Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Twenty twenty five meeting of the town of Paradise Valley Board of Adjustment to order and welcome you all. My name is Eric Liebsen, chair of the board. I'm gonna request we silence all of our devices, and I'm gonna ask the staff secretary to please call the roll.

Board member Williams? Here. Board member Petsis? Here. Board member Ozer? Here. Board member Contadino?

Here.

Board member Barnes? I'd like to note that Board Member Kuykendall is absent today and Chair Leibson? Here. Thank you.

Defined defining under what circumstances we are empowered to provide these variances from the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Rulings and previous rulings of this board do not set precedents. Each request is reviewed on its own merits, and each decision of the board is based on the specifics of the property and the requested variance. For the benefit of those in attendance, here is an overview of how we will proceed. When the case is called, town staff will make a presentation with questions from the board.

Next, you as the applicant or your representative will present with questions from the board. I will then open the public hearing and ask for those who wish to speak in favor of the application, followed by those who wish to speak in opposition to the application. If there's anybody here that would like to speak that's not an applicant, you can fill out a speaker card and hand it to Charisse, and that would be very helpful for us. I will then close the public hearing. The board will deliberate and proceed to a motion and vote.

When you approach the podium, please speak into the microphone and state your name and municipality of residence. Board decisions may be appealed to the Superior Court of the State of Arizona within thirty days of a decision made by the Board. You are free to remain in the chambers after the ruling if you wish. We will by no means be insulted if you choose to leave. We will move on to the next order of business.

Alright. With that said, we do have a quorum. I believe there is no need for an executive session. We're going to move right into the cases. So our first case is twenty five-one hundred seventy six, discussion and possible action on a request to continue case number BA 20Five-two. Is there anybody here to represent this case?

I'll be presenting for the applicant. In the packet, they did request continuance to the next October meeting date. The board did look at this variance request twice the May 7 and June 4 meetings and both of those were continued to allow the applicant to redesign the house. They're diligently working on a redesign. They may still need a variance, but their goal is to try to eliminate the variance request. But before the board does take action, we do need to nail down the upcoming October meeting date. October 1 is Yom Kippur holiday. So staff does recommend that it get moved to the following week on October 8. And I just wanted to check to see

if we'll have

a quorum for the October 8 meeting.

Yes. Okay. So I I believe in light in light of the fact they are diligently working, making forward progress, I believe it's reasonable to grant the extension unless anybody has thoughts otherwise. Do we need a motion to Yes, do

please.

Alright. So would anybody like to make a motion for a continuance?

If the continuance can be made today specific to October 8, this way they won't have to re notify. We'll just have them repost the property.

I move that we continue this case to the October yeah. October 8 meeting, please.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. We have we have a motion and a second. All the all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion carries and you will notify the applicant.

I will, yes.

Thank you. All right. The next case is discussion and possible action on case number BA25DashO6 Westbrook variance, 6341North30FourthPlace. This is a variance to exceed the maximum allowable height for retaining wall. George, are you making a presentation?

Actually, planter McMan will present this case.

All right. Very good. You have the floor.

Go ahead.

All right. Good evening, chair, members of the board. Again, this item is potential variance, case b a 2506 At 6341 North 34th Place. The goal this evening is to review the application in its entirety, field any comments you may have, answer any questions, and ultimately take action on this item. The variance request is to allow for that previously mentioned retaining wall height to exceed the six foot max height from adjacent exterior grade per article 24, specifically section twenty four zero seven.

We'll be going over the background to this slot and its history in the next few slides, but this slide is here to help you better orient yourselves with with the slot is located. 6341 North 34th Place, which is the far west portion of town, as you can see on the map, East of the Southeast corner of 32nd Street and Lincoln Drive. The site is zoned R 43. It is Lot 18 of the Murado Los Arcos Phase 2 subdivision. It is 51,462 square foot in size, roughly 1.18 acres.

The original home was built in 1977. You can kind of see on the aerial that there is a very large wash that runs along that north side along the south portion of Lincoln Drive. The current wash and retaining wall, is in fact eroding, and will need to be stabilized for this request. This slide depicts the lot's previous permit history. As of note, you will see that, again, the home was constructed in 1977, and there was also a subsequent permit in 2000 or 2020 to attempt to scour that existing wash after decades of erosion within that wash, scour the existing retaining wall to prevent further erosion.

And a proposed new retaining wall would further stabilize that southern bank of that wash as it gets closer to the foundation of the existing residence. Speaking to the exact scope of the request, the applicant is proposing that new retaining wall and to redefine the existing wash and that drainage easement to provide future protection. With that, as far as deep cut as the existing wash is, they'll need to have a maximum of nine foot in height from that exterior side of grade. And again, the code requirement is that six feet. So they'll be asking for, at the max, a three foot encroachment into that height.

The South bank, again, as I previously mentioned, of the wash has eroded over decades of flow and continues to cause erosion further and further towards the foundation of the residence, causing concern for that failure of foundation to erode as well. The new retaining wall will not be visible from Lincoln Drive as there's a lot of vegetation within that wash, and I'll be displaying some photo examples of that on previous slides or post slides, and that those will also the the wall and the reorientation of the wash will stop further erosion. Here you can see the site plan provided by the applicant depicting the location of the new retaining wall along that south bank. There is currently an existing retaining wall, but there has been a lot of damage and just needs to be replaced in its entirety. You can also see the top right kind of where the existing drainage easement runs along that existing wash, very large wash.

Lastly, the swatch down below is what the applicants proposed to be the stucco and paint color of that existing wash blending, again, with those natural surroundings. Here are the sections provided by the applicant depicting the three sections taken from the proposed wall. At the max height, the wall will again, varying heights, but at the max, you will see that nine foot from exterior finish grade. I know it's a little difficult to see on this slide, but it was included in your packet material. Here you can see those previously mentioned site photos provided by applicant illustrating that the new proposed wall, again, will not be visible from off-site or from Lincoln frontage.

The wall is screened by the, again, the existing vegetation, the wash depth, and is over 60 foot setback from that Lincoln Drive property line. You can also see on the right the current condition of that existing wall as the wash has pretty much eroded the entirety of the bottom of that retaining wall. Staffs finds that there are site hardships that warrant the request variance, those mostly based on the topography and drainage concerns. The lot is adequately sized for its zoning classification. It is slightly oddly shaped, being six sided, but the necessity for the variance obviously is purely based on those site conditions and safety.

Town engineering staff has also provided and was included in your packet a memo outlining that engineering staff is in agreement that this variance request is indeed necessary to ensure the foundation of the home to be it will be protected via this new retaining wall and modifying the existing wash. As far as notification for this request, the mailing and site posting was done on July 29 for tonight's meeting, as well as a newspaper legal ad being posted on August 18. Staff has fielded one phone call regarding this item, which was solely in a general inquiry basis. With that, staff's recommendation is as follows. Staff is recommending approval of this variance request, per the stipulations.

Again, improvements will be in compliance with submitted plans and documents, modifying existing drainage easement per, town engineering approval, and again, obtaining all required building permits and inspections. The board may also deny this request or continue for further review, should that be their purview. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions, field any comments, and thank you for your time.

Thanks. Are there any questions?

Actually, it's it's a question of staff. Is this something that a case such as this in the future, we need to make changes that would empower staff to do this in an administrative role? Would require seems I mean, the wash is getting deeper. It's affecting the house. And I guess that's a question for John.

Chair and, member Osher, I don't think so. But that's something that we could look into. And I don't think that's something that you could do tonight. Of course not. But that's something that we could look into about whether there's I I understand your question to be, is there a way that we can not have this property owner come back for the same issue every certain number of years? That's kind

of what you're looking for.

I think staff could look into ways to maybe accomplish that.

Okay.

Thank

you. Any any other questions?

I have I have

Sure. The configuration of the current drainage easement, is the proposed new wall going to fall inside the drainage easement as it currently exists, and the easement's gonna have to be modified in order to put the wall outside the easement?

Correct. So on this slide, you'll see on that top right, the dark black dashed line is the current easement configuration. New wall will be portions of it will be in the new dedicated easement, which will be in that blue and red on the the red on the south. So, yes, there will be portions of the wall that will be encroaching into the easement. But, again, once those building permits will come in, it'll be embedded by engineering staff. And but, yes, to answer your question, yes, portions of the wall will be in the easement.

So there is an encroachment into the easement then and requires a modification of the easement as it stands today?

Correct. And they were gonna yeah. So the attempt would be to enlarge what the easement is now, and again, allow for that that wall to to be within the easement as it currently resides now.

Thank you. Yep.

Brandon, I also agree with your conclusion. I believe there significant hardships here, but I do have one question. When you talk about the overall height, the vertical height of the wall, is this measured from lowest natural grade or from the lowest point on the entire site?

So for these retaining walls, you can kind of see, I know it's hard difficult to see on this slide, wall height is measured from that exterior finish grade. So you'll see toward the bottom of each section, you'll see where that finished grade elevation point is, and then it'll go up to the very top. They're not anticipating adding additional fill or anything of that nature. It's just how much the wall has eroded over time and what they'll need to be doing to put the footings in. So where that finished grade is, at the max it'll have to be that nine feet.

The current wall is almost at that as it currently sits today, They just really need to refortify that wall and to put that new wall in, it's again over what the code requires, so that's why they're seeking the variance.

Okay, thank you. Any further questions from the board? Seeing none, is the applicant present? Would you like to speak?

Alex, good? The if you could bring up the setback requirements. Actually, I'll answer the first question first. The possibility of the client coming back in the future. The site is and the pictures aren't very good. There's more that we've received in the application. It's bedrock, hence the reason we're not filling into that area. Future issues coming back with the same issue are unlikely just because of the bedrock. On the second question with the easement, the Brandon, if you could go to that, the red is actually the existing easement. The blue is going to be the new.

So the wall will not be in the new drainage easement. Yeah. You flipped them around. The red the red is the existing. The blue will be the proposed. So it the new easement will run right along the face of the wall and then follow back to where it is currently.

Just for the record, maybe I missed it. Did you can you state your name and I'm sorry.

Gary Miller with K Bell Engineering. We're doing engineering on the project.

Right. And are you together is the owner present?

The owner is not present, but I have the architect with me.

Okay. Thank you.

Those are the only two clarifications I got and just I mean, the the panels recognize that there is a need for this, that the house is eventually gonna fail. The soils where the house is at are actually very unstable. We can't remove that existing little wall. We gotta build it, the new wall in front of it, which is north of it, which puts us into the current condition.

Any questions to the applicant? No. Seeing none. All right. Thank you for your presentation. I believe we can move direct. I don't think there's any further deliberation. I believe we can move directly into a motion. Is anybody here to speak for or against? Thank you, everybody. Thank you. We're going to officially close the public hearing portion. I believe we are ready to move into a motion. Is there any further discussion? Yeah.

Doesn't seem to be any further discussion of the board. I mean, I will call for a motion.

And prepare to make a motion that we approve b a twenty five zero six, a request by Steven or from Self Design LLC on behalf of William Westbrook, property owner of 6341 North 34th Place for variance from zoning ordinance article 24 walls and fences to allow retaining walls to exceed the maximum height limits in accordance with the listed stipulations and staff report.

Do we have a motion? Is there a second? Second. Second. Ken? Alright. Ken seconds. A motion and a second. Seeing seeing no further discussion, can we call for a roll call vote?

Board member Williams? Approved. It's an I vote. Board member Petsis? That's three. An I vote. Board member Ozer? Aye. And I vote. Board member Contadino? Aye. I vote. Board member Barnes?

Aye.

And I vote. Chair Liebson?

Aye.

And I vote. The motion passes.

Alright. We have approved your variance request. Congratulations. You. Please proceed with the staff and the engineering department to get all the proper permits. I'm sure you will. Alright.

Thank you

very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright.

All

right. The next order of business is following cases. Discussion and possible action on case number BADash25DashO4, which is Legacy Hill acquisition LLC variant, 7102 North 57th Place. George, are you going to present Yes, on I'm

presenting the site home. Sounds good. Thank you. Good evening, chair and board members. So today's goal is to review and take action on this proposed variance request, which is to allow an addition to the main home to encroach in the rear yard setback.

Briefly go over the background, the scope of the request, the analysis and staff recommendation, and the actions for the board this evening. On the left hand side is the vicinity map showing location of the property for 57th Place In Glen Drive, and on the right hand side is an aerial photo of the current site. In terms of site conditions, the property is on r 43. It's a low over one acre in size at 1.14 acres shaped like a triangle. It does vary in width from 33 feet at the east side and gets wider to the west at 250 feet wide.

It does have dual frontage with going to the north and 57th Place to the Southeast. It does have a property slope about 23%, and there's a wash located on the western side of the lot. This property was originally platted in the county in 1960 as Club Estates 2 subdivision and then annexed the town in '61. The home was built in 1974, and this house did receive a previous experience for a garage addition back in 2013. And they recently received a building permit this year to close an existing patio and do some interior remodel work.

So the request is to add a two story addition into that rear yard setback. On the Ground Floor will be a a one car garage bay, on the 2nd Floor will be an office. Code does require a 40 foot rear yard setback, and the applicant is requesting a 30 foot rear setback to accommodate the addition. It will be placed over the existing driveway area and it will have a total four area about 550 square feet with 433 square feet encroaching in the setback. And this is just a comparison of the code requirements with what the applicants requesting.

So again, the only area of encroachment is along that south property line with the proposed 30 foot setback instead of required 40. This is a site plan provided by the applicant showing the location and dimensions. Again, it will be placed next to the existing garage on top of the existing driveway. Aerial photo just to give some scale and orientation on where that proposed addition will be. And these are the elevation plans.

On top is the existing south elevation. And then below it is the new southern elevation which will be right next to the existing home. And then on top you have the north elevations and then on the bottom you have the existing and proposed east elevations. And then this is a cross section just demonstrating that we'll comply with the 24 foot height limit. For Hillside, you have that rolling 24 measure for natural grade.

This addition will be a little bit lower than the existing house because of the slope of the lot. And next couple of slides are just photographs of the existing site. Again, the new addition will be placed right here on that existing driveway. And then a couple more photographs going up on Glen Drive viewing the house. And then these are just photographs of that area of addition on the driveway.

So for the analysis, the shape topography and washer property hardships that do create a restrictive building envelope. Again, the lot is triangular shape. It has about 33 foot width about the driveway area and then extends to two fifty feet wide to the west. There's a wash on the western property and it has a lot slope of about 25% and building path slope of nearly 24%. If we were planted today, this would have to be a square rectangular shaped lot per code.

And with Hillside, the more steepness you have, the larger the lot it'd have to be. So instead of a one acre lot, our code would require it to be a minimum of two acre property. So staff does believe that there is property hardship associated with the lot. And this was created as part of house platted in Maricopa County and the applicant is trying to minimize the disturbance by putting an addition on the existing driveway area. And this will increase the home from a three car garage to a four car garage, which is typical for PVN in the neighborhood as well.

So again, the property hardship that staff sees is a triangular shape, the wash on the west side of the steep slope of the property, and then the applicant is trying to use existing disturbed area or driveway so they don't have to cut away any additional hillside. Public notification was done in accordance with the requirements. I received one inquiry from the neighbor of the north. They just wanted to see if it was gonna be taller than the existing home. I clarified it was gonna be about two foot lower because of the slope of the property, but they didn't identify if they're support or opposition request.

And since the packet did go out, there was one of the neighbors that's out that did express opposition and concern to the application which was emailed to the board. But staff does believe that the property hardships weren't the request and is recommending approval of the variance. And three possible actions for the board this evening, approve the variance request with the stipulation that all improvements have to be in compliance with submitted plans and documents. The applicant must obtain Health Site Committee approval and also approve building permit inspections from the building division. Second action is to deny the request And third is to continue for further review. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

All right. Does any board member have questions or comments to for George? Seeing none. Is the applicant present? Okay. Please.

Mister chairman, thank you. Tom Galvin with Rose Law Group on behalf of the Van Houten family who's here tonight. We have a presentation for you, but really after what staff just showed you, could not have said any better. This really comes down to three main issues regarding the property. The triangular lot, the slope, and the wash. And if there's any case that is screaming out for a variance, it would be this one. And also wanna let you know that the Vaughn Houghton family really put a lot of thought and care into this. Do you do the clicker? Do I do the clicker?

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

And it's a brief presentation, but I think we need to provide you more context just so you have a fuller picture of exactly what the application is here for. As you heard over tonight from staff's presentation, this is a challenging lot with a severe slope. We have a drainage easement. It's a triangular lot, which is very uncommon. You have all those fronted streets, and it's on three sides.

And as you saw here in the aerial, there's very few places where something like this that they want to construct, which is actually not very big at all, and it's just gonna be two stories matching what's already existing there. We'll be very quite easily able to fit right into here. And so the proposal is additional garage space is intended to provide a safer, more efficient parking arrangement consistent with what is similarly situated that neighbors already enjoy. The 10 foot setback encroachment creates minimal visual or functional impact on adjacent properties and is the only feasible location given the blocks unique constraints. And without this addition, the steep grade in the driveway and garage area combined with the narrow parking configuration causes vehicles to be blocked in.

So current conditions have already led to at least one incident where emergency medical services were delayed due to blocked driveway access. So this is very important that we actually and you were right. It's very sensitive. Satisfy the criteria. So as you heard earlier from staff, these are the reasons why we do satisfy the criteria. Special circumstances do apply to the property. The shape, it's an irregular triangular lot with roads on three sides, which is rare in Paradise Valley. The topography, 25% hillside slope. The setback anomaly property line is 15 feet farther from the road than neighbors creating a landscape buffer, but also exaggerated setback depth. The wash easement, it's a western section here in the property restricted by the drainage easement.

It's no buildable area. And the functional side yard, the proposed garage location is the only viable location. Do some special circumstances apply to the property? Absolutely. And they're not self imposed. The site constraints include being the shape, the slope, the triple frontage, the wash easement. This predates ownership. The wash easement further limits the buildable area. Limitations were not created by any actions of the owners, and the current unsafe driveway condition stem from original lot layout, not owner choice. And for criteria number three, privileges enjoyed by other properties, similar hillside homes in the district accommodate four to five enclosed parking spaces.

We're only asking for one more. Strict code application here denies the same privilege due to unusual lot geometry and proposal lines with neighborhood patterns, preserves hillside, and keeps 80 foot separation from the nearest neighbor. This variance would ensure safe emergency access. And so in conclusion, we just want to remind you that all criteria met regarding special circumstances, no self created hardship, and deprivation of equal privileges. This proposed garage is minimal impact. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you.

And I ask if there's anyone here in opposition I heard from tonight from staff. We just asked for two minutes in rebuttal because frankly, we hadn't heard of any opposition until this announcement. So thank you.

Sure. If you can stay there for a second. Yep. I'm gonna I'm gonna open the the floor for the board members to ask questions. So

Oh, yeah. Tom, just one curiosity question. When you indicate that there was an incident with the dry driveway having blocked access for emergency, when I was looking at the property yesterday, I couldn't visualize what the issue was. So if you can just briefly

clarify that. Can relay that because I don't have direct knowledge of it. I'm gonna ask the applicant to come up and just briefly give you that answer.

Yeah. And it's gonna be short. Sure. Sure.

Sure and sweet.

Yeah. We had stuff in our garage. There's there's the car. It's a tandem. So can I you

speak into the microphone, please?

We have a tandem garage. And so there was stuff in the right side, so the cars had to be parked behind, and the car didn't start. And so it wasn't necessarily the driveway, but we couldn't get the car out. And so we had to get our daughter to the ER, and our car wouldn't start. And it's because of the tandem, we were stuck.

So Okay.

Normally, you have a

So it wasn't an an issue with EMTs not being able to get there or anything? It was No, ma'am. To some degree, a self imposed situation.

Well, it's it's a it's a result of the tandem

instead of Thank you.

Yeah. That's fine. No. Thank And

and chairman Liebson and and commissioner Hoser, it was a family situation, but now with the two cars, you're able to access one or the other. Sure.

Yep. Thank you.

Alright. Any other additional questions for the applicants? Seeing none. Hold on a second, hold on a second. I'm gonna move to the, Tom, you can be seated if you I'm gonna move on to the public hearing, which you'll be allowed to so I'm gonna invite any any other anyone in attendance that would like to speak in favor or against this proposal. And is it did you fill out a would you like to speak? Or

Sir, can we have you come up to the microphone, please?

I am not in favor or objecting to this.

Wait, wait, let's back up. Please identify yourself and

your I'm Doctor. Steven Schaffner. I've lived in the area for forty five years, and I'm not far away from that residence. Is there any other information?

Okay. Good. So I just wanted a few

things clarified. I'm responding to the notice that was sent. I'm not the individual who called in to complain, but I just wanted to be knowledgeable about what was going on. I have a couple of questions. One is what, I couldn't hear very well, what is the impact of this addition going to have on the nearby or next door neighbors?

I didn't hear that delineated extremely well or at least where I could hear it. And the second question I have is I thought I heard that there wasn't going to be any tearing up of the property except the area right in front of the garage, is there going to be long construction period? Is there going to be jackhammering of rocks on the mountainside which will affect the noise ordinances and the comfort of the residents around. Those are the things that are of my concern, and I would like to hear them clarified.

Sure. Okay. Thank thank you. I I respect your questions. Okay. Let's before we I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna ask the attorney to make a rebuttal in a second, but could you just well, let's see if there's any other speakers in in favor or against this proposal. Are you the only one? Okay. And if that's the case, Tom, would you like to reply? Chairman

Leifson, members of the committee, happy to. Any applicable ordinances, obviously, the applicant would follow. But the question before you tonight is whether or not the applicant satisfies the three tests for a variance. And have you seen that staff recommends approval and we carefully laid out the three tests? Any other issues regarding construction and noise, we'd have to follow applicable ordinances, but we have shown tonight that we satisfied the three criteria for a variance, which is the test of the board of adjustment. Thank you.

Right. Thank you. Okay. You would you like to speak, sir?

Then you have to sign in somewhere.

Would be best, but you can proceed if you want. Mark. Yeah. Please proceed.

Yes. I'm I'm Mark Candelaria. I'm the architect of this project. And to address the doctor's comments or questions, what's good about this location, it's already kinda graded and virtually ready for that location to so the impact in terms of jackhammering or rock mediation is virtually nonexistent. It's pretty much a pad that's already virtually there. So in terms of that aspect and the constructability time, it should be pretty minimal and pretty easy. So hopefully that answers your question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Yeah. And that's part of what we have to go through with Hillside and engineering. We will address all of the water runoff and and and retention that requirements that are necessary by the town permit requirement. So we'll address all that.

Okay. I would like to officially close the the public hearing portion of this case. And does any board member have anything, any questions or additional comments to make to staff or

the applicant? I have one and it's for our legal counsel. Is our approval of variance subject to stipulation that it has to get approved by the hillside committee?

That's what staff is recommending per one A and B.

Great. That's what I want to clarify.

Okay. Believe there's no further deliberation at this time. So I would like to request a motion for this variance.

Me again?

You're up.

It's like I'm always at bat around here. Okay. I would like to make a motion for approval of case number BA2504, a request by Jameson and Irina Van Houghton of Legacy Hill Acquisition LLC, property owners of 7102 North 57th Place for a variance from article 10 height and area restrictions to allow two story garage and office addition to the main house to encroach into the rear south setback in accordance with the stipulations as included in staff report. The triangular shape of the lot, the look that is my motion. My reason for the motion is that the triangular shape of the lot, the location of the wash and slope of the property create property hardships that warrant the variance request for the rear yard setback encroachment.

And just a p s, as we all know, we do not set precedence with any of our motions or any rulings that we have so that this does not have any effect on any future cases. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. We we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Joe seconds. Motion and a second. I'm going to ask one final time if there's any further discussion on this motion. I do do I'm going to express my opinion. I believe all of the variance criteria has been satisfied in this case, and therefore, I will be voting in favor of the variance. So with that, ask for a roll call vote.

Board member Williams?

Aye. An

I vote. Board member Petsis?

Aye.

An I vote. Board member Ozer? Aye. An I vote. Board member Contadino?

Yes.

And I vote. Board member Barnes?

Aye.

And I vote. Chair Liebsen? Aye. And I vote. The motion passes.

Alright. Congratulations. You're free to proceed. Okay, next case. This is our final one? All right, good. Right. You all can move forward if you want. It's up to you. Alright.

This is discussion and possible action on case number BA-twentyFive-seven. VanDale, Ikel, variance 6528 North Hillside Drive, variance to allow an existing nonconforming carport that encroaches into the setback to be converted into a garage. And I'm going to ask George to make a presentation.

Good evening again. So today's goal is to review and take action on this proposed variance request to convert an existing nonconforming carport into a garage which encroaches into the side yard setback. I'll briefly go over the background, the scope of the request, staff's analysis and recommendation, and the actions for tonight. The property is located just North of Lincoln Drive on the West side of Hillside Drive. And on the right hand side is a aerial photo of the current site.

For in terms of site conditions, the property is zoned r 43. It's a little bit undersized for a zoning classification at point eight seven acres. It's obtuse in shape. It does vary in width from about 202 feet wide at the east side along the street and then narrows down to a 122 feet wide at the west. It does have a very large u shaped wash, which takes approximately a third of the lot.

And this was planted in the county in 1956 as Lot 34 of Paradise High Lands and then annexed in the town in 1979. The home was originally constructed in our county jurisdiction, which probably explains why the house is encroaching in the 20 foot side yard setback. And there is a building permit for the house in 1980 for an addition. So the scope or the request for tonight for the variances convert the existing nonconforming carport into garage. Code identifies when you have a nonconforming structure, can increase the massing or nonconforming aspect of it.

So by enclosing it, that does increase the nonconforming aspect and is therefore subject to variance from that section of code. So the carport does currently encroach in 20 in its 20 foot side yard setback. It'll become a two car garage. It's low in height about 10 feet two inches tall from lowest natural grade under the house. And the existing setback will be maintained, but it does vary from about 12 feet to 18 feet from that north side property line.

The new garage or enclosed garage area will be a total of 520 square feet with a 114 square feet encroaching into the setback. And this is just a comparison of the code requirements with the applicants proposing and all other code requirements will be met with exception of converting that portion that's about 12 feet setback from that north side property line. This is a site plan provided by the applicant showing the location of the carport now be garage with a varying setback of 12 feet to 18 feet. And an aerial photo just giving perspective on where that modification will occur. And the applicant provided these two plans to show that septic systems located between the existing carport and the detached casita and then that very large u shaped wash that surrounds the home.

And these are the elevation plans provided by the applicant showing what the new garage will look like. Again, it's low in height at 10 foot two inches tall. And code does allow the house to be 24 feet tall from LNG. And then rendering showing the improvements not only to the house, but also that enclosed garage area. And then these are just a couple of photos of the site from the street.

And then these are from on the property showing that existing carport. And then a couple of photographs of that wash that wraps around the house. So staff's analysis is that the nonconforming setbacks probably result of it being built under the county jurisdiction. The applicant wants to remodel the home instead of replacing it. Staff leave there is a property hardship that warrants the request due to the wash, the shape of the lot, and the size of lot create a limited and restricted building envelope.

We have that yard large u shaped wash takes up almost a third of the property. The property does narrow towards the rear of the lot, and it's undersized for zoning class classification is about 13% smaller than a standard r 43 lot. It should have limited impact because it's low in height and only a 114 square feet encroaching the setback. Again, this is gonna be a two car garage, which is actually small for PV. Most of new homes typically have a four car garage on them.

And this is just kind of reiterating those property hardships, large wash, location of the septic, and the size and shape of the property. Notice was done in accordance with our requirements and staff received no comments or inquiries about this request. And due to the aforementioned property hardship, staff is recommending approval of this variance request. And the possible actions for tonight are approval subject to the stipulations in the packet that they have to comply with some of the plans and documents and obtain all required permits and inspections. You may deny the request or continue for further review. And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions for George at this time? Have one. Ken?

There's no change in the footprint. He's just going inside the existing

Correct. He's just enclosing

what's there. Thank you.

Was the original construction within the setback of the county requirements?

I don't know what the county requirements were back then.

Didn't have any. All

right, I'm gonna invite the applicant to present their case. Good

evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, George and Charisse, as well for all your emails over the last few months. And I definitely look forward to changing the color palette of this house. So this so the the original house was built in 1962. It is Excuse me, hold hold

on one second. Sure. Can you please state your name and Sure.

Maury Van Denykel. I am the homeowner. My home residence is in Evanston, Illinois. This is a second home.

Thank you.

If the clicker doesn't work, just tell me next, and I'll advance it for you.

No problem. We'll try it here. Alright. So number one goal of this project was not to, not to bulldoze the home, really to bring it up to, current standards. It did it does have a a decent sized footprint, exactly what I was looking for ultimately.

I'm not I'm not looking to expand the home. It is, at the moment, a five bedroom, four and a half bath house, and it's gonna remain somewhat like that, but it will have a reduced there were one lost bedroom there. Really, the main goal here is to get approval for this variance to be able to continue with the project. The lot does have the hardships, as noted, irregular shape. The washes definitely present the biggest challenge with this in addition to placement of the driveway, very limited options.

So the goal really was just to keep this as intact, but bring it forward to modern day. As was mentioned just now, there's no change to the existing roof overhang that is there for the carport. It is 20 by 24 feet. This will remain exactly that. The eight foot encroachment on the side will remain at that, no addition to it. And the height of the existing garage will not have any changes made to that as well. I know we already looked through a lot of these. That is the site plan. You'll see the washes and the topography of the site. It just further complicates any other additions.

But fortunately for me, I do like the house the way it is, so did not want to make any additional changes. There is some square footage that's being added to the inside of the home, filling in of a central atrium that will have a roof put over it. But other than that, no additional square footage will be added. I believe it's about 150 square feet that's gonna be added into the central part of the home. Just some some updated elevations here.

For the most part, everything's remaining intact, which was which was really the goal of this project. You can see from the floor plans here, central atrium being converted and then an entry into the garage from the home. It does not currently have that with the carport, but that would change with the renovation. Think that is actually it. If there's any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Any any questions for the owner?

I have a comment. First of all, I'd like to commend you in maintaining an existing structure Paradise Valley that is that is part of the fabric of the town. And I appreciate that personally. There's been too many teardowns.

Great.

The the the character of Paradise Valley is changing dramatically. And so my hats off to you for maintaining and restoring an existing property.

Thank you. I searched I searched a long time for this house. I I hope the I hope the renovation runs as smoothly as I hope so, but we will see.

If I may make a comment to Ken's comment, he lives two streets to the east of your house, and he did something similar as far as preserving the character of the home when he bought it, also from Illinois. Oh my gosh.

Must be in Illinois.

Thank you for that. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Think the biggest change with this house is ultimately gonna be the color outside. The red and the green and the purple needs to go. I think all the neighbors would appreciate that. If any of you saw it, I apologize for the condition.

All right.

Do the modifications include anything to the exterior elevation?

So if you look, so the the garage area will remain intact. I did wanna keep all of the original brickwork. That's the sawtooth on the backside of the house and on the front there. The only modification to the roof of the home is in the southeast corner, where in the upper right hand side here, there's actually an eight foot ceiling internally right now, but there is a full 12 foot beam drop in two places that makes working with the existing structure on that side pretty challenging. The north side of the house does have 10 foot internal ceilings, which is evidenced by the 10 foot roof over the garage where you can see it step up behind it.

So the goal was to have a uniform ceiling between the living room, the kitchen, and the dining area. But that's that's the only modification to the elevation is in that southwest corner that would take it up to 10 feet internally. The goal is to keep as much of it the same, but it those of you that negotiate, is in pretty deferred condition. The previous owner's family lived there since 1972, and they donated the house to charity upon their death earlier this year. And I I purchased it from the charity.

And they they knew very little about the house, but I've been able to meet some of the family members and whatnot over the last few months. So a lot of history there. I think they're happy to see it be renovated as well versus bulldozed.

Alright. Thank you very much. Is is there any before I close the public hearing portion, is there anybody else here who would like to speak? Okay.

I was gonna we haven't met before, but I think this is actually my neighbor's son-in-law. Yeah. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you.

My name's Nick. I'm representing AJ Geringer. He lives just north. He's out of town, but he's voicing his support for the project too. And I think he wrote a letter. Did he write a letter?

He did write a letter.

He wrote a letter in support. He just wanted me to be here tonight to say that he's okay with all this, and I think it's his house that's kinda getting encroached on a little bit, but he's in favor of the plans.

Okay. For just for the for the minutes, could you state your full name?

Nick Reeve, r e v e.

Thank you. You're welcome. Alright. Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna close the public hearing portion and believe we've already deliberated. There any further deliberation before we make a motion? Seeing none, I'm going to ask for a motion. Who would like to? Joe?

You want to make a motion on this case?

I can make a motion to approve case b a twenty five zero seven for the variance to allow the nonconforming carport to be enclosed and converted to a garage.

Alright. Thank you. We have is there any clarification on to that?

You know, if I if you would amend that or include in that in in accordance with the stipulations indicated in the staff report. So

do you accept that language as suggested? Thank you. Thanks. Is there a second to the motion?

I second it.

Second, we have a motion and a second prior to a vote. Is there any further discussion or we're ready to move into a vote? Alright. Charisse, you wanna call for the motion?

Board Member Williams? Aye. And I vote. Board Member Petsis? Aye. And I vote. Board Member Ozer? Aye. And I vote. Board member Contadino. Aye. And I vote. Board member Barnes. Aye. And I vote. Chair Liebhsson.

Aye.

And I vote. And the motion passes.

Alright. Congratulations. Thank you very much everybody. I really appreciate it. Alright. I think this might be the only meeting we had for cases and no no votes. So that's that's a good thing. It's a record. It's

a record.

And you will find once you snowbird here, you're going to want to live here all the

time. I don't know, I was here in August and there

were a little bit. I

got to get

a pool built first.

Okay. All right. Moving along, is there anything on the consent agenda?

Yes, Chair, we have the approval of the June 4 meeting minutes.

Alright. Would anybody like to make a motion or are there any additions or corrections to the June 4 minutes? Would you like to

Yeah. I had sent a note to Seres, and she made a minimal change. I'm trying to even remember what it was.

I failed to add your last name. It said board member Hope instead of board member Hoser, so I edited that and reposted them in advance of the meeting. Yeah.

Slight slight slight clerical update. You can

also do that. Yeah. Minimal.

Alright. Can we do a voice vote on the on the minutes or we need a roll call or don't know. Voice is okay.

Voice is okay.

All All those in favor of approval of the minutes of June 4. Fourth twenty twenty five signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Our record of no noes continues. That's great.

Who was the motion and second on that?

Motion was Joe.

Joe made a motion.

Okay. I think. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

So You did

too? No.

No. He's talking about the meeting

minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. Confusing. Maybe I could do we

Skip over that.

Do I skip over the motion? I don't think there's any opposition to the minutes. Unless we need to be more formal about it. Are there any staff reports?

There are none this evening. Future agenda items. The only future agenda item is the continuance we have for October 8 for sixty five twenty one North fortieth place, but I will appraise the board if they do redesign it to avoid the variance. So it may not have an October meeting.

Okay. A question on that George, if the applicant decides that they want another postponement, Do we and that's the only thing on the agenda. Is that something, John, that we can just do via Zoom or something? Do

we I think so.

Even though I was the one that insisted we don't have Zoom meetings rather than doing hair and makeup and showing up here?

I believe it is. I believe it.

Pusher. I remember also Oh, I think you were the person that pushed for no Zoom. Yep. It's up to the board.

It's it's a board

rule. You adopted a rule that you weren't gonna do Zoom, but I think you have the ability to waive that rule. If as a group, wanna do Zoom, I think you you can agree to do that. Continue something?

Two more?

They can Can however

many times we want? Is that

They can request multiple. They've showed me a version. They still have some in question, but they're I think they can I think they're gonna be able to avoid the variance request?

That'd be good.

If if that's the one and only case for the October agenda, and there's no other no other potential cases in the pipeline for October. I mean, know we already had a motion for October, but is it something we can modify to November or we keep it at October?

I think they'd have to take action on it again. Yeah. You'd have to reconsider the motion and then schedule it to November.

Should we reconsider our last motion say to October 8 or such other date as approved by the chairman, chairperson?

I think it has to be date specific.

Depends on what you're trying, chair and board member. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. The reason that staff recommends that you continue it to a date certain is so that they don't have to re advertise. The idea is that today was advertised and so anyone who might be watching today could hear the new date without you re advertising.

So

Okay. If we don't have the light of that, I think we should just keep it at October 8, that I think that's official and Yep. That's good.

I guess my my question, Eric, think I

think we could do a Zoom.

We could do it's just if it's a postponement.

If it's just another extension. Right.

Right. But if they're

actually If they're actually gonna

hear the case, then

They're gonna make a presentation. And I'll tell they're

working on it, trying to get rid of the variance. Is that the objective?

They are. They pared it down significantly, they're still making changes to get it to comply. So I'm hoping another week or two, I'll I'll have an answer if they're gonna march forward

I or encourage them to do that because Yeah. This is a classic self inflicted wound problem. Mhmm.

Staff recommended dial on both of them. I think they have motivation to do so.

And shared numbers, we don't

wanna get into that discussion of the merits of the case. Okay. It's just continue.

We just wanna kinda stick to the scheduling. Okay. Part.

Right. Okay. Just one one final part. I've had a conversation with Charisse. I will be absent for the November meeting. And so I'm going to ask one of the previous chairs, Quinn or Hope, if they would step up for November if we have a meeting on that date, if that's okay. Do we need any formal action on this or

No.

Okay. Whoever's willing to be acting chair will be great.

We a quorum.

We have

a quorum.

Arm res

all positive votes. That was also, I think that was a first.

You want a motion to adjourn? Yeah, motion to So moved.

Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. Now

Okay. Of course, and I waited now until the meeting was adjourned.