Development Review Board - May 15, 2025

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to
this session of the development review
board. Uh I'm Kathleen Littlefield and I
am chairing tonight.
Um first of all we'll do a call to
order. May I have a roll call, please?
Councilwoman Littlefield present. Vice
Chair Brand here. Commissioner Ertell
here. Board member Peaser here. Board
member
Faki. Board member Mason here. Board
member Robinson here. Six present. Thank
you.
Thank you very much.
Next on our agenda is the public
comment. For non-aggendaized items,
citizens may address the members of the
development review board during public
comment. This time is reserved at the
beginning of the meeting for citizens to
comment on non-aggendaized
items that are within the the purview of
the development uh review board and is
limited to a total of 15 minutes.
Arizona state law prohibits the
development review board from discussing
or taking action on these
non-aggendaized items. Speakers may
submit a blue request to speak card like
this in person prior to the beginning of
the of the meeting. Public testimony is
limited to three minutes per speaker.
Written comment is also being accepted
for non-aggendaized items and me may be
submitted in person at the hearing or
electronically at the development review
board website. Written comments
submitted electronically will be emailed
to the development review board
members. Do we have any public com
comment cards?
Chair uh Little Phil, we do have some
comment cards on agendaized items, but
for non-aggenda non-aggendaized items,
we do not. Thank you so much. We'll hold
the uh cards for agendaized items until
we come to those um
items. Okay. Next, we have an
administrative report by Mr. Brad Carr.
Yes. Thank you. I wanted to welcome uh
you chair Littlefield. Thanks for
joining us today. Uh filling in for Vice
Mayor Dubasquez. Also wanted to thank uh
Commissioner Ertell. This I think will
be the last of your meetings with the
DRB for your this rotation anyway. So,
thank you for your time. Also wanted to
note that we will be uh having our next
meeting about three weeks from now on
June 5th. Uh we have several cases to
review on that agenda. So, we look
forward to seeing you then. That
concludes my administrative report for
today. Thank you. Thank you so much. Um
next on our agenda today is the minutes.
Um, we need approval of the May 1st,
2025 development review board regular
meeting minutes. Do I have a motion?
I'll make a motion. I'll move to approve
the regular meeting minutes of May 1st,
2025 development review board as
presented. Second. Second. Any
discussion? Please register your vote.
Councilwoman Littlefield,
yes. Vice Chair Brand, yes. Commissioner
Ertell, yes. Board member Paser, yes.
Board member Mason, yes. Board member
Robinson, yes. Motion passes 6. Thank
you. Thank you very much.
Um on the action items next um how the
action agenda works. The development
review board may take one vote to act on
all the items on on the continuence
agenda and or consent agenda or may
remove individual items for further
discussion as appropriate. The
development review board takes separate
action on each of the items on the
regular agenda.
Persons interested in speaking on any of
these agenda items may submit a blue
request to speak card like this one in
person prior to the beginning of the
public testimony. Those wishing to speak
are customarily given three minutes to
speak on each item. Additional time may
be granted to a designated speaker
representing two or more persons. And
please submit the cards together.
Persons interested in submitting a
written comment on any item may submit a
yellow uh written comment card in person
prior to the beginning of the public
testimony or may submit electronically
at the development review board website
no later than 90 minutes prior to the
meeting. Do we have any cards like that
that were submitted
electronically? Thank you. That was a
no.
Okay, moving on to the continuence
agenda item number three. It's
37-dr2024 at
4242 North Scottsdale Road. This is a
request by the owner for a continuence
of development application 37DR 2024 to
the June 5th, 2025 development review
board meeting. Our contact is Greg
Bloomberg. Our applicant is Ryan Joke.
Okay.
I'll move to continue case 37D 2024 to
the June 5th development review board
hearing. Second. Any discussion?
May I have a roll call vote, please?
Councilwoman Littlefield, yes. Vice
Chair Brand, yes. Commissioner Ertell,
yes. Board member Paser, yes. Board
member Mason, yes. Board member
Robinson, yes. Motion passes 6. Thank
you. Thank you very
much. Next, we have our consent agenda.
We have one item on that I on that
agenda do
2-dr2025 which is the Casante comments
request for the approval of a site plan
landscape plan and building elevations
for a new 189 unit multifamily
residential building as a part of a
larger mixeduse development on a plus or
minus 8.6 6 acre site located at 7000
East Sha Boulevard with planned unit
development plan shared district zoning.
The contact is Teresa Forberg. Since
this is on consent, do I have a motion
to approve?
Uh, Councilwoman, I'd like to um ask if
the applicant could come up to answer a
question real quick that I have on the
case. Absolutely. the applicant here.
Hi, I'm Laura Eer with ESG Architects.
Great. Um, real quick, just for the
board's uh knowledge, I had a meeting
with the with the applicant um prior to
the hearing today in which we
discussed discussed the case at length.
Um, I think the the things that in full
disclosure, the things that we spoke
about um that I want to make sure that
we add on to the um approval motion is
to continue to work with staff on the um
color selection of the building as well
as um uh the color material selection on
the building. I think everything is
intact, but there was some concern over
um how the project was represented in
the renderings. Um the color balance I
think was off. there was a
differentiation between the elevations
which were not shadowed and so there was
some difficulty in picking up the the
depth of the elevation of which they've
addressed and and have brought forth the
actual building materials here today for
review which I think do do actually
address the concern but I think the
profile of the roof um of the roof
accent piece was also a question so I'd
like to I I just wanted to notify the
the applicant that I'll be making a
motion, but making a motion to and
adding on a stipulation to work with the
color selection and the roof profile
profile with with staff. We'd be happy
to do that. Great. Thank you. With that,
I'll I'm up for a motion if unless
anyone else has a question.
I'll second your motion. Well, I got to
make it. Do I had to make it first? I
thought you said you wanted to approve
it. I'm sorry.
Um, I'm going to move to approve case
2-DR-2025 per the staff recommended
stipulations in addition to uh
recommended uh a stipulation to uh work
with work with staff on the um the color
and roof roof profile detail after
finding that the development application
meets the applicable development review
board criteria.
Now I'll second
it. Any further discussion on this item?
May I have a a roll call vote?
Councilwoman Littlefield? Yes. Vice
Chair Brand? Yes. Commissioner Ertal?
Yes. Board member Peaser? Yes. Board
member Mason? Yes. Board member
Robinson? Yes. Motion passes 6.
Thank you very much.
Um, next we move on to our regular
agenda for today. We have one item on
that
12-PPP-1 1995 number two, Desert Summit,
lot 34, the building envelope. I have a
presentation.
Good afternoon, uh, Councilwoman
Littlefield, Commissioner Ortell,
members of the development review board.
Uh, my name is Jeff Barnes with the
city's planning department. Uh,
presenting 12PP1 1995 number two, which
is the Desert Summit lot 34 building
envelope.
The request before you today um is a
request by the owner uh to modify a
previously approved building envelope
for lot 34 within the Desert Summit
subdivision um as was established
through uh the preliminary plat case
approval 12PP1 1995.
Going into a little bit of visual
context for you here. The uh Desert
Summit subdivision is generally located
north of Joeax and east uh west, excuse
me, of 118th Street. Um lot 34
specifically is in the northern portion
of that subdivision in the yellow
highlighted site uh on the screen
here. A very much closer in uh view of
that. uh and our zoning uh indication
here. So, this lot 34 falls within the
R170 uh ESL zoned portion uh of the the
Desert Summit subdivision. Um the uh the
lot as you see there on the screen um is
uh fronts onto 112th place and uh angles
its way back as it moves up uh the the
hill to the higher elevation of the rear
of that
lot because uh the limits of Desert
Summit are a little bit uh difficult to
gauge from that first aerial photo I
showed you. Um, I just wanted to provide
this slide as a little bit better
context outlining in the black dash
lines the overall um, development. As
you can see a little better, it extends
all the way over to 118th Street all the
way down to Joeax and has that upper
portion um, where the uh, highlighted
lot 34 is located in the yellow
highlight there. Um, you you might also
be able to gauge uh a little bit from
this overhead view uh the open space
area uh that exists between homes in
that portion of the site uh which is
more unique to that area of the
development than um some of the other uh
southern and eastern portions of that
development.
getting into the the purpose the goal of
this request. The applicant is seeking
to modify the location uh of the
conceptual building envelope for this
lot um which was established through uh
conceptual graphics in the zoning and
preliminary plat approval actions. Um
they would like to take it from the uh
the current position which is located at
the lower uh elevation of the lot up
closer to the street uh and move it to
the uh to a new location at the higher
elevation of the lot um towards the
south end further up the hillside. And
I'll have some visuals that'll probably
help that a little better as we go. Uh
some key items for consideration for you
today um in our review of this
application. Uh staff has identified
concerns that the uh the building
envelope modification as proposed
appears inconsistent with the prior
stipulations
uh of the zoning and preliminary plat
cases and those uh exhibit documents I
mentioned also with the purpose of ESL
um and the open space location
guidelines uh driven for NALS and the
preservation of open space and because
of those things uh staff finds concerns
that the development ment review board
criteria um are uh not being met as
those speak more directly to conformance
to uh existing zoning uh stipulations uh
the environmentally sensitive lands
overlay etc. Um, additionally, uh,
attached to the staff report, uh, we did
receive, uh, various, uh, public input,
uh, and, uh, generally, uh, that input
had expressed opposition, but that was
provided to you for your consideration,
um, as
well. Walking through some of the
history um, to this as I've alluded to
it, but uh, getting into the details.
So, this uh development uh started out
with a zoning action um 76ZN
1992 which was approved in 1993
uh setting up the what was then called
Desert Sun uh that became Desert Summit
residential
subdivision. Uh there was an amendment
uh processed to that zoning action um in
1995
uh that modified uh some of the
stipulations um addressing uh some
increases in the square footage of
building envelopes. Uh reductions in the
previously specified natural area open
space uh separation uh dimensions
between those building envelopes. Um and
there was uh allowance in there from
that action of a meandering perimeter
wall to the subdivision which doesn't
necessarily impact this but providing it
to you for context of those changes. Uh
the preliminary plat uh case the four
desert summit came through as 12 PPP
1995 was approved in 1995 and included
in it uh an NAOS plan uh conveying the
building envelopes carrying forward the
idea of those as directed from the
zoning case uh approvals that preceded
it. Um also uh as those had made
reference to that NAOS separation
distance that that was uh part of what
was conveyed in that uh NAOS
exhibit. Looking
um looking at some of those key
stipulations that spoke to that uh
highlighted building envelopes out of
the zoning action. Um these three uh I
have for you on the screen and I'll just
walk quickly through them. But uh the
first talks about all NAOS uh between
building envelopes being uh shown on the
development plan and uh not being less
than 60 ft uh separated between them.
Um, the second uh refers to building
envelopes uh and the uh the uh maximum
size uh of those not exceeding uh 20,000
square ft for lots like this one that
fall in the R170 zoning area. Um and
then the stips directed that with the
preliminary plat um and then the final
platting uh that those envelopes uh be
shown and and represented in those
submitts and
reviews. So showing you some of those
documents that I've been uh making
reference to. This was the 1992
uh plan that came with that zoning case.
Uh showing the overall uh again it was
Desert Sun, now Desert Summit uh
development. Uh the little yellow
highlight up in the the northern end
here represents uh lot 34. Um in this
graphic uh property lines were still uh
very much conceptual. those envelope
locations do uh appear consistent. Um
but
uh moving in then to the uh amendment of
the zoning case. Um again up in the uh
the upper area in the yellow highlight
that I hope is showing up better on that
that screen there, but generally where
my mouse is at um is lot 34. again um
start to get a little more definition in
uh in this exhibit. Um you can also see
I had made reference to sort of that
that open space uh area between those
envelopes that was visually apparent on
the aerial photograph. Um and there is
some contours on here, but they're hard
to see on this exhibit. uh they do show
up a little bit better on the
preliminary plat uh documents. Uh this
is from the 12PPP1
1995. Uh lot
34, this document is rotated to the side
because it was a two-piece uh plan sheet
here, but um lot 34 is over here. You
can see the uh parcel boundaries have
been realized a little more at this
point. Um, and that topography is a
little bit uh more evident on uh this
plan showing uh really how much up slope
there is to the the back ends of those
lots.
This is the page two of that. Uh not
relevant to lot 34 necessarily, but in
here just to not leave out the context.
This slide gets into some of the
materials that were provided uh from the
applicant uh to represent uh their
request. Um this exhibit is helpful in
uh in showing you uh with this
cross-section that they've provided the
amount of grade increase uh to get from
uh the lower end of the lot which is up
near the street where the building
envelope has been represented on the
previous approvals up to the higher end
of the lot where um they are looking to
request that it be modified to. Uh in
the context of the overhead view um
112th place being uh over off to the uh
the upper left there that building
envelope location existing is that more
bolded uh bubble line and then uh you
can see some of the topography heading
up the hill there. uh this exhibit that
they've provided shows you a little
better indication of the intended
building envelope location. Um maybe
looking at the uh the right side of the
screen uh that visualization probably
helps show both for you. Again, the
existing location being more that uh
that darkened boundary up near the
street. the um less shaded uh on this
being the proposed building envelope
with the uh the driveway uh to get up to
that portion of the property.
As part of our uh our review of this, we
had uh noted that there is there are two
different uh ESL landform areas um
within this uh this development. Um just
for your context, there are three in
total uh across the the city. There is
our lower desert land form, our upper
desert landform, and hillside landform.
Um the two present here are the upper
desert where most of the lots uh have
developed. Most of those building
envelopes align with the hillside
landform being sort of that central
portion. Uh which also includes uh a uh
a hill hilltop that was significant
enough to protect with a conservation
easement uh that uh sits generally in
the middle of my label there um that
says hillside landform. Uh so visually
on this uh we have concerns that
although some of the
other envelopes the final constructed
locations of of homes surrounding that
hillside landform do have encroachments.
Uh most of them are minor encroachments
with the exception of lot 35 which is
right next door. Um this was referenced
in the applicant's materials. It's been
um discussed and and we had looked into
it. We were not able to find a specific
approval for a deviation of that
envelope. Uh this uh knowingly or not uh
was uh was approved through the permit
plan review process uh and uh and
constructed in that location um that
that is visually encroaching into the
the hillside landform. The original
envelope uh was more uh over along the
street frontage similar to lot 34s on
those other
exhibits. And just to to bring in again
I had mentioned um contours and
topography on some of those other plans.
Uh we pulled this from our GIS data just
to to give you maybe an additional
visual um to go with uh that hillside
landform area. Um,
and it represents uh sort of the the
contours rising up in that that central
area which appears to have been intended
to have been protected through the uh
originally approved uh building envelope
locations. So, I mentioned uh us having
concerns with that the DRB criteria were
not being met. Uh I've pulled the first
three uh just up on the screen here. uh
real quick. Um the remaining ones talk
about things in downtown. They talk
about uh uh public art. uh they are less
uh relevant to this discussion but but
these three um just highlighting really
quick talk about
uh consistency uh with design character
of the applicable guidelines development
standards design standards and policies
manual master plans character plans
general plan and then going into uh that
the character of site design uh shall be
uh promoting the desirable relationship
of structures to one another to open
space topography. Um that they recognize
unique climatic and environmental
factors uh of the region uh and the
desert environment that they conform to
the recommended guidelines of the
environmentally sensitive lands
ordinance. um incorporate unique
characteristics of in this case uh uh
the uh property features. Um and that uh
ingress egress uh and and circulation
uh is is designed in a in a way to to
respond to those things.
Walking through some of the analysis uh
that we had provided in the staff
report, we again had concerns that uh
this really doesn't appear to be uh
following the what was set up and
established by the uh the zoning
stipulations of both zoning cases um and
the preliminary plat case and the carry
forward of the implementation of those
building envelopes with that uh with
that approval process. Um it very much
appears that those envelopes were used
as a as a tool to restrict and control
the individual lot development uh
staying within or at least as much
within as possible the lower desert I'm
sorry the the um upper desert land form
uh rather than the hillside uh landform
area.
Uh I mentioned uh that lot 35 is is sort
of the um the glaring exception to that.
Uh and uh it it certainly is context,
but it uh did not appear to be enough
context to us to be able to uh support
another uh another modification that
would do um a similar encroachment if
you will. Uh the other factor for that
is uh without having specific
dimensions, it does um appear that there
may be conflict with the 60-foot minimum
uh dimensional separation between that
envelope location on lot 35 and the
proposed envelope location on lot 34.
Um, as we didn't have a uh a defined
approval of that envelope location on
35, that that's more of a visual
analysis against the applicant's
proposal, but still something concerning
that would need to be um identified if
this proceeded
forward. And then the the third
highlight on on this slide is is I had
showed on on the applicant's exhibit the
driveway uh required to go up uh and
access that higher portion of the lot.
Um doing so creates additional
disturbance uh to the property.
Although the envelope size should be uh
sort of equivalent and offsetting, the
the improvements needed to get there um
are not present when the envelope is up
at the street line and the driveway uh
only needs to be the distance to get
from the street uh into the property.
I had uh made reference to the ESL
ordinance and its uh its purpose and and
how it drives preservation of open
space. Uh I wanted to just cover a few
highlights uh from that um in the
purpose statement. Uh here there are
more than this in there but these are
the ones that seemed uh pertinent. Um so
the the first one talks about protecting
and preserving uh natural and visible
visual resources. Um and it it lays out
a list of things uh that uh that
highlight that um natural terrain,
natural features, the these are uh in
that realm of things intended to be
preserved. Um that section talks about
conserving the character of the natural
desert. um guiding uh the location and
distribution of meaningful onlot open
space uh and protecting sensitive
environmental features to sustain the
unique desert character. Um the third
one talks about minimizing impacts of
development by controlling the location
intensity pattern design construction
techniques. Um the fourth about
retaining the visual character of the
natural landscape uh to the greatest
extent feasible. Um and the fifth one
there about maintaining significant open
spaces which provide view corridors,
buffers, protect landmarks and large
boulders and wash corridors and other
natural uh features of the site.
So, with all of that
um and and staff's concerns and and
staff's inability to approve this at a
lower level than than bringing it to
you, um our recommendation uh is is for
uh a continuence um to allow uh the
applicant to explore alternative
locations that may align better with the
criteria with the ESL design guidelines.
Um, it appears a lot of the other
envelopes uh over time have been treated
as conceptual and moved small amounts. I
don't have a dimension for what small
amounts is, but uh visually small
amounts. Um, this uh proposal um does
quite a bit more than than those other
have, and that's why we're here in front
of you uh this afternoon.
With that, uh, I'll wrap up staff's
presentation. I know the applicant team
is here and they're, uh, ready to
present to you unless you had any
immediate questions for me. Okay. Thank
you so much. Uh, are there any
questions?
Yes.
If you could clarify for me, sir. Um the
uh the the 60-foot separation has to do
with
NaOS as opposed to buildings and the 75
ft relates to
buildings. You know the 75 foot
separation. This is a question. I'm just
not sure that
Councilwoman Littlefield, Commissioner
Ortell, uh
the that stipulation
um is focused on NaOS the way it's
written and it it talks about that
dimension being a 60 foot width between
building envelopes. So, not necessarily
contemplating the actual building
location, but the envelope to envelope
uh condition and the the uh if you know
if I build a house on a lot and I put it
right up against the lot line
um and you had the lot next door, the
burden is on you totally on you to
maintain that u 60 foot separation of
NAOS and 75 foot separation of
buildings.
Commissioner Hertell, um I I think there
would certainly
be conditions of the existing envelopes
as represented if there was a problem
with those that that we may
have trouble enforcing that more
directly. Um the challenge in this is
this is a request to modify and move an
envelope and so it certainly has to be a
consideration in the new location um of
whether or not that creates any other
issues. Well, I read what it says and I
it is what it is and you know um I can
not like it but that doesn't change it.
It is what it is. At the same time, it
would seem to make more sense to say,
"Okay, uh the burden is on me to be uh
30 feet, my
NAOS, be 30 feet away from your NAOS,
which has to be 30 feet if I'm saying
this right, and you know, half of 75 for
the uh the buildings, but I realize it
doesn't say that." Um, but then I guess
we're here to consider exceptions. So
anyway, thank you for clarifying and
commissioner, if I could provide maybe
one more bit of context to that. Um,
under normal circumstances,
uh, the the envelopes, uh, were set
through the, uh, the zoning, the
preliminary plat, the final plat, all of
those were the developer controlled uh,
the totality of the lots. And so uh it
it wouldn't wouldn't be intended to
create a uh neighbor to neighbor uh who
sh who carries the the burden. It should
have been all uh distributed before
anyone beyond the developer took
ownership built and those sorts of
things.
Thank you.
Thank you. Um I do have some requests to
speak here. Um, so, uh, I just like to
ask him some questions. Okay, we'd go
right ahead.
Jeff, go forward a couple of slides to
the plot
plan. One more
again, right there.
So the shaded area that's seen there at
the top that represents the area that's
part of the natural
drainage. Councilwoman Littlefield, um,
board member Paser, uh, that that is my
understanding that does, uh,
highlight what the applicant has
reported as, uh, an area that does
flood, uh, when, uh, when there is storm
water. So, this this information isn't
historical information we have. This is
information that we were given. Th this
sheet is is provided from the applicant.
the dark line and since I can't read any
of that that's the building boundary
line that's surrounds that
the the further out line is as I
understand as representative so you said
earlier
that a lot of these lots in this
subdivision have seen those boundary
lines move
slightly so there's more or less
precedent set that says is that if the
houses going in on this location
couldn't fit on the dry area that's
shown on this plan that the boundary
line could in fact be moved slightly. We
wouldn't want somebody building in an
area that's prone to
flooding. So, the city might be might
accept adjusting that line enough to put
the house in the same general location
by moving that line as we may have done
on other lots in the same subdivision.
Board member Paser, I think you're
you're correct in what you're saying.
Part of our uh conversations uh leading
up to this uh with the the applicant
team had contemplated
uh would we at a staff level be able to
um approve a deviation, a modification
at somewhere in that lower elevation of
the lot outside of the um hillside
landform area boundary or at least
minimally encroaching. uh the the
concern that was raised with that and
I'm sure the applicant team will um
bring that into detail as well is the uh
the configuration of this parcel uh
narrows quite significantly at sort of
the midpoint of it
and that creates maybe a concern of not
being able to achieve something partway
up the hill and then looking beyond the
pinch point to to the to the further
back part of the property. But we can
assume that you were talking about lot
35. You couldn't find any where we
approved the adjustment of the lot. That
doesn't mean that there wasn't an
approval made. you just can't find the
paperwork because with so many checks
and balances in our plan review system
when those plans came in, I know that
your staff and your office check those
setbacks pretty stringently to make sure
that they meet all the requirements of
the zoning ordinance. And when the
inspectors get out there, they've got a
set of plans. They're on a lot this
size, as I recall. Um they would not
have been doing any measuring out there.
They would have required a land surveyor
to go out there and tell us that the
house was located exactly where it was
on the approved plans because when you
get into these large lots, it's
impossible to measure to corners of
buildings. So, my assumption would be
that that approval of the adjustment of
the lot line probably was made because
of all the checks and the balances in
the in the city's plan review system. We
just simply don't have that approval.
Would you agree with that assumption?
Board member Peaser, I I would uh I
would agree that the process is intended
to to catch those things. Um in
researching this, I did only locate one
other uh through a case process like
this modification uh in the further
southeast portion um of the development,
which was not one of these more hillside
type.
Um, but that adjacent home approval did
go through the the site plan review
process. It it as far as I know was
built to plan, but very much unclear in
our records if that adjustment was
contemplated as part of that or missed
entirely. So on lot 34, what's the
approximate size of the buildable area
based on the zoning stipulations? they
all of the ones in the R1 70 zoning
should be that
20,000 square foot. Um the applicant
team may have more specific numbers if
that's not the case, but that would be
my understanding. Well, it just seems to
me that if
the buildable lot line can be
adjusted to where the the new structure
stays in the general area
of of where the buildable lot is. Now,
your your concern is by your
presentation is the further up you go
that hill, the more you get into the
hillside ordinance and more you get into
the protected areas, the you know, and
you had a whole list of things there,
the boulders and outcroppings and the um
animals that live up there.
So, but in my mind, if you move that
line enough to put a house in there,
you're just talking about a cut and a
fill situation.
board member, that's that's very
possible. Um I I don't know uh if that's
been explored from an engineering
standpoint to say otherwise, but uh but
certainly it was um concepts discussed
along the way uh that that did not
provide, as I understand it, the um the
outcome needed for the the applicant.
Okay. Thanks, Jeff.
There any other questions? Yes, Mr.
Mason.
Um, couple questions we've discussed
before. Uh, and hearing this looking at
the existing building envelope that were
shifted to the close to the, uh, I guess
would be the property line on the the
lower left, then you would expand the
buildable area away from the ponding
area, so-called claim ponding area. Um,
and I look at this particular property
and I looked at this sheet here. you
have the the hillside overlay and this
particular lot would be if the builder
goes on if the builder gets what he
wants what he wants it would be a major
encroachment into that area both for the
driveway and the lot the other building
which is on lot 35 encroaches about to
the same degree so if this goes through
are there concerns about that much
encroachment on the hillside
council littlefield build. Um, board
member Mason, uh, if if I'm
understanding, uh, your your question,
you're you're asking if if we have
concerns about
the the amount of encroachment
uh, for the proposed envelope location.
Yes.
Yes.
based on based on all of the analysis
and the protection and then looking at
the ESL and and what would be achieved
uh current location versus proposed.
Yes, we do have concerns about that. So
if we continue the philosophy that
opposed this particular buildable lot
which is we said was drawn on a piece of
paper without
thorough review of the topography and
what it meant in terms of water flows
and it is shifted anywhere on the lot.
It looks like to me it's going to impact
this hillside area to some degree. Is
that a correct assumption?
It's quite likely, board member Mason,
that moving it
uh somewhat up out of that uh that storm
water area, that drainage area, uh will
have at least some level of encroachment
to achieve the amount of building
envelope and equivalent size of building
envelope. Um, but at least in our our
view in looking at the context of all
the information that may be similar uh
in impact to what other properties on
the the south side of that area and and
surrounding again with the exception of
lot 35 next door h have done minimizing
that that encroachment. Mhm. Uh the
other question we had talked about
before was the the uh earth movement
situation and I understand that at least
the applicant told me that he thought it
would be a net zero in terms of
application terms of of dirt movement
but that of course would remain for more
detailed site plan and more detailed
analysis which is precisely what you're
proposing to do by continuance I would
assume. U board member Mason. Uh
certainly if that's part of uh
information that you would as the board
need to to see if you took a continuence
route. Um at at the present moment of
the application. Um we were uh working
with the with the applicant on providing
at least the the necessary information
to convey the idea without sending them
down a path of um you know expense to do
the level of engineering that might be
needed to determine that. Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
Is the applicant present? Would you like
to speak to us? Very good.
Thank you. And then do I just use the
keyboard?
Okay. Got to see the timer.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman
Littlefield, Commissioner Ortell, and
sir, thank you for your service. And
members of the board, I'm Tom Galvin
with Rose Law Group, proudly
representing the Angelone family. Um, a
lot has changed since this sketch of
1992 that was presented to you before
when a conceptual plan for a building
envelope was considered. And think to
yourselves how much your lives have
changed since 1992. Uh, and I can tell
you that the history of this lot has
changed considerably since 1992. Cons
circumstances outside of the control of
the Angelone family have certainly
changed the circumstances of this lot.
But also, this is an issue about
property rights and about fairness. And
frankly, I'm really surprised that this
is a question happening here in
Scottsdale because you're going to see
the arguments about property rights and
fairness today. And I have to commend
the commission members today, Mr.
Ortell, uh, Mr. Mason, and Mr. teaser
because your questions got to the heart
of the matter. Well, we talked about at
the beginning the current building
envelope as sketched out in 1992.
Indeed, as staff just told you, it's a
storm water drainage area. Uh, as you're
going to see in our presentation, it's
because of the owners of lot 33. And
then this lot, I would consider this lot
a bow tie. This is a bow tie lot. So,
when you go to the midsection or the
buckle area of this bow tie, it's too
narrow and too steep to build. It's the
area of the greatest disturbance and
it's the closest approximity to lot 35.
And you heard directly from staff once
again that lot 35 did build a home
outside of the approved building
envelope. And the irony here is that
we're going to show you 12 different
places where this has occurred where
people have built in areas and not
approved building envelopes. Tacit
approval from the city of Scottsdale.
The only thing that Mr. Angelone and his
family are guilty of is actually coming
into the city of Scottsdale and making a
formal request. And if this board cannot
consider request to a sketch of a
conceptual idea from 1992, then why are
we here? So, we're going to show you how
the proposed area is utilizing it in the
most environmentally sensitive option. A
ter I'm sorry, architect Andy Garland is
here to give any technical analysis if
that is possible. So, DRB has never
heard a case like this before. The
Angelone family to what we know is the
first family or applicant to make such
an application here. This is an odd
stipulation from 1995. They created
building envelopes for each lot in order
to protect and preserve NAOS. But guess
what? Everything here today is
protecting and preserving NaOS and ESL.
This building envelope plan is the NOS
plan. Wherever it gets approved, we'll
still honor and have to abide by all
ordinance and statutes in ESL and NAOS.
The owner has to relocate the building
envelope due to issues outside of their
control. And the proposed relocation is
the most sensible and least impactful
required area of the site. And I want to
show you as you saw earlier this sketch
if you look at prop 35 directly above
you saw in the aerial the house
currently there is not in accordance
with the sketch from
1992. This is the problem. When we talk
about the current building envelope
you're taking a look at it. These two
coverts were placed in here by the
owners of lot 33 which has now created
years of flooding. It is impossible for
the Angelone family to build in the
current building envelope, which is why
they're humbly requesting you to make
this modification here. Not permitted by
the city of Scottsdale on either way,
and I call this tongue and cheek a
handmade retention wall. Now, if we look
also at the current building envelope,
it's 6 to 8 feet below the city street.
Can you imagine that? This is a lower
level that has been turned into a
flooding retention area by coverts. As
you heard directly from staff, this
lower level is 6 to8 ft below street
level due to years of flooding. It's
impossible for him to build here. Also,
this sketch shows you how the site
slopes up. And as you can see, the
Angelone family has put a lot of thought
and consideration to this. And the
proposed area is the least impactful to
where they can build it, the least
impactful to the disturbance of the
land. And also, it is impossible as you
can see and Mr. Peaser, you astutely
pointed this out. Look at all that
retention area and storage water. That
is because of what happened by the
owners of lot 33. Once again, these are
hardships not created by the owner. The
lower level, as you heard, has been
turned into a flooding retention area by
these coverts. And now, let's take a
look at lot 35. That is the building
envelope that was approved in 1992. And
as we know by our research, it was never
approved by the city of Scottsdale. So,
we're going to take tacid approval
versus explicit denial. I think that
that would be unfair. This lot 35
completely abuts two sides on lot 34.
They have built large retaining walls
and no privacy for either lots. It is
forcing the applicant to put the
building envelope where he thinks it's
best on considering what is happening
because of the owners of lot 33 and lot
35. Once again, now in this middle
section which we call the bow tie, it's
too narrow and too steep to build. If we
now move further on, this is the perfect
answer. This is the most logical answer
and it's the compromise. This is the
answer that satisfied all three lots.
It's the least disturbance. It protects
significant vegetation, least
excavation, easily graded for flat
building area, exceeds NAOS
requirements, which is important, meets
building envelope size. The home is
nestled into the contours of the prop of
the property. privacy for all neighbors
involved and protur protects preserves
and complies with ESL is just to me a
no-brainer in light of the difficulties
of the two other proposed locations of
the lot. As you can see here once again
this is where it would go and there was
a great question earlier about whether
it's 600 feet or 300 I'm sorry 60 feet
or 30 feet. Yeah. And so, as you can
see, building 30 uh the the building
that was put in the adjoining lot is now
forcing them to be the only ones to
comply with that standard. And as you
can see here, what was the original
intention? Well, the planning commission
recommended unanimous approval for this
case, but the discussion centered around
the applicants adhered to the ESL
requirements and the additional amount
of natural area preserved in this
project. It would still happen in this
case if you approved it. And once again,
development on the site is currently
required to follow all stipulations
requiring maximum building envelope
sizes, minimum distances for NAOS and
other criteria necessary to preserve the
desert character of the area. Once
again, the applicant is doing that. And
so I want to show you that we are doing
everything we can to protect and present
as much as possible desert and with the
least possible disturbance. And this is
what you see. a beautiful plan that
incorporates the history of the site and
also is sensitive and respectful of the
neighboring lots. Uh this here you can
see it respects and honors NAOS. It
respects and honors ESL because it has
to it has to comply with all of these
standards in the compliance with the
required building envelope size
compliance with required setbacks and
meets the init initial intent from 1992
1993 1995 approvals to preserve and
protect ESL. And there was discussion
about a driveway earlier, this proposed
driveway. Guess what? It's the same size
as driveways on the other lots. Nothing
different, nothing unique. The only
thing unique is that this applicant has
come in to make a formal request. So
once again, this is the least amount of
disturbance, protects the most natural
desert and building outcrops, preserves
the most vegetation, and allows the
owner to enjoy the same development
rights as the surrounding neighbors. As
I said earlier, it's a question of
fairness. It's unfair what the applicant
has had to go through, what the
applicant has had to endure. Witnessing
the city of Scottsdale tacitly approving
other sites, and I'm going to show you
all 12. City of Scottsdale does not have
any record of these 12 properties coming
in and asking for the design review
board to move or modify these bund
building envelopes. The applicant has
done so and humbly requests that you
approve this common sense plan. Most
importantly, utilizing the saddle will
allow for greater lower um compliance,
and we think it's just vitally
important. And I'm going to reserve two
minutes for the architect to provide you
any technical analysis. And we do ask
time for rebuttal after any opposition
speakers. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank
you, Commissioner. Appreciate it.
Good. Do I press the button? Okay. Uh,
good afternoon. Uh, I appreciate the
board meeting with us here. Couple
things I would just like to add onto
this. They um, look at the unique um
um, oh, sorry, Andrew Grahamling,
architect. Uh, and for the record, I've
been working primarily in Scottsdale for
the last 30 years. Actually know both
the gentlemen, the planners that are
here today. Uh, and um, I I think I can
speak to having great deal of experience
in hillside lots. I I came from
California where we did nothing on
hillside lots. And um one of the things
on the building envelope exhibit that um
that Tom brought up was that I actually
looked at the driveway and where we
would put the building envelope and was
able to come up with I believe a
solution where a house and a design
could be minimum a maximum of like a
five or six five or six foot retaining
wall for the entire project. That's
pretty much unheard of on hillsides. So
we look for a spot on the the um the
property where that would happen. This
was it. I mean, if if we were built into
that um into the uh the center of the
bow tie area, we're going to end up with
one of those wedding cake retaining
walls like I'm sure you've seen in
subdivision with a stack stack stack.
That's the last thing we want. If we can
t nestle this in a flat spot tucked up
in the hill, do a one-story house with a
walk out basement and it's going to be
barely visible from everybody else. Is
it that is and it's also probably going
to be the least expensive place to build
as well, which is also considered. I'm
about making these these projects a
win-win. Who wants to spend 200 $300,000
on retaining walls like we would have to
in the bow tie area to make it look
ugly? That seems like a lose-lose to me.
So, I would uh respectfully suggest that
I've been looking at this thing for a
year and a half. And is it possible to
put something in the middle of the lot?
Well, yeah, anything's possible with
enough money and disturbance, but this
area makes the most sense because it it
impacts everyone the least. impacts the
uh the site the least with minimal
amount of grading. The um the driveway
is purposefully meanders with the site
with the topography so that it just
climbs up the hill, not arbitrarily just
ran straight up the hill with giant
retaining walls because frankly that's
the last thing we want to do. Um unless
anybody has any questions. Um I think uh
Tom summed it up pretty well.
Do I have any questions from the
council? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Mr.
Hill, um I didn't realize before from
maybe I just missed it that uh that the
the um retention pond is created by
those two that that culvert that comes
from another property. Is that the whole
reason for it to uh for it to be a you
know swampy or whatever? Have you
considered uh blocking up that culvert?
I mean it's it's
uh um what property
Oh, it flows away. You're saying? Yeah,
Councilman Artell. Yeah, that um or
board member tell that um the city would
never approve that. If we block a
drainage way, I can speak from numerous
times experience speaking with the uh
the engineering and drainage brethren of
our planners here. That would
create a a storm that I don't even want
to go near. um if we brought it up, it
it would likely end up in lawsuits and
never be approved. You can't just block
existing drainage ways even if it does
not match the historical data because
the uh the owners of lot 33 are the
builders. I won't say the current owners
ignored the uh historical flow of the
wash which actually went under the
street and just decided to use our lot
as a retention basin and we're stuck
with that. So, we're respectfully asking
for some relief from that because we
didn't create this problem. We just want
to build on it before Johnny gets old
and dies.
Yeah. Exa Exactly. The um Could you
repeat that? I didn't hear what he said.
I Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Can I Can I ask a question here?
board member Brand I have a I have a
question because I don't I don't want
kind of conjecture and from from the
applicant. I'd really like to ask staff
what is the is there a drainage easement
on this property? What is the history of
what was planned for the drainage in
this area and what's constructed there
and what are the actual possibilities
from a drainage solution from the city
standpoint?
Vice Chair
Brand,
we I I have not seen an actual recorded
drainage easement over that location,
which uh would signify that it it's not
an official retention basin for the
development. Um we did have our storm
water staff take a preliminary look at
at least the materials that were
provided. Um unfortunately their
indication as would normally be the case
is that they would need to see um
hydraulic analysis, grading and drainage
plans, the the more extensive uh
analysis from a civil engineer to
determine what the the right approach to
that. But my general understanding
uh is that that
topography slopes down to that end and
historically would have continued on to
a a wash corridor that is further north
of there and drained out. And so it may
very well be that the improvements that
are there are backing up uh water into
that location. But I I don't have more
technical analysis than that. So there
was no you don't have access to what the
intention was for the original layout
for storm water control in this site.
Like that's I think that's what we're
looking for. What when they if we're
looking at the building envelope studies
from '95 and '92, what was the storm
water management concept that went with
all this from 92 through 95? Is there is
there does staff have a definitive
answer on that? Vice Chair Brand, from
the information I've seen, again, it
seems like the the water flow was
intended to come down through that area
and continue on, continue northbound
north into the there's a a wash uh
slightly further north on the other side
of lot 33.
Councilwoman Littlefield and
Commissioner Tella, members of the
board, we actually have an exhibit
addressing that question regarding the
wash. If we're able to get this machine
up to to show it to you, if someone can
help.
Okay. Thank you.
Great. Thank you.
Sorry. I like the technical expertise to
Oh, right side up. There you go.
design view board members. You can kind
of see here where the um the intent of
the water was actually on lot 33 was
meant to go under the road. Their
improvement plans which are available as
a public record show they were supposed
to put culverts under the road to drain
the waterway. Um but unfortunately they
elected to dump the water on our site
and we have looked at the um the the
building um inspection list and the city
of Scottsdale actually approved it this
way. So we're kind of baffled. We don't
want to end up this thing in a
courtroom. We want to be able to build a
house. So somewhere along the line it's
it was deemed okay to dump all the water
onto our property as opposed to follow
historical drainage patterns. And we're
looking for a solution. I mean it's
really that simple.
chair, at least this I mean I appreciate
the exhibit. So the intention without
talking about anything else, but the
intention for this site though was to
have a wash on the north side that runs
it looks like it runs westward. It's
coming off of the eastbound hills making
its way north and running westward. Is
that is that correct, Mr. Barnes?
through through an intended wash.
Whether the wash is over top of the
roadway or through a culvert, the
intention is is to run into that wash.
It's located directly north of the
property. Vice chair, that's my
understanding. I I don't recall if it uh
if the movement was east or west at that
point, but but yes. Okay. Thank you.
That answers my question. I don't have
another question for the applicant.
Board member. Yeah, that Jeff may have
clarified this, but originally I thought
that the culverts were draining from 33
into 34 and then I'm hearing that no,
uh, it's going from 34 to
33.
Um, 33 is north, I believe, right? So,
they're saying it's draining north.
Council tell No, you were correct in
your initial assumption. um it drains
upon our property which has created the
uh hardship um which is the one of the
primary reasons we're here today because
it's it's unbuildable right now.
Right. Okay. And and um even if you
could
u block up the culvert uh that's going
to create a problem for 33. I mean it's
not that 33 was simply being malicious
in doing this. they had a problem and
they were uh I assume they know they
needed to drain their property and this
is the way they did
it to your disadvantage obviously to
detriment but um so it wouldn't you know
even if you could block that culvert it
wouldn't make sense for the community is
that fair to say I I think it's fair to
say if we block the culdeac there would
be a lawsuit between the two parties on
the adjacent lots um it's there now U
Mr. Board member and we're just trying
to resolve the problem without causing
any undue stress for anybody else. Um
and I think we did a pretty good
presentation of why we did what we did.
Um to further clarify, Johnny asked me,
could you do a house again on this on
the the the bow tie portion lot? And I
said, yeah, it's possible. Not going to
be pretty though. And that's something
that I think if we talk about the
environmentally s sensitive land
ordinance where we put it disturbs the
least. I mean as far as we we're not
going to end up with stacked retaining
walls. We can actually work with the
site as opposed to fighting it to impose
kind of our will on it and come up with
I feel will be a very valuable home to
the probably an asset to the community
and improve everybody's property value.
So I don't know why we're here frankly.
It seems like this is a a first in u in
30 years dealing with Scottsdale where
something like this has come up. So um
so just to summarize, if you build down
close to the road, there's a water
problem. If you build at the at the knot
of the bow tie, then you've got an
aesthetic problem. And if you build
where you want to build, you know, it's
a slight encroachment on but not uh
without precedent.
That's a fair assessment. Yes. Thank
you. I would like to I would like to
clarify that assessment by our city
staff and not by the applicant though.
That's why I would really love for if we
had someone from our storm water in here
who could give an assessment and our
staff opinion about how the flows and
the historical flows and the current
flows in this site are managed. I would
rather have that question answered for
this board by our own city
staff, but I don't know that we have
that person here to talk about that.
Vice Chair, we do not. Okay. But I would
say that that whether the water is
coming from 33 on to 34 or from 34 on to
33, there is still a water issue at that
at that when you if you would try to
build close to the road, there's a water
issue.
Yes. Littlefield, if I may, uh,
Commissioner Ortell, members of the
board, um, the water is coming from 33.
It's not coming from 34. And also, as
you see here from the City of Scottsdale
exhibit, you see where the water is
intended to go. And we also heard
earlier from staff's own presentation
that they're now referring to the area,
which is currently the building envelope
for the applicant, as a storm water
drainage basin. And as you can see in
this exhibit here from the city itself,
it's not supposed to be a storm water
drainage basin. It's created a serious
problem for the applicant. The applicant
actually could pursue several paths in
the legal system, but is deciding not
to. Wants to take the path of lease
resistance, which is building a house in
the proposed location so as not to
bother lot 33 or 34 or put them through
an arduous and rigorous litigation
process. Uh to us, it's just as you
heard earlier from the architect, it's a
win-win solution dealing in light of the
conditions not created by the applicant.
Thank you.
Uh, yes, Mr. Barnes. Councilman, sorry.
I'd just like to make a clarification if
I could. Um, it was stated that that
staff characterized that as a retention
area in our presentation. The the
mention to that was relative to the
exhibit that was provided from the
applicant team. Um, so I don't want to
continue to represent that. We think
that that's a a storm water retention
area defined by a drainage easement as
Mr. Brandt had pointed out um is
typically what happens. Uh the larger
portion of that wash that water is
intended to go to is protected by a
drainage easement. It is uh where
intended water flow goes. And so I just
for the benefit of context wanted to
make that statement. Thank you.
Thank you very much. There any other
comments or questions? Yes, Mr. Mason.
I have one other question concerning
this particular thing after having heard
and listened to the the water issue. It
seems to be a major concern whether the
water flows into or out of the fact that
the culbert has created a position where
it where it has impacted the flow of
water which is going to don't know how
much ponding will occur but seems to me
there will be some ponding. Having heard
a lot of things, it seems to me that
that one way to look at this is if the
applicant is saying that the existing uh
or the current building envelope proved
building up has certain uh problems that
render it uh building extremely
difficult. However, solving those moves
it up here. So you're essentially saying
that well because of the passage of time
and errors made so forth are not made
that you're asking that that the simple
solution is just move the building
envelope. Is that a fair
assessment? Councilwoman Littlefield
Commissioner Ortella members of the
board short answer yes.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you sir.
Okay. Are there any other questions from
the
council? Okay. I do have some speakers
who would like to speak, so I'll call
them
up. Um, first I have Mr. Thomas
Winsow Win, I'm sorry, Winhold. I'm I
apologize. Uh, good afternoon. My name
is Thomas Weinhold. I live in Desert
Summit on lot 106. We built there when
the subdivision was first started. Um,
watched all the homes go up. Um, there
have been homes that do have stacked
retaining walls that was referenced. Uh,
that's not ideal, but those hillsides
were so steep that it kind of became
mandatory. Uh but I think from the
considerations that I understand are
important to the city. Uh if you go to
the top of the lot, you're cutting off
the top of a hill. I don't think that's
encouraged uh by the city. Uh secondly,
if the home is located there, the home
to the east uh will be directly impacted
line of sight uh as far as I can tell.
And the home to the west on lot 35,
they'll be looking right down on that
home. I would imagine they wouldn't be
very happy about that. I've been a
licensed real estate agent and broker
since 1977, both residential,
commercial. I'm pretty familiar with
construction and and design. My mom was
a designer. Um, and I'm pretty sure, I'm
not an expert. I'm pretty sure you can
find a spot a little further up the
hill, minimal cut and fill. There would
be a retaining wall. I think there would
be plenty of lot width. You do not have
to go to the bow tie itself to create
what I would think would be a very very
fine home location. Uh something similar
to that I think was approved previously
on a home that never got built because a
homeowner across the street bought the
lot so the house wouldn't be built. U
but that design uh nestled into the side
of the hill. Uh that elevation change is
not dramatic right above that so-called
uh drainage area. And so I think an
architect could come up with a very nice
design that would look very attractive
and fit in a lot better. Thank you. Any
questions?
Okay. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Uh, as you said, Mark
Fiser. I'm actually lot 33, not Culvert.
Um, so, uh, couple things. My wife and I
uh purchased this home back in uh 2001
uh excuse me,
2021. Um and we did our research before
we bought the home and we did that lot
was available lot 34 next to us and we
bought the house we bought because of
our uh privacy in our backyard. the
driveway that is proposed by lot 34
would completely change that privacy.
Moving it all the way up top would also
um majorly disturb our privacy. We did
just recently do a major remodel inside
the house where we spent a lot of money.
We moved down here. It was a second home
for us. We moved down here permanently
um from Colorado here. I moved my uh job
uh down here. So, um it would definitely
be a huge privacy issue for us that we
were not aware of and we knew when we
purchased the house in the investment we
made in this beautiful neighborhood. Um
the other thing I do want to say is I'm
a CFO and a COO. I'm not an engineer.
I'm not a uh a water person. I am
familiar with that cinder block wall
that goes around. I was told by the
realer and the previous owner that all
that was was marking the lot line. Um,
we have done some different mitigation
because we're on the steepest part of
the hill that sits behind us. Um, and
we've done some mitigation with water,
but even before we did that, I never
ever once and we're on the floor as well
ever once water and we were down here
for monsoons and everything else. Water
never encroached into our property.
there is a huge drainage basin. Um, so
again, lot 33, uh, we are to the left of
of of obviously lot 34, if you're
looking at it to the street, there's a
driveway, there is a huge drainage ditch
that runs on the left side of our
driveway. So further away from lot 34,
and then there is a small drainage that
comes down in between lot 34 and 33. So,
I would definitely recommend the city to
do some kind of um water look at that.
And, you know, I think we would be open
if there was a drainage issue to move it
slightly back to get it out of that
issue, but I think that's something um
that uh that the board and the
commission should strongly consider and
um I appreciate your time.
Thank you very much.
Next speaker is
Kelly
Claire
Clark. Good afternoon. Um, thank you for
having me today. I am the owner of uh
lot 35. My husband and I live there
full-time with our three kids. Um when
we designed and built our home, it was
with the um consideration of the other
building envelopes around
um the home. Obviously, we we have a lot
of privacy and if the building envelope
was changed to the top where that is,
the new owner would be looking directly
into our living room, into our
daughter's bedroom. and we built and
designed our home so that the other
homeowners and properties around would
have that same consideration of privacy.
Um, since we have been there, we have
never seen an issue with uh drainage.
We've been there almost four
years. I have looked
at I know Mr. Angelone um has
representatives have talked about his
history of the property and they
purchased the property in 2020 when we
were already building. Our home was
completed in 2021 but we were already
building when they purchased the
property.
Um, if you look at listings that they
have, I looked on
Zillow and they had tried to they
purchased the property for
$425,000 and the most recent listing was
1.275
million there.
Um, I'm sorry. I get a little
nervous. They're um description online
on Zillow when they had listed the
property was describing what would be
the new site, which is not approved. Um
they did say that they the description
was to overlook every home in the
neighborhood on top of the hill. Um so
it definitely changing that would
definitely be a disturbance to the
community not consistent with what the
community has right now cause a lot of
privacy issues. Um I do think that there
is some uh compromise that can be made
moving their buildable envelope up a
little bit. I'm not an architect or a
designer, but being a homeowner that
lives there, I've never seen an issue
with flooding. I think there's a lot of
compromise other than chopping down the
top of that hill and making it the um
home that overlooks, as they stated,
every other home in the neighborhood and
the highest point of the neighborhood,
which is what they desire. It is not
nestled into the community as what
they're saying, and it does not allow
for privacy. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. And our last
speaker will be Daniel
Proco. Thank you much, Daniel Proco. I'm
on the uh southeast side of lot 34 and
in lot 64. Um, I'm also here on behalf
of Ron Cohen, who is uh Ron and Natalie
Cohen, who live in lot 63, which is on
the south side of the property here. Um,
not brought up so far as the fact that
their house is pretty much um at at the
location that this u changed envelope
would be would at the south side would
be looking into their north side um the
back of their house. So, that has not
yet been brought up. Um, as far as we're
concerned, most of my input I provided
directly to Mr. Barnes. Um, and I
appreciate the opportunity to to uh to
provide that. Um, my concerns are under
the HOA guidelines, the architectural
guidelines, there are a lot of
stipulations in there about perching
houses and and I'm paraphrasing. I'm not
going to use legal terms and such, but
there's all con uh concerns about
maintaining the natural neighborhood,
the landscape, etc., and not to to be um
putting buildings at at excessive
heights in the neighborhood. Um so in
this case um as some of the others have
pointed out that would be the case. Um
as far as I'm concerned and uh Mr. Cohen
um from our perspective if this envelope
was built uh or allowed more north on
the the lot 34 plot u obviously that
would be acceptable. It's on the
southern portion that we would have a
problem with. Um, that's all I have
unless there are questions. Do we have
any questions? Thank you. Thank you very
much, sir. And that is all of the
request to speak cards that I have
received here today.
U continue and speak to the speakers.
Councilwoman Littlefield, Commissioner
Ertell, members of the board, thank you
so much for this opportunity for
rebuttal. I just want to point out each
of the points made by the speakers.
First of all, the first speaker and the
last speaker for lots 106 and 64 are not
even close to the lot here in question,
but I do want to address the issues
raised by lot the owners of lots 33 and
35. And I appreciate that they're here
because it's important what they did not
say. They did not say that they came to
this board and asked to build outside of
the building envelopes. And the
questions that they raised, I appreciate
it. And the issues that they raised, I
appreciate it. But the conditions also
they have to take light of the fact that
they did not build according to the
building envelopes. Um it's important
also that lot the owner of lot 33 also
acknowledged and said that there's an
issue with drainage and there's a
problem and is begging the city for help
to address this question. So I think
that answers once and for all that there
is a storm water retention drainage bas
issue at the current location of the
building envelope. And if you look at
lot
35, absolutely outside of the building
envelope and no indication that they
came in before this board to make a
humble request as the applicant is doing
today and did so abudding the property
line of lot 34. And look how much open
space is on the rest of the lot. Also, I
do want to say that the applicant has
made in a spirit of cooperation and
compromise is willing to see if the
board is happy to entertain any spot and
to work with staff beyond what we call
the bow tie um where the property
hinges. That is obviously the most
appropriate spot. You have heard here
today how the applicant has done
everything bending over backwards to
accommodate the neighbors. And so if the
board can consider that, then ask the
applicant to work with staff for the
most appropriate location beyond the
hinge of the bow tie. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any other
questions or comments from this board?
I have a question. Yes. Um I know that
the applicant has done a significant
amount of building envelope um discovery
in the neighborhood. Can you identify a
building envelope that's completely
within the hillside area of the
development?
Staff had shown a designation of what
was considered hillside. Councilwoman
Littlefield, Commissioner Ortell,
members of the board, Mr. Brand, lot
number 35.
Is it 100% within the hillside
area? Is that uh can I get a
clarification from Mr. Barnes on that?
Vice Chair. Um I believe I have a slide
that that showed that. Um, my
recollection of that slide is it does
show that lot 35 would be the one that
is it's 100% located within the
hillside. If I can say that without
pulling it up on the screen.
Okay. I it did not look like that from
the initial designation of the zoning
case from 92 to 95. It did not look like
the entirety of that building. Um you
you'll need to scroll back to the shaded
exhibit of the initial zoning summary
and the staff
presentation. Yeah.
Hi Andy Grammling, architect again.
Yeah, we're looking there it goes. Um
you can kind of see where the um u it it
doesn't highlight very well, but the um
lot 34 does in fact pretty much
um build almost entirely in the hillside
and completely out of the original
building envelope. And we don't frankly
have a problem with that. We're just
looking at where the lots on 33 and 34
were the houses were actually built. We
just want the same consideration. And as
far as views, I truly appreciate the
views of the neighbors. We're not going
to have big windows looking into
driveways or anything out. This is going
to be a custom house where we're
focusing on our um view corridors that
were existing.
Again, when I talked about win-win
earlier, I had my question answered
though. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Um,
my other question is I didn't see
anywhere on here where it looked like
there
was I will just say my my opinion on
this and I feel the need to speak to
this is that the location of this
building envelope is incomplete
uh in complete opposition to the
established building envelopes of this
project. I would agree that there is a
drainage problem and there is a little
bit of a buildability problem, but that
doesn't mean that it's a non-buildable
site. It just means that historically
there's been water flow that's disrupted
the site. And I would also say that
disruption from a cut fill standpoint is
different from disruption of a visual
marker of desert landscape. The intent
of the entire plan of this entire
neighborhood was to pre preserve the
hillside landform. And you were talking
about putting a house on top of the
hillside
landform. That is what you were you were
talking about putting a house on top of
the hill.
Is is that not what you're proposing?
The highest portion of your site you're
proposing your building envelope. Uh
board member Brand. No, I appreciate the
comment and we have given I said a great
deal of thought to this. The answer is
no. The house continues up the hillside.
If you look at the um the topography,
there's a much bigger hill behind lot 34
and a bigger the summit up
on. We're actually looking at a saddle a
low spot happens to be on the upper
upper portion of the lot and we were
looking at an area essentially we can do
a house that fits within the um hillside
and not dominate on top of it. If we
were to move it to like the um area we
called the bow tie visually you're going
to see a house that appears to be twice
as tall with nothing but retaining walls
out front. And forgive me that doesn't
seem to make a whole lot of sense.
I appreciate it, but it also doesn't
seem to make a whole lot of sense to
build your house on the highest land
point on your property. Councilwoman
Littlefield, Commissioner, tell members
of the board, uh, board member Brand,
it's not on the highest point of the
property. It's on a portion that the
applicant calls the saddle and as the
architect just um just laid out and just
to show exactly where it is, just want
to make that distinction, it's not on
the highest point of the property. Thank
you.
Okay, I'll I will sum up my comments
with I do feel like there is difficulty
on the front side of the site
considering the culvert location. Um,
but I also feel that a
much a much more appropriate request
would be to configure a building
envelope that is slightly recessed in
the site, has a little bit more
disturbance into the area, but still
maintains the initial characteristics of
how this pro how this entire
neighborhood was organized and platted
and zoned with respect to building
envelope. I I don't dismiss the fact
that there is a little bit there is
difficulty with the drainage situation
and some of the low pieces of the site,
but to completely reverse the intel in
intended building envelope from the
initial seems um out of character with
how the entire city approaches ESL and
NAOS and our
hillside ordinances. It's in complete
conflict with everything that the city
has put forward with from an ESL and NOS
standpoint. So, I appreciate it. And I
also would be in support of modification
of of some of the language about the
60oot NOS. It's a building envelope
needed to be a little bit wider to
accommodate this and to to make sure
you're not disturbing. I think that's a
different ask and a different question,
but what is being asked today, I would
not be in support of. So, I appreciate
your time and presentation, but I would
not be in support of it. Okay. Thank
you, Councilwoman Littlefield. Can I
make one more comment? Oh, Mr. Mason
wants to say something.
Yes, go ahead. One more point. Okay.
Just want to make two uh well, two
points. One, regarding impossibility you
I'm sorry, uh Counciloman Littlefield.
Impossibility and guards. It's
impossible for the applicant to build at
the locations that we laid out. And two,
compromise. The applicant has just
indicated that they're willing for the
board to provide direction to staff to
work with the applicant on any point of
the property after the hinge point of
the bow tie. So now the applicant is
offering in good spirit and cooperation
not necessarily the building it envelope
it requested which obviously would be
happy to do so if the board decided but
is willing to entertain to work with
staff after that hinge point of the bow
tie and also ask yourselves did any of
those 12 properties that are circled in
our presentation come in and ask this
board to build outside their building
envelope you know the answer. Thank you.
Thank
you. Yes, Mr. Mason. Um, I have one
referring back to your the proposed
building site. And what you're saying to
me is that if you put a low-level house
in that area, you will essentially be
cutting off the peak of that particular
lot, part of it, and it'll be more
nestled in be not as visible, be
slightly below the hilltop mass to the I
guess it's the uh southeast.
Councilman um Mason. Yeah, that I think
we to in all honesty, we haven't
designed a house yet because we are
actually asking for a blessing on where
to put it. But to answer your question,
um assuming we go ahead at some point,
I'm believe I'm a big advocate of the
kind of Franklidd Wright style house
should be of the site, not dominate it.
We would certainly do our best to make
it look with the site and minimize the
impact on it in visualization because
it, you know, we don't need a two-story
house at the top of the hill. Um, I
think we can design around it so that we
preserve the hilltops um on the adjacent
properties still be significantly taller
than the highest point on our property.
I I can say that with some confidence.
When I talked Mr. inelone about this.
Now, let the board know. Um that he had
indicated what he intended to do was to
put a a large basement essentially a
garage underneath the house and build a
onele house on top. The question for
there is if the hillside elevation in
the back is it is a certain level that
would imply then that the roof would be
at a lower level. That's what he's in
fact proposing.
Yes, sir. Um, again, we don't I don't
want my name on a mon monstrosity up on
the hillside either. If it may speak as
an egotistical architect, I want this to
look good, too. I want this to be in my
portfolio. And if something looks way
out of place or like a sore thumb sore
thumb on a hillside, that would be again
one of those lose-lose. I I am confident
if the staff gave us some direction of
where we could build, even if it's not
the ideal point at the top, we could
come up with something that would be a
true asset for the community and and
take reason and take great care to not
impinge upon the neighbors privacy.
Again, we wouldn't want to look in their
backyard. What that would be again a
lose-lose. There's ways to design houses
where you focus on view corridors and
make it an asset for everybody.
Thank you. Are there any other questions
from this council, from this board?
Excuse
me.
Uh, Mr. Barnes, do you have anything to
add to all this? I'm going to break
protocol here for a minute and see if
you have anything to add. Thank you,
Councilwoman. Um, I'm going to ask our
um our presentation staff to advance one
slide. Um just in all of the discussion
about uh topography um I'm not sure if
this this helps and I believe um Mr.
Carr had maybe a comment to make so I'll
I'll turn the microphone over to him.
Yeah, thank you Jeff and councilwoman
and board members. Yeah, I just wanted
to bring this up because it maybe it
gives a little bit of uh highlight to
discussion about where the the peaks are
on these hills um relative to
topography. So just you know a point to
show that uh for your for your own
benefit. Okay. Thank you. Are there any
other questions or comments from this
board?
Yes. Um my I spent quite a bit oh quite
a bit of time looking at the the
diagrams for this site and I agree with
um board member Brandt on several of the
things he said. Right now my feeling is
I don't understand enough about the
drainage of how it works on this area.
Um, I've had quite a bit of experience
in hillside development, having lived in
Oregon for 30 30 years. And there are
things that before I would approve this
that I would like to see done. I mean,
you say you're avoiding vegeta
vegetation. You say you're avoiding rock
outcroppings, yet there's no mapping, no
diagrams of of what is is being avoided.
I also wonder if through this area
there's a wildlife corridor and if
building on top of the hill hillside
would disrupt that corridor. It is a
sensitive area and it's a sensitive area
for specific reasons and I think that
you know for me to make a decision in
support of this I would need more
information.
Thank you uh member Robinson. Yeah, I it
from our research, we found nothing as
far as a um a a a wildlife corridor. I
mean, we've I've scoured the city's
website, frankly, looking for examples
of, you know, where this where we were
not asking for anything unique. And in
terms of the
um where the hill, you can kind of see
where the the two hillsides are actually
behind lot 34 and lot 33. And we were
proposing to kind of nestle into that
little baby hill tot on our site and uh
kind of work with it not against it
because we we can't is I was mentioning
to my um my client earlier asking for
for kind of what we want to do is is um
the city and Jeff can back me on this.
Well, show me what you want to do and
and then we can look at it. Well, we
want to know where we can build before
we spend a lot of my time's money
designing a house, right? So, it's not
um it's there's intentionally vague,
right? Not intentionally vague, but
preliminary because we we don't know uh
based on what you guys decide here today
where the house could be. And until we
do that, we frankly haven't even said
other than Johnny's I want a basement
and a and a house above. That is the
extent of the design so far because I'm
not presumptu presumptive enough to just
assume the city is going to approve what
we think is a wonderful
idea. I I would just make a statement.
And I feel like the crux of this entire
conversation is about hardship and the
hardship that the applicant has talked
about on the on the existing current
envelope. And I really don't feel that
we've got enough input from staff and
from our from our drainage and storm
water staff to un to get a handle on
what is the hardship here so that we can
correctly make a a judgment call on how
to how to
um essentially how to allow for um a
deviation from an envelope based on
hardship and whether or not this is a
hardship that has been caus offsite
causation.
or if it's a hardship just because of
the nature of the site and the drainage
pathway and or if it's a hardship that's
been created by the city. I I don't we
don't we haven't heard all we're hearing
is honestly we're hearing people's
opinion on this and where it came from.
But I would really love to hear this
from our staff and that's I am going to
make a motion for continuence to work to
to work with staff on this so that we
can have more information because the
basis for a hardship modification has to
be understanding the hardship and I
personally don't have a great
understanding of the hardship other than
it doesn't look like it's going to be
easy to build on and it and it's going
to cost us more money to build to build
more retaining walls. Those aren't good
enough reasons for me to subvert our
hillside ordinances in the city. I'll
second that motion. Well, I said I'm
going to make the motion. Oh, I thought
you made it. No, I didn't make it. I
would think you're right. Council
Littlefield, may I may make one um
comment to that to that point by the
board member and Councilwoman
Littlefield, Commissioner Tell members
of the board, Mr. Angelone and his
family have been spent a considerable
amount of time and money dealing with
this issue. Um, if they wanted to go
ahead and and build something, they
could go ahead and build it. They
wouldn't want to go through this really
arduous, difficult, and frankly
frustrating process. Also, they've been
dealing with city staff for how long?
Over a year. City staff is very well
aware of the drainage issue that has
created the impossibility for this
situation. And if city staff had any
other evidence, Mr. brand that would be
contrary to what we are telling you
today. They would be definitely offering
it to this is what you saw in our
exhibits are the coverts directly
leading from a wash to a part of the
property that's 6 to 8 ft below the
state the street level. If Mr. Angelone
and his family were able to build on
that site, they would. But now they're
coming to the DRB in a formal process.
And if they have to get this process
continued, then it's just a a message to
everyone else in the city of Scotsdale.
You know what? Do what Lot 33 did. do
what Lot 35 did and build outside the
building envelope as opposed to Mr.
Angelone who has worked with day one
with city staff in the city of
Scottsdale to do it the right way and
just making a simple request at this
point to allow the building envelope to
be somewhere beyond the hinge of the bow
tie and to do so with staff's
cooperation. So we do ask for that.
Thank
you. I'm going to make a motion.
I'm going to move to continue case
12-PPP-1995 number two to a date to be
determined with direction to the
applicant to seek an alternative
building envelope location configuration
that aligns uh better with the prior
stipulations for the subdivision.
Second.
Councilwoman Littlefield,
yes. Vice Chair Brand, yes. Commissioner
Ertal, no. Board member Peaser, yes.
Board member Mason, no.
Board member Robinson, yes. Motion
passes. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Um, Mr. Carr, do you have anything else
for this board this afternoon? Madam
Chair, I do not. Thank you. Then seeing
that we have completed our business, I
move for a motion to adjurnn. So move.
We are adjourned.