Drainage Review Board - meeting_joint_regular

Chair Persson?

Present.

Vice Chair Clapp?

Here.

Member Ba?

Here.

Member Loper?

Present.

Member Ward? Present. Madam Chair, we have a quorum.

Excellent. And I am told we have announcements by someone way better than me. So are you going to do those, Rachel?

This meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting 431. agendas are this meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ars 38-431 agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the maricopa county planning and development office and are also available on the planning and development website one week prior to hearing at www.maricopa.gov planning With respect to the hearing process cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the board. For each case the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present their testimony any witness wishing to give testimony on a particular case shall notify the board of such interest, this shall be done by filling out a speaker's card for in person attendance. or registering desire to comment as noticed on the published agenda. Also, at the appropriate time for each case, the chair will ask those attending in person and online who wish to speak to a case to raise their hand by clicking on that icon on the webinar screen. Staff will provide the chair with the names of the persons who have registered noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each named participant one at a time. Such testimony shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes. However, the actual amount of time allowed for testimony shall be at the discretion of the board chair. The chair will conduct the hybrid in-person and virtual public hearings according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call only vote. The chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds.

Excellent. That was much more pleasant than my voice. We need to approve the minutes from the May 14th hearing. Are there any comments or questions? Those will be approved. So we have one case that is withdrawn, number one. So we're going to skip over that one. Move on to case number two, BA260033, the Red Ledge property in District 3. And Martin, we're going to turn it over to Darren. Thanks.

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, BA260033, known as the Red Ledge property in District 3. It's a variance for a front setback of 30 where 40 is the minimum permitted at 7339 North Red Ledge Drive in Clearwater Hills. This subdivision was recorded in 1955. The single family home on the subject property was constructed in 1959. December of 2025, the current property owner acquired the property. And then this case was on the May 14th Board of Adjustment hearing. It was continued as the applicant was not present. There were applicants desiring to build a new single family home to replace the one that's on the site now, but with a much larger footprint. It's important to note that the South's The site's southwest extreme is the most appropriate area for development due to topography and an existing wash along the eastern portion of the lot. In paragraph 14, you'll find the findings. Those include the existing disturbance on the lot was created prior to county hillside requirements. A new home footprint could be reduced to fit within the required setbacks. The lot is subject to a wash and mountainous terrain that limits pragmatic area for development. And finally, the Clearwater Hill subdivision is characterized by numerous variances on most lots out there. In paragraph 15, should you act to approve, it notes that it will establish a 30-foot front or southwest setback line for the parcel 169-16-038A. I believe the applicant may be present today and we'll be happy to answer any questions if you have.

Thank you. I do have one question. I think I asked this last month. We're only talking about on the bottom curve, even though there's another one that says proposed and existing. I think you said there was a clarification in the code and that one's not required.

Correct. Since, I guess, since January, the side setback in Rule 43 has changed from 30 feet to 20. So we're only talking about that frontage and that far southwest extreme.

Excellent. Are there any other questions for Darren? We'll go ahead and open the public hearing and is the applicant present. I do have a speaker card from Kyle. Great. Please come down to the podium. State your name for the record.

Kyle Wollster with Design Tank and the architects on the project.

Excellent. Let us know what you have to say about if there's anything you wanted to share.

Nothing, nothing more to add is fairly clearly put. So just some extreme topography conditions on the property. So looking to place the new structure within the best fit solution.

So thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, hang tight. Are there any other speakers in the audience or online? This one is in my district. I'm going to close the public hearing. We'll discuss as a board. I mean, given the topography, I don't personally have an issue with the request, but I'm open to a motion from one of the others on the board.

I make a motion to approve.

Motion by Member Baugh. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member Clapp. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Baugh?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klatt? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson?

Yes.

Member Borg?

Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Great. Thanks so much. Best of luck with your project. Thank you so much. We will move on to case three, BA, or number three, case BA-26-0029, the Smith property in District 3, and I will turn it over to Daniel.

Thank you Madam chair members of the board case, otherwise known as the Smith property is a variance to reduce this front yard setback from 40 feet to 5 feet in anticipation of a future, um, accessory dwelling unit development. Uh, the. The parcel is 1.2 acres in size, and it's currently zoned. Um. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in the port staff offers observations the board may consider. A wash running through the southern and eastern perimeter of the property pushes development of the parcel to the northeast. The north lot line is considered the front lot line because an access easement terminates at the north. In the northwest corner of the parcel the north lot line is the front lot line, but there is not a street that physically provides frontage along this lot line. These two factors may be considered peculiar conditions facing the property that when the ordinances front yard setback is applied creates an undue physical hardship for development. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel. Does anyone have any questions for Daniel? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant present? I do have a speaker card from Nicole Smith. Great. Please come on down to the podium, state your name and continue with your presentation.

Nicole Smith. Other than the west side of the lot, we have a 10 to 15 foot utility easement as well. And we have to leave access to the shared well that's in the back to that has to be accessed from the front of the well because of the wash. We just leaves us with no room besides the north lot.

The microphone is kind of wavering in and out. So if you need to go a little bit closer, but um, thank you. were you going to add anything else that was it okay now it's back um does anyone have any questions for miss smith um i do not either are there any other speakers in the audience or online that wish to comment um thank you hearing that i'll go ahead and close the public hearing turn it over to the board this one is also in in my district and um you know curious what the rest of the board has to say

Go for it. I move that we approve case number BA260029.

We have a motion from Member Clapp. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member Loper. Rosalie, would you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson?

Yes.

Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you.

Best of luck, Mrs. Smith.

All right, we will move on to number four, case BA260035. I will turn this over to Nick.

Thank you, Chair Persaud, members of the board. Case B260035 is a request for a variance to permit a private basketball court at a setback of 10 feet from the north and west lot lines on the Burengrud property. A zoning ordinance allows private courts as accessory uses to single-family homes, but they must maintain a minimum 20-foot setback from adjoining properties under separate ownership. Residential development in the neighborhood is relatively recent. The home on site was built in 2022, followed by an accessory building and a swimming pool. As of 2026, most of the property has been developed, landscaped, or otherwise improved, with only the northwestern-most portion of the property remaining unimproved. According to the owner, this is the lowest area of the property, and to mitigate the propagation of weeds after rainfall, the owner has graded a concrete slab in this corner of the property. And while zoning clearance is not required for a slab on its own, the owner has also installed a basketball hoop on the slab, establishing it as a de facto sports court. At 10 feet from adjacent properties, the slab is located at half the required setback for a court. The owner states there is no lighting nor fencing associated with the court, which is used exclusively by his family. Staff cannot identify peculiar condition facing the property, though it features mild slopes that are the main cause of the drainage issue. They are not unique to the property and have not inhibited development of primary and accessory uses. development of a single family home means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship is created by the enforcement of the required 20-foot setback for a private court. That having been said, staff emphasizes that this request is simply related to the installation of a single basketball hoop. While staff considers this to fall under the umbrella of a sports court, a full basketball court has not been proposed. Finally, staff notes that while zoning clearance is not required for a concrete slab on its own, drainage clearance may still be required. There is a historic drainage corridor that passes through the area where the court has been placed. And if the slab alters, modifies or impedes the historic drainage patterns, then a grading permit will be required to ensure these patterns are maintained. The slab should be poured flush with the existing elevation does not to divert or backup the historic flows onto neighboring properties. And regardless of whether variance is granted for the use of the slab as a court and as built grading permit may be necessary if it has already been placed. Uh, that having been said, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, the grant of this variance will memorialize item. A. Variance approval establishes a 10 foot setback for a private sports court for 2, 1124, 121 at this time. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Nick. So this has not yet been built.

Chair Persone, it was difficult for me to tell. Based on the most recent site aerials, the slab had not been poured, and those aerials, I believe, were taken fall of last year. The owner's supplemental questionnaire implied it may have been poured already, but it wasn't clear to me.

Okay, and then one other question. Is the dimension that's required from the hoop, or how do you calculate that?

Madam Chair, we... We calculate that based upon the striped court. Okay. Whatever's determined to be the edge of the court.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Are there any other questions for staff, Member Looper?

Madam Chair, yeah, I definitely remember the whole pickleball court thing. So the slab doesn't require really any review other than drainage clearance. But once they go vertical with something on, like the basketball hoop then becomes a sport court, or if they stripe it, If it were a portable basketball hoop, one of those that has the weighted base, that wouldn't need any kind of clearance from planning or the board for setback of that, correct?

Madam Chair, Member Loper, that is correct. We've even allowed people to erect portable nets while they're actively in play for things like baseball fields, and then they take them down and the court slash field is no longer there. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant here or representative? I do have a speaker card from Mr. George.

I have Kendra online. Okay. She's unmuted. Did you unmute yourself, Kendra? Yes. Go ahead.

Yes, we have the main reason for. Sorry, please state your name. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Kendra Beringrud. I'm the owner.

Thank you.

Yeah, the main reason for the slab is to help with the drainage in that corner. We get, we're at the bottom of the street, kind of at a, you know, a slope, and we get a lot of drainage from the other properties. So it's just in that back corner, really help with the flow. We do have a sport court on top, but the main purpose for that corner is to help with the drainage flow.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Kendra? I do have one question. Have you considered what Member Loper suggested, which was a portable basketball hoop so that you don't, that would require, would mean that you aren't required to get the variance.

We did, but it just, we wanted more of like the permanent hoop for our kids to play on, but you know, just sturdier.

Okay. Thank you. Hang tight in case we have any other questions. So this other speaker card I have from William George, it does say that he wishes to speak. Oh, you are here. I'm sorry about that. Please come up to the podium, state your name and continue with your comments.

Hello, can you hear me? Hi, I'm William George. I live next door directly to the west. And I have some concerns. Number one, this is already in and it's not portable. it's a really professional looking thing my two concerns mainly i know nick addressed them in his report but i just want to put a little more light on them drainage my lot slopes to the northeast corner so more than half of my lot drains to this area and if you look at that i don't know if you can zoom in on that picture my lot is the one with the madison gold that's an old picture my landscape's grown up quite a bit but you can see where my rip rap wash goes into that area so I'm concerned that since he's gone in there and done some work with it, put the cement in, I don't know what it's going to do to my drainage. Certainly, if it negatively impacts my property, it's going to hurt my property value, and I don't want that. The other thing is the nuisance of this court. The first basketball actually entered my yard on April 26th, and I don't want basketballs in my yard. I don't want the liability of anybody trespassing in my yard to retrieve a basketball. Also don't want basketballs to damage my landscape. I've landscaped my whole lot and it's beautifully done. These are million and a half and up houses. I don't want anything to destroy my landscape. And lastly, I can see this thing from my kitchen and living room and I can hear the ball bouncing with my sliding glass door closed, my windows closed. So that's a concern to me too. So for those reasons, I respectfully request that you deny this variance. Thank you very much. Any questions?

Yes. So first a comment. I just want to make sure you're aware, you know, if they had, if they put a portable basketball hoop or if the striping was 20 feet away, you know, the noise probably wouldn't be any different, but they could still do that without needing this. I just want to make sure you're aware.

I'm aware. I just wanted to make that comment because it definitely affects me. So.

On the drainage, and this may be more of a question for staff, but like, is there an easement in place where he, It's not out of our purview, but it seems odd that someone's lot could be draining onto another person's lot. And I was just wondering if there was an easement that.

Chair Persone, members of the board, to my knowledge, no. Okay. Not to my knowledge.

The lot slope, the lots on that, it's a hillside. So, well, not a hillside. I know that's a special thing, but it's a gently sloping lot, but my water goes that way.

Okay.

And you can see it in the picture.

Madam Chair, it's just historic flows.

Okay. And so then my next question is for you two. You know, is there anything that can be done or through the process? It sounds like this is already built, but is there anything that can be done to help mitigate the drainage that would be outside of what we're acting on today?

Madam Chair, if it's flat work, it should not impede drainage. When we have a construction permit, drainage clearance is always one of the components, and that assures that historic flows are maintained or improved upon post-development. but there is no code that would prevent pouring of impervious surfaces over a great large extent of the property.

Okay, so there's not really oversight for that based on what their specific improvements.

Not for the slab itself at grade without changing elevation, no.

Okay, thank you. Does anyone, okay, let's go with member Boff first.

Just for a matter of clarification, I'm assuming that the basketball standard hoop is placed on the west side closer to the fence. Is that correct? If it's going into his yard, is the basketball hoop... Do you want me to answer? No, I want staff to answer.

Remember, Bob, from the information I have from the owner's questionnaire, the hoop is set back 56 feet from the west lot line. So it may be on the east side of the court from that state based on that statement.

Thank you for pointing that out. So I was trying to understand the question regarding the ball going over to the fence. Hypothetical scenario here. What is portable? If it can be put away. Okay. And so how is this mounted to the ground?

Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, I don't believe we had that information available. The setback is just to the edge of the sport court delineation. But I would assume they're talking about having a footer for a poured in concrete for the permanent basketball hoop.

Okay. You know, it's crazy. I look at this and like someone can put up a portable pickleball net and play all day long right there. The noise that comes from this is typical that you'd expect from a house. And to me, that's not really a factor in evaluating the request. And I was just thinking if it's the difference between portable and permanent is almost negligible. I can't really tell you where I see a distinction between the two of them. And as a pole with a hoop and a backboard, that's probably translucent as opposed to actual structure. To me, my mind has a different degree of distinction as well. A variance for a structure that might be looming over an adjacent property with a neighbor posing probably carries more weight than a hoop that's in a singular spot on the east side of this pad that doesn't have the visual obstruction. And weighing out the circumstances of noise really isn't, I think, something within our consideration. So just the initial thoughts that come to mind based on what I'm seeing here.

Member Loper, did you have a comment or question too?

A couple of things. One is, Nick, I thought in your presentation you mentioned that there is the ability after the fact, if there is a drainage concern, the property owner could bring that up, bring that to the attention of the county. There is some recourse if there was something that happened, even if there wasn't a drainage clearance for the slab because There wasn't one needed necessarily to pour. Is that correct?

Member Loper, I'll be totally honest with you. I'm not exactly sure what the requirements are for drainage clearance when it comes to these concrete slabs. It depends on how it impacts drainage flows, historic drainage patterns. It's possible that the owner could apply for an as-built grading permit. I don't know whether one is needed in this circumstance. I don't know the exact nature of how the slab was poured.

I think Jeremy said. Mr. Chairman, Member Loper, again, flat work at grade will not require any type of grading permit. If there's a perception that drainage has been adversely impacted and the neighbor believes something has occurred, some work has been done without permit, There can always be a zoning complaint filed and we can investigate to see if there's evidence of work without a permit. If the slab was poured a foot above grade and it impacted drainage. But in general, a lot of these are just neighbor issues and civil matters. But if there's unpermitted work and it did require a permit, that is a zoning violation that can be prosecuted.

All right. Thank you. And go ahead, Max.

And remember, if I could just just touch on that issue again, just to clarify that the county does not get involved with private neighbor disputes, the county's only involvement is if there was work done without a permit, the neighbor affected could complain. Actually, anybody could complain. The county would investigate whether a permit was needed if a permit was obtained. But the issue is still happening. It's still a private dispute between neighbors. If there was no permit obtained and was required, then the county code enforcement might get involved. If there was no permit required and whatever was done, maybe it was flat work, but the permit was not required, the county would not get involved. The county only involvement would be requiring the permit.

Thank you. I just kind of wanted the neighbor to know his recourse. And there is a wall. There may be weep holes underneath it. I don't want to get in the weeds too far, but I just wanted the neighbor to understand. And remember Bob mentioned some of the things I was going to as well is that the hoop is on the eastern side of the slab. It appears from the exhibit. And whether it's portable or permanent, the impact is the same the noise is going to be the same it's really the markings of the sport court it's it's the issue of the setback it's not even the vertical component of it correct member loper that is correct so really that's not even an issue it's like with the pickleball it wasn't the net it wasn't that people played pickleball it was that the striping of it caused a setback issue and um It's a slab. No matter what somebody's doing there, things are going to go in the neighbor's yard. That's what happens when you have neighbors. You don't want things to go in your yard. No offense meant, this isn't meant to be that way, but buy all the property around you. I had neighbors. They had kids. Things went in my yard. They came and knocked on my door. I made sure I had a friendly, good relationship with my neighbors. I would encourage you to do that as well. I support this various requests. That's all I had.

Can I add one more thing? Sure. What's interesting, and I think I'm seeing this correctly, but there's a 30-foot McDot right away easement on the east side. Is that correct?

Member Baugh, that is correct.

And so what's unusual about this property is it probably has that dedication on the east side. Is there one on the south side as well?

Uh, member member by, uh, that is correct. I believe on the South side, it's just an easement rather than a dedicated right of way. Um, but there is an easement there.

So what happens is your property is pinched from what you can otherwise be able to avail yourself. So you're kind of left to put your sport court in the top left corner, as opposed to other places, because those, I think the circumstances exist to, to justify the variance relief in this case.

Um, I, I understand that, um, Ms. Berengred would like to speak again, so we'll turn it back over to her.

Chair, I also apparently have a Daniel Henderson that wants to speak. He won't chat with me, but he has raised his hand repeatedly once this case opened. Are you open to having him speak?

Yes, but I'd like to give the property owner a chance to speak first, respond to the comments that have been raised.

Okay. I have Kendra enabled.

Yes, hi, I'm Kendra. The concrete that we're asking has not been poured in that section because we're just asking it to be set off 10 feet from 20 feet, so that isn't. The hoop is on the east side of the property away from the neighbor. You know, quite honestly, he just complains about everything we have in our backyard. He doesn't want noise. He doesn't want lights on or anything. But so that's his own issue. But our we're just asking for more concrete to be set off 10 feet from the wall versus versus 20. But I would like Dan to speak. He is our contractor. He'd be happy to share more information about it.

Thank you. Yeah, Dan, if you could state your name and share your thoughts. Thank you.

I have Dan unmuted.

He needs to unmute his own mic.

And if you can hear us, you need to unmute yourself in the webinar.

We have a backup plan for Dan.

I think it looks like, yep, you're good.

Okay, thank you.

Please proceed.

Can you hear me? Yep. Okay, I'm sorry, I'm having audio issues here, but am I coming through now?

Yes, please state your name for the record.

Okay, Daniel Henderson.

Thank you. And go ahead.

Okay, I just wanted to bring up a couple issues. This is a real problem portion of the Byrne Grood's property because all of the drainage coming from the properties to the west drain through this portion of the yard here. And he has to maintain that 24 inches lower than the rest of his usable space in his yard. So it just ended up being a big weed trap. He elected to go ahead and pour concrete there because he got tired of having to deal with all the weeds and the landscaping cleanup problems back there. So we actually called the county to see if a permit was required. And we were told as long as we didn't impede the flow of the water, if the slab stayed lower than the drainage, then a permit wasn't required. And then once we got ready to pour the concrete, The Byrne group decided they wanted to put a basketball hoop on there just so they could have some use for it. And then that's when we discovered that it turned this thing into a sports court. So it's just the thing about the 30 foot easement on the other side that the other gentleman came in does restrict the choice of where to put some of these type things. So the concrete that's been placed is lower than the drainage flow. It's lower than the drainage blocks on all around so the water can flow over the concrete. And the concrete that's been in place has been held back 20 feet from the neighbor's property because of this easement issue. And all that we're asking is that we can pour the additional 10 feet. There will still be 10 feet remaining between the edge of the concrete and the neighbor's wall. Also, the placement of the hoop was placed on the east side in an effort to, you know, in consideration of the neighbors. So, you know, there's been a lot of thought gone into this and we're just asking to be able to pour that last section of 10 feet of concrete there.

Thank you, appreciate the context.

Okay, that's all I wanted to make.

Are there any more questions for the speakers? All right, keep it brief, but please proceed Mr. George.

Yeah, I just like to clear the air about being a bad neighbor. I mean, I've tried to talk to these people for four years about different things. They put in extremely bright lights that shone into my house, several other homes, tried to speak to them. They wouldn't remediate it. We ended up having to file four other neighbors and I put in something to the county and then they remediated it to make it meet the code. So I've tried to talk to these people and I think they're painting me in a bad light. So regardless of this, I just wanted to clear the air.

Thanks for that. Yeah, I encourage you guys all to to talk offline.

It's kind of I'd love to talk to them. I'd love to have a relationship with them. They don't want.

All right. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to no other speakers, right? I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is also in my district, but happy to hear thoughts from the other folks.

Madam chair. I mentioned previously, I don't have an issue with this variance. You know, there is an option that we talked about with the pickleball court. That's putting a net on the fence, which may or may not spark a variance. I don't know. But that's visually impulsive as well. And again, it's not the basketball hoop and pole that's at issue here. It's the striping of the court. The hoop can stay. If they don't stripe the court, I mean, they could take the concrete and extend that as long as they didn't stripe it, correct?

Madam Chair, Member Loper, it's really the striping helps us demarcate the sport court. Without some kind of demarcation, we would just look at the entire slab.

Okay, okay. So they do need it even if they didn't stripe it?

Correct. If we went out there and there was striping and it was reasonable for a half court basketball court, a residential half court, that's what we would look at. If it just showed the free throw line and the paint, that wouldn't be realistic. So staff would use their own judgment in pacing off what they thought the setback was.

Thank you. I definitely appreciate the clarification because I was wrong in that. But with that said, if no one else wants to speak, I'll make a motion. I would move for approval of BA260035 for the condition in the staff report.

We have a motion by Member Loper. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Member Ward. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Baum?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klopp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. Yeah, I would just encourage all of you, including the applicant, to engage in some conversations. I know it's hard having these issues, having drainage go across your property, having noise, the things that we deal with having neighbors, but hopefully you can find some common ground. All right, we will move on to number five, case BA260038, the REM-free property variance. And I will turn it over to Joel.

Madam Chair, members of the Board, Agenda Item 5's request to allow a zero foot street side setback from the north street line at 16915 South 173rd Way in the Gilbert area. A required setback is 20 feet from the street line, translates to a total of 32 feet from the lot line when you account for the 12 foot ingress-egress easement that runs along the northern edge of the parcel. The applicant is seeking to place a detached casita with an attached garage at that zero-foot line. Next slide. The existing home was built in 1998, and the current owner has held title to the property since 2002. In April 2025, the applicant applied for a building permit for the casita and garage. Zoning plan re-flagged that the garage was placed too close to northern easement. The applicant applied for this variance in April 2026. They've acknowledged that they built an engineered pad there before realizing that the variance was required. Next slide. The lot is rectangular, normal in size, and there's nothing about its physical characteristics that creates a hardship preventing development within the building envelope. The op can build at a pattern-wrong location, and thus any hardship appears to be self-created. There's also an administrative remedy that hasn't been exhausted. The Saragossa Street easement to the north runs only partway along the north lot line. It doesn't extend the full length, and with the consent of the adjacent property owner, the applicant could pursue abandonment of some or all that easement since both both parcels retain access via 173rd way abandonment does appear to be a realistic option if the easement is terminated for the west street side setback only applies up to that point which may be enough to bring the casita in appliance without a variance this time i'm happy to answer any questions um thank you joel so i'm having a hard time reconciling i don't know if you can you can see but this exhibit that's showing

the diagonal garage and then this aerial. Where is the proposed structure going on the aerial?

So the proposed structure is just to the north of the existing home. So you have the existing home and then to northeast of that is the casita and the garage extends from the casita to that zero lot line. It's very northwestern edge.

Okay. And then you're saying if the easement were abandoned, they wouldn't need the variance.

So they may not need the variance. It depends on the design ultimately, but they would have other options rather than obtaining a variance.

Okay.

I appreciate that. Any other questions for Joel? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Awesome. So many of you. Rochambeau and figure out who's going to come down and speak.

So my name is Ted Tabor. I'm the general contractor and friends of the family here. And so what we're hoping to do, we've got some parents that need assistance. The owner is the son or son-in-law and daughter of this property. So they're hoping to build this ADU so that they can help care for the aging parents. And we didn't have these until this morning. But we've got some letters from the existing property owners around there that's lived there. This one says, I've lived here for 25 years and that we have no problem with this ADA being built. We've got some other letters. We have one more letter that we weren't able to get this morning. She forgot to hand it over to us this morning. But we have four homeowners that live in the adjacent property that are fine with this construction that we want to do.

Thank you. Any questions for our speaker? Hearing none, are there any other people online or in the audience that would like to speak? Okay, I'm not hearing any either, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board. This is in District, Line Member Baaz District.

I imagine in these larger lots, it's probably a septic tank. Right. And so subject tank leach field probably has some restrictions on where you can place a structure. Recognizing I think the practicality of having that close to the existing structure as opposed to somewhere else on the lot and to arrive at the same result by creating an extra process which would be abandonment seems unnecessary when we can come to the same point. And so recognizing like this lot and its orientation, it's shared easing with the adjacent neighbor. I'm comfortable making the motion when ready.

Please proceed.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion by Member Abad. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Member Loper. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

vice chair clap yes member loper yes chair person yes member ward yes madam chair we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero thank you best of luck um we will move on to number six case ba260039 and back to daniel

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, case BA260039, the otherwise known as a TAY property is located at 10343 West Pinehurst Drive, 103rd Avenue in Pinehurst in the Sun City area. The site size is 10,000 square feet. There was a handout memo that clarified the size and the lot number in the subdivision. The, the request is to Reduce the size of Southwest or side setback of five down to zero to accommodate and as built carport that had been built without a building permit around September 2011 The current owner took possession of the property in 2022 and by 2025 received a violation for the unpermitted structure. Based on what the applicant has submitted, staff offers the following observations. Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. The property is already developed with a single-family residence that meets zoning code requirements. The unpermitted structure does have, we do have some concerns about the stormwater adjacent to the, that might drain onto the adjacent site. However, photos do show that there is A water spout that empties towards the front of the property. Um, but at the, but at the property line with the adjacent neighbors. Also, there is a concern that the public utilities that he's been present along the Southwestern property line, um, may not. may not achieve zoning clearance because zoning clearance will not clear for structures that interact or are proposed to be built within the public utilities easement. If you have any questions, thank you.

Sorry, we see that last part again. What can maybe not be approved?

Uh, the, the zoning clearance may not be given because, uh, structures are not allowed to, um, impede public utilities easements. And there's a 5 foot public utility. But this is a clearance for something else, not for the building to reduce the building setback or or actually wave it.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, are there any other questions for Daniel?

I ask a question. Um, this was cantilevered with the posts. proximate to the house, but no posts near the adjacent property line, would the canopy be permitted?

Yes, Madam Chair, Member Baugh. It's still subject to setbacks, but the ordinance allows for certain protrusions above ground level I believe three feet into any required setback. And EVE overhangs can encroach at least two feet into setbacks for the primary structure. So there's certain allowances if it was designed, but I don't believe this is a zero setback. So this would not grab to this quantity, probably not.

Do we have any correspondence from the adjacent neighbor?

Member Balda, I'm not aware of any correspondence from the neighbors.

Do we know who filed the complaint? Or was it like an inspector observed it?

It would have been a citizen-generated complaint. We don't have staff-generated complaints. Quite likely it's that neighbor, but we try to maintain the anonymity of complaints.

Yes, Member Clark. I assume this is in the HOA. Has the HOA said anything about it?

Member Clapp, I did not receive correspondence from the HOA after notification.

Any other comments for Daniel? We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here online?

I have Lori online. Lori, you just need to unmute.

Hi, I'm Lori Tye. I'm the owner. And yes, the complainant. Do you hear me?

We can. Thank you. Okay.

Sorry about that. The actual complainant is the neighbor next door that happened to be a developer that bought the house. And he had redone the house and wanted to put a carport himself over there and was denied by the permitting process. And so that was the reasoning for him to turn and to do the complaints. He also turned in possibly four or five other neighbors for the same process. As far as that, the new owner just barely moved in last week. We've talked and discussed with her. She doesn't have a problem with the carport and the water actually has enough of a drainage that goes down into the front towards the planner. we do have the opportunity to that downspout there's also one on the back of the carport so we could definitely block that down sport so it would actually go into the backyard instead of the front if that becomes a problem this was built two owners ago went through the title process and it was never disclosed that it wasn't. So it was unaware to us. Our main reason for purchasing this property was for the fact that it did already have this carport structure already built. That was a requirement for my husband to have his truck put under the shade. So that's really not an option for us. It was just what we had planned. So it was a surprise to us that this was not a permitted structure. As far as the utilities easement, I do not see on any of the deeds or the recording where this is a utilities easement. That pole is not in my backyard. It is in the back of my neighbor's yard. All of my utilities come in off of the, it would be the west northwest side of the property so we had discussed before about moving uh the carport to put it on the other side of the house but the sewer the water and the gas um comes in off of that northwest side of this odd cul-de-sac that we do live on

Thank you. Yeah, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate also that you've been reaching out to the neighbor. Does anyone have any questions for Mrs. Tai, Mr. Chairman, or Member Loeber?

Just one, and I appreciate you working to make this correct. Have you had any discussions at all with the HOA? And I don't know if this is CORA or the other. Shoah. Shoah.

Yes, I have had conversations with Shoah, and it was Larry. I can't think of his last name right now. And he said that it was out of his hands and it was the county's. They'd had no record of it. I've talked to certain neighbors that also got turned in. They said that Shoah approved their carports back when they were done. They all had them done about the same time. And it was through the Shoah, it was Gary, So, but they don't have any record of that either. So this definitely became a toss and tug between, is it the counties? Is it the Shoahs? Shoahs setbacks this, counties is that. So that's, we're trying to get a little clarification with that here.

So has Shoah taken the official position that they support this or approve it?

We have a new Shoah. representative in our area and when i did talk to her she was fine with it uh she didn't have a problem but she said that it is the maricopa county takes precedence over her well she's correct that we only deal with the maricopa county regulations but i do know that show it wields a mighty sword so to speak so i was just curious that's that i think that gets to the point though

I've worked with Shoah and they haven't been bashful in opposing things when they haven't liked what I brought for them. But the absence of them speaks volumes. Yes.

All right. Thank you. That's all I had. Member Clapp has a question as well.

Just a comment. This appears that this has been there for 15 years. Yes. So that has some impact on me as to why the HOA is probably not opposing it.

Are there any other folks in the audience or online that would like to speak on this item?

Chair, we don't have anyone else online.

Okay, thank you. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is in District 4.

Madam Chair, if it's okay, I'll go ahead and make a motion. For BA 260039, I move for approval per the condition noted in the staff report.

Do we have a motion by Member Loper? Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member Clapp. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Baum?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Person? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. Best of luck. This is Ty. Okay, so the next three are all sort of the same. handle them all separately darren uh i'll uh oh the first one's different yeah oh okay i'll leave that up to strike that from there okay we'll move on to number seven case ba260048 and i'll turn it over to daniel

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. Case BA260048, KG Rentworth, LLC, Boise property, located at 197 North 81st Street in Mesa is a 7,672 square foot property, currently vacant, zoned multifamily R5. The request is a north side street side setback reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet, as well as a reduction in the rear yard from the west from 25 feet to 5 feet. This is in request to accommodate a future right-of-way for 81st Street, which has a halfway street of 50 feet, where the significant setback would be in conflict that's the request here is. To accommodate the. single family residents. In the in the current small lot size happy to answer any questions, thank you any questions for Daniel.

Member clap.

uh the report says this is a duplex can you describe a duplex to me because it appears it's a single family with an adu so correct yes madam chair uh member clap originally they were proposing a duplex uh a series of duplexes along this street they've changed those plans so that they've reoriented every one of these buildings so instead of facing 81st Street to the west, they're facing a north-south easement on the east side and they've changed each of the duplexes to a single-family dwelling with attached casita, which means they share a driveway and they're oriented and the driveways connect on the north-south street to the east. So the next two cases, agenda items 9 and 10, are the same request with regard to the west setback line. So In order to accommodate the fact that the ultimate half street along 81st was not shown on the original site plans accurately, and permits were originally issued on some of these lots, not all, but some, Staff Acquiesce is saying show the ultimate half street correctly, reorient the lots with a single driveway onto the east, and have the lots back onto 81st seek variances for the rear setbacks so that's what's happening all up and down 81st avenue on this block we saw one of these cases last month of the month before i believe you saw three last month and three this month um but this was staff request to reorient the buildings it it is correct we believe uh it's an improvement to what was originally proposed based on the fact that the um site plans were erroneous and staff issued the permits without proper setback on the west is there i really can't tell from the drawing very well if there's adequate room there to have ingress egress on the new front side of the these buildings absolutely yes they meet they meet setbacks it didn't it wasn't clear to me but thank you the just so you're aware the this is all A lot of things have changed since you've been on the board with regard to some of the regulatory reform. The new ordinance, one of the changes to the new ordinance that came in effect January 9th is that residential zoning, the front setback has decreased from 20 feet to 10 feet. But each of these has approximately 20 feet because they all have the 18 foot driveway length.

Okay, thank you. The reason for the 80 foot driveways to accommodate to one question and I think you addressed it, it says that when they were developing these I guess the site plans that there was a recent dot right away discovered when did they find this out.

that's what I was speaking to there's not any change. The site plans did not reflect the fact that there's also a 25 foot half width required on the east side of the street. They showed 81st, they just showed the west half. The site plan appeared to show adequate setback from 81st, but they failed to show the ultimate street line. They didn't show the east half that's required by ordinance. Some permits were issued, Only only a handful of these half dozen or so were issued. But it affected the design, all the way up and down the street so.

We believe we reach somewhat of a compromise and ask them to take these variances okay that clears up one of my questions yeah I appreciate you guys getting creative to work together any other questions for Darren or Daniel. All right, we will open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here or online wishing to speak? Yes, sir.

Hello, my name is Kyle Gardner. I own the first two properties on the docket and represent the owner on the third. I don't have anything to add. I greatly appreciate the, although the issues we've run into greatly appreciate all the staff helping us to find a solution that works for all of us.

Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gardner? Appreciate it. And anyone else online?

Chair, we don't have anybody registered to speak on it.

Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board. This is in District 2.

I'd like to make a motion to approve VA 260048 subject to the conditions in the staff report.

We have a motion by Member Clapp. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member Ba. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klap? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson?

Yes.

Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. All right, we will move on to number eight, BA260049, the adjacent property. I know this only has one of the variances, but feel free to share.

Madam Chair, we don't have any additional information to present for 8-9. If you want to just go ahead and hear from the applicants.

And then, Mr. Gardner, do you have to open the public hearing? Mr. Gardner says no. Anyone else wanting to speak?

Chair, we don't have any raised hands on this item.

Okay. Close the public hearing. We'll turn this over to the board as well for case VA-26-0050. or I'm sorry, not 0050, 0049, but okay.

Yeah.

I make a motion to approve VA 260049 subject to the conditions in the report. Excellent.

Motion by Member Clapp. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member Ba. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson?

Yes.

Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. It's like Groundhog Day, but we're going to do the next one, number nine. Yes, and I'm almost the same. Case BA 260050, the Landvetter property. Daniel, anything you would like to add on this one?

No, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Appreciate that. We'll open the public hearing and Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Would you like to add anything? Okay. No one else online?

Correct, Chair. We don't have anyone online.

Okay. We will close the public hearing, and I will turn this over to the board for comment or a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve BA 260050, subject to conditions in the staff report.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Member Bob. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klap? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Great, thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, we will move on to number 10, which is case BA260051, the Oswald property. And I will turn that over to Daniel again.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Case BA260051, Allsvault Property, is a request for an additional 2% in the rear yard lot coverage, where 30% is the maximum allowed, and an accessory dwelling unit of over 1,000 feet that exceeds the size of the primary dwelling unit. The property owner is anticipating to build two of the properties, one as a primary residence and one as a secondary residence. These are both manufactured homes. The primary residence building permit was approved, however, the owner was unable to get the ADU approved and received a violation for the two mobile homes being moved onto the property. Before the building permit can be approved, the variance would be required for both structures to be allowed to be built on the property. There is really no peculiar condition of the lot that prevents reasonable development of the property. The property owner may adjust the sizes of the mobile home. I'm not sure if he likely must have invested in these already. but there are no encumbrances to the property that prevent reasonable development. Happy to answer any questions.

I just have one question. What was the reason that the ADU permit wasn't issued and was withdrawn?

The applicant states that staff notified him of the new zoning ordinance requirement that the ADU must remain either 75% size of the primary residence or up to 1,000 square feet. And so the ADU that he chose exceeds 176 square feet of the minimum required, of the maximum allowed.

Okay, so they were notified, withdrew the permit request, but then just put the thing on the property.

Okay.

Is the ADU a site constructed and then placed on the property? Both are manufactured homes, yeah.

City Council Chambers, There any other questions for Daniel never clap but according to this picture they're both sitting there right there on the property now so to adjust the ad you would have to be removed and we fabricated. Okay.

City Council Chambers, Any other questions for staff right open the public hearing is the applicant or applicants representative here online.

Chair, I believe it's Angie.

David, if you can unmute her mic.

Yeah, I'm doing that now.

Thank you.

Angie, you're unmuted if you want to unmute on your end.

Okay, here I am. Thank you. Yeah, I know Rob is on.

Sorry, can you just state your name for the record, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Angie Cowden with Priority Permits. Thank you, please proceed. I know that Rob is on the call as well. So initially he purchased these two manufactured homes and he had done some research and like Daniel had said, had contacted the county. And at that time, if I'm correct, at that time, the percentage of square footage between the ADU and the primary residence was not as it is in January or when it changed here recently. So he did purchase both of these home anticipating putting them on there. We can reduce the percentage in the rear yard by reducing the awnings. And so we can meet that requirement, but he was looking, hoping to, you know, understand and get your approval to be able to put the manufacturer, the ADU on there, excuse me, as a, as a second residence. And that would go over the 75% just a little bit. But yeah, that was what he was hoping. And I don't know if Rob is available to speak or if he can right now.

Chair, as far as I know, Rob is not online.

OK. Angie, hang tight. I do have a question for staff. Angie just commented, and I do see this in the applicant's comment on the application, that there was a change in the ordinance at the time of the application.

Can you clarify that?

Madam Chair, prior to January 9th, the county allowed a single accessory dwelling unit. without limitation. It could be treated like any attached, detached accessory dwelling and could be as close as three feet to lot lines, 30 feet high. It could be attached, in which case it's part of the primary building, needs to be within the principal building envelope. So there's been changes in state law and January 9th, the ordinance is updated to come to alignment with the new changes. We now allow multiple accessory dwelling units, accessory to a single family dwelling, and they can be attached or detached. You can have one attached, one detached. You can have a second detached accessory dwelling unit, but it has to be limited to affordable rental if you're over an acre in size. If you're over an acre in size, the accessory dwelling units can be the same size as the primary. If you're under an acre in size, they're limited to 75% of the primary or 1,000 square foot, whichever is less. And that's what you're dealing with today with the variance. Also, today, these accessory dwelling units, if detached, cannot be closer than five foot to a lot line and cannot be higher than 18 feet if outside the principal building envelope. So those are more restrictive than what was originally applied, other than the fact that now you can have multiple of these units, whereas before you can only have a single one. Does that answer that?

Yeah, so the high level, you know, they could have been contemplating this. And if that change hadn't been made, the 1,000 square feet, 75% thing wouldn't be before us, just the lot coverage.

That is correct. And if their permit was in and had had technical review before January 9th, we would have allowed them to continue as long as they completed that permit by July 9th. At this point, I believe it may not have been possible for them to have completed a permit by July 9th. Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, Member Clapp. Okay, you can put one building on and it has to be no more than 75% of the original house. What size can the second building be?

For lots that are under an acre, the second ADU can be up to 75% of the size of the primary dwelling unit or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.

You can't actually put 2000 square foot at us on a lot that's less than an acre.

No, on a lot that's less than an acre at the at you would be limited to either 75% of the primary dwelling unit size or 1000 square feet, whichever is the least you can't put a second. Correct.

Correct.

Yes, that's right.

That's what I was.

Thank you, member cut. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay.

And then I got a question. Yes, go for it. The applicant said that they would be okay with removing the awnings. I think there's two awnings, correct? One on each side.

Madam Chair, Member Clapp, I've calculated it using the livable area. So my calculations do not consider the awnings.

It doesn't matter. Okay.

Thank you. I'm going to hang tight for a minute because I feel like Max and Darren are about to share something else.

Can I make a comment? Of course. When you look at the homes on 83rd Place from Apache Trail, the north down and east of 83rd Place, almost every one of those lots As an accessory structure in the back of significant size and when I think through the nature of the request to deviation go to open 30 to 32% I don't even know if that's perceptible to anybody living on that street if it's visible secondly. The manufactured homes behind them are probably consuming, by the way, I know it's a totally different zoning district, but just for practicality purposes, each one of those manufactured homes is absorbing most of their individual spaces. And so when I think through like the compatibility of this request and the consistency of what's happening in the area, the nature of the variance is so minor, but it's not out of character with what's happening in that area.

Thank you for that. Darren, was there anything you wanted to add?

No, we were just discussing the fact that the legislature had indicated this is coming, you know, set an effective date, and we were effective in alignment with that effective date. But there was a warning to the public that these certain things were coming. We had the ability at the county to continue to maintain the 30-foot maximum height and the three foot minimum setback. But we tighten those up with the allowance for multiple accessory dwellings to stay in alignment with what was in statute. Statute says you have to allow them to be at five feet. We were allowing them to be at three. Now we're pushing it back to five.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Then I'll turn it over to the board. This is in District 2.

Based on the conversation, I move to approve BA 260051 subject to the conditions in the staff report.

We have a motion by Member Clapp. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member Bob. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Bob?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Thank you.

All right, we'll move on to our final item, case BA260056, the Carrillo property variance, and I will turn it over to Joel.

Madam Chair, members of the board, agenda item 11 is a request to reduce the required front setback from 40 feet to 9 feet at 9436 West Missouri Avenue in the Glendale area to allow an unpermitted carport to remain in its current location. The property is an open violation for constructing the carport without a permit and for parking commercial equipment on the site. The applicant filed for a building permit in May 2026 to resolve the carport violation, at which point zoning review determined a variance was required due to the carport's location in the front yard. The applicant's narrative states that the carport was built before the current owner took possession of the property in 2018. The staff's review tells a different story. Imagery from 2018, when the current owner acquired the property, shows the carport location vacant. The most recent aerials from late 2025 also show no carport structure. The only evidence of the carport's existence is the photographs submitted by the applicant and those taken by co-compliance during the violation investigation in April and May of 2026. Next slide. Setting aside the dispute on timing, there does not appear to be a peculiar condition. The wall is flat, rectangular, and of a normal size. There's nothing about its physical characteristics that creates a hardship preventing placement of a carport within the building envelope. The carport can simply be rebuilt in a compliant location. Next slide. To grant this, the board must find a peculiar physical condition not common to the area, not self-imposed. A strict application creates an unnecessary hardship, and that grant invariance preserves the ordinance intent. Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition here. The property is unremarkable in every physical respect. and the hardship appears self-created, the carport can be rebuilt in a compliant location. At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. So to clarify, and even at these aerials, there's no carport, and it is now built in this big green area.

Madam Chair, that's correct.

Thank you. Any other questions? Member Loper?

Joel, do you have any correspondence back from Glendale on

The Madam Chair, Member Loper, I did not. No.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Joel? All right. Hearing none, we'll open the public hearing. I do have a speaker card. Angelica, would you like to come down to the podium, please?

Hi, my name is Angelica Carrillo, and I have the, she is my translator because I don't speak English.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Diana Saucedo. I'm also the assistant from the general contractor. So I'm here helping her.

Okay. Please share your presentation.

um um How do you say? Without informing about the limits of my house or if I can do it or not. Only guided by the neighbors that they were doing the same thing and it made it easy for me to hire the same person to make a shadow for my cars.

She said she's very sorry to build this shade because she hires the same person who was building the same shape in different areas from the neighborhood. And she's very truly sorry about the situation. She's willing to work with you that she can have a permit or any requirements for to leave this shade in her property. and actually we have photos from different like homes or neighborhoods they have the same shape the same shape from that area i don't know if i can pass it along to you so you can have it yes thank you you can give them to ron

también estoy aquí dispuesta a arreglar las cosas y les pido por favor que tomen un momento para ver mi situación porque he gastado mucho dinero y se me hace muy difícil quitar todo y es solo una sombra para mis carros

PB, Lupita D Montoya- She wants to work with you, because she spent a lot of money building these shade and she's willing obviously that she can work with the situation because she only make it for like a purpose for like a card no for commercial and she's not even bother any lines or like the street or the sewer.

PB, Lupita D Montoya- Thank you. There may be some other questions. I have one. So when Joel gave his presentation, he mentioned that the applicant shared that this structure had been in place when they bought the property, but it obviously hasn't since the aerial show. Otherwise, can you clarify? Maybe there was a miscommunication there.

Okay, she built that thing. It was not included when she bought the property, so she made it. Because all their neighbors, they were building the same shape.

Thank you. Are there any other comments for the applicant? Member Loper?

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation coming here today. It sits on an existing slab, correct? There's not a slab, a new slab underneath it?

No, no.

It's far from portable, but it would appear that there are other places it could be put on the property. You'd have to pour a slab, but are there other areas you could put it?

It's the only area that she has.

Otherwise, she has to remove trees to place the shade in that different area. And also remove the wall from the area. Yeah, it's aligned with a property.

So that's why if she move it, she has to remove trees and the burial, the wall from the property.

Thank you. Yes, please.

These photos have created more confusion than they helped. So I need to get proper orientation on this. So these are the other properties?

Yes. For the record, the photos that the applicant provided are of other properties in the neighborhood that have similar structures that all look to be very close to the property line.

Madam Chair, if you look on the aerial, the bottom is the south, that's the street. You can see there's the driveway, the concrete driveway into the west or to the right. There seems to be a slab. That area is kind of unimpended by trees. That's where this carport structure is. And is that a slab or is that just dirt with grass on it or something?

Um, I remember it was built so recently that it wouldn't appear on these aerials. The most recent one we have available is the one in the separate showing the complete structure. I can't tell exactly whether the slides are at that point, but I would have to assume so.

And what I was going to point out was what the applicant just alluded to, the mature trees, if you push it back from the street, you are going to have to remove those trees. And it's up to you whether or not you consider in the desert the existence of mature deciduous trees to be topographical constraints that warrant a peculiar condition and a hardship. That's a value call.

I do have another question for the applicant. So we did receive two letters of opposition. Have you spoken to other people to try to address their concerns?

Has hablado con otras personas para ver este tipo de problema? Porque recibieron unas cartas. No. No, not all.

OK, and that to me is kind of meaningful, but I do understand that there are other properties that have similar structures, but I would encourage you to

chat with the neighbors does anyone else have questions for these ladies remember clap is there commercial equipment on this property no it's just for um the cars literally basically so it's not like commercial at all do you have any pictures that might show commercial equipment on the property

Madam Chair, Madam McClap, the aerial that's in the staff report is the most recent aerial of the site. You know, I have received reports because I spoke with people who were opposed that mentioned some commercial activity going on the site. I'm aware of the violation. I don't know if the vehicles related to that violation are visible on the site in this aerial.

Is it commercial activity or is it doing auto repair or? What is the nature of the activity that they're asking?

Madam Chair, Member Barr, unfortunately, I don't have that in front of me, so I'm not aware of the exact nature of the violation. I do know it's for some type of operating of a commercial business.

Yeah, one of the opposition letters stated that there were cars, but also heavy equipment. That's why we're trying to get some clarification on what is taking place in that area.

They have a park garage truck over there, but they don't do it for like commercial uses in the property.

It's just for parking only. Garbage truck? Yeah.

And Madam Chair, Member Baha, we do allow, if a work vehicle is otherwise a passenger vehicle, we just consider that part of the residence. They could drive it to work. Understood.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I just have comments, but I'll wait.

Okay. Are there any other folks online that wish to speak?

Chair, we don't have anybody online.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board for comment. This is in District 4. OK.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I'll open the discussion. I have a problem with this variance request. And I think everyone on here up here knows, and I know staff knows, that I tend to support pretty much Every variance that comes before me because I see alternatives that make them. Anyway, I have a tough time with this various because there are options and the options are moving in another place on the property and I appreciate wanting to preserve trees, but this is fairly major frontage I work in the area. And I'm going to, I should have before today, but I'm going to make a point of driving by this to see it in person because I'm curious how it looks. But this is a fairly large structure. We're talking about 2,400, right? Am I doing my math right? 2,400 square foot structure out in front of a property. That's behind a major development in the city of Glendale, which I surprised Glendale didn't comment on it. I'm not in favor of it, but I also want to give the applicant an opportunity to number one, maybe talk to your neighbors. I don't know that that really goes anywhere and maybe I'm just kicking the can. But I would like you to consider some alternatives, so maybe i'm postponing the inevitable, but i'm inclined i'm inclined this point and I guess i'll hear from the other board members, one of two things. Right, a motion for denial or emotion for continuance for a month to see if there's some options, the applicant. could come up with that might actually result in a withdrawal of the application altogether. I'll just leave it at that for right now.

Thank you. Member Ba?

I'm inclined to make a motion for denial. The concern that I have is the size of the structure relative to the proximity of Missouri Avenue. I actually wouldn't even have a problem with a structure close to Missouri Avenue. It's almost the entire length of the property David Daley, Ph.D.: You know, I think one of the things that I think about when I think about people who live in this community and how that communities characterized David Daley, Ph.D.: There, there are large David Daley, Ph.D.: setbacks on the front yards and all of them. David Daley, Ph.D.: And And I think that's an intentional character trait of this community, I agree, there are other structures, probably within this neighborhood that are likely reflecting these photos. But one I don't know if those are all the same circumstances on the street like this one is in Secondly, I don't find it particularly persuasive because of the massing of this as opposed to something smaller. I can appreciate your your. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Accommodation for potential containers, but I don't think it changes anything for me and HAB-Jacques Juilland- For that reason, HAB-Jacques Juilland- By the way, for its worth their 95th Avenue frontage has structure after structure of the structure and even another structure. And so at some point you've kind of HAB-Jacques Juilland- Overbuilt on this property which shouldn't happen because it's relatively large property. So I think I'm I'm ready to make a motion if there's no other discussion.

Any other comments? I'll just share. I agree with everything you guys said. I do see how sometimes someone might think, oh, all these other people did it so I can do it and maybe didn't understand the process. But I think those other pictures also look quite a bit smaller and more like a carport for a single vehicle. But yeah, please proceed if you'd like to make a motion. Motion to deny. We have a motion to deny by Member Ba. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Member Loper. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klap? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for a denial by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. Sorry for that. I hope you guys can chat with staff about next steps. Are there any other matters that we need to talk about today? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thanks all for your time.