Development Review Commission Hearing - June 27, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Development Review Commission Hearing - June 27, 2024
The Development Review Commission (DRC) held a public hearing on June 27, 2024, to consider several land use applications. The meeting included approval of a consent agenda, a public hearing on the Tempe Gateway mixed-use development (which was approved 4-3), and a public hearing on the 1010 Apache student housing project (which was denied unanimously). The commission also heard public comments on both items.
Consent Calendar
- Sam's Club Tempe Marketplace – Approved.
- Warner and Hardy – Approved.
- AME Electrical Contracting Office – Approved.
- Chick-fil-A – Approved with a revised condition of approval adjusting closing time from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.
- Golden Feet Reflexology – Approved.
- Filibertos – Approved.
- Sterling Tempe – Approved.
Public Comments & Testimony
Tempe Gateway (Item 8):
- Support: Several residents of North Tempe spoke in favor, citing the need for revitalization, increased amenities, and the developer's extensive community outreach. Julie Lynde, Darlene Justice, Kim Gaffney Loza, Lane Caraway, and others expressed support, noting the project would improve the area and that the developer had been responsive to neighborhood concerns.
- Opposition: Residents and tenants of the existing apartments voiced concerns about displacement of affordable housing, loss of existing tree canopy, lack of affordable units in the new development, and the height and density being out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Ken Jacobson, Lori Herman, Elizabeth Stewart, and others argued the project would eliminate 487 affordable units, increase traffic, and set a negative precedent for the general plan.
1010 Apache (Item 10):
- Opposition: All three speakers (Phil Amarosi, Robert Miller, Paul Kent) opposed the project, primarily on the grounds that it would require a general plan amendment just months after the 2050 plan was approved by voters. They argued the height (21 stories) was out of character with the south side of Apache Boulevard, would set a bad precedent, and that the site's constraints make it unsuitable for such density. Some expressed support for a more modest development.
Discussion Items
Tempe Gateway (Item 8):
- Applicant Wendy Ridell presented a rezoning from R3/R4 to MU4 with a PAD overlay for a five-story, 910-unit mixed-use development on 17.22 acres at the northwest corner of Scottsdale and McKellips roads. Key features: 24,000 sq ft of commercial space, 1,625 parking spaces (1.78 per unit), 901 bicycle spaces, 25% landscaped area, and a three-phase buildout over ~10 years. The applicant emphasized consistency with the newly adopted General Plan 2050 (65 du/acre) and extensive community outreach. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including a two-year building permit timeline.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners expressed mixed views. Some supported the project for its density and potential to attract amenities, while others opposed due to loss of affordable housing, phasing risks, and displacement of 471 existing units. A motion to approve passed 4-3 (Commissioners Spears, Lloyd, Schwartz opposed). The vote was a recommendation to City Council.
1010 Apache (Item 10):
- Applicant Nick Wood presented a request for a General Plan Amendment (to allow >65 du/acre), zoning map amendment (CSS to MU4), PAD, and development plan review for a 21-story, 363-unit student housing project (946 beds) on a 1.04-acre site at the southwest corner of Rural Road and Apache Boulevard. The project included two levels of underground parking, 359 parking spaces, 390 bike spaces, and 5,000 sq ft of retail. The applicant argued the site is a “hard corner” and that the existing 65 du/acre density is infeasible due to constraints from power lines, irrigation easements, and three street frontages. Staff recommended approval at a reduced height of 15 stories (165 feet) and 235 du/acre, noting the site's challenges but citing consistency with the character of nearby student housing (10-15 stories). The applicant did not accept the reduction.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners expressed strong concerns about amending the General Plan so soon after adoption, the height/density being out of character, and the viability of the site at any density. A motion to deny the application was made and seconded, and passed unanimously (7-0).
Key Outcomes
- Tempe Gateway (Item 8): Approved 4-3 as a recommendation to City Council. Conditions include a requirement to file a building permit application within two years for Phase 1, and within three years for subsequent phases. Staff will work with the applicant to explore retention of existing trees.
- 1010 Apache (Item 10): Denied unanimously (7-0). The commission declined to recommend the General Plan amendment, zoning changes, and development plan. The applicant may revise and resubmit.
- Consent Agenda: Approved unanimously.
- Meeting adjourned at the conclusion of business.
Meeting Transcript
All right, we're gonna get started here. Um, if everybody can take a seat and um enjoy the evening. Um welcome to the May 14th, 2024 Development Review Commission hearing. 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 this throughout the city for residents, businesses, and industry is a prime requisite for the interdependence of lion 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 aggrieved by a final decision of the development review commission may file an appeal to the city council within 14 calendar days after the development review commission has rendered its decision. Development review commission recommendations to city council are not final decisions with us tonight on the commission. We have on my right commissioner Larry Tom, Don Cassano, Vice Chair Michelle Schwartz, to my left, Commissioner Joe Forte, Linda Spears, and Barbara Lloyd. With us from staff are Jeff Tamolevich, Ryan Levake. I'll just just check in to see. Michelle Dahlke, Diana Kaminsky, Jacob Payne, Chris Jasper, Lily Drosos, Joanna Barry, and Jason Wolfe. During the public portion of our hearing, any members of the public that wish to speak will need to fill out one of these white cards. Um they could be found up here at the front. Um if there's anything that you wish to speak on, fill out one of those, and you'll be given up to three minutes to speak. Um staff will be monitoring the time. For those that are online, please note that the WebEx chat box is not monitored or moderated. Okay, with that, um, we are going to review the development review commission agenda for the evening. Um, the first item is the consideration of our meeting minutes. Then I will review a consent agenda, and then we will hear the other items that are not on the consent agenda. I will review the consent agenda after we do this the study session regular meeting minute approval. So with that, um, could I get a motion for the commission study session and regular meeting minutes? Commissioner Cassano. Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion to approve the development review commission study session of April 9th, 2024, and the uh regular meeting of April 9th, 2024. Okay, and the motion is set by Commissioner Cassano. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Tom. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, that's okay. And that passes unanimously. Okay, next up is our consent agenda. If there's anyone from the public wishing to speak on one of these items, please get my attention as I call them off. First item on our consent agenda is item number two, Sam's Club Tempe Marketplace. Was there anyone wishing to speak on that? Okay. Um item number three is Warner and Hardy. Okay, item number four is AME Electrical Contracting Office. Okay, we'll keep that. Item number five is Chick-fil-A. One note on Chick-fil-A is we will be approving that through consent. However, we will revise the condition of approval related to the hours of operation, adjusting that from the closing time from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. Item number six, golden feet reflexology. Item number seven, filibertos. And then item number nine, Sterling Tempe. Okay, seeing none, those all will remain on our consent agenda. Can I get a motion for our consent agenda? Commissioner Forte. I motion for the approval of the consent agenda.
openpublica.com