Hillside Building Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Good morning. It is 8 AM on Wednesday, September 9, 2026. I'm going to call the Hillside Building Committee meeting to order. I'd like to just start with introductions, and we'll go around the table. My name is Scott Jarson. I'm a citizen member of the committee. I am the current chair. Blair Portical, citizen member.

Bill Nisikas, member of the Planning Commission, sitting in for

Planning Commissioner Bob Brown. Thank you. Good morning. Jim Rose, member of the Planning Commission. Welcome.

Jennifer Bryant-Nagel, Planning Commission.

Welcome. Orly Young, Management Analyst.

Juan Gonzalez, Associate Engineer.

I'm Jose Mendez. I'm the Hillside Planner. Chad Weaver, Community Development Department Director.

That's great. Thank you all.

Thank you all for being here today. Just a reminder now that we're called to order, that from time to time the committee may need to convene with the town attorney in an executive session to discuss any of the matters on the agenda today. And if we need to do that, we will make a motion and clear the room and then invite everybody back in after that fact. a number of application reviews. This morning, we're going to start with Staff Report A26-218. And this is a discussion and possible action on a combined review for a redesign of a previously approved remodel in addition to a single family residence located at 7121 North 64th Place. Jose.

Good morning, everybody. So as the chair mentioned, this property is located at 7121 North 64th Place. We can see it here in the center of town. It is zoned R43 Hillside. And then this is aerial view of the property in question. So this home has a previous Hillside approval for a second story addition of approximately 796 square feet over the garage of the existing single family residence. This was presented to the Hillside Committee on January 15 of this year. This proposal is for a redesign of the previously approved addition and the new patio enclosure. So in essence, this was the previous approval from January 15th. From the street side, once we can get that street side view, this is the garage, and then this is the addition that was approved over it. Pretty simple. The addition did not change any of the heights. It was conforming to all the regulations. The Hillside Code states that additions that expand the footprint of the home typically have to go through the committee. This one did not expand the footprint of the home, but it was very visible from the street. As soon as I can get the street view to work. So this is where the addition is going. And so as mentioned, that is very visible from the street. It's going to change the look of the home. And so that is why it was presented to the committee. This was, as I mentioned, the previous approval. So this is where that addition was going. In essence, this is the addition now. And so as you can see here, the roof lines were modified. This is a spec of the roof and how that has a lip on it. There's an existing solar pool heating collector that is on the roof that will remain. You can kind of see it here. And so then that'll stay in place. And then the applicant did provide also this roof detail so then the roof will pretty much stay the same in this area. There is a modification on this side. This was a patio that was open and so now this is showing the new roof line. You can see here the outline of the previous roof and so now that is going to be enclosed This is the material I provided. So the new edition will match the existing Benjamin Moore brown tar. And so this is the rendering of what that new edition will look like. That concludes my presentation. At this point, I would like to invite the applicant if they have anything to add to it.

OK. Well, thank you. Seems pretty straightforward. A few changes from last time we saw it. When I go back to the existing flat portions of the roof, are they compliant color now, or are they still kind of hanging out there and lighter than?

I believe this was the most recent aerial view from the county assessor's website. Yeah. Yeah, so it still looks to be a non-compliant, but the roof material will be matching. It will.

OK, great. Well, that was my big question here. And then the roof over the addition will be steel roof to match existing. OK, good. We'll open it to committee if there's any other questions or comments. Is there anyone from the community to speak on this application? Nice and quiet. Well, with no other comments or questions, I'd open up for a motion or consider one myself. Why don't I jump right in? I would move to approve item A, 26218, This is a combined review for the remodel in addition to the single-family residence at 7121 North 64th Place. I recommend we approve this application with stipulations as provided by staff. Second. Let's go to the vote. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? None.

Congratulations.

Now the good work begins. And thank you for bringing that back to us because I think it was just the scope of that is enough that it needed all eyes on. All right, we're moving at a nice pace this morning. We're moving to the next item on our agenda, which is B26-221. This is discussion and possible action on a combined review for landscaping and courtyard walls to existing single-family residents located at 7010 North 59th Place. Jose.

So as you mentioned, this is an application for a combined review. It is located at 7010 North 59th Place. It is here in Mountain. The property is zoned R43. It is on the border, and it is a hillside property. This is the home. So this proposal, as mentioned, is for new landscaping for low courtyard walls and the new paved walkway with landscaping for the existing single-family residence. The existing home received formal review approval on June 14th of 2023. At the time, the applicant had provided a landscape plan. It was pretty sparse compared to other applications we've had. For this property, as you can see from this aerial view, their landscaping was pretty much restricted to this area here. and then this area that was enclosed with the whole area. They were asked to do some more plantings around this side, which they did to restore that undisturbed area back to natural to what it was before. But overall, they didn't have much with their landscape plan previously. So this is the home in question. And the previous address faced this other street, which was Indian Bend. So when they developed this new home, the entrance and address changed to 59th Place. I just wanted to mention that as well. And so in essence, this is the entrance to the home. And the front door is here. So as you can see, the landscaping is pretty minimal. As part of the code, whenever we have linear walls that are more than 16 feet, It has to be brought to the committee. So that is part of the main reason why it is brought to the committee, in addition to landscaping that is pretty extensive. So the plan for this entryway. is to add 144 feet of linear walls. The walls are approximately 32 inches. In essence, they will create a courtyard entrance in this area. They are pretty low. And then they are updating the walkway here. This new update will not impact any of the grading and drainage. These are pictures of that site, which we just saw on Street View. And then this is a detail of that wall. These are the pavers for that walkway that are going to be updated. And the LRV is 33, which is below that LRV of 38. This is the landscape plan that the applicant provided. So the majority of these plants are Sonoran desert plants. I think the only A concern or question that we had was for the grass, that blonde ambition grass. So I noted in my report, so although blonde ambition Butyloa gracilis, or blue grama. It is native to Arizona. It typically grows at middle elevations, above 3,500 feet, rather than the lower desert floor of the Phoenix metro area. However, the species is native to the region. It is widespread around in North America. And it is a specific, this blue ambition is a specific patented cultivar. that was selected for ornamental landscaping. We have had it presented previously with the committee. The only concern that staff had is there's 156 of it. But other than that, the rest of the plants are native. In addition to the landscaping, they are also adding Landscape lights. So that'll be in the form of a fixture bulb that ranges between 90 and 209 lumens. The maximum is 250. And this is for hanging lights. There is a stipulation that they cannot exceed 8 feet tall per the Hillside Ordinance. And so these lights would just be placed here in this driveway area. And you can see them here marked in the red. So there will be a total of nine down lights that will be added. And that does conform to the hillside ordinance. This is spec of the light, as mentioned. And then this is an illustration, a rendering of what that landscaping will look like. And then that added a low courtyard wall. That concludes my presentation. At this point, I'd like to invite the applicant to join us if they want to add anything. Thank you.

Yeah, I think I'll have you come up, because I have a couple questions. So if there's an open chair, and then just state your name. I just wanted to, can we point out the location of those 156 grasses to be installed?

So we did try to contain them all behind that low courtyard wall so they're in a more private area. And since it is 32 inches tall, they're not going to exceed that height of the wall. It's kind of more to just create that lush courtyard entrance for the resident themselves. We tried to screen it with a lot vertical cacti in the front and more native plants. So from the street, you're still getting that nice vegetation.

I just harbor a little concern in researching this plant, because it's come in a couple of times. And it does put out wind-borne seed bracts. And I kind of worry about it in an all-side condition, because it's new. And the jury's not out if it's 100% containable. It is within the root rhizomes, but it's not necessarily within the seed. So has there ever been any thought Perhaps a substitute for a grass in there, something a little more hillside appropriate?

We could definitely research something if that's a stipulation you recommend. I will say in non-hillside cases, we followed similar planting plans and designs with the confined space of the Blonde Ambition because it does provide that nice aesthetic. And we haven't noticed issues of those spores traveling to nearby planting areas because I'm sure you've seen a lot of reviews where it's very separated from other areas, whether it's a cacti garden or a rose area. And so we haven't noticed that with this cultivar, but we can research if it's a heavy concern for the committee.

Great. Thank you. Hey, maybe we could put up an illustration. We've got an elevation of that courtyard, I think, where we can just see it for the committee. I see. Yeah.

And what this elevation is, or I'm sorry, what this rendering is showing is if you were standing right next to that wall area. So it's standing right about here where my mouse is, right? It's not like you're standing here at this side. Right.

Yeah. So they are close up, contained within that courtyard.

Right. Yeah. That was the goal. Nice and separated.

Nice. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee?

Can you put what the prior picture you had showed the courtyard? Is this the condition? Yes. So it looked like in that original picture The current proposed landscape plan is filling in that whole side, the other side.

Yes. So we're proposing additional plantings. We have some cacti and some trees so that it's a nice view from both the neighbor and as you're coming down that drive, but also a little portion Like that walkway isn't going to be as dramatic off of the driveway, so there's room for increased planting space there, because we're shortening that pathway with the La Jolla pavers as well.

I just wanted to ensure that. Thank you.

Staff, do you have any concern with the retaining walls? I think they're a nice addition, but do you see any issues?

No. OK.

Well, I don't know. I feel like Don Quixote sometimes with grasses on hillside. There was a time when Mexican fountain grass seemed like a really good idea. And now I see this everywhere. And we're fighting all these grasses. And you don't really necessarily know they're invasive until they become invasive. And this is a new hybrid species. I have no reason to think that it would, except for the way it distributes seed. It's my thinking a little bit about the mountainscape, if those get out into the mountains. It's really hard control. I mean, we've got grass problems in the town. And so that's just my thought. I do appreciate that it's in a courtyard. And I think that that does at least encapsulates a certain amount of it. But with today's leaf blower technology, they could end up anywhere. So I just love it.

So are you thinking of reducing the number or replacing entirely?

I mean, a perfect world is replaced entirely. Something that's more like Hesperala. But grasses are popular right now. And it's a trend. And it's very, very interesting to people in the landscape to have a wavy piece of ornamental grasses as opposed to a greenscape. It gives them a cool oasis sort of respite, especially at an entry. So I don't know if I'm alone in this thought or not. So I'm going to put it out to committee just to get your comments on it and see if it's worth discussing further or if we just say this is an experiment and we'll see how it goes. We pushed back last meeting on one. And I don't know, I don't remember if we reduced it entirely or yeah.

Yeah, typically it's a reduction. And usually staff will ask that as well. So the last one was a reduction that was requested. And then in a similar fashion, the grass was situated in the courtyard area as well. So it was not going to be as visible. There was more. management for that reason.

There were some in edge conditions, and we removed that because we didn't want them on the edge.

I have a question, Christian Rose. Does the town have a list of invasive plants and grasses that we can use as a benchmark here?

We do have a guideline. the plants that are not allowed. The code also does mention three specific grasses that are not allowed. Obviously, this one is not one of them. But I can bring up the guideline.

It's not on it because it's new to the world. And I'll just say, visually, I don't have a problem with it. It's a nice look. It's a pretty plant. But I'm always concerned with grasses on hillsides.

Well, I think you set somewhat the precedent in the last approval, so I would suggest a reduction here. I don't know to what number, but.

Well, I think it would only make sense if it's at the leading edge of the courtyard, like that first kind of planting row where it could easily propagate into the native soils, would that affect your design if you took that first row out, reduced the numbers, and put something else in, like Hesperallo or something? What's your choice?

It would affect the design from an aesthetic standpoint a bit. Part of why the number is high is because the blonde ambition does look better in the massing, especially when you're introducing cacti elements.

Yeah.

The client previously did have Hesperalo out on the site, and it wasn't performing well. It was looking a little barren and stark. So that's part of why we wanted something that had a little bit of movement. If we're looking to do a reduction, I think an appropriate approach might be to stagger the one ambition. So we're still getting it in the two rows, but it's less frequent, and we can introduce some other plants with movement in it. So it's less quantity, but we're still getting the aesthetic point that we were going for.

OK, thank you. Yeah, there's our grass themes up on the screen.

So our guideline does mention these two grasses as suggested grasses, which would be these two. And then these are prohibited plants here. So we have our common Bermuda grass, and then we have the foxtail. and the founcing grass, as you mentioned, along with buffalo grass.

OK. Any other questions or comments? Anybody here from the community to speak on this one? If so, we've got a chair. No? Well, I'm inclined to. I would make a motion to approve with a stipulation just to reduce the number and scope of that grass. You could bring that in on staff and chair level. Do you think that's reasonable?

I do. And I think we can still achieve what we're going for. But yeah, definitely harbor that concern to a smaller area.

That's good. I think you see where we're going here. We're just trying to really pull it in. Question for staff. Should we put a percentage or a number on that? Just want to get the language right.

You can stipulate a reduction by a percentage or a number. Or you can request that the applicant resubmit with a new proposal.

Yeah, I think that's cleaner. That gives you more autonomy.

And then we can get to a good in-between.

Well, I'm going to make a motion to approve item B26-221. That is the combined review for landscaping courtyard walls to an existing family residence at 7010 North 59th Place with the stipulations per the staff report, inclusive of an additional stipulation that the applicant reduce and or replace the grass plantings in courtyard. and submit said reduction and plan to staff and chair for approval.

Second. Great. Thank you.

Any comments? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Very nice. Appreciate it. It's not that I hate grass and palm trees personally. Well, maybe I do. No, that's not true. Thank you. A lot of red roam and buffled grass in the mountains. And I can see it. It's just coming over the hill. It just keeps spreading and spreading and spreading. It's super hard to control. I think the town has to invest in some goats that we can put on the hillside, eat that grass.

We've got some improved regs coming for your review. I think we could talk about this kind of borderline condition with both not only physical borderline, but the borderline of the plants that we would accept when we look at that.

That would be great. And it's a moving target. There's new stuff all the time. All right, moving right along. Ready? Great. So we are moving to item C, 26-217. This is for discussion and possible action. A formal review of a new single family residence at 6740 North Silver Mountain Road.

Good morning, members of the committee and members of the public. As previously mentioned, this is a formal review for discussion and possible action at 6740 North Silver Mountain Road, located in the western portion of town on the Phoenix Mountain Preserve area, as indicated here. Our hillside overlay map indicating we are indeed our 43 hillside. as well as existing site conditions per the county assessors. The proposed project itself is for a new 9,169 square foot new single family residence on a 1.039 acre lot, which is approximately 45,258 square feet. The applicant has provided us a boundary and topo survey as we require with most of our projects. as well as a grading and drainage plan outlining that they intend on mitigating for all grading and drainage using a combination of 12-inch catch basins, 12-inch trench drain in connection with 6-inch to 24-inch pipes for conveyance with surface basins as well as a rip-rap line swell on the outer edges to maintain flows as well as help with water dissipation with the entrance and exit areas as required per our storm drain design manual. As far as land disturbance is concerned with a project like this, If this was a completely empty lot, the original allowable disturbance would have been at 12,342 square feet or around 27.27%. Since this is already a previously existing disturbed lot, it sits at 31,364 square feet or 69.3%. The proposed disturbance with this project sits at 18,424 square feet, or 40.71%, which is significantly less than what is existing. Of course, providing us with cross-sections as to what storm drain facilities are to be put in place and what depths, as well as ensuring that all proposed retaining walls meet our allowable height requirements. Here's an aerial map exhibit of the existing site compared to what is proposed, as well as the applicant providing us a stormwater pollution prevention plan, how the applicant intends on mitigating for stormwater retention during construction, as well as providing us their best management practices and details as well. The applicant has provided us a native plant inventory list, what intends to be salvaged, as well as what will be required to be removed from the site, as well as providing us with their pool equipment areas, as well, shown here. As far as... landscape materials are concerned, everything proposed by the applicant meets our 38% light reflection value requirements, all within our allowable within Article 22 of our code. As far as plantings are concerned, Everything that has been proposed by the applicants fits within our native plant list as provided. The irrigation schedule of work. More of their landscape lighting as well as provided. Again, all of which fit within our allowable output. ensuring it meets our Article 22 regulations. The applicant has provided each of these specs for their path lights as well as their up lights for their plantings. As far as lighting is concerned, it is very minimally lit compared to most sites, especially with the size of this one, all meeting our requirements. The applicant has provided us photos of the existing site itself, as shown here, as well as providing us a rendering of what the home would look like. The architectural site plan, as shown here. A lower level garage as well as their main level livable. As far as heights are concerned, the maximum building height of the unbroken plain face of the house is at 23 feet 10 inches, which is below our 24 foot allowable. as well as the overall height being at 39 feet 11 inches, which is teetering at our 40 foot maximum allowable. And part of our building permit process is the applicant will be required to provide us a height certification, ensuring that they will not exceed that 40 foot maximum allowable. More of our elevations, again, ensuring that we're sitting within that 40-foot maximum allowable. Their ceiling plan provided and shown here. And all of their building lighting proposed, as previously mentioned, all sits within the recessed areas, ensuring that it will not light up any vertical surfaces and sitting within private areas and does not exceed the maximum output of 750 lumens. More of our further detail, again, showing that we do not and cross that plane of that 24 foot from natural grade. And again, making sure we don't exceed that 40 foot maximum allowable. Lower level garage, main residence, and more renderings. I do want to add the flat portions. They will be adding a sand casted coat along with the color itself. And that will actually conclude my presentation. I'd like to invite the applicant to join us at the table for any further questions.

Thank you.

Good morning. Welcome, welcome. Hi, good morning. My name is Richard Van Horn with Kendall Design Collaborative. And I'm Brent Kendall with Kendall Design Collaborative, just here in case Richard gets in trouble. And then also joining us today, we have civil engineer Nick Prodanov and the homeowner, Billy Bell.

Welcome. Thank you for being here. Anything you'd like to add to the presentation?

No, I think staff did a wonderful job presenting it, reviewing it. As always, we appreciate you guys working with us throughout the process. What I will say is the design really is influenced by the hillside. The form of the roof was influenced by the existing topography there. Where it rises, it kind of rises with the site. Materials, which I believe are being passed around, are really drawn to be natural in nature, even though they're man-made. We have a wood for the ceiling. We have a metal finish, which to us is almost like a chameleon, right? As it reflects, it really picks up on the hillside and the other elements. And then we have a block that's meant to kind of blend with the landscape and grow from the mountain.

Yeah, it's a great palette. That metal has got kind of a titanium look that's really good desert colors.

Yeah, it does a beautiful job of just reflecting everything, yeah. Yeah.

And thank you for sand coating that flat roof.

I was going to say, I just actually balanced it.

Oh, yeah. Oh, good. That's even better. That's even better. That's great. Staff, how do you feel about grading and drainage? Does it look good to you?

Yes, all grading and drainage requirements have been met through our storm drain design manual. We obviously, before we come to formal, we're required to say full safety improvement plan review. We were met with no comments, as well as us as a staff going over our retention calculations, making sure everything fits within our requirements. Yeah.

It looks robust on paper, and I think that neighbors should be pleased. Only 39 grasses on this one. I'm getting the Don Quixote reward from the town for fighting against grasses. Tilting at every windmill. That actually looks well-controlled. And it's right up by the entry, right, as you come in. And that grass has been installed a lot. And I think it doesn't seem to have been seen anywhere outside of a planting. So I think it's pretty good. Nice. Can I open to the committee for any comments or questions? Is there anyone here from the community who'd like to speak on this item? That's great. Well, it's a beautiful design. I think it's really appropriate for the location. And you really create a little jewel box there. So kudos. Thank you. It's a good hillside house. And I think that the landscape is really appropriate to kind of blend into that hill. If there's no other questions or comments, I would like to make a motion to approve item C, 26-217. This is the formal review for a new single family residence at 6740 North Silver Mountain Road with approval of the stipulations as per the report. Nothing additional.

I'll second that. Thank you.

Comments before vote? Nothing? Good. All in favor? Aye. No opposition? Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah, it really is. It's going to look great. Thanks for the physical samples, too. It's nice for us to see. Even though this agenda does evoke the Babel rule, I'm just saying, it's right on the... Yeah. Oh, it was six? It was five or more. Okay, well, all right. We're at the edge of the cusp. All right, everyone. We're moving to item D on the agenda, 26-216. This is discussion of possible action for a formal review of a new single family residence at 5254 Easter Royal Road.

Again, good morning, members of the committee, members of the public. As I mentioned, this is a discussion and possible action for a formal review at 5254 East Arroyo Road, located just on the southern portion of Mummy Mountain, as indicated here, as well as our zoning overlay indicating that we are indeed R43 Hillside. and a aerial overview of the site itself as it sits currently. The applicant is proposing a new 9,654 square foot single family residence with underground garage. I would like to dive into the grading and drainage portion part of it first. The applicant is proposing to mitigate for on-site retention using two 48-inch retention tanks along with 2-inch and 18-inch catch basins in connection with 12-inch pipes for conveyance and ensuring that we meet our storm drain design manual requirements, ensuring that we follow entries and exits of all natural historic flows. As far as disturbances are concerned with this site, If this was a completely brand new site, the allowable disturbance would be at 60%, which is 29,948 square feet. But there being an existing disturbance of 40,985 square feet or 80%, that is what has been inherited in. The applicant is proposing a new disturbance of 20,332 square feet, which is significantly less than what is even allowable. Showing our historic contours as well as a disturbance envelope sitting within the site as provided here. The applicant has provided us an aerial overlay of the new site conditions versus existing And then, of course, existing site photos as shown here. As far as heights are concerned, the maximum building height itself will be at 37 feet 5 inches, which is less than our 40-foot maximum allowable, as well as the applicant showing that we sit within that 24-foot unbroken plane from natural grade. Floor plan itself, as shown here, the main level, as well as their underground subterranean garage, shown here on the right. More elevations, again, ensuring we don't break that 40-foot maximum allowable, as shown here and here. And more continued elevations. And then, again, as shown, here's their subterranean garage. And the applicant has been kind enough to provide us some renderings, as shown here, just for discretion of the committee. Little exaggerated when it comes to the lighting. Most of this isn't what is proposed, as well as shown here in the entrance as well. Yeah, this is not what's proposed, but it's trying to show the aesthetic. As far as materials are concerned, all provided building materials meet our 38% or less light reflection value, even including the wood siding itself shown for their soffits. As far as hardscape materials are concerned, the applicant has provided or proposes a black Mexican pebble ground cover as well as a cafe cream patio tile. No specific LRV was provided. The applicant will be required to submit these items for testing and approval by staff and chair. Driveway area shown here. As far as plantings are concerned, staff does propose the applicant proposes a dwarf alley count of 82. Staff is requesting a reduction to 41 and to restrict it to private areas located in the rear, so not to be seen from the street side on. a royal road, as well as the replacement of Russian sage, because it is a non-native species, and just have a complete change of plant species in that, as far as landscaping is concerned.

Let me be clear. Did they meet the reduction or they're going to?

They're going to need to reduce. Okay. That's part of one of the stipulations in the report.

That's part of it. Okay.

Thank you. It's already included in the report as stipulated. Item number four, reduce dwarf ollie count from 82 to 41 and restrict to private areas at rear of home and replace Russian sage with a native or non-invasive species. Provide updated landscape plan subject to approval by staff and chair.

Thank you.

And the only real concern we had as far as lighting fixtures were concerned, the applicant proposes a strip light at 285 maximum lumen. That'll need to be reduced to 250. That is what is allowed per code. So they'll have to provide us that as well as get approval by staff and chair.

Thank you.

The other one, one more lighting concern is the applicant will need to provide an updated wall sconce and outline locations. It wasn't provided in the lighting plan itself. It'll be specific to a maximum 750 lumen count. And again, approval by staff and chair. More of their lighting, the pool. That'll actually conclude my presentation. I'd like to invite the applicant to join us at the table, answer any questions that may come up.

Welcome. Thank you for being here. Yeah, thank you.

And if you could just state your name for the record, please.

My name's Jessica Corbett with JCORE Architecture.

Tom Durant with ABLA Landscape Architecture. Thank you.

Could we? I think I just want to look at the grading and drainage on the big screen. I don't really have any concerns, but I just want to see it and understand those retention tanks, if possible.

So the retention tanks themselves will sit underneath the driveway area?

And there's two of those, right?

Correct. Actually, no, scratch that. They're underneath the turf area in their backyard space near the leach field. And so the way that'll work is it'll hold the water for 36 hours and then percolate at one cubic feet per second using this dry well coming out.

Yeah, nice and slow. That's good. That's a nice approach. So we have some lighting concerns, but that's been addressed in the steps. So that's good. Yeah.

I apologize. We do have a new rendering system and got a little carried away with the lighting on the render. But they don't exactly.

What not to do.

I think this one's a little more accurate with just the down lighting. some of the fire pits.

Do we have a front elevation as if front on perspective, trying to understand that drive to the garage, to the pool, to the house, how that looks on the street? We don't really.

Yeah. I guess we have one that's up above showing the pool. This would be as you're pulling into the driveway. And that's, yeah, the straight shot up to the back. Yeah, so we tried to kind of show the sequence from when you're entering the gate, coming up around the back. And then, yeah, and then here as you're kind of coming up and up to the garage in the front entry.

Thank you. Mm-hmm. So let's talk a little bit about, I love the roof material. I think the TPO is great. It's a wonderful product. Is there a possibility to ballast that at all, sand coat or light chip, something to reduce the big gray carrier deck of roof from people above?

I believe if it's a requirement from the committee, we can definitely look into it.

Would you be open to doing it, you think, if it's something that isn't going to affect the performance of the roof?

I'd have to look into it, but I don't see why not.

OK, thanks. Excellent. I'll open it up to committee, see if there's any other questions.

Just to be clear, it was hard to tell. So there's an underground garage, and it's two stories above it or one?

So there's the underground garage. It's mostly one story above it. But as you get to the back of the house, there is kind of a pop-up second floor here. But it's kind of nestled into the back side where the hillside comes up. So we tried to kind of follow the grade there. So yeah, when you're down at the street here

What's the construction protocol on the subterranean garage? Is there a lot of rat tat tat tat tat going on? That's a good question.

I think if they got a hammer drill, it's got some hour stipulations on that.

Yeah, we have specific construction hours we're constrained to. The only time it gets a little Tricky is during the summertime. We're allowed to start construction at 5 a.m.. Right, but obviously this And how long would that last you suppose? Was it from May to October's the designated 5 a.m. 5 p.m.. Construction times you'd have to ask the applicant about their proposal for how long the construction in this particular instance would take right

You know, it's interesting with this subterranean drive trend that we're getting on the hillside a lot. I don't think in this particular instance, because of the slope of the land and where it's located, it's a big issue. But it's something we should talk about in the future. Because I think there needs to be some mitigation. There's a project on that It meets approval, but it really reads as three stories. There's very little mitigation from the drive to the garage to the main level to the second floor. And it really increases the massing visually. I don't think this is an instance of it, but I think they've done a very good job of mitigating that stacked look. But I think committee, we need to look at that a little bit. A landscape plan. Let's talk about dwarf ollies and where they're going to go. Plant flavor of the day.

So they're non-fruiting. It's not your traditional. So I don't have an issue taking these out, because then you wouldn't be able to see them from the street. These would not be visible from the street.

So if I heard you right, that front run up, you think you might substitute those?

Yeah, I'll substitute these.

Great.

I'm going to change out the Russian sage. We were just looking for a pop of, it's a green with a, kind of purplish flower on it. Yeah. So it's just more of that blending with the native.

Maybe a or something. That's great on the. So what would we call those? Entry? Entry? An entry?

So it'll be walk. So we'll revise the stipulation to say remove door follies going up the subterranean garage drive.

Yeah, OK.

Excellent.

Any other comments or questions? Is there anyone from the community to speak on this application? OK. Well, it's a nice project, pretty complete. I never saw the concept review, so it's nice for me to see this one come in on the final. So we're stipulating already a reduction in lighting. Yes. And then sort of proof on the one lighting piece that's understood. And then the Russian sage thing. Replaced. So I'm thinking conversationally, everybody put in, I'd either like to see or I would make a motion that would substitute the dwarf volleys at the subterranean garage drive location. And we would, let's see, I'm going to have to phrase this correctly, because I'd really like to see that roof have a ballast on it if possible. So I would like to stipulate that the applicant provide a sandcast or a ballast. Sandcast or ballast that roof. I'll just make it a thing and staff and chair approval. What does everyone think?

You know how many stipulations this has on the fall? So with the sand casting ballasting, it'll be a sixth. Sixth. It'll be sixth, yeah. OK.

So we've got six and seven. I would move to approve item 26-216. This is the formal review of a new family residence at 5254 East Arroyo Road, with the stipulations in the report from staff one through five, with two additional stipulations. Stipulation six, that the roof be submitted with a ballast material, sand or similar, for approval by staff and chair. And stipulation 7, that the applicant substitute or remove the dwarf ollies at the subterranean garage drive location with a submittal to staff and chair for approval. Second. Great. Thank you. Any other discussion before we move on?

Thank you. Really appreciate your time. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. No opposed? You're going to work now. Thank you. Ready? Thank you. I know we have some community members to speak on this. I will open this up after the committee has a look at it. So if you're here to speak on this, you'll get an opportunity. We're moving to item E26-219. This is discussion and possible action on a formal review for a major remodel located at 4628 East Crystal Lane. Jose, would you like to introduce us?

Absolutely. So as you mentioned, this property is located at 4628 East Crystal Lane. It is on the west side of town. You can see it here. The property is zoned R43 Hillside. You can see it here in this zoning map. It is towards the edge of the hillside designation zone. And then this is the aerial view of the existing home. So the home is existing, as mentioned. The applicant is proposing a major remodel. So the request is for remodel and addition to the existing residence. The existing home is 4,537 square feet. And they will be adding approximately 3,170 square feet for a new total of 7,700 square feet. The Hillside Committee reviewed this item for concept review on April 15. The most discussed topic during that meeting was the walls and fences. The applicant had requested that the fencing in the rear be replaced back here. As you can see, there is an existing fence. The applicant worked with staff to come up with a new proposal. So the committee had recommended to reduce or eliminate portions of those walls and fences that were previously proposed. In essence, this proposal keeps the home pretty much placed in the same area where the existing home is. So as you can see here, this is the existing home. That is the whole area there. And so the new proposal keeps the home in the same location. It does expand the footprint of the home towards this side. And then the pool is pretty much staying in the same place as well. So no major changes to the layout. There is an existing disturbance. Obviously, there is an existing home. The lot is approximately one acre. It's 0.95 acres, 41,525. The floor area ratio is 18%. And the site slope is approximately 12.5%. This would allow an allowable disturbance of 17,776, or 42%. There's an existing gross disturbance. And the existing net disturbance, that would be the total minus the footprint of the home, is 16,090, or 40.92%. They are expanding the footprint, so then that is going to be a reduction of the net disturbance. So it will be reduced to 39.1%. So this is the disturbance boundaries and how those will be slightly expanded along with the expansion of the home. So there will be some reduction in disturbance. And then, as mentioned, there is additional disturbance. However, since the home is also getting expanded, those will stay about the same. The applicant went through a safety improvement plan as well. So their plan meets all our grading and drainage requirements for on-site retention. They also provided a plant preservation guide. And so most of the plants that are in the surrounding area of non-disturbance will stay. OK, so as mentioned, there are existing walls and fences on the site which don't adhere to the wholesale development regulations. Part of the process for development with existing non-conforming Walls and fences, when we have a new development, is that those walls and fences conform to the code or adhere to the code. That's part of our Article 10 for nonconformance and also part of the Hillside Code. So the applicant does propose some retaining walls in the rear. north of the property, those heights are approximately between 2 and 5 feet. And so that's this rear retaining wall here that I'm highlighting with the mouse. There are some planters as well. So you can see the applicant has laid out this planter here, this one here, and then there's a couple of planters here as well. and then this one off to the side as well. So in that rear area, part of that retaining wall on the planters will create an auto port. Towards the east side of the house, the applicant has proposed a five foot tall screen wall. That's for mechanical and trash enclosure. So that's this one right here. And there is also another, it connects to a screen wall that is about three foot tall. And then that does connect to a raised planter along the walkway yard area adjacent to the home. There is a six foot tall pool barrier fence that is proposed. So that runs this way here, as mentioned. And then it does run along the south side. And then it connects back to here, where there is another screen wall for mechanical equipment. The applicant is also proposing a gate. So that gate is here. Their previous proposal pretty much encapsulated this whole area on this side, so this is a good reduction in the way that they redesigned the approach from the driveway towards the rear and then also incorporated the pole fencing along with this mechanical area that is to be screened. Some of those walls are existing currently. So you can kind of see those here. So that is the vicinity of where that proposal is that I just mentioned. This is the elevation. So as you can see here, the overall height is 23.3 feet. And that is taken from the lowest structure to the top of the house. It is below the 24 foot parallel to the existing or the historic grade. And then the height of the home is only proposed to be at 18 feet 4 inches. As mentioned, they could go up to 24. These are photos of the existing home. And then this is a rendering of what the new home will look like. So as you can see, there is the pool fencing that goes around, the mechanical area, and then the gate, along with some of those planters that I mentioned previously. In terms of materials, the applicant is proposing mostly LRV-compliant materials palette. They do have an accent color as well, and that is number seven in that. red, and it is going to be used for fireplace trim and then gates as well. All the other materials are compliant with our LRV. Existing adobe block will stay and then they will use a stucco in this tan color. along with accents of rusted panels and then a dark roof. They did include this terracotta ballast as well for the roof. So then that is the proposal. And then in terms of hardscapes, The applicant is proposing pavers to match the existing tan pavers on the driveway. Small sections of the driveway will be cast in place, finished with sandblast. And then the surrounding landscape areas will have a 3-inch minus desert cobble, and then riprap and patchy brown. This is an elevation of what the home will look like. This is from the rear. This is the side as you would be approaching from the driveway, and then this is what the home would look like facing south. In terms of lighting, the applicant had proposed these wall lights previously. As you can see here, It's a Svelte outdoor linear lamp. The applicant had provided an alternative fixture, which is this Hinkley light fixture. It is at less than 750 lumens, which is what is allowed. So then, in essence, what staff had recommended is that they keep two of those Hinkley lights. The committee has approved those previously per our code. Two lights can be allowed with a maximum of 750. They can be translucent fixtures at the main or primary entrance. And so those fixtures typically have a glow. That's why they are only restricted to two of them. In essence, this light fixture would be similar to that. would emit a similar glow to this translucent fixture. And as I mentioned, it has been allowed in the past, particularly when it's not visible from offsite. And as you can see here, this would be back in this back area. And then the slope goes up. So you wouldn't necessarily be able to see it either. So the applicant did provide So this is the home. And then, as mentioned, the rear kind of goes up, slopes up towards the north. So in essence, the applicant proposed this alternative. But if the committee wishes, they can approve it with the two wall-mounted I'm sorry the svelte light fixtures, and then the rest of the home will be fixed with the Hinkley fixture There will be 13 proposed building mounted fixtures in terms of the landscape lighting The applicant has provided 28 of the path lighting. They're at 250 lumens. There is also 10 smaller path lights. Those are at 152. And then there's six step lights. Those are at 250 lumens. So these meet all the provisions of the Hillside regulations. In terms of their landscape plan, it is a mostly Sonoran desert and drought-tolerant landscape. their landscape plan. And so as mentioned, most of it is going to be Sonoran Desert, drought tolerant. The only plant that we saw is milkweed. And it's only listed here, but we didn't get the quantities for it. The project received preliminary review and clearance by the fire marshal, and then the existing site is connected to sewer. So that concludes the staff presentation. At this point, I would like to invite the applicant to come up if they'd like to add anything. Sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah, a clarifying question. Is what is proposed with regard to the retaining walls, vents, and walls conforming? I was a little confused. Most of it is.

So most of it is. I think staff's concerned. So we work with the applicant a lot. in terms of making those reductions. In their original concept, what they had proposed was pretty much enclosing a yard area around the home, particularly because they had some security concerns in the rear. And then, as mentioned, currently they do have some type of fencing in the back. So they do have this. wood fencing and then they do have this other fencing that surrounds the east side of their property as well in essence what they want to do is change it to view fencing and then have that retaining wall here in the back for their auto court, and then have the view fencing on top of it. Their new reduction is just to have that small retaining wall. It's about two feet. It kind of ranges between two and five. But for the most part, it's about two to three feet in that rear. The only part that isn't conforming strictly adhering to the code is this section back here. So they have a mechanical enclosure area, and then they have this other screen wall that connects to it as well. And then they have a planter. So then that also then connects to the pool security fencing. So there's creative ways where we've seen applicants enclose areas. The code does allow for courtyards as well. But staff's concern on this particular site is that, in essence, what they're doing is enclosing this area. And the applicant did voice concerns about security and how that would affect them as well. They mentioned concerns about coyotes as well. Unfortunately, the Hillside Code does not take into consideration security in terms of wildlife or people walking into the property, unfortunately. So then that staff recommendation is that this wall be reduced or taken away since it doesn't serve a purpose. I outlined in my report the specific allowed walls or fences. Although they are prohibited on Hillside and it is called out in the Hillside ordinance, the only allowed walls or fences are for retaining purposes. to retain Earth, and those would be deemed appropriate by our engineering. Pool barrier fencing, obviously to keep the pool area secure. And then screen walls. These walls can be solid. They have to be of minimum height and length to screen mechanical equipment, garbage cans, or windows of interior bathroom areas. And there's specific regulation they cannot exceed six feet in height. And they must meet the allowable setbacks for height and setbacks within the code for walls and fences. There is also driveway columns that are allowed. But those are the only specific instances where walls and fences are allowed. Other than that, they are prohibited.

Thank you.

I see.

All right, thank you. If anyone wants to come up and add anything, open chair, please state your name for the record.

Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you. Good morning. Jack Black, an architect. And Miko's the owner of the property right there as well. I would just add, it's a little confusing on the last comment, because Jose was trying to explain things. We've removed all of the perimeter fencing around the rest of the project other than the pool area. So that's all gone. And the walls that are left that were just commented are strictly for retaining, so they're all Very low, 1 foot 4, 2 foot 0. There's a couple of exceptions because of grade that do get higher, but they're very small in general. And that's really visible on the axons if you want to look at it. We took all the landscaping off of those so you could really kind of just see how it works. So that's in black is kind of a key piece, and you can sort of see across the back. the walls. I'd also add that the planters that you see that were once integrated into that, those are specifically positioned to prevent both the neighbors, driveways, headlights coming into this, and vice versa. So there's a reason for those. And if you go out there today, you can see exactly why they're there. Makes sense. But I think that's it. We worked with staff extensively over the summer to respond to all the questions and topics. And Jose did, I think we went back and forth a good 10 times at least. And so I hope we have everything resolved on it.

Thank you. OK, so most of the existing nonconforming is gone with a couple of retaining or planter walls and reduced, it seems visually at least, it looks like they've reduced the fencing back real close to the house except for a couple of areas for pool safety. The lighting, so we're talking about those linear strip wall mounts that kind of wash the entry. You're proposing we keep two of those at the entry, explicitly, just to create a safer, higher lit zone for that space?

So the applicant had previously proposed two of these fixtures. One was at, I believe, 60 inches, and the other one was at 48 inches. They had provided this plan, which had them kind of around the home. So you can see here this circle. They were facing the home on the inside of the columns. So those were not going to be visible. They also had them on the outside of the home. So then they did make the So staff suggested that they replace those with a conforming light fixture. And so then they still would have liked to keep some of those. So then staff suggestion was that at the entrance, as with other projects, the code allows for that translucent fixture, which would emanate the same light as this one would. And so then they're proposing just to have two of those in that area.

OK, interesting. We have a neighbor who's put a couple of these up. They're really bright, and they really do wash the wall pretty heavily, just so the committee understands exactly what those look like. Personally, I'd rather see them conforming because I think they're just too bright of an element. They do provide great entry safety, but they're not quite a lantern because they're not shielded. I mean, the light just floods from behind it.

Scott, I'm a little confused. We removed those. I mean, I think, Lisa, we own them. We already bought all the other ones, right? Yeah. So that's kind of, yeah, it's an option that they offered to us. We appreciate it. All right, great. Excellent. OK, good. So that's. And if anybody does want to see them, they are on the house across the street, which we did do. OK. They're right there.

All right. Good. Well then, very good. Any other questions or comments from committee? I know we've got some community members here who want to ask about this. So we had some height discussions. We're nowhere near the limit. So from the highest point, not from the lowest grade, but the highest point from grade, we're looking at about 18.4 to that knife edge of the roof at the back, right? Yes. OK. So we know what that looks like. And the roof is ballasted. And we've got native plants. That's all for me. Any other questions or comments?

I didn't see anything on grading and drainage.

Yeah, everything proposed fits within our requirements as well.

And then my stipulation. for the walls and fences was just to give us a detailed plan. As mentioned, or as Jack clarified, towards the east, where the walls connect with the pool barrier fencing, it was this wall that was concerning from that site plan. So this is a truer isometric drawing that was provided. So then this wall is no longer there. So that's no longer a concern. Thank you.

All right, we're open up to community comments. So we have someone in Wisconsin. Would you like to introduce yourself, please?

Good morning, everybody. I live in the house directly above the house that's in question. When I built the house 60 years ago, the CCNRs stated that Article 9 says do not disturb the holder of any property. And my objection to the remodel is twofold. The first part is that it blocks my view of Camelback Mountain. I was one of the first houses to build in that subdivision. And I actually sold their house a couple of times because I sold real estate. And I picked a lot that would give me a good view of Cadillac. This is disturbing it enormously. It's underneath the maximum guideline of 24 feet. but it impinges my view. Additionally, which may or may not concern this meeting, it's reducing the value of my property by multi hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've got a view property, and I now do not have quite a view property. And that's basically all I can say. I wish they had not. taken the glass viewing area, which is above their height, well above their height there. I don't know if anything can be done at this point, but that's my objection to the remodel. Thank you.

Well, thank you for being here. I appreciate your comments and for taking the time I know that at concept review this came up and we talked about kind of the view shed in the corridor and I think at the end of the day it's It's gonna be a change for you one way or the other But I think the heights come down. I think we were talking about 19 feet last time. We're a little bit under that and the fall of the property is such a I'm hoping when this is complete, you'll be a little more satisfied because it's well under what could be there. Most ranch houses today, like most 50s, 60s ranch houses are about 16 feet max. This is just a little bit over that. So it's actually fairly low, and I'm hoping because of the lay of the land, you're a bit higher, they're a bit lower, that it'll actually give you a pretty good retention of view quarter. It'll be in your view. There's no doubt about it. But I don't think it's as bad as it looks on paper. Let's just see how that goes. But I don't think there's anything to say at this point. The neighbors have heard you. I think they've tried to mitigate this with you as much as they can. But I don't really have much to add.

It's being built around the property.

I believe it's five foot. Is that what I'm hearing? Which area?

60 inches is around the pool, which is what it is today. And then the back walls where the fences are today, the wood fences? were all well below the wood fences today. So all of that, yeah.

So those fences are what, 550?

They're five on top of about an 18-inch wall, basically replacing the lower wall and not doing anything on top of it.

Thank you for your time.

Have a good day, everyone. Thank you for being here. Well, this is, you know, we're going to see this more and more as every lot almost in Burdice Valley is being redeveloped. And I think it's, I mean, the nice thing about Hillside, you've got some topography to mitigate that view loss. You don't get down on those flat level lots. And with raising grade up a little bit, like, tend to be the thing you lose a lot of views in this town. And it's unfortunate. But I appreciate the neighbors being here. I appreciate the applicants being as mindful as they have. I know you've had good communication. So I think the design is well thought out. I don't see that there's anything to discuss on that. But if anybody wants to add to that, I'll open the mic up. Is there anyone else to speak on this application today? Well, that being said, I don't think we have much to discuss otherwise. We've talked about the walls, grading and drainage. We've talked about, and by walls I mean planters and screens and that sort of thing, the lights we've discussed. And that's good. So we're going to make a motion. Anybody has a burning desire to do that? Then I will. And just a general comment, I know it's I've been the neighbor, and I've also been the applicant. And when you bring change into a neighborhood, it's tough. I do applaud the fact that it's not 24 feet. Most applicants today, to be honest, the economics are such, ours would be bigger, and the roof would be taller. And that, you start getting it at 24 feet, it's going to really bite into that view. But the mountain's tall, and the land falls. So there'd still be a view on that property adjacent. But I do harbor. sympathy for both the applicant and the neighbors. So I would move to approve item E26-219. This is the formal review on the major remodel located at 4628 East Crystal Lane with the stipulations as per the staff report. Second. OK. Any conversation before vote? All in favor, aye. Aye. No opposed. Thank you all. Appreciate your thoughtfulness. Thank you for coming in very much. Appreciate it. Here this morning, pretty good timing. 11-11-2026. We'll wait for a moment, get cleared out, and we'll talk about the next couple of dates. Thank you very much. Congratulations. All right, so committee reports. The only thing that we might start to talk about again is if we want to do that sort of open house meeting.

So the way we want to approach that, we discussed it as a staff, and hopefully yourself and the commissioners would agree, is hopefully planning it around the same day of a planning commission meeting where we don't have such a heavy agenda. so we can have everybody together as a collective already in one place. We'll go through our presentation, discuss Article 22, of course, and then, as previously mentioned by Chad during our meeting, is to discuss those landscape guidelines that we want to, obviously.

Thursdays, usually? Tuesdays. Tuesdays.

Yeah, I believe it's the 6th and the 20th of October, right? The first and third Tuesday of each month. We want to see if either one of those work for the committee and for the commissioners. Well, commissioners don't have a choice, but.

We're talking about October? Yeah, so the 6th is out for me because I'm traveling, but the 20th, back to October. 20th is available for me, if that works. Yeah, let's shoot for that if we could.

All righty. So once we get that ironed out and situated with... The planning department will send out the invites.

I have 237 sticky notes already.

That's fine.

That's fine. Bring in a board with some strings on it.

We have like a 20 sticky note limit. Oh, yeah. I'll refine them into the 20 key points.

Well, that's excellent. Thank you very much.

What time is that?

Yeah.

We would basically have it in conjunction with the planning meeting. So we either start with this or start with that. So we have 6 PM start, and the agenda would determine whether we take any. I don't think we know for certain what planning items we have on that agenda yet. So we'll let you know and issue an agenda.

Be powered up and stay up late. We figured it would be easier to have our three citizen members join the planning commission as opposed to having more of the planning commission.

Sounds good. I'm up for it. Thank you. And thank you for the planners that will take their time to do this. But I think it's important. So that's excellent. Next meeting dates, we're looking at October 14th. I don't have a conflict personally, and November 11th, the true date of arms to stay. Kudos to my grandfather, who was in France on that date. Let's just look and make sure we got that.

So November 11th is Veterans Day. So then it would have to be on the 18th or the 4th. Yeah. Yeah.

I think that's going to have to be. But let me just put this in. Planning.

Watch how you be coming out of the day off.

Thanksgiving. All right. So we are looking at then, just so we can get that kind of worked out. October 14th and November 18. Yeah, OK, great. Anything else? I want to thank everybody for their participation today and for coming out. Bill, for stepping in. Nice. Thank you for all your hard work. I would move to adjourn the meeting. Second. All in favor? Aye. See you next time. Thank you. Thank you.