Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Twenty twenty five meeting of the Paradise Valley Planning Commission. It's about 6PM. Charisse, would you please call the roll? Commissioner Rose?

Here.

Commissioner Nasekeis?

Here.

Commissioner Dickman?

Here.

Commissioner Curtis? Here. Commissioner Covington? Here. Commissioner Brown?

Here.

Chair George Ellis? Here. Thank you. We have a quorum. Thank you. So at various points in time this evening, the Planning Commission might go into executive session and have meetings as needed to confer with the town attorney for legal advice regarding any of the items listed on the agenda. This evening, we have the approval or amendment of minutes which is matter 20 five-one

168

on the agenda and we have a study session item of 20 five- two zero five discussion of Lot 29 Stone Canyon Amended lot Split LS 2503 which is at 5338 East San Miguel Avenue. Those are the the major items on the agenda this evening. Let's unless I hear otherwise, let's move forward with the approval or amendment of minutes first.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of June 17.

06/17/2025.

2025.

Second.

This the approval of the minutes has been moved by Commissioner Nasekez and seconded by Commissioner Dickman. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed? That matter, the approval of or amendment of minutes have been passed by unanimous consent of the Planning Commission. Our next item is the presentation of the study session item. And we'll be hearing this evening from Mr. Mendez on item twenty five-two zero five.

Mendez?

Good evening. Thank you for that introduction. This item is a potential, lot split, for the, lot address at 5338 East San Miguel Avenue. The goal this evening is to review the application, fill comments and questions that you may have. This application is within the R 43 Hillside.

It needs to meet the requirements of section twenty two zero nine, density and subdivisions for lots with standards of Article 22 of the Hillside development regulations. Furthermore, the lots qualifies as a non administrative land modification lot split as the parent lot is less than 2.5 net acres. The lot, as mentioned, is located at 500338 East San Miguel Avenue. The lot adjoins East Solano Drive to the North, East San Miguel Avenue to the South. The property is part of the Stone Canyon Amended subdivision, and it is just south of McDonald.

The or I'm sorry, the applicant is requesting the split to split the 2.342 acre lot into two lots. Lot 1 is 44,282 square feet. Lot 2 is 57,759 square feet, meeting the town requirements for lot split. On this slide, you can see the lot slope analysis, which demonstrates the minimum required lot size of one acre. This is per Section two thousand two nine of article 22 of the zoning ordinance for a lot split within the hillside development area.

The subject lot is vacant. It was it previously had a home that sat unoccupied for years. It was demolished in 2023. The only improvements that exist on-site are a four foot tall stone retaining wall within the Solano Solano Drive right of way. It varies in height.

The maximum is four foot tall and varies in length between 25 lineal feet and 125 feet. The town engineer determined that these retaining walls must remain for own or in part to prevent erosion and they do require an encroachment permit, which is currently being processed by the town's engineering division. The request must meet four criteria for the split. The proposal meets the 165 diameter circle. It meets the lot minimum one net acre.

It meets the orthodox shape requirement, and it also meets the access requirements to have direct access onto a public road. Solano Drive and, San Miguel Avenue are categorized as local streets. The streets comply with the town right of way requirements. The lot split process requires any lacking right of way and road improvements to be addressed. Hence, additional payment is going to be required along portions of both San Miguel and Solano Drive.

The San Miguel pavement width is substandard and will require additional paving. Section 5.10.7D of the town code requires a minimum number of native trees and shrubs, along the right of way, and that's part of the typical lot split application unless otherwise specified and subject to rules and regulations of the town. The applicant, is pending a submittal of this. Traffic study is not required, for this spot split. The general trip generation estimates, for single family home averages, between eight point seven eight and ten point zero nine vehicles, trips per day, which is standard.

In terms of, utilities, the required utility easements are accurately shown and dedicated on the proposed plan. Two lots are on septic and no sewer is required. All utilities provided will serve letters except for Cox. Each lot will be required to meet drainage requirements as part of the building permit process. This includes a complete, safety improvement plan as part of the hillside process and that will address any grading and drainage retention.

In terms of fire protection, there is an existing fire hydrant two fifty feet from Lot 1 on Solano Drive. A new hydrant will be added adjacent to Lot 2 on San Miguel Avenue. For public comment and next steps, no public comment were received. The planning commission action is tentatively set for October 21, and then mailing notification would then be sent out on October 3. The recommended stipulations, so the development must be in substantial compliance with the prior to recommendation to complete the following: to provide a formal World Service letter from Cox, submit right of way encroachment permits for the existing retaining walls, submit a mylar PDF of the plat map for permanent records and then prior to issuance of the first building permit to complete the following which would be to install the right of way improvements and landscaping.

Staff recommends the following stipulations and asks for your direction. The typical process includes preliminary right of way improvement plan for review and approval by the town engineer, an estimated cost provided with the lot split. The applicant has requested that the roadway improvement plan be deferred until prior tuitions of the first building permit, typical process, for the right of way landscape improvement plan, which covers both Solano, Drive and also San Miguel Avenue, is typically required. The applicant has requested, that the landscape plan be deferred until to issuance of the first building permit. And then lastly, it is typically required that the assurance be provided prior to plat recordation.

That timing is dependent upon the above right away improvements and landscape plans that are required. Hence the applicant is requesting that this be deferred. That concludes my presentation, and I will open this up for any questions or comments.

Ms. Commissioner Rose, I think I read that there's a wall that is remaining to prevent erosion. Is that just until the lots bill is approved and then there would be drainage studies done. It doesn't seem like a wall would be a great idea just to prevent any water flow. Is that right?

Yes. So the walls remained in place even when they got the approval for demolition of the house that was there, and that was for retention purposes to retain the earth on-site. So in essence, what the applicant was required to do is to get an encroachment permit into the right of way to be able to keep those walls and they are pretty much retaining the earth and the soil. So they are required to Thank you.

But in addition to that, will there be a drainage study done and retention basins

looked at? Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

Right. And that that would happen, as the development occurs.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Mhmm. This is commissioner Dickman. Could you go back one of the release slides? It was, the first or second slide with the circles on it. I had a hard time. I looked at this part of the meeting. If you look at the plot on the right side.

Here we go. This is better. It

looks like it's encroaching in the easement requirements. Is that not true along I don't have the pointer but

On this left hand side?

No, that lot two. And you go down below, look where those dotted lines are. Is that compliant with the setbacks?

I can answer Chair, Commissioner Dickman. So with the circle test you have to just demonstrate that that 165 foot diameter circle touches at one point at the front setback of 40 feet and it it it can just be it has to within the lot. So it can encroach into setbacks and easements.

So the fact that it's within that 20 foot setback, that's still compliant?

Correct. Right. What would it be compliant to say if the circle encroached outside the dark line, which the property line then it wouldn't be compliant. But it's compliant because it fits within and it touches at one point at the front. Yep.

Okay, great. Thank you.

This is Chair Georgios. Could you give us a little bit more information about the applicants' request to defer the documentation and the rationale behind that? Because it seems like that is critical information for us to have before making a determination in this matter.

So typically those requirements are required in essence to be submitted at this point in time. What the applicant expresses that they spoke to our town engineer and that town engineer in essence expressed that they would be okay with having those two requirements being met later. However, I don't think they were privy to knowing that this is integral to this part of the entitlement or the I'm sorry, the lot split as opposed to the way that it is developed.

Yeah. Well, I personally would like to see that material as we're making a determination here. And I look to my fellow commissioners to see they would like to see done. But it seems to me that in order for us to make a knowledgeable determination we need that information moving forward. And

share I mean the applicant is here they might want to provide more insight. Their narrative was a little lacking of that information. So they could probably provide you some more information on why they would request the deferment. I have a quick question. Commissioner Curtis, aren't we talking about

right of way landscape design? I actually think

Not just the landscape design, but also the right of way improvement plan and cost estimate. So both of those items, they're asking a deferral for both of the items.

I personally think it makes sense because I don't think that we should be pushing people to put those improvements in before either before construction is done or until just before construction is done because there's a potential for a lot of damage to be done on these improvements during construction. So I think it makes sense to defer it.

Well, but the issue here is not the construction of the improvements. The issue is for us to be able to see what the proposed improvements are in terms of the right of way and the landscape plan. And I think that makes sense at this point in time in terms of making a determination as to how this split is going to occur since this stops with us. If we leave that and defer that information, we won't have that information now as we're making a determination. And we won't be convened to review that material later.

You're talking about looking at the plans, not expecting the work to be done.

Correct.

Right. Correct.

Okay. I understand. I would agree with that.

Absolutely. So

this is commissioner Brown. Is sewer available in that neighborhood at this point?

No. No. Both lots would be on septic. Thank you.

And I see that the applicants drainage grading and drainage engineers here. I'd like to hear how this split would affect grading and drainage of of the lots and how that affects adjacent lots as well since this is a hillside lot.

In particular, the impact on the surrounding.

Well, all of it because there this would make a change as to how development moves forward and it will create a greater density in that area. And and there is there is a lot of issues in terms of how the water flows on the mountain. So I'd be interested to hear how you would address those issues in connection with the planning process.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. My name is Nick Prolunov. I'm with Land Development Group, and this is Drew with Construction Zone. Fair questions so far. We've done probably seven or eight projects in the area.

It's challenging, especially that side of the mountain erosion is a major issue. There are a lot of flow diversion upstream of this property as well that we accounted for when we designed the drainage off-site drainage map. And obviously, we did that prior to the demolition of the home. And we believe that when we come up here, hopefully, in six months with new designs for new homes, the drainage improvements and the drainage plans will show a lot less impact to the downstream properties as you see now. So for example, there was a driveway that was carrying off-site flows from the mountain, accelerating these flows through the site and impacting downstream, homeowners.

And probably that was one of the reasons, we decided to keep these walls just to prevent further erosion and silt and debris depositing on the towns right away every after every storm. When we do the new projects, we're going to provide on-site retention. So that's going to limit the impact to downstream properties as well. And we will most likely propose a safer conveyance of the major upside flow that runs to one of the lots for which we are dedicating a drainage easement in terms of providing erosion protection and reprop apron to reduce the velocity of the water and ultimately slowing down its impact to downstream properties.

And how do the flows change with the development of this property for two homes versus one home?

Again, the existing site was not properly designed considering the current standards that the town has adopted. So there is no on-site store motor retention. And the watch that historically existed through the property was modified and the outflow of that watch was the driveway entrance. So it was really improperly done originally. So now, obviously, we're going to restore that wash to its historic location.

The magnitude the ultimate magnitude of the outflow is going to be smaller than what you see currently. And again, we're going to have landscape retention basis on the downstream side to detain even further runoff on this property.

Do you have plans here where you could show us some of this in terms of what you're describing or no?

I believe there is a drainage report there. I don't know if you can pull it up and drainage map.

And introduce yourself, please. My name is Drew Boss.

I'm with the construction zone. There currently is no designs for the two lots. So as we go through Hillside and we actually design houses for these, I'm not even sure if we're gonna be the architects that design them. So that entire process of dealing with grading and drainage all kinda happens when we go to when Orber does develop these lots. They will, you know, work with town engineers, hillside department, everyone to deal with the drainage and adjust that appropriately.

But currently, right now, there just is no design. We have we have to kinda do two proposed designs to make sure that houses won't meet hillside requirements and can be, you know, designed for those two lots. But right now, there is no, you know, design for houses or any type of improvements on those lots. And kind of why we are asking to defer the right of way improvements and defer the landscape. We can draw a landscape plan.

To be honest, Solano meets the driveway width requirement. The only thing it doesn't meet, I believe, is the curb requirement. That is going to, again, get addressed when we go through Hillside because that is one of the requirements. Even if we did not split the lots, we would still have to look at the improvements along Solano. The improvements along San Miguel Avenue, we've done houses right adjacent to that and to the south of San Miguel Avenue.

San Miguel Avenue is just there just isn't enough room to make that street wide enough and to put little curves in. So when we did those two houses, actually, town engineer deferred all those metals or deferred those road requirements because this is just not enough room to make Xenico wider. Solano, on the other hand, is wide enough, but what we need to look at when we go to develop those laws or does develop those laws depending on where they put the driveway and how they deal with other things is how the road curves are going to actually work with their design. So designing something now with no houses there doesn't really make a whole lot of sense in our, you know, mind. We can draw something, but that might not be what it's actually gonna get built.

So and then to be honest, when if you actually look at the how Solano drains putting the roll curve in along our side really is not going to do anything. But again when they go to develop those losses of engineering we'll take a look at that and actually determine if those things are now actually going to help water flow and stuff like that.

Commissioner here. I just wondered if you could expound upon the schedule you have in mind. Hillside is inevitable, is that six months away? I heard six months come out or something.

Six months is just made up. That was I was hoping. He was hoping for six months.

Right now, the owner has no plans on developing the lot. I think they are potentially going to sell one of them if this loss does go through, and then whoever buys that lot is going to do their own design. And then they will have to, you know, deal with retention, deal with the roll curves, and all these kinds of things during that process, and they're probably gonna draw something that differs from whatever we come up with.

So I think I heard that it's kind of open ended on the Hillside review at this stage depending on who buys one of the two lots and the Hogans don't plan to fast track anything.

Not right now.

Right. Okay. Interesting.

Right. And and share, so the the typical times that you would get right of way dedication or roadway improvements would be at a planning stage such as this or a building permit stage. That's generally what we do. Again, as Mr. Mendez stated, you know, our typical process, now it's just typical, it's not written in code, you just have to have some type of way to get to these assurances kind of stipulated, is we would see a preliminary plan for any right of way improvements, curb pavement with an estimate of cost to that as well as typically a landscape for the right of way that would go through your body when there is a loss.

But if there wasn't a loss split, it's with the building permit because that's when we would do it. Right. So, and we have in the past on occasion with the landscaping deferred that. I'm not aware of any time we've deferred it with a loss split with the actual roadway improvements. But again, it's not written in code that you have to follow what we've got procedure. You just have to stipulate how we're going to get there so we get those assurances.

This is Commissioner Dichmann. Just a follow on question to the Chair. So when this goes to Hillside and you're presenting each of these houses, each of the two houses, could you look at isolation at the water flow in one without the other? I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around how that could be done. Can that reasonably be done? Like so you're going to basically this is assuming we approve the split now, this is going to go back to Hillside for House 1, House two. And it sounds like those are going to come as separate things. But then how do we get our arms around here on Hillside, all the effects of the water flow within that. So you're going to involve one and then could you create a problem for Lot 2? And how does that work?

Again, good question. And for every project, every engineer that is involved in the design of the grading drainage plan, they prepare a drainage report. And the drainage report includes predevelopment condition that will cover both lots and post development condition, which shows the proposed improvement. And every engineer is required to provide proof that you're not increasing the magnitude of the flow that runs to currently to the site and also the velocity of that flow. So the entry point, exit point, those who have to stay the same as well as the magnitude and the velocity of the water.

This is Commissioner Rose. Where does the responsibility lie with the drainage drawings? In other words, I don't think you can have drainage drawings at this point because we don't know where the houses are going to be. So is it the responsibility of the planning commission just to approve the lot split, not knowing what's gonna be on the land? And then it would be the responsibility of the Hillside Building Committee to look at the drainage situation?

Chair, I'd just add. So with the loss but they did submit a drainage report, they are showing a drainage easement. Then and this is no different than any other. So we get that with a loss splitter or subdivision plat. They'll give us the drainage information which they did and show us kind of based on where they think it's going to be. But then, yes, once you submit for a building permit for any of these lots, then it's I mean, it should hopefully not change, but, I mean, it could change, you know, and that would be real. All that extra detail comes, with the building permit in this case since it's Hillside, it's gonna come with your Hillside Building Committee and your building permit. Mhmm. So I I do think that they met providing the the drainage component of what these lots are. And there's a drainage easement that she illustrated on the plat itself.

A good point because maybe that's out of scope for what we're doing now. Mean, don't know how we could even get into the drainage, Right. So it's sort of absurd really.

Well, I

just want to make sure there's some process and when it comes back to Hillside, they can handle that in total.

Right. So I will add that there will be a safety improvement plan that each of these slots will have to go through as part of the Hillside process. During that process, our town engineer does look at right away improvements, but in essence what we're doing now and or we're having the committee do now or the commission do now is institute those stipulations to further right away improvements prior to recordation or do this atypical route of doing it prior to the building permit issuance which would then go through the Hillside process?

Well, I think the inclination would be to see those materials and to have something in place and to the extent that you're going to Hillside at a later date then I think those can be amended at that point in time potentially if the plans change. So I would want to see the additional materials at this point in time. And Mr. Protonov, I see you there is a drainage map up on the screen. If you could just walk us through a little bit about what you think the existing conditions are and how this is going to change and whether or not we're going to go back to sort of more original wash flows or what's going to happen on this property as it as it currents as it currently sits, it seems to me that nothing it's the water is just moving through the property.

That's correct.

And and there's nothing being retained on the property with development as we move forward there will be requirements for retention on each of these lots. But if you could just give us a little bit of the historical here so we understand where we are and where we might expect to be on this since it is it's hillside. So it's different than if we were looking at this on even a flat land property.

Correct. Chair, Commissioner, members. We did prepare a drainage report, drainage map. I don't know if it's in this document, but I can show you. The main flow comes enters through here.

I don't know if you see it. And then it runs through the site and there is an existing concrete driveway that kind of accelerates that flow that I was talking about and exits here, reaches Solano and then ultimately continues downstream to through the neighborhood. There are some minor flows. One is coming through here through the adjacent lot that construction zone is doing. And there are some on-site flows generated by the original home and running again in northerly and northeasterly direction.

In terms of the new improvements, the architectural design could for let's say, for Lot 1 could accommodate the proposed drainage easement and essentially bridge that easement and the wash with new structure on top of it. Or they can propose to have probably two storey structure and then we'll have to route this flow along the Westerly side and then come back to the historic outflow. If we go with either way we go, this wash most likely will be lined with reprab and we'll have series of check dams. And at the outfall, we will probably propose a large detention basin that will keep all the silt and debris standing here before they leave the property. Every project in the town of Paradise Valley requires a drainage facilities agreement and an exhibit to be created once the project is complete, which puts the responsibility to the homeowner for maintenance and cleaning of these drainage structures.

In addition, based on the proposed design, there are going to be multiple retention areas on the downstream side, again, to retain the water from pre versus post condition depending on the amount of impervious surface is proposed with the new design for Lot 1. The same most likely will happen with Lot 2. And depending on their landscape design and hardscape improvements, the on-site retention will either be with underground tanks or landscape desert landscape retention areas at the downstream side.

Now it seems most of the flows right now are running through Lot 1. Is that correct?

Yes.

And so how will that change and how will that affect Lot 2? Will there be changes there on Lot 2 or no?

It doesn't affect a Lot 2, no.

Okay. So Lot 1 is going to have more challenges in terms of construction?

In terms of conveyance of the off-site flows, correct.

This is Commissioner Dickman. If most of the water is originating or flowing from Lot 1, is the town never required one lot to be developed prior or either simultaneous or prior to the other? I mean, because if you this went to pass the split, it goes to Hillside, not to gets approved. And then you've got all this stuff that's coming from one, it just seems I don't know, maybe it's not a dumb question and I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around the impact.

I guess Chair, Commissioner Dickman, I mean not to my knowledge have we required a certain number, a sequencing of the lot construction. Again, you know, lot one, even though there is a drainage easement, there's a lot of hillside loss and other loss with drainage easements. You can span them, do other things. You can as long as you can change the entry and exit points, you can maneuver the easement around. So and and that's part of the Hillside.

So part of your packet is why they were showing some conceptual plans of possible, you know, development for houses. That's part of the Hillside lots of approval process or process. That's why those are in your packet to say that this is possibly buildable. Obviously, there's no plans yet to build anything on it and there may not be for years. I don't know. But yes, I think there you yes.

Actually, it's a good question because we have cases in the past where, let's say, Silversky projects, you have a major wash running through one of the lot and then it continues through the other lot. We and the developer wanted underground stone drain structures to both lots. We had to design that these stone drain structures will work with the two lots, although probably the downstream lot will be built first and then the upstream lot will be built. So I

guess that's something for Hillside to deal with in the future. Right?

And and Mister Commissioner Rose, am I correct in in hearing that the neighbors were notified within 500 feet?

Not yet.

Yeah. Chair, Commissioner Rose. Yeah. The neighbors for the meeting. We notified for the meeting. So that notice provided that we will hold a meeting on the twenty seventh, and that will be dependent on if the applicant if the commission wants to see those preliminary, roadway Right. Right. Estimate and the landscape plan because then the applicant will have to produce those. We have to review them. And if there's a meeting on the October 27, we would need to see those by no later than September 30 as a sometto, which is next week. So I'm not sure if you could turn that around. If not, you know, the next meeting is, say, November 4, and we would need it by October 14, generally at least three weeks prior So we have some time to review it

and put it in the packet. So the so the neighbors Yeah. So within 500 feet will be notified?

When once we know the actual hearing date. That's why we didn't, like, do it the next meeting because we would have to have already noticed it by this meeting. Didn't know your direction. So yeah. But they will definitely be noticed. I think someone did reach out today, but they just had inquiry what it was about. Nothing there.

So Okay. So historically, the structure was then on Lot 2 with the drainage easement on Lot 1, the home that was previously demolished. Spanboth. Spanboth in the middle. Okay. Okay. And

the owners that sorry. The whole business that are proposing this last bid actually bought this law to demo this house because it's been it was sitting there, I mean, for a very long time. It was kind of rundown. Again, drainage was a major issue because there's a whole lot of impermeable surface. So all that water is getting concentrated on the driveway and just flowing down Solano.

So they did you know, we demoed a lot. We added retention basins to to mitigate, you know, downhill water flows. We got rid of all the impermeable surfaces, added back in DG, and completely we vegetated everything. The only things, like we said, we didn't weren't able to take out were the retaining walls, and those were the town engineer agreed that those are essential to keep, you know, proper drainage and not to essentially have that entire, you know, dirt kind of falling into Solano Drive.

So So you have just just one quick question. So you have put in retention basins here in the current During the demolition the property.

We were required for Hillside. We were required to install retention basins and temporary retention basins, but as you can kind of see, but they're probably on Lot 2U, so you can kinda see the those retention basins there. Lot one is you were essentially restoring the existing, like you said, washout was kinda going through there. Right? Essentially, we got rid of the impermeable surface, which kinda increased the water flow and, you know, bought back the dirt and by the century, that wash was kinda maintained.

Okay.

So I have a question for the engineering group. This is a beautiful two and a half acre or so lot currently. My question is, do you really think from an engineering standpoint that you could split it and put and it's got a decent pad on it for a 2.5 acre lot. Do you really think you could split it? I mean, that grade and so forth that you have there and create two nice Paradise Valley quality lots out of that 2.5 acre lot?

Engineering.

It's more of an architectural question. From an engineering standpoint

Engineering sees it all the time. They know when there's a problem they see it. They're asking for a lot split.

Correct. So and I'm always paranoid for every project. But in my opinion, these buildable lots, considering that the existing slope for the slope analysis is less than 10%. But obviously, you need to create a architectural design and a good engineer to make sure that all the talent requirements are met and nobody downstream is impacted.

Right. Right. We've got a fellow that wants to do it but has no plans on what he's going to do after he splits. That's, I guess, my concern. I'm not asking a question. I'm just making a statement there. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

This is Commissioner Jim. I just think if we do ultimately prove this, we had a note set a note to the and Hillside Commission is very competent and thorough, right? We all know that. So I think as this if Lot two came up first, then I think he'll say we need to do that review with the idea that the water would need

to be coming from one and

so on and so forth. I, you know, I think they're confident enough that they'll be able to figure that out.

This commissioner Rose, well, I think we see Nick. I've gotten to know Nick a lot, as all of us have, but I think they're pretty succinct about the drainage at the Hillside Building Committee. In my estimation, would be difficult to demand a drainage program before you have the structures. Great. And I and I and I think our purview here is just to approve the lot split and then it goes to building permit and and the hillside building committee. Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank

you. Did anyone else have any questions for the

Commissioner Nocekis, I have a question just general speaking. This hasn't been platted yet. It's in reading between the lines, the the plan the general plan that is, is being introduced this evening has not there hasn't been a plat realized for that.

Chair, commissioner Asikas, I mean, there is a subdivision. This is part of a subdivision that was amended. I don't know what it was. 79 or eighties. And now they're looking to split this lot because yeah.

Okay. So this is an exception to what was originally platted then.

Well, you're asking if it was yeah. So the original plat had some different configuration. And then twenty or so years ago, they reconfigured it, made made actually the same number of lots were in that kind of circular area. And then they just made this lot kind of bigger for whatever reason. Maybe for that house that was built that was knocked down. But yeah.

And just to build on what commissioner Nisikas is saying. That was my that was getting my next question. If if no one has anything else for the applicant, I had some questions about the history of this subdivision and this lot and what what's happened over time. Charles, did you have any other questions?

No. I agree with Commissioner Rose. Our responsibility is just to approve the split itself and everything else will come through

Okay. Thank you.

This is Commissioner Dickman. I agree with that. To the point of Mr. Brown's question, should we approve a lots that were one of the two lots is completely not buildable? I haven't heard that, but so as long as we understand the growth of buildable, then we just move it on to the build site committee and so on. But if you're representing us, if both lots are buildable. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to approve a lots.

And I would look to well, thank you for to the applicant. I think that these are sort of questions for for staff and and what are the requirements that need to be met. So thank you. Appreciate your time and answering our questions. Thank you.

I guess I've got one other comment on this. If they're doing a lot split and one lot's not buildable, that's their risk. It looks to me well, then you're you're gonna have open space. Right? Because you would have an unbuildable lot. So this is at the risk of the developer. It's not it's not the risk of the town. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but what they're doing is within all of the regulations of lot splits for the town of Paradise Valley. So the onus is on the developer. It's not on us

Okay. Right now. Thank you. I think we're gonna take this back to the staff. Mister Mendez, can you give us a little bit of history as to what's happened with this lot in the past?

Yes. So I actually started with Amir around the time that the applicant met with us about what they could potentially do on this lot. In essence, they ended up wanting to just demo it. At the time, we did not fully have a process for just demoing and then leaving it alone and they had instituted as part of the safety improvement plan mechanism, which in essence was to restore the lot and then have these temporary retention basins also revegetate the lot. And so Hugo Vasquez was still here when that occurred and I took some photos of the lot and so if you've been out there, you can tell that it has been per these pictures, you can see that it has been revegetated.

It pretty much restored to the extent possible while having that temporary retention basins on-site. In essence, they did mention that they wanted to split the lot. At that point in time, we just gave them the section of the code within Hillside that has a metric based on the slope. There is a table. In essence, have to use three sites slope or three lines per acre that gives you an analysis of the slope on-site.

And so this table here shows that within 10% slope or less, which this site averaged at approximately 8.2 something I believe. And so then they were able to split the lot. So this table here as the slope is higher,

the

minimum size of the lot increases. And so as you can see on here on the right hand side, this is the continuation of that and let me zoom in so you can see better. So this side on the right is a continuation of that slope lot or average slot slope percentage. And so with 41% slope, the minimum size for a lot would have to be 6.8 acres. And so you can see how it increases.

So the steeper the lot or the site is, the greater the lot sizes. We have had inquiries about some of the lots here on Mummy Mountain and then splitting those. Obviously, those sites are very, very steep. There was already they weren't able they would have not been able to split those lots given this slope analysis. I mean, one of the lots is, think, five acres.

But given that slope analysis, they wouldn't have been able to split it. And so for this site in particular, because it does fall underneath that 10% slope average, they are able to split it into just the minimum requirement, which is just the size of one acre.

Okay. And query now, there was an original subdivision that had then been amended and now we so this lot was made bigger at some point. Is this taking it back at all close to the size that was previously in existence or how does this compare to what subdivided lots look like?

So in in the in the background within the report, I think we just highlighted that this was part of group of other four lots that's bounded by Solano Drive, San Miguel, 54th Street. And these these were platted in 1994, which resulted in making this subject lot larger than the original Stone Canyon plat. But

Well, if it's not in the materials, if you could just

give us the prior we can provide that. But my recollection though is the 1955 Platte, there were four lots. And then in 1994, there's still four lots. They just really did a lot line adjustment. And now so there will be five lots in that bound. If your question is, is it four to four to four? No, they're adding another lot, that's your base questions. But we can certainly provide those plats in your packet if they weren't in your packet.

I would just like to see a little bit more of the history and understand what's happening here and you know does this make sense or not. So that's that piece of it. But I would also like staff to speak to this question of buildability and what is our obligation to look at whether or not these lots will be buildable in the event of a lot split.

And Sher we can provide more information but in your packet because that's a requirement when you go through the hillside section they have that's why there are conceptual site plans in your packet. They have to demonstrate conceptually obviously not in detail that they meet the disturbance and all the various criterias that we have at this sort of level. So this is the type of information you get. So they are demonstrating to us, yes, we can build something here. Whether or not you agree with that is a different story, but they have demonstrated that through these documents site plans. Again, all that detail doesn't come because they don't know it. And that's typical. We've produced a lot of slots, lists and plots and we don't know when they're actually going to start construction of a home.

Yeah, I just wanted that to be sort of clarified here because there have been some discussions as to what are the requirements that need to be met and do we as a body have to say yes we we believe that they can build here is and or is it just a risk of the builder that they're gonna be able to do what they want?

I think in this case since it's hillside and there's a requirement for conceptual site plans, that's why it's what's put in there by the prior councils. Right? Yeah. There's there's there is some ability to to build here. And then mister Mendez stated, I mean, the slope here is is is not 35% or 40%. You're talking about 10%.

There's this commissioner Rose, there's a couple of lots in back of our house that would make the Aztecs nervous. I mean, I mean, these are, you know, 3540% and they're buildable. And I think all of us that have been on rotated on the hillside building committee, the architects always say, well, has been a very arduous, task, but we were able to design it. I think architects can, and this seems to me fairly simple at 8%. And again, it our purview to approve a lot split whether the thing is buildable or not in that up to Hillside and the building permits?

Well, that is my question also. What is our purview? Know, and if it's just if if there isn't anything we're supposed to look at, then it should just be an administrative decision. I mean, what what are we supposed to be asking then?

Yeah. It's

this Commissioner Dickman. It sounds like from the discussion there is some at least at a theoretical level there's a requirement that it'd be buildable and something both costs be buildable, right? Is that what you're saying?

And Chair and yeah, I mean since this is not a flat land law, right, where I say Commissioner Brown you're a 100% right because definitely not your purview. Since it's Hillside there is a requirement to do conceptually to show that it is buildable and I think that the applicant with what they've shown is that and again just demonstrating that it's not even a 10% slope, which is would be flat land, is buildable. So I think from that standpoint, there's a little bit that I guess you can look at that, but I think it's a smaller standard.

You're saying that burden has been met right?

I think staff thinks that. Mean I guess if you as a commissioner doesn't think that that's your decision.

Any other questions around that?

We're not decisioning it tonight.

We're not deciding anything tonight. No. No. No. No. No. We're this is this is purely a work session and I think that I would like to see the other materials. I'm not inclined to to waive that at this moment in time. I don't know what the the thought process is with the the commissioners, but if but but I would like to see the additional materials.

This is Commissioner Deere and after the notification goes out the neighbors that would be super helpful to hear when people have concerns and stuff in the area as well.

Well this is Commissioner Rose. It seems to me to be a very tight knit community and so I think we'll know more after that 500 foot letter goes out. I would assume because we always do on Hillside when we ask for public input.

It's without exception. Right.

Yeah. Fundamentally we do want the input of the neighbors as we move forward in this So

commission, in your packet at the last page, the staff is looking for direction on veering from the typical process or not. And the question is the right of way plan and cost estimates are typically part of this process. The applicant has asked for that to be deferred. You have to submit that until building permit or what we would think of a building construction permit, any sort of construction on this site, so not just the house. So one direction is right of way improvement and cost estimate now or deferred, looking for direction.

The second question is the right of way landscape plan now or defer it to when there's some building permit. And then the third thing is we typically get assurance for those things. And so that will depend on your direction on the other side. It's How what would come forward later?

Thank you, miss Robertson. I think that's part of the process. And I don't see that there's anything special here where we should defer those requirements.

Commissioner Asikas here. I just had I guess is the cart before the horse? I'm not sure But wouldn't we want to see the assurances in place? And better said, wouldn't Hillside want to see the landscape plans and the right of way plans that are being referred to here as being deferred. They couldn't go to Hillside without a landscape plan.

Well, I will add that this landscape plan is for the right of way improvement, right? And so in Hillside, you will only see the landscape plan within the property, not in the right of way.

Right. And just a point of clarification. I mean, standards for minimum trees and shrubs in the right is pretty low. They have existing, so looking at their existing I mean, we're talking like a few trees and shrubs. I mean, it's what we're talking just so you know.

Right. Yeah. I I did see that.

But again, it would be helpful only because if the app you do want them to come back for October 21 and you want them to have a a conceptual right away landscape plan and the conceptual right away improvement plan with that cost estimate. We need as I mentioned earlier, for the twenty first, we'll need that by the end of this month and I don't know if they can turn that around. So that's so it would depend on when we would schedule the meeting date. That's kind of why staff needs to kind of know at least that that point of whether if you want to see those plans or not. If you don't, then the twenty first is probably great. If you do then I don't know if that turnaround time is you can turn it around if you had to for that. Okay.

Well, you looking for a vote here or is a consensus good enough? What are you looking for?

It's not really a

good mean, if we heard

We wanna I

said we can

I've got another question. Direction. I'm sorry. And I I think you've already been through this, but is it written in the town code that they have to have these right away improvement plans and landscaping plans done now, just for the lot split?

No. What's written in the code is you have to have some sort of procedure for the assurances. So that's basically your stipulations, if you will, that we have. But historically what our procedure is or our policy is generally and how we do when we do lot splits like this, you would normally see if there's a lot split, you would see the conceptual right of way plan with the estimate, the cost estimate for that, and the conceptual landscape right of way. Although we have on several occasions deferred that, with the loss split application that the commission looks at and then approves.

And then what happens is that assurance, that's why the assurance kind of follows the fence when the plans are there. Then we usually say, okay, the assurance we wanna see before we actually record this. So give us the money and then we'll record you. And then the actual improvements always happen prior to issuance. We never issue there.

That's This is Commissioner Dingmann. I prefer to see the right of way plans at this point because what would we tell the neighbors when they show up? We'll get back to you later or

Well because the right of way would

be most important to them.

Just to clarify, this is the general practice. So what we would be doing is veering away from the way we normally do business. So the my inclination is not to to veer away from our general practice and to require that the right of way improvement plan and cost estimate, the right of way landscape plan, along with, you know, assurances, be be provided by the applicant. This is not this is an instance where we have to understand what's happening with the lot split and have to understand the the assurance piece of that as well.

This is commissioner Damon. If you're looking for a consensus, don't know everybody else can Let's do that. Weigh in her direction. I would agree with the chair.

Okay.

So I don't know what how everybody else

As would I. Yeah.

Okay. Anyone disagree? Okay. Let's do actually We need those requirements.

Like the applicant can produce that by the end of this month and so it would be scheduled then for and barring any issues with getting this submittal and being complete, it would be set for October 21 but we would mail notices out the third but we'll know if they're complete or not

by the third. So thank you so much. You. Next. There are no public hearings this evening. There are no other action items. Staff reports, please.

I don't think there are any staff reports.

No staff reports. Public body reports. Well, I'll make a report. I had the opportunity on September 11 to present the update regarding planning commission and, went in, told them about what we've been doing here. I don't know that, you know, it's it's necessary to go into into detail.

If anybody wants to see it, it's it's on the records of the town, but we did comply with that and I think everyone had an opportunity to ask questions and to and to clarify what's happening with the planning commission. So I just wanted to tell you that that had been done. As far as I know right now there is no turnover. We're not you know everything is status quo as far as I know. So I have no other public body report. Does anybody else have a report? Hearing no other reports. Future agenda items please. Thank you. To a pipeline.

Chair, yes. So we will be canceling the next meeting which is October 7. We don't have any items. And then your next meeting after that we will have which is October 21 and it looks like the only item is the slot split. Okay. So

Thank you.

So the next meeting

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

A second?

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you everybody.