Scottsdale DRB continues Desert Summit Lot 34 after 4-2 split; directs applicant to explore alternative location outside hillside zone

Scottsdale DRB Splits on Desert Summit Lot 34 Envelope Relocation; Continues Case for Alternative Site Study

The Development Review Board voted 4–2 on May 15, 2025, to continue the Desert Summit Lot 34 building envelope modification request and direct the applicant to work with staff on finding an alternative location outside the hillside environmental protection zone. The decision caps a contentious hearing in which the applicant argued that drainage problems from an adjacent property's culvert render the originally approved envelope unbuildable, while staff and board opponents contended that relocating the envelope uphill would violate the subdivision's core design principle: preserving the natural hillside landform.

Key Speeches

"This is an issue about property rights and about fairness. I'm really surprised that this is a question happening here in Scottsdale. The Angelone family has put a lot of thought and consideration to this, and the proposed area is the least impactful to where they can build it, the least impactful to the disturbance of the land." — Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group, PC, attorney for applicant

"The intent of the entire plan of this entire neighborhood was to preserve the hillside landform. And you were talking about putting a house on top of the hillside landform. That is what you were proposing—putting a house on top of the hill. Is that not what you're proposing?" — Vice Chair Brand

"I don't understand enough about the drainage of how it works on this area. Before I would approve this, I would like to see done… mapping, diagrams of what is being avoided. I also wonder if through this area there's a wildlife corridor and if building on top of the hillside would disrupt that corridor. For me to make a decision in support of this, I would need more information." — Board member Robinson

Timeline

• Staff presentation (Jeff Barnes, City of Scottsdale Planning Department): Outlined the history of Desert Summit's zoning and preliminary plat approvals (1992–1995), which established building envelopes—marked on conceptual graphics—to preserve the natural hillside landform and maintain 60-foot minimum spacing (NaOS, or natural area open space) between envelopes. Staff noted that the current approved envelope for Lot 34 sits at the lower end of the property, near street frontage, but the applicant seeks to move it to the upper elevation into the hillside ESL zone. Barnes highlighted concerns: the proposal appears inconsistent with original stipulations, conflicts with the purpose of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance, and may violate the 60-foot separation requirement relative to Lot 35 (which itself encroached on the hillside without formal approval found in city records). Staff recommendation: continuance to allow the applicant to explore alternatives.

• Applicant presentation (Tom Galvin, attorney, and Andrew Gramling, architect): Galvin emphasized property rights and fairness, arguing that circumstances have changed since 1992—specifically, the owners of Lot 33 installed culverts that divert stormwater onto Lot 34, creating a flooding condition. Gramling presented site sections and overhead views showing the "bow tie" narrowing of the lot, rendering the middle section too steep and narrow to build. He proposed the upper-elevation ("saddle") location as minimizing disturbance, requiring only a 5–6 foot retaining wall rather than stacked walls. Galvin noted that 12 other properties in the subdivision have built outside their original envelopes without formal approval, and the Angelone family are the first to seek a formal modification. The applicant offered to work with staff on any location beyond the "hinge" of the bow tie.

• Staff questions from board: Board member Peaser asked whether the city had approved envelope modifications on other lots; Barnes noted that one was processed through site plan review, but records were unclear. Peaser suggested that a small adjustment at the lower elevation, away from the flooding zone, might be feasible within the upper-desert landform. Barnes acknowledged that staff had contemplated such an option but that the property's narrowing at midpoint created concern. Commissioner Ertell questioned the meaning of the 60-foot NaOS separation stipulation and who bore the burden; Barnes clarified it was envelope-to-envelope separation, not lot-to-lot, and in the original development, the developer controlled all lots so burden allocation was not contemplated. Board member Mason asked whether a "net-zero" earth-movement scenario was possible; Barnes said that would require engineering detail beyond the current application stage.

• Applicant exhibit on drainage: In response to Vice Chair Brand's request for clarification on the city's original stormwater management concept, the applicant team presented a historical exhibit showing the intended wash drainage pattern and culvert placement. Tom Galvin noted that Lot 33's improvement plans were supposed to direct water under the road via culverts, but instead water was diverted onto Lot 34. The applicant referenced City of Scottsdale approval documents for this configuration, expressing bewilderment at how the diversion was permitted.

• Public comment (4 speakers, approximately 12–15 minutes):

  • Thomas Weinhold (Lot 106, early builder in the subdivision): Expressed concern about cutting off the top of the hill, privacy impacts to Lot 35 (to the west), and privacy to an unnamed lot to the east. Suggested that a compromise location "a little further up the hill" with "minimal cut and fill" could work, citing a previous approved design that was never built. Recommended the board find a spot that nestles into the hillside rather than topping it.
  • Mark Fiser (Lot 33 owner, adjacent): Confirmed that his family purchased Lot 33 in 2021 and chose the home for privacy. Stated that the proposed relocation would "completely change" privacy in their backyard. Disagreed that water from his lot floods Lot 34, noting he was told the cinder-block wall was simply a lot-line marker and that he has never seen water encroach on his property. Acknowledged a "huge drainage ditch" runs on the left side of his driveway (away from Lot 34) and a "small drainage" between the two lots. Called for the city to conduct a water assessment and offered openness to a "slightly back" modification.
  • Kelly Claire Clark (Lot 35 owner, adjacent): Stated she and her husband built their home with consideration for privacy and neighboring building envelopes. Emphasized that the proposed location would allow views directly into her living room and daughter's bedroom. Noted that her family has lived there nearly four years without seeing drainage issues. Referenced the applicant's Zillow listing, which described the property as offering views "to overlook every home in the neighborhood on top of the hill." Argued the proposal is inconsistent with the community character and does not constitute the "nestled" design the applicant claims.
  • Daniel Proco (Lot 64, southeast of Lot 34, and representing Ron and Natalie Cohen of Lot 63): Noted that the Cohen home (on the south side of Lot 34) would face the back of the relocated building envelope. Cited HOA architectural guidelines concerning "perching" and maintaining natural neighborhood landscape. Expressed that moving the envelope to the southern portion of the lot would be unacceptable but that a location further north would be acceptable.

• Applicant rebuttal (Tom Galvin and Andrew Gramling): Galvin pointed out that Lots 106 and 64 are not adjacent and therefore less directly impacted. He emphasized that Lot 33 and 35 owners did not claim to have come before the DRB to seek approval for their envelope deviations, and that Lot 33's owner acknowledged a drainage problem and was appealing to the city for help. Gramling reaffirmed his design philosophy and stated confidence that any approved location could be designed to complement the site and respect neighbors' privacy. Galvin offered the applicant's willingness to work with staff on any location beyond the "hinge" of the bow tie as a compromise.

• Board discussion: Vice Chair Brand asked staff about the existence of a recorded drainage easement, the historical storm water management design, and the possibilities for a drainage solution. Jeff Barnes acknowledged not having located a recorded easement, noted that his storm water staff would require hydraulic analysis and grading/drainage plans for detailed recommendations, and explained his understanding that water was intended to flow northward to a wash corridor beyond Lot 33. Brand pressed further, asking what the original storm water management concept was from the 1992–1995 approvals; Barnes indicated that water flow was intended to continue northward into the intended wash (now protected by a drainage easement). Board member Robinson stated that before supporting any modification, he needed more information from drainage and stormwater staff, including mapping and diagrams of vegetation and rock outcroppings being avoided, and whether a wildlife corridor might be disrupted. Robinson emphasized that the "crux of this entire conversation is about hardship" and that the board had not heard enough from city staff on whether the hardship was caused by offsite issues, the nature of the site itself, or actions by the city. He moved to continue the case for further study.

• Council discussion: Commissioner Ertell voted no. Board member Mason voted no, expressing that the applicant's request to "simply move the building envelope" as a solution was not sufficient, given that any location would likely impact the hillside to some degree. Board member Peaser voted yes. Kathy Littlefield and Vice Chair Brand voted yes. Robinson voted yes (having made the motion).

• Vote: Continued 4–2 to a date to be determined. Kathy Littlefield (yes), Vice Chair Brand (yes), Commissioner Ertell (no), Board member Peaser (yes), Board member Mason (no), Board member Robinson (yes).

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 4 (representing themselves or adjacent properties)

Main concerns:

1. Hillside preservation violation: The proposed location encroaches significantly into the hillside ESL protection zone, conflicting with the 1992–1995 subdivision design intent to preserve natural landform and the stated purpose of the ESL ordinance.

2. Privacy invasion: Neighbors (Lots 35, 33, and 63) expressed that the relocated envelope would allow views into their homes or yards, undoing the privacy they designed their homes to achieve.

3. Precedent without approval: Lot 35 and others have built outside approved envelopes, but Lot 35's owner did not formally request DRB approval (and records of any approval are missing), making it inappropriate to grant approval to the Angelone family when previous deviations went unreviewed.

4. Incomplete hardship analysis: Board members and neighbors questioned whether the drainage problem is as severe as claimed and whether other design solutions (slight lower-elevation adjustments, engineering solutions) have been adequately explored.

5. Inconsistency with city policy: Vice Chair Brand and others emphasized that the proposal contradicts the city's ESL, NaOS, and hillside ordinance principles, which prioritize landscape preservation and visual character.

6. Environmental unknowns: Board member Robinson noted the absence of mapping for vegetation, rock outcroppings, and potential wildlife corridors that might be impacted by hillside construction.

7. Aesthetic and community impact: Multiple speakers and board members raised concerns about the home appearing to "top the hill" or "perch" unnatically, contrary to the HOA's architectural guidelines and the neighborhood's character.

Most compelling arguments:

• Vice Chair Brand's assertion that the entire subdivision plan was premised on preserving the hillside landform and that approving this relocation would fundamentally contradict the city's stated ESL policy and design intent.
• Board member Robinson's statement that without expert drainage and stormwater staff input, the board cannot evaluate whether the claimed hardship is real or whether other solutions exist.
• Kelly Claire Clark's observation that the applicant's own Zillow listing described a home overlooking "every home in the neighborhood on top of the hill," contradicting the "nestled" characterization in the formal application.

Organized groups: None formally organized; opposition voiced by individual lot owners (Lots 33, 35, 63, 64, and 106).

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 2 (the applicant's attorney and architect)

Main arguments:

1. Hardship caused by offsite conditions: The applicant did not create the drainage problem; Lot 33's culvert diverts stormwater onto Lot 34, making the original 1992 envelope unbuildable or severely problematic.

2. Property rights and fairness: The applicant is the first in the subdivision to formally request an envelope modification, while 12 other properties have built outside their original envelopes without formal approval—creating an inequity.

3. Environmentally minimal solution: The proposed location minimizes disturbance (requiring only a 5–6 foot retaining wall versus stacked walls in the "bow tie" area), protects vegetation, and is nestled into a "saddle" on the property rather than topping the hill.

4. Compliance with ordinances: Wherever the envelope is ultimately approved, the applicant will still comply with all ESL, NaOS, and building code requirements; the building envelope modification does not exempt the project from these standards.

5. Design precedent: Lot 35, directly adjacent, encroaches on the hillside without a formal approval record, yet the applicant is not seeking to equate itself to that unapproved precedent but simply to have a fair process.

6. Willingness to compromise: The applicant offered to work with staff on any location beyond the "hinge" of the bow tie, showing flexibility and cooperation.

Most compelling arguments:

• Tom Galvin's emphasis on fairness and the applicant's willingness to go through a formal review process (unlike the 12 other properties cited) rather than simply building outside the envelope.
• Andrew Gramling's design expertise and assertion that the proposed location achieves minimal visual and environmental impact, with a house that will be one-story and tucked into the hillside contours rather than dominating it.

Organized support: None; only the applicant's team presented affirmative arguments.

Project Details

• Case number: 12-PPP-1995 Number 2

• Applicant / owner: Angelone family

• Attorney: Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group, PC

• Architect: Andrew Gramling

• Location / address: Lot 34, Desert Summit subdivision, generally north of Joe B. Maricopa Avenue and west of 118th Street, fronting on 112th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona

• APN: Not stated in transcript

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: R1-70 (Residential) with Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) overlay; zoning does not change; only the building envelope location within the same zoned lot is proposed to move.

• Original building envelope location: Lower elevation of the lot, near street frontage (112th Place), as established by the 1992 zoning case (76-ZN-1992, approved 1993) and the 1995 preliminary plat (12-PPP-1995).

• Proposed building envelope location: Upper elevation, hillside area (the applicant's "saddle" location), approximately midway up the southern slope of the lot.

• Lot characteristics: Bow-tie-shaped parcel with significant topographic variation; lower end (near street) approximately 6–8 feet below street level and subject to stormwater drainage from Lot 33's culverts; midpoint severely narrowed and steep; upper portion (saddle and beyond) on hillside landform.

• Building envelope size: Maximum 20,000 square feet (per R1-70 zoning stipulation); applicant claims proposed envelope is equivalent in size to original.

• Changes from previous version: This is the first formal modification request for this envelope. The preliminary plat and zoning approvals of 1992–1995 established the original envelope. The 1993 zoning amendment modified stipulations, increasing building envelope square footage and reducing natural-area open space separation dimensions, but Lot 34's envelope location remained at the lower elevation.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 4–2 (Continuance motion passed)

• Yes (Continuance): Kathy Littlefield, Vice Chair Brand, Board member Peaser, Board member Robinson

• No (Continuance): Commissioner Ertell, Board member Mason

• Abstentions / absences: None; six members present

Outcome & Next Steps

The Development Review Board voted to continue case 12-PPP-1995 Number 2 to a date to be determined. The applicant has been directed to work with city staff on identifying an alternative building envelope location that aligns better with the prior subdivision stipulations and ESL design guidelines. Specifically, Board member Robinson's motion (seconded and passed) instructed the applicant to "seek an alternative building envelope location configuration that aligns better with the prior stipulations for the subdivision."

The implicit direction is that the alternative should lie outside—or minimally encroach into—the hillside landform ESL zone. Vice Chair Brand indicated support for modifications that remain within or slightly into the site while preserving the character of the original design; the applicant's willingness to explore locations "beyond the hinge of the bow tie" suggests a willingness to move lower than the "saddle" but higher than the original flood-prone envelope.

No specific hearing date was set; staff will work with the applicant to develop a revised proposal.

Controversies & Context

Drainage system design and culvert responsibility: A core dispute emerged over whether and how the Lot 33 culvert system diverts water onto Lot 34. The applicant and their engineer produced an exhibit showing that the original stormwater management concept intended water to flow via culverts under the street and into a wash corridor north of Lot 33. Instead, culverts appear to direct water onto Lot 34. Lot 33's owner (Mark Fiser) disputed this characterization, stating he has not observed flooding on his property and that the cinder-block wall is simply a lot-line marker. However, Fiser acknowledged that a "huge drainage ditch" exists on the left (north) side of his driveway and offered to work with the city on a water assessment. Vice Chair Brand and Board member Robinson emphasized the need for formal drainage and stormwater staff analysis before any decision.

Precedent and equity argument: The applicant highlighted 12 properties in Desert Summit that have built outside their original building envelopes without formal DRB approval. Staff confirmed that Lot 35 (directly adjacent to Lot 34) encroaches on the hillside, but no record of formal approval was found. The applicant argued this creates an inequity: why should Lot 34 be denied when others have built outside envelopes tacitly? This argument resonated with some board members (particularly Board member Peaser and, to some extent, Commissioner Ertell), though Vice Chair Brand and others countered that past laxity should not justify additional violations.

Environmental Sensitive Lands ordinance purpose: Staff cited the ESL ordinance's stated purposes: to protect natural and visual resources, conserve desert character, guide open-space distribution, minimize development impacts, and retain landscape visual character. The hillside landform in Desert Summit was specifically identified as a feature to preserve through building envelope placement. Moving the envelope uphill appears to directly contradict these stated purposes, yet the applicant contended that the proposal still complies with ESL and NaOS standards and protects vegetation more effectively than lower alternatives.

Hardship and buildability: The applicant's core claim—that the original envelope is unbuildable due to flooding from the culvert—was neither fully accepted nor rejected. Board member Robinson specifically requested more information from drainage and stormwater staff. Board member Mason acknowledged that moving any envelope will encounter hillside encroachment but questioned whether difficulty or cost alone justifies deviation from subdivision design intent.

Privacy and neighborhood character: Neighbors argued that the relocation would degrade their privacy and violate HOA design guidelines. The applicant counter-argued that the proposed design, with focus on view corridors and a low-profile one-story-over-basement configuration, could respect privacy and aesthetics.

Lot 35's unapproved encroachment: Staff could not locate a formal approval for Lot 35's building envelope relocation, yet the home was built in that location and appears to have passed city inspections. The applicant used this as evidence that the city had tacitly approved such deviations. Staff clarified that the inspections would have been against approved plans but suggested that the approval or oversight of the envelope deviation itself may have been missed in the record-keeping system. This uncertainty itself became a point of tension: should the board grant approval to Lot 34 because Lot 35's deviation went unreviewed, or should it be more rigorous precisely because of that past oversight?

Duration

• Desert Summit Lot 34 item: Approximately 90–120 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, board questions, public comment, rebuttal, board discussion, and vote)
• Total meeting: Approximately 2.5–3 hours (minutes approval, one continuance, one consent item, and the main contested item)

Other Notable Items

Casante Comments Multifamily Development (Case 2-DR-2025): Approved unanimously (6–0) for a 189-unit multifamily residential development on 8.6 acres at 7000 East Sha Boulevard, PUD/SD zoning. Staff recommended and the board imposed a stipulation to work with the applicant on color selection and roof profile details post-approval, citing concerns that building material colors were not accurately represented in the renderings.

Continuance (Case 37-DR-2024): Continued 6–0 to the June 5, 2025 DRB hearing at the applicant's request.