Tempe Development Review Commission Meeting – May 10, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Tempe Development Review Commission Meeting – May 10, 2022
The Tempe Development Review Commission convened on May 10, 2022, for a study session and regular meeting. The commission reviewed development plans, approved a consent agenda, heard public testimony on a proposed rezoning, and recommended approval of the Ramada Inn rezoning to the City Council. A presentation on the Hayden Flour Mill adaptive reuse project was also given.
Consent Calendar
- Clark Park Recreation Center & Pool (PL220042) – New one-story, 8,800 sq ft rec center, community pool, and improvements. Approved.
- Tempe Fire Station No. 2 (PL220095) – New 17,677 sq ft fire station with six apparatus bays. Approved.
- Dogtopia of Tempe (PL220011) – Use permit for a dog boarding facility. Approved.
- Edwards Residence (PL220040) – Use permit to reduce side yard setback from 7’ to 5’6” for a home addition. Approved.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Darlene Justice (56-year Tempe resident, North Tempe Neighborhood Association member) – Expressed strong support for the Ramada Inn rezoning, calling it an opportunity for revitalization and noting the area’s long-standing issues with crime and blight.
- Lane Carey (Cavalier Hills Neighborhood Association chair) – Strongly supported the rezoning, describing the Ramada Inn as a source of drug activity and homelessness. He urged approval to begin cleaning up the neighborhood.
- Christy Arnold (Indian Bend Neighborhood) – Opposed the rezoning, stating the Ramada is currently operated as a detox center with improved security. She argued the upzoning was premature and that density and infrastructure studies are missing. She requested the commission defer the decision.
- Late email comment from Indian Bend Neighborhood Association leader – Not entirely opposed but believed the timing was wrong due to ongoing crime and homelessness issues in the area.
Discussion Items
- Study Session – Development Plan Reviews: Commissioners discussed the Clark Park project, focusing on the existing rec center building (to be demolished due to structural and capacity issues), community garden relocation, and the choice of standing seam roofing. Staff explained the pool would remain in its historic location and that community input guided the garden’s new site. No concerns were raised on Fire Station No. 2, Dogtopia, or the Edwards residence, and all four were placed on the consent calendar.
- Hayden Flour Mill Redevelopment Presentation: The development team (Venue Projects and Sunbelt Holdings) presented a conceptual plan for the adaptive reuse of the historic 1918 mill and 1950s silos. The vision includes food and beverage, creative office, and community space with a light-touch approach, minimal new parking, and a focus on cultural and historical significance. No formal action was taken.
- General Plan 2050 Technical Advisory Group: Commissioners discussed selecting two members to serve on the advisory group. Interest was expressed by Barbara, Phil (terming out in June), and Don (moving out of state). The decision was deferred; staff will poll commissioners by email.
- Ramada Inn Rezoning (PL220055) – The city initiated a request to amend the General Plan density from “Medium to High Density (up to 25 du/ac)” to “High Density (up to 65 du/ac)” and rezone from R-4 to MU-4. Staff explained the rationale: the area has seen increased crime and blight, and the rezoning is a tool to attract redevelopment. Commissioners questioned the jump to 65 du/ac but noted that future development would require a full PAD and design review, including traffic and infrastructure studies. The property owner supports the rezoning.
Key Outcomes
- Meeting Minutes (April 12, 2022) – Approved 4-0 (three commissioners abstained).
- Consent Agenda – Approved unanimously for items 3, 4, 5, and 6.
- Ramada Inn Rezoning – Recommended approval to the City Council by a unanimous vote. The first council hearing is scheduled for May 26, 2022, with a final hearing on June 9, 2022.
- General Plan 2050 TAG – No vote; commissioners will decide via email.
Meeting Transcript
Well you need a blue sky holiday, the points they laugh at what you say, and I don't need no care and had a bad day, you take a one down, you sing a sad song just to turn it around. You say you don't go, tell me don't lie. You work in a smile and you go for a ride, you had a bad day, the cattle don't lie, you come back down, and you really don't mind, you have a bad day. Sometimes the system goes on the flag and the whole thing attends our wrong. And I'm not wrong. So where was the passion you need it the most? Oh you and I you kick up the leaves and the magic is lost. Tell me don't lie. You weren't gonna smile. Um you're correct, I really can't answer that, but the location of the proposed pool is the uh pool and maintenance building and expanded parking spaces are in the area of the existing rec center. Um, the existing recenter is off it is is on the northeast corner of the property, and it's the overlay shows that it's just a grass area once it gets redeveloped. The reason I asked that is because two, three years ago, um, I know that the city um showed that building to a local community nonprofit group uh to use. Um and and it was a good fit, but the problem was there was so much programming going on in the two classrooms in that little 2400 square foot building that they just couldn't coexist with city programming. But it seems unless there's something wrong with the building that there's deterioration or some issue that it's gonna mess up the redevelopment plans. It seems a shame to tear down a building that could be a good home or good use to some other group. Chairman, my apologies. I thought you were you were referring to the pool house that is adjacent to the pool. You mean the rec center that's near where the future community garden is? Yeah, the slump block single story small 2400 square foot building that's currently the only rec center on the property. Yeah, I think that would have to be left up to the applicant to um explain the plan, the overall programming for the park. Okay. Um does anybody want to hear this? Well, I had another question, maybe. Okay. Uh Karen. Uh I participated in the early planning stages of this, and it seemed like the neighborhoods wanted to keep the community garden where it was, and now in this plan, it's all the way on the north side of the of the lot. What changed between what was approved at those meetings and now what I'm looking at. And that's probably also best left up to the applicant to respond to. Um, we were not involved in again the the programming of the park. So I don't know if we need to hear the case if by chance before we finish our study session that the that the applicant, the architect arrives. Maybe you could bounce those two questions off and we can circle back. I will. Um, so right now we'll kind of leave that one. Um I guess undecided whether it's consent or not, uh, pending the answer to those two questions. Okay, thank you. Oh, go ahead. Mike, thank you. Not so much just a question, but just a comment. I see there's a standing seam roof, and we have a little experience replacing standing seam roofs recently at high cost. So just wonder what was behind that thinking, and if that uh if long-term maintenance is part of the the contemplation there. I will let the applicant know that they will need to um address those three. Yeah, thanks, Karen. Okay. Um item number two is Tempe Fire Station. Does anyone want to pull that from consent? No, okay, that'll be on consent. Uh item number five, dog topia. Um sent. Yes. I see a consensus for consent.
openpublica.com