Tempe Development Review Commission Meeting - March 11, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Development Review Commission Meeting - March 11, 2025
The Development Review Commission met on March 11, 2025, to consider several consent agenda items and two public hearings: a development plan review and use permit for Tempe 20 Townhomes, and use permits for a College Avenue accessory dwelling unit (ADU). All consent items were approved unanimously. After discussion, the commission approved the Tempe 20 Townhomes with additional conditions to address privacy concerns, and approved the College Avenue ADU with a condition to match the existing home's paint color.
Consent Calendar
- Meeting Minutes: Approved minutes from the February 25, 2025, study session and regular meeting unanimously.
- Item 3A – Friendship Village Courtyard Apartments Phase 3: Development Plan Review for a five-story, 69-unit residential building at 2645 East Southern Avenue (applicant: Ryan Companies). Approved as part of consent.
- Item 4C – Silverman Carport Conversion: Use permit for two required parking spaces in front yard setback at 1828 East Don Carlos Avenue. Approved as part of consent.
- Item 4D – Lotus Massage: Use permit for a massage establishment at 6471 South Rural Road. Approved as part of consent.
- Item 4E – Shufford Residence: Use permit for two required parking spaces in front yard setback at 1245 West 9th Street. Approved as part of consent.
- Item 4F – Schember Residence: Use permit to reduce rear yard setback from 35 to 28 feet at 1068 East El Freda Road. Approved as part of consent.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Tempe 20 Townhomes: Six residents living north of the proposed development spoke in opposition. Catherine Wade (1037 East Libra) cited height (27 feet vs. one-story homes), slow tree growth, and direct views into backyards. Julie Child (1001 East Gemini) said the design puts too much on a small site. Amy Bobbitt (Tempe) expressed concerns about property values and privacy. Barbara Tigerson (Tempe) questioned the narrow setback between buildings and the rear wall. Laura Carey (953 East Libra) noted only a nine-foot buffer and potential noise/light impacts. Cheryl Masur (931 East Libra) worried about depreciation and the dog park adjacent to her property.
- College Avenue ADU: Three residents spoke in opposition. Irene Vitulo (nearby neighbor, Broadmoor) argued a two-story ADU sets a dangerous precedent and harms neighborhood character. Mike Zamora (directly east) called the design a loss of property rights and incompatible with single-story neighbors; he requested two single-story ADUs instead. Elizabeth Stewart (239 East Loma Vista Drive, via phone) stated the 24-foot height invades spatial privacy and is incompatible with surrounding single-story homes. No speakers voiced support.
Discussion Items
- Tempe 20 Townhomes (PL240401): Applicant Ashley Sams (Synectic Design) presented a 20-unit, two-story townhome development on 1.96 acres at 966 East Guadalupe Road. The project included a use permit for a six-foot wall (four-foot CMU plus two-foot mesh) in the front yard setback along Guadalupe for security, encroaching up to three feet into the required 15-foot setback. Staff planner Robert Mansolillo noted the project is a use-by-right in the RO zoning district; staff recommended approval. Commissioner discussion focused on privacy for neighbors to the north. Commissioner Lloyd noted second-floor bedroom windows face north; staff suggested conditions: a 48-inch box tree (increase from standard 36-inch), opaque/frosted glass on north-facing windows, and balcony screening. Commissioner Miller asked about setback distances (10 feet minimum). Chair Johnson and Commissioner Spears supported the project, citing infill and open space. A motion to approve with additional conditions (48-inch tree, continued work with staff on window design/placement and balcony screening) passed unanimously.
- College Avenue ADU (PL240442): Applicant Mike Wolf (Tempe resident) proposed a two-story ADU (24 feet tall) with a ground-floor workshop/garage and upper-level guest quarters/sewing room at 2021 South College Avenue. Two use permits were needed: one for a second-story addition and one to exceed the 15-foot height limit for an accessory building. Staff planner Lucas Jensen reported no neighborhood meeting was required; the project received 13 emails and 3 phone calls in opposition, 1 email in support. Jensen said privacy was mitigated by clearstory windows on the north and east sides and opaque windows on other elevations. A condition required painting the ADU to match the existing home. During discussion, Commissioner Lloyd questioned the exterior stairs and potential future conversion to a second living unit. Staff clarified that only one detached ADU is allowed by code, so converting the garage to living space would not be permissible. Commissioner Richter noted the position and window design minimize neighbor impacts. A motion to approve with conditions passed unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: All items approved unanimously.
- Tempe 20 Townhomes (PL240401): Approved with additional conditions: increase tree size to 48-inch box along the north property line; applicant to work with staff on window design/placement and balcony screening to address privacy for neighbors to the north.
- College Avenue ADU (PL240442): Approved with condition that the ADU be painted to match the existing home.
- Next Meeting: Scheduled for April 8, 2025.
- Adjournment: Meeting adjourned after staff and commission member announcements.
Meeting Transcript
Andy Johnson. 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 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, 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 the city council are not final decisions. Tonight with us on the commission, to my right, we have Commissioner Steven Richter, Commissioner Robert Miller, Commissioner Charles Redman, and to my left, Commissioner Linda Spears, and Commissioner Barbara Lloyd. Tonight with us from staff, we have Brian LeVake, Michelle Dalkey, Karen Stoval, Robert Mansilio, Lucas Jensen, Whitney Mayfield, Alexander Bosworth, Joanna Barry, and Eddie Garcia. Anyone here wishing to speak on an item tonight? We'll be given up to three minutes to speak. And we will be monitoring that time as it goes on. If you are here tonight to speak on an item, please fill out, and if you haven't already, please fill out one of these cards and bring it up to Ms. Barry, and she'll send them my way. To start, we will look at uh selection of items to be placed on our consent agenda. We had discussion in our study session to pull those from the regular meeting and have them on our consent. I will run through that list, and if there's anyone here wishing to speak on one of those items tonight, please get my attention and we can pull that and hear it. Um the first item on consent agenda is item 3A, which is Friendship Village Courtyard Apartments Phase 3. Next item is item 4C, which is Silverman Carport conversion. Item 4D, Lotus Massage. Item 4E, Shufford residents. And item 4F, Shember residents. Okay, seeing no one um wishing to speak on those items, we will keep those on our consent agenda. First, though, we would like I would like to get a motion for the development review commission study session and regular meeting minutes of February 25th, 2025. Could I get a motion for that item, please? Commissioner Spears. Um, I move for the approval of minutes for 225 for the study and regular um meeting. Thank you. Is there a second? I second that motion. And second seconded by Commissioner Redmond. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, and that item passes unanimously. Those items passes unanimously. All right, so the first item on our regular. Oh, sorry, we need to do our consent agenda. Let's uh can I get a motion for our consent agenda as I had read it. So moved. Thank you. Second. Okay, that has been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please raise your hand. All right, and that passes unanimously. Um, sorry, that was moved by Commissioner Spears and seconded by or sorry, moved by Commissioner Lloyd and seconded by Commissioner Spears. And you unanimous approval. All right, so the first item that we will be hearing is Tempe 20 Townhomes. So if we can hear from the applicant, correct? Yes. If the applicant would please approach and present your case to us tonight. If you don't mind, please state your name and city of residence. Um my name is Ashley Sams, uh Synatic Design, and I'm in Phoenix. I live in Phoenix.
openpublica.com