Development Review Board - July 10, 2025

Welcome to the Scottsdale Development
Review Board public meeting.
The purpose of the development review
board is review board is to maintain the
quality of development in Scottsdale by
reviewing all of the design aspects of a
proposed development and the
relationship of its design components to
the surrounding environment and
community. The board also reviews all
preliminary plats for subdivisions to
asssure conformance to policies and
ordinance requirements.
The agenda consists of roll call, public
comment on non-aggendaized items,
administrative report, minutes, approval
of the prior meeting and action items. A
roll call vote will be taken after each
item's motion. The liaison will call
each board member's name to indicate
their desired vote for that item. After
the vote has been counted, the liaison
may read out the final vote.
Citizens wishing to speak during public
comment time or to speak specifically on
any agenda item may fill out a blue
request to speak card
to the staff table before the agenda
item or items is to be discussed.
Citizens interesting in submitting a
written comment on on any item may
submit a yellow
written comments card
to the person at the staff table prior
to the beginning of public testimony.
When called, please come to the podium,
state your name and address, and then
begin speaking. Groups wishing to speak
should elect a spokesperson to represent
the views of the group. To facilitate
the meeting, your comment will be
limited to three minutes for individual
speakers with one additional minute for
each additional individual present at
the meeting who has contributed their
time to a representative speaker up to a
total of 10 minutes. I remind our
audience that the board's review relates
to design matters and does not include
consideration of existing zoning
district designations,
zoning entitlements, or the allowed uses
within the zoning districts. The board's
motion may be to approve to approved
with modified stipulations to deny the
request or to continue the case. Thank
you for your interest in time. We will
now begin the meeting with the roll
call.
Vice Chair Brand
here.
Commissioner Gonzalez
present.
Board member Paser
here.
Board member FE.
Board member Mason
here.
Board member Robinson
here.
Five present. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh with that, we can move on
to public comment on non-aggendaized
items. I do not see that we have any
yellow cards filled out for
non-aggendaized items. So with that, we
can move on to the administrative report
for Mr. Carr.
Thank you, Vice Chair Bran, and good
afternoon. Um, just for the record, I
want to note that Mr. Graham, Council
Member Graham is also absent today. Um,
for next week, I just want to note that
we will have uh two items for next
week's agenda. This is again one of
those months in the summertime where we
have back-toback meetings. So, we'll be
we'll be meeting next week on the 17th.
Um, for today, there is three public
speaker items for number six uh on the
agenda. So, you should have those on the
dis there. Other than that, I think that
concludes my administrative report for
today. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Carr. Uh, let's move on
to the approval of the of the minutes
from the prior meeting. Do we have a
motion for that?
Yeah. Motion to approve
the regular minutes in the meeting of
June 12th, 2025. Development board
meeting is presented.
Second.
Vice Chair Brand.
Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez.
Um, I'm going to decline to vote on this
because I was not present at the time.
Board member Piser.
Yes.
Board member Mason.
Yes.
Board member Robinson.
Yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Okay, we can move on to action items. Um
again, do we have any blue request to
speak cards
for persons within the Okay, so we have
no written comment cards. Uh with that,
we can move forward with um I believe
that there's been uh from someone on the
dis uh a motion to remove item number
three from the consent agenda item for a
full presentation.
Do we have a motion to approve um cases
four and five on the consent agenda
prior to moving to the regular agenda?
Motion to approve cases 25DR
2021 number two and 34DR 2024.
We're we're moving 25DR 2021 number two
to the to the regular agenda. Mr. user.
So, do do we have the motion would be
for items four and five?
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said number
five. Okay. Motion to approve 34 DR 2024
38DR 2024.
Uh per staff recommended stipulations as
after finding the development
applications meet the applicable
development review award criteria and
additional findings in the development
of the Oldtown area.
Second.
Vice Chair Brandt,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
yes.
Board member Peaser,
yes.
Board member Mason,
yes. Yes.
Board member Robinson,
yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Okay, without moving on to the regular
agenda, we're going to go ahead and see
the um item number number three. uh the
Goldwater project as the first item item
on the regular agenda 25-dr2021.
Do we have a staff presentation by Miss
Tessier?
Uh thank you. Good afternoon, Vice Chair
Brand and members of the board. Mayor
Tessier here with the planning
department. Can you hear me? Okay. I
feel like the volume's a little off.
Okay, great. Um the case before you
today is 25DR 2021 number two, the
Goldwater uh reapproval. Um just a side
note, this is just on the agenda today
because this was previously approved by
the development review board. However,
um they did not pull permits within the
development review board time period. As
such, they're coming back for just a
reapproval. So, nothing has changed
since that development review board
approval. Um and it's just a recap of
what was approved um from the original
DRB approval. So, just wanted to put
that clarification out there today.
Um, so the subject site is located at
the southeast corner of North 70 uh,
excuse me, North 70th Street and North
Goldwater Boulevard as highlighted in
yellow. And as you can see, there's some
multifamily to the west, a vacant
commercial mixeduse development known as
Museum Square will be to the north.
There's some commercial to the east. We
have a hotel to the southeast portion of
the site and some multifamily
um, to the southwest portion of that
site.
So again today these um applicants
requesting uh development review board
reapproval
for a mixeduse development comprised of
40 dwelling units and 7,000 square ft of
commercial area. You'll see that
vehicular access is provided along East
Four Street which um which leads down to
a parking garage. Um, we have pedestrian
circulation that's enhanced along the
perimeter of the site. Um, the applicant
is also stipulated to provide a public
access easement to allow pedestrians
cross from East Fourth Street to
Goldwater Boulevard. Additionally, as
part of their zoning case and um will be
required at time of permit issuance,
they're going to be required to
contribute 50% of an enhanced pedestrian
walkway crossing um to then um give
pedestrians access um across Goldwater
to lead into what is known Museum
Square.
So, before you is the applicant's um
landscape plan where you can see mature
trees along the perimeter of the site.
Um I believe it's a combination of
salvage materials as well as um new
materials. And again, as part of the um
zoning case back in 2019, um they were
stipulated to provide some enhanced
landscaping along that um south half of
East Four Street. And that's just part
of the um communication that they had
with the neighbors to the south. So
they're going to be u memorializing that
with their final plans.
Before you are the um proposed um
development review board building
elevations. As you can see, they're
going to be consistent with the OldTown
design guidelines, sensitive design
principles, as well as the commercial
design guidelines.
I'll conclude my presentation with this
perspective. the applicant team is here
and has propulled a full prepared a full
presentation. So she can go into a
little bit more details on anything that
I have may missed and then of course
happy to ask any questions you may have
subsequent to their presentation. Thank
you.
Thank you. Do we have any questions for
Miss Tessier for uh from the from the
board?
No, no questions. Um,
is there an interest from the board to
see the applicant presentation? Yeah.
Okay. Can we get the applicant for a for
a presentation? Thank you.
Hello. My name is Karen Santiago. I'm
the architect. Uh, members of the board,
we used this presentation before in the
last goound, so we're kind of showing it
to you again. Uh this is the Goldwater
uh a view from Goldwater Boulevard right
here and you're seeing the contribution
to the arts uh program, the cultural
improvement program that happens along
that pedestrian corridor that Miss
Tessier mentioned. So this is a new
crosswalk that will allow allow
pedestrian connection between the south
and the what's the arts district right
now?
Can I advance this myself?
So, this is just a more comprehensive
sense of how uh the old town and how
this development actually loops into all
the districts in the different areas. We
really think um one of the best parts of
this project will be the enhancements to
the pedestrian and walkability for this
uh entire zone by actually creating a
meaningful connector from south of
Goldwater which is a hightraic corridor
as you know into the arts district where
you see the blue and everything else to
the north of that.
This is what the site looks like right
now. You're probably very familiar. And
so we really think that enhancing and
infilling this site is a meaningful
contribution to this area uh and it will
help residents in the community in
general uh create a safer and better
environment. There is uh additional
landscape, some shade uh and of course
the residences that are provided here.
These are just some before and afters
just to give you a sense of our
the changes that we're expecting to see.
The project does transition from the
east into the west in height. So the
lower portion that you're seeing is
commercial and the taller portion at the
end on the west is the residences.
A lot of effort was placed into shading
especially for the commercial areas and
areas that can be for public enjoyment.
Uh also widening of all of the sidewalks
that surround this development. Uh these
are patios that happen along the
Goldwater uh commercial area.
Just a closer view of that corridor with
the cultural improvement program um art
piece
and the view at the corner of 70th and
fourth street.
The artwork uh has been intentionally
placed where it's uh most able to
contribute to that pedestrian corridor.
Uh and it has been approved already by
the cultural improvement improvement uh
program uh board.
These are uh just some aerial um cuts
showing you the distribution of the
different components of the project. So
the commercial space is shown in red. Um
and it is uh distributed evenly along
Goldwater with the purpose of
establishing um more activity along that
corridor and created creating a more
vibrant environment especially uh at
night. The purple is the parking for the
for the project
and so the residences are here. Uh now
you can see certain amenities are also
included with the project and the
uppermost level the fifth level is
actually step back significantly to uh
have mass reduction and visually create
a lighter uh area on the west.
Along with all of this, we also had uh a
lot of um talks and included very many
features that are uh aimed at reducing
the carbon footprint of our project,
creating more shade, creating a better
environment for people to walk along and
also uh the project itself which will
include high efficiency HVAC and a high
efficiency envelope. Uh a lot of these
features uh this would be the first
project to actually include them for
something of this type and uh also solar
panels and uh on-site generation of
power for the house loads is uh
proposed.
just some sections kind of showing you
that every resident is expected to have
pretty meaningful outdoor space and
balconies uh that occur along every
surface of the residential portion of
the project
and like uh Miss Tessier mentioned uh we
are of course respecting the guidelines
and using that and trying to be com um
conversant with the context in a way
that we think will greatly enhance this
area. Uh these are some of the materials
and the colors that are being used.
This just kind of gives you a sense of
the sustainability features but in
section looking at a cut through the
project. The project does include an
atrium in the center. So in addition to
people having their own balconies, the
units themselves do internally look at
an atrium space um that has some
features to include daylight in there.
Uh back when uh this was reszoned, a lot
of attention was placed into how it
zoning is uh able to comply with with
different requirements like balconies
and overhangs. And so these are really
just uh a lot of the effort that we went
through with staff to get everything
approved inside the guideline that had
been um already established. So
you can see the envelope and how we are
actually able to make that work.
And finally, just a look at our
landscape uh plan and how shade is uh
prioritized by this landscape plan and
the shade plan.
Thank you.
Do we have any questions from the board?
Yeah, sure.
Thank you very much. Uh I appreciate the
architecture that was necessary to do
this project. I remember this project
now and uh it's a demanding site at best
and so we really appreciate it. It looks
looks like a very nice project. Um I
forget the material for the overhangs in
front of the retail uh buildings. What
is that constru? What is that material?
So there is a steel structure that is
being proposed uh and it's all metal
generally uh for durability. So it's
lightweight metal and steel structure.
Okay. Very good. And then what what
would the what's the color palette on
the that overhang? Is it it's going to
be a neutral or
uh the actual shape structures are
actually the lighter color? Uh the
intention there is to reflect as much of
the heat as we can with those. The
supports are actually in the darker
color of our palette to kind of make
them go away.
Very good. Uh what size box trees are
those in and in that on that in front of
the retail? Do you know?
You know, I it's been a while since
we've had to look at our plan. I But we
did go back and forth and those were
approved. I believe they're 24 or 36
inch boxes for most of the ones that are
required uh along that frontage, but I
would have to honestly confirm that. I
it's hard to to know off the top of my
head. We did go back and forth quite a
bit with the city uh on that. So,
very good. Thank you. And then I guess
probably what is the uh as far as the
because of the facing of part of the the
the the
residential area, it's facing a kind of
like a what a north
um kind of like a northeast exposure. Is
that what you
along water? Yes. Yes.
What are you doing as far as that for on
the uh on the um glazing? Are you doing
anything particular?
Yeah. So the residences themselves uh we
used a pretty deep balcony is is kind of
the major way by which we are mitigating
uh solar exposure and heat gain uh to
the actual units. Those units each have
most of their glass oriented so that it
is towards the balcony and the balcony
itself is actually pretty deep into the
unit in most cases. So as you go around
you'll see that the depth of the balcony
is actually varied so that where there
is a worse exposure there's a deeper uh
recess for those outdoor spaces and
they're most of uh most times actually
carved out. Therefore glass is able to
orient itself like that. There are a
small number of openings and windows in
other places but for the most part
that's how we're mitigating the heat. So
what what do you think the anticipate as
far as the upper level balcony size
would be usually?
So because uh by upper level I'm
assuming you mean like the penthouse uh
uppermost. Yes. Um so the units are 11
on each level but we have only seven on
the uppermost level. And so that was
done by design so that we could actually
enhance further those units and create
even better outdoor spaces for some of
those and that also helped us mitigate
the size of the mass at the very top
where it was necessary. So I don't know
if that answers the question
how and then uh because I didn't see it
where's the mechanical for the for the
retail.
So the garage will have some level of
the mechanical uh it is a VRF system uh
that we're utilizing throughout. So
condensing units uh are expected to live
in the garage and later when tenant
improvements actually come along they'll
have to obviously put some level of
equipment inside the the actual
commercial space itself so that it's all
screened within the garage.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Do we have any other comments from the
board?
Great. I'll I'll make one kind of
closing comment. I I'm probably the only
board member that was on on the board
when this case came through back in
2022, I believe.
Yes.
Um I I think that the I if I recall this
case correctly, I think a lot of our
time was spent on the shading of the
public way along the Goldwater frontage
on the north.
Yes. um which I think is is consistent
with the application that was that was
resubmitted per per the back and forth
that we had. I'll just take a further
note to um appreciate the design work
that I know that you have put in as well
as the ownership. Um, I think it's a
it's a really nice addition to the
downtown fabric and the reflection of
the the mid-century um components of the
building is really artfully done and
appreciate the personally appreciate the
attention to the pedestrian zones um
that that your firm has put in and the
detail that you put in to the shade
structures as well as the details at the
ground level. So, with that, I'm going
to turn it over for a roll call v uh oh,
turn it over for a is there a proposal
for is there a
Does anyone want to make it a
approval? Move.
Um move to approve case um
tw 25D 2021 number two.
I'll second that.
Vice Chair Brand.
Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez.
Yes.
Board member Paser,
yes.
Board member Mason,
yes.
Board member Robinson,
yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Thank you, board.
Okay, we'll move on to regular agenda
item number six. Do we have a staff
presentation for that?
Good afternoon, uh, Vice Chair Brand,
uh, Commissioner Gonzalez, uh, members
of the DRB. I'm Jeff Barnes with the
city's planning department uh presenting
12 PPP1 1995 number two which is the lot
34 a desert summit building envelope
modification.
So the request uh before you uh is uh
request by the owner to modify the
previously approved building envelope
for lot 34 within Desert Summit as
established through 12PP1 1995.
This uh came before you back on May 15th
uh and was continued uh providing uh
direction uh to the applicant uh and
some discussion uh to uh look at an
alternative uh building envelope
location from the one that was proposed
at that point in time and come back to
the board. And so we are back uh in
front of you today.
Just as a refresher on site location, uh
lot 34, the subject site is highlighted
in yellow on the screen here uh within
the um the northern portion of the
desert summit subdivision.
It uh carries the R170 ESL zoning as do
the other lots in this portion of the
subdivision. The subdivision itself has
multiple areas with different zoning
designations to it.
Um, it is a little bit of a large
L-shaped subdivision. So, I wanted to
give a context graphic here just so that
you can take it all in extending over to
118th Street on the east there. uh Jill
Max to the south and you can see
contextually
lot 34 is up there in that that northern
portion of the development.
So, the purpose of this request, um, the
applicant is seeking to modify the
location of the conceptual building
envelope for lot 34 that was originally
established through the zoning and
preliminary plat uh, approval actions.
Um, at a location closer to the street
at the front of the lot, the northern
end of the lot. um to now a location um
around the middle of the lot at a uh
higher elevation but not uh the um
highest elevation as previously
proposed.
So some key items here just to cover.
Um, in the review of the revision, uh,
staff finds that the updated proposal is
more consistent with the stipulations of
the zoning and preliminary plaque cases.
The purpose of ESL and open space
location guidelines. Uh, the updated
proposal is more in conformance with the
development review board criteria. Uh,
we do still have uh, community input uh,
received in opposition.
uh quickly covering some of the history
uh on this. So that initial zoning
action took place in 1993.
Uh then in 1995 there was a amendment to
that zoning case to modify some of the
stipulations which specifically included
increasing the uh available building
envelope areas uh and decreasing the uh
dimensional parameter between building
envelopes. that would be NaOS. Uh the
preliminary plat uh came through for
approval in 1995. Uh established with it
a plan that carried those zoning level
uh building envelope concept locations
forward into a more defined plan showing
the lot configurations.
And that's the uh the document
essentially being requested to be
amended through this application.
So, some of the uh the key stipulations
out of those zoning cases um I mentioned
they were uh they were changed, but
specifically uh the distance between
building envelopes was was reduced from
uh prior dimension of 75 ft down to 60
ft. uh the uh individual envelope
location or sizes for properties within
these zoning districts was increased to
20,000 square feet.
Quickly running back through some of
those exhibits for you just to kind of
uh refresh your memory on this and bring
you up uh to the current proposal. Uh
this is that original zoning exhibit
with lot 34 highlighted with the yellow
dot up there at the north end.
The uh second zoning case modifying the
stipulations included a slightly revised
or at least slightly more detailed
version of that exhibit. Uh still lot 34
highlighted with the yellow dot up there
at the north end.
When we get to the preliminary plaque
case, the lot lines are introduced to
that uh exhibit. Um and lot 34, this is
now oriented uh with north to the right
hand side of the screen there, but uh
lot 34 is now shown with the context of
its its boundaries
and this is just the lower part of that
subdivision. Uh so the last time around
uh you we showed you the uh applicant
provided this exhibit combining the
topography of the site, the boundaries
of the site and uh up at the the north
end the top of the graphic uh the the
bolder line uh there representing the uh
building envelope carried over from
those uh from the preliminary plat
exhibit
at the previous meeting. Uh the request
that you uh that you saw was to place uh
was to move the building envelope to the
south end of the site which is the
highest elevation end of the site. Um
that uh that was given direction in the
continuence uh to look for a different
location. The applicant has come back uh
with a more uh central building envelope
location uh at the uh more the middle of
the site which was part of the
discussion dialogue at the last meeting.
Leaving uh that that high end that uh
south end of the site uh for
preservation as natural area open space
uh in alignment with the ESL parameters.
uh more of the intent of the zoning and
uh preliminary plat stipulations
uh and and more aligned with other
modifications that have occurred out in
the development. U shown on this just
conceptually uh is a uh a general
building footprint of a house that could
be built there. Um, I'm calling
attention to that because this is not
the house design and it's not meant to
memorialize the house design. Um, as uh
design and configuration of individual
single family homes is outside of the
board's purview. Um, but it's just there
to attempt to show a little bit better
where the house may be located within
that um for context in this graphic.
Uh the last uh last time we uh we had
shown this exhibit with the hillside
land form. Uh I highlighting that that
central area in this cluster of lots uh
is hillside landform has a couple of
hills in it and those building envelopes
really look like they were intending to
uh to push out away from that and
protect that and preserve that area. You
can see there are some encroachments in
there. Um, lot 34 is highlighted here.
The previous uh proposal was fully
within that hillside land form. Uh, the
updated proposal uh splits about uh
midway between uh some in the hillside
landform, some in the upper desert
landform, a little more in alignment
with some of the other encroachments out
there.
We also showed you this last time which
was the topography uh of the area that
highlights a little a little more
visually those uh those slopes up to the
uh the various uh peaks of this uh set
of hill features in the middle of the
development there. Notably, uh, in the
move from the upper area to the middle
of the lot, uh, the
contour lines that that development will
sit between are much more in alignment
now with the adjacent uh, the adjacent
properties on either side. Uh, placing
this new envelope, more consistent with
uh, where the development has occurred
for lots 33 and 35 surrounding it.
not reading through all of this for you,
but just putting it up as a reminder. Uh
the applicable DI DRB criteria um that
fall in this situation are conformance
with the general plan, the applicable uh
design standards, uh development
standards, zoning actions, etc.
um that development uh align with uh the
purpose the uh function of the ESL
overlay and respond to uh open spaces
topography uh and the like in in its
placement.
Um
working through the uh the analysis of
the updated uh proposal um most of these
elements stay the same. The the purpose
still appears that those zoning
stipulations, preliminary plat
stipulations were creating building
envelopes to control uh where building
was happening and and preserve uh
significant areas of the lots and and
natural area open space.
Um but uh this new proposal u based on
staff's analysis uh does um provide an
updated position that leaves more of the
significant portion of the upper part of
the lot uh preservable as open space. It
uh moves, as I mentioned, the uh
development area uh away from being
fully within the highest part of that
hillside land form uh down to a a more
middle area that splits the two land
forms um and aligns more closely with uh
the other development surrounding. Uh
there is uh uh there was noted before uh
potential impacts from the length of the
driveway to get up to the higher portion
of the lot. That still exists because
this is not down at the street, but to a
lesser extent uh presuming those impacts
at the middle of the lot versus the
upper level.
not uh not boring you too much with
these but just putting them up as a
reminder. This is the um the
environmentally sensitive lands purpose
statement elements that we showed the
last time that uh relate to uh placement
of development and preservation of open
space.
Um part of the conversation uh the last
time uh involved uh some questions of
the the storm water runoff in the area
and and potential impacts at the front
of the lot. Um our storm water staff uh
did go out uh and visit the site after
the continuence uh make some
observations and look in uh our records
and and try to gather some some findings
based on the information available. Um
this uh summary of findings was issued
by uh Vivian MW and our storm water uh
group uh and included in the staff
report for you. But um generally um the
the staff findings noted that uh there
is uh there is an area at the front of
this light this lot, excuse me. It is
not part of a city- managed drainage
system as as we attempted to discuss the
last time in that it is it's not a uh
designed retention basin for the
neighborhood. It's not covered with a
drainage easement. Um it is uh impacted
by improvements downstream uh that
appear to uh have contributed to the um
to the ponding of water in that location
at the lowest elevations of the lot. Um
and that uh does appear to uh prompt
some impact to development of that area.
Although uh as this is still a uh
preliminary uh level uh the level of
detail that would determine those very
specific elements doesn't typically come
until the uh the permit uh application
review. Um so they weren't able to uh to
get too much more in depth uh based on
that. But um we do have uh our
stormwater staff uh present in the
building today for you um should you
have additional focused questions for
them. Um I'm here to answer additional
questions, but I know the applicant team
uh has a presentation and is prepared to
uh give that to you as well.
Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Do we have any
questions for staff for Mr. Barnes from
the board prior to hearing the
applicant's presentation.
Okay. So, none here. I I just wanted to
get some clarity. I This is a different
type of case than we're normally used to
hearing. In fact, in over four years, I
this is the first building envelope case
that we've heard on this board. Um can
we outline
the purview uh based on maybe Mr. Carr
or our acting attorney?
um what the purview and what we should
be deliberating on and the the criteria.
I I think there was a lot of talk about
natural state and unbuildable and
there's there's a lot of things that
were thrown out in this last case, but
it would help to for us to understand
what we should be thinking about on this
um
prior to prior to engaging in uh you
know, prior to seeing the applicant's uh
presentation as well as uh comments.
Vice Chair Brand, I can uh attempt to uh
to answer that for you. Um
and I'm going to back up here uh to this
exhibit in in doing so. Uh so the
preliminary plaque case from 1995
uh that came through and was approved by
the development review board uh set with
it stipulations and this exhibit showing
the building envelope location. So the
uh scope or purpose that that uh we're
coming to you with here is essentially a
modification to this exhibit. Uh looking
at um just the building envelopes that
were conceptually laid out uh here and
the proposed movement of of that
envelope in that same context of uh the
the DRBs.
Sorry, let me let me be more specific.
Sure.
There's a difference between just
looking at the shift of the building
envelope with in reference to ESL
standards, city approved guidelines, and
conformance to guidelines and prior
cases. But you have also presented
information from the storm water
department and from other things that
that is information about the existing
condition of the property. And I'm
really specifically asking how is that
information and the input from storm
water and our staff supposed to be how
is it included? How is it supposed to
inform our decision on this? I I I'm
trying to understand the relevant how we
should be thinking about it.
Sure. Vice Chair Bran, members of the
board, there are a number of different
considerations when we're looking at the
location of a building envelope. Um
there's there environmental concerns
with regard to topography, the
vegetation on the site and certainly um
how water flows on and off the site is
another one of those considerations and
a reason why we mentioned it. Um, and so
I think when you are looking at this,
your review should take into all those
take into account all those
considerations in analyzing whether or
not the proposed location of the
building envelope is um the best spot so
to speak for this site and for also one
of those considerations would be
buildability. I mean, the applicant has
presented some, I guess, some reasons to
why some parts are more buildable than
others on the site. And I think all
those factors are part of your
consideration, your deliberations when
you go to review this application. It's
not strictly limited to one of those um
items, and that's why Mr. Barnes has
attempted to outline a lot of those
different components that factor into
that discussion.
Okay, I appreciate that clarity. Thank
you. Is there a is there an applicant
presentation
button? That's it.
And that'll page me up in arrows.
This and this.
Okay. Perfect. Perfect.
Good afternoon. I'm Johnny Angelone.
It's my wife Staca, my architect, Andy
Garling. We're the owners. Station and I
are the owners of lot 34. Okay, we're
back for the second time on this in
round two and we appreciate your time
today.
Let me make sure I get this right. Oh, I
don't need a Vanna. I like it. As we
discussed before, these building
envelopes were all created to preserve
the NOS in our in that development. The
building envelope that's being
referenced, as Jeff had said, was only
on the preliminary plat. They never
formalized the plat on everything for
this development because we've been
asking for that building envelope and
that documentation. We're requesting to
move the building envelope due to issues
outside of our control and presented by
the property.
Our initial proposal was to relocate and
as Jeff put the to the top of that lot
and the board had push back. Mr. Brand
asked for some studies based off of
storm water on that at the time and some
of the other things on that. So, we went
back and started to do more due
diligence. In doing so, there are really
only two potential building envelopes on
this property.
All the required NAOS and all the ESOL
overlays are going to be met as well.
As Jeff had just pulled up, Barnes had
just pulled up, that was the original
plot on the NAOS plan illustrating the
building envelope.
Okay. There are some additional factors
in this case
that I want you guys to consider,
please. As you saw before, our lot's a
bow tie lot. It makes it very difficult
to build in the be in the middle of that
lot. Okay. The lower level has turned
into a ponding and storm water retention
area that we're going to go through some
detail on to show where culverts and
redirection of water was put into. It's
now six to eight feet below
the street level coming off of lot 33
and 110 112 street and lot 35 has built
completely outside of their building
envelope into hillside and now abuts to
34 making some of our placement and
setbacks difficult as well amongst other
things we're going to discuss.
I wanted to put some visual facts in
play here.
This is the lower ending of the lot
where I met with stormwater.
As you can see, these culverts were put
into the city and there was a homemade
retention wall. This was all done by the
previous owner of lot 33 and it's been
there for years. So, obviously, there
have been issues down in the bottom of
the lot. It redirects the water off of
hills, his hilltop that's coming over
there into my lot on 34 down to the
bottom of that.
This is the lower level and some of the
resulting of that.
You can see that our lot is 6 to 8 feet,
maybe more below the street level and my
neighbor's driveway
and it's lomy soil.
It compresses down when you walk on it.
We did get a hold of city storm water
after the request of the last meeting.
They did meet us out there on property
and as you saw in Jeff's
presentation as well. These are some of
her notes. This may affect the
feasibility of placing a structure
within that area without significant
mitigation.
We noted that ponding at the altered
altered drainage site because none of
that was ever permitted. In fact, when
they got out there, they didn't even
realize it was there.
at the altered drainage conditions at
the front of the lot may present
challenges if development remains within
the current development envelope.
Vivien MW.
So in summing that area up to give you a
little bit of an optic on that, this is
how it lays out in the earlier picture
like Jeff showed you. 80% of that area
is the retention from the flooding in
the ponding area. There's no drainage
out the other side of those culverts.
And if we did build down there,
where's the storm water going to go?
We're going to block it all off. It's
going to flow into 33 and it's going to
flow across the street into the lots
across the street.
Now, now let's bring into lot 35.
This home was completely built outside
their building envelope into Hillside.
It now ab butts to two sides of my
property right up against the walls.
Their very large retention walls on the
back side of that are now gathering
water off the top of my hill and pushing
it down to the bottom of my property as
well. And in doing this, they created
absolutely no privacy for either of us.
And the crazy thing is, we've been going
in and asking. There are absolutely no
city documents justifying the building
envelope move. It just happened.
Now, you're going to hear from the
Clarks today and regardless of what they
have to say based off of everything
here. And really what the message is is,
hey, it was okay for us to do all this
and get what we want, where we want, but
not for you. And then they're going to
tell you why.
They're probably going to present a
drainage report, too, that they had done
from Summit Civil Engineering that
actually solidifies the 100red-year
flood on the bottom of the base of the
property.
But it also conveniently shows,
remember, they paid for it, where our
home or where they think our home should
be.
It's a in my opinion that's a bit
hypocritical but especially in light of
the impact that I'm balancing with on 35
and my lot positioning. And by the way,
I contracted with the same civil
engineer before I went and bought that
property and had them do diligence on
the lot because I knew that bottom
section was a problem. Summit civil
engineering, Frank Boxberger. I'm sure
you guys have all seen him.
And his position on the lot was we
should build at the top at the summit.
And here's his document showing that
which is why we presented that in the
first goaround.
So I want to recap. I want to recap
where we started so everybody
understands and I want to tell you what
in working with Jeff Barnes and where
we're ending up and why we picked there.
Our initial was to utilize the saddle up
there. It had the least distribution or
disturbance on the lot. It protects
significant vegetation. It didn't have a
lot of excavation because it was a
summit up there. It could have been
easily graded flat. It exceeded the NAOS
requirements. Meets the building
envelope size. It also protected and
preserved a lot of the ESOL.
And it wasn't a protected hilltop in all
of the city programs.
This is where this was the initial
proposed
building envelope site as Jeff showed
you again compliant with all of those
met the 93 and 95 but again back to our
review the board your the BDR board and
the staff felt it was a big variance on
the original NAOS plot and envelope. So,
we asked we had a continuence and that
what we decided to do was we met with
Jeff on the property and Jeff was
outstanding and I really appreciate him
coming out there in the heat. We walked
that property for about an hour and a
half looking at where everything was and
started talking about this area versus
this area versus this area. And in doing
so, that's where we came back and
proposed the lower midsection.
It is a little steeper. It is a little
more narrow section of the lot. It's
going to require a little more
excavation. Probably larger retaining
walls may be needed. We can work with it
with the right home in that area. And as
you see, it does penetrate into the old
existing building envelope. Okay?
And we're probably going to build a
two-story house in there now because of
a narrower lot and a narrower position
to be able to create more outdoor living
space.
This is what we came up with with what
you saw before from Jeff.
We come in, we come through the lower
older bu building envelopes section just
outside the ponding area. The storm
water still has some natural flow. We
should be able to put a 20,000 square
foot building envelope in there.
We're answering a lot of the neighbors
concerns like some of the neighbors that
were on the backside down here like
Danny over here and some of the other
neighbors in Coins. They're not going to
see our roof lines now that they were
worried about.
We still have the concerns of 33 and 35
for where it is. We'll create excess
NAOS.
We'll meet the setbacks and the
developments. And more importantly, it's
going to allow us to take advantage of
some of the beautiful views, too, like
the other 12 neighbors in our community
that are completely outside of their
building envelopes,
and be able to enjoy that.
So, what was the original intent in
1995? To protect and preserve as much
natural desert as possible with the
least disturbance.
Both of those options did that, but
we're presenting that second alternative
option.
So, where do we proceed from here?
Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have questions from the
specifically from the board prior to we
have one request to speak. Um Brad, do
we normally do uh questions or do we do
public speaking uh prior to questions?
You you could do both, vice chair. Um if
there are no questions now, you can take
the public comment, but the applicant is
usually granted the ability to respond
to public comment after that public
comment as well.
Okay. Why don't we go ahead and if it's
okay with the board, we'll go ahead and
take uh there is one one public comment
and go hear public comment and then the
board can uh give you comments to
respond to.
So I think we have um David Clark as a
request to speak.
So I actually didn't plan to speak um
but I just want to address some comments
that were made. I put a comment card in.
There are some concerns I have and
that's really where it comes down to.
Oh, sorry. David Clark and I'm in lot
35. So, um, the concerns I have are I
don't feel like I'm getting the whole
story and the loops that are drawn on
that don't exactly match up. We weren't
outside of our envelope. Yes, we did
shift. We still were touching it. What I
had seen before wasn't touching the
envelope before. and what that report
says and what the what that guy told us,
the engineer Frank Bachion that he's
talking about that he's saying in the
report that we got from him that we
requested that was already done was the
same report. If we want him to be here,
then we have to request him to be here.
That's fine. But the bottom line is the
envelope doesn't necessarily bother me
as much. I feel like it should be a
little bit lower, but whatever. It's
going to be up to you guys per purview
and I'll be happy with whatever's
decided. I don't want to start a
neighborhood argument, but I'm not
getting all the information. I get a 26
foot high story like high building. I
get a 20 foot, I get a different
variation. I get a threetory is what he
told me on site. And if we approve the
envelope as is, and it keeps saying
should, our envelope should be in 20,000
ft. Our envelope should be this. Our
height should be this. Okay, that's
great. How does that guarantee to me
that now that we've moved it up a hill,
it's not actually going to be higher and
blocking the views that everybody's
saying? There is no guarantee to that.
So, this envelope move does impact
future moves. And the the 100red-year
flood area, if you look at the report
that we submitted, it's a PDF that you
guys should have got as well that we
submitted over a week ago, and we found
that it wasn't put in the report. And I
actually emailed today to find out why
it wasn't in there. And the pictures
that I took were and the report wasn't.
It will show there is a there is a flood
area down there. Not six to eight feet
low. That's the big problem. not not the
same big area that encompasses that
whole area with the blue like they like
to co show you with the water area, but
there is an area and so yes, I do agree
that that should be moved and they
should be out of that little area or
they could do some construction to
mitigate that which would be less than
building into a hill. That's my opinion.
But my opinion doesn't really matter.
What matters is if we move that
envelope, what is the height of that
building going to be? What is that going
to intrude on everybody else? and
knowing that everybody else bought and
invested in their land and the fact that
he says that lot 35 was never approved.
I have a stamp set from the city of
Scottdale.
Our lot was approved.
It was approved. So, I have a stamp set.
I have approval from the city. They
don't just stamp it when you're done
with the building. They do inspections
while you're going along when grading
happens and when all those things
happen. And if that there was at any
point, and I'm not the builder, I didn't
build my property. I didn't design it. I
didn't lay it out. But when they
designed it and they built it out, they
went through the process. They got the
approvals. It was done. It could have
been stopped at any point in the
submittal process to the planning
department. It wasn't. So, our property
was approved. I take I I differ in the
fact that he's going to say that lot 35
was never approved or never submitted
properly or whatever. That's that's not
the case. Um, so bottom line is if I was
to get more information, maybe this
would be acceptable.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
Do we have uh questions from the board?
Go ahead, Mr. Gonzalez.
Um first of all, um
not for the owner, but for staff,
do you know what the height differential
is between the floor the floor on the
proposed area and on the and on the
first application? what the what the
height differential might be as far as
the foundation for
vice chair brand commissioner Gonzalez
uh we don't have that information uh the
the reason being is that that would come
in at the more technical review of the
the final plans I can generally say uh
that the development standards of the
property the the building height
building height is going to be measured
from the natural grade of the lot.
That's going to be applicable uh
regardless of where the the building
sits.
And just one more time, what is that
maximum height there?
I don't have the amended standards
sitting in front of me. Uh but typically
that would be 30 feet allowed by that
zoning district and the ESL overlay adds
the um the natural grade measurement
point for that.
Very good. Um, I guess the the other
question I have then is the um
I guess the change the change in the the
building envelope is because of the
drainage per se.
Yes.
Is that my
correct interpretation of that from
staffville?
Commissioner Gonzalez. Uh that was one
of the parameters uh that was the
rationale and the right
the application. Yes.
Did you add add any stipulations in into
this
the stipulations that uh are provided
for you do not get into the the drainage
details. uh they respect the prior
stipulations of the zoning case with the
uh amendment of the exhibit uh for this
lot specifically.
Very good. Thank you, sir.
I'll go ahead and ask a question because
it's kind of an over oversight question
here. And I will say respectfully, Mr.
Um, Angelone, as the applicant,
this is why I asked the first question
is because the majority of your
presentation really focuses on a
hardship. That's the existing condition
of the site. And you even said that that
prior to purchase that you had an
engineer out on site to explain to you
exactly what the hardship was. Um, and
I'm trying to understand from from our
staff if if this board is supposed to be
deliberating on a hardship, are we
supposed to be del there was very and in
in context too, Mr. Angelini, there was
very your your presentation is about the
existing condition of the site and the
hardship and averting a hardship um in
order to get your house built. it. The
presentation was not about I've got a
better building envelope that we feel
like meets the design guidelines and the
ESL desert districts better than the
existing than the existing envelope. So,
this is exactly why I really want to
understand how how are we supposed to
respond to hardship?
Uh, Vice Chair Bran and, uh,
Commissioner Gonzalez and members of the
development review board, um, I'm going
to read a few things from your enabling
legislation that I think might help you
hone in on the factors and criteria that
you're really needing to look for. Um in
the purpose of the DRB, it relates to
looking at applications
um and relating it to land values,
aesthetics, good site planning, economic
and environmental well-being. Um and
applications that intend to enrich the
lives of all citizens by promoting
harmonious, safe, attractive, and
compatible development. as well as in
later on in your in um the ordinance
that governs the DRB looking at
development that promotes desirable
relationships of structures to one
another to open space to topography
and recognizing unique climactic and
environmental factors. So if you think
of all of those things, those are the
criteria you're really looking at to
gauge whether to grant this or not. um
hardship really not is not in there and
um does that answer your question?
Can you can you summarize that? So what
I'm just in my brain's working right is
recognizing and seeing the existing
condition on the site can affect our
ability to assess what's the proper
building envelope. But the proper
building envelope should not be based on
should not be on a basis of a hardship
decision. And it should be based on what
we feel like is appropriate and best
based on what the site looks and appears
at this point.
I Vice Chair Brand, I think that's very
accurate.
Okay,
now that I've got that out of the way,
can we get uh comments from the rest of
the board? Go ahead.
Um, so when I was reviewing this, I, you
know, I was thinking about hardship, but
hardship is based on facts. And I was
looking for drainage analysis, drainage
plan, something that would show me when
you're showing that pond on there, how
were those boundaries determined? I had
absolutely nothing that was included
with this application for what I had to
review that would show me an engineering
report, an engineering analysis or, you
know, just something that would would
outline that those were accurate
boundaries of a consistently flooded
area.
And
given that, I found it really hard to
make a decision on this because,
you know, perhaps some of that area is
flooded and some of it isn't. And that
that buildable area could be moved
closer to the roadway, but there was
nothing that I had that was a hard fact
for me to base the judgment on. Um and
the other thing that I just wanted to
comment on is if a part of the problem
that was created was done by the
community then what is the community's
responsibility in this to correct what
they did previous to your purchase of
this property that changed the drainage.
So if that was was done, isn't it the
HOA's responsibility to correct what was
done, which is making it difficult for
you to build on your property?
It it wasn't done by the HOA. It was
done by the previous owner of lot 33.
They were having a runoff problem from
the rain that was going into their
property and over their driveways and o
into backing up on the back side of the
hill. That's why they put those cinder
blocks. And that's a that's 120 ft or
more cinder block.
But my my question is who is responsible
for making these decisions within the
community? Do you have
I I think the previous homeowner just
did it by himself because there was such
a problem and he put the culverts in by
himself because there was so much water
coming over it was washing away the
bottom of his driveways and all his
stuff on there and washing out the
integrity underneath his driveway. So I
think he took it upon himself back then
just to build those culverts and do
that. But the problem is on the other
side of the culverts the the land is as
high as the culverts. So the coverts now
just fill up and it doesn't drain off
properly.
Can we get a
This is the study for the hundredyear
flood.
Can we get a response from our attorney
and staff regarding responsibility
because I I that's fine.
Yeah, that's great. Thank you. Vice
Chair Brand and members of the
development review board. Um, a drainage
or ponding issue caused by an adjacent
or contiguous parcel would be a private
property matter. Um, storm water in the
city of Scottsdale could surely help
with potential solutions, but really the
the cause and the the solutions would
need to be both implemented by the two
private property owners. And
can I can I say something? Even at 10 ft
lower on this lot, we're still going to
be in that runoff area that's part of
the hundred-year flood stuff that the
civil engineering firm came back with on
their report to Mr. Clark. And I want to
correct Mr. Clark on something. I didn't
say your whole house wasn't approved. I
said we were going into the city looking
for the documentation of how you moved
outside of your building envelope and
what was granted there and how that was
all done. There was nothing there.
I will I don't think we
I I would agree. Hold on. And hold on.
And and I think it's clear that yes, the
building was permitted and built. And
no, there is not a record of a DRB
modified envelope that goes along with
it. So our staff has even told us that
somehow that process was not included,
but yes, the building was fully
permitted. Yes.
And built per city review standards. So
thank you. Um
I'll let you finish your question.
Sorry. No, I um and you know again it
it's getting back at
information factual information was not
provided with this application which
showed
um which would or I guess which would
support
how you determined you know that the
ponding area also when it when you're
looking at the environmentally sensitive
areas
I I was expecting to come back and
seeing some s sort of analysis of what
impact
you were having where you chose to put
the building site and there's nothing
about vegetation, wildlife areas, rock
outcroppings, boulders. I mean, it's to
me if if you're looking for approval,
you should provide justification for why
why we should approve this area.
respectfully, I'm a little confused
because last time I stood here, the
question was, we'd like storm water to
go down and tell us if that's a problem
area or not
that would justify moving the building
envelope. So, we got with storm water,
went down there, and they came back and
said, "Yes, it's a problem area, and you
have documentation on that." Had I known
that you wanted more engineering and
more stuff, I would have gladly gone out
and got it.
I I could provide more color to that
comment as well because it's the same
thing that I was asking is that
based on the parameters of impact on
land, it's not just an an area of of the
property. It's also depth and cut and
fill ratio. So again, when you're
talking about um clarity with an
adjacent property owner and also about
clarity with um building height and
impact on the community and impact on
the land, understanding and seeing how
much cut and fill and modification is
needed to the site based on where your
envelope is would be is part of the
investigation about if this is an
appropriate building envelope. I will
say that because I would remember the
conversation very specifically is that
the previous application there were many
things that we had comments about most
of it that it was completely in conflict
with the guidelines of the ESL district
and how and how houses and envelopes are
organized on this property. They aren't
put on the highest point of the
property. Then there were also questions
about the actual clarification of of the
um retaining area in the front of the
property. But it doesn't mean that we
just the the conclusion of that meeting
was not if you can get some u proof that
staff says that there's uh water on the
site will approve the project. That's
not what the conversation was.
It wasn't that clear that time and and
that houses aren't built on hilltops.
The house right across the street from
me had a building envelope down here.
He's sitting on the top of the hill. So
I mean
thanks for
but I mean so what do we need now?
You want engineering cut and fill and
all that stuff. Get back with Jeff and
kind of go through that process.
I actually think the things that have
been brought up on this project and
brought up by the neighboring properties
have to do with building impact and
building height. Mhm.
There are a lot of things within the
this hillside or lower hillside district
about understanding where the building
height is in relation to the lower and
higher grades.
And so you're going to have issues
because you're on a larger slope. You're
going to have more retainage retaining
wall. It's actually going to be a little
bit more difficult of a house to to
encounter drainage problems because
you're building on more of a vertical.
you're building a more topography change
and you're also going to face more
challenging questions with regard to
building height because you're cutting
in you're going to have to significantly
cut into the hill
and your building height is going to be
based on your lowest I believe it's
going to be based on the lowest um
elevation within the footprint of the
building and so you're going to be
challenged with a lot of things in this
district and
I think that's what we'd go back to is
that these exhibits and the anal some of
the analysis that says
Hey, we've looked at this and I I
appreciate the the architect coming up
here, but when the architect came up
here last time, he said it was
conversational that said, "Hey, this is
the best. Trust me, this is the least
impactful area on the site." There is
not a cut fill analysis from a civil
engineer that looks at this entire site.
There's not a building envelope analysis
of adjacent adjacent neighbors heights.
Do you know the height of the main
building of your neighbor? Do you know
their lowest topography that was
disturbed? Are you presenting an
argument in which the highest topography
point that was disturbed is also
matching the highest topography point on
your property? These are the types of
things that show conformance to adjacent
developments that show that you're
meeting the same conditions. These are
the types of things that are that have
actually specific data points and have
topography elements and have volutric
cut and fill that can say we've done our
due diligence. We are we are providing
the same product. And so my my problem
again is with um Miss Robinson is that,
you know, we're looking at this and and
we have no jurisdiction on what gets
built on this property after the
envelope is granted. This does not go
through any sort of DR process at all.
So there's no return back to this board
in which you'd say, see, look, we're
doing what we said we would do. We
would, you know, once once the the
envelope is is given, then you're just
up to the meeting the development
standards of the zoning and it goes
straight
and we have to stay within those
guidelines of all of that other stuff.
So, how does height fall into that place
then? Because once once the envelope's
given and we start to decide where we're
going to put the house, we have certain
guidelines of height restrictions we
have to stay below. Right.
Well, it depends on where the the bottom
point of your house is,
right? But that we have certain
guidelines we have to wherever
regardless with that house that's placed
in that building envelope. Wherever we
crack the ground first, we have certain
height guidelines we have to stay on.
Period.
Okay. So, what is the height of your
house going to be?
Andy,
what is the house what is the height in
in a topography relationship of lot 35?
Good afternoon, Andy Grahamling, an
architect. Um, to answer your question,
this is not to meant to be snarky, but
we're kind of putting the cart before
the horse if we don't know what the
building envelope's going to be. How
could we possibly design a house around
it? Historically, with working with
staff, and I've had disagreements with
staff before in other projects where
they actually encourage us to cut into
the hill more to lower the net height,
the height limit is actually um uh
measured from existing natural grain.
It's a rolling topography that matches
the existing topography. So by cutting
into it will actually minimize the
visual impact on the height u the um of
the finished product because it will
most of it will underground is more of
an overstatement but you know kind of
visualize a walkout basement on a lower
floor. So you and as far as the setbacks
and the heights until we have an
approved building, well we can't
possibly begin to design a house, right?
Um we're just looking for a um a place
to start. Um we have to meet obviously
all the design review criteria. And as
far as the, you know, the drainage, I
appreciate uh dear board Robinson your
your question. I have a very empirical
answer. When I first walked this
property, no, there was no standing
water. It felt like walking across a
mattress. Now, this does not take a
rocket scientist, but as as the owner
mentioned, it's lomi soul. It was based
on working 40 years, 30 in Scottsdale in
the SLA areas. The lower area and that
area in blue is approximate, no
question. But it is a legitimate area.
We walked around that. It felt like
again walking on on on
a a mattress. It was so inappropriate.
Obviously, it's been super saturated
with water over time. And I can
guarantee you working with the storm
water for a number of years in here and
the the engineering
we'd have to we'd have to probably raise
that area up 10 feet to get it to get
comply and obviously that's not you you
were asking about cut and fill and my
experience with the city of Scottsdale
they're more concerned about fill than
they are cut. We will definitely have a
nut cut in here trying to minimize the
impact of the property based on um you
know having a larger portion of it kind
of a you know like a walk out basement
style. So then the net result is
actually going to be less impactful than
than you know putting a bunch of fill in
there which is probably a legitimate
concern.
I'll respond to that because I had a
it's unfortunate that our probably the
most knowledgeable civil engineer and
that resides in this city that's on this
board is not on the board right now with
Mr. Fiki. Uh I did have a conversation
with him prior to this case this
afternoon. Um he's overseas right now
which is unfortunate he couldn't be
here. Um I I I would not disagree that
the site in the Lomi soil area would
need mitigation. Absolutely. I'm sure
based on the the current conditions and
the historical conditions of the site,
I'm sure that it would need mitigation.
That topic has not even been discussed
or approached or presented to this
board. You you haven't said you haven't
come in with a section and said this is
the current envelope. This is what it
would take. We would need to bring in x
amount of volume of soil to to come up
with a solution that's appropriate per
your standards. Therefore, we'd like
that's I'm I'm making this comment based
on this isn't how this case was
presented and it wasn't presented with
information that said that, which is
part part a little bit of part of the
issue. Um, you're right. You would
probably have to remove some of the
soil, compact it, and bring in a you may
need to bring in an excessive amount of
fill, which may be against the cut fill
regulations of the city. So, but sitting
here and saying that it's not a that you
absolutely just can't build on the site,
I think our staff has said it's possible
that that you may not be able to build
on the site. The reality is is it would
take a ton of expense and a ton of
mitigation to build on that existing
envelope. Um, part of also what is
confusing a little bit here too is that
all of these conditions and the entire
analysis of this site was known to you
prior to purchasing the site and and
none of this was brought up and brought
up as a condition of a purchase or
getting this approved as a I mean so
this is all information in a known
entity and then you know you're coming
and presenting a hardship but these
conditions have been in place for quite
some time and you're right it has
created a site which is very difficult
to build based on the probably the
historical washing off the mountain. It
may get flooded up. You may have cut out
some of it and you get ponding on that
site. Now you got
it's based off a preliminary plot.
Right.
Right.
And the NAS plan.
Can you speak into the microphone?
It's based off a preliminary plot and
the NAOS plan. There was no formal
building envelope document that we could
find when we did our due diligence on
this. And if I remember Jeff saying
that's what they're going back to
correct on the subdivision right now. So
we we did look at it there when we did
that and then I did have
So there was no record of a building
envelope.
It was hold.
Can Mr. Barnes clarify please?
Is there no record of a building
envelope?
Uh the the building envelope is combined
with the NAOS exhibit in the preliminary
plaque case. So there was not a separate
building envelope exhibit but it was the
one that I had showed as part of my
presentation. for the original.
So you were aware of the building
envelope then. Correct.
Well, I was aware that this is the NAOS
preliminary plot. Yes. And I was also
aware that 12 other people in the
community have just without moving
without having any hardship or an area
to deal with like I have have moved
their building envelopes outside of
their building envelope. 35 had no bad
area down below.
Their desert was perfect up to there.
the guy across the street, his desert
was perfect and he's on top of the hill,
completely outside of his building
envelope. There's 12 cases
of the 26 custom homes in that community
that have moved outside of their
building envelope within the city of
Scottsdale. So, I guess a good starting
point would be get into the city of
Scottsdale, identify all those homes,
and find out what regulations and what
was asked for the movement of those
building envelopes and what was provided
for information and the decision
process.
That's a good question. Can Mr. Mr.
Barnes, answer that question.
Vice Chair and board members, uh, I
don't know that I can provide a great
additional answer to that. The apparent
answer is that each of those other
building envelope modifications,
absent uh one down in the uh the
southeastern portion of the subdivision,
uh had been
reviewed through the just the the
regular permit plan review process and
had not come through an additional
documented review like this one with a
uh case through the DRB or a minor
version through staff.
So, and and now we
hold on just one second. Do we have any
anything else to add, Miss Calibesi?
Yes. Uh, Vice Chair Bran, I just want to
um make two clarifications. Um, we keep
talking about hardship and I think we're
really veering into what is um a
criterion of a variance and not what is
in the purview of the DRB. Um, and I
just wanted to clarify, um, I don't have
the historical record anymore than Mr.
Barnes does in relation to the other
buildings that have gone up, but one of
your driving factors is to look at the
design in compatibility with surrounding
structures. So, obviously, if there were
no other surrounding structures when one
home was built, it's each of these
building envelopes are going to be a
different analysis. obviously as
everything gets developed more in
Scottsdale. So you're looking at
everything not just in regards to like I
mentioned before environmental
conditions, site conditions, topography,
um conformity with the surrounding
buildings, but also obviously
desiraability
um with nearby structures.
Thank you. Do we have any other Mr.
Appeaser or Mr. Mason? Do we have any
other comments? I think we've Sorry, I
tend to be talking too much. Yes. Yes.
This is David Mason. I do have a couple
comments on this. I haven't looked at
this and heard a lot of this stuff. It
appears to me that when the original
subdivision was laid out, the original
um and correct me if I'm wrong on this,
any of the staff, that the uh building
envelopes were more of a suggestion than
a firm building envelope. You know, some
some subdivisions will say, "Here is
your official building envelope, and
that's that's it. That's approved and
everything." This one seems like they're
more of the suggestions and if people
are going outside the building envelope
whenever they feel like it and I I think
we should look at that as a suggestion
in the original plan and not a firm
fixed thing. This is where your house
must be because the evidence in history
has proven that whatever was originally
laid out is not being followed by hardly
anyone or and very few people are
following it. Then I look at the area
where they did put it. Um, it appeared
to me just looking at at the topo of it,
not necessarily the the water flow and
anything like that that the original
site all again looks like a suggestion
they put it there because it was
convenient to the street rather than
looking at where water water flows might
be. So I think if you look at that in
consideration, you say, okay, well I can
understand it makes perfect sense to
move it out of where it used to be
further up the hill. And I think the
staff analysis was presented earlier,
you know, beginning of this, I think
shows that there's really not too much
problem with this site that I think that
they've shown, you know, good
justification for moving it from where
it used to be to where it is now because
where it used to be is not really firmly
established as binding upon anyone.
Those are my comments unless the staff
has any any clarification or further
clarification on it. Thank you.
I can I make one comment? I think having
Jeff Barnes out on the property and
walking it was very influential in him
approving where it was at and seeing
what was going on. And he has been very
conscious about how much digging or
excavation we would need to do and where
we would need to go. I mean, we walked
that property for a long time. We were
pretty sweaty afterwards and we were
looking at all of that and we both felt
that this would be the least impactful
moving down the mountain for where it
was got us out of the problem area for
where the lower level is on that and had
the ability to take advantage of some
views and get in and build a beautiful
home on the property.
Can I ask a question, Mr. Rollins? Is
staff is staff recommending approval of
this? Vice Chair, uh we are I think I
stopped short of that slide in my
presentation, but we are recommending
approval based on our analysis, the the
sitewalk, the understanding that uh one
of our primary concerns, the uh previous
time was the impact to the top of the
the lot there. and that this aligns more
consistent with what we can observe of
the other the other developments
surrounding it.
Okay. Yeah, that was that was something
important that was missed from your
presentation was that staff was actually
recommending approval.
I got in I thanked them both for their
signatures on that.
Do we have uh any comments questions
from Mr. Paser?
Yeah, Jeff, this is probably more for
you. um a lot of the comments made here
today about the surrounding properties
and how houses have been moved outside
of their building envelope. Now,
and I know that can be done when it's
done with the city's approval.
I also know that every single single
family residential plan that comes into
the city, the PL plan shows where that
building envelope is because
the inspectors are out there verifying
that the building is in fact being built
within that envelope and if it's not
they stop the construction on a site
like this they can't physically go out
there and measure it. So the policy of
the city has been for decades
that they have a
Arizona registered land surveyor go out
there and shoot the pins of the building
and give us information back that says
yes this building is located where it's
supposed to be located. So, it's odd to
me that we would have so many
surrounding properties built outside of
the envelopes
and not have historical records showing
that those properties had requested to
be built outside because somewhere along
the line a surveyor was going to say to
the building department, "This
building's not being built where it's
supposed to be. It's outside the
envelope."
Can you
bring some light to that please?
Uh, Vice Chair Bran, board member Paser.
Uh, I think in response to that, I will
um uh start by acknowledging what board
member Mason had had said, which is the
building envelopes in this instance are
represented conceptually on the the
zoning graphics on through the
preliminary plat. Um, and I say that in
the sense of they they're not included
with survey dimensions, pinned corners,
uh, all of those details that would give
an exact, uh, location as as you're
describing. Um and so in the individual
permit plan review process presented
with a grading and drainage plan put
together with a survey engineering team
showing those more specific locations.
Uh it is uh entirely
possible in all of these other lots that
staff reviewed and acknowledged those
movements as being in general
conformance or consistent with the
concept of the building envelopes. Um
the contrast to that would be uh the the
initial request of this came in uh much
outside of that uh that placement and
and caused uh the the further discussion
that's that's led to this.
So what you're really saying is if I
would have come in the regular way
asking for this, we could have been
stamped and on our way instead of asking
for the top of the hill. Well, it's, you
know,
the building envelope is assigned to an
area of the lot based on the required
setbacks from the property line so that
you're not building anything over the
envelope or too close to the property
line setbacks. That's at least that's
always been my definition of why we have
a building envelope so that you know
that I mean I realize that most of the
lots we deal with may not be the size of
this lot but uh even when you're dealing
with a with a you know a a 10,000 acre
lot or a 22,000
acre or square foot lot you know quarter
of an acre half an acre or an acre you
still have to be able to determine that
that building is being built where it's
supposed to be and it's not because the
setbacks from and the property lines on
those properties are much greater than
they are in the smaller properties. So I
just was curious as to
I guess what you're saying is is for
this subdivision the building envelopes
were kind of pllopped down there as a as
a suggestion and that as long as you
stayed within certain parameters you
could more or less move your pro your
building around to maybe a better
location or a or a better setup. Board
member Peaser, I I would clarify by
saying through our analysis, I don't
think we uh we saw that they were they
were placed there without consideration
uh because there are topographical
factors and landforms and conserving
hilltops and things that are all
apparent in that record that seem to
have pushed those envelopes to where
they are. Uh I think the the point I was
making is that in most instances of
stipulated conformance to a development
plan uh like the building envelope plan
for this if there are not specific
dimensions provided on there then there
there are details expected to be refined
in the individual lot development. Uh
and that is likely what happened for
some of the other movements. I can't say
for all of them because
okay
we don't have that record
and you've just you said that the
maximum height of this structure can be
30 ft
measured from the the natural grade the
rise and fall.
Okay. And I know that the architect
really can't start the design of the
structure until they know where the
structure is going to be placed on the
property. And if they were to place this
structure where it's it's shown or or
which I realize is not the exact
location where you're going to put it,
but and it they build to the maximum
height of 30 ft. How does that affect
the sighteline of the is it lot 33 next
door
that was a concern?
I mean, do we know I I saw on a couple
of the cards. Can we get clarification
the building height that's allowed here?
Is it the average of the natural grade
across the footprint of the building or
it is it the from measure from the
lowest point of the building footprint
vice chair
or is it based on pro on adjacency to
the natural grade?
Vice chair brand it would be based on
direct correlation to the natural grade
as it moves up the hill in this
instance. Uh so there could be uh cut
situations where the house uh is gaining
height ability by sinking into the
grade. There would be fill situations
where it is losing height ability based
on the the necessary fill to to level
that out. But the height of different
portions of the house is based on its
adjacency to natural grade
directly 30 ft above its adjacent
natural grade.
Well, I know on the comment cards that
came in, there was a comment about, and
I didn't quite understand it, about the
height of a house being seen over the
top of a mountain. I mean, if if you've
got if you've got houses out there that
are already built, I'm not sure this
house whether where it's going to be
located would have that concern.
But it was I know it was on one of the
comment cards that was somebody put in.
But there's no sight lines out there as
far as my house has to stay underneath
the the height of the mountain, right?
Board member Paser. Not that uh that
we've got built into regulations the
city would be okay imposing. I'll say
that the the
association may have its own uh
guidelines that say something different.
Well, I know on the original proposal
when they showed us the um house on the
north side, I guess that's 35. it where
the the uh drainage covers were put in.
Apparently originally that
that's 33.
Is that 33? Okay.
35 is
I don't I can't see the board up there.
So I'm but
apparently the original driveway went
through this drainage easement and
probably blocked the people's access
which is how this thing got built. But
it was also pretty obvious knowing
working with public works for as many
years as I have that the two little
culverts they put in there weren't going
to handle the the loading of any water
running down off here off the hill. The
you know the the aluvial fan that'll
come down off that hill and build up. It
was and and the question earlier was if
anything was going to be
if the installation of this that's
caused so many problems on this property
would was ever going to be addressed.
It was obviously done without permits or
inspections.
And maybe I should ask the the
homeowner, um, if you've ever considered
going to the neighbor and saying, "I
don't care if this is here, but if it's
done the right way, this won't be such a
problem." If a box covert was put
installed,
well, it would just need to be dug out
and cleaned out on the backside because
his property on the back side of the
cover is as high as his driveway.
So if if he and that was the way it was
originally.
Well, that's how it is now. I don't know
how it was originally. I mean, it's been
there for years. So, where do those
covers go to?
They just go to the other side of his
driveway and fill into a little thing
like this. And it's probably, let me
take it back. It's probably a foot
lower. So, it spills over the top and
runs down into the main wash.
Okay.
If I go back to uh
where's Vivian's thing?
Oh, I saw the picture.
There's the storm water here. These are
his culverts.
the house. The house will show up.
These are his culverts right in here
down below. And as you can see, his
property is higher over here before it
goes into the wash. So, it just spills
over the top of that and leaks out and
then the rest of it absorbs in. And when
you look at the fence line, that fence
line starts about here and comes all the
way down to here, taking all of this
water from this side of the hill and
pushing it over to me because he's
really got no other place to go unless
we do something down here because it
would just run right into his backyard
up to his fence and flood all this. And
I think that's the problem 33 was having
previous years ago and why he built that
makeshift
why he why he did this. Yeah, that's not
exactly a structure though, is it?
No, it's not. But I mean, and you can
see how high those culverts are below or
how low those culverts are below his
driveway.
So, yes. I mean, if we come back to
where we're talking about here, I don't
want to have mosquitoes and ponds and
stuff down here, but what we would do is
we'd probably get a hold of him and say,
"Hold on.
Take out the backside."
Yeah. I I want to make sure we're
keeping all this within the purview and
the discussion that DRB should having
should be having. We're we're getting I
appreciate the commentary. This is all
in discussion about the project, but we
are way off of the subject matter that
we should be considering here. Um
so
these are subject
I mean the plots that we're dealing with
initially
are somewhat subject. Where do we go
from here?
Does legal have advice for us?
I mean we have staff approval.
No, you have staff's recommendation.
You have to get approval from this
board. You have staff recommendation.
I I will say personally from this case,
I I think what we are missing is I think
that this is an approve an improvement
on the envelope. But what we are missing
is a little bit of data that would help
us make a judgment call on this case.
And the data would be supportive data of
substantial conformance to adjacent
neighbor standards. Um I think that
explain that in a little more detail for
me
that you're conforming to the same
standards that your adjacent property
owners have
that came out of their building envelope
and built up against my property and all
of that.
Yes. I'm talking about impact to the
land and building height. I think what's
been discussed here a lot of it is is
building
It's also incredibly disrespectful, I
feel like, for you to sit up here and
laugh when we're asking you questions.
I'm just frustrated because
I know you're frustrated, but as a board
here, we're also taking time out of our
day to sit here and listen to you and
you're responding to questions that we
ask of you by laughing.
No, I that wasn't a laugh. It was just
like a gasp like, okay, I'm I'm a little
frustrated.
I apologize. I didn't mean it
disrespectful.
I'll open this up for a motion.
Vice Chair Brand, if I may interrupt
just for a moment, I apologize. Um, was
combing through I had been talking about
a 30t building height. There is a zoning
stipulation that talks about different
portions of the development being 24 uh
feet in height instead of 30. Um, I
don't have the specific answer for you,
but I did want to provide at least a
clarifying uh, this lot could fall into
that description. I don't think we
initially assessed it as being part of
that. But if it factors in to your
consideration the difference between 24
and 30 ft, I wanted to make sure you're
aware that is a zoning stipulation that
specifies certain lots in certain
portions of the subdivision be limited
to that.
Do you have a Go ahead.
Thank you. Um, I wanted to ask legal uh
question. We're
This board is not an arbitrator to
having neighbors go against each other
or anything like that. Am I correct in
that assumption?
Vice Chair Brandon, Commissioner and
Gonzalez, yes, you are correct in that
assumption.
Okay. I wanted to basically say one more
thing about this is that although you
may have legitimate legitimate
problems on this, we we as a board do
not oversee these problems. These
problems are something that you can
arbitrate in another way in another
setting.
Mr. Barnes, in this subdivision, what do
you know what year the subdivision was
done?
Commissioner Gonzalez, the preliminary
plat case through when went through in
1995.
Okay. So 1995.
So anything that's happened after that
that point in time,
we can't excuse what's happened and we
really can't arbitrator what's happened
with the neighbors. So this may not be
the mechanism to discuss this. And
that's where I'm going to leave it.
I have a I have a question if I may
for Mr. Barnes and the rest of staff is
that
if you have basically said Mr. regard
there's there's no you would tenative we
would recommend that this board approve
that then I would tend to agree with
that recommendation because I think what
we started on is going down the rabbit
hole is saying well you know we were
trying to apply just the standards that
should have been applied back when all
the other things were happening today
you know this is not 1995 it's 2025 and
a lot has happened and I don't think we
should say that today in 2025
uh we should apply, we should be
applying today's standards and said,
"Well, the person should have done that.
I should have done this. I should have
done the other." Now, what what I think
you're saying, Mr. Barnes, is that based
upon what you've seen that the new
proposed lot location satisfies
everything that really needs to be
considered and does allow us to go ahead
and say we can approve this as it stands
without violating anything. Is that your
assessment?
Uh, Vice Chair Brandon, board member
Mason. Um, this is your assistant city
attorney, Angela Calibracy. Um, I I
think that's an important point. Um,
because an analyzing anything that was
done prior to today would not only
require uh to pull factual evidence in
the record as to why hypothetically
these building envelopes may or may not
have been altered. But looking at the
legal framework under which they were
allowed to do so, I think I I mostly
just want to encourage you to stick to
the purview of the DRB. Um, by way of
example, you there are many applications
that come before this board and you
consider all of the things that you know
and you take all of your personal and
professional experience, which you all
are are very um renowned for and apply
it to this and look at how
the the evidence and the record from
both staff and the applicant um how it
applies here. looking at environmental
conditions, topographical, how the how
the new building envelope would relate
to another building envelope and um and
really stay away from the hardship
considerations.
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying. I
don't think this is a hardship case at
all. I think Mr. Brian has taken a look
at it and studied it based upon the
criteria that this board should be
looking at and said based upon what he's
seen is to say yes it is it is approved
and it's not a hardship because you know
from what I hear and what I've seen and
I think Mr. Grant may or may not agree
with me is that the original building
envelope as we've heard was not
formalized in any manner that could be
even inspected to see yeah everything is
built according to the envelope. It was
just you know somebody put a thumb print
on the map and said here it is and maybe
they added some thought into putting a
thumbrint on it. But I think Mr. brand
has worked together with the current
builder to say yes, I think the new
proposed envelope satisfies what this
board is supposed to to look at. Is that
your assessment?
I think that's a question for you.
Yeah.
I'm sorry I didn't clarify who I was
asking, but yes, that's right.
Board member Mason. Um, as much as I was
following along with with what you were
saying, I wonder if I could ask you uh
the specific question you were asking uh
so I can make sure I'm answering it
properly. specific question is in your
assessment and looking at your
recommendation that the board approve
this new location
that
as far as you're concerned there's no
reason why we shouldn't approve that
from even what you've heard today
there's no real reason why you would
change that assessment is there
board member Mason uh I I don't know
that anything has come up in discussion
today that would change uh staff's
position on this. Our review of the the
details in in what was provided, what we
were able to uh uncover from uh the the
history and the records and uh looking
at the topographical conditions and
such. Uh the the position of
recommending support on this would still
be the same.
I'm gonna I'm gonna make
Thank you.
Thanks. I'm going to make a comment to
just kind of wrap up what my thoughts
are on this. Um
to me, I think the the the portion of
the envelope that that has maybe the
most concern are the upper tiers of of
topography that are contained on the
southern portion of the envelope. What
I'm trying to understand is that when
you build up to that southern tip, it
doesn't feel like the envelope is really
following a topographical
um shape, as in you're you're trying not
to disturb an area above a certain
height. And so you've got it looks like
three different topographical jumps on
the southern side of this that may allow
your building footprint to press all the
way up against that topography and build
at a substantially higher height than
your neighboring property. I would be
willing to approve this case if there
was if there was data that showed that
the topography that you are building up
against based on the height standards of
this area and the development standards
would mean that you are producing a
house with the height parameters that
are similar or the same to the
neighboring property. You're directly
neighboring property. And for me, that's
that's a method of actually taking data,
looking at the topography, looking at
the development ordinance, and setting
actually some maximum height parameters
that are actually in alignment with
neighboring properties. Does that make
sense?
I want to I want to understand what
you're saying. So, what you want me to
do is make sure I don't build any of my
house higher than where they're at.
I think the guidelines that we're
looking for if it's not if we're not
judging this based on the historical
location, we have to look at how we
that this district and our guidelines
also have a lot to do with context. And
so we are making a judgment based on the
appropriate context and the context of
your lot. And what you're asking for is
your adjacent lots. And so yes, that's
why I'm asking that we would want to
make sure that you are not that we are
not approving something and from staff's
opinion approving something in which you
could build something that feels out of
context. This board would be failing if
we gave a determination on a case and
there was a building that was built on
that lot that that looked and felt out
of context with the neighborhood.
So I'm not going three stories high and
end up being 50 feet is what you're
saying. Like if per se you built a sky
deck 30 feet up from the highest point
of topography on your site.
Get that.
That is that is what I'm talking about.
So if there are stipulations, I would
actually be willing to make a motion
right now for approval with stipulations
that staff manage that based on a a data
of understanding the topography that was
the measuring height of the adjacent
property and the highest roof points of
the adjacent property as well. Is that
something that you would be amendable
to?
Yeah. Uh, Vice Chair Brand. Yeah. No, I
think that's easily what we have shown
here is showing the maximum of a 20,000
foot building envelope. There's no
intent. Um, what's shown here is um to
to to um to use the full envelope. Um,
Mr. Angeline does not want a 20,000 foot
house. He's made that very clear. We're
we're going to be underbuilding this.
This is just meant to show conformance
with the um the NAOS requirements. Uh
and it's not I apologize because if you
obviously look if the contours I'm going
to count them 10 20 we've got close to
30 feet across slope on what is shown as
just the house footprint. It won't end
up like that. We'd end up with 25 foot
retaining walls or something like that.
So this is mainly meant to show the
possible area that might be able to be
used. And we don't want a three or four
story house. Nobody does. it would be
unsellable as an investment. So,
yeah, I'd be I'd be certainly okay with
uh saying, "Hey, we're we're not going
to use that uppermost pink we've got
shown here because
again, it's just shown as example of
compliance with these stated rules and
the ones that are, you know,
undefinable. We can't have more than
20,000 foot building envelope. Jeff has
aptly explained the height limit. We
have the setbacks, the maximum, any west
widths, all those things. No issue with
those are un indisputable. And so, um,
yeah, we don't want to be crossing 30
feet of contour with the design anyway
because that would just I mean, it would
be, um,
I would love I would love to trust you
on your best intention, but there's
absolutely zero authority for anyone to
stop you from doing something that
we wouldn't want you to do. So, that's
that's why we have to
part of the thing we're looking at back
here is a private yard because it the
hill's actually higher here and this
would be down lower and we can have our
own little private area in the summit
area as a yard. So this isn't looking to
be house. This is looking to be a
private yard off a master probably.
Right. But this approval is not of a
building floor plan or uses. It's really
just of the envelope outline.
Exactly.
And even though even though you're
saying we want to build a garden here,
you would be fully permitted to build
your building right up against that
envelope line and have it be 30 feet
from natural grade. So we have to have
mechanisms that protect against because
there is again there is zero process
from this approval that comes before a
board based on design. Zero. So that's
why we're looking at this.
I have a question. If we would have gone
in the what was supposed to be the the
original building envelope, would we be
having this conversation about a height
of a house?
The original building envelope down on
the base of the
No, you wouldn't.
I
you wouldn't because the original
building envelope was built at a
elevation that was similar to most of
the other envelopes consistent around
the neighborhood. So what you're asking
is a
Okay.
What you're asking is a shift
but not be too high is what you're
saying.
Yes. I think we want a parameter to make
sure that what you're building is in
contextual relation to the rest of the
neighborhood. And we have to have a
method of doing that.
answer that.
Sure.
Vice chair brand Andy Grimley again
actually there is a mechanism I remember
we're working with both Brad and Jeff on
a similar project in Anala where we we
were in full conformance with all the
guidelines we actually end up stepping
and lowering a house down um because
they felt it was uh too high on the lot.
So there is a staff and rather than
fight them we just say you know what
it's not a bad idea we can just do it.
And so there was a mechanism in place
for an unrelated project where the staff
and I just basically looked at it and
said you know what this is a better
solution and and we conformed with that.
So there was a um a staff approval that
we required and we actually had to do a
modification on unrelated project where
we were in conformance with the rules
but but but staff felt that it was just
not with the intent of the guidelines
and we and we and we met them.
I don't I don't really think a a case in
another neighborhood is relevant, but I
appre I mean I I don't think it's the
under the purview of staff to make
judgment calls on a parent relationship.
I I would just rather have something
that's very specific within this
approval that goes along with your case
and you don't need that sort of staff
subjectivity.
Yes.
Um, Vice Chair Brand, um, may I make a
suggestion based upon, uh, what you're
saying
for language for you?
Would love that.
Okay.
Um, you could potentially um stipulate
that given the maximum height
requirement of the vested zoning of lot
34, the building envelope shall not
extend into any area of the current
topography, which
elevation combined with the maximum
building height does not exceed the
height of the structures of lot 33 or
35.
We're already above 33 in your
um I don't believe that
or some
Yeah, I think maybe just 35 because 33
is I would recognize is built at a much
lower elevation. So I don't think that's
a good barometer for this
respectfully to be at 35's level. I'd
have to go in the ground 10 feet there
or more.
They're below us our street level from
where we're talking about here when we
were talking about this from foundation
on our main our main level. was within 3
ft of 35.
So, what you're saying is you would not
be amendable to that stipulation.
I'm saying I'm going to listen to that,
look at that stipulation and see how
it's going to impact what I might want
to do on that lot.
I have a question
because if we have that ulation. I
couldn't put a second story on that.
And to do the amount of square footage I
want on the bottom, it would take
a lot of the building envelope up and
not be able to have a yard.
I mean, I it
I'm around the side of a mountain from
35. I only see his, as he put it, his
dog walking area. His
I don't even see his house over there
for where it's at. I can see his roof
line down there. And by where that's at
on the hill, we're going to be higher if
we do a second story than his roof line
by about three feet.
I understand. But the purview of this
board isn't to make sure that you have a
you have a a perfect house. The purview
of the board is to make a decision about
the building envelope that's in that's
in the guideline and and you're you're
talking about things that are about your
your preference about how you want to
build the building
about height height variance is what
you're giving us to deal with here. I if
we're talking about building envelopes
now we're talking about the height of my
house and where I design my house.
I'm open to any motions from the board.
What I had a question about is that I
I'm I'm picturing what you you're
talking about. Is it possible to do a
diagram that shows volumes in
relationship to the topography as well
as the house on on lot 35
and we'd want that volumetric study to
be written into record as a regulating
study. Correct.
Absolutely.
Uh, respectfully board members, this is
an entirely different lot with different
constraints. What we I understand your
concerns. I really do get them. Would it
be acceptable to say pick an a line here
on the uh the board say that contour and
stipulate anything beyond that is is is
space and not house or something like
that. We're we're just looking to
honestly get to the point where we can
start designing a house because what
you're asking for again kind of cart
before the horse. We don't know where
the build you're asking us to design a
house and then decide whether you want
it's acceptable for a building envelope.
That that's not the way we usually do
things.
Can I come in with a suggest?
Well, this isn't a normal
I have one point on elevation. feet
talking about elevation and we can look
at the houses on the adjacent lots and
say you know they have a certain rooftop
elevation it's net elevation above sea
level and so if we say to this
particular lot right here that the
height of your roof cannot be higher
than uh the highest elevation above sea
level of either 33 or 35 either one of
those. So that way we let that would
constrain them because I think we're
trying to figure something out that
doesn't seem to be figurable because one
lot is lower than the other, one lot is
higher than the other and we're trying
to say um I'm not exactly sure how we
can structure this and put the
limitations on it. Their current
limitations say that within the
guidelines that say building guidelines
they can only go up to so so high and
those appear to work fairly well.
I'm just I'm I'm sure she has more
frustration figuring out exactly how we
can do this. But that's that's my point.
Mr. Mason, that's what I was proposing
with the last with the last um
discussion with staff
was actually taking the height of the
roof, the existing height of the roofs
um on adjacent lots and setting that as
a barometer for the heights on this
property. I don't know if that's
permissible or not.
Uh, Vice Chair Bran, um,
I would caution against taking that
approach because the DRB does not have
perview and authority to
really review and approve the design of
a house. However, you do have the
authority to approve the building
envelope, which is where the house sits.
And given a 30-foot maximum,
you could move it basically downhill so
to speak so that the same effect is
achieved.
So we don't have the ability to dictate
development standards. Is that correct?
We don't have the ability to change or
dictate some development standard. All
we have the ability to do is approve or
deny the building envelope and then the
development standards are what they are.
Correct. In this case, yes, Vice Chair
Bran. I just want to make a
clarification though. I think you can
achieve the same end as to what you and
Mr. Mason are trying to do. You just
have to do it in a specific way.
Okay. Which is why I was asking to do
the math essentially the backward math
of comparative house elevation heights
so that you can work backwards and you
would have the ability based on the
topography to do the building that you
want to do on the site. I'm not asking
you to divine design the entire
building. I it's not what we're asking.
We're we're asking you to do a study of
of the topographies that that the edge
of the building would want to be on and
where you'd want to be. Look at the
development standards for the height
regulations in the area and then have a
comparison of like we are relatively in
line with what the neighbor this
neighbor is doing and what the context
of my lot is. That allows us
I I understand
that
I I understand that. But now, so I've
got to move to a lower position so I can
be lower with them or I've got to cut my
house down so I can be Where in the
guidelines does it say my house can't be
any taller than their house?
Well, the guidelines say you need to be
in the building envelope area that's
outlined here,
right? But where does where does it say
my house can't be any
Where does it say that my house has to
be the same height as his house in the
guidelines that the neighborhood has
multiple hills and houses in all kinds
of different directions? My house the
house across the street
because let me let me stop you there.
Sorry. Because our ability to regulate
the change in your building envelope on
this board is based on context.
And the context that you have and your
entire argument for needing a shift in
the building location is based on
historical building, specifically the
neighbor next door. And so if we are to
make some sort of judgment on your
building envelope, we have to do it
based on context. That's what we're
saying. It's not based on a guideline.
And you have to be exactly the same
height, but we need to see something
aside from just a a plan diagram that
shows that the relative context of the
parcel adjacent to you that you are
operating within this. This is again a
plan. This is not an elevation height. I
think this is part of what's difficult
here is that we don't have a section and
a building height of the topography of
this site and the adjacency of this
building. I have no idea how tall that
building is on lot 35. It could be a 15
foot one-story building spread all the
way across and it actually doesn't poke
up at all over the natural landscape. I
have no idea. And there's frankly been
no
no no information that's been presented
to us for it for us to understand the
context. But I'm just saying that our
ability to shift the building envelope
has 100% to do with this with the shift
of the building envelope fitting into
the context of where you are bu building
at. That's our entire authority is based
on context. Mr. Chairman,
I'd like to make a motion to uh um to uh
move to uh not approve
case 12 PPP1 1995 number two,
including the amended building envelope
for lot 34.
Is there a second on that?
Vice Chair Brand.
No.
Commissioner Gonzalez.
Yes.
Board member Paser.
No.
Board member Mason.
No.
Board member Robinson.
Motion fails. Thank you.
I think I think there's I think there's
a way that we can get here. I'm going to
move to continue this. So, I'm going to
make a motion to continue just for our
board to know. I think that there has
been good progress on this and I think
for this board to be able to make a
decision that's favorable to you. I I
don't want to reject this because I
respect the process that you've gone
through. I think for us to make a
decision, we have to have information
about the context and the impact of of
where you're proposing this based on the
relevant information of adjacent. You
have to prove that the context fits in
with with your surroundings, which is
your next door neighbor, which is part
of part of what you're talking about. So
I I can let staff guide you on that, but
I think that this is very very close.
But in order for us to have the right
information to to make an approval on
this, I think we would need to see that
information so that it so that it can be
specific. And it and I'm and it for me
it has a lot to do with the limited
purview of this board and that we do not
have any sort of any sort of authority
to review this project after an envelope
is is is is given is approved. With
that, I'm I'm going to make a motion to
move to continue this case to a date um
non-determined yet to allow for the
applicant to have a couple of exhibits
of relative context with um building
height and um uh vertical um cutfield
disturbance. Um
I second the motion.
Second.
I was just looking
I'd like to add the stipulation that
they work with staff to develop this so
that when it comes back before the
board, we can have almost all the
questions resolved.
Yes. Sorry, I thought that was
intimated. I'll add that we would in
working with staff to produce that that
context.
I think we have a second. Second the
motion.
Vice Chair Brand.
Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez.
Yes. Board member Paser,
yes.
Board member Mason,
yes.
Board member Robinson,
yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
All right. Agenda item number seven,
61-drumb
7. We get a staff report for that.
Vice Chair Bran, Commissioner Gonzalez,
uh, and board members, thank you guys
for joining again. Uh, this is, uh, one
Scottsdale planning unit number three,
Torch Club, uh, the Nogan Villa as well,
also known for. Um, this, uh, case
actually came in front of the board, uh,
just a couple weeks ago, um, and was
continued to work with staff, um, and to
get with the board members on some
updated materials, um, for the building
elevations. Again, just some context for
the site. Um it is located in the
northeast corner of Scottsdale and 101
uh just north of Legacy and south of
Thompson Peak Parkway.
Um again some of the big points uh that
were changed just from that continuence
uh from the board members were updated
materials. Um we wanted some more uh
definitions on the uh joineries for the
bricks. Um there was some questions and
concerns about the gates in front and
the walls surrounding the property and
the updates that they've made to that.
They've added some brick features to to
that um increase the joints between all
of the bricks um proposed. And so with
that, I'm going to kind of close off
staff's presentation. We're happy to
answer any questions. Um we did meet
with uh Vice Chair Brand um in the past
two or three weeks um to kind of go over
some of these things. Um the applicant
team is here and can go over any of
these updates that you guys have, but
again uh that's staff's presentation.
I'm happy to clarify any questions you
guys have.
Thank you.
Thank you. I can I can lead this off a
little bit because I I have had a
follow-up discussion with the applicant.
Um we talked about a few things uh for
information of the board they can come
up here and present the applicant is
here but we specifically talked about
the um actual material and the
construction and the finish type and how
the
composition of the building cladding is
is being proposed and the exact product
that's being proposed here. Um to
summarize um I was I was happy with the
product that was that was being proposed
um in lie of some of the faux brick
patterns on the on the EP's product
which I think have been removed from the
project. Um and there has been a an
addition of GFRC and natural stone to
the entry p the central entry piece of
the project. So um this was a discussion
that I had with the applicant that we
thought would be an enhanced level of
delivery of the project specifically at
the entry point um which I was happy
with. I believe that we also discussed
um either natural stone or or some sort
of masonry exposed masonry masonry
product for the perimeter wall. Is that
the case? Can we get the applicant to
come up and answer a couple questions?
I'm I'm forgetting what was discussed on
the perimeter perimeter uh screen wall
on the project.
Good afternoon, Vice Chair Bran, members
of the DRB. I'm Tom Galvin with Rose Law
Group, 7144 East Stson Drive. I was not
here at the last meeting that was held
on June 10th, but I did observe the
hearings and I understand um this this
considerable discussion that was had and
I just want to point out that the
architect is here to answer any
technical questions, but Vice Chair
Brand, you did a really good job of
laying out what were the issues last
month and how they've been resolved and
addressed to you directly and also want
to appreciate staff. I just want to make
a a couple of points here because the
applicant has modified modified the
design after incorporating feedback from
DRB members over the last month by
including the incremental 12x 12 columns
that have variations in height to break
up the monolithic look of the wall
around the perimeter and also
adjustments have been made in such a
short period of time and as you
explained and outlined roof pitches have
been adjusted to be more cohesive and
that's for consolidation for clarity as
suggested material pallet board is now
updated And as you pointed out last
month, you wanted to reflect
authenticity. Elevations are updated
with the proper GFRC elements and stone
materials are now on the perimeter wall.
The character and design elements of the
general air park character area plan and
the DRB criteria have been met, which I
want to emphasize. And once again, this
is a luxury project fitting for
Scottsdale, fitting for North
Scottsdale. It includes contemporary
elements with traditional influence. And
this project reflects the excellence of
what you see here today. and respects
Scottsdale's high standards and
reputation. But to go back to the
original question of what happened last
month, I think we've addressed all of
those concerns. Obviously, happy to
discuss landscaping if you want to
address that as well. And if you have
any technical questions for the
architect, he can provide you brief and
concise answers.
I only I did have two questions for the
architect. The um surrounding perimeter
wall, it looks like you've got a stone
accent, which is the I'm trying to
remember the name of the product. It's a
faux stone.
It's a Colorado stone. Yes.
Okay. This
Oh, it's Naveen Pathing Pathing
Architects 727 East Bethany Home.
And this the stone that's being used on
the perimeter wall is what is what is
that? The the columns.
Yes, it's on the columns. It's it's
Coronado stone. Yes.
Oh, that's Coronado stone. And the
infill between those is that what's the
product being used between there?
It's CMU wall with stucco on top with a
cap of GFRC. The stone on top of the
wall.
Okay. So, the the cap is GFRC. It's a
smooth stucco finish on a CMU wall.
Okay. Um I had a couple question. The
the primary trees that are being used
around the perimeter of the project, are
those 24 or 36 inch box trees?
The what we have based on the DRB is all
um 24 in, but I believe that we can
increase that size if needed.
Okay. And that's going to be part of the
stipulation. I had a few requests uh
directly from people living in the
surrounding area.
I have no I have no other comments. Do
we have any comments from the board?
What is the glazing on the on the
material?
The glazing?
Yes. Uhhuh.
Yeah. This all solar band 50.
Okay.
Um is there any going to be any uh
reflective material um on on the glazing
or anything anything that will bounce
that
light forward?
No.
Okay. And then I guess uh what was the
material? I'm sorry. On the roofing
again.
It's metal.
It's a metal roofing. Okay.
It's bifurcated. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Do we have any other questions from the
board? Mr. Mason,
I have none. Um I'm pleased with what I
saw on the site. That's why I have no
question. Looks good to me.
U Mr. Peaser and Mr. Robinson. No. With
that, I'm I'm going to um make a motion
to approve case 61 DR 2015 number seven
per the staff recommended stipulations
with the additional stipulation of
upgrading 24inch box trees to 36-inch
box trees after finding that the
development application meets the
development review board criteria.
Second.
Vice Chair Brand,
yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez,
yes.
Board member Paser,
yes.
Board member Mason,
yes.
Board member Robinson,
yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Thank you, everybody.
Thank you, board.
Do I have a motion to adjurnn, please?
I'll move to adjourn.
Yes.
Thanks.