Yes.

That's why it was already on the ground.

All right.

Good evening, everyone.

We will uh call the meeting to order at uh six o'clock here.

Uh welcome everyone to the June 9th, 2026 Development Review Commission hearing.

Uh 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 and land use policies and applications where the commission has recommended recommendatory power and to render final decisions on specified applications where the commission has final decision making power.

The development review commission recognizes that the creation of a desirable environment throughout the city for residents, businesses, and industry is a prime requisite for the interdependence of land values, aesthetics, and good site planning by promoting harmonious, safe, and attractive 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 DRC may file an appeal to the city council within fourteen calendar days after the development review commission has rendered its decision.

The DRC recommendations to the city council are not final decisions.

We'll do a roll call for tonight's meeting.

Request a use permit to allow commercial parking for 55 spaces for air garage and the first United Methodist Church of Tempe.

Item 4D, request a use permit for a vocational school in GID zoning that is 16 feet in height for the boroughs garage located at 7852 East Gemini.

Alright, well, that is our consent agenda for this evening.

Do I have a motion for the consent agenda?

Motion to approve the consent agenda as stated.

Second.

Thank you.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Consent agenda passes.

Okay.

All right.

So the first uh item that we will hear this evening is item 4C.

Um request for two use permits to reduce the rear yard setback and uh to reduce the side yard setback for the Casper residence shop.

Um yes, if the applicant is here and would like to uh come to the podium, state your name, and uh City of Residence for the record.

Got it, thank you.

There's also an arrow on the side over there if you move on the table box.

Right.

Got it.

Okay.

Uh higher so that the microphone's coming out there.

Oh, got it, got it.

Appreciate it.

Now you can hear me, right?

Awesome.

I'm Jeremy Magoon.

I'm with RG Pro Builders.

Awesome.

Um, so we are requesting the two use permits for the Casper residents at uh 1038 East Buena Vista Drive, Tempe, Arizona.

Uh the owners of the properties are here.

John and Diane Casper as well.

Um there's the request.

Here is an overview of the neighborhood.

Um, as you can see, I have outlined and pinned where their property is.

It would be in that blank space right there in that the northwest area.

Um, I did hear in the study session when discussing if you look just even one street over into the next cul-de-sac.

There has been a precedent set by the HOA of approving with inside setbacks.

Um, two houses over.

Is there do I get a laser pointer I could point in it somehow or no?

Okay.

Um, and that cul-de-sac over is the second uh to the east, the second house on the west side.

Um there's that project description.

We are putting a personal shop for personal use in the property.

It will have an office, a storage area, and a bathroom within it, a B12 and forty square feet with an awning off the east side of the structure.

It is just a typical wood-built building stuck over the match all HOA and everything that they want in that area.

Um, the property is approximately 32,417 square feet, which is significantly smaller than the one-acre parcel that is commonly associated with the AG area um zoning in Tempe.

That is typically an R115 at that point.

It was built uh through Maricopa and then annexed to the city of Tempe.

If it wasn't those regulations, we would not be having this conversation right now too in general.

The configuration with it being pie-shaped does make it highly difficult to build anything in that area as well.

As you can see, the floor plan as I stated, new shop area, storage room, little office, bathroom, um, big entrances on the front side to get material and to be able to, you know, have fun in your workshop.

Structure height is modest and consistent in accessory buildings and founded in Ag Zone residential properties.

Uh, the proposed use is residential and is consent to what the neighborhood looks like per the structure and building of said accessory building.

Um the approval and criteria justification, it is the accessory building.

It won't generate any as stated for use permits in general, not generate any significant additional uh vehicle or pedestrian use, anything of that nature.

Um, it's not created as a new bounce of conditions of odor, dust, gas, even with it being a workshop, it's gonna be fully conditioned, which means a lot of it will be done with doors shut, so there won't be the noise or anything of that being done as well.

Um it does not deteriorate any of the neighborhood or reduction of the property values, it would actually gain value to the property and the neighborhood with a building like this going up.

The subject will remain subordinate to the primary residence and consistent with all overall residential agricultural character.

The accessory building will solely be used for private use, no commercial use will be in it, no public access or disrupted uses of said building.

I think that's the last slide, right?

Yeah, do I answer questions?

A little new to this, guys.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

I have a question.

Commissioner 14.

I was just curious why you didn't get it approved through the homeowners association before you submitted it to the city.

Um that's a great question.

Thank you for bringing that up.

As uh Warren did say previously as well.

Um, to be is uh public, it's not HOA is through more private and everything like that.

It was submitted a little bit later.

Um, this is something that we don't have an issue going with the HOA and having that conversation and having thing worked out how it needs to be, but this would be our first step on making sure that we can fit it into that point that way.

As soon as it is some uh approved by the HOA, we can just start the building instead of coming back here and spending another 60 plus days.

We have been in this process for about a year with our clients.

Okay, any other questions?

Commissioner Miller.

Um we received communication from the I'm not sure if it was president of the HOA or somebody representing the HOA that indicated that the that the building had previously been approved by the HOA, and then you were because of us the location of their septic of the septic system, you had to move it.

Um, why didn't you just go back and say, hey, look, we had to move it, it's the same building, and we just leave it here to the HOA.

I mean, because it doesn't seem like you've closed that loop or did you understood it uh was sent over.

It was uh concern that we are going to be working with the HOA and through the C C and Rs as I stated as well before, and as you saw in the aerial view, they do have set a precedent through the CC and Rs to approve these, and through the process that we have been this long process and drawdown process that we've had with our clients and everything.

Um, we were trying to get this push through as well too while working with them at the same time.

Okay, quick follow-up.

Have you received any indication that there's an issue with the with the HOA with the building?

Um, we're actually very cordial with them.

Yeah, we'll work with that.

Can they have them?

We should wait for the public comment section.

Well, are they part of the applicant?

Oh, I'm sorry.

He's I think he's with the yeah, he's with he's the applicant.

Yeah, so we do have a fairly cordial relationship with the HOA.

We've been in the neighborhood for 32 years, 33 years.

We understand.

I they've just had a change in HY leadership, and I think they want to make sure that they're not giving anything up.

We have no intention of violating any of the CCNRs.

We'll definitely we understand that there's differences in the requirements the city versus um the HOA C CNRs.

Um the city doesn't require a building to be 40 feet from the house if it's a barn, um, but the HOA does.

We're getting through that with making sure that this is an attached building.

They've approved that.

Um, we'll work with them to make sure that we fit within their requirements, either through them granting an exception to the 20 feet, or if we must, we'll make the slight modification to the building to make sure that we are in compliance with them.

But again, it's two separate things.

We fully intend to comply with both.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't know if we got it.

Would you mind stating your name for the record to the city?

Yes.

John Casper.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for applicant?

Okay.

If staff wants to come on.

Okay.

So this is the request for Casper residents.

I'll just be reading off the slides.

That's a two use permit standard requests.

One to take the required rear yard setback from 35 feet to 28 feet, and then two to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 16 feet for a new accessory structure.

We have some site photos prepared.

These were context photos taken by the applicant.

And these first ones are at the northwest corner of the lot facing inwards towards the front of the property.

And the bottom two photos on the lower right side of the slide show the equestrian trail that is behind the property.

Moving into the site proper, this is approximately where that shop will be located.

You can see some stakes marked out on the bottom photos or on the photos on the right for approximate building locations.

And now we are at the front of the property looking back towards the rear and the existing driveway.

And we have one more for the other side of the property that has the attached portion, the attached garage.

So here we have the overall site plan.

You can see the proposed shop location.

This was the location proposed in the packet.

This is the one that the version of the plan that has been cleared by Maricopa County Environmental Services.

Zooming in a little bit, you can see the 20-foot setback for the ag zoning district, and then the proposed 16-foot setback with the use permit standard on the west side of the property.

And if you look on the north side, there's the exist the 35-foot setback for the rear of the property and the proposed 28-foot setback with the use permit standard.

Just below the shop, there is a septic system marked in green with existing seepage pits and a 10-foot separation requirement that is being met.

Moving on to the floor plan.

Section 6308E is the approval criteria for the use permit, the first of which is any significant increase in vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

The structure requiring the use permit standards does not serve to satisfy the site's existing parking requirements.

Instead, the applicant's letter indicates the structure will be used by the homeowners who live on site for item storage and recreational projects.

No additional traffic is expected to be generated from approval of this request.

Number two is nuisance arising from emissions of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at levels exceeding that of the ambient conditions.

The proposed shop is air conditioned, so there's no need for those doors to be open for passive cooling while the shop is in use.

Number three is contribution to the deterioration of the neighborhood or the downgrading of property values, which is in conflict with the goals, objectives, or policies for rehabilitation, redevelopment, or conservation as set forth in the city's adopted plans or general plan.

So the shop represents a substantial investment by the property owners who live on site.

Property values are not expected to decrease with the addition of a new building, which has received building permits from City of Tempe and approval by Maricopa County Environmental Services.

Criteria four, compatibility with existing surrounding structures and uses.

An aerial survey of other properties in the Buena Vista Ranchos neighborhood reveals other homes which have accessory structures of similar design and size to the proposed shop.

Adequate control of disruptive behavior both inside and outside.

The proposed shop is located on private property and will not have an associated commercial use.

So any disruptive behaviors that come out of the use of that are for the owners to manage.

The design is compatible with the architecture of the building on site and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or immediate surrounding architectural character.

The proposed shop is similar in height to the existing home and contains similar features such as facade planes, doors with vertical windows, and covered entry areas.

Number seven, there are design considerations for privacy to adjacent properties and protection of existing solar appurtenances on adjacent lots.

The original approved location did not require approval of the use permit standards.

The proposed location of the shop is on the same side of the property as it was previously, and is in fact within four feet and seven feet respectively of that previous location approved by Tempe Building Safety.

And criteria eight.

There is sufficient parking on site or on the street frontage to accommodate guests, addition, additional shall be no addition shall be required to meet the current parking standards pursuant to Section 4603 parking ratios.

So in total, the attached garage and driveway area outside of the front yard setback, provide enough room to park six vehicles for the standard vehicle parking space, two of which are indoor and four or more fit outdoors on the existing driveway.

So there is ample parking for the primary residents and any guests.

The new shop does not provide any parking that's required for the site.

So for public involvement, there a neighborhood meeting is not required for this application.

And in terms of public input, we received one phone call from a resident asking for clarification.

There was no written comments that came along with that request, and then the only other correspondence you received a copy of via email.

In terms of recommendations, staff recommends approval subject to conditions.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

Okay.

Any questions for Mr.

Rivera?

Commissioner Miller?

Yes, can you go back to the slide that shows the location of the septic system and the building itself, please?

Okay, yeah.

So the this is the location that they want now, right?

Commissioner Miller, that's correct.

Okay, and beforehand, it was where they had to move it a little bit in a couple of directions.

So it didn't move, it moved outside the 20 foot setback or the 35 foot setback.

Correct.

So it moved a little bit to the south.

Commissioner Miller, that's correct.

So the previous and a bit to the east.

So uh the previous location, which was reviewed and approved by Tempe Building Safety, showed the septic location in a different uh spot on the property a little bit further down.

So that's why it was not needing the use permit standard at that time because it fit within the required setbacks.

Yeah, I'm just curious about how they didn't they moved it, but they didn't move it very much.

This is the bottom line.

That's correct.

But they moved it enough.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Forte.

I guess my only concern is if we approve it, and the association then is not in agreement with where it is right now.

What is the process?

Will it have to come back to us to get approved again if it's moved?

It uh Commissioner Forte, that depends on where it's moved to or how the plans are changed.

Um if there is issue taken with the approval, it is a civil matter for the HOA to enforce.

Um the location may change if approved.

Um but ultimately since there's a building permit attached to this project.

Any final location will have to be updated and reviewed by Tempe Building Safety.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this?

Seeing none.

Do we have uh a motion for this case?

Motion for approval of don't have the item number in front of me.

4C.

4C, thank you.

Um, seeing that we are unless there is an exception um made by any of the other uh commissioners about um applicability of setbacks or any worry about that.

Uh C C and Rs are a private matter.

Okay.

Uh moved by Commissioner Richter, seconded by Commissioner Spears.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

All those opposed motion passes.

Thank you.

Um Madam Chair, uh did Commissioner Miller do did you vote?

Uh okay.

It was kind of on the borders, so I just wanted to make sure it was four okay.

Thank you.

I'm fine and vote for you to vote again.

Okay, thank you.

Um item for C has passed, and next we will hear item 5A, which is the um request for a planned area development overlay to establish development standards for existing MU4 zoning district for Tempe Oasis, consisting of the reuse of an existing hotel to multifamily use with 142 units, including commercial located at 1634 North Scottsdale Road.

Um is the applicant, yeah.

Okay, the applicant is here.

If you could please take your name and uh city of residence for the record.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm Deborah Silva with Camber and True Collective.

Okay.

And uh I live in Scottsdale.

So we're excited to present to you guys the uh Tempe Oasis apartments, the renovation of the current Tempe Oasis hotel.

This uh presentation is gonna show you some images of what we're dealing with now, what we can see on Scottsdale Road, and then our proposed renovations.

This is the subject property, it's a former Ramada in one point in time.

Our renovation is anticipated to keep all of the buildings that make up the primary hotel currently with site plan renovations for parking as well as some exterior material innovations.

The existing hotel rooms will be modified to one bedroom apartments, a few two-bedroom apartments, as well as studios, but primarily one bedroom apartments.

The parking lot will be gated for residents.

The parking area along Scottsdale Road will be accessible to the public.

Since we are asking for mixed use, the building that is in the south west corner, that will be a publicly accessible coffee shop or retail component.

Not just accessible to residents, that's available to the public.

The owner is proposing a parking management plan that allows for strategies for parking that's assigned to the residents since we have this particular planned area development is not a one-to-one parking ratio per for each unit.

We have because of the public spaces, we have fewer than one-to-one parking, and we're fewer than the zoning ordinance would recommend.

Absolutely.

Are the public spaces available to use by residents?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

We're proposing durable materials on the exterior.

And this will show what the anticipated elevation will look like after renovation.

We've been working with the planning staff and the other departments to develop what we feel like is going to really enhance this particular neighborhood.

The red dot or the red box here is referencing that coffee shop area.

And the vibrancy of this space is what we really want to point out.

The anticipated use is for coffee and sandwich.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Miller.

Are we going to see floor plans for the apartments during the staff presentation, or do you have them?

They are part of our full presentation for city council.

I don't know if Robert Brutt has those, but they uh the hotel rooms are what we're renovating.

So is there something specific that you'd like to see?

Wow.

How many one bedroom units do you have?

I could have read it, but I don't remember the numbers either.

We have 130 one-bedroom units, seven two-bedroom units, and five studios.

And well, I'll ask staff about some parking.

I want to come back to that.

Okay, thank you.

We have completed a parking analysis as well as a traffic study.

And if there's any questions, I know that's been distributed to you as well, but if you have any questions specific about that, we do have our traffic engineer here with us tonight, too.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll now hear from Mr.

Mansale on this.

Okay, thanks.

Chair Lloyd, members of the commission.

Uh, my name is Robert Mansalillo, senior planner with uh Tempe Planning Division.

So this is a request for Tempe OASIS to establish the PAD standards for the Tempe Oasis project.

So some recent history on this site and why we're here tonight.

In January of 2022, the City Council approved resolution R2022.12 authorizing the City of Tempe Economic Development Department to initiate an upzone process for the redevelopment of older properties to encourage new housing developments and to increase the housing stock within the city.

In June of that year, City Council approved an amendment for the general plan to change it from medium to high density to high density on this site, and also an amendment to the zoning map from R4 to MU4 for multifamily mixed use, and that was for that Ramada in.

And then in January of 2025, City Council approved a time extension of one year for the applicant to submit the PAD standards and the development plan review, which they did meet that deadline.

Some site photos of the property currently.

Parking is proposed around the existing buildings.

The parking is existing currently.

A couple modifications, there will be security gates on the north and south access points for residents.

There are 120 parking spaces behind those gates, and an additional 27 in front along Scottsdale Road.

Some other modifications, there will be one driveway on Scottsdale Road that will be closed.

That's just north of that southern driveway.

And then there's also a driveway on East Lilac Drive that's just east of Scottsdale Road.

There currently that will also be closed.

The access points will be on Scottsdale Road.

There's one towards the north and one towards the south of the site, and then on Lilac Drive, there is one on the east end of the property that's proposed to be an exit only for residents.

A couple other changes on the southeast corner.

There's going to be a dog run there, and that uh double bin trash enclosure is going to be new as well.

There is bicycle parking provided throughout the site at the four corners of the development and within the lobby area.

There's a large bicycle facility in there to provide parking, and then there is the proposed restaurant space at that southwest corner, and staff did work with the applicant to finalize that location.

It was initially in the existing lobby area, but for visibility for accessibility from Scottsdale Road, we proposed it be at that southwest corner, and the applicant did propose it there, here are some of the proposed PAD standards compared to the previous R4 standards.

So residential density here is going up from 25 at R4 to 65.

The current proposed density, I believe, is 45 dwelling units per acre.

Height, maximum height is decreasing with this proposal to 35 feet.

The actual height of the tallest portion of the building on site is 27 feet.

So it's well within that 35 feet.

Maximum lot coverage is going down as well to 27%.

Minimum landscape area is at 11%.

That is lower than the R4 standard setbacks.

Those are currently existing, so those are not changing, and you can see those are all increased from the standard R4 setbacks.

For vehicle parking for R4 for multifamily, the layout of the unit configuration would require 255 spaces.

The current layout as shown is providing 147 vehicle parking spaces.

I should mention as a hotel and when this was approved as a hotel in 1970 and currently, it does meet the parking requirement for a hotel.

For 136 room hotel, there are enough provided parking spaces with the conversion to multifamily by our code that increases the requirements, and I'll get to that on the next slide.

Bicycle parking, 138 are required per code, and 134 are being proposed.

So that is also a slight decrease.

So here's the breakdown of parking requirement.

So units, we have studio, one bedroom, two bedroom.

There are five studio, 130 one bedroom, and seven two-bedroom.

The ZDC factor, that's what's required by code.

So one parking space per studio, one and a half per one bedroom, two per two-bedroom unit, and then we have guest parking spaces, and then also parking requirements for the office, the leasing office, and that restaurant.

So that middle column required spaces, that is what would be required by code.

The proposed PAD factor is what's being proposed by the applicant.

So rather than the one one and a half, two, they're proposing 0.75 per unit per studio, 0.75 per unit for one bedroom, and one per two bedroom.

And you can see the proposed spaces that would be required by those factors.

But the last column to the right is the proposed provider.

They're actually providing more for the studio and one bedroom than their.75 ZDC PAD factor is showing.

So the proposed required by their proposed factor is 135, but they are providing 147.

And there will be nine accessible spaces throughout the site, and then bicycle parking similar chart at the bottom.

This is in the bicycle commute area, so the ratios are a little higher for this.

So required spaces per code are 138, and they are proposing 134.

This is from straight east from Scottsdale Road.

For the neighborhood meeting, it was held on March 23rd of this year.

Around 20 members of the public attended, staff was present.

Some concerns that were raised was the insufficient on-site parking.

And the main concern is that parking would be happening in the neighborhood streets and adjacent to single-family homes.

Overall density did come up, 142 units.

Although there are no changes in footprint of those existing buildings, the applicant did state that there are 136 rooms now.

So it is a slight increase to be gated access points, security cameras, and property management on site.

And to date, staff has received one phone call and one email in support, and staff also received an email expressing concerns with the results of the parking study that was submitted on Friday.

This does meet all the approval criteria for establishing PAD standards.

Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions.

And this non-standard condition addresses the vehicle and bicycle parking analysis that should be provided.

This has been met with the submittal of the parking study and the traffic impact statement that came in on Friday.

And I am happy to answer any questions.

Just out of curiosity, with the reduced proposed parking space count, why would the factor be different?

Why wouldn't the factory just equal what they're gonna provide?

That is a great question.

What there what let me go back to that slide real quick?

Yes, the proposed PAD factor of the 0.7 for studio and one bedroom.

That is what's going to be allowed as the minimum.

That's what they're proposing as the minimum for for that.

They are providing more.

It just needs to be shown in this in this PAD chart as long as we have the minimum standard, then they can provide more for that.

I understand that logic.

I guess the question is that PAD is kind of custom zoning, meeting with a certain set of standards that staff feels appropriate, just curious as to is the 135 stemming from the parking study?

Is that where it's coming from?

Commissioner Richter, uh no, though those came in before the parking study.

Yes, okay, thank you.

Commissioner Miller?

Okay, looking at this chart, um specifically at office and restaurant.

Um you've got 704 quantity on office.

Are there 704 offices or is that because uh just an 872 restaurant?

Are we talking about square feet?

Yes, yes, sir, we are.

Ah, okay.

Because the other actually talk about units, and then all of a sudden you switch.

Yes, Commissioner Miller, that's correct.

I should have put square foot after those two numbers.

Okay.

I still have concerns about the whole idea of the parking, and normally I'm one for reduced parking as much as possible.

Um what's the thinking that there are they going to have a lot of people who are not going to be driving or not going to own cars, or is it going is it going to be something like Cal de Sac, for example.

Commissioner Miller, I do have slides addressing some of the parking analysis.

If you'd like me to review those as well.

Please.

So it was submitted on Friday.

Um the ITE parking generation manual is what was used, and it's based on the parking that is anticipated is based on time of day use.

So what was used here was a weekday peak parking condition.

So this was used as the time of day that the most amount of people would be parked on site.

Um, this is and perhaps the um traffic engineer can explain this a little a little better, but it's it's based on time of time of day use.

So at its peak, weekday peak, the study is showing that 139 spaces would be required for the residential component and the office and restaurant component, well, okay, I'd like to delve into that a little because you've got 142 units, and the traffic engineer says that the peak requirement is going to be 139 spaces.

What if everybody's home?

And everybody has a car.

That is a great question that I um will defer to the the consultant.

Um because I I don't do these studies and I don't review them very often, so when we see them come in, we kind of we take the information that's provided.

I understand.

Maybe we ask them when they come up.

Yeah, they'll have an opportunity to come back up.

Uh, any other questions for staff?

Um, I just have one question.

I I think just back to the intention of the MU designation here, and this commercial space on the ground floor.

Um, is that that's a requirement now?

Because this is an MU designation.

That's correct.

Even though it's not likely, I don't know.

I just have some concerns about the viability of that, um, and again that we require it because of the zoning that we're trying to enforce here, yet it'll is there anything that the applicant is doing to actually activate that and sure.

I guess we can bring bring them back up for that question too, but in your discussions with them, how to ensure that that actually gets built out and um not just to sit vacant and not uh provide any improvements for that space.

Yes, uh Chair Lloyd, um, you're correct with the mixed-use zoning designation, there is a commercial component to that.

Um honestly, with discussions with the applicant and property owner, they're very excited about the commercial space, having that as a coffee shop.

Um, so there have been instances around town where the commercial component hasn't quite lived up to expectation.

Um we can bring the applicant back up, but they they have been excited about this component uh here at the site.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, um, if there's no further questions, we'll open it up to uh public comment.

Um we have one card right now.

Uh, if uh Lane Caraway could make his way to the podium if you could please uh state your name and city of residence for the record.

Surely uh Lane Curry.

I've been a citizen of North Tempe, north of the lake for about 34 years, 29 years almost at Cavalier Hills.

So I have seen the ups and downs in what goes on at the Ramada Inn.

Uh this property owner has thumbed its nose at all the neighborhoods.

The crime, the homeless, the drug use is all the time.

Um, which bothers me, and I've spoken since we've been dealing with this Romata Inn for so many years, probably we're 188 units, and I would say probably 150 people cannot stand the Ramada in it and the crap that it brings into the community.

Uh I have friends that live over in India bin, which is on that side of the Ramada Inn that voice their concerns at the neighborhood meeting uh about the parking.

Uh we're all concerned because given this property owner's history, uh, I don't know if you guys are aware he ran a Native American treatment center, which the federal government shut down.

Soon as this thing kicked in, my neighborhood was overrun with Native Americans, men, women, children asking for money, asking for food uh in their front yards, uh, police got involved.

Then it was like, let's put the child the cyclone fencing up there.

Fire department had to come in and tell him to take the cyclone fencing down.

Uh it's just one thing after another with this property owner.

Do we want to see change?

Yes, we won't change.

Is this this project development what we were looking for?

No way in hell are we looking for this project.

I was told that if the pro if they wanted to park, the shopping centers has concern right across the street.

What are they gonna do when their parking spaces are taken up at night or in the afternoon?

I was told by the city, well, you can entertain some permit parking.

Why should the neighborhoods have to change their lifestyle for something that's not going to work?

And as far as his coffee shop goes, this man has demonstrated time and time again the property owner.

He does not care about neighborhoods, communities, safety, anything.

So I'm asking you to deny this application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Take it we had no questions for Mr.

Caraway.

I don't.

Okay.

Would the applicant like to come back up and answer any concerns that have been brought up?

I'll go first.

Hi everybody, my name is Chris Williams.

I'm a senior traffic engineer at Y2K Engineering.

I live in the city of Phoenix in Awatuke.

And I graduated from Arizona State 25 years ago, which is too long.

So I think the gentleman from the city did a good job of explaining.

Is our uh Institute of Transportation Engineers?

And so it's a national um booklet that we use that calculates usually trip generation is our main concern.

But in this case, we did trip generation in the traffic impact statement and then parking generation in the parking study.

And so there's an average um rate, and then there's also an equation rate based on the all of the studies that have been done over the past um certain amount of years.

So, anyways, the so we we in our study identified that we do not meet the city's code, but we do meet using some of the on-street parking that's available right next to us.

We do meet the intent of the ITE trip generation for national.

And then I would point out that our books, we did um low rise, one-story multifamily.

However, because of the size of the units, I do think there would be less people with vehicles than then maybe a normal uh development um across the country.

And then we also pointed out in our study that because of the proximity to Scottsdale to the north and then Tempe to the south, we have busing on this route.

It would be very easy to get Uber and that kind of thing.

It would be a very um practical place to live if you don't have a car.

And so that's really all I have to say about the uh about the parking study, and then I'm open to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Questions regarding parking.

Okay.

Um the maximum park maximum requirement that your study generated was I believe 139.

Correct.

Um, there are more units than that.

Are you anticipating?

Is that based on the assumption that there are gonna be people who don't own cars or uh that how do you I guess the assumptions are the thing that get to me?

You're you make them, and you can any time you make assumptions, you can generate data based upon the assumptions that you make.

Um you've got if you have two bedroom units, what if they have two, what if they have two people with cars?

So all of a sudden you've got I think five two bedroom units.

And there's ten cars right there.

Uh you got 130, so there's another 130.

So now you've got 140, and you still don't have enough for the studio people.

Uh I'm just curious as to the what drives it.

And I don't, I'm not an I'm an advocate for getting cars out of off the street as much as much as possible.

But the thing that concerns me about this is as much as anything else, whenever we have tried to do that, uh and sought to sought to do it.

We have been looking at areas where there's a lot, there's a concentration of alternative transportation modes.

Um, downtown Tempe, for example, along Apache Boulevard.

There are easily a number of ways to get around.

And they and you're getting around in in a relatively small area, but in this location, which is essentially between two nodes, and it's not in either one of them.

Um I guess it seems it places an awful responsibility on residents to figure it out, so to speak, and I don't know how that will be necessarily perceived by people if they have to figure it out just to live there.

Can I respond?

I don't disagree with anything that you just said, and I would just say that you assume though, right away that every one bedroom would have a vehicle, and that could be, but if there's even 10 students that maybe decide to live up there that go to Arizona State or any other school, then they could have zero vehicles and a bike.

And we did point out in our study that we actually have more bicycle parking than was recommended in then was suggested would be required by ITE.

Now, do I say 80% of the people are only going to use bicycles?

No, I have no idea.

And every two bedroom could have two people who work and two vehicles.

We so we're just purely doing it based on the average.

But I would say that the trip generation and parking generation, a lot of times we'll do a shared analysis when you have an office building and a resident, or I'm sorry, a restaurant and an office, and in maybe an apartment complex in the same area, and that's not this type of development.

However, if folks come in to get a sandwich at lunch that drive, then we would expect the people that have vehicles to have left to go to work if they were commuting.

So I think you brought up some very good points, uh, Mr.

Miller.

Any other questions related to parking?

I have another question for staff, but not for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And did the applicant have any other comments they wished to address at this time?

Uh can we uh ask staff some questions then?

I don't want to belabor the uh difference in required parking versus provided, but if this gets approved and they move forward, is there anything that would prohibit them from reducing the total amount of provided parking?

Commissioner Richter, what is approved with this PAD is what is approved going forward.

If they were to come back with a reduction in that number of 147, that would have to go through another PAD amendment.

Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Spears, um, I want to just address, excuse me, the issue brought up by Mr.

Karaway about the crime and all that.

Um, this will be subject to SEPTED review and security requirements.

Is that correct?

It will.

And so that provides a reasonable um check on any kind of rampant crime.

Um, it would certainly seem that a um apartment building is going to reduce the number of individuals who might be interested in doing that compared to a transitory um lodging.

Um so that's just a comment.

I think that this is actually an improvement from that standpoint that there will be security measures in place.

So thank you.

And Commissioner Spears, if I could um expand on on that, SEPTED has reviewed this.

This is also going through development plan review.

They have provided comments.

One issue that has been outstanding is that alleyway on the south end of the property that borders the QT.

So the applicant has proposed changing the wall that's there.

Currently, it's a low wall, I believe, about three feet.

They're proposing to change it to I believe four foot of CMU and then steel picket on top of that to prevent access into the site from that alleyway.

Commissioner Miller.

So we have we have a small restaurant.

Was there any thought given to just having this as a multifamily?

You can still build you can still redo all the apartments with that.

Why why am you why mixed juice?

Just curious.

Um Commissioner Miller, that was done in the 2022 rezone.

Um I'm not sure why they chose MU4 rather than another multifamily.

Um, getting assistance.

Chair Lloyd, Commissioner Miller, uh, the reason for the requested ME4 zoning district is because we don't have another zoning classification above 30 dwellings per acre that is not just straight residential.

So you have to jump into the mixed use categories.

In the future, we are proposing some additional ranges that'll allow that into consideration for the future.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you.

And then just I'll just make a comment back to the 2022 upzoning.

I mean, I think the intention was to have a bit more of uh I would say a redevelopment versus a reuse.

This feels a little bit like trying to put lipstick or cram square peg round hole here, and I do have those same concerns, but at the same time, I I I do feel that it's probably an improvement of what's there.

I just don't think it was the intention of the original upzoning that took place.

Any other discussion on this?

I was gonna say I particularly like the proposal.

I think it's an improvement, and if they're held to the parking count, that should help a leave at least part of the neighborhood's concern about over parking into the neighborhood because there's it exceeds the number of units.

Do we have uh a motion?

I will motion to approve item five A.

Second.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

And that motion passes uh with Commissioner Forte in opposition.

Okay, I think that concludes our agenda items for this evening.

And uh any commission member announcements.

Okay, any city staff announcements?

No announcements.

Thank you.

Okay, and um our next uh scheduled meeting is June twenty-third, twenty twenty-six, and we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Oh