102825_REGULARMEETINGMINUTES.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
65103 characters
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Development Review Commission, of the City of Tempe, was held in Council Chambers
31 East Fifth Street, Tempe, Arizona
Present:
City Staff Present:
Chair Andrew Johnson
Jeff Tamulevich, Director, Community Development
Vice Chair Michelle Schwartz
Ryan Levesque, Deputy Director, Community Development - Planning
Commissioner Linda Spears
Michelle Dahlke, Principal Planner
Commissioner Joe Forte
Diana Kaminski, Principal Planner
Commissioner Larry Tom
April Kroner, Deputy Economic Development Director
Alt Commissioner Robert Miller
Joshua Rutherford, Special Project Economic Development Administrator
Karen Stovall, Senior Planner
Absent:
Chris Jasper, Senior Planner
Commissioner Barbara Lloyd
Robert Mansolillo, Senior Planner
Commissioner Stefan Richter
Lucas Jensen, Planner
Alt Commissioner Rhiannon Corbett
Whitney Mayfield, Planner
Alt Commissioner Charles Redman
Alexander Bosworth, Planner
Warren Rivera, Planner
Joanna Barry, Administrative Assistant
1) CALL TO ORDER: Hearing convened at 6:04 p.m. and was called to order by Chair Johnson
2) CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES:
2A) Development Review Commission – Study Session 9/9/25
2B) Development Review Commission – Regular Meeting 9/9/25
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Miller to approve Study Session minutes and Regular Meeting
minutes for September 9, 2025 and seconded by Commissioner Forte.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Forte, Tom, and Miller
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 6-0
The following items were considered for Consent Agenda:
3A) Request a Development Plan Review for two (2) new industrial buildings of approximately 252,000 net square
feet for SKY HARBOR LOGISTICS, located at 1515 West 14th Street. The applicant is Butler Design Group.
(PL250245)
Minutes of the
Development Review Commission
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
2
4A) Request a Time Extension for a Use Permit to reduce the required 60 percent ground floor use requirement of
Section 5-606(C) Ground Floor Uses in TOD Station Areas for a mixed-use development consisting of 272 dwelling
units and commercial use on 1.95 acres for APACHE SQUARE, located at 1747 East Apache Boulevard. The
applicant is Gammage & Burnham, PLC. (PL230063)
4C) Request a Use Permit to allow two (2) required parking spaces within the front yard setback for MAHER ABOU-
SALEH HOME IMPROVEMENT, located at 31 East Duke Drive. The applicant is Maher Abou-Saleh. (PL250097)
4E) Request a Use Permit to allow two (2) required parking spaces within the front yard setback for BLACK
RESIDENCE, located at 5425 South Siesta Lane. The applicant is Third Dimension Design. (PL250196)
4F) Request a Use Permit to allow retail (convenience store) with vehicle service station (fuel sales) in the GID
zoning district for BREAKTIME MARKET, located at 1010 West Southern Avenue. The applicant is Mikado
Architecture. (PL250228)
4G) Request a Use Permit to allow a bar in the CC zoning district for UNIVERSITY SPORTS GRILL, located at 740
South Mill Avenue, Suite D-130. The applicant is Arizona Liquor Industry Consultants. (PL250193)
4H) Request a Use Permit to allow two (2) required parking spaces within the front yard setback, and a Use Permit
for a detached engineered shade structure for CASPER ADDITIONS, located at 1221 East Marny Road. The
applicant is etoddtDesign, Inc. (PL250229)
4J) Request a Use Permit to allow one (1) required parking space within the front yard setback and a Use Permit to
increase the maximum height of wall/fencing within the required front yard setback to four (4) feet, six (6) two (2)
inches for PENDERGRAFT RESIDENCE, located at 726 East Broadway Lane. The applicant is Marc Pendergraft.
(PL250250)
4K) Request a Use Permit to allow a massage establishment in the CSS zoning district for THE ONE SPA, located at
524 West Broadway Road, Suite 102. The applicant is Tianyiguoji, LLC. (PL250261)
4L) Request a Use Permit Standard to reduce the front yard building setback from 20 feet to 16 feet, a Use Permit
Standard to reduce the rear yard (reverse frontage) building setback from 20 feet to 16 feet, and a Major
Development Plan Review for an 11-unit single-family townhome development for 806 UNIVERSITY TOWNHOMES,
located at 806 West University Drive. The applicant is ArchitecTor. (PL250262)
4M) Request a Use Permit for an engineered shade structure within the front yard setback over the existing driveway
for the OPRISIU CARPORT, located at 618 East Malibu Drive. The applicant is San Tan Shade Creations.
(PL250270)
4N) Request a Use Permit to allow a massage establishment in the PCC-1 zoning district for ANGELIC TOUCH SPA,
located at 715 West Baseline Road, Suite 4. The applicant is Scottsdale Architecture LLC. (PL250271)
4O) Request a Use Permit to allow an Entertainment business (racing simulation) in the CSS zoning district for
RACING RITUALS, located at 2155 East University Drive, Suite 112. The applicant is Bryan Esparza. (PL250280)
4P) Request a Use Permit Standard to reduce the required north and south side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 8 feet
in the R-2, Multi-Family Residential zoning district for FRANCES ST LOT SPLIT, located at 1305 North Frances
Street. The applicant is JCL Design Build LLC. (PL250299)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
3
5A) Request an Amended Planned Area Development Overlay to establish development standards related to
building height, parking, lot coverage, landscaping, and building setbacks and a Development Plan Review for a new
six-story mixed-use development with 315 dwelling units on 4.61 acres for RIO 2100 RESIDENCES, located at 2132
East Cameron Way. The applicant is Wendy Riddell. (PL250074
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Tom to approve Consent Agenda and seconded by Commissioner
Spears.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Forte, Tom, and Miller
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 6-0
The following items were considered for Public Hearing:
3B) QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM Hold a public meeting for an appeal of an Administrative decision to deny a Minor
Development Plan Review for building elevation modifications for KYRENE COMMERCEPLEX, located at 8240,
8270, 8350, 8370, and 8380 South Kyrene Road. The appellant is Snell & Wilmer. (PL250277)
PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT:
Teresa Harvey, Divina Management, Inc., went over the four topics highlighted on the plan review report that denied
their application. She stated that shields have been ordered and they are doing an as built to submit a set of
drawings for permits for the lights that go over the building numbers. Ms. Harvey referenced the topic of the numbers
not complying with the sign package criteria and stated that a comment on another of the applicants’ projects stated
that addresses were not part of the sign approval and they were told to remove them from the application. Ms.
Harvey addressed the comment about the location of the numbers and stated that they are on the elevations facing
the street. She addressed the comment about the size of the numbers and stated that building numbers throughout
the City of Tempe come in various sizes and that the code stipulates a minimum of four inches. Ms. Harvey
referenced the comment about the numbers not being appropriate for their location or function and not
complementing the surroundings. She stated that the surroundings consist of heavy industrial warehouses and that
the metal panel numbers are a representation of the industrial zoning. Ms. Harvey stated that the building addresses
are meant to function as wayfinding for pedestrians, vehicles and first responders and that the large font makes
navigating the property easier and safer; avoiding confusion in an industrial complex.
Commissioner Miller referenced the photographs of the signs in exhibits 5, 6, and 7 that were provided by Ms.
Harvey and noted there were different color signs on the buildings and suggested they all be the same color. Ms.
Harvey stated they selected different colors to add contrast so the signs would not be monotonous. Commissioner
Miller asked if the numbers were then an architectural feature. Ms. Harvey stated that they are part of a theme but
are just building numbers.
Commissioner Tom asked Ms. Harvey if they had tested the shields on any of the lights or if they were waiting for
them to show up. He stated that right now they are so bright that they wash some of the numbers out. Ms. Harvey
stated that they had ordered them. Commissioner Tom stated that since they are LED lights, they may be able to
adjust them. Dan King, BKM, stated that they are dimmable, but they have not tried that yet.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
Diana Kaminski, Principal Planner, stated that there was some confusion about signage that will be addressed in a
Code Text Amendment. She stated that you do not need a sign permit for address numerals, but you do need a
building permit for electrical and a Development Plan Review (DPR) for the address numerals because there are
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
4
code requirements for those. Ms. Kaminski proceeded to go over the sign permit criteria and stated that the
numerals were not part of the sign package.
Ms. Kaminski stated that she looked at Fire Medical Rescue calls for service for the addresses and was advised that
they had no issue locating the addresses based on the previous numbers that were on the building, which were
smaller than the current ones. The Police Department advised that they use GPS and that the prior address
numerals were not a problem. Ms. Kaminski went over the public safety improvements that would have been
suggested had a DPR been submitted.
Ms. Kaminski went over the concerns staff has regarding the lighting, such as the size, brightness, and the features
being adjustable. She stated that had this come before staff via a DPR, staff would have recommended or required
reverse pan-channel backlit numbers to reduce glare.
Commissioner Tom asked if the backlit numbers being required would be a Condition of Approval and was advised
that it would be.
Commissioner Miller noted that on a couple of buildings the lighting is washing out the color and makes them look
yellow.
Ms. Kaminski went over the considerations that went into staff’s denial of the request. She stated that she had
reached out to the applicant and advised them that staff would most likely recommend denial. Ms. Kaminski stated
that she asked the applicant if they would like to work on a compromise to reduce the size to something that would
be more proportional. She stated that they chose to go through the process of applying for a DPR knowing that it
was most likely going to be a denial and they would be coming before the Commission.
Ms. Kaminski stated that a neighborhood meeting was not required for this request and that staff received one email
in opposition of the appeal and in support of staff’s denial of the request.
Commissioner Tom stated that he does not recall looking at building numbers in other cases and asked how often
they are overlooking them. Ms. Kaminski stated that the appellant had shown images of other signs in the area and
noted that some of them are not in compliance. She stated that she has not done the research of whether they went
through the approval process and that numbers are usually handled through Building Safety Commissioner Tom
stated that it keeps being mentioned that the address numbers are non-compliant, but that our rules are that you
have to have a minimum size number or bigger and that if they wanted to they could make the numbers the whole
size of the building. Ms. Kaminski stated that the compliance comes in obtaining the building permit from Building
Safety for lighting and obtaining a DPR. She stated that if you do not receive planning approval it would be deemed
non-compliant. Commissioner Tom stated that it is an arbitrary number, and we are not going to come back and say
that it is too tall. Ms. Kaminski stated that it is not arbitrary because we take a lot into consideration such as the size
of the building, the context, and location, etc. Commissioner Tom asked how a design professional would know what
is or is not compliant. Ms. Kaminski stated that staff is going to work on rectifying that in the code. Commissioner
Tom asked if at this time there was no maximum size and was advised that was correct.
Chair Johnson asked if at this time they would work with staff to determine what the appropriate size would be and
Ms. Kaminski advised that was correct.
Commissioner Spears stated she was confused because they were told the address was not part of the sign
package, yet staff is using those same standards to determine the size of the address. She stated that if whoever
does sign approvals says it is not part of the sign package, but staff is saying they have to comply and that it does not
fit, it is sending a mixed message. Commissioner Spears stated that the real issue is that they did electrical without a
permit and asked if they would have been required to do a DPR if they got the electrical permit. Ms. Kaminski stated
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
5
that was correct and that any modifications to a building elevation require a DPR. She stated that they could have
included it in their repaint as a building modification and staff could have reviewed it as part of that.
Commissioner Spears referenced CPTED and stated that how she understands it the Police Department want
number everywhere and lighting. She asked what the recommended lumens are per CPTED. Ms. Kaminski stated
that if it is a parking lot space it is two-foot candles, if it is a drive aisle it is a one-foot candle, and if it is a doorway or
ATM it is five-foot candles. She stated that the foot candle is their current standard of measurement and that this is
well in excess of what is necessary for even entering a building with a key.
Commissioner Tom asked if they would have to take signs down and start all over if they were to backlight them. Ms.
Kaminski stated that she is not a construction expert, but she believed they could remove the numbers and retrofit
them with a table-mounted light fixture underneath. She stated that is something they would have to work through
the building permit process.
Chair Johnson asked if at that point (the building permit process) it could be determined that the numbers are too
large and Ms. Kaminski advised that was correct.
Commissioner Miller asked if it was usual for any review that when it comes in and you see any elevations you also
see where the address numbers or signage are called out. He stated that he has seen a lot of plans through their
review and that seems pretty standard. Ms. Kaminski stated that generally they just box out the area where the
signage is going
Commissioner Tom noted that Ms. Kaminski had stated that some of the numbers were on the wrong side of the
building. Ms. Kaminski stated that all of the numbers are on the east side facing the street that they are addressed
with, but they are not in the same orientation.
Chair Johnson asked how the applicant/appellant becomes compliant. Ms. Kaminski stated that the Commission
makes a decision and staff can add Conditions of Approval. Chair Johnson asked if based on the Commission’s
decision they will need to begin again with staff or this may be approved. Ms. Kaminski stated that it is in the
Commission’s hands, and they can approve or deny it. Chair Johnson asked if they would have to start again with
staff if it was denied. Ms. Kaminski stated they could do that or appeal to City Council.
Commissioner Miller moved that they uphold the denial and Chair Johnson advised they are not ready for that yet.
Commissioner Tom asked if the applicant could ask for a Continuance to continue working with staff on this. He
stated he has an issue with how the numbers are lit as they are very bright and he does not know if putting on the
shield or turning them down is going to help. He stated that he does not have an issue with the size as there is not a
code requirement for that. He wondered if the applicant/appellant is open to a Continuance to continue working on it
and come back to the Commission at the next meeting with some Conditions of Approval.
Ms. Harvey stated that the lighting is an issue and they have no qualms about that and believe the shields will work.
She stated that it is a gray area with what is required for building addresses and that is something that needs to be
much clearer.
PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE
STAFF RESPONSE:
Ms. Kaminski stated that staff asks for a little more direction in terms of what the Commission would like staff and the
applicant/appellant to work on towards. She stated that obviously lighting is one of them, but any other direction
would be appreciated as well.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
6
Commissioner Miller suggested that if the applicant/appellant is amenable to working with staff and bringing this back
to the Commission that the first step would be them withdrawing their appeal because otherwise they have to vote on
it or approve a Continuance. He stated that he does not have an issue with the typeface but believes there should be
a standardized size and area that can be negotiated and a standardized color.
Commissioner Forte stated that he would be in favor of approving the appeal with a condition of them working with
the light fixtures. He stated that he does not have a problem with the size of the numbers.
Chair Johnson noted that staff stated the numbers exceed what would be allowable for a sign on the building, so he
believes there is an issue with their size.
Ryan Levesque, Deputy Director, Community Development – Planning, clarified that the address numerals are not
signs and that was only used as a comparative analysis of signs that would typically be of a larger base.
Chair Johnson asked about the possibility of a Continuance. Mr. Levesque stated they could certainly work with the
applicant on a Continuance if they had some clear guidelines as to what the goals are that they are working with to
bring back to the next DRC meeting.
Commissioner Tom stated that he would be in favor of a Continuance because it makes it cleaner as he does not like
approving a request and giving Conditions of Approval that staff then has to interpret. He stated that the
applicant/appellant can then go back and work with staff on issues such as size, but he also wants to see how they
are lit.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Ms. Harvey referenced the Continuance and stated they would definitely address the lighting issues, but regarding
the numbers themselves she asked if a standard was going to be created based on their modifications. Chair
Johnson stated that they will work with staff to determine appropriate size and then it will come before the
Commission. Ms. Harvey stated that is where there is a challenge because they are very comfortable with how the
numbers are now and believe they are appropriate for how the code is written. Chair Johnson stated that had this
gone through the proper approval process with the City they would not be in this situation, and the numbers would
not be as large as they currently are. Ms. Harvey stated that there is a nuance in the system and it is not clear as it
says permits are not required, and they were not directed to go through the DPR process.
Commissioner Tom stated that there was a disconnect but that staff is aware of it now. He stated that he is asking
that they Continue the item until the November 18th DRC hearing so that the applicant/appellant can work with staff
on the lighting and size.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION:
Commissioner Miller stated that along with working with staff on lighting and size, he would like to see a standard
color and something that contrasts with every elevation that they have.
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Spears to Continue PL250277 to the November 18, 2025
Development Review Commission Meeting and seconded by Vice Chair Schwartz.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Tom, and Miller
Nays: Commissioner Forte
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 5-1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
7
4B) Request a Use Permit to allow two (2) required parking spaces within the front yard setback for WYMKR
PROPERTY, located at 519 East Alameda Drive. The applicant is Savi LLC. (PL240437)
PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT:
Tyler Coston, applicant, stated that they applied for a building permit to convert the single car garage to an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) and were advised they needed a Use Permit first to approve parking in driveway instead of the
garage. He stated that he believes there is ample space to park two cars in the existing driveway.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
Lucas Jensen, Planner, stated that this Use Permit request was a result of the conversion of the garage into an ADU
being done without building permits that led to a violation. He went over the site plan that showed two parking
spaces in the front and noted that two vehicles could also fit in the public right-of-way along Alameda Drive as
parking is allowed there. Mr. Jensen stated that this is a five-bedroom home with an ADU. He stated that a
neighborhood meeting was not required for this request and that staff has received one (1) general inquiry, three (3)
phone calls in opposition, and six (6) emails in opposition to this request. Mr. Jensen stated that residents were
generally concerned with excessive occupancy, parking, and related nuisance.
Vice Chair Schwartz noted that with the five bedrooms and the ADU which would be six bedrooms and asked if that
would require a third parking space. Mr. Jensen stated that per State law that has been incorporated in the City’s
zoning code they cannot require additional parking for an ADU, so they do not consider that part of the bedroom
count.
Commissioner Miller asked if with the new ADU regulations that went into effect it was expected that it would include
construction within the footprint of the house. Mr. Jensen stated that ADUs come in different forms and that in some
places people may even put them underneath a house or as a second floor accessed by stairs. He stated that it is
very common to see them attached and what delineates this between a bedroom addition and an ADU is that there is
no internal connection to the main home. Commissioner Miller stated that there would be nothing to stop them from
putting a door between the ADU and the main house at a later date and creating a sixth bedroom in the house. Mr.
Jensen stated that if they chose to undergo illegal construction they could make a sixth bedroom. Commissioner
Miller asked if this was an illegal construction as it currently exists. Mr. Jensen stated it is and they received a
violation. He stated that is why they are requesting the Use Permit to bring it into compliance.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Michael Zamora, Tempe resident, stated that while this Use Permit request may be about a parking setback it is
really about accountability when investors modify residential properties without obtaining the proper permits. He
stated that these unpermitted remodels create risks since occupants may be living in spaces that do not meet fire,
electrical, or structural codes as well as being a liability to the City. Mr. Zamora stated that repeated after the fact
forgiveness or minimal penalties only encourages further violations. He asked what the maximum penalty is for this
type of infraction and what penalty, if any, was imposed on this investor. Mr. Zamora asked what process is in place
to identify and address these situations before they reach this stage of requesting a Use Permit after the fact.
Baldo Besich, Tempe resident and President of the neighborhood association next to this property, stated that
investors are squeezing in more renters into homes designed for families, ignoring City rules, and then asking for
forgiveness after the fact. He stated that if the City approves this request it sends a message that if you break the
rules you can ask later and still get what you want.
Jana Lynn Granillo, Tempe resident, read a statement on behalf of Roberta Miller. She stated that the investors
should have known permits were required for the construction and made the decision to engage in illegal behavior
because it makes good sense to do so. She stated that the City prioritizes investors over its own residents.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
8
Elizabeth Welsh, Tempe resident, stated that the Commission should focus on whether a property owner should be
allowed to complete construction of new residential space on his property without City plan review or contracting
permits. She stated that the parking in the front yard setback, due to the elimination of the garage parking, is not in
keeping with the 60-year-old neighborhood aesthetic.
Heather Kiser, Tempe resident, stated that she is opposed to this request as she does not want to see their
neighborhood basically turned into house apartment complexes. She stated she is opposed to the amount of cars
that will result from the addition and that it is also a safety issue and will affect the line of sight. Ms. Kiser stated that
it is not fair to the residents who go through the legal permitting process to approve a request for someone who did it
illegally.
Jeffrey Gong, Tempe resident, stated that he lives 5-6 houses away from the applicant’s property. He stated that he
is okay with the applicant parking on their lot because there will be fewer cars on the street. He stated that Tempe is
getting more density and this is what happens.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Mr. Coston stated that his specific situation is being used to address a general concern in the City. He stated that the
ADU legislation is legal so that is not on the table here. Mr. Coston stated that they are not requesting parking in the
front yard, but rather the driveway. He stated that they have worked with the City for nearly two years to legalize this
property. Mr. Coston referenced the comment about the parking affecting the line of sight and stated there is a
storage container in the front of the home across the street that has been there for three years. He stated that a
couple of cars do not look worse than a big storage container.
Chair Johnson asked when the improvement was made to the property. Mr. Coston stated that he believed it was
two years ago.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Commissioner Tom asked if there were any additional Use Permit standards for unpermitted construction. Mr.
Jensen stated that it is the same Use Permit criteria.
Chair Johnson asked if there were penalties for them for doing the construction without a permit. Mr. Jensen stated
that depends on whether it is a violation of the zoning or City code or a building code violation. He stated that a
building code violation was issued in this case and that the applicant will be assessed additional fees when it goes
through the building permit process whereas if it was a zoning code violation double fees would be assessed through
the Use Permit process.
Commissioner Miller asked how much latitude staff has to review an ADU request when it comes in. Mr. Jensen
stated that the ADU legislation is still very new, but it probably would not be appropriate to add a condition to require
an additional parking space. Commissioner Miller stated that the Commission has seen several ADUs come through
but the only Condition of Approval they can usually add is regarding the height. Mr. Jensen stated that most of what
Commissioner Miller is referencing is due to the State legislation that explicitly prohibits the City from reviewing
certain things and that the only reason they are hearing this request is because the ADU is occupying what was
originally required parking spaces.
Commissioner Spears stated that a lot of people do not use their garages for vehicles but rather park in the driveway
or on the street.
Chair Johnson stated that the State legislation supersedes any control the City could put over ADUs and supersedes
the wants and needs of the neighborhood. Chair Johnson stated that one of his bigger concerns is what kind of
inspections were done on the ADU, such making sure the electrical, gas, etc., is up to code and asked when the
building would be inspected. Mr. Jensen stated that he does not have information on inspections and building permits
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
9
right now, but that they typically will not issue or review building permits until the Use Permit is approved. Chair
Johnson stated that he would like more clarity on that process and what it entails regarding the inspection.
Vice Chair Schwartz asked if outside of this case there has been any noise complaints or calls for public safety at this
site. Mr. Jensen stated that there were no code violations on the property with regard to noise or nuisance, but that
he does not have any information regarding calls for service.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION: NONE
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Spears to approve PL240437 and seconded by Commissioner
Tom.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Forte, and Tom
Nays: None
Abstain: Commissioner Miller
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 5-0
4D) Request a Use Permit to allow a vehicle based service (dispatch) in the PCC-1 zoning district on 0.75 acres for
2105 S TERRACE ROAD, located at 2105 South Terrace Road. The applicant is Wendy Riddell. (PL250149)
PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT:
Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC, gave an overview of the request. She stated that if this were gas powered
vehicles that allowed 24/7 parking and charging it would be permitted by right in this location, however because these
are electric vehicles (EVs) it triggers the need for a Use Permit. Ms. Riddell went over the site plan and noted that
they are 76 feet from the closest EV charging stall to the residential property to the south. She stated there will be a
small office building on site with three employees and that the site will be manned 24/7. Ms. Riddell stated there will
be a circular traffic pattern to reduce maneuvering on site. She stated that the north access is an entrance and exit
but the south access is only an exit. Ms. Riddell stated there will be an onsite staging area for vehicles to queue and
stage before customer dispatch so vehicles will not be “sleeping” in the neighborhoods. She then went over the trip
generation for this use versus other commercial uses. Ms. Riddell gave an overview of the statistics on the safety of
autonomous vehicles compared to human operated vehicles.
Ms. Riddell stated that there will be an eight-foot CMU wall on the east and south sides of the site and eight-foot-tall
anti-climb metal fencing on the north and west sides. She stated that there would be canopies to shield vehicle
lights. Ms. Riddell stated that they have heard concerns about backup beepers and proposed an additional
stipulation that vehicles shall not use backup beepers generating noise greater than ambient conditions on the site.
She stated that they are also willing to commit to a stipulation that all site traffic will route to and from Broadway
Road, unless they respond to a customer call in the Hughes Acres neighborhood. Ms. Riddell stated that the phone
number for a community liaison will be posted on the site to address neighborhood concerns. She stated that the
applicant has been coordinating with SRP since 2024 and that SRP confirmed there is sufficient capacity (six
megawatts) to supply the project without substation improvements and that all local infrastructure upgrades will be
funded by the developer.
Commissioner Forte asked for clarification that there will be no idling of vehicles in the neighborhood and they will be
contained to this one property. Ms. Riddell stated that she cannot speak for other companies, but that this site
creates a space for cars to stage so they would not be in their neighborhood.
Commissioner Miller asked if they are going to be providing their services to people who contract it, whether it be
Waymo, Lyft, etc. Ms. Riddell stated that her client has partnerships with companies who will operate the fleet and
the site. Commissioner Miller asked if future companies that commission with the client on this site will have to abide
by the same rules for it. Ms. Riddell stated that is correct and the conditions run with the land.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
10
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
Chris Jasper, Senior Planner, stated that a Development Plan Review (DPR) to approve the site layout and
landscaping will be administratively acted upon after Use Permit approval/denial. He stated that there is a
landscape buffer to the south that is required by code for any commercial user that is adjacent to or separated by an
alley from any single-family residential neighborhood. Mr. Jasper referenced the two points of access noted by the
applicant and stated that they have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the City’s Transportation Division. He
stated that they had the Transportation Division look at the proposed use and they determined that it did not meet the
standard for the need for a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), which is 70 peak hour trips. Mr. Jasper stated that
additional conditions of approval are proposed by staff to mitigate noise impacts to adjoining properties by limiting the
hours during which any noise-making cleaning activities, such as vacuuming or car washing, are allowed.
Mr. Jasper stated that a neighborhood meeting was not required for this request. He stated that staff has received 34
emails in opposition to the request and two letters of support. Mr. Jasper stated that residents have expressed
concern associated with traffic, noise, lighting, and they state that the proposed use is not appropriate adjacent to
residential uses. He then went over the unique and proposed Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Forte stated that some of the concerns he is hearing is that the turn from Broadway to Terrace is very
quick and asked if there is anything the City can do considering there will be increased traffic on the site. Mr. Jasper
stated that they can look into the left turn signal timing mechanisms with the Transportation Division and evaluate the
impacts this particular use might have on that particular intersection.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
John Hoyt, Tempe resident, stated that he lives five houses down from the proposed site and that he is concerned for
the safety of people in the neighborhood, especially children. He stated that in the future over 1,400 cars could be
coming into their neighborhood.
Mary Hoyt, Tempe resident, stated that the proposed site is directly next to a high school where there will be a lot of
traffic and an apartment complex where there are a lot of students who use scooters, walk, etc. She stated that she
is not opposed to EVs but does not think they should be in a neighborhood. Ms. Hoyt stated that she hopes the City
chooses the residents over the money when it comes to this request.
Connie Vekre, Tempe resident, stated that she is angry that they have not heard anything about how this project will
affect the neighborhood. She stated that there is no turn signal on the pathway that goes up to Broadway. Ms.
Vekre stated that the intersection of Broadway and Rural will get a lot of congestion. She is also concerned about
how this will affect their property values.
Todd Smith, Tempe resident, stated that he lives three doors down from the proposed site. He stated that he spent
about 30 minutes observing a similar site at the 101 & McDowell that is considerably larger and counted
approximately 2-3 cars a minute coming in and out of the facility. Mr. Smith stated that it did not look like they used
the overflow parking lot and is concerned that the same thing will happen with this facility. He was concerned that the
cars will use the Palmcroft loop to stage themselves instead of staging on the site.
Cheryl Aubin Smith, Tempe resident, stated that she finds it unlikely that the cars will never divert from being on
Terrace. She is concerned for the safety of the residents in the area due to all the EVs. Ms. Smith stated that there
are a lot of kids who walk or bike in the neighborhood, and there are also a lot of scooters. She stated that the
neighbors were not given any chance to provide input on this request.
Geoffrey Shell, Tempe resident, stated that he lives about 700 yards from the proposed site and that he is in support
of the charging station. He stated that the issue of safety can easily be addressed by the company pledging to use
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
11
the Broadway entrance as there are no residents in that section. Mr. Shell stated that he does not see power as an
issue and does not think the noise will be very significant.
Gary Brennan, Tempe resident, stated that he lives on Terrace and is disappointed that the City did not study the
number of vehicles traveling through the intersection of Broadway and Terrace. He stated that the additional vehicles
will create a safety issue for the neighborhood.
Justin Rucker, Tempe resident, stated that this facility and the vehicles will create a lot of light pollution, safety
issues, and congestion at the light at Terrace and Broadway.
Mark Van Brunt, Tempe resident, stated concerns about the noise and safety issues.
Nicholas Keller, Tempe resident, stated that he is for sustainable development and thinks development should both
advance Tempe’s goals and strengthen existing neighborhoods, but that this proposal does not seem to do that. He
stated that there are a lot of better uses that could be put on this vacant site.
Dennis Ricardo, Tempe resident, stated that this would be an industrial use right in the middle of a residential
neighborhood. He stated this will cause a lot of traffic and congestion issues, as there are a lot of cars already in the
neighborhood. Mr. Ricardo stated that he is also concerned for the safety of those in the neighborhood. He stated
that he does not believe there is a way to force cars to not go into the neighborhood.
Lori Deluca, Tempe resident, stated that she is concerned that the vehicles will be surveilling people as well as the
potential of them being hacked. She stated that she does not think the company can stop them from going into the
neighborhoods.
Elizabeth Baker, Tempe resident, stated that she is concerned about the amount of traffic this use will generate as
well as safety issues it will create for those in the neighborhood. She is also concerned about the light pollution that
will generate from the site.
Jennifer Pyde Velonis, Tempe resident, stated that she is concerned about the negative health effects that will be
created by this use as well as safety.
Samantha Boahringer, Tempe resident, stated that there was no traffic impact study done for this request as
autonomous vehicles are not in the City policy and that this should be updated. She stated that the applicant
mentioned they do not own or operate the fleets they service so she does not see how they could control where the
vehicles do or do not go.
Jana Lynn Granillo, Tempe resident and Chair of Meyer neighborhood association, stated that the General Plan 2050
highlights neighborhoods first. She stated that she is not against charging stations, but thinks this one is in the wrong
place and should be in an industrial area.
Keith Taylor, Tempe resident, stated that this project would change the character of the neighborhood. He stated
that it should be in an industrial area.
Mike Baker, Tempe resident, stated that he is concerned that there was no traffic impact assessment conducted for
this request and that these vehicles will cause traffic issues.
Nancy Houl, Chandler resident, stated she does not think there is a way to keep the vehicles from going into the
neighborhood, especially if that is the easiest/quickest route.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
12
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Ms. Riddell stated that one of the ways to reduce traffic in the neighborhood is to put autonomous vehicles there so
that they are closer to the neighborhood where the traffic is instead of in an industrial area. She stated that per every
single matrix autonomous vehicles are significantly safer than the ones you drive. Ms. Riddell stated that they are
programmed to be safer, have to follow the law, do not text, and are not driven by a teenager. She stated that the
site at the 101 & McDowell is not operated by her applicant and does not feel they should be compared to that matrix.
Ms. Riddell stated that this is a use that is permitted in the existing zoning with a Use Permit.
Chair Johnson asked Ms. Riddell to address the comment that was made about light pollution. She stated that the
lights will be mounted underneath the canopies, that everything will have to be screened and shielded down, and that
there will be an eight-foot masonry wall and thick landscaping. Chair Johnson asked if the half wall on the west side
of the property will remain and Ms. Riddell stated that it will be removed and non-scalable metal fencing will be added
as well as some landscaping.
Chair Johnson asked what would happen with the staging of cars if spots were not available when they come to the
location. Ms. Riddell stated that they will be able to monitor how many spots are available and that they have the 12
spots along the northern perimeter as well. Chair Johnson asked if they would see cycling in and out of Broadway
Road on Terrace while they were waiting for a stall to open. Ms. Riddell stated that there is a staging area on site to
avoid that situation.
Chair Johnson asked if there were any restrictions on non-electric or autonomous vehicles to operate out of this site,
such as a taxi fleet, and what would happen if autonomous vehicles were outlawed. Ms. Riddell stated that if
autonomous vehicles were outlawed this Use Permit would go away. She stated that a taxi fleet would not require a
Use Permit for this site as it could go there by right. Chair Johnson asked if any additional parking spaces could be
added to this site and was advised that they could not.
Chair Johnson asked how the Broadway Road access would be enforced. Ms. Riddell stated that it would be
enforced through their contract with the fleet.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Mr. Jasper stated that light trespass is reviewed during the building permit submittal process and that the applicant
will be required to submit a photometric plan that shows zero light trespass at the property line. He stated that this is
enforced by designing the lights on the underside of the canopies with shielding and by locating them at the primary
drive entrances and not near the edges of the property. Mr. Jasper stated that if the operation ceased to be an
autonomous vehicle facility it would represent a substantial modification of the use. He stated that a general taxi
service would still require a Use Permit or at minimum require a Use Permit transfer.
Commissioner Miller asked what the average number of vehicle trips is on Terrace between the site and Broadway
Road. Mr. Jasper stated that he did not have that information readily available at this time but he could coordinate
with the Transportation Division to see what they have on file. Commissioner Miller stated that it will create a
significant traffic flow even if it is only going up from the site to Broadway and we have no idea right now of what the
current utilization is. Mr. Jasper stated that they did receive a trip generation statement very early on in the process
that was shared with the Transportation Division. He stated that their primary concern was less about the traffic
impact, which was why a TIA was not done, but rather that the speed humps on Terrace be maintained.
Commissioner Miller stated that the impact could be significant on the Broadway and Terrace intersection.
Commissioner Spears asked if the General Plan showed this as multi-family and Mr. Jasper stated he believes that is
correct. Commissioner Spears asked how many units could be approved for that site as multi-housing. Mr. Jasper
stated that the site is currently zoned as PCC so any development would require a Use Permit. He stated that he did
not know the maximum density that would be allowed. Commissioner Spears stated that multi-family going into the
site would likely generate a lot more traffic that the current proposal would.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
13
Vice Chair Schwartz referenced the comment about defining ambient noise and asked that it could be something
worked up between the applicant and the City versus vague terminology of what noise is allowable. Mr. Jasper
stated that language is more or less in our noise ordinance. He stated that a noise violation is anything that
exceeded ambient noise or presumed to cause a disturbance. Mr. Jasper stated that our ordinance did at one time
contain decibel levels, but it was removed.
Chair Johnson asked if the City has significant data on traffic counts on our roads and Mr. Jasper stated that we do.
Chair Johnson asked if that was reviewed by the Transportation Division and Mr. Jasper stated that it was, and they
did not see any issues with the vehicle trips generated by this site.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION:
Commissioner Forte stated that he had concerns with the vehicles idling while waiting for charging, traffic within the
neighborhood, and backup noise in the lot. He suggested a stipulation be added for no backup noise in the lot.
Commissioner Forte stated that the neighborhood does not support this request and he cannot support it as it is.
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Spears to approve PL250149 including the Conditions of Approval
as presented and seconded by Commissioner Tom.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears and Tom
Nays: Commissioners Forte and Miller
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 4-2
4I) Request a Use Permit to allow two (2) required parking spaces within the front yard setback for VENIGALLA
RESIDENCE, located at 541 East Manhatton Drive. The applicant is Drattr, LLC. (PL250236)
PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT:
Monica Perez, representing the property owner, gave an overview of the request and a description of the property
components. She stated that the garage had been converted prior to the current owner purchasing the property and
he would like to bring it into compliance. Ms. Perez provided images of other properties in the area that have
enclosed garages/carports.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
Whitney Mayfield, Planner, stated that work was done on the property and the applicant is seeking to bring it into
compliance. She gave a brief overview of the request. Ms. Mayfield stated that no neighborhood meeting was
required for this request and staff has received two comments in opposition, with concerns of excess parking along
the curb or on the gravel.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Rose Anne Grottegoed, Tempe resident, stated that she lives across the street from the property. She stated that
she is not opposed to the two parking lots, but that she and some of the neighbors were concerned as to whether
there was an expansion of the driveway. Ms. Grottegoed stated that based on the pictures it looks like the driveway
already accommodates two cars so she is fine with that.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Ms. Perez clarified that there will be no additional concrete added to the driveway.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
14
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION: NONE
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Spears to approve PL250236 and seconded by Commissioner
Miller.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Forte, Tom, and Miller
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 6-0
4Q) Request a Use Permit to allow a fitness center in the GID zoning district for BALLIN ELITE, located at 9365
South McKemy Drive Street, Suite 102. The applicant is Anthony Farinola. (PL250319)
PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT:
Anthony Farinola, applicant, gave an overview of the request. He stated there will be nine small basketball shooting
bays that are limited to two players each and a half court for small group sessions. Mr. Farinola stated that the
facility operates under staff supervision at all times and they expect a total of about 10-15 occupants per hour. He
stated that they are appointment based and sessions are booked online. Mr. Farinola stated they will stagger their
start times in 30-60 minute blocks to limit overlap and congestion. He stated they are primarily membership based
but do offer some drop-in sessions. Mr. Farinola stated that he and his wife held an open house the past Sunday at
the facility for the neighboring community so they can understand what the facility operations were. He stated about
30 residents, including HOA board members, attended and were surprised to see how small the facility was and left
with a clear understanding and support for the use.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
Chris Jasper, Senior Planner, stated that if you were to add up all of the uses on the site divided by the required
parking ratio the site is technically deficient. However, he stated that the City offers a shared parking model and went
over how it is calculated. Mr. Jasper stated that after using the shared parking model staff determined that there is
sufficient parking. He stated this is a small suite with a half court that can accommodate group activities but is not
realistically designed to accommodate large scale tournaments, which has been a source of some consternation
related to a nearby sports facility. Mr. Jasper stated that the Police Department very specifically pointed this out as a
good use for the area.
Mr. Jasper stated that staff has received four letters in opposition of the request that cited concerns related to parking
and traffic and 13 letters of support. He stated that a neighborhood meeting was not required for this request, so all
the applicant’s outreach was voluntary in nature.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Nancy Howe, Chandler resident who lives immediately south of the proposed facility, stated that she saw the facility
during the open house and is not opposed to the request. She stated that they do have a tremendous parking issue
with the other sports facility that is already there with people parking in their neighborhood. Ms. Howe asked if there
would be another public hearing if this applicant decided to expand to an additional unit. She stated if that were the
case she is fine with the proposal as it stands.
Doug Stites, Chandler resident, stated that there have been ongoing parking issues in the area so there were
concerns when they heard of this proposed facility. He stated there was a post on social media from the applicant
that they would feature “rentals, training, tournaments, community events and much more” which got the neighbors
wound up about having the facility there. He stated that he attended the open house and the applicant gave a
complete explanation of the business model.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
15
Patricia Stravas, Tempe resident, stated that she lives 700 feet from the proposed site and stated that there is
already a lot of traffic and cars parking in the neighborhood due to the Court One facility. She stated that she thought
this proposed use would be the same and that the building does not have any spaces to park.
Terry Seckel, Chandler resident, expressed concerns about the parking issues with the other facility, Court One. He
stated that businesses in the area have put up signs stating “No Court One parking” to keep them out of their lots.
Mr. Seckel stated that from what they heard tonight it sounds like this is contained and is not going to have
tournaments. He stated that it was nice of the applicant to hold an open house to let the neighbors know about the
business operations.
Mitch Brown, President and CEO of Global Sports Holdings and Court One Athletics, stated they have been at that
location for 15 years. He stated that he is opposed to this request as they do not believe the applicant is being
transparent about the number of people that will be at the facility. Mr. Brown stated they are also concerned about
the amount of parking it will generate and that it will occur at the same time they hold their events.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Mr. Farinola reiterated that they only allow two people in their shooting bays and that at peak hours the facility would
only be about 70% occupied which would equal about 10-15 people.
STAFF RESPONSE:
In reference to a public comment question Mr. Jasper stated that if the business wanted to expand into an adjoining
suite it would be considered an expansion of the use and would require an additional Use Permit. He stated that this
would go through the public hearing process and come before the DRC again.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION: NONE
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Miller to approve PL250319 and seconded by Commissioner
Spears.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Forte, Tom, and Miller
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 6-0
5B) Request a Planned Area Development Overlay to establish development standards and a Development Plan
Review for a new mixed-use development with 400 dwelling units located within five buildings and approximately
11,000 square feet of new commercial floor area on 6.7 acres for DORSEY STATION, located at 1320 East Apache
Boulevard and 1214 South Dorsey Lane. The applicant is Charles Huellmantel. (PL250278)
PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT:
Charles Huellmantel, on behalf of Dorsey Station, gave a brief overview of the request. He stated that billions of
dollars have been spent putting infrastructure in this area, such as the light rail and streetcar, to make it a more
pedestrian area with greater density. Mr. Huellmantel stated 90% of the site will be affordable housing, which is
roughly 400 hundred units, and there will also be a grocery store. He stated that the Envision Center that the City
has today will remain on the site and they will work around it. He stated that they initially had four and five story
buildings on the site, with some directly adjacent to the neighborhoods, but that after hearing from the neighbors they
decided to move them 270 feet away from the single-family homes. Mr. Huellmantel stated that in order to do that
they had to go to six stories, which is a little more expensive but provides better street presence as well as a
significant buffer from the neighborhood.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
16
Mr. Jasper, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the request and stated that 10,000 square feet of the property will
be a grocery store. He stated that the development is made up of two sites, one of which is on the southwest corner
of Lemon and Dorsey that features two multi-family residential buildings. Mr. Jasper stated that the development
plans include some improvements to adjoining site, which is owned by the New School for the Arts. He stated that
there are ongoing discussions regarding leasing parking spaces to the New School for the Arts.
Mr. Jasper stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on July 2, 2025 and that 13 residents attended. He stated
that residents voiced concerns related to traffic impacts to the neighborhoods to the north and that there was too
much surface parking provided given the proximity to the light rail. Mr. Jasper stated that residents generally
supported the density and building heights and expressed interest in the establishment of a neighborhood-scale
grocery store. He stated that staff received two letters of opposition and two letters of support. Mr. Jasper stated
that that residents requested some assurance that the commercial component would become a grocery store, that
the alley would not be used to serve the development, and one resident also requested greater density. He then
proceeded to go over the unique Conditions of Approval relating to the configuration of the driveway and a
maintenance agreement for specialty pavers in the right-of-way.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Davide Sokolowski, Tempe resident, stated that he wants more density for this project and for the City to support
large scale affordable housing projects in the future.
Charles Buss, representing the University Heights neighborhood north of the project, stated that he is not opposed to
the project, but he would have preferred to see the easternmost buildings that are close to the neighborhoods be five
stories instead of six and have a shorter parapet wall. Regarding the grocery store, Mr. Buss stated that he does not
think 10,000 square feet is going to be enough and recommends 20,000 instead. He stated that for 10,000 square
feet all you are going to get is a convenience store that will be too expensive for the neighbors and residents.
Steven Cook, Tempe resident, stated that this corridor needs a walkable grocery store. He stated that they
previously had one with Food City but it closed down. Mr. Cook stated the per the Food Market Institute the standard
size for a grocery store is 30,000-50,000 square feet so Mr. Buss’ request for 20,000 square feet is a fair request.
Mr. Cook proceeded to read a comment submitted by his wife, who had attended the neighborhood meeting: She
expressed concern about the potential safety issues with the increase in traffic as a result of this development and
urged the developer to put the entrance/exit directly on Apache Boulevard to reduce the impact on the neighborhood.
She expressed these concerns but stated that the response was condescending and dismissive.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Mr. Huellmantel stated that they have been working with the City to find an appropriate grocer for the location. He
stated that they feel 10,000 square feet is the right number and is consistent with their Development Agreement with
the City. Mr. Huellmantel referenced the comment about reducing one of the parapets and stated they had offered to
do that but there were some problems with that in the code. He stated that if the Commission requests they reduce
the parapet they are more than happy to work with the City on it.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Mr. Jasper stated that there is a code requirement that roof-mounted electrical equipment be screened by a parapet
that is at least as tall as the electrical equipment being screened. He stated that since this is a code requirement
there is not really any flexibility with it at this time.
Chair Johnson referenced the 10,000 square foot grocery space and Mr. Jasper stated he would have to defer to the
Economic Development staff. April Kroner, Deputy Economic Development Director, stated that the 10,000 square
foot grocer was put in the Request for Proposal (RFP) that the City sent out for developers so what is being proposed
here complies with that request. Chair Johnson asked if they were required to submit for a minimum of 10,000
square feet and Ms. Kroner stated that was correct.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
17
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION: NONE
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Tom to approve PL250278 and seconded by Commissioner
Spears.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Forte, Tom, and Miller
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 6-0
6A) Request code text amendments to the ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, consisting of clarifications on the
allowance of photovoltaic systems with the addition of photovoltaic standards and definitions. The applicant is City of
Tempe. (PL250315)
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
Diana Kaminski, Principal Planner, stated that this started as an initiative from the Sustainability Committee. She
stated that they have a consultant who is doing an evaluation of City documents and policies trying to look at ways to
bring photovoltaic use more to the forefront. Ms. Kaminski stated that although the zoning code implicitly allows
photovoltaics anywhere in the city and the only regulations are typically through the building permitting process for
the connections and structural part of it, they wanted to make sure that it was added to the zoning code. She then
proceeded to go over the sections of the code where changes and additions were made.
Commissioner Tom asked if this was only for photovoltaic as an accessory use and would not be allowed as a
photovoltaic farm. Ms. Kaminski stated that they would still need to meet what the zoning requirements are for that
use so this applies to any form of photovoltaic. She stated that staff would review that as part of a DPR for the site.
Commissioner Miller asked if staff envision any kind of developmental incentives for people who are building if they
incorporate photovoltaic into their buildings as a way of generating additional energy. Ms. Kaminski stated that there
are no incentives through the zoning code but there are tax programs they have offered for people who are installing
solar where they get tax rebates but that is not a mechanism of the zoning code.
Vice Chair Schwartz stated that she was not clear about the part of Ms. Kaiminski’s presentation regarding
photovoltaic components that cannot be concealed. Ms. Kaminski stated that if a photovoltaic system has a
mechanism where it becomes like rotating panels there would be a mechanical aspect to it, however you cannot
necessarily screen it in a way like a screen wall that would shade the panel when it is tilted to collect sun. Vice Chair
Schwartz stated that her concern is that it makes it seem like we are regulating what you are able to do from a visual
standpoint in that category. Ms. Kaminski stated that it cannot be concealed due to their functional requirements.
Vice Chair Schwartz stated that when she read it she thought of things like inverters and other things you really
would not want to screen and cover but also the panels themselves.
PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION: NONE
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Spears to approve PL250315 and seconded by Commissioner
Forte.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Spears, Forte, Tom, and Miller
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioners Lloyd and Richter
Vote: Motion passes 6-0
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2025
18
7) ANNOUNCMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS
7A) Commission Member Announcements: None
7B) City Staff Announcements: None
8) ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m.
Prepared by: Joanna Barry, Administrative Assistant
Reviewed by: Michelle Dahlke, Principal Planner