Development Review Commission Meeting – August 13, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Development Review Commission Meeting – August 13, 2024
The Development Review Commission of Tempe, Arizona, met on August 13, 2024, at 2:15 PM to consider a consent agenda and a public hearing for a zoning map amendment and development plan review at the northwest corner of Rural and Warner Roads. The meeting included public testimony and commission discussion, resulting in approval of the consent items and the proposed development.
Consent Calendar
- Approved unanimously the study session and regular meeting minutes from July 23, 2024.
- Approved unanimously the consent agenda consisting of the following items:
- Item 2: Nelson Residence – Use Permit for two parking spaces within front yard setback (209 East Manhatton Drive).
- Item 3: Bellagio Smoke and Vape – Use Permit for tobacco retailer (1753 East Broadway Road, Suite 102).
- Item 4: Verlea Project – Use Permit for two parking spaces within front yard setback (1633 East Verlea Drive).
- Item 5: McCracken Residence – Use Permit for two parking spaces within front yard setback (1500 West 7th Place). (Originally pulled for public comment, but speaker was not present, so it remained on consent.)
Public Comments & Testimony
- Michael Myrick (Tempe resident, 45+ years, former public official) opposed the project due to traffic concerns. He stated that residents on 71st Street already experience overflow parking from the nearby Postino (northeast corner) and that turning left out of the neighborhood is dangerous. He felt the traffic study underestimated impacts and that the project would worsen existing issues.
- Larry Kelly (71st Street resident since 1967) supported the development, noting the corner is the “ugliest” between US-101 and I-10 and that it would provide a community gathering place and a sound buffer. He requested measures to prohibit overflow parking on 71st Street.
- Joe Lewis (neighborhood resident for 40 years) opposed the project, arguing that the area is rural and that additional density is not needed. He questioned the parking reduction and expressed concern about the potential for undesirable tenants in the future.
- Doug Brown (71st Street resident) opposed the parking reduction, citing concerns about overflow parking on 71st Street and the difficulty of turning left out of the neighborhood. He said the reduction of 29 spaces from code requirements would lead to parking in residential areas.
- William Judge (Tempe resident, 8405 South College Lane) supported the project, calling the site an “eyesore” and stating the community is underserved by retail/restaurants. He believed the traffic study adequately addressed concerns and that biking/walking would be encouraged.
- Paul Lines (resident) opposed the location of the driveway on Warner Road, advocating for a right-in/right-out only configuration to reduce accident risk. He argued that left turns into and out of the site would be dangerous due to high speeds and proximity to the intersection.
Discussion Items
- NWC Rural and Warner (PL240155) – Zoning Map Amendment from AG to PCC-1 with a Planned Area Development Overlay and Development Plan Review for a 3.75-acre single-story commercial development with four buildings (11,500 sq ft retail, 16,000 sq ft restaurant, plus patio).
- Applicant presentation (Majela Boss, Gammage and Burnham; Jamie Blakeman, traffic engineer; Lanya Shaw, Butler Design Group):
- Proposed 235 parking spaces (29 fewer than code’s 264) but increased bike parking to 35 spaces (double code requirement).
- Traffic study estimated 2,000 weekday trips, with 180 AM peak and 231 PM peak trips. The study was approved by Tempe traffic engineers.
- Design emphasized articulation, pedestrian scale, and mid-century modern aesthetic with materials like brick, metal panel, and fiber cement board. Buildings are pushed to the street with landscape buffers along residential edges.
- Staff report (Seth, Community Development):
- Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, including parking management strategies (valet, off-site agreements) if needed, and requirements for right-of-way dedication, archaeological protocols, and cultural sensitivity training.
- The site is archaeologically sensitive; no prior development.
- 55 attendees at the neighborhood meeting; mixed feedback. Letters: 1 support, 1 opposition at report writing; additional 3 support, 3 opposition received later.
- Commission discussion:
- Commissioner Richter suggested adding windows or glass on street-facing elevations; applicant agreed to consider.
- Commissioner Tom suggested adding metal canopy elements on street sides; applicant agreed to work with staff.
- Commissioner Schwartz asked about permit parking on 71st Street; city traffic engineer Corey Steele confirmed resident-initiated permit parking is possible with 70% neighborhood vote.
- Commissioner Spears opposed right-in/right-out restrictions, stating they push traffic into neighborhoods.
- Commissioner Tom supported the project, noting he drives the intersection daily and that parking reduction is acceptable.
- Chair expressed support, noting the positive transformation of the nearby northeast corner.
- Applicant presentation (Majela Boss, Gammage and Burnham; Jamie Blakeman, traffic engineer; Lanya Shaw, Butler Design Group):
Key Outcomes
- Motion to approve PL240155 (by Commissioner Spears, seconded by Commissioner Richter) – passed unanimously (no recorded dissents).
- Conditions of approval include:
- Applicant to work with staff on design enhancements (metal canopies, windows on street elevations) as discussed.
- Parking management plan (valet or off-site agreements) to be developed if parking demand exceeds supply.
- Standard conditions for right-of-way, archaeological protocols, and cultural sensitivity training.
- No further action on consent agenda items (approved).
- Next steps: The development review commission’s recommendation (approval) will be forwarded to the Tempe City Council, which has final decision authority. An appeal must be filed within 14 days of the commission’s decision.
Meeting ended at approximately 4:15 PM (estimated from transcript length).
Meeting Transcript
Not limited to all aspects of proposed future development. 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 independence of land values, aesthetics. Good site and good site finding by promoting harmonious, safe, attractive, and compatible development 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. We have two my far right, Stefan Ritter, Larry Tom, Michelle Schwartz, Vice Chair Michelle Schwartz. To my left, Charles Redman, Linda Spears, and Barbara Lloyd. Tonight with us with uh from the city staff include Jeff Tamilovich, Ryan Lovake, Ambika, Harke, Michelle Dulkey, Dana Kaminsky, Jacob Payne, Lucas Jensen, Whitney Mayfield, Joanne Barry, and Jason Wolfe. If you are here tonight to speak on a case, um, during the public hearing portion of that case, uh, you will be given up the three minutes to speak. Uh, our staff will be assistant monitoring the time. And please note that anyone listening online, the WebEx chat box is not monitored or moderated. Okay, so for our agenda tonight, um, a first item we have is a review of our um study and study session regularly meeting minutes from 723 2024, and then we will go through a consent agenda, and then we will hear any remaining cases that do not fall on that consent consent agenda. So let's go right to item number one. Could I get a motion for our study session regular meeting minutes? Okay, there's uh motion for approval of the study session minutes for 72324. Is there a second? And seconded by Commissioner uh Richter. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, and that passes you know unanimously. All right, the next item on our agenda will be our consent agenda, and I will go through that now. And if you're here tonight to speak um on any of these items, please fill out one of these cards and bring it up to Joanna Barry. And um, and if you are here to speak on one that I'm about to mention, please get my attention and let me know and we can pull that from our consent agenda. Um our consent consent agenda will be item number two, Nelson residence. Is anyone here to speak on that? Okay. Um item number three, Bellagio smoke and bait. Okay, item number four, Valera project. Okay, and then item number five, McCracken residents. Okay, so we do have someone who's here to speak on McCracken residence. So we'll pull that item from the consent agenda. Oh, okay. So we'll leave uh McCracken residents on the consent agenda then. All right. And then um after oh, so okay, so let's have a the last item on our on our agenda is um going to be heard. So can I get a motion for the consent agenda? Commissioner Redman. I move we approve the consent agenda as just read. Okay, and is there a second? Commissioner Sears, seconds. Okay, all those in favor, please raise your hand. And I pass it unanimously. All right, on to our final um item to be heard tonight, which is item number six, Northwest Corner Rural and Warner. Um, if we could have the applicant please uh approach and provide us your presentation. Good evening, Mandela. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening, members of the board. Um sorry, I'm just chairman members of the commission. For your record, my name is Majela Boss with the law from Gamma Chin Burnham. I'm here tonight to talk about our aptly named Northwest Corner of Rural and Warner.
openpublica.com