenda as a whole in affirmative and approve all of those items on the consent agenda.

Um but before that, I would like to get a uh recommendation for uh consideration of our meeting minutes from September 9th, 2025 from the study session and regular meeting.

Can I get a motion for that item?

For those meeting minutes.

Okay, I have a motion from Commissioner Miller.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Forte.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Okay, next I will go through our consent agenda.

And if anyone here is wishing to speak on one of these items that I'm calling out, please get my attention and we can pull that.

First item on our consent agenda is item 3A, which is a request for a development plan review for two new industrial buildings for Sky Harbor Logistics.

Okay, we'll keep that one on our consent agenda.

Item 4A, which is a request a time extension for a use permit to reduce required 60% ground floor use requirements in the TOD station area for mixed use development, consisting of 272 dwelling units and commercial use on 1.95 acres for Apache Square.

Okay, that will remain.

Item 4C request a use permit to allow two required parking spaces within the front yard set box setback home improvement.

Okay, that will remain on our consent.

Item 4E, which is request a use permit to allow two required parking spaces within front yard setback for black residents.

Item 4F, request a use permit to allow retail with vehicle service station fuel sales in the general industrial district zoning for break time market.

And with this one, we do have approval, which we'll discuss in our study session.

Okay, so we'll keep that one on consent.

Item 4G, which is request to use permit to allow a bar in the zoning district for university sports grill.

Item 4H is request to use permit to allow two required parking spaces within the front yard setback and a use permit for a detached engineer shade structure for Casper additions.

On our consent agenda for I request a use permit to allow two required parking spaces within the front yard setback for Venegala residents.

Yes.

I have somebody who wants to speak on that item.

On 4I.

Okay.

So we'll pull that one from our consent agenda.

Um item 4J on our consent agenda, request use permit to allow one required parking space within the front yard setback, and use permit to increase the maximum height of wall fence within the required front yard setback for the pendagraph residents.

Okay, item 4K, request a use permit to allow massage establishment for the one spa.

Item 4L, request a use permit to reduce the front yard setback from 20 to 16 feet.

A use permit standard to reduce the rear reverse frontage building setback from 20 to 16 feet, and a major development plan review for an 11-unit single family town home development for 806 university townhomes.

Okay, item 4M, request a use permit for an engineered shade structure within the front yard setback over the existing driveway for the operisu carport.

Did you wish to speak on that item tonight?

Okay.

Item 4N, request a use permit to allow a massage establishment for the CC1 zoning district or angelic touch spot.

Okay, item 4.0, request use permit to allow an entertainment business, racing simulation for racing rituals.

Okay, item 4P, request a use permit standard to reduce the required north and south side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 80 for the Francis Street lot split.

And the last item on our consent agenda is item 5A, which is request an amended plan area development overlay to establish development standards related to building height parking lot coverage landscaping and building setbacks and a development plan review for a new six new six-story mixed use development with 315 dwelling units for Rio 2100 residences.

I will read it one last time just by the letters or the numbers.

On our consent agenda tonight, we have item 3A, item 4C.

Sorry, I need to do this in order.

Item 3A, item 4A, item 4C, item 4F with added conditions of approval.

Item 4G, item 4H, item 4J, item 4K, item 4L, item 4M, item 4N, item 4O, item 4P, and item 5A is our consent agenda.

Can I get a motion for the approval of our consent agenda?

To approve the consent agenda as regards.

Thank you.

Moved by Commissioner Tom.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Spears.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

And that passes unanimously.

Felt like I was calling window numbers for a moment.

All right.

Um, so item um 3B is the first regular item that we will be hearing tonight, which is a quasi judicial item for the Kyrene Commerce Compact.

Commerce Complex is uh the applicant present.

I have a four year company.

Good evening.

And thank you everyone for being here.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Teresa Harvey.

I live at 1015 North West of Verde Drive, Richfield Park, Arizona, and I am here to present on the Kirin Complex PL250277.

And I'm also accompanied by uh Dan King with BKM, the owner of the facility, as well as one of our assistant uh architects.

So on the plan review, oh with my back to them too.

Yes, okay.

Sorry.

There were four topics highlighted on the plan review report that denied our application.

And we are here to discuss those points.

I'm gonna make it easy.

I'm gonna work from the easiest one backwards, although it is the largest discussion point from four to one instead of one to four.

The comment on the light bars, we agree a hundred percent.

Um it wasn't until we actually had a photo of the light bars over the building numbers in the evening that we noticed that we were doing light dilution and that it needed to be addressed.

So shields have been ordered, and we also are in the process of doing an as build to submit a set of drawings to get permitting for the light lights uh that go over the building numbers because the lighting are required or code for the building numbers.

So that one would be our response is yes, you're correct, and we are in the process of correcting that issue.

Those are the existing um lights that are illuminating any building numbers, and there is an existing additional thessoring that we that was not acquired, and we are in the process of acquiring it.

It's the light shield over here on the side option, which will create a down light and will reduce the amount of uh light pollution that's currently there.

Deccession point number three is that the numbers do not comply with so sign code criteria, and that they're uh proportionate and larger than a sign with allow.

Our response is that the addresses, building numbers are not part of sign approval permitting any process.

Uh we learned this when we had submitted our building numbers in a signed package for another one of UKM's projects here in the city of Tempe, and the comment that was addressed and given to the architect as address not part of sign approval.

Please remove from application.

So that is where the confusion comes from us regarding the approval process for building address numbers.

Discussion point number two.

I've broken it down into three.

Again, that the numbers are limited to the elevations facing the street, and the numbers are placed on the elevations facing the street.

So that one are response, it is there.

They're committing that the building numbers are utilized as an architectural enhancement and needs to be on all four sides.

The numbers are building numbers and they are placed on the front of the building as building numbers are required or code.

The second one is the in addition to the illuminated to the elevations that they are not functioning properly.

As you will soon see that the numbers do function.

They are for direction, they are for pedestrians, they are for vehicles, they're for truck trucks.

As in here's a map that shows the location and the orientation of each building and the placement of the address numbers on the face of the buildings along Kyrene, as well as on the face of the building as it comes down the carbour boulevard.

So the building numbers are functioning as they're supposed to, as numbers.

Discussion point 2.1.

They talk about the material and the detail and the variation.

They stipulated that for commercial and industrial uses of the building numbers are to be 12 inches.

And our response is looking at other facilities throughout the city of Phoenix.

The scales of the building numbers are much greater than 12 inches, and they vary throughout the city.

As you can see, there are some better of almost a third of the building, some are a quarter of the building, they're different positions, different heights, different features, as well as as you can see over there, shutter fly, very unique.

So discussion point number one is the point about how the panels are constructed, and they do call if they do consent concede that they are constructed of superior quality.

They are made from metal with a longer life cycle, less maintenance, but they are claiming that they are not appropriate for the location or function.

This is a heavy industrial area, and it is consistent of the surrounding heavy industrial warehouses, and again, the metal panels represent that type of industry, and they are functional.

As you will see, the large font makes it easier for the heavy trucks, pedestrians, and vehicles to maneuver around all the buildings that are within the development.

So before the buildings went through a design review for the elevation modifications of painting, this is what they look like.

The numbers were very small, they were consistent in scale and they were inconsistent in placement, and even some of the existing building numbers prior to the improvements did not even have the required illumination.

And as you can see, they were not visible from the street.

It was taken from the left turn lane of Kyrene.

You can barely make out the building number on the base of the building there.

And then there's another building number that's in an inconsistent scale height and justification.

Submitted a building sign package that really showed the intent of the scale of the modifications that they were making to the old Kyrie complex, as you can just tell in the exhibit of the monument sign, which was approved by the city of Tempe.

The scale has increased exponentially.

In addition, you would see the decrease in the scale, which again was approved by the city of Tempe regarding the tenant logos have gone up to three plus feet as well as five foot in length.

And even just the example of the tenant suite number, it was originally of the board above the door, which was about three inches.

That in itself, the intent of the scale has increased four times.

So the intent of the scale of the theory or the theme behind the industrial park was presented very clear in the signed package, which was approved by the city of Tempe.

The building numbers in question are in that elevation right there.

That is an Kyrie.

So within the proper lines and within the data and set in a place that's functional, very visible from the street, you're invisible for the pedestrians, you're invisible for tractor trailers, semi-point semi-tractors that don't want to miss the building, want to know exactly which building they're going to within the the development.

I can't drive one, but I can only imagine they're really hard to make a U-turn.

So the visibility for those truck drivers and especially for night deliveries is very important.

So this is a spell on the front of the building along the street where it's very narrow.

But please look what happens to the scout along the length of the building.

Now it's it's just a regular number building's number sign.

Unlike the previous buildings, therefore whatsoever.

This one has a consistency.

It's placed within the data and within the lines and conforms with the architecture of the approved by the City of Tempe paid elevations.

Also within the development, it's very important that the numbers, there are so many different numbers that mean different things that they have a differentiation.

You've got dock doors that have numbers above them.

You have suites with numbers next to the doors, and then within most importantly, you have the building identification numbers.

And as you can see, they're all very consistent, they're very same font, they're placed strategically, and they all conform with the architectural finishes of the building elevation.

So keep it in mind with the City of Tempe's purpose for having design removal review boards.

Uh the building numbers show no signs of clutter.

They're adequately and effectively spaced, they do function for their purpose.

And unlike the previous numbers, they're str they're standard, they're strategized, and we're consistent.

This numbers do reflect and support the heavy industrial zoning within this development.

And while our numbers are necessary to issue.

I apologize.

Remember where you were, please.

I was at the punchline.

Seriously.

Tempe 11 audio check 10 P11 audio check.

Sounds good.

Okay.

All right.

Um today is October 28th, 2025.

And we are hearing item three B.

Kyrene Commerce Plex.

Okay.

And while our building numbers are not in the general category, we like this building are unique because buildings are generally square.

Thank you.

Do we have questions for the app or for the um what do we call you?

The appellant.

The presenter.

Presenter.

Any questions?

Okay, thank you for that.

Um Commissioner Miller.

Um, thank you.

Okay.

So I'm looking at the exhibits you submitted.

Um specifically exhibits five, six, and seven, which are pictures of your of the buildings and the signs and the numbers.

Okay.

So in exhibit five, it's um white.

You have white numbers.

Uh exhibit uh six, it looks it's it's blue, but I'm not sure if it's the same blue as I see in exhibit seven.

Um what's and it's you know, you're you've got them in different places, so I'm maybe assuming that you're putting white on a gray building.

The contrast.

Uh code will be a little bit more than a little bit.

But then you've got a 50% contrast.

You've got a blue on a gray building too.

And then you've got a blue, different blue, maybe on a white building.

So maybe if nothing else, they could all be the same color.

Well, the painting, the painting application where we submitted the um development review to paint the cut buildings a different color um and different types of shades of colors, so you don't have the same monotone look.

The signs have to be placed, you know, like I said, street frontage, and they have to be contrasting.

So part of the character of the development is to eliminate that monotonous of the same thing over and over as you saw in the the previous uh building.

Um they were all gray with white and a green trim, and then the dark black letters were just kind of you know, placed, you know, throughout.

Um this one is more uh has got more design, it's got more character, it has a little bit more, it's more welcoming um than the old, you know, gray.

Industrial complexes are starting to become something that are pleasant to look at.

Um I've been in the industry for 15 years, and I have built logistics terminals and warehouses throughout the United States, and as a as a woman, I'm like I'm always trying to throw something fun at it, right?

Always.

So I think it's great that but BKM is willing to invest that money into the the appearance of these buildings, so they're not as what they look like prior.

So okay, so as a follow-up, then the address numerals are an architectural element.

No, they are numbers, they're address numbers.

They're part of a theme, but they are building numbers.

But they're also part of a theme theme, which is an architectural theme.

So ergo their architectural element.

I don't want to belabor the point, but that's just you know, it kind of can't be both ways.

Well, they can be an address number and be placed on a pink wall.

They can be an address number and be placed on a blue wall.

They can still be an address number just placed within buildings that follow a theme.

Um these numbers from the previous, they had a paint theme of white and green, and then they had black building numbers throughout.

They were a part of the elevation, but they are building numbers.

Okay.

Oh you can.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

I have a question.

Commissioner Tom.

Yes, sir.

Um, have you guys tested the shields on any of the lights?

Or are you guys still waiting for them to show up?

There was no shields.

Uh, but you've you've ordered some.

Do you know if the shields are going to be essentially right now?

It's so bright again, almost washes out the numbers.

Well, what that's one thing I talked to BKM about.

There we're trying to see if there's something that we can do in the interim.

Um, the the challenge is as you can see down here that how the down light is, it's an additional item which was not specified.

So we're they're being ordered, and as soon as they come in, they will get done.

Now we believe, so it's a good question.

As you can see, we believe the heads do have some adjustment to them.

Um we are looking into that.

We may, if if we do adjust it downward without the shield, then we're afraid that then once we put the shield on it, it's gonna go into the the wall, like it's just gonna be.

That's the best I can explain.

These are LEDs.

They're LED lights.

Yes, and you program them so they're that Dan.

You might know where to program that or no, no, no.

Larry, you're you're absolutely correct.

You mentioned that they might be dimmable.

We can do them.

Come up to the so the other thing.

This is Dan Keene.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Hi, I'm Dan King.

I'm with BKM, and they are dimmable.

We can dim them.

And have you guys tried that yet?

We just discussed.

Yeah, we we've not tried it, but um we just discussed it.

Okay, thank you.

I just got involved a couple of days, so I'm we're trying to get this taken care of.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Um I'd invite Ms.

Kminsky up for um city.

Good evening, Chair Johnson Commissioners.

Diana Kaminsky, principal planner, City of Tempe Planning Division.

We have the uh remote.

I take it.

So this is an appeal of an administrative denial of a minor development plan review for Kyren Commerce Plocks located at 8240 through 8380, South Tyreen Road.

There's five buildings on four lots.

You'll notice in the industrial zoned area, there is an HID and G ID.

When this was zoned, the GID designation was allotted along Kyren Road as a buffer to the residences which were in existence at the time that this was developed.

The residences that you see on the aerial to the right show their view corridors into these buildings.

So they were there in the 1990s.

The industrial development came in 2000.

There is a little confusion, and we will be addressing this through our code text amendments in relation to signage.

The very first sign type in the zoning code is address numerals.

And if you see that's what I've highlighted there on the left.

And when you look at the table on the right, what I wanted to show is that there is permits required in terms of coming for a development plan review through an application process for design, which is administratively taken care of, and permits for electrical.

So those are two types of permits.

The column on the far right that says permit really should indicate sign permit.

So it is correct.

You do not need a sign permit for address numerals, but you do need a building permit for electrical and a development plan review for the addressing numerals because there are code requirements for those, including the aesthetics and the intent of them for public safety and wayfinding and things like that.

For signs that would go through a sign permit, we have specific requirements and ratios and heights and specified dimensions.

Those are tied to businesses.

So you get an allotted sign area per business frontage.

And this is an important um nuance in this case because none of these buildings have frontages on Kyrie.

So address numerals are always placed on the street that they are addressed on, but the building signage is related to the address for the business itself, the location.

But I did want to do a comparison of what this would look like if these were signs, if we considered them signs, if they were for an individual business.

So a sign area is measured with the width and the height.

And this is demonstrating what we would measure if this was considered a business sign.

If the numbers were used on the buildings and they were considered business signs, they would not meet the maximum sign area allowed.

And what we do is we take in the sign package, we add up all of the sign areas for each business, and there's an allotment based on the total linear footage of each business along the street frontage.

So there's a lot of calculations that are done.

They take the linear footage of the frontage of the business, they calculate the square footage for each sign, they add that up, and that's how they determine the sizes for all the sign package.

So August 14th of this year, a sign package was approved.

They did show suite numbers and business signs on their package.

On most of the elevations, they did not include the address numbers.

There was one building, 8370, which happens to be the longest building, which happens to be proportionally probably the most relevant in terms of the size of the numbers.

And it was noted by staff that they were approving the sign package with not approving the address numerals.

The address was not a part of the sign package.

They also have a condition approval number five that's highlighted that says any sign proposal that does not conform to the size.

Now, this is where we get into the nuance of sign type.

The address numerals require a development plan review.

So this condition of approval was part of their sign package.

They would have needed to come in for a development plan review for the addressing along with the building permit for the lighting.

There are no business signs on Kyrene, I mentioned that already, and this is the only elevation that did show the address numerals for that sign package.

We also did an approval of the repaint earlier this year, and that did not have the address numerals on it.

Had we seen address numerals on the repaint, we could have provided them feedback and commented on that and gotten them to a scale that was appropriate.

Our code does have a minimum of four inches, but it doesn't have a maximum.

And the idea is that through that development review process, we would look at each location, the context of the site, the size of the building, the proportionality of the numbers, and determine what was appropriate for the design for those buildings.

And in some cases, they may not be the same size, depending on the size of the building.

Whether it's a 300-foot tall building or a 30-foot tall building, there may be different sizes that would be necessary for an industrial or commercial site.

There was mention that there was concern about access for fire rescue or police, so I did get calls for service.

In talking with FIRE, they had no issues in finding any of the buildings for emergency response.

The calls for service here are for the last five five years.

In speaking with the police department providing calls for service for the past five years, they said that they actually use a GPS system, probably similar to most drivers coming to a site.

They don't rely on the building numbers themselves for access, and that the prior address numerals, which had been on the building since 2000, had never been a problem for accessing them.

They actually said suite numbers are more important because when the call for service comes in to a particular business, they need to be able to find that particular suite.

So they did provide some additional feedback for us that would have been taken into account had we done a design review on these.

The first being numbers on the roof of the buildings.

It's not required by code.

On oversized buildings, we do have a requirement that we do by condition to have roof-mounted numbers that help, especially in a complex with multiple buildings that look the same from the sky for aerial response if they needed to come in with a medivac or something of that effect.

So it was a recommendation but not a requirement.

The numbers do needed need to be illuminated.

However, they should not create glare because that can also impede emergency response if they're approaching a building and there's too much light, it can backlight a suspect that they are trying to approach.

The size could be, they suggested one to three feet tall, and that would sufficiently meet their needs.

And the numbers, their preference is to have them on all sides of the building, so that if they're approaching from any one side, they would see the building number.

However, we do have a requirement that you cannot have building numbers facing streets that you're not addressed on.

So for instance, on Carver, there should not be an address numeral, because if somebody were to have an incident in the parking lot, they're calling 911, they look up and they see the number and they see the street sign, they might give the wrong address.

So the address numerals should not be on an adjacent street when you have two streets at a corner, but they could be on the back sides of the building, so that if somebody's driving through the parking lot, no matter where you are in the complex, you'd be able to understand the building that you're at and the address.

So looking at these in context, 8240 is located at the north side of the site.

They have a sign facing east towards the neighborhood.

They also have a sign facing west towards the railroad, which is somewhat blocked by trees along the perimeter, but at night with the illumination they have, it is visible.

So this shows you the first location.

8270 also has an east and a west number.

You'll note the one that's on the west side is a vertical application of numbers that may be playing into the creative concept they had, but certainly does not meet what we would normally approve for signage.

I don't know if that one is illuminated or not.

I didn't do a night survey of all of the buildings.

But here we have a situation where we have white letters on a gray background.

I'm not sure if it meets the contact, the contrast requirements that we have, and we have two different orientations of the numbers on the same building.

8350, it's located in the middle, it has signage facing directly into the neighborhood.

Same thing.

And these are narrow sides of the building.

If you look at the profile of the building on the eastern elevation, it's the narrowest portion of the of the building.

So if we were again looking at it as business signage, assuming there was a door there and that was a business frontage, we would be basing it on the linear footage of the frontage of the business.

These are the narrowest portions of each building.

8370 is the one in the back.

That's the one that was shown in the sign package.

It's the one that has the longest elevation, and the numbers are obviously set back away from the street.

So from a perspective of driving down the street, those would make sense to potentially be larger because of the context of the size of the building and the location of the building.

So if this were a sign, they have 102 square feet, which is over the 80% background area for a business sign.

The maximum sign area for this frontage is 83 square feet.

So if this were a business frontage and they wanted a sign, they could have a sign that was 83 square feet, not 102.

And you'll note at the bottom I've put the square footage of their tenant signs for comparison to the proportionality of the sign package that was approved to the numbers that they're proposing.

164 square feet, again, it's more than the 80% background area.

And the maximum sign area for this building would be 125 square feet.

This one is the 8350, 165.

We're getting a little closer now proportionally.

A maximum sign area of 163 square feet.

This one is 165.

This one, because of the size of the building, if they had multiple tenants, they could have a larger amount of square footage of business signage.

This again shows the proportionality to the size of the building.

And this one also is proportionally fairly close to what they would be allowed with a business sign.

To address the lighting, there are several concerns.

Note what I circled in red, these are billboard signs, billboard lights.

So they are intended as attention getting devices to really draw attention to the numbers.

The size and the brightness is beyond what we would need for addressing numerals, and they are an adjustable fixture, which is not permitted, and that is because they can be tilted in the future.

So imagine they put the shield on and they tilt it down and it doesn't show what they want it to show and they tilt it.

Now we've violated the requirements.

The other part of it is when they do tilt it down because of the size of it and the profile along the edge of the building, there is the potential this becomes a maintenance issue for pigeon roosting.

So now you're having to put spikes on the top or fix the problem by tilting the head so that you don't have a roosting place.

Typical full cutoff packs are 6,000 to 10,000 lumens, just to give you an idea of the difference.

So there is significantly a lot of night lighting here.

The numbers are visible from a block away within the neighborhood.

Backyards, bedroom windows, this is what people are seeing.

And if we had seen these as a development plan review prior to them installing, we would have recommended or required reverse pan channel letters, which is a standard we have for signage and address numerals in Tempe and the picture here, the 7620 shows you what that effect is.

The lighting is really intended to provide contrast between the wall surface and the numerals so that you can see them at night.

It's not about drawing attention to the whole building.

It's about making sure the address numerals are visible.

Yes.

You said they would you would require them to do the pan channel lights?

So if our yes.

Or it would be a recommendation.

It depends.

It depends.

So on our reports that you see for development plan reviews, some of them you will notice we have a standard condition.

And this is one of the things that we can put in that it is internally internally eliminated.

Yes, it would be a condition of approval based on the conditions, you know.

So they they present their drawings, we look at them.

If they show a light above the fixture, what we try to do actually is limit the amount of lights.

If we can get the signage to be over where the door is, and they have to have a fixture for the door for five foot candles, we'll try to get the numerals in a location that they're utilizing existing wall packs to reduce the amount of lights they have to put on the building.

But we do take a look at that, and we would recommend the the halo illuminated lights.

That's one of our standard conditions.

Yes.

Thank you.

So these are some photos showing what it looks like at night.

And in some cases, it actually creates glare on the numbers, making it harder to read the addresses.

Looking at 8240 and 8270, those are they appear to be though the building colour appears to be yellow there, but it's gray during the day, is that correct?

Lighting will change the way.

Yes, I've five.

So you've you had a nice collar and now you've washed it out with your lights.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So these were the considerations that were taken into account when we issued the denial.

And I do want to preface this with saying I had a lengthy conversation with the applicant after they received the code notice, and I informed them that you know we would take a look at their application and make a determination, but that it was likely it would not be approvable.

So they were given the heads up on this.

I asked them if they wanted to work on a compromise to reduce the size to something that would be more proportional, and they chose to go through the process of applying for the development plan review, knowing that it was most likely going to be a denial, and they would be coming to you.

So I wanted to let you know that was the background for these considerations.

The buildings had compliant address numbers since it was built in 2000, with the exception of a few that looked like they had been added, uh, where they weren't under lighting where they were supposed to be.

Um, but the five to seven foot tall numbers are not necessary for public safety response.

Um we're in the world of GPS, most of our systems are plugged in and they're programmed that way.

The address numbers are typically 12 inches for commercial and industrial uses.

We do have the flexibility through the development plan review process to make them larger where it's necessary.

Based on the location and the proportional composition of the elevations, five to seven foot tall, nineteen to twenty four foot wide numbers are not in scale with the elevations.

They appear to be attention getting additions, not an architectural enhancement.

We approved the sign package, we approved the point paint.

This is the area where we have disagreement.

Um it's not in character with the surrounding industrial commercial areas.

It does not treat the GID East elevation as a buffer to the neighborhood.

Yes, it is an industrial area, but there's a reason that buffer is there.

It's for the protection of the residents who've been there longer than these buildings.

The lighting creates excessive glare and does not meet code.

And if these were building signs, they would not meet the sign package requirements.

The address numbers are larger than what's allowed for their tenant business signs.

Now there was no public involvement necessary, there wasn't a public meeting.

And as of noon yesterday, we did receive one email in opposition.

They did intend to come tonight.

They ended up having an injury and weren't able to attend.

Um, but they were in support of our denial and in opposition to the appeal.

Staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal, and we have no standard uh non-standard conditions of approval.

I'm happy to take any questions.

Questions for staff?

Commissioner Tom?

Um other cases.

I don't remember myself looking at building numbers.

Um often are we overlooking this?

Are we overlooking it?

Very good question.

Thank you, Commissioner Tom.

Um the applicant actually uh provided some images of signage that they have found it elsewhere, and it appears that those probably are non-compliant.

I have not done the research on whether they went through an approval process.

But sign uh numbers are typically handled through building safety when somebody comes in with their building permit and they're doing lighting for the building, they will direct them.

We we tell them what their address is going to be and where the the address numerals should be and the lighting that they need and the contrast that they have to have.

So all of that is covered usually through the building safety process.

We keep on mentioning that it's non-compliant, but our rules we just have you have to have the size number or bigger.

Yes, right?

So we don't have a number that's greater than they if they really wanted to, they could make the building the number the whole size of the building, and then ask us, hey, can we make this number the whole size of the building?

So the compliance comes in in obtaining the building permit for lighting and obtaining a development plan review.

If you've not received approval through the planning process for development plan review, it would be non-compliant.

Noncompliant because they have not received a permit or approval through an entitlement process, yes.

Okay, so we don't have a we're we're not gonna come back to them and say this number is too tall.

It's our it's arbitrary number by us by us approving their their elevation, their design elevation.

We're just saying yes, this this size is appropriate.

Uh I would say it's not arbitrary.

We take a lot of things into consideration, including the size of the building, the context, the location.

So it isn't just an arbitrary, this looks too big, it's not subjective.

Okay, so as a design professional, how would they know what would be compliant and what would not be compliant?

In terms of the specified size.

Yeah, so they're submitting they're submitting a submitting to the seed for plan review.

Yes.

They know the minimum size, but they don't know the maximum size.

How would they know what the maximum size would be?

We're going to work on rectifying that in the code.

But at this time there is no maximum size.

You are correct.

But does this time they would work with staff to determine what the appropriate maximum size would be?

That's correct.

Commissioner Spears.

Um, I'm confused because you said we saw they were the sign was not considered or the address was not part of the sign package.

Yes.

And yet you're using those same standards for determining the size of the address.

If they sign, whoever does sign approval said it's not part of the signage package.

And you're now saying, oh, but you have to comply, it's it's too big.

You're not saying it has to come.

You're saying though, you're it doesn't fit here.

Because it doesn't, um I mean, that's sending a mixed message, you know, whenever you've got separate things.

So as I understand, the real issue is they did electrical without a permit.

And they didn't do a development plan review for this for the numerals, yes.

And so would they have been if they had gotten the electrical permit, would they have been required to do the design plan?

Yes.

In fact, that was conditions for the prior approvals.

Any modification to the building elevation requires a development plan review.

They could have included it in their paint repaint as a building modification, and we could have reviewed it as part of that.

So there's a separate process for any modification to the exterior of the building.

Okay, my other question has to do with SEPTET.

And um, as I understand, the police department want numbers everywhere.

And the lighting, what's the what is the recommended moment's under setting?

So just to give you an example, if it's a parking lot space, it's two foot candles.

Um, if it's a drive aisle, it's one foot candle.

So we look at what the use if it's a doorway, like if you're exiting or entering a door or an ATM machine, it's five foot candles.

So the foot candle level is our current method of measurement.

Um, and this is well in excess of what's necessary for even entering a building with a key.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tom.

So if we were to to backlight these, is it possible or is the construction of this of their number something that's not possible?

So they would they have to take these down and then essentially start over if we were to backlight these.

So it's it's I'm not a construction.

So it's it's I'm not a construction I'm not a construction expert, but I would believe you could remove the numbers and retrofit them with a Hiller mounted light fixture underneath.

That would be something they'd have to deal with through the building permit process.

Okay.

And at that point, it could be determined that those are too large of numbers.

Correct.

Uh how would they consider that it's too large a number?

Well, they have to go to the case.

If they would they would need the size approved, but if we were to say yes, this number, the size number is appropriate.

Yes.

Let's work on the how you light these things.

Yes.

Yeah, if they determined it was if it was appropriate size, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Miller.

Um is it usual for uh any review, does not any development review plan review when it comes in that when you see elevations, you also see where the address numbers are called out or the signage is called out.

Um because I've seen a lot of plans over my time on these commissions, and they're that seems to be fairly standard.

What we usually request for signage specifically, like tenant signage, is they just box out the area so they show us that they know where their signs are going, and then it's we make a note that it's by separate permit.

Um we do ask for them to show the address numbers largely to make sure that it's been reviewed by uh the police department and that it's meeting the standards for identification, but we don't always get them, and it's really not something you know that's why it goes through to the building permit side, and then they take care of it with the project assistance team if we don't review it at on the planning side.

Oh, they're I have no question.

Commissioner Tom?

Um you said some of these numbers were on the wrong side of the building.

So they weren't facing they're facing uh this carver.

They so they're let's see.

Instead of facing priests or Kyrene, sorry.

No, they what they they all of the numbers are on the east side facing the street that they're addressed.

In one of the images I was showing how a prior tenant must have added numbers on 8240 facing Carver.

So these are all facing the correct direction.

They yes, but they and then they do also have some of the buildings have them facing west, which is not a problem.

Which is okay.

Yes, but they're not in the same orientation.

Some of them are vertical and some of them are horizontal.

That's fine.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so how do they become compliant?

Well, you make a decision.

We can add conditions.

Um depending on our decision this evening, they may need to begin again with staff or uh or then this may be um approved, but to your pleasure, it's in your hands.

You you can approve it, you can deny it, you can't.

Yeah, I'm just trying to if there's direction, um, if this were the the um appeal were denied, they would need to start again with you.

Or appeal to counsel, or appeal to counsel, okay.

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Miller.

I in the interest of moving things along and and not try and trying not to spend the next half an hour figuring out how to make this better.

Um, I move that we uphold the denial.

Um hold on, we're not ready.

We're not ready for that.

You're not ready for that?

No, okay.

We have we're not gonna do that.

But I appreciate your your willingness to be move things along.

Yes.

I have a question.

Yes, Mr.

Thompson.

Um hopefully the applicant understands our situation and what we're trying to get across.

If they were to ask for continuance and work continue working with staff on this, um potentially with the light.

I think I have I I personally have an issue with how they're lit.

They're very bright.

Um, I don't know if putting the shield or turning them down is gonna help.

Um, I don't necessarily have a issue with the size since there's no code requirement on the maximum size.

Um if we can if they are open to continuance to continue working with staff, come back maybe next month with some conditions.

Is that we can change the lights?

We whatever lighting is.

And if I'm out of order, they maybe they could come up with it.

Yeah, I think um do we have any public comments on this or no?

No problem.

No, okay, we we did receive one letter and in agreement.

The lighting is an issue.

We hands down, we have no qualms about the lighting.

And we believe the shields will work.

There was a lot of what ifs, maybe if they, you know, if it was a sign, it's not a sign, right?

We and I appreciate your guys' understanding of the position that we are in.

It is very gray area as to what is required for building addresses.

Um and maybe that is something that needs to be much clearer that defines what is considered standard or required for a building address.

Um if if the staff were not um uh ameniable to you keeping that lighting with the shielding and and required some other type of lighting would we are we are open for it.

I think the lighting is something we are very willing to resolve.

And like I said, we did order the shields, they are adjustable.

We we we talked about it.

I've been involved for 48 hours, and um, I said the first thing I said to them was like fix the lighting, you know it's a problem, fix it.

So we're in that process, but at the same time, they were very concerned about you know the outcome and stuff like that.

But I'm like the lighting is not an issue that will get resolved most definitely.

Okay, um, I think we need to get back on track.

So um we need to begin the public comment period.

Um so was there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight?

We do not have any cards for discussion.

Okay, seeing none, then um we can invite you, Ms.

Kaminsky back up.

Thank you, Chair Commissioners.

We just wanted to ask for a little more direction in terms of um what you would be looking for staff and the applicant to work towards.

Obviously, lighting would be one of them if there were any other directions that you had with regard to the design, we'd appreciate that as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Miller.

I'm not going to make a motion.

But I would I would have a couple of procedural suggestions, perhaps.

Um, if you if the applicant is amenable to working with staff and bringing this back in some form that we could potentially approve it, then the first step for them would be to withdraw their appeal, because otherwise we have to vote on it.

Um continue it, but then we can deal with it later.

But the other thing would be I would like to, I don't have a problem with the typeface with the font, you know, it's fine.

It's pretty clean and everything like that.

I do think there should be a standardized standardized size and area that can be negotiated, and a standardized color.

Because otherwise, no matter what to me, it's an architectural element the way it's like the way it's placed now and the way it's colored.

And then it's not an address sign, it's an architectural element.

And that should would then have to go through the whole review process.

So you know, come up with a come up with a conform, you know, a standard size that's bigger than four inches and a standard color that that goes with all of the backgrounds.

Um, work from there.

Uh Commissioner Forte.

I I mean I would be in favor of approving the appeal in a condition of them working with the light fixtures.

Uh I don't see any problem with the size either.

So I don't know if that's uh if that's something we can do.

Okay, so I think we're kind of all over the place because I I feel like your description of um how these these um this address signage would not or the address uh numbers would be would exceed what is allowable for a sign on a building.

So I think there is a problem with the size of these um numbers.

Um it's not a sign that's correct, but if it were a sign, which is something that we have more flexibility and allow larger um it wouldn't it wouldn't even be allowed.

So um I I think um what I would see the but the big guns are coming in, so Mr.

LeVake, Commissioner Johnson or Chair Johnson, just wanted to clarify that these uh address normals are not signs, so it was used in a comparative analysis of signs that might be typically of of a larger larger base and now the size comparison that is with it, but they are not address signs, they are architectural elevation modifications through a design process.

We now have don't have decision anymore.

The decision is in the Development Review Commission's hand at this at this time.

Okay, so a continuance may not be what um we can certainly work with the applicant on a continuance if we had some clear guidelines as to what the goals we are working with to then bring back any revisions for the the next DRC meeting, Commissioner Tom.

Commissioner Tom I I would be in favor of a continuous just because it makes it cleaner.

I I don't like approving a request, especially with this one, um of giving conditions, and then staff has to interpret our conditions and stuff like that.

Um I would be in favor if the the uh applicant or the appellant in this case is amenable to continuance, they would go back to staff and work with them on size.

They may not agree with it with the size uh that staff is cut is proposing.

Um, but I want to see an issue with how they're lit.

Um, and I think the palette is agreeing to that that they could probably have some other issue or some other way to light these things so they're not it's obnoxious.

So you drive by, it's really really bright.

Um so uh that would be my direction to staff.

I I don't know if you need any more clarity.

I think you can take a motion on that if you wish, yes.

Okay, all right.

And then we can continue to the next available hearing, which is what they November 18th.

November 18th.

Thank you.

All right, so with that, we were close out the public comment period and move.

So I'm just so we're clear when we go back.

Um so it's being continued.

We're most definitely going to address the lighting issue.

And then as far as the the numbers themselves, a standard is gonna be created based on our modifications or so.

You'll work with staff to determine um the appropriate size, which you may or may not agree with.

Um, and and then that will come back to us.

Okay, that's that's where our challenge is is the numbers for what is written and what is established and for its function and its purpose in the industrial.

Um, we're you know, we're we're very comfortable with the size of the sign, the numbers themselves, and the if it was a sign, it's not a sign.

Um if it was an architectural feature, it's not an architectural feature.

And I agree that the code is very it's unclear, and it's a matter of interpretation from the design committee, but at the same time, it's we're per what's written.

It's four inches minimum.

Right.

I I I think our challenge.

Our challenge is not the lights, our challenge is and and you know, I think the if this would have gone through the typical approval process with the city, we wouldn't be in this situation, and the letter the numbers may not be quite as large as they are now today, but we've we've bypassed that, and we are where we are now because of that.

So but to repeat her nuance, there is a nuance in the system, and the nuance is it's not clear.

It does state a permit is not required.

It says that architectural elements and features need to go through as we did respect the process and did submit the painting through several times.

We would have numbers on the building for signed packages, and they would just simply say remove number from package, not please submit to design review committee for review.

Sure.

Do you understand where the the gray areas are?

Right.

I think there's some disconnect on how how huge disconnect therapy needs to be connected.

They're being permitted, and I think staff knows that now.

Yeah, that there was this disconnect, and yeah, maybe some some stuff that was being overlooked.

I think they have understanding of it now.

Yeah.

Um, what I'm asking is that we continue this to the November 18th hearing.

Okay.

You work with staff on how they're lit, potential size.

You guys may not agree with the size, and then you come back to us and we discuss the size.

Understood.

Thank you for the clarification.

Much appreciated.

Okay, so we will close out the public comment period and move to uh commissioner discussion and motions.

Um, just one thing, along with the working with staff on the size.

I would like to see a standard color.

Okay.

Rather than rather than what looks like maybe two or three different ones, something that contrasts with every face that every elevation that you have.

Be it whatever.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

We're yeah, we're in we're in public, we're in uh commission discussion.

So thank you.

We yes, we can include that in our discussion.

Yeah, it would be great.

Um commission commissioner spears.

I move that we continue this case to the meeting of uh November 18th.

Okay, we have a motion for continuance to November 18th.

Is there a second?

Second, seconded by Vice Chair uh Schwartz.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

And all those opposed.

Okay, so there are uh five in approval of the continuance and one opposed to the continuance.

So that uh continuance passes in the affirmative.

All right, next item is item four B.

Uh will the applicant please approach.

Hello, goodbye.

My name is Tyler.

I'm here with my friend and uh partner, John, and we are asking to use the front driveway of our home of the rental property for parking and a use permit for that.

Okay.

Did you have uh slides to present?

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

All right, so we um we applied for a building permit to tell the story for converting the single car garage to an ADU.

And in that building permit process, we were told that we needed to get a use permit first before we could complete the building permit for using the parking in the driveway instead of the parking space in the garage.

And so we then applied for the use permit, and that is how we have arrived here.

Um this is the picture of the front driveway and the space there.

Um we believe there is ample space to park two cars in the driveway, which is the uh the recommended parking spaces for the square footage and the home.

And once we get the use permit to allow the parking in the driveway, then we can complete the building permit for the use of the garage as living space.

That is all.

That is all great.

All right, any questions for the applicant?

Okay, thank you.

And now I'll like the staff, city staff to uh present.

Uh Mr.

Jensen.

You're good.

All right.

Thank you, Chair Johnson, members of the commission.

Lucas Jensen, planner at City of Tempe, uh, the planner working on the request for uh YMKRY and WIMKR property.

Um this is located on the south side of Alameda, um, just west of rural road and then east of college.

Um as the applicant stated, this is a request for a use permit to allow two required parking spaces in the front yard setback in their existing driveway.

Um the request is a result of uh illegal construction without uh building permits, the conversion of their garage into um an ADU, um which did receive uh a violation of this, and then they were turned over to us to obtain their their use permit before obtaining building permits.

This is the site plan showing the existing residents, the the garage conversion to to accessory dwelling unit is hatched there in the front.

It shows uh two parking spaces in the front.

There is also additional space for two vehicles that could fit in the public right-of-way along Alameda.

Parking is allowed there with kind of the standard dimension dimension to length of a of a vehicle.

You could probably fit about two vehicles before you start to encroach on somebody else's you know property.

Although, you know, parking in the public right of way, it's not bounded by by property lines there.

But this is the floor plan.

So it's a five-bedroom home.

There's uh four bedrooms on the the right side there with the master bedroom, um, and then the ADU um separate livable area as the the garage area.

This is what we received for the elevation is pretty simple.

I think the um you know existing photos do a better justice at showing this.

There's no change to the existing height, it's just a conversion of the garage into livable that you saw in the in the image there.

And then the entryway to the to the unit is on the uh uh the east side.

West side, sorry.

Um this is a picture of what it looks like.

They're um proposing to park in that driveway there, and then there's some space for vehicles out in the front.

Um staff's evaluation.

So we didn't find that there would be any um significant increase in vehicular traffic past what we would see for a typical single family home.

Um and there is adequate parking in the driveway with additional spaces in the front.

As a single family use, we don't anticipate any nuisance as a result of the use permit to park in the front yard setback.

It doesn't conflict with any of the city goals or policies.

And again, two parking spaces in the front.

We don't expect to see any disruptive behavior as a result of that.

We do not require a neighborhood meeting for this.

We have received uh quite a bit of public input.

Some of it is attached to the report.

Uh most of it was received after the publishing of the report.

So we received uh a phone call of general inquiry, um, three phone calls in opposition, and then an additional six emails in in opposition to the request as of 2 p.m.

today.

Um the general concerns were excessive uh you know excessive occupants and excessive parking, um, and then related nuisances that may come with that.

Um staff's recommendation for this project is to approve it subject to the standard conditions.

Excellent.

Uh Commissioner or Vice Chair.

Yeah, with it looks like the existing home has the five bedrooms, and then we have the ADU.

If that would mean six bedrooms, doesn't that require a third parking space?

Yeah, so um per you know state law and that we've adopted into our zoning and development code, we cannot require additional parking for an accessory dwelling unit.

So we we can't don't consider that as part of the the bedroom count.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Miller.

Um I have a question for you.

When the uh when the accessory dwelling unit phenomenon appeared on the scene, was it uh was it um expected that it would that it would include um construction within the footprint of a house, a structure rather than as a what it actually is an accessory unit which is set aside set apart from the main structure.

Yeah, so uh Commissioner Miller to answer the question ADUs come in a lot of different forms.

Um not as common in Arizona, you'll even see people put them underneath their house or on top and access them with stairs.

Um it's very common to see them attached.

The what delineates this between an you know a bedroom addition and an ADU is that there's no uh internal connection to the main home, so it's a separate unit.

You can't walk through a door and be in the house, it's completely separated as a separate unit.

Okay, then as a follow-up to Commissioner Schwartz's question regarding the number of bedrooms, and we can't, and I know we can't incorporate this because it is not technically part of the property, uh, or at least you know, the way it's said.

But there's not there would be in a sense nothing to really prevent them from putting a door in between that space and the rest of the house at some point and creating a sixth bedroom in the house, correct?

Then it would no longer be an accessory dwelling unit, would it?

Yeah, if they chose to undertake a legal construction, then yes, they could create a six-bedroom.

Okay.

Is this a legal construction as it exists?

Uh currently, yes.

That's why they're here is to is to bring it into compliance.

Uh so typically the you know, the process is obtain the use permit before building permits can be issued.

Um, so they're here to get the the use permit so they can obtain obtain building permits for the technically an illegal use of the illegal construction.

Yeah, that's correct, Chris Miller.

There's an existing um IP or building code violation on this property.

Okay.

And how other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um now we'll begin the public uh hearing process.

And anyone who wishes to speak on this item, if you have not already, please fill out one of these cards and bring it up to the front here to Joanna Barra.

I have quite a few of them in hand already.

First up is Michael Zamora.

Um Baldo Besich is on um on deck.

Uh Mr.

Zamora, if you could um state your name and city of residence, and um we're happy to hear from you.

Thank you.

My name is Mike Zamora, I'm the resident of Tempe, and good evening, Commissioners.

Um, while this use permit request may appear to be about a parking setback, the real issue is broader.

It's about accountability when investors modify residential properties without obtaining the proper permits.

In this case, an investor converted a two-car garage into living space without first securing a remodeling permit.

Only after the fact, when the situation came to light, was the city brought in because of the need for, as just discussed, the parking use permit.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case.

Just last month, a similar situation occurred at 315 East Longa Vista, when investor began converting the home into a seven building, uh seven bedroom rental unit until the neighbors intervened.

And it was brought to my attention this afternoon.

There was another one at 522 East Del Rio.

And on the agenda you guys have right now, there is another one consent for illegal construction.

These unpermitted room models create two major risks.

First is safety.

The occupants may be living in spaces that don't meet fire, electrical, or structural codes.

Second, liability.

The city could be exposed if these unsafe conditions later result in harm.

Although the city is legally shielded from liability under Arizona's torts claim act, it carries a civic duty to strengthen its permitting and inspection process to prevent unsafe conditions before they occur.

For an investor who owns multiple properties who and who hopefully hired licensed contractors, it is a stretch for them to feign that they did not know a permit was required.

Given these examples and the many more to come based upon ADUs, this is very concerning.

Repeated after-the-fact forgiveness or minimum penalties only encourages further violations.

So my questions are directed respectfully to the community development director, Mr.

Timelavik, and the planning deputy director, Mr.

LeBisk.

And those are what is the maximum penalty associated with this type of infraction?

Second, what specific penalty, if any, was imposed on this particular investor?

If none, why?

Third, what process is in place to identify and address these situations before they reach this stage of requesting a use permit after the fact.

I'd like to yield any remaining time I have so that the department head could respond to these questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And uh we will give city staff time to uh uh respond after we're done with the public uh process.

Mr.

Besich, um, and if you could say your name and city residence, and on deck we have Jana Lynn.

Good evening.

My name is Baldo Besich.

I am the neighborhood association president for Mach 8, which is the neighborhood association right next to the residents in question.

Um like I said, my name is Baldo Besich.

My wife and I are long-term Tempe residents.

Good to see you, Joe.

Uh, she graduated from Corona del Sol, and I from Tempe High.

We are raising our three children in Tempe, and we have no plans to join the migration of young families to Gilbert because we believe Temp in Tempe.

Just a few weeks ago, my words were read to the Tempe City Council uh following about the the two-story ADUs in question in our historic neighborhoods.

Um at 519 East Alameda is in part and follows the same pattern.

Investors squeezing in more renters into homes designed for families, ignoring city rules, and then asking for forgiveness after the fact.

This property illegally converted a two-car garage into living space to create a five-bedroom, six-bedroom uh potential rental without pulling a permit.

Only after being caught, did they come forward seeking a use permit to count two parking spots in the front yard setback?

A direct violation of code.

If the city approves this, it sends a clear message.

Break the rules, ask later, and you'll still get what you want.

Our neighborhoods cannot survive this kind of lax enforcement.

These after-the-fact approvals lead to more cars on the street, louder rentals, overflowing trash bins, and uh falling uh property values.

They turn stable family-focused neighborhoods into investor playgrounds.

Tempe's character plan for Alameda specifically calls out preserving our historic flood-irrigated post-war subdivisions, celebrating authentic neighborhood identity and protecting the oasis in the desert vision.

Converting garages into mini apartments and parking cars in the front yards directly undermines that plan.

Six bedrooms in the shadows of Arizona State University is pretty clear the intent of what will happen to this home.

I urge you to deny this use permit and hold property owners accountable.

Tempe families are playing by the rules.

We need the city to do the same.

Let's protect the neighborhoods that built this city and keep the values that keep us here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Janelyn Grenal.

I need your vote on that.

And then on deck is Elizabeth Welch.

Chair, Commissioners, my name is Janilyn Grenille.

I'm a resident of Tempe, Arizona.

I'm here to read a statement on behalf of Roberta Neil Miller, who lives at 306 East Del Rio Drive, where she's lived there for over 30 years.

She's the associate chair for Brentwood Cavalier Neighborhood Association.

The property located at 519 East Alameda Drive is located in my neighborhood association.

I object to granting a use permit to the owner investor of this property.

These investor owners have been forced to apply for requested use permit because the city coped them after they illegally converted the house prior garage into two bedrooms that they could rent the older modest three-bedroom house out to five individuals as a boarding room type rental.

These owners' investors do substantial amounts of business in Tempe as a real estate leasing company.

And I think we can safely assume that they know that the conversion of the garage into a living space requires permitting by the city of Tempe.

Clearly, these investors have made the decision to engage in this type of illegal behavior because it makes good business sense to do so.

In other words, independently imposed by TIMP, if caught is merely a cost of doing business.

These types of illegal conversions have become widespread in Tempe's older mid-century neighborhoods and is a serious problem in my neighborhood.

The investors doing these conversions have no ties to the neighborhood community, no respect for the neighbors, and little to no regard for following the rules that the rest of us have to follow.

Granting the use permit in this case sends a message that one, investors can continue to monetize Tempe's older neighborhoods and maximize profit by fonting the rules ordinary homeowners have to follow.

Two, there is no downside to illegal behavior.

So investors not only can but should continue to thumb their noses at the city because it makes good business sense to do so.

Three, the city of Tempe prioritize the interest of irresponsible investors over its own citizens who do follow the rules, pay their taxes, and support city staff and services.

Granting the use permit also completely undermines the purpose for rules requiring two parking spaces, not in a property's front yard setback for a five-bedroom house.

Clearly, this rule is meant to minimize on street parking for homes with five bedrooms, so to avoid to affect neighbors.

Other street traffic and to preserve neighborhood aesthetics.

Finally, granting the use of a permit encourages the continued proliferation of boarding room type rentals, which destabilizes our neighborhood and undermines the support for city government, all for the benefit of a small group of investors.

I'm asking you to deny the use permits, requiring them to remove the illegal garage conversion.

Do not reward the investor for flouting the rules to make a quick look at the expense of our neighborhoods.

Support our Tempe neighborhoods.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners.

Thank you.

Next up is Elizabeth Welch with uh Heather Keiser on deck.

And that is the last uh public comment card I have.

If anyone else is here to speak on this item, please bring a card up to the front.

Chair Johnson and Commission members.

I request that you deny.

Sorry, please uh state your name and city residence.

I beg your pardon.

My name is Elizabeth Welsh.

I live at 2607 South Sierra Vista Circle, about oh, across Alameda and a little bit northwest of the 519 East Alameda property.

I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous.

This isn't my customary activity.

Uh I am gonna read.

Um, the applicant's letter of explanation focuses exclusively on the likely harmless effect of their newly built ADU on the neighborhood.

But that is not what is actually before you.

What you are considering is whether a property owner should be allowed to complete construction of new residential space on his property without city plan review or contracting permits.

In the process, eliminate the property's original parking spaces in an attached garage, and then to solve the problem he created, be granted a use permit to have two uncovered parking spaces in his front yard setback to the detriment of the neighborhood.

That's right.

The applicant has a five-bedroom house.

To make things more profitable, he turned the attached parking garage into an ADU that he can rent out, but he didn't go through the city's plan review and permitting processes.

And then when he found out he needs to provide new parking spaces to replace those he chose to build over.

He wants a use permit.

He wants the neighborhood to suffer the consequence of his faulty decision by being allowed to create an ugly parking placement, destructive to the sense of openness and front yard spaciousness in the neighborhood, interfering with lines of sight across front yards, and out of keeping with this lovely 60-year-old neighborhood's aesthetics.

Please don't allow this applicant to play the ADU card in hope that you will capitulate.

It's about his hasty, ill-advised, self-serving plans, circumventing city review, and our neighborhood should not pay the price for his completely avoidable errors in processes and judgment.

We greatly value the visual harmony and beauty of our neighborhoods and do not want them sacrificed for someone's ill-conceived business plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

State your name and city of residence.

And I am opposed to this.

Closer to you, please.

How's that?

Better closer to it.

Okay.

Many that have been echoed.

I'm a teacher in Tempe Union High School District.

And my husband and I chose the house that we currently live in because it was a sustainable in our minds, uh, where our jobs were, uh, place to live.

And it was a beautiful neighborhood.

It is a beautiful neighborhood.

Um, and we do not want to see our neighborhood turned into um basically house apartment complexes.

Um, and so we're opposed to this um parking space where that is being proposed um at this at this residence of 519 Alameda.

We live two houses two streets south of this house on Loyola Drive, um, in the same neighborhood of Brentwood Cavalier.

Um we're opposed to this uh because of the additional cars it's gonna provide.

We've already seen this happen in our neighborhoods before.

Um we're opposed to it as a safety issue, both for the residents that might live there and also for the additional cars and what that might mean for children that are living in the neighborhood, of which I have two who regularly ride their bikes and adding more additional vehicles is not going to provide for the safety of children in the neighborhood.

Um we're opposed to the yard parking.

Um again, taking away the aesthetic of the beauty of our neighborhood.

Um we also are opposed to this additional residence parking um because it just decreases the quality of the single-family uh neighborhood.

If people need to live and add um more vehicles, then there are apartments, um, places for that, but encroaching upon a single family resident with an illegal construction that if this is business that you do that you would be aware that residents need to have permits, um, to me, it's just irresponsible to issue them a use permit.

Um, my husband and I have added uh front uh patio structure.

We went through the process to get it permitted.

Um for residents who do that, it's it takes a lot of time.

You you pay for it, um, and then to have someone come in and just you know, do it without asking ahead, in our minds is not fair to the residents who currently live there.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

All right, so Chair Johnson, I do have somebody who had submitted a comment card to speak online.

Okay, and he's online, it's Jeffrey Gong.

So I'm gonna try to unmute.

Jeffrey, if you can um okay.

Jeffrey, if you are there, um I didn't catch your last name, but if you could say your name and city of residence, you are live.

My name is Jeffrey Gong.

I actually live on Alameda Street.

I'm probably about five or six houses uh west of the subject property.

Uh I was mostly ambivalent.

Uh uh because I live on Alameda, I know what the setback is for the road.

I see Alameda seems to be special.

It seems to have a deeper setback than a lot of other streets because it's a wide street.

It's one of those streets that's pretty much uh one half mile away from you know Broadway and Southern, which are the main tracks.

Um for a while there for the longest time we had a turn lane right down the middle of Alameda, but that was erased a couple years ago, and now we have wider more parking in the sides.

Uh I'm okay with them parking on their lot because it's less cars and the streets that they got if they're using their own property for parking.

Um it could be considered a little self-serving because at some point in time I may want to use the area in front of my house for parking too, but uh I don't have plans anytime soon to do that.

Uh Tempi is getting very, very high density, and it's just what happens to neighborhoods.

If you drive through LA, you can see lots of homes are very, very converted into higher density because that's just a natural progression of cities.

I don't have any other words.

Okay, thank you so much for your comments.

We appreciate it.

All right.

Um with that, I'd like to invite the applicant up to um respond to anything that you've heard tonight.

Thank you.

Um first off, counsel and everyone that spoke, so I'm talking forward.

Um just let you know I hear you.

I recognize that like many of you are speaking on like a bigger issue that you see happening in Tempe and you know, using this specific situation to address a general concern.

So let me just share a couple of things.

Um I lived in Tempe for many years, as did my partner John with our families.

Um my parents actually lived when we purchased our home on La Hoya.

Um they lived in a non-permitted ADU that was in our backyard when we bought it, it was already non-permitted.

They lived in it, and we had many wonderful years there.

And um I I love the architecture of Tempe.

And so any of our properties, like I look for really good mid-century modern properties that I can bring back to life, enhance.

So I just wanted to say, like, I hear you.

Um my heart is not to make high rises.

I mean, the ADU legislation is legal.

So this is that's not on the table here.

A to's attached or detached are a part of the code, and we just want to give good places to live for people.

Um in this property right now, there's a five-person family.

Um, mom, dad, and three kids that live in the main house.

Um we're we like I lived next to a frat house on the Hoya, but I didn't like it.

Um, so we're trying to make good homes for good people.

More people need homes, and I think this is a really sustainable way to do it.

Um we're not asking to park in the yard.

There's a driveway.

So I know it was referenced a lot, like we don't want people parking in the yard.

I don't want anyone parking in my yard.

I want them parking in the driveway.

So I just wanted to um make that known.

Also, we have um gone through the process, worked with the city for nearly two years now to legalize this.

And we've submitted plans, we submitted a building permit, everything to code, and when it was time for the inspection, they said no, now we need to get a use permit for parking.

Like, oh, okay, we'll do this, and now we've been waiting eight months for this.

So, like I have been pursuant to code and do it a right.

I'm frustrated as well.

Um make it a quick buck.

We've only lost money on this.

Um, so thank you for that.

We'll take a collection later.

Um, I guess lastly, is um like as far as like line of sight, there's a storage container in the front of the home across the street.

I hate it.

I want it gone.

It's been there for three years.

Um a couple of cars does not look worse than a big storage container.

Um, and so like I think there's other things we can address to keep the properties nice.

Um I want to keep properties nice as well.

That's why we invest in good places to live for people.

Um let me see if there's anything else that I wrote out here.

Um yeah, I think it's just AD user legal attached or detached.

There's no interior access as per the plans that we submitted are a building permit.

Um the use permit, it is legal.

You have to guarantee two parking spots.

We've done everything the city has asked of us, including coming here tonight, and we want to make the property better.

That's it.

Questions for the applicant?

Any follow-ups.

Um, when was the improvement made?

I would have to look that up to give you an exact one.

I think maybe Lucas might know from my application.

Done by you.

It was done.

So I was I helped out our good friends actually that purchased the home.

And they wanted a place for guests to visit.

So I helped them with it and submitted the stuff immediately after.

And I would say it's been nearly two years.

But I I would fairly recent.

Okay.

Yeah.

Oh, that's recent.

Okay.

It feels like a long time ready.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Now, Mr.

We appreciate Mr.

Jensen.

Nothing additional.

Any questions for uh stuff?

Sorry.

Mr.

Tom.

Commissioner Tom.

Lucas, um with a in a situation like this where we have unpermitted construction, there's there's not any different use permit standards that we have we have, correct?

It's the same use permit standards if it were to go in the correct process, or if we're kind of going out of order here.

Right?

We don't we don't have additional use permit requirements because they permit it, they construct it without permits.

Yeah, um, Chair Johnson, Commissioner Tom.

That's correct.

The process, whether it was done illegally or going through the process before the fact is is the same.

And you know, typically through our staff review, that's you know, it's not a good thing.

So it's the same criteria that we're on consideration.

Either way.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So there are no penalties.

There was a question about penalties.

Yeah.

So to I know uh Mr.

Zamora had that question.

So the penalties in this case, so it depends on whether the the violation is that of the the zoning or city code or that of a building code violation, what's issued, you know, by the city.

What was issued for this project was it was an IP or a building code violation.

Um, and what we've opined is that those will be assessed, you know, additional fees when it goes through the building permit process.

Whereas if it was a zoning code violation, we would assess double fees through the use permit process.

So this one's not being, you know, penalized through the use permit process, but we'll see what whatever the you know increased fees are for that through building safety and and building permits.

I don't have those numbers though, exactly.

Okay.

Commissioner Moon.

Um this is a procedural question, pretty much, and um I don't really want to belabor it very much, but it when somebody comes in with a project like this, they are essentially enclosing turning a garage or a carport, either one, into livable space.

And they say, We're going to do this and we're going to turn it into a bedroom or a game room or something like that.

Um so it then it goes through the normal review process and you're dealing with it as an addition to a house, correct?

If the applicant comes in and says, I'm I want to build an ADU.

You have virtually how much latitude to actually review and condition that do you actually have a sour miller, that I mean that would depend.

I think the you know ADUs in that legislation is still very new with all of the the use permit requirements that may arise from from an accessory dwelling unit.

Um I I feel fairly comfortable in saying that it it would be not appropriate to add, say a condition to require an additional parking space.

That would be a very you know clear overstep of what we're allowed to do.

Um if that kind of starts to answer your question, what we you would would be and would not be allowed to review in that scenario.

Okay, um, because we've looked at a number of ADUs here.

And I think the only thing we've ever been able to do is say you can't build it that high.

Because somebody sometimes they want to build it higher than the original structure.

And that seems to be about the only thing we can say is nope, you're going too high, can't go, can't go that high.

Other than that, it's pretty much if you come in and say it's an ADU, you're gonna do it.

Yeah, Commissioner Miller, uh most of what you're referencing is is due to the state legislation that you know explicitly prohibited us from reviewing those those certain things, and the only reason we're we're hearing this particular request is because that that ADU is occupying what was originally required parking spaces, otherwise we typically wouldn't hear ADU requests.

Commissioner Spears?

And I just a lot of people don't use their garages for their vehicles.

They park on the street, they park in the driveway, and unless you go on knock on the door, you don't know if they're just using it for storage.

There's no requirement that you can't use your garage for storage.

So I think we're kind of nitpicking here in terms of they have to have a permit in order to occupy it as an ADU and yeah.

So yeah, so as a general comment, I think because we heard a lot of comments, then a lot of them I I wholeheartedly agree with.

But the fact is that the state legislation supersedes any control that the city can put over ADUs and supersedes that of the wants and needs of the neighborhoods and the community.

So I think we're not in we're not in a place that we would like to be in, but it is this place that we are in.

Is the building sound and is it compatible with the surrounding building?

And and and if not, when will that be inspected?

So uh Chair Johnson to answer the question regarding inspections or building permits.

Unfortunately, that's not something I have information on right now.

Typically, you know, they won't issue or review building permits until this is approved.

So I don't know what the status of any inspections would be or whether or not it was you know built exactly the code.

Um that would be something for you know condition number one.

Um this use permit is valid only when building permits have been obtained, so that's a required step, but I'm not sure what the status of that would be at this time since they're not.

Okay, I I I appreciate your your response, and um it's something that I think we've heard before.

So I I think um because I've asked it before, and I I think I would like more clarity on what that process is after we because I I think we've heard that and we agree, you know, okay, it's gonna go through this approval process, the inspection period um before they can they get their final approval.

Um, but I would like to know what that looks like.

Does that mean if it's finished, if the walls are finished, are they tearing out um wallboard?

Are they um looking at you know how their their drainage works and you know all those things that are required for for building permits?

Does that all get inspected?

And and it is is it all sound in the end when when they finally get the final approval?

So just a general comment.

I think that would be nice to hear more about um vice chair schwartz.

Yeah, umside of this case, has there been any noise complaints or other calls for public safety at this site?

There was uh no code violations on on the property for anything related to like noise or nuisance.

Um I did not obtain calls for service or anything that wouldn't have been reported as a violation.

So I don't have maybe as much information as you might be requesting, but nothing that raised concerns.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay, with that, we will close out the public comment period and move to commission discussion or motions.

Commissioner Spears.

Um I move for the approval of PL 240437.

Okay, Commissioner Spears has moved for the approval.

Um is there a second?

Oh second.

And that was seconded by Commissioner Tom.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

Okay, and all those opposed?

I'm Mr.

Chairman.

I'm going to abstain.

Okay, uh abstaining from it's pointless to vote against it because we're it's totally outside our control.

Really?

Um but I don't want to go on record supporting this.

Thank you.

Um, so that motion passes um five to one.

Um abstention.

All right, next item is 4D.

If the applicant could please come up and present your case.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, uh members of the commission, Wendy Ridell with the law firm Barry Ridal 6750 East Camelback.

Um, my pleasure to be here this evening on behalf of Terrawatt.

Uh the site we are here talking about is approximately um 0.75 acres.

It is just south of Broadway on Terrace Road.

And I am here this evening on behalf of Terawatt.

They're a key player involved in the transition to autonomous electric commercial fleets.

Uh they focus on owning and developing, operating, maintaining charging sites.

Um, notably Time magazine named them the world's top green tech company and America's top green tech company.

Are they perfect for Tempe?

I might suggest.

Uh we are here today requesting a use permit to allow a vehicle-based service as well as a minor DPR for an electric vehicle charging center.

The site, the general plan is actually for multifamily, but the existing zoning is PCC one.

The site, the general plan is actually for multifamily, but the existing zoning is PCC one, so it has a commercial designation.

You can see there's multifamily to our east as well as surrounding commercial to our north and west, and in single family across the alley to the south.

Importantly, there's quite a few uses that are permitted in the PCC one, that commercial district.

These would be uses permitted by right, fitness centers, places of worship, convenience store, restaurants, drive-throughs, commercial school, like immediately to our north.

It should be vehicle service, retail sales, and commercial surface parking.

So ironically, if these were gas powered vehicles, and if they were allowed 24-7 charging for parking, that would be a use that would be permitted by right here.

It's the fact that it's that EV, that fleet vehicle that actually triggers the need for the use permit.

Our proposed site plan, you can see we have 31 EV charging stalls, three employee spaces, and an ADA space.

Really 24 7, the site will be manned.

You will notice that we very carefully thought out a circular pattern to reduce maneuvering on site.

So in fact, that northern entrance is just an entrance and an exit.

That south access point is only an exit.

So there'll be nobody entering at that location.

There is also as part of the plan what I will call a staging area.

So that will be a staging for vehicles that will be going into charging, but it's also a place that vehicles that will be going out into the community to pick up riders will be staging.

I think that's very important to mention because we have heard at times complaints about some of these EV vehicles in neighborhoods.

I'm gonna call it sleeping, that they're out there parking in the neighborhoods, and that will not be you know occurring here because there will be a staging area on site.

So why AV in Tempe?

Um certainly I don't have to tell this commission that Tempe has a strong tech ecosystem, that it supports urban development, that you have 80,000 ASU students down on the Tempe campus, and that Tempe cares a lot about sustainability, about walkability, and about vehicular and pedestrian safety, and about having less traffic on our streets.

In fact, TEMPE cares so much that you are one of the few cities that actually went and studied it.

So you have your city council put forth and asked that this issue be studied, and they issued a report on autonomous vehicles.

And some of the things that they found is that it helps create safe and secure communities because it reduces the number of cars on the road and it supports Tempe's vision zero.

It also found that AVs could be used to connect people to public transmit to create pedestrian zones in certain areas, and that it improves the quality of life.

It ensures access to AVs that in a way that enhances mobility for those who need it.

It went on to recognize that AVs play an important role in sustainable growth and development, that they reduce trips, they improve air pollution, and improve carbon emissions, that it also plays a role in the long-term financial stability and vitality of TEMPE, that it's important to forge these public prior partnerships in the AV industry, recognizing TEMPE's role as an innovator.

Again, a report that actually the council requested.

So why this site?

This site in particular, it has the necessary commercial zoning, and that the users of the autonomous vehicles live in residential areas.

The clients are nearby.

Electric vehicles are quiet.

They generate less traffic than other commercial uses.

I will also tell you the availability of the electrical infrastructure, the necessary electrical infrastructure here, also plays an important role.

So I'm going to focus really quickly on the use permit criteria.

The first one being any significant increases in vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

So we did study other sites and looked at what would we had our traffic engineer put this together.

What would be the total trips?

A trip is, I will point out a trip there and a trip back, so that it's one trip in and one trip out.

And when you do that, they anticipate a total number of trips of a thousand and two.

So we took that and we took the most likely commercial uses that would fit on a site like this, and we did a comparison.

And simply put, in each and every category that we compared, this is a significant reduction in traffic.

So it's 52% fewer weekday trips when you compare it to a coffee shop, 85% fewer AM peak drugs, 74% PM peak hour trips compared to a coffee shop.

Same thing when you look at a comparison to a drive-through restaurant.

Again, a use permitted in the PCC one in the commercial district, substantially fewer trips.

And finally, we looked at medical office, same thing, substantially fewer trips.

So in each category, it's actually a reduction versus what is permitted in the PCC.

I will also mention that autonomous vehicles are far safer than human operated drivers.

They don't text when they're driving.

They have, if you look at every category here, again, this is a study across the entire valley.

You'll notice that they have airbag deployment 81% fewer times.

Fewer police reported crash, 62% fewer.

Again, in each and every category, autonomous vehicles are deemed to be safer than your typical driver.

So use permit criteria number two, nuisance arising from emission of odor dust, gas noise, vibrations, smoke heat, glare, exceeding that of ambient conditions.

So the site operation here, this will not be open to the general public.

These are only standard passenger size vehicles.

There will not be any semi trucks or delivery trucks.

It is manned 24-7.

It is access controlled by steel gates.

It has a CMU wall around the remainder, around the west and south.

The buffering, the substantial landscape that we're proposing, as I mentioned, there's an eight-foot CMU wall on the east and the south, eight-foot tall anti-climb metal fence on the north and west.

There will be canopies, parking canopies that will further shield and screen the activity.

One of the other things, and this was important in some of the door-to-door conversations that we have.

We will also be using your typical garbage cans versus the large dumpsters.

That's important because it's quieter.

As I mentioned, the car charging stations are set back approximately 76 feet.

We're also agreeing to a condition that no cleaning activities that generate noise greater than the ambient conditions.

Again, that use permit criteria would occur between 10 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

And as I mentioned, no commercial dumpsters utilizing private roll-up bins.

I'm gonna litter this presentation if I could with a couple of additional stipulations that we would like to propose as part of this application, and then I've got a summary at the end.

One of the things that we've heard a concern is the backup beepers on site.

So we are willing to actually stipulate that we shall not utilize backup beepers generating noise greater than the ambient conditions on this site to help alleviate that concern.

So looking then to the third criteria, the contribution of the deterioration of the neighborhood or the downgrading of the property values, and that the proposed use is not in conflict with the objectives or policies from the rehabilitation, redevelopment, or conservation as set forth in the city's adopted or general plan.

I know that's all a mouthful.

But when you go when you look at Tempe's general plan, it actually is one of the few cities that specifically talks about autonomous vehicles.

It talks about developed strategies to advance the use of alternative modes of transportation that utilize clean energy, exactly what we're doing.

It talks about specifically explore the study of autonomous self-driving vehicle technologies, its potential eventual use and impact in TEMPE's transportation system.

Again, that's part of the voter-approved general plan.

And then finally, study and plan for emerging autonomous vehicles.

It's also, I would say incorporated or suggest to you incorporated into the Alameda Character Area Plan that connecting people to their places of employment, education, recreation, in a variety of multimodal options defines mobility, mitigate, specifically mitigate the need for a personal automobile.

So moving on, then to use permit criteria number four, the compatibility with existing surrounding structures and uses.

Here, all site traffic will route to and from Broadway Road unless responding to a customer call in the Hughes Acre neighborhood.

That's another stipulation that we're willing to commit to as part of this hopeful approval, that these will be going in and out towards Broadway and not utilizing the Hughes acre neighborhood.

And then finally, that last criteria that adequate adequate control of disruptive behavior both inside and outside the premises, which may create a nuisance to the surrounding area or general public.

So we would also propose an additional stipulation that a phone number for a community liaison will be posted on the site.

So if a neighbor has concerns, there's a direct number that will be manned.

Again, there is somebody on site 24-7.

There's actually three people that will be there.

It will have a direct connection if there's issues or concerns.

And then as a summary of the stipulations that we would propose based on some of the concerns we would heard, we have heard.

Again, vehicles shall not utilize backup beepers generating noise greater than the ambient conditions.

No cleaning activities that generate noise greater than the ambient conditions between it between 10 and 6.

All site traffic to and from Broadway Road unless responding to a customer call in a Hughes Acre neighborhood.

And finally, that a phone number for community liaison would be posted on site to address neighborhood concerns.

Finally, just to touch on one last topic.

Actually started back in October of 2024.

As I mentioned to you, that's part of what made this site attractive.

SRP has confirmed there's more than sufficient capacity for this use, that it will not have any impact on the residential area.

It is not something that causes rates to go up, it's not going to cause outages.

There's there is sufficient infrastructure here for this site without substation improvements.

If there's any additional transformers, things like that are required, that of course is all funded by my client here.

So with that, Mr.

Chair, I'm happy to answer any questions or save the remainder of my time for rebuttal.

Are there any questions for the operant Commissioner Forte?

I just wanted to get this on record.

So you're saying there will be no idling in the neighborhood.

They'll be completely contained to this one property.

Thank you.

Commissioner Johnson.

Member Forte.

So yes, I think by doing this, I can't guarantee that other companies won't have other vehicles there, but this provides specifically a staging area for car our cars to be here and not be in the neighborhood.

So when you say you can't guarantee other companies, what it what do you mean by that?

Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Forte.

I'm speaking to the cars that here are ultimately on this site.

There may be other users, other companies that do something.

So I'm what I'm saying is the autonomous vehicles that will be utilizing this site will only be there won't be any idling in the neighborhood.

They will be staging here on site.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Miller.

Just one question.

So you you're mentioning other other companies.

It doesn't matter who's comp what vehicles you're talking about, but you're gonna be provide you're gonna be providing uh your services to people who contract for it, correct?

Autonomous vehicle providers services, like like a Waymo or a Lyft or somebody like that, not necessarily them, but who actually are your customers?

Correct.

So Chairman Johnson, um, Commissioner Miller.

My clients, a developer.

Um, they have partnership with companies that will operate the fleet.

They will operate the site, so they will be responsible for the conditions that we're um stipulating to here.

But you're correct that they'll be partnering with a company that will have the the fleet.

And there could be other companies who down the line decide, hey, this is a great place to charge our vehicles, but they would then assuming that they partner with you, or they would still have to abide by the same conditions that your initial people are going to.

Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Miller, you are absolutely correct.

The conditions run with the land.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh the uh let's see, here we have uh Mr.

Jasper.

Good evening, Chair, members of the development review commission.

My name is Chris Jasper, Senior Planner City Attempee.

Happy to be presenting this item to you.

Uh so this is a request for a use permit to allow for a vehicle-based service, which we've deemed to be analogous to a sort of dispatch dispatch operation, uh the zoning and development code.

Um did not contemplate uh specific autonomous vehicles, and so it is most analogous to what we would call a taxi dispatch uh use based on the use characteristics uh that were detailed by the applicant.

Uh so the proposed use does include uh charging facilities for autonomous electric vehicles, which will you know stay on site, be charged up, and then uh dispatch out to uh conduct their operations.

Um running concurrent with their use permit request is a minor development plan review.

This is an administrative approval only, and that is what will approve or act upon the design for the site.

So the site plan is provided here for your reference, but you're not acting on it at this time.

So a couple things to note there is a landscape buffer on the south that is required by code for any commercial user that is adjacent to or separated from an alley, uh separated by an alley from any single family residential neighborhood.

So in that landscape buffer, there are trees, a six-foot open space, and then just north of that is where most of the electrical equipment will be uh located, the transformers and electric panels and whatnot.

Um SRP will have access to those electric equipment through an easement.

North of that are the vehicle charging stalls.

Those are going to be covered by canopies.

So the site is uh shaded uh very amply, so that does provide some flexibility with respect to landscaping.

Um there are a number of easements on site, which are relevant to note, insofar as uh it may impact some of those design considerations.

So there's water uh utilities running on the public alley, which impacts some of the tree placement, um, etc.

Um, as the applicant noted, there are two points of access.

This has been reviewed and um deemed acceptable by our transportation division to simplify the uh uh routing process.

Those points of uh ingress and egress were shortened, or you know, our typical standard is 30 feet, they were shortened down to 20 feet to um kind of ensure that it was a one-way and one-way out uh circulation pattern.

So, like I said, on the landscape plan, there is a landscape buffer on that south.

Umscape buffer is also accompanied by an eight-foot masonry wall, um, which the applicant has provided, uh, will be approved through the development plan review.

Um, that is intended to serve as a screen of the site from the surrounding both single family and multifamily residential neighborhoods.

Uh also included some uh references for the elevations of the proposed building.

So, as the applicant noted, uh, there are obviously the five criteria for a use permit approval.

Um, and we did the first item obviously is uh an increase in vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

So we did have our transportation division staff take a look at this proposed proposed use.

Um they determined that it did not meet the standard for a traffic impact assessment, which is 75 peak hour trips.

Um, and so they are they identified no concerns associated with uh potential impacts on terrace or rights of way.

Um, and so the increase in traffic, while there will be you know some increase in traffic that is associated with any development, it was deemed not to be significant enough to fall short of this uh standard.

So this criteria was deemed to be met.

Uh additionally, uh number two uh is related to emission emissions nuisances of odor, dust noise, vibration smoke.

Um, because the vehicles are electrical powered, um, there is not anticipated to be a significant amount of noise.

Staff is aware that you know, any type any time there's a vehicle-based operation that there are cleaning activities that may occur, you know, vacuuming, washing, etc., um, which is why we did include a stipulation to limit those activities to the daytime hours.

Um, you know, we believe that is sufficient to mitigate those impacts, uh, in addition to the stipulations proposed by the applicant related to the backing up uh beeping noises.

For items uh three, oh excuse me, for item three, uh staff um you know deemed that you know this is a long time infill site that has never been developed.

It's been vacant since time immemorial.

Um, and so you know, this is a re proposed redevelopment that you know does move some of the investment uh objectives of the general plan forward.

Um item number four is related to compatibility.

Um as I noted, there are several designed features that are intended to mitigate impacts to adjoining single-family neighborhoods, including that landscape buffer, circulation pattern, um, and so on, um, which are you know further supported by the conditions of approval that both staff and the applicant have proposed.

And finally, there is not anticipated to be any disruptive activities uh caused by this development.

Getting into the public involvement uh portion, um, we that neighborhood meeting was not required for this uh use permit request.

Um to date, we have received uh I have 32 letters of opposition um since I finished uh up with this PowerPoint.

That number has increased to 34.

Letters of opposition and two letters of support um residents have noted uh concerns associated with traffic, noise, lighting, etc.

And they believe that the proposed use is um not uh appropriate or compatible with surrounding single family residential uses.

Um at this time, staff's recommendation is to approve subject to conditions.

Uh, we do have uh the unique conditions that were included in your staff report, which relate to the vehicle cleaning activities, which staff had limited to or you know, kind of broadened to to say state that cleaning activities, including vacuum or vehicle washing would not occur between 10 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

Um that was proposed to be modified by the applicant, which I'll show on the next slide.

And then we did want to ensure that this site was only going to be utilized for standard passenger vehicles.

We don't want semi-trucks, box trucks, etc.

to be going in and out of the site with any frequency.

Um, you know, the intent is that the vehicle bays, the charging bays are going to only be for the uh standard passenger vehicles.

So we have a condition to that effect, which the applicant has agreed to.

As the applicant noted, uh they did wish to um modify the request or the stipulation uh regarding the noise output uh for um cleaning activities to be a little more generalized so that um any cleaning activities um that generate noise greater than ambient conditions would not occur.

Uh so that kind of gives them a little a little more flexibility so that they can do some things as long as they're quiet.

Um additionally, as the applicant noted, there are a couple other conditions related to the backing up beeping noise that all traffic will route to and from Broadway Road.

Uh this was a condition that was identified in one of the letters of opposition.

They requested that um if this were to be approved, that uh traffic not go through Terrace Road past the Sing Family Residential areas, and uh there was a request for more information about a point of contact if any issues were to occur in the neighborhood, and so there is stipulation to that effect.

And staff uh has no objections to any of these conditions, um, but would certainly be willing to uh listen to feedback.

So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Any questions for staff?

So, one of the concerns that I was hearing is that the turn from terrace to Broadway is a little quick.

Is there anything on the city side that we can do, especially knowing that there's going to be increased amount of traffic from that site?

Yeah, so you're referring to the uh signal timing mechanism for left turns.

Yeah, that's certainly something we can look at with our transportation division.

Um we can evaluate the impacts that this particular use might have on that particular intersection.

Um, we'd have to study it, and I can share it with our our traffic and transit divisions.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, now we will open our public comment period.

Um anyone who is here tonight wishing to speak, um, please fill out one of these comment cards if you have not already and bring it up to uh Jonah Barry.

I have quite a handful here, so we will work to get through these.

Um I will call the the person that is up, and then who will also be on deck.

So, John Hoyt, you are up, and Mary Hoyt, you are on deck.

Good evening.

My name is John Hoyt.

I am a 50-year resident of Tonkey and 32 years uh living five houses from the proposed site uh down Palmcroft Drive.

Um I am going to talk to you tonight about the future.

We heard a bit about um what they expect their usage to be now, um, but we haven't heard anything about what it's going to look like tomorrow.

And I've been there 32 years, and God willing, I'll be there another 32 years.

We know that uh EVs and autonomous vehicles are the future, and I think that's great.

I am not opposed to those at all.

Um we also know that the way that technology moves, it will continue to get bigger, better, faster.

The way that our economy moves, we will continue to drive towards more profits, which means more cars, more miles.

All of my comments are going to be from the lens of safety of the people who live in this neighborhood, in particular the children that live in this neighborhood and walk to and from QT and Sonic and Safeway and Chipotle and all of those places.

Um the applicant has proposed 31 stalls for the uh autonomous vehicle fleet that will operate around the clock.

All of my references here are coming from the US Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, and from Waymo's documentation.

If you want the citations for any of these, I have them for you.

The USDOT reports that the average uh charging time is 42 minutes.

That was based on an analysis of 2.4 million cars or sessions, I mean.

So you do the math on that at full capacity whenever that comes, maybe tomorrow, maybe five years from now, maybe 10 years from now, we're talking about over a thousand cars a day now.

The uh the US Department of Energy is also talking about funding vehicle battery technologies that will uh increase uh the throughput of um charging.

They they anticipate that in the next five years that the charging technologies and battery technologies will improve by 25%.

So in five years at full capacity, we will be looking at 1,400 cars a year or 1,300 cars a day coming into our neighborhood.

That is 511,000 cars a year coming into our neighborhood, endangering our children.

The applicant said that the accidents were reduced.

That's great.

She did not say they were a limited.

It is not a matter of if someone gets hit or a car gets hit by these cars.

It is a matter of when and how severe it will be.

This is thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Uh Mary Hoyt, and then on deck we have Connie Becky.

Beckri.

You okay, Becky, thank you.

Mary, uh Tempe resident.

I live with that handsome guy.

Uh, we've lived in our home 32 years.

I've been a Tempe resident for 39 years.

I plan on living with him for the rest of my life in the house that we're in.

Um I we would have what you call probably like a small town neighborhood.

We know our neighbors, we invite each other to parties, we invite each other to the family weddings, we talk in our streets.

The loop that we live in is not a three-way loop.

So anybody that is in our loop is us.

On Terrace, a lot of the kids, a lot of us, we walk to the grocery store, we walk to QT, we walk there.

The site that they're proposing, which hasn't come up at all, is right next to a high school.

I don't know if any of you, I was a teenage driver.

I've raised teenage drivers.

They're not the safest people in the world.

The site is right next to what that the school is on Broadway.

The site that this proposal is is more south, is right next to the school where the teenagers are.

The apartment complex that is right next to that school houses a lot of college students that use their scooters, they use their bikes, they walk.

Some of them drive, yes.

But the amount of vehicles that are going to be in our area is just ridiculous.

Like my husband, I'm not opposed to EV vehicles at all.

I don't think they should be in a neighborhood.

Our daughter's house, one of our daughters, is one of the houses that's set 76 feet away.

She wasn't able to be here tonight, but 76 feet away.

Her house backs up to the alley that would the lights would be shining at that they talked about.

I think this proposal and plan for the location that it is is ridiculous.

My experience with TIMPI government, I am sorry to say, is they usually opt with money instead of people and residents.

I am hoping you will prove that theory wrong and you will choose residence over money.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and then next up is Connie Becky.

Um with Todd Smith on deck.

Okay.

Um tonight we heard a lot of information dealing with numbers on a building.

And how that discussion went.

And I have to say, have we had any discussion of how this is going to impact people?

I haven't heard anything.

I haven't heard anything that says we care about this neighborhood.

We care about these children.

We care about these families who like to spend time in their front yards and their backyards and walk to their friends' house.

And that makes me really angry.

You talked about the pathway that goes up to Broadway.

There's no turn signal there.

And if you do increase that light, I'll let you know that the street at University and Broadway and Rural is also very congested.

And you're going to get a lot of congestion of traffic there.

Is that the only pathway they're going to go through?

The other station I went to in Scottsdale, they had a business entrance.

So they could go in a circle and around, and it wouldn't impede people who are trying to go to the grocery store or the other stores that are around in that area.

I've heard that there's a 25 to 35 average per hour of these cars.

That's a lot.

Do we have any impact?

Know how much that's going to impact the people in this neighborhood?

Do we even care?

Um, where are the extra vehicles going to be housed?

She said that they would be housed right there in that plot.

That was not the case with the one the place in Scottsdale.

That's not what I saw.

I saw them going in and out, in and out, in and out.

Um I'm curious of how this is going to affect my property value.

Is it going to be better?

Is it going to be worse?

Who's going to want to live in this neighborhood with this going on?

How would this improve my life?

I don't think it will.

When would they start adding the trucks?

Because we knew when they started the orbit butts, they said, Oh, we'll never put the big buses on the streets.

Are the big buses on the street?

Yes, they are.

What is this ambient noise?

How loud is that?

Who will monitor these agreements that they pointed out?

Now, if there's an extra power station needed, how does that impact people who are sensitive to that kind of stuff?

And where will that be built?

And we also know that that stuff causes cancer.

I just wish you would consider the human aspect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Todd Smith with Shireen Aubin Smith on deck.

Sherry, maybe?

Sorry if I'm skewered.

Oh, sorry, Cheryl.

Thank you.

Todd.

Hi, I'm uh Todd Smith.

I'll live uh three doors down from this proposed site.

Um I have a couple of photos to share.

I don't know if we can turn this projector on or anything like that.

Typically we don't have to do that.

Okay.

I haven't seen that used in a long time.

Okay.

Uh if you can describe what you're you're showing, you'd like to show us.

Well, yes, because um basically the the existing site that's at uh the 101 and McDowell, um, it's considerably larger.

It it uh has an auxiliary parking um space beside it, as well as an area that's even bigger for the charging section.

And I spent about 30 minutes out there uh about two nights ago uh watching the cars and in 30 minutes, it averaged two or three cars a minute coming in and out of this facility.

And even though they had this big overflow parking lot, uh sometimes the cars would turn in there, but a lot of times the cars would just come in, make a U-turn, go back down the street, make a U-turn and come back.

Uh for some reason they didn't use the overflow parking lot.

And I'm concerned that that would be what would happen in this case.

That you know, I I don't I don't know how the software works, it's dispatching the units, but anyway, this is the terrace site.

You can't you can't show them that you can't share something.

Okay, I think there was a copy that I okay.

Okay.

Uh so um I'm concerned that the cars are gonna come down the street and then use uh the palm croft loop to kind of stage themselves.

Um it was the first time I heard earlier that that's not the plan, that the cars will only will not enter this neighborhood, which is fantastic.

Um but you know, seeing what's going on in Scottsdale, that wasn't the case, that wasn't how the way the cars behaved.

Um also you heard people mention about QT and Chipotle and stuff like that.

That is if you just go up terrace to Broadway, uh, right across to the other side of QT.

There are a lot of people that walk right where the cars are gonna be staging.

They walk on that street to go to QT to go over to Chipotle.

That intersection is probably one of the most dangerous in Timpee.

People coming out of QT are turning left across the traffic all the time.

That's the typical way that they come out.

Sometimes they go straight.

There's people that do U-turns, there's scooters running the wrong way on the sidewalks coming out of the apartment buildings.

So again, you throw in all of those electric cars.

This is just going to be chaos up here.

Um, I mean, if you figure, you know, the two or three cars per minute that I observed, uh, that figures out to be 2800 to 4,000 cars uh a day.

Uh, even if this site only had half that, uh, that would be a thousand cars a day in that area.

So thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Cheryl Alvin Smith and uh Jeffrey Schell on deck.

Hello, I'm Cheryl Oppen Smith, and I've lived in the Hughesacre neighborhood on and off for almost 40 years.

Um I find it unlikely that the cars will never divert from being on terrace.

Um, I also want to add that there's teen drivers in the area.

I just went through having my teenager learn how to drive.

So as we're exiting up terrace as the cars would be, again, there's always scooters coming.

There's a huge white transformer box, you can't see them.

And I'm pretty sure there'll be some accidents there.

Um there's a pretty big disregard for the law at that intersection.

It's terrifying.

Um there's also a school on the other side of our neighborhood, our Lady Mount Carmel School.

Um fortunately, there's a back access that is right in the middle of our horseshoe area.

And I have counted between 15 and 20 kids a day walking or biking in the neighborhood, crossing terrace, being picked up by families.

Um, the traffic greatly increases every morning from 7 30 to 8 15 and greatly increases every day from roughly 2 30 to 3 15.

And um then, because we are very populous um family group.

We have uh any time between 20 to 30 grandkids in the neighborhood on any given weekend, riding their bikes, scooters, um, running around, playing in the rain, and it's probably one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in Tampe with children.

Um I just find it appalling that this is already being presented as a recommendation when we were given no chance for input.

Someone knocked on my door a year and a half ago.

Yeah, there was no neighborhood meeting, and um, I find it very one-sided that it should be presented and recommended uh without having had any of our input.

And as you can see, we're all pretty opposed to it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Jeffrey Schell with Gary, I believe it's Brennan on deck.

My name is Jeff Shell.

I live in Tempe, just a little ways away, about 700 yards away from the proposed site.

I'm in support of this charging station.

Um I've heard the comments from some of my neighbors on why they oppose it.

The comments generally fall into three points.

Increased traffic, that could be a safety issue for the children in our neighborhood.

The power usage could negatively affect the availability of electricity on the grid, and three, the noise of the facility could be bothersome.

Uh, I believe this can number one, the uh issue of safety can easily be addressed, and it has been addressed by the company pledging to use the Broadway entrance, uh Broadway through Terrace.

There are no residences between Broadway and the proposed site.

There are no residences on that section.

If they proceed south from Broadway to the charging station, they would not pose any risk.

In fact, given the ability of the self-driving autonomous vehicles to detect potential at-risk situations, such as pedestrians, they would probably be safer than people driving vehicles, and that was confirmed by the uh statistics that uh the lady presented earlier.

Number two, power usage concerns are proposed by people who know very little about how electricity usage is managed.

The grid flexes intelligently to balance load demands, and if anything, the downside is on the part of the charging station, which might be forced to charge their vehicles more slowly because residences are drawing more power.

SRP has very sophisticated capability to balance load, and the statement earlier about uh SRP uh assuring that uh the grid can handle it, puts that concern to rest.

Number three concern was the noise generated by cleaning.

I don't see that as being significant.

It would very minimally affect the residences that are closest to the facility, and we already have plenty of noise from the cars and trucks on Broadway, to say nothing of the train tracks a little farther north, and the car wash currently on Broadway and Terrace.

This is such a minor and I think really rather petty concern should be beneath the threshold of any serious objection.

On the positive side, this proposed station would be a welcome addition.

Thank you, sir.

Uh Gary Brennan.

Oh, okay, good.

And uh on deck is Justin Rucker.

If you could say your name in City Residence, please.

I'm Gary Brennan.

I'm a resident of uh Terrace Road, been in Tempe since 1974, been in that neighborhood, use acres since 1993.

I bicycled here down that road where we have many people.

It's a multi-use road.

Um the intersection, I'm I'm unhappy that the city did not study the throughput and the number of vehicles traveling through that intersection at Broadway and Terrace Road with the QT, a Plasma Center, Safeway, Ace Hardware, Triple A.

Our neighborhood is bracketed by multi-development, huge developments of apartment complexes on Broadway and on Southern.

Terrace Road and Dorsey Road drain those people through and bring them through.

I've seen numerous times at that intersection of Terrace and Broadway where big SUVs or persons like myself who drive pickup trucks, come over the top of the sidewalk, putting people in wheelchairs on scooters or pedestrians in danger.

So study the street, take a look at it.

Some of that road has to be improved.

Uh we have to think about what's going to happen as we put a thousand vehicles even through the middle of the night, be in our neighborhood on a holiday weekend.

Any four-bedroom house that sells in that neighborhood gets converted to what we just heard about on Alameda.

Six bedrooms, they sell the place by one bed at a time.

And so we have cars along a street that was developed and designed in 1960.

It that street didn't anticipate the number of vehicles or the traffic patterns that we have today.

So it is a safety issue.

Who uses our streets?

Old person, 75 plus years old with my 16-year-old dog, children, school buses, elsewhere.

I avoid that intersection of Terrace and Broadway Road now by going out to side streets, because once you get three cars queued up, you can't make the left turn with one cycle of the light.

That then gets complicated by the scooters, the bicycles, the pedestrians coursing the sidewalks on both the south and the north side of Broadway Road.

And the reason why is because we designed Broadway Road to move cars off of the freeways and get them through Tempe a few years ago as we designed that.

So think about those things.

Last thing I would say is that uh having been the chairperson of the Hughes Acres Neighborhood Association, people in Hughes Acre support autonomous vehicles.

We support the Lyft and Uber drivers, but again, I I referenced the holiday weekends.

Come into the neighborhood on any three-day weekend during ASU's semesters, and you will just see a whole number of vehicles coursing up and down.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Justin Rucker with Mark Van Brunt up on deck.

Hello, I'm Justin Rucker.

I live at 2112 South Terrace Road.

In fact, you can see my house from one of Wendy's slides.

Very close to the, and I'm not going to tell you a whole lot about a lot of things that have already been mentioned here.

I'll mention a few things that maybe haven't been brought up already.

I've been uh resident attempty for for 14 years and in this house close to eight years.

So the light pollution from these facilities is pretty intense.

We visited the one on McDowell Road that Todd mentioned, and there's a lot of light that comes from there, and the cars themselves have a lot of flashing lights, and so I'd invite you to look at that.

I would also like to define what ambient noise is in terms of decibels, um, so that we can uh uh you know specify that rather than say it's the nebulous ambient condition.

Um also I have four young daughters, and we live right our front, our front yard is right on Terrace Road, and our kids like to play in the uh in the grass, and I'm afraid that with all of this additional traffic um that they may not have that as an option anymore.

And um, I'm glad some people brought up the congestion uh of traffic at that light at Terrace and Broadway.

That is a big concern.

There are the couple of schools that were mentioned.

My children attend Earl of Mount Carmel School and do walk to school.

Um one of my children is is hearing impaired, and so the the um EVs are pretty quiet, and it's hard for her sometimes to hear those coming down the street.

I'm not opposed at all to EVs, just like a lot of the people that have come up here and said things.

I I'm very much uh support them, just not in our neighborhood.

And um, let's see.

Um that's all I have.

Okay, thank you very much.

Mark Van Brunt with Nicholas Keller on deck.

You could state your name in city residence, please.

Mark Van Brandt.

Um 2124 South Terrace, right next door to Justin, right across the street from everybody else here.

I have um I one of the things I draw on in looking at this is I I have a graduate degree in city planning and worked in some municipalities, and I know how the the disciplines that come with looking at some of the impact of something like this, and this is what I think disturbs me most at this point.

I don't think it's been cumulatively looked at.

This whole idea of ambient noise, this is the ambient noise that's moving through the neighborhood that's going to apparently not going to go back south on terrace, but these things are easily built by developers, and not you know, you have really very little control over their management.

And so this I'd ask you if you would want one of these in your neighborhood.

I have six children, we have six children, nine grandchildren that are over there every week.

It's a it is on bikes.

I just would uh really ask you to really take a much harder look at all the implications that have been um brought up here that are both uh environmental traffic.

I I don't think the electrical one is is or in it and some of the others that were brought up by a colleague.

I I so I would at this point um really plead with you to um take some time to address all these issues before making a decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicholas Keller with Dennis Ricardo on deck.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name's Nick Keller.

I live just near Terrace Road.

Um, like Mr.

Van Brunt, I have uh academic background in urban planning.

Um, I also have experience with in-field development.

Um, in my current day job, I work on implementing sustainable principles into development like green stormwater infrastructure.

So I can see why Tempe is really for this, you know, it's in line with their climate goals.

Um I just mentioned that because I I'm pro-sustainable development, and um, I think development should both advance Tempe's goals and strengthen existing neighborhoods, but this proposal doesn't seem to do that.

I know the parcel personally, I I played there as a kid.

Um, and we've envisioned like community serving amenities, and I'm not sure that this kind of fits that.

Um, this lot a lot of people said it was vacant, vacant.

It's never really been up for sale on the market, like it came to market and sold pretty much immediately.

So I think there's a lot better uses.

This is not the highest and best use of that lot for the neighborhood.

And as PCC, like it's supposed to enhance the neighborhood.

I don't think this enhances our neighborhood in any sort of capacity.

Also, the general plan has this as mix or uh multifamily development.

So that's more in line with what the neighborhood needs than this proposal.

Finally, I just wanted to note that they mentioned the traffic count and like a drive-thru for a coffee uh coffee shop.

Well, no developer with a drive-thru would put a drive-thru coffee shop right here.

So I don't really think that's like a fair comparison.

Like a developer would put it on the main arterial.

That intersection at Terrace is just it is a nightmare.

It's super dangerous, and adding in more vehicles would just make it more dangerous.

It would need to be completely reconfigured, arrows added, things like that.

So I just would ask that you guys reconsider and take a deeper look across the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Dennis Ricardo with Lori De Luca on deck.

My name again is Dennis Ricardo.

My family and I have lived uh at Terrace and Bishop for the last 45 years.

Uh I appreciate the chance to talk to about this because I am very much opposed to this uh use.

I mean, I'm not an expert in zoning, but to me, this is an industrial use right in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Now you heard about the traffic light.

Uh I won't mention any more than that, other than to say with this use uh implemented there, that traffic light is gonna be a nightmare for everybody that has to go through it.

Um our neighborhood uh has lots lots of kids, has lots of college kids.

There's a high percentage of rentals in that neighborhood.

Uh, most of those rentals are uh college student rentals.

They have lots of cars.

We have houses in our neighborhood that have five, six cars in in, you know, two per house.

Uh so it gets a little complicated.

And you know, I know that the plan is not to let any of these cars go uh past, go south uh of this into the neighborhood.

I don't see how you can force that.

I mean, there's there's way more cars running around here all the time now.

So I I think this is something that should be thought more.

I think there needs to be some some thorough examination of that traffic light and the use of that traffic light and what it's gonna be like.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh Dennis Ricardo.

Oops, sorry.

No, I'm sorry.

I didn't move that across.

Lori De Luca, please.

Um, with Elizabeth Baker on deck Hello.

Um, I didn't have anything sorry if you can say your name and city residence.

Lori DeLuca Tempe.

Um, I don't have anything sort of formally written up uh as some of the other people did, but I want to express my views.

Um I hear what everybody's saying about the traffic, et cetera, et cetera.

Uh, but I have something else that I'm very concerned about that I don't hear anybody talking about, and that is surveillance, because I am totally opposed to these vehicles entirely.

And I don't think that people realize what's really going on and what's really happening with these companies.

And I have been in the technology field, and I can assure you that these aren't just nice little vehicles that are roaming around helping people out to get rides or to bring them their pizza.

That's not why they're spending billions of dollars.

So, regardless of you addressing for this attorney, you know, these multiple things, it's no.

Because we already have polar labs, which I have already been discussing with the city at length at Nasm, roaming around the neighborhoods.

And for an extended period of time, they had one-page website, no address, no contact number, no LinkedIn, no business profile, um, no response back to emails.

And they're being quote, remotely monitored by a place where they could not tell you.

These vehicles can also be hacked, okay, by hackers.

When they say, oh, they can, you know, just go in this way.

How are you going to control that?

There's no person in them.

Is the company gonna force them to only go in one way?

And then are we gonna end up with an area like we have on rural where Dutch Brother Coffee is?

I'm really here for like the kids in the future.

That's really what we need to be talking about because these are surveillance vehicles, and we have souls.

We have souls, we're people, and the only thing that should be surveilling us is God.

The sun and the moon above us can watch over us.

The hands of God can watch over us.

But these vehicles roaming all over the place, taking pictures every two seconds of everything you do, facial recognition run by the same companies that are at war in other countries, where they ride these autonomous vehicles and they just explode.

Where they take facial recognition and put them into a database.

I worked in the industry.

I'll never work in the industry again, and I'll never be a part of this.

And I ask you to take that into consideration.

Thank you very much.

Is that my three minutes?

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Elizabeth Baker with Jennifer Pyard Bologna on deck.

I'm Elizabeth Baker.

I live in Tempe.

I'm also a fifth generation Arizona.

And uh not that that has a lot to do with anything.

I live in the neighborhood.

I'm very concerned about the amount of traffic that this will increase.

As has been pointed out, it seems to be an industrial use in what is a neighborhood setting.

I mean, there's schools, there's a school immediately north, there's the Catholic school immediately to the west.

There's kids that are going to McClintock High School, they're going to Meyer Montessori that's on Dorsey.

So there's a lot of traffic in there.

And I just think that is it is an incompatible usage of that lot.

You seem to have great concerns about light pollution on commercial buildings down in South Tempe with no consideration about what it may do to our neighborhood.

And I've lived in my house in Hughes Acres for 36 years.

So it's I've I've watched it deteriorate.

I can't even get street lights on my street.

So maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if you would improve our quality of life and not make a business bottom line better for another company.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh Jennifer Pyed.

And help me with your last time on Bologna.

Belowness, okay.

I did have that right.

Um, if you could restate your name for me in city of residence, please.

I am Jennifer Pied Bologna.

I moved into this neighborhood in 1985.

I went to the elementary school.

I went to the high school at Tempe High.

I also taught at Myram Elementary in kindergarten years ago.

I have five children, and we are currently living in this neighborhood as well.

And it really saddens me that again, Tempe is as they said earlier, is not thinking about the people and the children, especially in the future of this neighborhood.

When you guys installed, or not you guys, but when the um fiber optic lines were installed in the neighborhood, let me tell you, people with sensitive bodies got really affected by that.

It drew like a lot of stress.

Now you're gonna add like a giant square where they're gonna be charging a lot of electricity.

Think about what that's gonna cause to people's bodies.

And if it's known to cause cancer, think about the children in this neighborhood that would possibly get in cancer, as well as the safety of the cars coming back and forth.

And I really would hope that you would oppose the loop that would be going around because it would not be safe for the children.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Samantha Boeinger.

Um, with Jannah Lynn Granillo on deck.

And if you could um state your name and city residence, please.

Hi, my name is Samantha Boringer, and I'm a member of the Hughes Acres neighborhood in Tempe, which is directly adjacent to the location under discussion.

I submitted an opposition letter in advance of this meeting, which can be found in the packet.

Um, yesterday I also submitted 35 signatures from other neighbors in support of that letter.

As a resident of Tempe, I'm no stranger to autonomous vehicles navigating our streets.

Our city has been at the forefront of adoption for this new technology, so I was surprised to see that our city policies have not changed with it.

For example, I noticed there was no transportation impact study required for this project when reviewing as to why it wasn't required.

When reviewing as to why it wasn't required, I noticed that the words autonomous or self-driving are not listed anywhere in the policy.

And these words are also not found in the examples of what defines a vehicle-based service service for the use permit.

That's concerning to me given that this new technology is wholly owned by large corporations, operating fleets with hundreds of vehicles on our city streets, and we have no call-outs in our policies on how to evaluate their impact and the impact of their primary vendors like the applicant.

This use permit request isn't just for a standard run-of-the-mill taxi dispatch, the autonomous vehicle fleets to be serviced at the site at marginal value to the neighbors by acting as taxis for those that can afford them.

These are pricey compared to Uber's, but they offer substantially more value to the corporations that own them by collecting limitless amounts of data on how to drive on the city streets so that they might expand into other localities.

Vendors like the applicant are profiting from that expansion.

This is also a new technology, and as mentioned by the applicant in their letter of explanation.

They had four sites across the US last year that were planned to launch.

So they also do not own or operate the fleets that they service, which is a concern for me.

How can you ensure that these cars are not gonna drive down terrace if you don't own the fleet?

Um the applicant really promise no impact to traffic patterns with the limited real world operating experience and the lack of ownership of fleets.

In my view, the lack of historical data from the applicant should justify special review from this commission to verify the applicant's claims that there'll be no meaningful impact on our neighborhood's traffic patterns and safety.

I also encourage the commission to consider how are we as a city ensuring that these fleets and their vendors are actually making our communities more livable.

If we're not doing traffic studies or other forms of specialized review for land use, how are we ensuring that these corporations are not taking advantage of our community and our willingness to adopt their new technology?

If we fail to consider these questions now, we'll set a precedent for the future that allows these autonomous vehicle operators and the vendors that support them to enter into our city without fully understanding the impact on our infrastructure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chanelyn Granio with Keith Taylor on deck.

Hello again.

Hello again.

I'm Janilyn Granio, Tempe resident.

I am the uh chair of Meyer Park neighborhood, which is adjacent to Hughes Acres.

Historically, Hughes Acres, Meyer Park, and Rural Geneva have worked together for many years because we share the same infrastructure, the same roads, the same egress in and out of the neighborhood and the same facilities that surround.

I'm here in solidarity with the directly with the Hughes Acres neighbors.

They're in opposition to this.

And to add value to what is already said, I do want to say that I did serve on um Tempe Tomorrow, 2050, and the reference to that this fits into the plans for 2050, I think is taken a little bit out of context because if you look at 2050, it highlights neighborhoods first, neighborhoods first, neighborhood preservation, and the and the as I recall the discussion we got regarding sustainability.

It was in support of the neighborhoods, and not that we would have a charging station in our neighborhood.

I'm not against autonomous vehicles.

I think that this is the wrong place.

It should be in an industrial area, especially if you look at a global goal as stated like that.

It needs to be in an area that is like an industrial area that will affect the city at large.

Um, and I looked at the code.

I think again, as Sam said, this will set a precedence.

There is anything there, I didn't find anything regarding autonomous vehicles.

You have stuff about vehicle use, prohibited stuff, commercial, what is the intent?

This is entirely new.

So this will set a precedent going forward, and I am concerned about that.

Uh, I also don't believe that diverting the traffic will eliminate traffic through the neighborhood based on the fleets that they have.

And additionally, this is for fleets.

This isn't for me.

If I was to buy an electric vehicle, I couldn't go over there and charge it.

It's for somebody else.

It isn't for me.

Um else do I want to say that I can add to this?

No local control.

Oh, quick analogy.

If you look at the zoning, okay, commercial and then the PCC one, and then there's an alley, and then there's residential.

I don't know if any of you are the age when we used to be able to smoke in an office where we worked.

But there was like here's the smoking section, the cubicle, and then there's a line, and there's the non-smoking section.

Well, guess what happened to that smoke?

Even with smokeless ashtrays, it came over to us.

So I think the proximity in which this proposal is being made has some applicability to uh the residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

And again, I'm in opposition uh of this build.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith Tyler, and then uh that's you're the last one I have.

If there's anyone else wishing to speak, please bring up a card to up front.

Hi.

Um my name is Keith.

I lived here in Tempe for 20 years, and I'm asking that you deny the permit or whatever for this.

Um because it's gonna change the character of the neighborhood.

Like having thousands of vehicles come in is not why I moved here 20 years ago.

Uh this is an industrial process, like a factory, a battery charging factory.

So I don't think it's appropriate in our neighborhood.

Like I said, most importantly, having all these vehicles and traffic is gonna change the characteristic of the neighborhood.

So I'm asking that you deny it, I reject it.

Coffee shop would be better.

Thank you.

And then last up, we have Mike Mike Baker.

I got confused because my wife is Elizabeth Baker.

And so when you called up, kind of blew my mind a little.

Um is Mike Baker.

I've I've actually been living in and out of Tempe for the past 25 years.

I'm married into Tempe, and I I do appreciate Tempe.

I made a conscious decision about five years ago to move back here after serving for 21 years.

And I'm a teacher in Tempe now.

It's kind of ironic.

Um, somebody had talked about families fleeing to Gilbert.

Um I almost feel like this is perpetuating that fleeing of families uh because we become more corporate based, uh, and Tempe is all about uh making money.

So we're shutting schools and we're building charging stations in communities.

Um it's just kind of ironic.

My question is this are you gonna ask the question?

I walked in here and there was no traffic impact assessment conducted.

Uh where's the transparency on the data that was used?

Was the data that you're looking at that caused you to not conduct that assessment?

Was it given to you by the interested party?

Or was there a um was there a disinterested party that uh that you could use data to actually show growth?

Because she made it very clear, the the woman that was uh representing um the company that wants to build here that they are open for business, that they don't own their fleet, and that they intend to expand if given the opportunity.

So again, when you're looking at traffic patterns when you're looking at traffic density, what data are you looking at?

I I really would appreciate it if you asked that question.

Um, because like another gentleman said, these roads were built in the 60s, and these satellite pictures that you're using, because I'm pretty sure they've never been in my neighborhood.

Um, the satellite picture I see of my house, you know, the house is a different color.

They're old.

And I can tell you this, and and Ms.

Spears, you said it yourself.

People don't park in their garages, they park on the streets.

And you can look the data up that these cars get confused when traffic patterns get really congested.

So it's not really a safety issue.

I'm sure that you can see that these autonomous vehicles are very safe.

It's the people that encounter the autonomous vehicles that don't know what they're doing.

All right, so there is data out there that shows that these vehicles, when they have to make a three-point turn, or when they get caught up in traffic jams, they tend to not really understand what to do.

And the humans have to react to that.

We get a lot of roads because of all the parking on the street sides, uh, they turn into one-lane roads, and some people have to yield to other people.

And these cars do get confused, and I've seen it.

Uh, but thank you.

I asked that you do look at that data, please.

Transparency.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Nancy Howell.

And that will be our uh last one that I have.

Good evening.

Thank you for your time.

Uh my name is Nancy How.

Thank you.

I am a current resident of Chandler.

Uh, I was a longtime resident of MT.

I did actually not plan to talk about this particular issue tonight.

It's new to me.

Oops, I'm sorry.

Closure.

Excess wind noise, are we good?

Great.

But as I heard the residents talking about, well, various problems, but one of them was how do you ensure that you keep the uh autonomous vehicles out of the neighborhood?

You know, they're not supposed to go there unless that's their destination.

But I was just curious.

So as I sat in the audience uh just now, I did what many of you might do.

I took out my phone, pulled up Google Maps, and I said, what if I wanted to get to this uh location on Terrace from Superstition Freeway?

And I picked something just a little bit east of rural road, and sure enough, it uh Google Maps gave me a route.

In fact, as you probably are familiar with, it gave me two routes.

One route was what you'd expect, up rural road, over to uh Broadway and back down on terrace.

Lovely, exactly what you want.

But the second route, up rural road, through the neighborhood, surprisingly far south, and right through the Hughes Acres neighborhood.

So my point would be yes, they're not supposed to go there, but when it's time to come home for a charge, are these vehicles going to take the easiest route?

Maybe it's a Saturday night and ASU's got a football game and rural is a little congested.

Off they go into the neighborhood because some software, Google Maps in this case, will show them to go there.

Just something to think about, not just for this particular case, but other cases where neighbors have cut through traffic where folks are going there because that's where the software directs them.

I don't know that these autonomous vehicles will be using Google Maps, but they will be using similar technology.

Something to kill in mind.

We hope those vehicles aren't going through the neighborhood, but I just now got directed right through the neighborhood up to that autonomous vehicle site.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Um be possible for me to speak.

No, I'm I'm sorry, we had the public comments and and that's limited to three minutes per speaker, and you you you had your three minutes.

So thank you.

Um thank you for speaking.

And I actually want to um thank everybody for respecting that three minutes.

I think this is the first time that we've had such respect for the three-minute beeper.

Um, typically people will talk over that quite a bit sometimes, and um, I think you all have been very respectful for that.

So thank you very much.

Um I wish to invite the applicant back up to respond.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chair, would it be possible to jump back to slide 36 of our presentation?

And I I won't be long.

I realize the nate the night is getting long here.

Um jump forward here.

No, I think that's me.

I think that's I got it.

Thank you.

Um you've heard a lot this evening about concerns about traffic in the neighborhood.

Um I understand that, but one of the ways that we reduce traffic in this community is through the use of autonomous vehicles.

And by putting those closer to a neighborhood where that traffic is, you create greater usage versus trying to put them off in industrial areas.

You've talked earlier tonight about ADU legislation.

We know what's coming with ADUs.

We know that that gets worse.

Autonomous vehicles offer one alternative that help mitigate those concerns.

Um, if we want less traffic, this is one of the ways, frankly, that we get there.

Um you also heard a lot about safety.

But by every single metric, autonomous vehicles are significantly safer than ones you and I drive.

Um they are programmed, they have to follow the law, they have to abide the law, they don't text when they drive, they're not driven by a teenager.

Um, they are programmed in a way to be significantly safer.

They also can be programmed in a way to avoid coming through that neighborhood.

The same people smart enough to create these autonomous vehicles, are smart enough to program them and work with us through our contract that will require that they not go through that neighborhood.

Um you heard about a site at one in one in McDowell.

I want to be clear, that is not one of our sites.

In fact, we had to go look it up.

We weren't even sure what they were talking about.

Um, so we don't want to be compared by that metric.

That is not one that um we're involved with here.

The developer has made um pretty significant commitments on the record.

I would respectfully request this commission recognize that this is a use that is it's permitted, it's permitted in our existing zoning with the use permit.

If we have been able to demonstrate that we meet each of these criteria, and I would suggest to you that we have that there's not an increase in vehicular traffic, in fact, there's less, that this not is not going to be a nuisance, um, particularly with the conditions that we've made, that it is something that is actually supported by the adopted plans by the general plan, which we've demonstrated through the specific language in Tempe tomorrow, that we've ensured that it's compatible with existing surrounding uses and structures, and that we put in place adequate controls of disrupted behavior.

Again, my client has put forth significant stipulations, they're willing to commit to them to live with them to mitigate any potential concerns on this site.

With that, I would respectfully request approval, and of course, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Questions for the applicant.

And I think it was less than three minutes.

There was a question related to light pollution.

Can you address that?

Yes, certainly.

Chairman Johnson, so light pollution, first of all, the lights will be mounted underneath the canopies.

So there's canopies on site.

Everything will have to be screened and shielded down.

And then you'll notice on the perimeter site of the site, as we discussed, there's going to be an eight-foot masonry wall, thick landscaping.

So we are not concerned that there will be any light pollution here.

And what about on the west side of the property?

I know there's a currently an existing half-wall.

Is that going to stay or is that being removed?

It's actually, Chairman Johnson, that will be removed.

There will be some non-scalable uh metal fencing that's added and some landscaping that will be there as well.

And that landscaping is to help deflect that.

And I think I see the building is also on that.

That's correct.

Yeah, thank you.

You got there before I did.

Yeah.

Okay.

I was just thinking about the car lights pointing out in that direction.

Um there was a discussion of there were a lot of questions and a lot to get through, but um staging of cars um when spots are unavailable.

Will what will happen when um when will vehicles come to this location?

So when spots are available, they'll be able to monitor how many spots are on site, and that's why they have that staging area, those 12 vehicles along the northern perimeter as well.

It's pretty carefully managed.

So we won't see cycling in and out of Broadway Road on terrace while they wait for a uh space to open up.

Um, Chairman Johnson, I mean, again, that's specifically why the staging area is here on site is to avoid that exact condition.

Um I I have a general question because of the way that this is this was worded.

Um, is there any restriction on non-electric vehicles or autonomous vehicles to operate out of this site?

Say a taxi fleet, say autonomous vehicles get outlawed.

What does this site become?

Um, I think Chairman Johnson, if autonomous vehicles get outlawed, I think the use permit would go away, and a taxi fleet wouldn't require a use permit here.

It can go here by right today.

So that's when I talked early on about the the irony of needing a use permit for the AV fleet, but I think a taxi fleet would be a commercial fleet or commercial parking that is permitted.

Good.

Thank you.

Um and the size of this lot and the number of parking spaces is defined by the the um shape of a parking space and the requirements of a parking space, so there's no additional spaces that can be added to this site.

That's correct.

Um and then, yeah, the last question I think you did address a little bit, but um, if there's any more you might like to add, how will the Broadway road access be enforced?

Um Chairman Johnson, it will be enforced through our contract with the fleet.

So we will um have a contract that requires that they are not able to do that.

Okay.

Other questions for the applicant?

No.

Okay.

Um would uh the city like to respond to anything?

Uh sure.

Uh Commission uh Chair Johnson, happy to elucidate.

Um, but not at length given the hour.

Um, so uh just a couple minor uh things.

Not maybe not minor, just a couple uh notes um regarding light trespass that is reviewed with our building permit submittal, the applicant will be required to submit a photometric plan that shows zero light trespass at the property line.

Um, as the applicant noted, this is uh enforced by designing the lights with uh on the underside of those uh parking canopies with shielding um by locating them at the primary drive entrances and not near the uh edges of the property.

Um there will be a landscape buffer and um on the south side with ample shade trees and on the west side with a row of bushes that are intended to serve as a screen for the multifamily complex to the west.

Uh so that was contemplated in that uh design and and through our review process.

Um I did want to just clarify that um if the uh operation cease to be an autonomous vehicle facility that would represent a substantial modification of the uh use a a general taxi service uh would still require a use permit.

Um we would at minimum require a use permit transfer, which could be administrative if the operation differs in staff's opinion to be substantial, they would have to go through a new use permit process.

Um so the intent is that this use permit would approve this specific operation, subject to the conditions as approved by the DRC.

Uh Commissioner Miller.

Um yes, a question for staff.

Um we've heard a lot about traffic and traffic studies that didn't exist or weren't done.

Um because they weren't needed or whatever.

Do you have an idea and can you tell us or can you get us data on what the average number of vehicle trips on this section of uh terrace between the site and Broadway is right now?

I can coordinate uh uh Chair uh Commissioner Miller.

Uh I can coordinate with our transportation division to obtain that data to see what we do have on file.

Um I don't have that information readily available at this time.

Well, and the reason I ask is that we're talking um I'll use the the term quasi-industrial use here.

Um that's going to that will generate significant traffic flow.

Even if it's only going up from the site to Broadway.

But we have and we have no idea right now of what the current or the existing utilization is, whether it's three three cars an hour or 50 cars an hour or something like that.

Um so I think with without having some basis of making it making a determination, it's impossible to say that there won't be an impact on the traffic in that area because we don't know what the traffic is now.

And the only thing that we have, the only piece of information we have is that there will be somewhere around a thousand vehicle trah trips into and out of the charging station on a daily basis.

Uh Chair Commissioner Miller, uh fair point.

I will note that we did receive a trip generation statement pretty early on in the process.

This was shared with our transportation division.

Um their primary concern um was less about the traffic impact, uh hence why a trans uh traffic impact assessment or analysis was not required.

Uh it did not meet the threshold based on their criteria.

Um, but also, you know, their their primary concern, as I was saying, was um that the speed humps on terrace uh be maintained.

Um so that that was shared with our internal division um and uh that was not identified as a as a specific concern, but we can certainly follow up about that as needed.

Well, I am somewhat uh sensitive to the idea that uh the impact is could be fairly significant on the Broadway terrace intersection.

And that's a fair that is fairly busy from time to from uh time to time.

So I'm not there all the time, so I don't know.

Thank you.

Commissioner Spears.

Um the general plan um has shown it's multifamily, is that correct?

Uh Chair Commissioner Spears, uh, I believe that is correct.

And do you have an idea how many units would be approved for that as a multifamily housing?

Um so currently the site is zoned for uh PCC, so any residential development would require a use permit, and I believe the maximum I would hate to name the maximum density off the top of my head.

I'm what I'm getting at is I'm guessing the daily uh traffic for any multifamily going there in there is going to be more than 25 or 45 or 50 cars a day.

It is zoned properly for the, so you're right, it would have to require a free zone to come in uh for multifamily.

And um it's a use permit request.

That's simply all it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions for staff?

Uh Vice Chair.

Yeah, one of the comments I heard was um regarding defining ambient noise, and I thought that made a lot of sense.

I would just ask that.

That could be something worked out between the applicant and the city.

Versus a vague terminology of what noise is allowable.

Yes, Chair Commissioner Schwartz.

That is a language that is more or less in our noise ordinance.

Or that would, you know, be reasonably assumed to cause a disturbance.

That's as a result of recent changes to our noise ordinance specifically, which did at one time contain specific decibel levels.

Well, for a variety of reasons.

So you know, we're this condition is somewhat consistent with what we have in our noise ordinance, which would also be applicable, applicable to any uh noise produced at this site or any site.

Thanks for clarifying.

And I just want to back up one step.

So the city has extensive data on traffic counts on our on our city roads, don't we?

Uh Commissioner Johnson, yes, that's correct.

Okay, so I think your point, Mr.

Miller was or Commissioner Miller was that we don't have it in front of us.

Right, okay, because I mean we know how many trips are generated or are happening on that roadway.

And our our traffic engineering group reviewed this, I assume, and looked at that.

Chair Johnson, that's correct, yes.

And they did not anticipate or um find any any issues with the additional vehicle trips generated by the site compared to current capacity.

Okay.

I just want to be clear that it wasn't that the city doesn't have that information, the city does have that information and utilizes that.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Um with that, we will close out the public comment period and open it up to Commissioner Discussion or um motions.

Commissioner Forte.

So I've been looking at this project for a few weeks now, um, probably as long as some of you guys have been seeing it.

And I had three main concerns.

Um, one, the vehicles idolating idle lot idling, waiting for charging, and um the applicant shared that this would happen at the lot.

Um, the traffic within the neighborhood, and um the applicant shared that the progress or the program of the vehicles to ingress and egress from Broadway into terrace, and then the backup noise in the lot, which I would say a stipulation would be for no backup noise, but coming here I see a new issue, and that's the neighborhood doesn't seem to want this.

So um I I can't support it as it is.

Please please keep your uh noise level low, please.

Thank you.

Other comments from the commission, Commissioner Spears.

Um I move for the approval of PL 250149.

Okay, any other comments before we have a second?

Commissioner, are you including the four additional conditions?

Including the uh conditions as presented, yes.

I'll second that okay.

There's a motion um on the table um for approval by Commissioner Spears and a second by Commissioner Tom, and I will call for a vote.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

And there are Commissioner Tom, uh Vice Chair, myself, and Commissioner Spears are in favor, and those opposed.

Um Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Forte, that motion passes four to two.

All right.

Please please keep the comments down.

Um not your name, though.

Thank you.

Yeah, what's our remote?

All right, item number four I is next.

How much did you get today?

I appreciate that everyone knows that we are volunteers on this commission, and we do not get paid.

So thank you.

Um item for I Venegala residents, please.

Hello.

Welcome.

My name is Monica Perez.

I am the representative for Rom Venigala, who is the owner.

Oh, I am thank you.

My name is Monica Perez.

I am the representative for the Venigala residents.

Ram Venigala is the owner.

A little background on this.

He purchased this property earlier this year, and we are requesting to park in the front, two parking spaces within the front yard setback.

The garage had already been converted prior to him purchasing the property.

So it's a three current, it was currently it was a three-bedroom.

It is now a four-bedroom because the garage was converted into an additional bedroom and a laundry room.

He liked it.

He would like to keep it.

He would like to get it permitted, hence the request for the use permit.

So what I put together.

He would like to go ahead and bring it into compliance.

And a side note, earlier someone asked what happens when the construction is already done, and then it gets permitted.

So that's between the contractor, the owner, and the inspector.

Once the inspector goes on site, he determines what walls he wants opened up.

He determines if he needs footings installed, and so all that gets all that gets taken care of on site to make sure that the end result is code compliant before it's approved.

I have a little aerial map here.

We are on the northeast corner of East Manhattan and McAllister.

Here is a site plan of the existing residents and the location of the requested two parking spaces, which are in yellow.

The green area is the distance between the rear of a vehicle to the sidewalk.

And as you can see, well, it's approximately six to seven feet.

So there's plenty of room back there.

It would not be the vehicles would not be parked over the sidewalk, if that is a concern.

What I did was uh drove down the neighborhood using Google Maps, and I wanted to show a few residents that also have already had their car or their garage or carport converted.

And I wanted to give an idea of what a vehicle looks like parked in that park, that driveway after the conversion has been completed.

So here's an idea just to give you an idea that this location actually added a car port.

You can see you can almost fit a second vehicle behind it far away from the sidewalk, not impeding at all.

Same thing with this location as well.

They converted their garage into a livable space, and they are still able to park vehicles within uh their driveway in their front yard on the driveway.

Same thing here, full-size pickup truck, again, plenty of room behind it.

Um in regards to our location, which is 541 East Manhattan.

I put a little compilation together of what the property looked like up until today, and courtesy of Google Maps.

So that was 2007, uh, 2011.

And the reason I'm showing this is I don't ever think that garage was used as a garage.

Um, it looks like maybe it was used as storage.

There were plenty of items in front of it throughout the years that kind of remain there.

Um again, according to uh Google Maps, and this vehicle was parked uh in the front yard numerous times.

And um I and and I did look upon look at look at look into it myself where there were no violations.

There weren't any violations for this um house where vehicles were parked in the driveway.

Why or why are these vehicles consistently parked in the driveway because they were not using their garage when it was existing.

Um somebody cleaned it up there in 2022, and then between 2022 and 2025 is a little gap.

Um I'm not sure what's happening, but the owner that I'm representing purchased it earlier this year and cleaned it up, cleaned it all up.

So they're still in their landscaping phase.

Um, this is what the house looks like bare bones.

So this was before.

Here is after.

They did lots into the backyard, they've already done a ton of landscaping in the backyard that's completed, and they're working on the front now.

So what I'm here for again is to request the parking, two parking spaces within the front setback.

Couple of items I want to touch on uh touch on.

One is the term front yard parking in within the front yard setback is kind of deceiving.

When someone hears parking in, we were requesting to park in the front yard, they usually think it's the gravel landscape grass area.

Obviously, we're not doing that.

The driveway happens to be located in that location as well.

So we're only looking to park in what's already allotted, nothing additional.

Uh that's number one.

And then um the second part would be we are not asking for an increase in any parking quantity.

This is a single family home.

It will remain a single family home as previously stated.

It was three-bedroom, it is currently four-bedroom with that garage conversion, and again, it will remain a single family home.

I believe it's on Zillow right now, being rented as a single family home, looking for a family.

And again, no parking increase whatsoever.

Any questions?

Questions for the applicant.

Okay.

Thank you.

And now I'd like to invite uh Miss Mayfield.

Hello, my name is Roseanne Grotigood.

I'm resident of Tempe.

I love a question.

I'm sorry, hold on one second.

We we haven't opened up the public comment period.

We're asking the city to present their Oh gosh, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Sorry.

Good evening, uh Chair and Commissioners Whitney Mayfield, City of Tempe planning.

Um I'll be I'll be discussing the Vinigala residence.

Um this is a single family residence that's located in a neighborhood that's zoned R16 uh for single family um residential.

And as you see, it is a corner lot.

There are some context photos that were just shared by the applicant as well.

Um I'd like to put it, I'd like to give a reminder that uh the work has already been done.

It was unpermitted, and so they are seeking to bring this into compliance uh with the zoning and development code by um fulfilling the required two parking spaces in the front yard setback.

And the user work contacts photos of the site.

Here is a site plan that shows that the two parking spaces will be in the front yard setback.

They will not encroach on in the into the right of way on the property, and they also meet the um parking dimensions as required by the zoning and development code.

And this residence um with the additions that are being made, this will go from being a three-bedroom um single family residence to a fourth bedroom, and then there's going to be an addition of a laundry room.

That won't be included in the bedroom count.

So with the addition, um with any additions that are made, they are supposed to be brought into compliance with the code, which is why this triggers the need for two parking required.

Sorry, two required parking spaces.

And those are the building elevations.

Uh, generally, we found that this does meet the um criteria, the approval criteria, because there's no change to the residential use.

The addition will add one bedroom to the home, uh, making it a four-bedroom home, which requires those two spaces.

Um four bedrooms seems to be in character with the neighborhood, and it there won't be an expansion of the building uh footprint as they've converted the um prior garage into livable space.

And with the so I spoke on the compatibility of this.

Um there is some parking that is on Manhattan that allows for one space that's right in front of the residents, and then there are some parking opportunities on McCallister, but there are some uh restrictions as well.

There was no neighborhood meeting that was required for this uh for use permits, and to date we've received two comments in opposition with concerns of excess parking along the curb.

Um, there have been a couple of mentions of potential for increased traffic, um, some concerns of expansion of the driveway, and then concerns of um college students parking on the gravel.

I've also shared those concerns with our applicant as well.

Um so we did find that they meet the approval criteria, and we are recommending approval of the of this use permit.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for city staff?

No.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right, at this time we will open up the public comment period.

If anyone here is wishing to speak on the side room tonight, please fill out one of these cards and bring it up to the front, show on a berry.

Um, the one card I have is Roseanne Group Goat.

Is that right?

Yes.

Okay, if you could repeat your name.

It was close.

Okay.

Roseanne Grotigood.

I'm resident Tempe.

I live across the street.

Um, I am not opposed to the two parking spots.

Um me, myself as well as numerous neighbors surrounding the area were concerned as to whether there was going to be an expansion of the driveway.

As noted in the pictures, it looks like the driveway already accommodates two cars, which you know, we're fine with that, you know, because like these like um the person did say that um the garage was enclosed into a living space.

So that did add another bedroom.

And um the neighbor that did live there used to use it as a park and garage, and then kind of turned it more into storage.

Um but as you know, we were we're not against using because it's it's he's already been had that expanded for whoops for years now that driveway.

So we went against that.

We just did not want any more concrete added to the front of the lot.

So that was all I had to say.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um would you like to respond?

Applicant like to respond to comments, or you're you're welcome to.

So, first and foremost, Rodin, thanks for come thanks for coming out.

Um, it's great to hear neighbors who are involved.

Um yeah, so again, I'll just I would like to reiterate that there will not be additional concrete added.

The existing concrete that's there will remain.

Nothing will be added, and again, two cars is what we're looking for.

The family that moves in may only have one.

Um, again, single family residence.

We're not looking to increase it.

It's not gonna be individual rooms for sale.

I'm sorry for rent.

And again, uh landscaping is still being done on the property.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions for that?

No.

All right, with that, uh, we will close out the public comment period, and I will entertain comments from the commissioner or a motion.

Commissioner Spears.

I move for the approval of PL250236.

Okay, and uh move for approval by Commissioner Spears.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Miller.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

Okay, and that passes unanimously.

Next up is for Q.

Uh Ballantine Elite request a use permit to allow fitness center.

Oh, I'm sorry, Ballin.

What did I say?

There's no T in there.

Fallen Elite.

Me?

I'm like, what is happening?

Ball and Elite.

All right.

Um, well, thank you.

Uh good evening and almost good morning, I guess, right here, guys.

So uh no.

Uh I'm Anthony Farranola.

I'm the owner of Ballin Elite.

Uh, here with my wife, Randy, right back there.

Uh, we're parents of two young boys, and uh we're small business owners bringing a youth basketball training facility to Tempe.

We appreciate the staff support and the opportunity to present tonight.

Ball Elite is a family operated, youth focused basketball training facility serving players ages eight to sixteen.

Our goal is to give kids a safe structured place to develop their shooting and basketball fundamentals while building confidence and discipline.

Actually, in this picture right here, what you're actually seeing is uh uh similar use in Peoria.

And this is a somewhat like what you're gonna see.

You're gonna see bays with a shooting bay.

And typically what you're gonna find is one uh one one to two shooter.

It allows for two shooters per bay, but we'll kind of show you what that looks like here.

But that is my son shooting at a shooting bay.

So our facility overview.

Um, our suite uh is 102, and it totals 7,535 square feet.

And what you're actually seeing here is the cutout of what will actually be occupied as the gym space, which is actually 5200 square feet, uh dedicated to our training.

Uh our layout includes nine small shooting bays as uh pictured here.

And uh each each is limited to one or two players and one half court for small group sessions.

The facility operates under uh staff supervision at all times, and with totals to about 10 to 15 occupants uh per uh per hour is what we're actually going to see in this facility.

And in my next slide, you're you're looking at I will explain how that actually operates and works based upon this use.

So we're actually appointment-based, and uh we've partnered with uh one of the top appointment and membership uh facil uh booking softwares uh for this type of use.

Uh, we specifically did this based upon our facility layout.

As you guys see right here, um, all members' sessions are booked online by our clients, and that's that's great because this is all client-driven uh for our basketball youth and for their parents to be able to uh book times at our facility.

Uh we staggered start times to present overlap and congestion.

Our coaches and staff will manage check-in and parking flow at the facility as well.

And um we're primarily membership-based.

So we do offer some drop-in sessions.

We will open a couple of bays uh for drop-in for any athletes that maybe their parents can't afford, or maybe they just can't uh they're not in range of our facility, but can only visit it infrequently.

So we will have some drop-in.

Uh, this gives us can uh consistent and predictable traffic.

We know exactly who's coming in and when uh we do allow limited controlled drop-ins, but only during uh uh only during uh non-member booked times.

So they're gonna be able to see that through our booking software on our site as well, too.

Um, all of our sessions are staggered in 30 to 60 minute blocks, keeping parking and activity evenly spread throughout the day.

And uh parking and traffic.

So on site here at the McKimmy Business Plaza, uh, we have 101 parking spaces and 21 bike spaces, which city staff has confirmed is more than adequate for our use.

Neighboring tenants are light industrial and operate weekdays, 6 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

While our activity is primarily evenings and weekends, so there's no overlap or parking conflict.

All of our uses occur indoors, and our traffic is light and consistent based upon our modeling.

All right, who's this stud on the I don't know, maybe you're looking at my kids.

I'm joking.

Um of our uses are indoors.

Uh we don't use outdoor lighting, amplified music, our operations are quiet and fall within the standard of commercial noise levels.

We're low impact.

And this use fits comfortably within the business park and enhances the surrounding community.

This past Sunday, um, my wife and I hosted an open house at our facility for the neighboring community so that they can understand what this was.

When these signs get posted, they don't tell a story.

You see the red big red border, and neighbors were looking at the sign.

So we actually partnered with the local HOA community that neighbors our facility and sent out a message to uh to the entirety of the HOA board for Ray Ranch estates.

And we hosted an open house on Sunday.

We had around 30 residents, including HOA board members come to visit our facility.

When they looked at it, they were surprised to see how small it was.

It's 5200 square feet.

They said, where's the rest?

And we said, right here.

Our intent is exactly what I've shown you guys.

It's a shooting facility for students and for athletes, a safe place for people to go, and it's controlled, and that's exactly how my wife and I designed this business model.

Um with our residents that did come in there after touring the facility uh facility, most of them left with a clear understanding and support for our use.

We'll continue open communication moving forward, and I did give every single community member my personal information, and I did receive some calls, even for in favor.

I'm just gonna go to closing.

We appreciate the city's thorough review and the staff's recommendation for approval.

All in elite is family-owned youth-driven business that provides Tempe kids a safe structured space to train and grow.

We're proud to be a positive addition to the community, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Um we'll call you back up after the public comment period.

All right, Mr.

Jasper.

Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.

We're representing this item for Ball and Elite.

So this is a request for a use permit to allow a fitness center in the GID zoning district as a retail use in uh GID.

Um, a use permit is required.

Otherwise, it would be uh another permitted use in a more typical commercial district.

The proposed operation is uh to take place in suite 102 of a five-suite mixed, or not mixed use, but multi-use uh light industrial facility.

Other uses in the uh building include uh manufacturing and largely warehousing.

Um of the primary complaints that staff received was related to parking um specifically on this site.

Um, based on our zoning and development code standards.

If you were to add up all of the uses divided by the required parking ratio, technically the site is deficient.

However, the city offers what's called a shared parking model.

It's a time of day model that essentially assumes peak parking times uh throughout the day.

So it allocates parking obligations when the site is gonna be most often used for each particular user uh an operation characteristic.

So for example, a warehouse use is going to have most of its parking at early in the morning between 8 and about 10 and at 5 p.m.

Because of the specific mix of uses where, for example, this particular user will have very limited parking action, parking obligations early in the morning, and most of it will be after 5 p.m.

Using this model, staff determined that there is sufficient parking available and that the shared parking model does provide some relief.

So this was processed as an administrative application that had not been completed at the public at the time of the publication of the staff report, but has been completed as of now.

So the site in staff's opinion, and based on the data available, can accommodate all parking generated by and for the site.

So there should not be any overflow into the surrounding streets or neighborhoods.

As the applicant noted, this is an inline suite in an existing office warehousing complex.

Based on all the criteria in the use permit for use permit uh applications, um, staff's determination is that uh there are no conflicts with any of those use permit criteria.

Um the uh quantity of parking available is sufficient, it will not result in an increase of traffic, noise or nuisances are not anticipated to be an issue.

Um staff um noted that um the peak hour use will provide additional visual surveillance and activity of time in an area where there isn't much.

So our police department actually uh very specifically pointed this out as a good use for this area.

Um staff uh found that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses, which does include an existing sports facility just up the street, and that there are no disruptive behaviors anticipated to uh result as a continuation of operation of this use.

It's getting late.

Uh so I apologize.

Uh we have received four letters of opposition to the request, which did cite uh concerns related to parking and traffic and 13 letters of support.

There was no neighborhood meeting required, so all of the applicants' outreach was voluntary in nature, and staff's recommendation is to approve subject to conditions, and there are no unique conditions associated with this application.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

All right, thank you.

Um with that, we will open up the public comment period.

Anybody wishing to speak on this item, please bring up uh one of these cards to Miss Berry.

Um I have a few in my hands.

I will call your name, um, please approach restate your name and city of residence, and I'll call who's on uh deck.

So Nancy Howe is up first with Doug's sites on deck.

Um, I so I we do them in order so that I have them here.

So Nancy, please um approach first, and we'll have Doug next.

Good evening.

My name is Nancy Howe.

I am a resident of Chandler, and I live immediately south of the proposed facility.

Um, having seen the facility during the open house on the weekend, I'm not I'm not opposed.

I I think it's probably a good thing for the neighborhood.

I do want to point out that city staffs uh using uh the other athletic facility as a positive saying that's there and this will be better, is probably not appropriate.

Um we do have I I see some smiles, I see some nods.

I think you folks are aware that we have tremendous parking issues with the other sports facility that is already there.

Um they have far more people, and I would judge suspect that they have that far more people than then uh ball and elite will have, and they have uh I would guess on their on premises less parking, and we know this because we see the parking issues in our neighborhood as the cars, while they're not supposed to come into our neighborhood, they stretch all the way from the other athletic facility into our area.

That being said, um I attended the open house.

I looked at okay, how many people can they put in this?

Because these are shooting bays, not full courts.

I'm comfortable with the fact that while they may have competitions, um, they are they need by definition, they need to be small uh because there just isn't that much space.

Um I would have one question for staff and the council or the commission that should this owner decide to increase to an additional suite.

Would there be another public hearing?

And if that were the case, I'd be perfectly fine with uh the proposal as it stands.

Thank you, have a good day.

Thank you.

All right.

Um next we have Doug Sites with uh Patricia Straves on Doug.

Okay, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.

So my name is Doug Stitz.

I'm currently a resident of Chandler, but I've lived in Tempe since 1972, and then about 15 is when we moved to uh Chandler.

So I will tell you there's two big concerns that the residents have over this, and one was a bunch of the youths running around from basketball stuff, and then the other was the parking.

The youth, he cleared up.

It's gonna be younger kids, so they're not driving themselves, that solved that problem.

Uh, I have submitted photos of the parking issues that court one um generates, and we've talked to the city of Tempe, we've talked to Parson parking enforcement, we've spoken with the fire department and also the police department.

It's just an ongoing thing.

So at first, when we heard what what it was going to be as a fitness center, uh that was okay, but then we found out it was going to be a basketball facility that sort of raised the concern.

Um, and then uh included in those traffic photos is a screenshot of a posting from social media that states that they will feature, and I quote rentals, training, tournaments, community events, and much more.

And I think that's what really got everybody wound up to say, hey, we can't have another one, even if there's just one car that overflows.

So they were correct.

They they had an open house, they were very open to let everybody in.

They gave a complete explanation of their business model, they explained it pretty similar to what we heard here tonight.

Uh, nine bays, one person per bay, maybe sometimes two, and then some kids on the half-court.

So that would bring the numbers uh roughly to about maybe 19 to 28 people.

Um they also explained that they would not be having any spectator related equipment, such as bleachers and anything of that nature, only some small tables that would allow the parents to wait for their children where they're being coached and practicing.

So when presented the concerns of large crowd, expanding the business into the other suites, they explained that it's an appointment-based members only and no drop-ins.

Uh, as for the expanding the business, they explained the suites on either side are occupied and they can't expand, nor do they intend to in the future.

And we said, Yeah, but if your business takes off in the future, you could no, no, no, that that's not gonna happen.

This is it.

Um, however, shortly after that, some of the messaging started becoming a little bit confused.

And due to kind of time constraints, I'll make this fast.

Uh when we showed them the posting, they said, no, no, no, no, uh, or mentioned it.

They said, no, you're looking at somebody else's website.

That's not us, that's not our company.

We didn't post that.

So Kim pulled it up and showed her, and she said, Oh, well, that's just a filler page or a bookmark, but we didn't put that up.

Um, but later, one of the residents went there and said, 'Yeah, they said that they posted that.

Uh I think it was on maybe not on their website, but it wasn't social media, and that's one of the prints that's in there.

That's where this big concern comes into.

And there's nothing that we can say that they're not going to take over the other suites as they come up because this is also under new ownership.

They explained it's an LLC created specifically for this building.

The other thing was uh with this low group of people, he explained that he had already been to the city of Tempe and had them rezone this parking from assigned to shared parking.

So now I have access to 101 places.

And I don't know why somebody needs 101 parking places for that.

There's some other missed messaging that raised a concern.

So thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh Patricia Straves.

Strauss, thank you.

And then uh Terry Seckler.

Second on uh deck.

And if you could restate your name properly for me.

And I live at 1342 North.

I live about 200 feet from this site.

Thank you.

I came here because court one took over a a warehouse, and they have basketball courts.

And on weekends and nights, there can be as many as a hundred to a hundred and fifty cars on both sides of the street.

They come from court one all the way down, turn on to Knox, and this site is at Knox and two.

Um the building is beautiful.

The building is beautiful.

In fact, all of them on that street are been they are just unbelievable.

And the ones on the west side are a warehouse type thing and not huge.

And they are hidden behind a fence, and all you see is the upper part.

So zoning has done a fantastic job with those.

But my concern when I saw that they were going to be um a um a food fitness place.

Fitness places require a lot of cars, and I know that court one cars came all the way down to Knox, turned, and they were coming into Ray Ranch estates.

The HOA had the police come out and put up signs and told us to call and have them towed.

So anyway, my problem was I thought it was going to be the same thing.

And uh there's just that building does not have enough places to park, you know, with the rest of them.

So that was my complaint.

Is I think that one court one is more than enough with 150 cars taken up from Home Depot all the way down to Knox, and then turning on to Knox, and traffic is bad.

And when you have both cars on both sides of that road, it makes it very bad to try to drive on that street.

And thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um Terry.

Terry Sickle.

Um, if you could repeat your name and uh city residence.

Sure.

Terry Seckle.

Um Chandler resident, and I live in Ray Ranch estates.

Um, and I so we were very concerned about this and echoing some of the concerns that were have just been stated about court one.

Court one has been a menace on there also on McKemie, and they attract lots of traffic and parking all over everywhere, legally, illegally.

Uh a lot of the businesses had to put up signs and say no court one parking to try to keep them out of their lots.

And when they leave uh they leave a bunch of trash.

And so when we heard about this fitness center, that's what we were concerned about that this is going to be um you know a continuation or you know, expansion of that sort of problem from what we've heard tonight.

It sounds like uh this is contained and uh not going to have you know big tournaments with requiring lots of uh lots of cars and traffic, you know, because we were concerned about more traffic through our neighborhood to get to the facility, and then of course you have uh noise and that goes along with that.

It sounds like um it sounds like this should be uh much different and um and I uh we didn't weren't aware that there was an open house.

If we would have been, we would have gone.

And that's uh I think that was nice of them to make that available.

Um I think let's see.

Yeah, I think for the most part, other than court one, all those businesses back there have been good neighbors, really, um for the most part.

So um we didn't want another court one, and sounds like that's not what this is.

So I think it sounds okay to us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments.

All right, that was all the comment cards that I have.

Johnson, I do have somebody online that wants to speak.

Uh Mitch Brown.

Let me unmute him just a moment.

Mitch Brown, um, please state your name and city of residence, and you are um uh please provide your comments.

My name is Mitch Brown.

I am the president and CEO of Global Sports Holdings and Court One Athletics.

Uh, we're located at 9100 South McKemie Street, or a 50,000 square foot sports facility that provides indoor youth volleyball and basketball courts for hundreds of youth athletes every day of the week.

We also host USA volleyball tournaments and AAU basketball tournaments on the weekend.

Um our facility is mainly used for female athletes.

Um we've been in at this location for about 15 years.

Um and as you've heard from some of the other uh residents, we we do have a lot of of uh athletes, youth athletes that come to that facility, and we provide a great community service for youth athletes.

We're opposed to this user permit um for many concerns.

Um the bowling elite sports facility, we don't believe has been transparent with the number of people that they're going to actually house within their within their uh facility.

Uh their nine bays uh will will accommodate three to five athletes.

If you look at the picture that he presented in his slideshow, it's actually from another website uh and a company that's on the in Peoria from Swish Factory Net.

They have multiple uh volleyball and basketball players from three to five people in every bay.

Their half court facility will also house three to four teams on that facility alone.

The average amount of players and athletes that will be in that building will be between 70 and 10.

Um the 15 that he's quoting is is not transparent, and it's not true.

And and so we're concerned that the amount of parking that he's going to be able to generate uh will be starting at the exact same time that we begin our practices at our facility from three until 9:30 at night, and then on the weekends, the same thing.

His busiest time will be exactly the same time that court one will be at.

And we just believe that there will not be uh an impact.

There will be a major impact.

Um parking already is a huge issue in that area.

I don't know why the city would approve a second sports facility on the same street a few hundred feet away.

Additional cars and traffic um to the already congested area uh with limited parking is going to create more problems for the residential development across the street.

And uh and for all the other uh businesses that are in the industrial park.

There is just one of the things that that the city needs to consider, there's an overlap when he has people in their facility just like ours.

When a practice starts at five o'clock, there are other people that are coming to drop their their uh kids off.

You've reached your three minutes.

If you could um wrap up your comments, we'd appreciate it.

Okay, just this overlap period where there are multiple uh athletes that you know from 50 to 100 athletes will be coming to a second session within an hour or so.

There's not enough buffer.

There will be street parking.

They they cannot they cannot park just in that parking lot alone.

There will be a lot of people I think we get your point.

We we appreciate your comments tonight, and thank you for uh waiting waiting up with us.

Thank you.

All right, were there any other app uh members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

Okay, seeing none, uh we'd like to invite the applicant back up to address any comments that you may have heard.

Yeah, definitely.

First, I want to thank those uh first that did attend my open house that are here and you know have spoken in support.

Um, those who didn't get to attend, um, I you do you did receive an email from me.

I'm an open book.

I put all of my contact information, and I've already received some calls from the neighborhood as well too.

As far as uh court one, um, that is not my business.

I've put it all out there for you guys to see.

It's structured.

Uh in our shooting base, it's actually in definition only um we only allow two people per bay uh as the machines that we use.

That's all it can be intended to be used for is a max of two, just to put some perspective on that.

Uh as much as I would love to say that our facility would be 100% occupied at 100% of my hours.

Come on, guys, that's not the case.

That would be phenomenal, but that's not the case.

In my business modeling, and what I've shown is that in my peak hours, I will be 70% occupied, giving my my direct representation of 10 to 15 people within my space, uh, a very correct annotation.

So I just want to thank everybody tonight.

Thank those who came to support as well too.

And uh that's all I have.

Appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Were there any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

Um, Mr.

Jasper, did you want to add anything?

Yes, Chair Commission.

Uh, I only have one thing to add.

There was a question about uh what would happen if the business was successful and did expand into adjoining suites uh that would represent an expansion of the use and would require uh an additional use permit and hearing.

So um that would the applicant would not be able to do that without uh coming back to the DRC.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, with that, we will close out the public comment period and I'll open up for commissioner discussion or motions.

Any comments, motions?

anybody approval Commissioner Miller?

I'll move approval with the conditions as specified.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Miller.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Spears.

Um, all those in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

Um next up is item 5B, which is Dorsey Station.

Normally I would say good evening, but it's a little late for that.

So uh good night.

Charles C Mannel for the record on behalf of Dorsey Station.

I don't spend a long evening, and I'll try to go through these quickly and then respond to more specific areas.

Happy to spend as much time in any area as you'd like.

Um, we're happy to be here tonight.

Uh, this is a project we've been working on for some time with the city.

Uh Josh is here, Chris is here.

We've all spent a lot of time trying to get to this point, working through different plans to really redevelop an important piece of Tempe.

The site uh today is is pretty rough.

It's an old food city site.

I think everybody here knows what it is.

This site was built very, very long time ago when what we think of Apache Boulevard was really US 60, and it was designed to be series of strip malls and other things.

Uh, unfortunately, it is still exactly that, except it has been for some time vacant.

Uh it sadly sits at the crux of most of our infrastructure that area the region has spent uh along with federal government billions of dollars putting light rail and streetcar to this place to make it uh a more pedestrian area with with greater density.

Um you can see in this picture, you can start to see that it's new form.

Uh but if you look back, it it's still just an old strip center.

We have uh worked, as I mentioned, with the city to try to provide affordable housing.

This has been a big goal for the city.

Um ninety percent of this site is affordable housing.

They're roughly 400 units.

Again, I'll try to speed through this.

I know you've had a long evening, uh, but we work to create two sites and really build them as one in phases to change the character of the area and to do it also by bringing in affordable housing in a grocery store.

Speed through some of this given the time.

I'm happy to go back and talk in greater detail.

Uh, but but the site uh obviously uh the street goes through the site at Dorsey Lane, uh, but it's really two pieces.

The envision center that the city has uh today will stay on the site and we will work around that.

One of the things you can tell we've done here is really step, and you'll hear probably some this evening, but really step away uh from the neighborhood as much as possible.

The the neighborhood along Chief Chief Jones Way um is a single family neighborhood.

There, the other areas are more multifamily in nature, and so uh we really worked hard.

One of the things we heard from neighbors right away is that we had uh a four and five-story buildings on the site, some of them immediately adjacent to the neighborhood.

And we heard that the best thing to do would be to move away.

So you can see we're roughly 270 feet away from single family homes in this area.

To do that, we had to go to six-story construction, it's a little more expensive.

Uh it does provide a better street presence and uh significantly gives people a buffer from the neighborhood.

I hope that you're all familiar with the work that we've done along Farmer.

That's probably the closest example.

Uh we're proud that the city has used some of the images on the general plan and other things.

Really, I think we think one of our signature elements is our landscaping.

And we've tried to use the same landscaping patterns here by giving lots of street space to pedestrians so that even folks who aren't in the building will benefit from having a pedestrian experience, especially as it relates to being its proximity to light rail, the streetcar, and then the grocery store.

Done the same kind of streetscape along Chief Jones Way.

We've worked hard again on the landscape plan and again moving buildings as far away from single family as we can on the site and still achieve the 400 units that the city is requiring of us.

In this particular case, you can see that we've also included between the two buildings along Apache, a one-story area that's a grocery store, which you'll see in a few minutes.

And these are some of the renderings.

I've worked hard to create something unique for the area that we think works really well.

Palette of blue and white.

Again, in addition to the design of each building, one of the things that's really important is from the street, which you feel is that expanded pedestrian zone, the higher quality materials for robust landscaping.

And we've done that for each of the buildings.

This is the grocery store.

Tried to provide good space, knowing that some folks will use it as part of the grocery store, others will use it, probably buying items from the grocery store, but waiting until their train comes.

Whatever your your pleasures, Mr.

Chairman.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

We'll get back to you after the public comments.

This is yours too, huh?

All right, Mr.

Jasper.

Sorry.

Sorry you have to see so much of me tonight.

But uh yes, this one is my item.

Uh so this is the Dorsey station project.

Uh, we are looking at a request for a planned area development, major development plan review for new mixed use development with 400 dwelling units and approximately 1100 square feet of new commercial floor area, 10,000 of which is uh proposed to be a grocery store.

Uh the subject development is made up of two sites, one of which is on the southwest corner of Lemon and Dorsey.

That features two multifamily residential buildings.

Um, just a quick note on this one the development plans do include some improvements to the adjoining site, which is owned by the new School for the Arts.

Um, so all of those NS labeled parking stalls would be on their site for the new School for the Arts development.

Uh, this particular site is currently a park and ride, which does lease some of the existing parking stalls to the new school to accommodate its users, its needs, its students, and teachers.

Um, and there is ongoing coordination with the school to uh ensure that they benefit from this development.

Uh the site uh does require a PAD.

It was uh upzoned to MU-4 through a city initiated uh rezoning a couple of years ago.

Uh some of you may recall that.

It was called the uh Apache Central at the time.

Uh PAD does establish standards related to height, density, parking setbacks, lot coverage, and landscaping.

Um the subject site is in the TOD station area, and there are specific development standards for TOD station area sites, many of which the site does meet.

Um there are some exceptions that are being processed in coordination with a development agreement.

The southernmost site is on the north, well, literally the northeast corner of Dorsey and Apache.

That extends all the way to the Chief Jones Way of frontage.

Uh six-story multifamily residential buildings are proposed along the Apache Boulevard frontage.

Um, there is a four-story building north of those two taller buildings that uh adjoins the uh neighboring multifamily residential units to the north and is kind of caddy corner diagonal to the uh single family residential area to the north east.

Uh the applicant did note the landscape plan uh there um has an ample amount of uh uh high quality plantings throughout both sites.

Uh so staff has no concerns associated with that.

I'm happy to discuss it further.

Uh buildings A and D are those along the Apache frontage.

So these are going to be your your primary views on Apache.

It's a six-story uh uh development with uh a lot of generous shading soffits and uh horizontal breaks.

Um building B, as the applicant noted is the grocery store.

Um lot of masonry uh featured on the roof of that particular building.

Uh a lot of white brick utilized throughout this uh site.

There's a very cohesive uh architectural style on all the buildings, but each one is distinct in its own way, including building C, which is going to be the one that is closest to the multifamily and single family residential buildings.

Uh quick note on building C that is going to house about a thousand square feet for the benefit of the envisioned center food pantry operations.

Um the parking for that food pantry is um also going to be uh waived as part of that development agreement.

So building D, similar to building A on Apache, um, and buildings E and F are going to be those located on the Dorsey and Lemon site.