Development Review Board - August 21, 2025

matter. Are we good?
Well, thank you very much for being
here. Am I I'm going to I'm going to
look over to my technicians. Am I
online? Am I live? We're doing it live.
Very good. Thank you for joining today's
development review board meeting. Today
is Thursday, August 21st, 2025.
And um
get my Q cards here. I want to thank
everybody in the audience for who's
everybody in the audience who's here
today. Thank you for those uh who are
watching remotely or streaming from afar
for tuning in and and uh for tuning in
today. And I will start these steps. I
will go through the motions here. The
purpose of the DRB development review
board is to maintain quality development
by reviewing all the design aspects and
proposed development and the
relationship of design components to
surrounding environment and community.
The board also reviews all preliminary
plats for subdivisions to ensure
conformance to policies and ordinance
requirements. Today's agenda will
consist of a roll call, public comment
of non-aggendaized items, administrative
report, minutes approval of the prior
meeting, and our action items. A roll
call vote will be taken after each
motion. The liaison will call each board
member's name to indicate his or her
desired vote for that item. After the
vote has been counted, the liaison may
read aloud the final vote. Citizens
wishing to speak during public comment
or to speak specifically on agenda items
may fill out blue request to speak
cards.
Excuse me.
Citizens interested in submitting
written comment uh comments may fill out
the yellow
written comment card. So yellow for
written and blue if you wish to speak.
Um I do have one request to speak on
item five which I will make a mental
note of.
I remind the audience today that the
board's review relates to design matters
and does not include considerations of
existing zoning district designations,
zoning entitlements, or the allowed uses
within, excuse me, within the zoning
district. The board's motion may be to
approve, approve with modified
stipulations or steps to deny the
request or to continue the case. Uh and
as always the city council it's their
purview to uh to appeal a decision and
bring it to the city council. So with
that thank you very much for your
interest in time intending today or
streaming from afar. And now I will
kindly ask Miss Clark to call roll.
Councilman Graham
present.
Vice Chair Brand.
Commissioner Scarro
here.
Board member Paser
here.
Board member Fi.
Yes. Board member Mason,
board member Robinson,
four present. Thank you.
Very good. Thank you for calling RO,
Miss Clark. We'll move on now from the
roll call to public comment on
non-aggendaized items. I'm getting uh a
motion from staff. There are none. So
from that, I will move on to the third
item, which would be administrative
report from Mr. Brad Carr, AICP.
Thank you.
Floor is yours.
Yes. Thank you, Councilman Graham, and
welcome to you and other members of the
board. Thank you for your attendance
today. Very much appreciated. Just a
couple items today, our administrative
report. Um, with regards to item number
three, um, on the consent agenda today,
um, I do believe we have board one board
member that needs to recuse themselves
for that item because of that, that item
would have would not we would not have a
quorum to vote on that item. So, we are
going to go ahead and automatically
continue that item to the next agenda,
which is September 11, 2025. So, no need
to vote or um do any action on that item
by the board today. That item will just
be automatically continued to the next
available hearing. In addition, I just
want to note on item number five today,
you do have a public speaker that wants
to speak on that, but I did receive some
correspondence from uh Vice Chair Brand
on that item. He said that he can't be
in attendance today, but he's in favor
of the item as presented uh today. That
concludes my administrative report for
today. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Carr, for your
administrative report. That was a good
one. That was a real good one. It does
kind of highlight the fact though that
we're missing three of our colleagues.
Maybe we should uh send the
sergeant-at-arms out for him or
something.
Something you don't have to respond to
that.
I don't know that we have one, but yeah,
we got to get one then. Okay. And get
that going. Very good. Okay. So, that's
the administrative report. And now I
will continue to the next item which is
minutes approval of the prior meeting.
Um I'm sure my colleagues have had a
chance to digest and closely review and
scrutinize the meeting minutes from the
last meeting and I will ask one of them
to move to accept or modify them.
Move to approve.
I have a motion.
Second.
Moved by uh board member Peaser,
seconded by Commissioner Scarboro. And I
will call roll.
Councilman Grant. Yes.
Commissioner Scar Bro.
Yes.
Board member Paser.
Yes.
Board member Fiki.
Yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Clark.
Um,
so with that, we will now move on to the
uh
get my stuff together action items.
And we are moving on to the consent
agenda. Mr. Carr just mentioned that uh
one of these items, item three,
we will be disqualified from having a
quorum.
And so I I guess we should move
technically we should move that from or
do we make a motion now to continue that
or should I pull it and then
um I don't know that any motion is
necessary on that. I think just because
of the lack of quorum it will
automatically be moved to the next
agenda. So, do we don't even need to to
memorialize that with a motion?
I don't believe so.
Okay. Okay. I'm getting I'm getting nods
of agreement with other with legal from
legal. Well, then today's consent agenda
will just consist of
30DR item 430DR 2024 7 brew coffee. And
I will I will ask my colleagues if
they'd like to withdraw it from consent
agenda or move to accept it or even ask
questions from staff.
I'd move to approve consent agenda item
30 DR 2024 per staff recommended
stipulations and finding that the
development applications meet the
applicable development review board
criteria.
Do I have a Thank you, board member
Paser. Do I have a second from one of my
colleagues?
I'll second.
Okay. Board member Paser motions to uh
approve on consent and board member Faki
moves to second. Please call a roll.
Councilman Graham,
yes.
Commissioner Scarro,
yes.
Board member Peaser,
yes.
Board member Faki,
yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Clark. And with that, we
reach
the best part of the meeting, the
regular agenda. It's my favorite part.
Item number five, 12 PP 1995. Number
two, Desert Summit lot 34, building
envelope. I see we have Mr. Barnes
approaching lectern to lecture us. So,
I'm just kidding. Not lecturing us.
Present. Thank you, Mr. Barnes.
Thank you. Excuse me. Good afternoon,
uh, Councilman Graham, Commissioner
Scarboro, members of the development
review board. Uh I am Jeff Barnes uh
presenting uh 12PPP1 1995 number two. Uh
so this is a request uh to modify the
previously approved building envelope
for lot 34 of the Desert Summit
subdivision uh which was originally
established through 12PPP1 1995.
Uh just as a uh a quick reminder of
where we've been to this point. Uh this
has been in front of the board before.
It was continued uh from the May 15th uh
meeting uh with direction provided from
the board. Um it was continued from the
July 10th meeting with some additional
direction uh provided from the board.
And so that brings us back here today.
um with those previous continuences, I'm
going to move quickly through some of
these details, but I recognize uh that
with our rotating council and planning
commission spot, um at least a couple of
you have not seen this the last times,
although you've uh seen the report, I'll
highlight some things along the way as I
go, but try not to spend too much time
uh re uh re-establishing things that uh
that you may already know. So, quickly
here, uh, the site is located, uh, in
the yellow highlight within the Desert
Summit subdivision. Um, this, uh, is lot
34, um, that the property we're talking
about.
And maybe just better context, the
Desert Summit subdivision is outlined in
the black uh, dashed line here, and lot
34 is up in the uh, the north uh,
northwestern portion of that
development. there are some uh larger
lots in that vicinity of the the
development versus the lots that are
further down along the south end.
So this request uh seeks to modify the
location of the con conceptual building
envelope uh as originally established
um to move from the lower portion of the
lot to now a a more middle portion of
the lot. Um the changes that have been
made over the course of time with this
uh staff finds that that the updated
proposal is uh much more consistent with
the the prior stipulations of the zoning
and preliminary plat cases, the ESL
purpose, open space guidelines, the the
general plan and the things that we
review in that context also more in
alignment with the development review
board criteria uh than the original
submitt.
Um there was uh community input uh
received along the way. Uh as you
mentioned, there is one speaker card uh
submitted for today. Um but uh the the
updated uh positioning has been adjusted
a little bit more. Um some additional
exhibits were provided by the applicant
in direct response to the feedback
received from the last DRB meeting.
quickly moving through the history uh
without spending too much time on this.
Um this was set up with a uh in 1993
approval of zoning intending to
establish uh the desert summit
subdivision. There was a stipulation
modification in 1995.
Uh and then also in 1995 the preliminary
plat uh case was approved. Um each of
those cases had uh exhibits in them and
stipulations that directed on the use of
building envelopes uh to manage where
development would occur on each of the
lots. And those got refined uh as they
moved forward uh through those
processes.
Quickly just showing those to you again.
Uh this is the original zoning case
exhibit. Uh lot 34 is indicated uh with
the little yellow highlight up near the
top there. Um at this stage of the
process, the lot lines really weren't
defined very well, but the building
envelope locations were represented.
the number two case to that that revised
stipulations related to building
envelopes. Law 34 still shown up at the
top there in the yellow highlighted
again without sort of representing
property boundaries in here but
conceptual envelope locations. Uh you'll
also notice in each of these uh that
there's uh several hilltops uh that
occur sort of in this area between
envelopes that that was striving to um
push development away from. Uh that
becomes more refined in the preliminary
plat case exhibit. This is rotated to
the side where north is now over to the
right hand side of that. But lot 34 now
has boundaries and is defined in there.
Um you can also see the topography a
little better on that exhibit. Um and
that original envelope location.
This is just the second sheet of that.
Um in our review uh of uh these this
application and the proposed
adjustments, we took uh into account uh
that there is a hillside land form uh
that occurs within the the middle of
these lots in this area. again intending
to to capture uh that uh the steep
slopes, the the hilltops that are there.
Um and those uh envelopes as they've
been developed over time, still
generally uh staying towards the the the
bottom end of those hills, if you will,
but really um not being entirely within
that hillside land form, but splitting
it in some instances, encroaching in in
different areas. And so this uh updated
proposal is uh is striving to basically
split the land form and locate in the in
the middle of the lot which I'll have
exhibits for you in a couple slides
here. Um in that same context, this just
is representing for you sort of the
topography out there. um the contours of
uh of that that hillside of those areas
and demonstrating at least uh without uh
direct information but visual context
for you that the currently proposed
positioning for lot 34 sitting at about
the middle of the lot falls in the same
group of contours that uh the lots on
either side are uh developed at. And
that was one of the um one of the points
raised at the last DRB meeting. Uh and
the uh the applicant team has put
together some uh some more detail about
that that I'll let you let them tell you
about in their presentation, but just
highlighting um that with this exhibit
for you uh on the screen.
Uh so this uh shows the original
building envelope location in the
darkened line up near the front of the
lot. Um, it also gives you a sense in
this section detail of how steep uh that
lot becomes as it climbs up uh from the
uh the street end to the uh the south
end of that lot.
The original submitt had come in uh
requesting a building envelope located
uh at the uh the higher point of the lot
at the south end. Um that was met with
concerns uh from staff's review. it was
met with concerns from the development
review board. Uh and they had continued
that at that point in time directing
seeking uh an alternative location and
so that's what came back uh the last
time around uh striving for something in
the middle of the lot uh that's that
tried to balance
uh the the request there. Um at that
point in time uh staff had felt that the
uh that the DRB criteria were being
achieved by that that the uh proposed
location was in alignment with uh the
intent of the the stipulations and the
history for this. Um the board had asked
for some additional details um to help
support that and and that's what the uh
applicant team has come back with and so
they've refined that envelope a little
bit uh uh changing some of the
boundaries to respect some of the
contour lines out there and uh sort of
uh follow that into uh what the
topography is doing more than the the
conceptual lines that were represented
uh the first time around uh not covering
through these but just reminding you
that we have DRB criteria that we had
looked at this against um we had done
analysis that you'll find in the staff
report
um but moving through this a little bit
uh quickly like I said uh along the way
uh there was uh some conversation about
uh storm water and uh ponding at the
front of the lot uh between the first
DRB meeting and the second DR meeting,
uh the storm water staff had gone out to
the site, uh I had gone out to the site.
We walked it with uh with the applicant
team and looked at the details out there
in response to some of the DRB's
questions the first time around. our
storm water staff put together uh a
summary analysis that was provided back
in the report uh the prior time through
uh just highlighting that that did occur
and and that they looked at the
available information for that. Uh as I
mentioned uh there were some updates uh
additional exhibits put together from
the applicant team uh to help further
respond to the development review
board's uh questions and direction from
the last meeting um that I'll let them
tell you about. But I'll finish out my
presentation
um with the uh the recommendation
uh for you uh that this uh based on our
analysis, we're recommending uh approval
of uh the building envelope modification
per the recommended stipulations.
If you got any immediate questions for
me, I'm happy to answer them. I know I
moved through that kind of quickly, but
otherwise the applicant team's here and
ready to uh present for you as well.
Commissioner Scarboro.
Thank you.
Ask questions for staff.
Mr. Barnes, can you just concisely tell
me what the finished floor elevation
average will be used for this new
requested lot placement versus where it
would have been before? Give me the
finished floor elevation of what was
approved prior and what it'll be now.
Councilman Graham, Commissioner
Scarboro, the original building
envelopes were conceptual and did not
include uh a finished floor, a specific
finished floor and so the current one
also does not have that. I know the
applicant team had done some comparison
in their exhibits and maybe they may be
able to uh elaborate on that.
Great. I'll wait for the applicant. I'm
assuming there's guidelines on where the
finished floor could be set based on the
location and the current elevation or
adjacent street elevation. So, I'm just
curious what the differential and height
is between those two elevations. So,
I'll wait for the applicant. Thank you.
Any more questions for my colleagues?
Seeing none, uh, following council
rules, we go from staff presentation to
questions for staff. And now applicant
presentation. I will invite the
applicant or his uh representative to
the podium and um you think you can do
it in five minutes, you need six
minutes, seven minutes, 10 minutes, five
to seven.
Okay, let's seven minutes. Um and this
is our do I use the arrows here on the
keyboard?
Okay, Councilman Graham, members of the
commission, thank you so much. It's good
to be here today. Um, third time's a
charm hopefully because as you heard
from staff, this is the third time that
the applicant, the Angelone family, who
we're very proud to represent, has had
to come before you today. And just a
little bit of more context for you, this
process began for them in January of
2024 when they first had their PAP
meeting. So, this is nearly a two-year
saga just for the uh request to just
modify the building envelope, which is,
as you heard in staff's presentation,
was a conceptual idea prepared in 1995,
which is 30 years ago. But I just want
to walk you quickly through the
timeline. As you can see, in May, July,
and here we are today, uh back in May,
they had a proposed building envelope at
2720 uh to the top of the summit. And
then there we had had to continue the
case. And then in July, we had a
follow-up hearing after, as you saw,
staff had storm water come out on June
4th to analyze the property. But yet
again, the case was continued and the
applicant was asked to provide factual
evidence that the proposed elevation is
compatible to other homes in the
community. And we're going to show that
to you today. Um, the building envelope
relocation is very common in this
community. And I want to point out, as I
have pointed out in previous hearings,
that every single one of these
properties you see here before you
today, 12 nearby neighbors have built
outside the building envelope without
DRB approval. Um, if there's any
speakers here today, they're going to be
challenges application. I do ask that I
reserve two minutes for rebuttal just to
address any of the concerns because I
think what is admirable and commendable
by the Angelone family is that they've
come to the city of Scottsdale to do the
process in the right way and they've had
to spend considerable time and resources
but they have been willing to do it and
also I just want to take the time to uh
give our thanks to Commissioner Brand
who has spent considerable amount of
time working with us on this and as you
heard today from staff he has now lent
his support as you saw earlier if you
look here on the lefth hand graph that's
where the building envelope originally
was. But this is the key point. Why is
the Angelone family asking to move the
building envelope? And the reason why is
the ponding and the drainage that was
built by the neighbors that made it
literally impossible to build at the
proposed building envelope. If they
could have, they would have. So then
they came back with a very reasonable
request, as you can see, at a part of
the site that would be good for building
a home. And this is where we are today
because over the last three months,
we've had to figure out where to go. So
now the proposed building envelope, as
you see here in the exhibit on the
right, is where we call it the bow tie
section. Uh the really the tightest
section of the property, but this is a
considerable concession by the Angelone
family to make sure that they're doing
right by the city of Scottsdale and by
the Desert Summit um HOA. Also, the
question of proposed elevation has come
up in the previous meetings and it's now
come up here in this meeting today. And
as you can see, and as you heard earlier
from staff, we are aligned with the
contours that are already existing with
the other existing houses. If you look
directly to the south, that house
actually was built directly on the
property line. If you look directly to
the east and to the north and to the
west, we are right smack dab in the
middle in the contours and the proposed
elevation. So between 2680 to 2705
includes all of the homes you see marked
here today and also the Angelone
proposed house. We also have photographs
to show you what they look like. This is
the Fiser residence which is the
directly adjoining property to the
north. This is the Clark residence
directly adjoining to the south which
once again is directly on the property
line. This is the Robert residence.
Just ask you to take a minute there to
see how that looks. And this is another
one we have up here. This is just of
course a conceptual image here, but we
wanted to show you how the Angelone um
house would be built and how it would be
looking. The Clark residence is directly
to the right, directly on the property
line. And the Fiser residence, you can
see it from the street is right there on
the left. So, the Angelone proposed home
location is compatible with the
neighboring homes and the building
envelope relocation is in character with
the neighboring relocated envelopes. And
once again, with finished floor
elevation, as you can see, with Clark
2686, with Fiser 2673,
with Robert 2686, and Angelone comes in
at a nice 2680. The roof line that we
estimate, and this is just an
estimation, is at 2717, which is in line
with Clark, which is immediately next
door. But these numbers will be
finalized during design once the
envelope is approved. Of course, it's
impossible to predict, but 2717 is our
best guesstimate, but as you can see
with the finished floor elevations, it's
directly in line with the other
properties. We're also appreciative for
stack staff's recommended approval.
approval will be stipulated to this
building envelope, which once again is a
major concession by the applicant. And
so I just want to say thank you to
staff, thank you to Mr. Brand, and thank
you to this board for your time and
consideration.
Very good presentation. And uh for the
applicant, is that all the presentation?
That sums it up. Okay, very good. And
then I will I will now open this up to
public comment on this matter. And I
believe I'm going to be inviting up Mr.
Mark Fischer at this time. Mr. Fischer,
um, if you could just state your name
and address, although just, yeah, go
right up to the lect turn and then just
state your name and address, although we
uh we all know where you live now.
Sure. Uh, Mark Fischer, 27293
North, 1112th Place. Um, just to kind of
I think there's one gentleman here that
might have been here at the first
hearing. I think this is the third
hearing as uh the attorney had mentioned
um the first attorney or the first
session that originally happened it went
from uh Mr. Barnes uh basically say
saying that basically no in his
recommendation was no to for this to
move. And the discussion that the
council and uh uh the person who wants
to move the property up the hill and
everybody had a conversation around was
hey we'll be reasonable and we'll move
the lot you know somewhere within reason
but not completely lift it out of the
current envelope that it is in move it
up the hill. I know originally um the
proposal was to put it on top of the
hill and it's come down a little bit um
but my understanding was the move of the
envelope. We have hired um a drainage um
engineer that also submitted a report to
the city which is saying that there is
no drainage problem. There is a referral
about my house and my lot about uh that
there was some drainage put in. If it
was it was from a previous owner. I have
no recommendation or you know of what
happened, how it happened. Um but
there's been a couple of things. My
understanding from the third or the
excuse me the second um council hearing
where there were three things that was
needed to prove in order to move this
forward by the you know you guys now
sitting here today. One was the roof
line had to be equal to the highest roof
line between my house and uh Mr.
um Clark over here um who lives at lot
35, the other person on the two
neighbors on both sides. It looks like
if I do the math, I'm an accountant,
that 37 ft above the roof line is not I
think 24 feet, which is the
recommendation. That's one. two, I'm
still wondering if there was an actual
drainage report that was submitted that
shows a hardship because we're getting
conflicting information. And uh and then
finally, I'm still trying to figure out
how you can take a lot that you bought
at a certain price because obviously the
the real estate and lots uh down here
are different prices and completely lift
it and move it to a very much higher
place. Um, I have several photos. I have
not submitted them in videos of wildlife
walking across. There's a gaming path
that goes across uh where it is that was
brought up in the first committee
meeting. So, I know some of you are are
newer here, but there's been a lot of
things and and again, Mr. Barnes has
completely flip-flopped his decision um
from the first one, which was
recommending, hey, we'll work with you
and move it slightly. Uh we did buy the
house um knowing where the lot plan was
and I brought that up in my first
meeting and basically um this we have a
very private backyard which we enjoy and
that's and we just put about a million
and a half dollars into remodeling the
house and now the his house is going to
be looking directly into our backyard
and blocking views that we had based on
where the lot will go. So, I don't have
anything else to say, but it's just to
me this feels a little bit of a snow
job. So,
thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fischer.
Rules of procedure. Now, I move to um
council questions for
staff or applicant. So, I will look to
my colleague if anybody has any
questions. Commissioner Scarboro.
Thank you. Uh Mr. Barnes, could you
speak to the drainage report issue and
did you receive another drainage report
by a neighbor that said there was no
issue? Can you elaborate a little bit on
that?
Oh, I guess does actually did the
applicant, does he get a chance to
rebuttal?
Oh,
before we have these questions?
Yes, that is a good point. Um, I guess
as the presiding officer, I can grant
that. I have that power. And so, um, if
you want to take, uh, just a minute or
two, Mr. Galvin, and respond to some of,
uh, Mr. Fischer's comments.
Absolutely. Councilman Graham, thank
you. I appreciate the opportunity from
members of the board. Thank you so much.
And also, I look forward to hearing that
answer to that very good question from
Mr. Scarbo to staff. But I just have to
laugh and chuckle when I hear that this
is a snow job after seeing what the
applicant, the Angelone family, has had
to go through since January of 2024 and
now three times before the DRB,
including the fact that, as I pointed
out in our presentation, that none of
one of these properties has asked for
modification of the building envelope,
including Mr. Fischer's. So, Mr. Fischer
did not ever tell you that the city of
Scottsdale approved the modification of
his building envelope. And as you saw in
staff earlier from their presentation
that Mr. Fischer's house is not built at
the building envelope. Secondly, he says
he doesn't know anything about the
just just to cut you off. I mean I I
understand why but it's this isn't about
Mr. Fisher.
I know but Mr. But Mr. Fischer did make
some allegations against the Angelones
but also just going to go to my larger
point Councilman Graham is that also
secondly the Angelone family cannot
build at that location and staff said
so. They talked about the ponding. He
talked about the um the diverting and so
this is an issue not created by the
applicant. Uh Mr. Fischer does say he
doesn't understand how this happened but
if the previous owner did it that's what
exactly what happened. And secondly we
are compatible with the contours of the
surrounding properties and staff
confirmed as much. And so I don't want
to belabor the point because that just
goes down to the heart of the matter of
this application today whether or not
we're compatible. And when we're between
2680 and 2717, that shows that we're
just aligned with the other properties.
And so I could do five, six, seven
points, but I just wanted to stress
those two.
Very good. Okay. Um,
thank you, Mr. Gavin. Do you have any
questions for the applicant or for city
staff?
City staff.
Okay. Does anybody have any questions
for the applicant before I I guess I'll
ask him to sit down?
I I would like to wait for city staff uh
answer.
Okay. Well, you can hang out there or
maybe we'll ask you to come back up.
Okay. So, thank you,
Commissioner Scarboro.
Mr. Barnes,
thank you. Uh, Councilman Graham,
Commissioner Scarboro, in response to
your inquiry about the the drainage
report that was mentioned. Uh the the
neighbors did provide through uh through
public comment uh a drainage report from
uh from an engineer that was not hired
by the applicant uh but was provided for
context. Uh our stormwater staff did uh
take a look at that. Although um they've
indicated in their summary response and
their field visit that they did observe
uh that the topography of the site and
the the location of the culverts uh that
are out there uh do visually represent
that that there would be uh things
happening out there. Um they did not uh
thoroughly review the drainage report as
would happen at the uh plan review
stage, the final uh permitting stage of
a process uh when something would be
submitted like that with the grading
plans for the rest of the lot. Um but my
understanding and we do have um Vivian
MW from our stormwater group here uh if
uh there are more technical questions
than that is that at least we were in
receipt of it but uh that it did not
have uh impact to the the recommendation
taking into account all of the other uh
factors that that we were considering in
the development review board criteria
the that go into this type of request.
Thank you, Mr. Barnes. If I could hear
from him, I would appreciate just two
minutes.
And the reason is I just want to truly
understand is the predication of this
request is this flood issue. And so me
being new up here, I was not on the
board earlier when this was presented
twice over. I just want to make sure I
have a a good understanding that that
the request is which I believe it to be
valid, but I I would love to hear that
directly from the drainage expert in the
city.
Do do we have that drainage expert?
Oh, okay. He's
We do. We
Okay. Uh ma'am, you are you are not on
mic and so people can't hear you who are
so if you're going to speak which we
welcome just please come to the
microphone.
So, Commissioner Scar, just for those
watching from home, um, Commissioner
Scarboro is asking about the drainage
because that's predicates asking for
this envelope to move up in elevation
and drainage and ponding and uh, storm
water expert or drainage expert is going
to speak to us about that. Is that
correct?
Correct. Chairman, again, Brad Carr, um,
Mr. Hassan Mustach is going to talk to
you. um he just walked in the door so
he's coming a little bit late to the
discussion so if you would Mr. uh
Commissioner Scar bro we just kind of
reiterate your question um so for the
benefit of him just walking in the door
here.
Sure. Well thank you for joining us.
Appreciate you being here. Uh right now
we have a case before us that uh is
predicated on there being a flood issue
at the lower elevation of this lot area
and that I'm curious as to city's
position after receiving a third party
report from a neighbor that indicates
presumably no issue. How city reviewed
that and compared it against the report
that was done by the applicant for this
project. Is there an issue or is there
not an issue at the lower elevation to
place a house on the northwestern
portion of the lot as previously
provided for an envelope?
Good afternoon. My name is Hassan
Mushtak, flood plane administrator for
city of Scottsdale. Um, Commissioner uh
Scarboro and members of the board, uh,
thank you very much for the question.
Uh, we have reviewed the project. Our
staff has gone out, they have gone out
and made an independent assessment of
the situation and we also reviewed the
third party drainage report as well
which kind of coincides similar results
have been achieved. Uh there is an issue
of ponding existing condition. There is
some level of ponding that will happen
at the front of the property. Uh however
that probably will push the building
envelope proposed building envelope to
the south I believe a little bit. Um
that is the current situation we have
short of trying to solve the problem
that is the mitigation that can be had
on the property at this time.
So this relocation of the building
envelope is the only solution to this
problem.
Beyond mitigation,
our opinion would be yes, that would be
the least cost option. Otherwise,
somebody has to spend some money to
remove the ponding and get rid of it,
which is the existing condition
currently.
Thank you. Okay. Uh I appreciate that.
Oh,
no.
So, uh, you know, I it sounds like this
is, at least what I'm hearing, a a
reasonable request to move. You know,
just from my experience, I think the
initial application requesting it to the
top of the summit was an unreasonable
request by the applicant and I think
caused a lot of hardship and delay for
the applicant to get to this point in
time. Um, I see the elevation proposed
uh finished floor of 2680. Thank you,
Mr. Galvin, for that. That really helped
me out a lot. Uh, but part of my
question too was what would that have
elevation been based on the 1995? And I
know we have contours and and that that
math can be done. Was that math ever
done? And what would that finish floor
elevation had been if it would have been
in the exact same? Don't have an answer.
Okay.
So, I understand your position that
you're in alignment with your neighbors.
Um, for me, whether somebody else didn't
abide by this, I don't think I can, um,
use that as an argument to support it. I
do think it's a reasonable request. Um,
I think that, uh, this is a valid enough
reason and and, uh, I'm ultimately in
support of it unless I hear something
from one of my colleagues that moves my
my thought process. So, I will defer.
Very good. I do see a request to for
questions from Commissioner Fauli.
Just a couple of question I think one
for uh the applicant. I would like to go
back to the aerial uh where they were
showing Mr. Fischer house.
Do you have I think that was a 3D you
know like uh layout you have where you
have the mountain and the three houses.
Is this I apologize. Uh once again Tom
Galloway Rose Group. Mr. Faki is this
what you're referring to? No, I'm
looking at the other one. You show an
aerial that shows the three houses on uh
on the mountain. It was more like a
street view.
Um, Councilman Graham, Mr. Fakia, was it
this one?
No.
No. Okay.
Oh, street view. I'm sorry.
Street view. Yeah.
Yeah, this is one of them. So, this No,
you can't stay there if you want. Okay,
perfect. So, Mr. Fischer is on the um
obviously left page here, right? And
you're based on this position right now.
Uh my understanding it seems like you're
about 10 feet higher than existing
grade. Is this true? I cannot see much
from the contour, but based on your
finished floor elevation right now,
you're about how how higher are you from
the grade from the existing grade?
Why would that be to I think it's
impossible to
Well, it's not impossible, but I'm just
curious. M
I'm going to ask Mr. Angelone to give
you specifics. I don't want to
question
I just I'm trying to link your finished
floor elevation to the existing topo.
We're probably within We're a little bit
taller than Mr. Fischer and a little
Sorry, sir. Um Mr. Angelone, could you
just for the record just say your name?
I'm John Angelone. I'm the applicant.
Very good.
We're we're a little bit taller than Mr.
Fischers by a couple feet and we're
actually our finish floor is about six
feet below the Clarks on that. But we're
taking into consideration, one of the
things we were talking about with staff
when they told us to go back the third
time was we were talking to Brad and
Jeff and they're like, "Work with the
mountain a little bit. Just don't carve
it all up." And so it took us by laying
it out that way, it took us up to
approximately the 2717 mark on that.
Now, we don't know that for sure because
again, we haven't designed a house yet
because we don't know where we're
designing that house. But and when we're
a little bit closer to the Clarks on
that because we were trying to be
respectful to the Fisers over there to
kind of keep that corridor open for them
so they're in their backyard and they
can look out instead of moving it over
and really blocking their view because
where we're positioned here does not
block any of the Clark's view. And as
you saw in the earlier thing, they're
really buted up against our property
line in coming out of their envelope
like that. So, we're trying to find the
best spot from a privacy standpoint for
the three of us on all of that. Now, if
we move to the left a little bit on
that, we're going to block Mr. Fischer's
backyard.
I understood. I I I guess my question a
little bit more technical outside of Mr.
Fischer backyard. I'm looking at the
finished floor elevation. Obviously, you
have a concept. You have an idea where
you want to locate the house, right?
Yep.
And there is an existing topographic
survey that was included. Unfortunately,
it's too small for me to read. compare
what you show here on the 2686. How does
this compared to the existing topo right
now?
Six feet lower
because I I don't think this an ESL is
it
it's 6 ft lower.
Is this an ESL here?
Board member Fee jumping in with with
that answer. This is uh in the
environmentally sensitive lands overlay.
So the
So this is important information then,
right? Because their their elevation
cannot exceed is it 24 ft for maximum
height for the house? So there are
certain lots in this development that
are 24 feet. Uh the the rest are 30
feet. This is one of the 30 feet
lots, but it is measured from the
natural grade. So any
amount of bringing the any amount of
fill to bring the finished floor up that
they may need to do as they refine this
is going to come out of the overall
building. And this is I think this is
what I'm getting to you know like I kind
of like I'm assuming the applicant is
aware of this but we should have a cut
and fill number at least right so based
on the existing condition right now are
we how much we're filling on the
existing condition
how much what
filling
how much what
how much fill you're adding like I mean
you're you have your I don't know if
you're civil engineer here or whoever
did the topo if you're finished if you
finish lower elevation right now 2686
Right.
26 2680. Yes.
Correct. Usually on Well, just show
2686.
Yeah, it's No, that's not bottom. Okay.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
I'm the bottom one. We're in between.
English turned language. I just like
read or write. Goofy. So, I I had 2680.
So, compare this elevation right now to
existing topographic survey. What's the
What's the existing grade that your
elevation will be based on? Because you
you're limited to 30 feet from the
lowest adjusting grade right now. Well,
since we're on the slope, we're starting
in the 2760 area going up.
So, we're actually going to be 68 feet
below
or actually not have to go down that
deep on that slope on that because we're
starting at 26.
So, this will give you 10 ft home.
No, no. Oh, on the top of that, we're
going to 2717. So, it's probably going
to be by the time we take into
consideration the slope. Now remember
going up the gun will be 35 ft at our
tallest.
Understand what I'm trying to get to
again and maybe staff could help here.
What is your obviously at ESL at this
stage you have a cut and fill exhibit,
right? Because for you're approving
envelope so you probably did or request
a an exercise on cut and fill, right? So
you can figure out your building height
because your envelope will be linked to
your building height. So based on the
envelope right now, what's the lowest
adjusting grade you have? how much fill
they're going to have.
Board member FEI. Uh so we don't have a
cuts and fills exhibit with this level
of the request. Uh they had been
focusing on the envelope drives, the
engineering based on the the location on
the site that they're allowed to build.
And so the envelope location is key to
taking those next steps. And we would
expect to see that level of detail come
in uh through the the grading and
drainage plans, any drainage report with
the permit submittal.
So when I look at this, it seemed like
we're filling here. We're not cutting,
right? Are they cutting in the mountain
or they filling in at the mountain?
Both.
So they they haven't fully designed it.
Uh but the ex expressed intent has been
to uh cut where they can uh and and step
that into the to the hillside respecting
that the uh maximum building height does
rise with that uh slope of the property.
But that'll be the controlling parameter
with this.
So they're going to be cutting into I
mean again I'm not trying to be
difficult. I I honestly the envelope is
complete this different discussion for
me. I know what you're doing doing it
and I can relate. You have a property
trying to maximize the view trying to
get into it. I think the drainage issue
is resolvable. I mean I will leave it up
to staff but this is not the main issue.
I'm okay with you moving the envelope.
Okay. However, at the same time this
been here three times so far and I would
think by this time you guys have enough
information. I would think you did. I
mean you looked into it otherwise we'll
not be here three time. So since you be
here on the envelope discussion
all what I'm trying to get to is how
does your house because you set up a
finished floor elevation today. How does
it relate to existing topography survey?
I mean I I just what I would like to do
and this is go back to the
neighborhoods. If I'm sitting there
again I'm fine with the envelope but I
would like to see where your house sit
in the existing topography.
Maybe this will answer that. If you go
to the if you look at the bottom of
mine, we're at 2680 to 2705
is going to be the topography that we
have. The Clark house was a 2680 to
2700. The Fiser house was a 2670 to
2680. These are all coming right out of
the city's numbers on stuff. So, we're
going to start at 2680
into 2705
from a topography standpoint. So you're
existing, you're saying the existing
topo right now is 2705.
2680 to 2705 in that building envelope.
Okay. So you're your lowest elevation in
the envelope right now is 2680.
Yes.
Is this what you're saying?
Yes.
Okay. And you're putting your finished
floor elevation on the lowest elevation
on your envelope.
Well, yes. It's these are our best
estimates on that without getting out
there with the engineers to go through
it all. working just with the maps that
we had with the city, the civil engineer
stuff and all of that. So, this is I
mean what um Vice Chair Brand asked for
last time was exactly this and this is
what we he said we're almost there. He'd
like to see this. We went out and got
this information for him, had the
conversation with him and he's that's
why I guess he gave his approval, but
this is where we're at with that.
Okay. And again, I'm okay with the
envelope. My challenge is because it's
an ESL and you have 30 ft and you come
in, you decide to do 24 ft and you go
from whatever you put your house on an
adjusting grade and you can add
elevation to it.
And this is why my thought by reading,
you know, the transcript to it that at
this stage at least you have an envelope
and you have a location of the house
that we're going to approve today with a
finished floor elevation. And the point
the reason I make this a point this
there could be difference 10 feet just
in height elevation on where you're
placing your property because eventually
you're going to be linking it to
existing topography because you're
limiting with 30 ft from the lowest
adjusting grade. Maybe staff could
correct me if I'm wrong. So I mean just
like isn't this the case?
So uh board member fake you are correct
in stating that the the maximum building
height would be the
parameter of 30 ft based on correlation
to the natural grade. And so that's
going to dictate where they can build
within that. And if I'm since there is
no information and we are here again, I
hate to keep dragging this forever, but
since we're here today on the third time
will and if I'm hearing the applicant
correctly,
what they're committing to that the
house finished floor elevation will be
at the lowest elevation they have in the
envelope.
Is this correct statement? So your
finished floor elevation, what I'm
stating is at the lowest elevation is in
the envelope. This is how you're setting
up your finished floor elevation.
Well, no. No, because the way that's
laid out, you have the driveway and the
other stuff that's coming up down there.
The house is to the backside going into
the bow tie area on that. So, if I move
there, I start to block fishery view and
it that's where I needed for a driveway
to come up and the yards to be
positioned on that. So, where these are
basically when we look at the 2780,
there's lower elevation on the on the
south portion or the northwest portion
of the building envelope. if I move the
house that way. But that takes away then
I'm looking into the back of the Clark's
house, not out to the to the mountains.
And this this what I'm trying to
determine. I don't know if we can go
back maybe to the topo exhibit. You call
it the bow tie, I think.
Yeah. There. There you go.
Can we zoom in this bow tie? Because
it's really tough for me to see. This is
one of the challenge. Maybe this will
help.
Can we Can we do a zoom zoom?
Is that somehow
we can zoom in?
I don't think we can zoom technically.
No.
And and Councilman Graham, Mr. Fakia,
the other interesting thing about this
is that we're being stipulated to
exactly where this building envelope is,
which is extremely rare. Um, and that's
something that we're amendable to that
staff proposed that we worked on with
Mr. Bran since the last meeting last
month and worked considerably with him,
met with him. And so the stipulation
that this is the building envelope,
we're okay with that. Um, what's
interesting here is that the angelonis
have to consider all the other houses
surrounding them. And so they're putting
it here to be respectful of the
neighbors, but actually to also find a
spot where they can build the house. So
the stipulation is for the building
envelope to be here. And so we're okay
with that.
I'm I'm not making my comment on behalf
of the owner with with my respect to
their uh situation, but I'm just curious
about the question I bring up. It could
be something for good for you guys to
know as well just based on the existing
condition. though
if I I can read this close to where
we're looking at this. Now, this is an
approximate approximation of the house,
right? But if I'm looking at the corner
down here, that's at 2675.
The the corner
the corner out where just by to the tip
of the driveway out there to the left.
Okay.
Where is it?
Yeah, it's out over here. Can I walk to
that point real quick?
I think you use a mouse.
You
Oh, I use a mouse
here. to here
to here is at 2675.
Where is the highest topography? Where
is the high? Where's the crest of the
hill?
That's out here at 2705.
No, it's
Oh, no. It's higher than that. I'm
sorry. We don't have it in the building.
Can the person who's controlling that
zoom out just a touch or maybe move to
the right?
Zooming in.
Little zoom out. They have about 2700 on
the southeast 2701 here on the southeast
corner, I guess.
There you go.
2734 is the highest.
And where and where is that highest
crest point?
That's back down here.
Can you show us what the Okay, down
below.
It's way up here. Okay.
In the green area.
It's in the green area. In the high in
the green area.
Oh. Uh the city of St. Uh
that's that's So that's down.
Oh, just a moment. Attorney uh Calibra
wants to say something.
Uh yes. Councilwoman um Graham and board
member FI um if something you're trying
to control is where the building is for
topography
um if you let me know I can offer you
stipulation language to to meet what
you're trying to do.
Well, I'm I'm just trying to understand
uh you know like how this link to the
existing environment. So it's kind of
like how much cut and fill is happening.
So if if you don't mind zooming out and
this is a challenge you guys putting a
nerd on the board. I think this is this
is part of it. So can can we zoom in on
the right side if you don't mind
the which side
you were on this right side here? Yeah.
You were here.
Zoom back into the to the green to the
green one
right there.
Yeah. Just to the corner
to the house. Yeah. To the corner.
So zoom up. Okay.
Thank you.
So you're at 2705 and the other one is
26. Is it 2872 or 26?
2675. And then this one is at 20
2700.
Okay.
So you have about 22 feet of cut on the
on this corner here and probably another
like you're you're talking about about
10 ft of fill on the other side.
Right.
Right. Board board member you can
stipulate language if you desire. the
Yeah, but I mean what happened is on
this building envelope right now there
will be a maximum of 20 feet of house
based on your lowest adjusting grade
you're aware of that right so the
maximum height you can get will be 20 ft
based on the 2670 if you set up your
finished floor elevation at 2680 so by
you you getting this approval on 2680
for finished floor elevation you only
can get 20 ft building height That's
Jeff. Is that correct?
It seems low.
No, this is what it is because you go 30
from existing grade.
You go 30 ft from existing adjacent
grade. So if it's finished floor
elevation 10 ft higher than the
existing, he's only building 20 ft of
height.
So I just want to make sure you're aware
of that. So this will be approved, but
your house height will be maximum 20 ft
based on ESL code.
I don't
Board member Fee, if I could
clarify maybe in the scope of what is
being requested, the the house that's
shown here, the the massing exhibit for
context,
uh those are
bits of information to help convey uh an
idea, but this is a request for the
building envelope itself uh and the
finished floor elevation could change in
the final design of the house. The the
building envelope request the
modification doesn't directly correlate
a a defined lowest finished floor level.
It's it's about the positioning.
But this whole thing happened because
you guys get Mr. Brand blessing and
three time here because you set up a
finished floor elevation. And now you're
telling me the finished floor renovation
is not going to be the one we're
approving today.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
2680.
Councilman Graham, Mr. Fakit, this is
for a a building envelope modification,
but this is just a conceptual
representation of where the house could
be or would be, but I think sometimes
sometimes I think we get stuck in the
weeds here. But the applicant is just
merely asking for a building envelope
modification, but is also trying to show
that they're trying to work as hard as
they can to be considerate of the
neighbors, but also to work with staff.
And staff did have a stipulation, and
Jeff, if you can, if you don't mind, if
you could just outline what that
stipulation is that I think helps guides
the members of how to help them and
deliberate on this decision.
And I believe the the stipulation you're
referring to is conformance to
this building envelope configuration as
being the revised from the original
exhibit.
Right. But also conforming with all
applicable statutes as well
of the previous zoning case. Yes.
Okay. So we're approving today the house
as presented here part of the envelope
because this what your applicant mention
or the owner mention you guys rotated so
you can open it up for view and you work
with Mr. brand or whatnot. So, if we're
approving, we're approving this layout
today. I just want to clear on the
approval stipulation. We're approving
the layout of the house. We show here on
the screen.
Layout of the building envelope.
The building envelope, not the actual
floor plan of the house.
Okay. So, this could rotate again and
you go back to square zero. You can
rotate it again and you know, right?
Uh, council um Councilman Graham and
board member FI. So you you can if
you're trying to whatever you're trying
to achieve create a stipulation to that
effect.
Okay. I I think we'll we'll have to add
this to it unless the applicant has a
problem. But I think you know if if the
whole discussion been happening for the
last three meeting about how the house
will be located and the location of it
and finish floor elevation it makes
sense to me because obviously you
address other board member concern and
again I don't have problem with the
envelope but based on the three meeting
the whole discussion been on orientation
location and finish lower elevation. So
you guys come and present this. So I
would think if we this pays forward, we
should be bas stipulating on what you
present today, right? It will be based
on the orientation and the finished
floor elevation you present today.
Councilman Graham, Mr. Faky, with all
due respect, I think that's outside the
scope of what you're being asked to vote
on. You're being asked to vote on
modifying an envelope. Uh Mr. Angelone
has brought his architect twice to the
two previous hearings who has tried to
answer some of the good questions here
and sometimes they're impossible to
answer because the architect has stated
that if the building envelope does get
modified then he's able to work with
staff to comply with all of the issues
that are of concern.
I with all my respectives agree with
you. We're we're approving something
that fit in the environment and again I
tell you I'm approving the envelope. I
don't have problem with it and I can
tell you the drainage will work with my
respect to the drainage staff. This
could be rerouted. There is actually
cost to it and I agree with staff here.
There could be a route for staff for
drainage. So I'm not I'm not pushing you
back to say oh is the drainage will
work. I don't want to get there. But I'm
saying I'm okay with the envelope but it
has to be linked on how this building
fit
what you agrees how all the board member
came on board to it. I guess
no I think he's making some interesting
points. Board member Faki um Mr. Galvan
made a comment that this was outside the
scope of this committee and so I'll ask
the attorney uh calibbrazy if is that do
you agree that what we're discussing is
outside the scope or is this within
scope of this board?
Um council member Graham I'm going to go
with yes and no and let me explain that.
No no no
yes I know.
Um
every attorney
I know right I know you were gonna it
depends
right. Um, yes, it's outside the scope
in the sense of it's not the it's not
the correct venue to um site to this
exact floor plan. However, what you can
do and I have a stipulation written for
you if you would like where it would
restrict the building envelope wherever
they do end up wanting to put the house
so that it only goes up so high. Would
you like that stipulation?
Does that include orientation?
No, but since orientation actually they
would be restricted on their orientation
based on the stipulation based upon the
topography itself.
So what you're saying is stipulate
something where we limit the cut and the
fill.
Yes, sir. That's what I'm trying to say.
I I have something written for you.
Is that satisfactory? Board member Faki.
I think I think we could work with that
as far as limiting, you know, how much
we're cutting into the mountain. Yeah.
And I'm I'm I mean curious to see what
the applicant think as well. But uh
Councilman Graham, Mr. Faki, we're
willing if you want to have a
stipulation to say that the finish floor
elevation would be at 2680 and the roof
line would be at 2717. I think that gets
to the heart of the matter of your
questions and we're willing to have that
stipulation.
I don't know how we will get roof line
in 26 2717. There is no way based on
existing condition. This is what's so
confusing to me. You cannot get if
you're 30 ft based on what you show
here.
Mhm. your finished floor elevation,
you're going to be only be allowed to be
at 27 at 2, actually 2810. You'll be 20
feet from the lowest grade. I don't know
how you're getting 37 ft from your
finished lower elevation. I don't get
it.
The house is progressing up the hill.
So, you're going to be stepping all the
finish lower elevation per the
elevation. So, you start 20 then 25 then
to the top. Okay. If you and again, I
haven't seen it. I'm assuming staff had
seen, you know, the elevation stepping
up or not. I haven't seen that. I saw it
all as one flat.
Board member for key fi, we have we have
not uh just because the house hasn't
been designed yet. But um I will uh say
that we would probably have concern with
stpping the roof elevation just because
that ends up being an end product of
conformance. Uh the steps already say
conform to the development standards of
the zoning case. Um but if you uh did
with um Miss Calib's suggestion want to
focus on uh a range of building or um
finished floor elevation or something
like that at least that would set
Fair enough. So I I'm fine with 2680
finished floor elevation. I'm not I
don't care about the height elevation
because you're you're going to be
complying with ESL and I agree with
staff. I mean I don't know I I don't
know I don't even imagine how this will
be step up. So keeping in mind what's
going to be the restriction on the
height from ESL lowest adjusting rate.
Councilman Graham Mr. Faki we think
that's eminently reasonable. Thank you.
Okay.
Yeah. And I'm and I'm very sympathetic
to what we see today is should be as
close to what the final thing you know
actually what what the final product.
And that's not just for us to make the
best decision. It's also for the
neighbors to
um for the neighbors in the area and the
other stakeholders to have some level of
predictability. Mr. Carr, do you want to
say anything? Okay. Anything else?
Yeah, I'd like to just thank you, Ali,
for bringing this up because I think uh
this is well within our purview on the
board. When you look at an envelope for
building, I think we have to look at
horizontally and vertically. And I
appreciate you really focusing on the
vertical side of it. So, I mean, just to
place a horizontal understanding of the
envelope, I think is insufficient. So, I
really appreciate this. Thank you.
So, okay. So, there's there's some
questions from the audience, but this is
kind of out of order, but I think the
question is there's a chart with the the
ranges of the elevation.
And so I think that um the attorney Miss
Calibr is going to draft language to
encompass that elevation
to accommodate for the you know filling
and digging or cutting.
Council member Graham. Yes. I just do
have a few questions for um board member
for key. Um the 2680 you referenced is
that the highest point of the topography
in which you want any of the eventual
build of the house to begin? So that the
maximum if you add 30 ft to that would
be obviously 2710 correct?
No because the ESL the ASL height
doesn't go from finished floor elevation
go from existing grades. So this why I
don't want to mention the height I will
go with just finished lower floor
elevation. So we'll we'll we stipulate
based on this finished floor elevation
2680 and staff will determine what the
height should be because the height is
not 30 ft from finish floor elevation is
from adjusting grade. So if your
adjusting grade is 10 feet below finish
lower elevation now your height get to
be 20
if Mr. Chairman if I may just want to
clarify a little bit.
Yeah Mr. Carr.
Thank you
Mr. Carr.
Um because the the finished floor uh I
mean because building height can change
with grades so can finish floor as a
result. So I I don't I'm asking I guess
are you willing wanting to have the the
maximum finished floor be at 2680?
Correct. based on what they presented
here 2680 finish floor elevation
as a maximum
correct
correct okay thank you
uh and just for lay just for the ley of
us is that for like the highest point
where it starts with elevation
it would be the Mr. Mr. Chairman, it' be
the point where the the the floor of the
house could go no higher than
Right. Exactly. When I said starts at
the floor. That's what I mean.
Yeah.
Um No, I I think this has been very um
I think it was very perspacious of you,
board member Faki, to bring this up.
What does this mean, by the way? This is
a tough word for me.
I'm just talking about your perspacity.
Oh, I got you. Okay. I don't know.
Uh it just means insightful. It's a it's
a it's a $10 word. And um yeah. Um, I I
tend to agree with Commissioner Scarro
that the DRB can look at should look at
it vertically. We should we consider
about we care about horizontality and
verticality. I think that to me that
just feels like that's in our purview.
So, um,
Miss Calibracy, are you satisfied with
the direction from board member Faki?
Uh, yes. That would be an appropriate
stipulation.
Um, Mr. Angelone and Mr. Galvin. Um,
based on this discussion, can you live
with or do you find these
the 2680 is a finished floor and the
initial? Yes.
Okay.
I don't want to haul you back in here.
I don't want to come back in here.
You don't want to see us again. And by
the time you come back, there's going to
be a whole new whole new roster.
Hey, I will tell you I appreciate your
sense of humor. It lightens it up a
little bit.
Well, you know, thank you. I think I'm
hilarious.
Um, you know, the next people, they may
be more likable, but you may not like
them. You don't know who you're getting,
right?
Um, so Mr. Faki,
I I I do have Okay, so I wasn't working
with the architect to get hard numbers
on this.
Can we have like a three or four foot
variance at all on that? I mean, because
we were trying to put stuff to our best
guesstimate together here. I mean,
okay,
your microphone microphone.
I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with
that. I could I could go in to make his
u recommendation. Councilman, if you're
fine with that.
Uh I haven't had a chance to ask board
member uh Per if he has any questions.
He's he's saying no. He's had enough.
Um
it's kind of out of order for me to
bring back Mr. Fischer and his other
neighbors, but I I hope that this has
gotten a little closer to, you know,
Yeah.
Right. That's and that is exactly what
So yeah.
Okay. We're we're getting a little bit
of feel when I'm getting, you know,
dialogue going with members of the
council because nobody on who's
streaming can hear us. But what we're
talking about is the neighbors that
spoke earlier. They had misgivings. Um,
you know, trepidation about exactly that
those building height and um
I'm okay.
Or I should say elevation.
I got a couple feet variation.
Yeah. And now there's going to be
there's going to be a stipulation that
adds clarity to that and I think it
maybe smooths feathers and brings people
a little bit more harmony to the area
because we have a little bit more
predictability. Um and so I will because
Mr. Faki has led this effort I will
invite him to make the motion that was
probably drafted by um probably
feverishly drafted by attorney Cali.
Do you need do you need more time with
that? City attorney.
Councilman Graham. Yes. Two minutes.
Councilman Graham. May I ask a question?
So if it's if it comes out to 2682 2684,
is there a way we can make sure that Mr.
Angelone is not getting cited by the
city
just for that variation there? Kind of a
little leeway.
Yeah, she's going to give him a few
feet. Okay. Threshold.
So
I'll spend a couple of minutes up here
just monologuing. I learned a few jokes
recently. I'm just kid.
Um
this is um
based off of this existing building.
I think what we'll do here is Oh, you
know what? I forgot I had some
questions. I had questions. I was too
busy trying to invoke my colleagues to
participate or they were ready to go,
but to uh to ask them. Um and I have a
few questions here with you.
Um
this is probably for city staff. Is
there is there an animal crossing uh
area in this section that is that is
that going to be deletarious to the
animals?
Councilman Graham, uh although the
neighbors have reported in in
uh public comment for these meetings uh
that there are uh wildlife in the area
and and they uh exist out there. I don't
know that we've got any official
designation to point to to say that this
is an animal corridor.
Do you see anything that concerns you
that animals can't find another route?
There will as an end result of this as
uh as is part of the the
stipulations here. There's going to be
natural area open space provided on the
site that will be um contiguous in
various areas with other uh open space
corridors and and continue to allow
preserved space on the site.
Um can we go back to the bow tie um
photo? Can somebody just kind of show me
where like the house originally the
original envelope was and where we moved
it?
The blue line.
Oh, I see. That's what that blue line
represents. So, it was originally
supposed to be right on the right on the
road, right?
And this this is where the two culverts
are. The hundred-year flood goes
through, and this is where all the water
washes down. So,
yeah,
that's the ponding area.
That 100-y year flood happens every few
years. Um the um
that I thought that Commissioner Scarbo
asked some good questions about the
ponding because that was the whole
predication. And that was the whole
assumption for what for justification
for moving it. You know,
to Mr. Fischer's defense, he moved into
the house and the previous owner put
culverts in there without being
permitted by the city.
When you when you say in there, where is
there
in his driveway down here? So, there's a
couple low culverts.
Okay.
Down in here because of the water
buildup to go because the main river
when the flood stuff is right on the
other side of Mr. Fischer's property.
So the original envelope you were just
supposed to have all that extra ex
excess space you know all the way
and you're saying that okay
uh something else that was commented I
think it was Mr. Galvin that commented
maybe Mr. Carr you can answer this Mr.
comment, Galba, that 12 of the
surrounding houses are built outside of
their building envelopes.
Can can staff confirm that,
Councilman Graham? Uh that is visually
apparent out there. We don't have uh
records of applications like this uh to
go along with those but there there are
uh visually apparent deviations
throughout.
Yeah. And is the trend um that that that
the they moved it from the a lower
envelope to outside their envelope to a
higher elevation. Is that kind of the
trend you saw? What we had seen in in
looking through this is a a lot of them
uh moved
I'm going to call it nom nominally some
more than that uh but uh without having
the details to
uh to dive into for the the history on
that. It's hard to say what the
motivation.
So this one the house is completely
outside of the original envelope. Are
are these 12 are they partially outside
or any or are any of them fully outside
like this one would be?
Both.
It's sort of a mix
mix. Okay. Um this is this question I'm
going to ask is probably outside our
purview. So don't tell the city
attorney. But uh um I mean doesn't this
this this this helps the value of the
house when you move the envelope to a
higher elevation, right?
Yeah, never mind. I didn't think you'd
answer that. Called your bluff.
Um,
what's that?
Um, I think those were kind of the
questions that I had put together. I'll
I'll check back in with Miss Calibracy
to see if maybe she's had satisfactory
amount of time.
I think I have some. Then, Councilman
Graham, uh, board member Fi. So the way
that I have to draft this is I have to
draft the restriction on the building
envelope itself and not the height or
not the floor the final floor elevation.
So this is what I drafted and please
tell me if it achieves what the 2680
that any area of the building envelope
cannot be improved as is or by cut and
fill so that any improvement has a final
floor elevation that exceeds 2,680 ft.
plus or plus or minus threshold. Do
you have it that
plus or minus two feet?
Well, I mean, if we go up, can you can
you zoom up on this for me, please?
Because we're still talking about yard
we have to put in there and all that.
That's going to be at a lower. So, it
can't exceed.
I mean,
so
we're going to have fill in some of the
yard in the front.
So the so the condition the restriction
would be that the current building
envelope is approved except that within
that envelope it would remain
unbuildable for improvements if those
improvements would render a final floor
elevation higher than 2,680 ft plus or
minus two feet.
I'd say plus or minus a yard. Are you
okay with that?
So,
but if I'm doing a second story, that
still comes with the contour of the
land, right?
From grade
from grade.
Yeah.
The height of the building.
Yeah, the height of the building does.
Sorry, I didn't hear. I think you know
we're saying the same thing but I think
attorney put it in a lot
nicer way but it's we're restricting it
to finish lower elevation right so kind
of like you could go a little bit lower
if you want but I mean you just kind of
like for the finished lower elevation
you will be have to be within 26 82
you care about putting a ceiling on it
huh this is it could he could go lower
if you want in some areas I don't have
problem as long as you meet the cut and
fill requirement by the city
you know the challenge is to make sure
we're not filling in a lot in situation
and obviously at one point of time you
will not be able to fill much and you're
going to realize this really quick when
you start working with your architect on
your elevation
as long as we have one finished lower
elevation maximum 2682
and then you should be good
okay thank you
Councilman Grim uh board member Ficky we
could just adjust the language to say
lowest final floor elevation
the highest lowest final floor
elevation.
The highest
lowest vinyl floor elevation is not to
exceed 2,680 ft plus or minus 2 ft.
Correct. Yeah. Not to exceed 2682.
Are you are
three feet?
Five.
Three. Yeah. I mean
plus or minus 3T.
Okay, that's fine.
Okay. Do you mind making the motion? Did
you make the motion? Is that motion
clear or does he have to restate it?
No, the city of Scussel labeled the
finished floor elevation at the lowest
finished floor elevation, but we're
we're restricting the high the finished
floor elevation. The highest will be
2683.
Finished floor elevation,
right?
If I if I do my first floor 2680,
I can't do a second floor above that.
It depend on the code again. Depend on
what you meet for ESL.
Well, but okay. So I mean
but you go you work but you will be
working with staff on whatever ESL
allowed but the maximum finish store
elevation
of my first floor
of your first floor
correct will be 2683.
Yeah the finish
go from adjusting again right. Yeah yes
of my first floor. So I can do multiple
floors
if the code allows it.
Yeah if the code allowed.
Yeah if the code allows it. Yeah.
So, so of my first finished floor,
maximum height has to be 26
ground level.
I think a point of clarification here,
the finished floor we're talking about,
the finished elevation is the finished
floor on the first floor,
right?
If you build a second story,
your finished floor is your finished
floor. Now, you have a max building
height from your finished floor to your
to your roof height, right? To the pitch
of your roof.
That's what we're talking about. So, so
just be clear on that.
Yeah. that I can still do a second story
and that doesn't have to be 2680. So I
can go up
because your finished floor is the 2680
maximum maximum
y
and if not just come on back
with a variation of 3 feet. I just want
I just want to clarify with a variation
of three feet.
Yeah.
Thank you.
One football yard.
I think it was restated just to be
2683, right? Yes. There. So there's no
variation. That's your max. 2683. You
already have the 3 ft. Okay.
Um,
I can go down as much as I want.
Yeah. U Miss Calibrazy, do you need do
you need uh M board member Faki to
restate that to utter that that motion?
In uh Councilman Graham, in order to
make the stipulation.
Yeah.
Uh yes, please.
Okay.
I'm not going to say it the way you said
it though, but
Yeah. Good luck.
Okay. Let's let's start, baby. I will
move I will move to approve uh case
number 12-PPP-1995-2
Desert Summit lot 34 building envelope
with adding a stipulation that maximum
finished floor elevation will be one
finished floor elevation at 2683 max.
Thanks Dr. Mr. Fischer thanks for
coming.
Second,
uh, Councilman Graham, board member FK.
Um, sorry for the small nuance here.
It's a legal nuance. Blame the lawyer.
We can't control the final floor
elevation, but we control the building
envelope in which the building is built.
Does that make sense? So, we just have
to word it a little bit differently.
Just tell them how to word it.
Okay. Any area of the building envelope
cannot be improved as is or by cut and
fill. So that any improvement has has a
highest lowest final floor elevation
that exceeds 2,683 feet.
Okay, I'm going to try. Do you want me
to add it as stipulation or can I just
agree with you?
Just say what I said.
Okay, sounds good.
With this,
I'm sorry. Um, Mr. Board, board member
key, you could just say I make a motion
to approve per the stipulation just read
by the letter attorney.
Fair enough. Thank you. I will move to
approve case 12 PPP-1995-d
desert summit lot 34 uh building
envelope per the stipulation as per
stipulations just listed by our
attorney. Thank you.
Thank you. And do we have a second?
Second.
Board member board member Paser. I will
call roll.
Councilman Graham.
Yes.
Commissioner Scarro.
Yes.
Board member Peaser.
Yes. Board member Fi.
Yes.
Motion passes.
Thank you very much everybody. Thank you
very much Miss Clark. Thank you the
applicant. Thank you for the neighbors
and stakeholders and city staff for
presenting. And uh with that I will
suspend the rules and I will ask for a
voice vote to adjurnn. All those in
favor?
I we are adjourned. Thank you.