111825_REGULARMEETINGMINUTES.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
17088 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 Barbara Lloyd
Diana Kaminski, Principal Planner
Commissioner Linda Spears
Lucas Jensen, Planner
Commissioner Joe Forte
Warren Rivera, Planner
Commissioner Larry Tom
Joanna Barry, Administrative Assistant
Commissioner Stefan Richter
Absent:
Alt Commissioner Rhiannon Corbett
Alt Commissioner Charles Redman
Alt Commissioner Robert Miller
1) CALL TO ORDER: Hearing convened at 6:01 p.m. and was called to order by Chair Johnson
2) CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL REPORT:
2A) 2025 Development Review Commission Annual Report
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Spears to approve the 2025 Development Review Commission
Annual Report and seconded by Commissioner Tom.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Lloyd, Spears, Forte, Tom, and Richter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vote: Motion passes 7-0
The following items were considered for Consent Agenda:
3A) Request a time extension for a Development Plan Review consisting of an addition to an existing furniture
store for ASHLEY FURNITURE ADDITION, located at 8515 S. Emerald Drive. The applicant is Cawley
Architects. (PL230212)
4A) Request a Use Permit to allow two (2) required parking spaces within the front yard setback for the
KUBISKO RESIDENCE, located at 736 East Loyola Drive. The applicant is Nancy Kubisko. (PL250334)
Minutes of the
Development Review Commission
REGULAR MEETING
November 18, 2025
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 18, 2025
2
5B) Request a recommendation for design and place-making principles for APACHE (Character Area 4) PLAN,
updated November 2025, which generally encompasses land east of Dorsey Lane, south of the Salt River, west
of the City boundary and north of the Union Pacific Railroad. The applicant is the City of Tempe. (PL250341)
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Richter to approve Consent Agenda and seconded by
Commissioner Spears.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Schwartz, Commissioners Lloyd, Spears, Forte, Tom, and Richter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vote: Motion passes 7-0
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 BKM Management. (PL250277). This is an
item continued from the October 28, 2025 Development Review Commission hearing.
PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT:
Teresa Harvey, Divina Management, Inc., stated that since the last DRC meeting they met with staff to go over
several items. She stated that they knew about the light fixtures and were addressing them, but they were also told
that they were not meeting the 80% background to number configuration differential and 50% contrast differential.
Ms. Harvey stated that they brought this to the attention of their architect who told them they actually are in
compliance and showed where the address numbers have met the written code. She then went over each
discussion point:
Discussion point #1 - lighting: Ms. Harvey stated that they have submitted a new code compliant lighting fixture to
staff for review and if approved it will submit for electrical permits.
Discussion point #2 – 80% background: Ms. Harvey went over the code requirements for this and provided a diagram
showing that the box ratio and stated that they do comply to the 80% rule. She stated that the closest one is 78%,
which is building 8240.
Discussion point #3 – 50% contrast: Ms. Harvey stated that the calculations of the 50% differential are based on a
ratio of the colors and 2:1 is approximately 50%. She stated that they meet the 50% ratio on buildings 8270, 8030
and 8370.
Discussion point #4 – Location: Ms. Harvey stated that this is one of the areas that they are still working through.
She stated that the location of their numbers is visible from Kyrene, so they meet that code.
Discussion point #5 – Size: Ms. Harvey advised that the code states that the number has to be at least four inches
high and that their numbers meet that code. She stated that the Development Plan Review (DPR) requirements are
that the design enhances the functional and attractive appearance of the City of Tempe, but there is no written code
requirement for uniformity of color, size, or location of addresses. Ms. Harvey showed a short video clip of the
address numbers and how they look at nighttime. She stated that one of staff’s recommendations was to lower the
numbers to the midband because they were not getting the 80% coverage where they are currently located. Ms.
Harvey stated that they are currently meeting the 80% and that if they lowered the numbers at the size they are the
only way they would make the 80% coverage would be to cross the score lines. She stated that the City’s approved
landscape plan requires 23 additional trees along Kyrene and this would block out the numbers if they were lowered.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 18, 2025
3
Ms. Harvey stated that the owner is willing to change the color of all the numbers to Connor's Lakeside. She stated
that there is one building that has a different color background and they will change it to make sure that all the
backgrounds behind the Connor's Lakeside will meet 80% requirement.
Vice Chair Schwartz stated that in previous versions there was some monument signage at the roadway and asked if
it still exists today with the numbers for the complex and Ms. Harvey stated that it does.
Commissioner Richter asked what color the new light that hangs over the signs will be. Ms. Harvey stated that it
would be the same dark color and will complement the background as well.
Chair Johnson referenced an image Ms. Harvey had displayed of the signage/number on the Tempe Transportation
Center. He stated that the addressed number is smaller and in the lower right corner with a large artistic 200 in the
upper right corner and that the smaller number is probably the compliant version of the address.
Chair Johnson stated that the biggest concern with project is the lighting, and that he was not concerned about the
colors.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF:
Diana Kaminski, Principal Planner, referenced the 50% contrast and stated that it would be something they will be
addressing in a Code Text Amendment. She stated that the applicant meets this requirement and that staff’s
recommendation based on input from the last DRC meeting was that they provide uniform colors. Ms. Kaminski
stated that the applicant agreed to do that for the large numbers. She stated that staff is not asking the applicant to
repaint the suite numbers or the numbers over the bay doors.
Ms. Kaminski stated that they gave them several options for illumination and that the applicant is removing the
existing non-compliant fixtures and replacing them with a fixture that has a lower wattage and lumen level. She
stated that this fixture would not be adjustable and would be placed at the distance required by code from the
numbers themselves.
Ms. Kaminski referenced the 80% requirement and stated they verified the actual square footage of their sign area to
the band that they had so that is not why they are making the recommendation to go to the lower height. She stated
that the City’s position was the numbers were too large and recommended they be reduced to three feet. Ms.
Kaminski stated that as a compromise to them having to rebuild all the numbers to a smaller size staff requested that
they lower them on the building to reduce visibility from the neighborhood. She stated that trees can be strategically
placed to mitigate conflicts with the signs.
PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Ms. Harvey stated if they lower the larger numbers down to the midband without crossing the score line, two of them
would not meet the 80% background. She stated that the only way it would work is if they passed the score line
which is usually not recommended. Ms. Harvey stated that the landscape plan is very dense, with 23 trees that will
be placed every 30 feet.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Ms. Kaminski stated that the 80% requirement is part of the code, but it also states that staff has the authority by
Condition of Approval to lower it to the band below and it would be covered. She stated that the requirement for
street trees is not a ratio of 30 feet but can be clustered and moved in different places. Ms. Kaminski stated that this
can also be accommodated through the DPR process.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 18, 2025
4
Chair Johnson noted that this is a quasi-judicial item and asked what happens if the Commission agrees with some
staff recommendations that the appellant does not agree with. Ms. Kaminski stated that she believed that if there
was disagreement in the decision of the appeal that it could then be appealed to the City Council. Ryan Levesque,
Deputy Director, Community Development - Planning, stated that the original applicant is seeking the Commission to
make a decision on the original denial. He stated that the appellant/applicant came back with some compromises
and it is up to the Commission on whether they favor the appellant/applicant’s request or if they favor any of staff’s
Conditions of Approval. Chair Johnson asked what happens if the Commission agrees to everything the applicant
wishes except for moving the numbers down. Mr. Levesque stated that the Commission can agree to the request in
full or in part.
Commissioner Tom asked if the motion would then be to approve or deny the appeal request and Mr. Levesque
stated that was correct. Ms. Kaminski stated that it may also include Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Spears stated that having the numbers at the top of the building is more aesthetically pleasing than in
the middle and asked why it is okay for the Transportation Center to have “200” at the top. Ms. Kaminski stated that
she was not part of the design review for the Transportation Center, so she does not know if it was considered
signage or if it is behind the glazing. Commission Spears stated that at the last DRC meeting they determined that
addresses are not signage. Ms. Kaminski stated that it is a sign type but is not considered part of the sign package.
Chair Johnson noted that the Transportation Center also has the “200” at the lower right as well. He stated that he
cannot speak to the artistic feature.
Commissioner Forte asked if it is a subjective view why they want it lower rather than higher. Ms. Kaminski stated
that they were looking at where the sign band on the building was located and also trying to mitigate the concerns
from neighbors in wanting it to be less visible from the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tom stated there was no requirement for the maximum size or location of the address numbers in the
current code until we rewrite it and asked if the numbers would still be code compliant if they were up at the top. Ms.
Kaminski stated that was correct. Commissioner Tom asked if this is something that they potentially overlooked in
other cases where there were large numbers on buildings and did not look at it as a design review issue. Ms.
Kaminski stated that without doing research on each individual site, she cannot confirm whether they were approved
or not. She stated that in this case if they had come in first before building them staff would have provided them with
comments based on DPR criteria, such as aesthetics, scale, compatibility with the area, etc. Commissioner Tom
asked if staff became aware of this situation because of a lighting issue. Ms. Kaminski stated that an email came in
asking “who approved the really large numbers.”
Commissioner Lloyd asked if the revised lighting plan solves the issue regarding the visibility from the neighborhood
as the letters should not be offensive if lighting is addressed. Ms. Kaminski stated that she has not had time to review
the lighting.
Chair Johnson stated that he thought the lighting they proposed was acceptable because it is a lower lumen and a
standard fixture. Ms. Kaminski stated that she has not seen the spec and it still needs to go through the approval
process.
Commissioner Spears reiterated that she thought it was the lighting that was the issue for the neighborhood and not
the size of the numbers. She stated that if the size of the numbers was the issue that was not communicated to the
Commission. Commissioner Spears stated that the new lighting should take care of the issue.
Chair Johnson stated that from his recollection it was the lighting that was focused on during the last meeting, and
the size of the numbers was discussed at length as not being something that would have been approved if the
applicant had gone through the normal process.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 18, 2025
5
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Brian Braganza, Ajanta Design, stated this was not something they were trying to hide and that they had the address
numbers on the paint package and were told to remove them because it was not paint.
Chair Johnson asked what would be involved if they moved the numbers and if there was any internal electrical. Mr.
Braganza stated that they are attached to the concrete so there would be damage to the tilt panels when they come
down. He stated they would have to move them down, remount them, move all the electrical down, and repaint to
repair the damage to the building. Chair Johnson asked if they agree with painting the numbers all the same color
and Mr. Braganza stated that they do. Chair Johnson asked if they could do that with the numbers in place and
Mr. Braganza stated he would have to ask the sign vendor.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION:
Commissioner Tom stated before seconding Commissioner Spears’ motion he wanted to be clear that they were
going to change the light fixture, change the color, and keep the same height. Commissioner Spears stated that was
correct. Chair Johnson asked if it was correct that it was all of the staff recommendations except for lowering the
numbers. Commissioner Spears stated that it was what the appellant/applicant agreed to do which was enumerated
by the color, lighting, painting the numbers the same color. She stated that what it does not include is moving the
numbers to the mid panel. Chair Johnson stated that the only item that will not be included is lowering the numbers.
Commissioner Richter stated that he does not find anything wrong with the signs with the discussion that has been
held so far. He stated that they keep talking about uniformity and the one thing that pops out is the finish of the light
fixture. Commissioner Richter stated that all the other light fixtures are the same color as the building. He stated that
maybe it brings a little less attention to it if that gets finished in the same manner.
Chair Johnson asked what the colors of the new fixtures are and the appellant/applicant stated that they are black
and silver. Commissioner Richter stated that he believes most fixtures can be painted. Ms. Harvey stated that four
of the buildings already have the darker background and one has the lighter background. She stated that they will
change that background to a darker background and all the address numbers will be the Connors Lakeside color.
Ms. Harvey stated that the light fixtures can then be a darker grayish color to tie into that background.
Commissioner Spears stated that she believes that one of the conditions that the appellant/applicant submitted is that
they would change the backgrounds so they are all the same color.
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Spears to approve the appeal of PL250277 with the revisions as
submitted by the appellant/applicant and seconded by Commissioner Tom.
Ayes: Chair Johnson, Commissioners Lloyd, Spears, Forte, Tom, and Richter
Nays: Vice Chair Schwartz
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vote: Motion passes 6-1
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 6:50 p.m.
Prepared by: Joanna Barry, Administrative Assistant
Reviewed by: Ryan Levesque, Deputy Director, Community Development - Planning