Tempe Development Review Commission Meeting

Date: January 14, 2025 | Time: 1:00 PM UTC (evening local time)

The Development Review Commission (DRC) convened on January 14, 2025, to approve prior meeting minutes, approve a consent agenda of six items (4A–4E and 5A), and conduct a public hearing on an appeal of an administrative denial of a Minor Development Plan Review (PL230266) for landscape modifications at 3222 South Hardy Drive. The appeal was denied in a 5–2 vote.

Consent Calendar

• Meeting Minutes (December 10, 2024): Approved unanimously for both the study session and regular meeting.
• Consent Agenda Items (4A–4E, 5A): Approved unanimously. Items included:
  • 4A: Use Permit for height increase at 1201 South Farmer Avenue (NOSO).
  • 4B: Use Permit for parking setback at 2125 East Howe Avenue (Palma-Thomson Residence).
  • 4C: Use Permit for side yard setback reduction at 2110 East La Vieve Lane (Hulsman Ramada).
  • 4D: Use Permit for second-hand store at 2155 East University Drive (Sweet Repeats).
  • 4E: Use Permit for side yard setback reduction at 1225 East Warner Road #22 (Telidis Residence).
  • 5A: General Plan Amendment / Zoning Map Amendment / PAD Overlay for industrial development at 1400 West 3rd Street (Priest & 3rd).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 3A – Desert Designers Appeal: No public comments were received; no audience members or online participants spoke.

Discussion Items

• Item 3A – Appeal of Denial for Landscape Modifications at 3222 South Hardy Drive:
  • Appellant/Applicant: Desert Designers LLC, represented by attorney Bill Kozub (Scottsdale) and owner Tom Smith (Tempe). The property is a small commercial building on a 0.2-acre site with 110 feet of street frontage along Hardy Drive.
  • Issue: The applicant replaced dead natural turf with artificial turf without city approval. City staff denied the Minor Development Plan Review (submitted in August 2023) citing code violations: artificial turf does not meet the definition of "vegetative ground cover" in the required street frontage landscape zone, and only one tree remains of the four required by code (one per 30 linear feet). The existing approved landscape plan from the 1970s required natural turf and three trees.
  • City Staff Position (Chris Jasper, Senior Planner): The denial was based on three deficiencies: insufficient street trees (four required), lack of site data for minimum landscape area (10% for GID zoning), and artificial turf not qualifying as vegetative material. Staff noted three alternatives: (1) revise the plan to meet current code with xeriscape, shrubs, and trees; (2) return to the original 1975 approved plan (natural turf); or (3) keep some artificial turf but not in the required street frontage area. Conditions of approval if appeal was granted would require four trees, vegetative ground cover, and completion within 60 days.
  • Applicant Arguments: Artificial turf looks better than dead grass; grass cannot survive on narrow strips next to parking lot (shown by historical photos); adding three new trees would create a safety hazard because Hardy Road curves just north of the property, obstructing visibility for vehicles exiting the site. Applicant also claimed the property qualifies for adaptive reuse program, but staff clarified adaptive reuse only waives parking lot landscaping, not street frontage requirements.
  • Commission Discussion:
    • Commissioner Forte: Supported the applicant, stating artificial turf improves appearance and is costly; the intent of code is met.
    • Commissioner Spears: Opposed, citing heat island concerns, short lifespan of turf, and the need to uphold code for tree canopy and heat resiliency.
    • Commissioner Lloyd: Noted the existing irrigation could support new plantings.
    • Commissioner Miller: Leaned toward allowing a xeriscape alternative instead of artificial turf, acknowledging the site's difficulty but advocating for trees.
    • Commissioner Richter: Emphasized tree canopy for future pedestrian activity and disagreed that artificial turf should replace code-compliant landscaping.
    • Chair Johnson: Expressed that artificial turf is too hot for roadways and does not encourage pedestrians; suggested xeriscaping is preferable.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Appeal (PL230266): Motion to deny the appeal (i.e., uphold staff's denial) was made by Commissioner Spears, seconded by Vice Chair Schwartz. The motion passed 5–2 (Commissioners Spears, Lloyd, Schwartz, Richter, and Chair Johnson in favor; Commissioners Miller and Forte against). The denial means the applicant must bring the site into compliance by either restoring the original 1970s landscape plan (with natural turf and three trees) or submitting a new plan that meets current code (xeriscape, shrubs, four trees, etc.). The appeal was not granted; the previous administrative denial stands.
• Next Meeting: Scheduled for January 28, 2025, at 1:00 PM UTC.