Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We are ready to go Good evening everybody welcome to the town of Paradise Valley Board of Adjustment a meeting of September 2nd and I'm hereby calling it to order and welcoming you all here. If you have cell phones and who doesn't, will you please put them either on silent or do not disturb? And I am Hope Oser. I'm the current chair of the board, following Eric, who was chair the last two years. And staff, will you please call the roll?

Board Member Leipson?

Here.

Board Member Barnes? Board Member Cantadino? Here. Board Member Cookendale?

Here.

Chair Ulzer? Here. Board Member Pestis?

Here.

And Board Member Williams? Present.

We have a quorum. Okay, great. Thank you. It's nice to see so many people here. Quite often we meet to an empty room. So just for everyone's edification, the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body. We rule on variances to the Paradise Valley zoning ordinance. And we are governed by Arizona state statute, which means we are empowered to provide these variances from the provisions of the zoning ordinance by state statute. So if we think something sounds like a good idea, that's not a good reason. The rulings and any previous rulings of this board do not set precedents. Each and every case is seen as its own. For the benefit of those of you present, the following is an overview of how we will proceed. When the case is called, town staff will make a presentation followed by questions from the board. Next, you as the applicant or applicant's representative will be invited to make a presentation on the particular case with questions from the board. I will then open the public hearing, which means that those of you who wish to speak in favor of and then followed by those who wish to speak in opposition to will be permitted to come to the dais and present your position. Please, when you are there, state your name and your municipality of residence. We do not need your street address. For those of you who do wish to speak, George, do we have speaker cards in the back?

Yes, there are speaker request forms on the little podium over there.

Okay, so if you would like to speak on any of the cases that is before us tonight, if you would fill out a speaker card and provide it to staff so we know who to call on and when. Thank you very much. After the public testimonies, I will then close. the hearing to the audience, you're welcome to stay, but we will then, as a board, deliberate. We will have a motion and a second, perhaps some more deliberation at that point, and then we will take a vote. Board decisions may be appealed to the Superior Court of the State of Arizona within 30 days. And staff can help you with the logistics of how you go about doing that in case you are in opposition to whatever the ultimate decision is. So after that, you are always free to remain here. while we take care of subsequent case or cases and then go on to just regular business. We will not be insulted if you've had enough and you choose to leave. So just know that. It's not rude if you say, OK, I'm done. Having said that, we are going to first see if there's anyone who chooses to move to go into executive session. Anyone on the board? OK. There are no study session items, so we will call the first case, which is a discussion and possible action on case BA-2606, the RTS family revocable trust variance on 5506 East San Miguel Avenue. The variance request is to allow modifications to an existing nonconforming garage.

Steph good evening good evening chair and board members so Application for the variance request at 55 of 60 San Miguel is the first item the agenda tonight? So today's goal is to review and take action on the variance request to allow modifications to an existing non-conforming garage that encroaches into the front yard setback So for this evening I'm going to briefly go over the background the scope of the request staffs analysis and recommendation and then the actions for board this evening I The subject property is located south of McDonald Drive, just east of 54th Street, and on the right-hand side is an aerial photo of the subject property. The property is zoned R43 Hillside. It's about an acre in size. It's a rectangular-shaped lot with a curved frontage, and because of that curved frontage, the depth varies from about 110 feet deep to 205 feet deep. It is a steep property with a 31% slope, and the house sits below the street. It was originally planted in Maricopa County in 1959 as Lot 20, Stone Canyon East, and then annexed the town in 1961, and the property was developed under the challenge jurisdiction. So the scope of the request is the applicant is proposing to modify the existing non-conforming garage in order to raise the height of the garage door to accommodate a vehicle. So the current garage door is 7 feet tall and will be raised to 8 feet. As a result of that modification, the height of the walls will increase from 8 foot 6 inches to 10 foot 1. But the applicant is redesigning the roof, so the overall height of the garage will actually be lowered by about 10 or 11 inches from 16 feet tall to 15 foot 1 inches tall. The applicant is utilizing the existing footprint, so the setback, location, size all remain the same, 357 square feet currently encroaching the setback, and that will not change. And the variance is required due to the change in the garage wall heights and change in the roof. The code states that if you modify a non-conforming structure, you're basically limited to that exact envelope. So since the roof is changing and the walls are changing, it precipitates a variance. And the table below is just kind of a comparison of what the code requires, what the existing garage is at, and what the modified garage will be at. So since it is zoned R43, the code identifies it has to have a front and rear setback of 40 feet. When the property was developed, the garage has a setback of 21 foot 6 inches from that front property line. It will be maintained during this modification because that footprint and location are remaining the same. The code allows a maximum height of 24 feet tall. The existing garage is 16 feet tall. Both that modified roof, it will be lowered about 10 or 11 inches. Also, since there is no changes to the footprint of the garage, they are maintaining that existing flurry ratio of 13.3%. which is well below the 25% limit. And this is aerial photos of the subject property, and the red circle is the location of the subject garage. And this is a site plan provided by the applicant showing the location of the garage. The hatched area is the portion that encroaches into the setback. The closest setback is about 21 feet from the proper line, and it varies to about 28 feet at the furthest point. And this is the exterior building elevations included in the packet. The middle elevation shown in yellow is the existing elevation and then above that in the pink is the new proposed modification showing the taller garage door opening and the modified roof line which will be lowered. The next several slides are just photographs of the site. So these are just showing that the property and the house does sit below the existing roadway. And then when you get onto the property, as you can see, that existing garage is below the hillside cut. And then these are just two more photographs from behind the garage, just showing that it sits well below the street and it joins that existing hillside cut. Staff is supportive of the request due to the associated property hardships. The non-conformity was the result of its construction in 1961. It is a steep slope. It has 31% and a challenging building envelope due to that curvilinear front edge since the depth does change from about 110 feet deep to 205. If it were platted today, this would not meet our development standards. And the applicant is trying to make the garage more functional without adding any disturbance to that hillside. They're using the existing pad and the existing footprint. Also, the proposed improvement should have little to no impact on neighbors because the house sits below the street. Again, the applicant's maintaining the same square footage, same location and setbacks, and we're getting the benefit of a lower overall height. This was noticed in accordance with our requirements. All properties within a 1500 foot radius were notified and staff did not receive any comments or inquiries regarding this application. And due to the aforementioned property hardships, staff does believe that the request meets all three variance criteria and is therefore recommending approval of the application. So there are three possible actions for the board tonight to approve the request as submitted with the stipulations that all improvements have to be in compliance with the submitted plans and documents, and the applicant has to obtain the necessary hillside and building permit approvals. The board could deny the request or continue it for further review. And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions for George from the board? Hearing none, would the applicant or the representative of the applicant please come to the podium, identify yourself. And before you identify yourself, I will say in the spirit of full disclosure, this gentleman is the former mayor of the town of Paradise Valley. He is appearing here as a... civilian attorney and is no longer mayor of the town. And he is representing Scott Moore, who is a current sitting member of our town council. That in no way makes it easier on either one of them. So just wanted you to understand that.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jerry B. and Wilner, Esquire attorney, as the chair has pointed out, representing RTS Trust, of which Scott Moore is the beneficial owner. I think, Madam Chair, you did a great job contextualizing. I would just only add to that that the reason I'm here is pro bono counsel, I think, Every citizen, including town volunteers, are entitled to the same privileges, including the opportunity to appear before the board in a fair and neutral way, and to avoid having a council member address the board. I'm here. Hopefully it's better. I am, as was noted, the former mayor. That was over a year ago, and I'm here pro bono to try to assist and make things better, keep appearances even better. And I know the board will follow all the rules, and obviously legal counsel can consult on that. On the substance of this, I think staff's presentation is 100% correct. The applicant agrees with it 100%, is ready, willing, and able to abide by the stipulations that have been requested by staff. The only additional item of color commentary and one emphasis I'd like to add As far as color commentary, and it may be a little bit outside the scope of the three criteria, but I think it's worth mentioning that the impetus for this was that the roof is compromised on the garage and requires replacement. And that together with the fact that this is seven feet or lower, the garage door, if anyone members have seen the garage door, you can see that it's quite low. And as noted in the staff report, a typical garage door, and in our application, typical garage door in the zoning district is minimum 8 feet, often 10 feet. If it's an RV garage, it's higher. This is a two-car garage, by the way. And as staff noted, and there's no request to add additional bays or anything like that, the footprint will be exactly the same. The roof will be lower. And the areas that were shown in the slide that appear to create in one corner a different shape of the wall are completely screened by the cut in the mountain. If you're up on the road or any neighboring area, you can't see it. So it's the minimally invasive approach here to address the roof and also put this house in a similar position to other houses. and eliminate that hardship that was not caused by the owner. This was built this way. So that's basically it, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. And if they're technical in nature, I'd ask respectfully that I may refer them to the applicant if I don't know the answer, which is possible.

Thank you, Jerry.

Thank you.

Any questions? You're getting away easy.

Thank you.

Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the application? Seeing none, I'm closing the public hearing. And at this point, we can deliberate. Or if someone on the board would like to make a motion and we get a second, we can then discuss it.

Go ahead. OK. For the reasons stated by the staff recommendations, I'm in favor of granting this variance. And for the presentation by Jerry, I'm in agreement with the points that were made. So therefore, I would like to make a motion for approval, BA case 26-06. 50 506 East San Miguel Avenue for for approval as as presented and in concurrence with the Stipulations as indicated in the staff report yes and say and and in concurrence with the stipulations as stated in the staff report I second that motion

Thank you. I have one point of clarification.

You still have to go for hillside approval?

That is correct.

Yeah, and that, I believe, is one of these stipulations. For the record, do we need to read in what the stipulations are or simply saying that as in the report?

I believe in accordance with staff report is sufficient.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any discussion or comments that anyone on the board wishes to make? Okay. I would just like to say that effectively this is actually lowering the roof instead of creating anything more. It's making things less, and I would vote in favor of it. So at this point, having no further discussion, staff, will you please call for the question?

Okay, roll call for the motion, right? Yep. All right, so, Leapson. Board Member Leapson?

Yes.

Board Member Barnes? Oh, not here, absent, sorry. Board Member Cantadino? Yes. Board Member Cookendale? Yes. Board Member Olser? Yes. I'm sorry, Chair, I apologize. That's okay. Board Member Pestis?

Yes.

And Board Member Williams. Yes.

The motion passes.

OK. The motion passes. You have your variance. And I would like to thank Orly. This is her maiden voyage on supporting this board. And you're doing a great job. So thank you. OK. Moving right along. We are our next case. is a discussion and possible action on case BA-2604, the Holton variance at 6124 North Camelback Manor Drive. The variance is to allow, in addition to the main residence, to encroach into the rear yard setback. And would staff please make their presentation?

Yes, thank you, Chair, members of the board. Case BA-2604, as stated, is regarding a variance at 6124 North Camelback Manor Drive to allow a new addition to the main residence to encroach into that rear yard setback. The goal this evening is to review the application field. Any questions and comments you may have and ultimately take action on this case. This evening, we'll be going over the scope of the request in its entirety, staff's analysis and recommendation, again, leading up to that action by the board. To better orient yourself, 6124 North Camelback Manor Drive is south of Lincoln Drive along Camelback Manor Drive, which is just west of Mountain Shadows Resort. The subject property is Lot 10 of Camelback Manor subdivision. So the lot is zoned R43, and as you can see in the image on the right, it's a corner lot, and as stated, it is lot 10 of that Camelback Manor subdivision. It is roughly a little over a half an acre, triangular in shape. At the northern portion, it is 176 feet in width, and the R43 requirement, if it was plotted today, would be that 165-foot minimum. But at the southern point, it is a zero foot at that southern tip being triangular in shape. The original home was built in 1974, and the lot currently maintains a 20.7% floor area ratio without this proposed addition. With the addition, it would be increased to 21.9%. So this lot was platted in 1951 and annexed into the town in 1961. According to town records, the original home was built in 1972, went through an extensive remodel and addition in 1985. And as you can see on the screen, there have been numerous other permits pulled for additional work on the lot through its history. Most recently, a permit for roof-mounted solar in 2021. So the homeowner is requesting for a variance from Article 10 to allow for that addition to the main home to encroach into the required 40-foot rear yard setback. The proposed addition would sit at 25 feet 8 inches from that eastern property line, which is, again, that rear designation. That would equate to a 14 foot 4 inch encroachment, which breaks down to a total of 275 square feet of the total 284 square foot of addition. So 97% of that portion of the new structure would be encroaching. The applicant is also proposing additional fence walls along that eastern edge, which would be compliant with Article 24 requirements. On this slide, you can see how the existing residence conforms to those R43 requirements displayed on the left side as what the ordinance would require, and on the right what the current residence sits at. As you can see along that eastern edge, the current home maintains a setback of 21 feet 6 inches, and the design is to almost mirror that even at a greater setback of that 25 feet 8 inches. This slide, I know it's difficult to see on your screen, but it's included in your packet material, displays the applicant site plan. Highlighted in green is that proposed 283 square foot addition. They're proposing, again, to match that side setback on that rear being at 25 feet 8 inches along both the north and the south portion of the new addition. The proposed addition is to be 12 foot 2 inches in max height above finished floor along that eastern side and 17 feet above the lowest natural grade for the house. The home is compliant in terms of height, and this addition also meets height requirements being above lowest natural grade and per open space criteria. So at that proposed setback of 25 feet 8 inches, the height allowance is 17 feet 2 inches, And again, as stated, the 17 feet is under that allowance. The next few slides are comprised of photos of the existing home. The one on the left is looking at the east side of the home from Camelback Manor Drive. And then the one on the right is looking at the west elevation from the right-of-way. The left is the south elevation inside the property line looking at the front entrance of the home. And then the one on the right side of the screen is looking south to the property. Staff has found that this application meets all three variance criteria. The property is burdened with an odd triangular shape, dual frontage, and is undersized for its zoning classification. The 23,441 square feet compared to the 43,560, that would be a normal R43 zoned lot today. And it also has the narrow width as the property lines vary from that zero feet at the south to that 176 feet to the north. This creates a triangular shape building envelope which limits development towards the east. The proposed addition, again by the applicant, was designed to mirror the existing residence. The request for setback encroachment staff files is not self-imposed as the lot maintains the triangular shape, again with the dual frontage and the smaller size for its zoning classification. Lastly, the addition is in character with the existing improvements on the property and does not extend beyond existing encroachments. The owner is also proposing, again, that previously mentioned compliant fence wall to help screen and mitigate any impact from that setback encroachment. The applicant has also identified that this improvement is in character with the neighborhood, as other properties in the neighborhood are similarly situated and have existing setback encroachments as well. Staff found that based on 2026 county aerial, Eight of the 20 lots within the subdivision currently have existing setback encroachment. A notice for this case was mailed out on July 22nd. Staff has received one letter of opposition, which was included in your packet, and subsequently on August 31st withdrawn. That letter was also signed by four other residents' homes. Three of those have also stated that they would like to withdraw, and staff has not heard from the resident that signed at 5404 East Palo Verde. There was also an e-comment that was sent to the board And again, all affidavits for the site posting and the mailing have been provided to staff. With that, staff recommends that the board approve case BA 2604. Again, a request for a variance from Article 10, height and area regulations to allow for that addition to the main residence to encroach into the rear setback. Staff again has found that this lot maintains a non-self-imposed restrictive building envelope. And the addition matches existing setback. And this request does meet the state mandated variance criteria. Staff also recognizes that the proposal, again, is in character with the existing subdivision. You can see that in the image on the right. Staff has identified the existing lots that maintain that similar setback encroachment. In terms of possible action before you this evening, much like other cases, you may either approve with the stipulations as presented in your packet material, deny the request, or continue for further review. With that, I now open this case for discussion. Any questions you have, and thank you very much.

Thank you. Any questions of staff by the board? Bill.

Brandon, you mentioned that the applicants proposed a screen wall. Is the town requiring it?

Board member, members of the board, that is not a requirement from staff or the town. It's just simply being proposed by the applicant as to help screen from that side.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

But by definition Are you saying we have two front yards or the east the east side is? Officially declared as the rear yard How is this defined?

Board Member Leipson, members of the board, that's correct. A yard clarification was created, basically noting that the front door and meeting all of our other criteria to indicate that the west side is the front and by definition opposite the front, the east would be the rear, noting that the north would be the only side. how the house was constructed, character of the neighborhood, front yard, basically follows that, the mailbox, all of our other criteria. So the east is the only rear yard. So technically 40-foot front yard along the west, 40-foot rear yard along the east, and 20-foot side yard to the north would be per code.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff? OK, would the applicant or the applicant's representative please come to the podium and provide us with your position? Identify yourself, please, your name, and municipality of residence.

Susan, will you turn on your mic? Just press the button.

Is the mic on?

There you go.

There we go. OK. Thank you, board members. My name is Susan Bigner of Bigner Murph Architects. And I live in Phoenix, actually. I was also the architect on the prior remodel to this house. And it was really nice to be able to work on a vintage home and not tear it down. It is an unusual lot. I was quite surprised when Brandon said that the front setback was not where the front door was, that it was on the west side. So when we were proposing taking this odd triangular-shaped portion of the master suite and enlarging it and expanding it within the existing setbacks, I didn't expect it to be considered a rear setback. So the goal is to create the most modest addition that speaks to the massing and the language of what's there, matching the existing 12-foot height. And currently, there is a screen wall because the bathroom has a window. And if there wasn't a screen wall, it wouldn't be great for the owners. So the idea is to replace that screen wall. in a new configuration that's slightly further east. There's a heavy layer of trees along that side. In fact, I couldn't even get a photograph of that portion because it's so buried in the vegetation that the prior owners planted. And the current owners would, of course, keep that and add to that as well. I think that I appreciate the original letter that was submitted because it's a tough area when it comes to traffic. There's cars on either side. There's bikers. So when you're doing anything on your home, You want to be sensitive to your neighbors. GM Hunt, Greg Hunt is this project in a way surrounding area.

Sure. Residents and when things are just as an effort.

Which probably better. Just a project. Who wishes to speak either into the podium?

My name is Kathleen Clifford. This house actually was brought up before the Board of Adjustment in 2002 with you presiding. And it's interesting because in that case, the staff recommended for the exact opposite. And the board was very hung up on whether or not you should increase the encroachment on a lot that already encroached. Now it appears that it's fine to do this, which I think needs to be something that's really thought about. Do we continue to encroach on our neighbors, on their views, by making the house slightly larger? Is there truly a hardship? Was there no other place to locate this addition? And it seems that that sort of just flipped on its head from what it used to be in terms of the discussions that went on with the board back then about should a house encroach more than it had already. And I also feel that even though you said that's not precedent, it should still be included in the packet for people to look at to see what was the thought process and what was going on with the property at the time because the packet seemed to suggest that there was a mystery About how this house got to the size it was so personally for me I don't feel that it should be granted this house was recently purchased. It's been enlarged significantly it's a neighborhood that's filled with non-conforming homes, and we're losing the character of a lot of these neighborhoods because of that. Thank you. Thank you.

Mrs. Clifford, please just stay there for a sec. I don't recall, because I know you've spoken before. You've done hundreds of these. I feel like we're old friends. Do you live in this particular area?

Are you near this property? No, but I've driven past it many times. It's very charming. Yeah. You know, the architect mentioned how charming it is, and when you start to make them bigger and bigger and bigger, you eventually lose the charm, and you also, the neighbors are for it now, but previously they were concerned about their view and the disruption in their neighborhood.

Okay, thank you.

This is happening in every neighborhood. Thank you very much.

I'll speak to that comment. In this case, I mentioned do not take each by case. 2002, there are three in 2020. In 2002, it was again on the west side, their front yard. And this request is in the rear yard on the east side. And the size of these additions also vary greatly. This proposal being 283 square feet and the 2002 request being 480 square feet.

That's very helpful. Thank you. Any questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. Anyone else wishing to, you wish to readdress? Come on up.

Susan, will you turn on your mic? Sorry.

The prior owners could have torn the house down when I was working on it or made it much taller. This addition is small and it's 12 feet. It's not blocking anyone's view. That's all been taken into consideration. It will be very minor. You can't even see the addition. So while I absolutely understand and I'm a huge proponent of not making huge homes take over an entire lot, the configuration and the way the home is set up, there really are no other places to add on. So we looked at everything.

I do have a question because you indicated that the vegetation is going to remain in place. saw the property, I was wondering how much of that vegetation was going to have to be removed.

If any vegetation is removed, I have no problem with stipulation saying an equal amount is put back in. Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments or questions of? Okay, thank you. I will then close the public part of the hearing and entertain a motion and a second, and then we can have a discussion on the motion.

I'll make a motion that case number BA-2604 for the 6124 North Camelback Manor Drive be approved subject to the stipulations that were disclosed.

Is there a second? Okay, bill seconded. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Okay, hearing none, staff, will you please call for the question?

Board Member Levson?

Yes.

Board Member Cannadino? Board Member Kuchendahl?

Yes.

Chair Ozer?

Yes.

Board Member Pestis? Yes. Board Member Williams? Yes.

Okay. Thank you. The application has been approved unanimously. Thank you. And we will move on to the next order of business. Next order of business is a withdrawal of case number BA-2601 at 6235 East Cates Kate Spearow? Correct. That's a new one on me. Appeal of your clarification. Staff, would you please explain this?

Yeah, so there's no more formal presentation that was continued from the June meeting. And since the applicant withdrew the request, we just simply noted it on the agenda. So if any public came out to hear it, that there is no action for this case now.

Okay, so we don't need to make a move. It's just FYI. It's been withdrawn. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, and if we don't know the consent approval if you can remember April 15th Okay, do I have a motion for approval for the consent agenda? Seconded all those in favor opposed Okay Okay, any other staff reports? My apologies. Any other?

Yes, one more. The June 3rd Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes.

Pardon me?

The June 3rd Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes as well.

Oh.

For some reason, the title didn't populate on the agenda, but it does have the attachments on there. Okey-dokey. Yes, I see.

Make a motion for approval of the June 3rd minutes of the Board of Adjustment.

I'll second it. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Wouldn't that just be moving the consent agenda because both of those items were on it? Correct.

My apologies, you're right. I just heard the April 15th and I didn't hear the June.

I've got to watch you every minute. Thank you, George. Any other public body reports? Future agenda items?

Future agenda items, none. We won't have an October meeting, possibly November. We have two pre-ops in queue, but I don't know if they'll go forward or not.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Okay. In that case, may I have a motion to adjourn?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

We are adjourned. That's right.

Thank you all.