SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — October 9, 2025

Scottsdale Development Review Board continues 23-unit Ardan townhome project, demands southeast setback redesign

Development Review Board unanimously voted to continue the Ardan Scottsdale 23-unit townhome project to allow applicant to explore design modifications addressing neighbor concerns about inadequate setbacks, loss of sunlight, and tree viability on the southeast corner adjacent to existing condominiums.

Development Review Board Halts Ardan Scottsdale Project, Demands Redesign of Problematic Southeast Corner

The Scottsdale Development Review Board voted unanimously on October 9, 2025, to continue the Ardan Scottsdale 23-unit townhome development to a date to be determined, signaling that the project in its current form does not meet the board's design and contextual standards. Vice Chair Brand's motion directs the applicant to work with staff to explore modifications—potentially including a variance request—that would provide more adequate separation between the proposed three-story buildings and the adjacent two-story Casa de Amigos condominiums, whose residents have articulated concerns about privacy loss, blocked sunlight, and landscape viability.

The decision represents a rare moment of consensus on a contentious design issue: all six board members who spoke acknowledged serious problems with the southeast corner's 21-foot spacing (measured second story to second story, with a 4-foot overhang reducing setback from 24 feet), the viability of landscape trees planted in a 6-foot setback between two walls, and the overall site layout that appears to prioritize unit count over livability and neighbor context.

Key Speeches

"I know a couple of our neighbors, Mein and Trevor and a few other folks are here today to share their concerns. Mr. Earl from our team has met with them in person, over Zoom, on the phone to hear their concerns and to best address those concerns. We have made sincere efforts to resolve their concerns, but unfortunately, city codes have limited what we were able to do." — David Free, Developer

"Our largest concern is the minimal separation provided between buildings in the Ardan southeast corner and our units. We have reviewed all the existing R5 developments adjacent to each other in our community. And while we do acknowledge that there are some that do abut to each other in minimal ways, we feel that you know perhaps a setback, more appropriate setback, can be found within the architectural elements and your understanding of that we have developments just north of us which rather yeah north of us that are right on Miller Road. There's no setback. It's in the same city, same street." — Trevor Krauss, Casa de Amigos HOA President

"I understand that they have shown examples that are similar to this where trees have grown. Those are trees that were planted under those conditions, not trees that all of a sudden after decades get that shade." — Milen Penkvich, Casa de Amigos Resident

"With all due respect, man, I've done a lot of work and we would never plant a tree between those two walls. If even if it did work, it would uproot and kill the foundation of the existing screen wall. You're going to have to plant that tree on the high side of the retaining wall." — Vice Chair Brand

"Every single example that he showed was an internal property condition that was designed within its own community and it was a space that trees were growing in. But the reason why trees were growing in there is that there weren't multiple screen walls or anything between in that 25 ft. It was an open condition. So it wasn't it wasn't a borderline between two properties. It was two buildings that were on the same property. So, this is a much different condition because you've got a property line, you've got existing screen wall, foundation, and now you've got a retaining wall in there." — Vice Chair Brand

"I do believe though that the condition on the north edge and the property and the setback conditions are appropriately laid out. And I think we've all looked at this and thought if your desire is to not lose units that a quality site layout may involve pursuance of a variance of the historical setback and front frontage open space that's specifically the property of the north to the north of here." — Vice Chair Brand, describing rationale for motion to continue

Timeline

Applicant presentation: David Free introduced himself as a 27-year Scottsdale resident and local developer, emphasizing 18 months of design work and good-faith efforts to address neighbor concerns. Attorney Taylor Earl and architect Mark Tomichek presented the site plan, landscape plan, and a comparative analysis of spacing conditions on nearby properties and in the R5 district. Earl acknowledged that a variance for the frontage open space requirement had been discussed internally but dismissed based on prior experience with variance denials in similar contexts.
Staff recommendation: Senior Planner Chris Zimmer presented the staff analysis. He noted that the 1.04-acre site accommodates 23 units (below the 26 allowed by R5 density), meets parking requirements (50 spaces), exceeds open space totals (8,794 sq ft provided vs. 8,465 required), and complies with height limits at 33 feet 4 inches. He confirmed that storm water staff had reviewed and approved the drainage report, acknowledging that off-site flows from Casa de Amigos would be collected in swales and routed around the site. Staff did not recommend denial or approval; the presentation was diagnostic.
Public comment: Two speakers (Trevor Krauss, HOA president, and Milen Penkvich, resident planner) spoke for approximately 15 minutes combined, with donated time extending their remarks. Both objected primarily to the southeast corner setback, privacy loss from balconies overlooking their bedrooms, and loss of afternoon sunlight that has nourished their mature landscape trees for decades. Penkvich presented detailed site plan critiques, including concerns about tree viability in constrained spaces, landscape plan realism, drainage labeling, ADA path adequacy, and potential for short-term rental conversion. Krauss emphasized that they did not oppose development but sought a more contextually appropriate setback and noted that comparable R5 projects on nearby Miller Road showed significantly larger separations (50–85 feet) when measured property-to-property rather than building-to-building.
Council discussion: Board members expressed skepticism about nearly every aspect of the southeast corner layout. Board Member Feki raised concerns about tree viability (Shoestring Acacia at 20–25 feet canopy planted in 6-foot setback), off-site drainage from Casa de Amigos and whether it was adequately labeled or addressed, and the conflict between the required frontage open space on Miller Road and a more optimal internal site layout. Vice Chair Brand questioned the applicant's comparative examples, noting that all cited projects (20–27 feet spacing) were internal property conditions, not conflicts between adjacent developments with screen walls and retaining walls. He noted that the northern edge setback appears appropriate but the southern edge "tapers" to an unlivable condition. Board Member Robinson stated that even the bottom five trees on the southeast side are not viable and that the site may simply be too constrained for 23 units without a variance. Board Member Mason offered that the applicant "has done a really good job of fitting in as best he can," but acknowledged the tight constraints and indicated support for a variance exploration. Board Member Paser asked whether the applicant had explored a variance and learned it was dismissed internally due to prior negative experience.

Regarding drainage, Brad Morrison (staff attorney) clarified that the applicant is responsible for addressing existing off-site drainage flows even without a formal easement (treating the Casa de Amigos runoff as a historical condition), and that the civil engineer's submitted report describes swales and routing, but the specific location and labeling of these swales was not shown on the landscape plan during the meeting. Feki pressed for clarification and labeling to ensure no adverse impact to neighbors; staff undertook to verify the civil plan details.

Taylor Earl offered that the applicant remains willing to plant trees on the Casa de Amigos side of the fence and provide privacy screening, and that the team had explored moving the open space eastward but determined the frontage requirement mandates its location on Miller Road. Vice Chair Brand's discussion of variances triggered Brad Morrison's legal reminder that the city cannot compel a variance application and that the DRB has no authority over variance decisions—only the Zoning Hearing Examiner and City Council do. However, Board Member Feki encouraged staff to support a variance if one is filed, and Board Member Robinson noted that a variance for the frontage open space might unlock the site plan by allowing units to shift westward and the southeast corner to gain additional setback.
Council vote / motion: Vice Chair Brand moved to continue the case to a date to be determined, allowing the applicant time to work with staff and explore options—specifically mentioning pursuit of a variance for the frontage open space requirement—to address the southeast corner setback in a more contextually appropriate manner. Councilwoman McAllen seconded. Roll call: all six board members voted yes (McAllen, Brand, Paser, Feki, Mason, Robinson). Motion passed unanimously 6–0.
Outcome: Case continued; no date certain set. The applicant may resubmit with a revised site plan, a variance application (voluntary), or both. Board members' comments suggest that the northern buildings may be approvable as currently configured, but that the southeastern unit(s) must either be relocated westward (requiring a variance for frontage open space) or the setback must be materially increased. No stipulations were attached to the continuance; the board directed further negotiation and analysis.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 2 (Trevor Krauss and Milen Penkvich), both residents of Casa de Amigos condominiums immediately east of the proposed development. Both had donated speaking time, extending their collective remarks to approximately 15 minutes.

Main concerns:

Inadequate southeast corner setback: The 21-foot spacing between second stories, with a 4-foot overhang reducing the true setback to 24 feet, is insufficient for a three-story building abutting a two-story, eight-decades-old residential community. Comparable Miller Road properties show 50–85 foot separations; even within R5 districts, spacing of 14–27 feet is rare and typically internal to a single development, not between adjacent properties.
Loss of natural sunlight: West-facing windows in Casa de Amigos' southwestern building will lose afternoon sun that has been available for decades. Mature deciduous trees in the neighbors' landscape lean westward in response to that afternoon sun; a three-story building on the east will cast perpetual shade, killing those trees or forcing expensive replacement.
Privacy invasion: Balconies on the east side of the Ardan buildings face directly toward Casa de Amigos windows and landscaping. Residents expressed concern about constant visibility from occupants of the townhomes (described as likely short-term rentals based on one-bedroom, one-bath units with no dining room, suggesting three-tenant occupancy and high turnover).
Landscape plan unrealism: Trees proposed for the southeast corner (Shoestring Acacia, Red Push Pistachio, Lentana) are specified with 10–25 foot canopies but planted in 6-foot setbacks between a new retaining wall and an existing screen wall. Penkvich, a planner by profession, characterized this as impossible—trees will either be stunted, uproot the existing screen wall, or die due to root constraints. She noted that comparable trees observed growing in similar spacing were planted under those conditions, not existing trees suddenly deprived of light.
Drainage and flooding concerns: A chain-link fence on the Casa de Amigos property currently allows water from their site to flow onto the Ardan property during heavy rain (evidenced by flooding two weeks prior to the meeting). The applicant's site plan does not clearly label the drainage swales or channel that will address this off-site flow. Penkvich questioned whether the swales would adequately contain water or redirect it without adversely impacting Casa de Amigos. Board Member Feki pressed staff to verify that the drainage report addresses this historical condition.
ADA path inadequacy: The site plan does not provide a direct ADA-compliant path to the northeastern corner of the property; instead, it requires a longer route that itself navigates around constrained landscape and parking areas, violating ADA intent if not code letter.
Site plan disingenuousness: Penkvich argued that the site plan omits labeling of existing easements (a recorded gate between the properties, allegedly for fire access), fails to clarify the drainage channel, and presents landscape as viable when empirically it cannot survive in the constrained spaces shown. She interpreted these omissions as attempts to avoid discussing impacts with neighbors.

Most compelling arguments: Krauss's appeal to precedent (54-year-old Casa de Amigos community's established rights to light and privacy, with developer having full knowledge of existing context) and Penkvich's professional critique of tree viability and site plan realism. Penkvich's presentation with visual renderings, aerial comparisons of separation distances on Miller Road, and professional planning credentials lent authority to her claims. The unanimous board agreement that the southeast corner is problematic validated the neighbors' concerns and signaled that the current design will not be approved without material revision.

Organized groups: Casa de Amigos HOA, represented by president Trevor Krauss.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 0 in public comment. (Staff noted that two written comment letters in support were received, one before and one during the meeting. A nearby multifamily project to the northwest had submitted a support letter, which Earl cited.)

Support characteristics: The applicant and staff did not frame opposition during DRB deliberation. Board Member Mason stated that the developer "has done a really good job of fitting in as best he can" within the tight site constraints, acknowledging the infill challenge. Board Members Mason and Robinson indicated that, absent a variance, the current design may be the best achievable outcome given the frontage open space requirement and site geometry. However, neither framed this as enthusiastic support; rather, they acknowledged the applicant's effort while agreeing that the southeast corner remains problematic.

Project Details

Case number: Not stated in transcript.
Applicant / developer: David Free (Ardan Scottsdale development).
Attorney: Taylor Earl, Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C., 3101 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona.
Architect: Mark Tomichek, 4368 North Civic Center Plaza, Scottsdale, Arizona (architect of record).
Location / address: North of the intersection of East McKelps Road and North Miller Road, Scottsdale, Arizona. West of Miller Road. Adjacent to Casa de Amigos condominiums (303 North Miller Road) on the east; multifamily development to the north; commercial zoning to the south.
APN: Not stated in transcript.
Current zoning → Proposed zoning: R5 (existing and proposed). No zoning change requested.
Density / units / square footage:
- 23 townhome units proposed (below the 26 allowed under R5 density).
- Approximately 1,700 square feet of livable space per unit, plus two-car garages (200 sq ft), totaling approximately 2,000 sq ft per unit including garage.
- 1,700 sq ft per unit with two balconies per unit (not divided by floor; units span first, second, and third floors).
- Five three-story buildings (each building contains multiple units).
- Parcel size: just over 1 acre (1.04 acres).
Height: 36 feet maximum allowed; applicant proposes 33 feet 4 inches (excluding rooftop appurtenances).
Parking: 50 spaces required and provided (46 resident + 4 guest).
Open space: 8,465 sq ft required; 8,794 sq ft provided. Includes 6,650 sq ft frontage open space requirement on Miller Road (6,670 sq ft provided).
Southeast corner setback (key dispute): 24 feet from property line to building face; 4-foot overhang reduces second-story-to-second-story spacing to approximately 20–21 feet.
Changes from previous version: Original site plan did not include the frontage open space requirement, which emerged during second DRB review and necessitated reshuffling of buildings toward the rear. Updated landscape plan substituted real turf for artificial turf and added Shoestring Acacia trees on the east side in response to neighbor concerns about privacy and screening.

Vote Breakdown

Final: 6–0 to continue to date to be determined.
Yes: Councilwoman McAllen, Vice Chair Brand, Board Member Paser, Board Member Feki, Board Member Mason, Board Member Robinson.
No: None.
Abstentions / absences: None. Six board members present; all voted yes.

Outcome & Next Steps

The case has been continued to a date to be determined. The applicant is directed to work with city staff to explore modifications to the southeast corner setback, potentially including pursuit of a variance for the frontage open space requirement on Miller Road. No specific design mandate was issued; rather, the board has signaled that the current plan is unapprovable and that a material redesign or variance (or both) is necessary before resubmission.

Conditions / expectations:

Clarification and labeling of off-site drainage swales on the civil and landscape plans to ensure the historical Casa de Amigos runoff is adequately addressed without creating adverse impact.
Revision or contingency plan for landscape species on the southeast side, acknowledging board skepticism about the viability of the proposed Shoestring Acacia and other species in 6-foot setbacks between two walls.
Exploration of a variance request for the frontage open space requirement, which if granted would allow the applicant to relocate the open space and shift the southeastern units westward, increasing setback.
Possible unit reduction or westward relocation of units to improve setback and livability on the southeast corner.

Timeline: No resubmission date was set. The applicant's attorney indicated they would work with staff; the board indicated availability for a future hearing date once the applicant is ready to present revisions. Given the complexity of a potential variance application and the need for staff coordination, resubmission is likely several weeks to several months away.

Controversies & Context

Historical context: Casa de Amigos condominiums were established approximately 18 years before the October 2025 hearing (founded circa 2006, per Krauss's remarks). The Ardan site had been vacant for many years, subject to vagrancy and informal dumping, and contained a small finger of public right-of-way (Pulk Street) that was formally abandoned by City Council on September 30, 2025, specifically to facilitate the Ardan development. The abandonment process removed any existing easement or access the Casa de Amigos HOA may have held to the Ardan parcel.

Zoning and legal preemption: The site is R5, which permits multifamily residential at the density proposed. Both the applicant and board members acknowledged that R5 code does not technically require setback between adjacent R5 properties (zero setback is allowed when one R5 development abuts another R5 property), but a setback of at least 10 feet is required if any setback is provided. The applicant complies with this rule. However, the code does not address or restrict the use of balconies or occupiable patios that overhang into setbacks—a provision that allows the 4-foot overhang noted in the design.

Frontage open space requirement: This was the most contentious hidden constraint revealed during the hearing. Board Member Feki and staff attorney Brad Morrison noted that the "frontage open space" requirement (approximately 6,650 sq ft on Miller Road frontage for an R5 development) is unusual and applies only to portions of Miller Road. This requirement pushed buildings toward the rear of the site and prevented the applicant from relocating open space to the east side (closer to units and better for circulation and livability). The applicant explored a variance but was discouraged by prior variance denials in similar contexts. The board indicated that pursuing a variance is reasonable and that staff may support it, but also clarified that the city cannot compel an applicant to file one and that DRB has no jurisdiction over variance approval.

Comparative analysis dispute: The applicant presented examples of 20–27 foot building-to-building spacing on nearby Miller Road and within R5 developments, arguing these demonstrate the feasibility of the Ardan spacing. Board Member Brand and Penkvich both objected, noting that the cited examples are internal to a single development (designed as a unified project) or are building-to-building measurements without accounting for screen walls, retaining walls, or property line conflicts. Brand stated that "every single example that he showed was an internal property condition" and that the Ardan case presents a "much different condition because you've got a property line, you've got existing screen wall, foundation, and now you've got a retaining wall in there." This distinction was accepted by the board as valid, rendering the applicant's precedent analysis less persuasive.

Developer's good faith: The applicant presented evidence of 18 months of design work, multiple meetings with neighbors (on-site, Zoom, phone), and offers to plant trees on the Casa de Amigos side or provide privacy screening (offers which were declined). Board members acknowledged this effort but did not permit it to overcome design concerns. Krauss and Penkvich, while not dismissive of the developer's efforts, maintained that good faith does not erase the impact of a design that violates contextual principles.

Fiscal and market pressures: The applicant emphasized that the project is designed for high-end residential market with premium finishes, and that reducing unit count or increasing setback would reduce the project's financial viability. Board members did not engage substantively with this argument, instead focusing on design and contextual fit. The implicit message was that market feasibility alone does not justify a design that fails to meet the board's standards.

Duration

This item (Ardan Scottsdale): Approximately 2.5–3 hours (public comment, applicant presentation, staff presentation, DRB deliberation, and vote).
Total meeting: Approximately 3–3.5 hours. The meeting began with approval of prior meeting minutes (passed 6–0) and included administrative remarks from staff attorney Brad Morrison (noting cancellation of next week's meeting and scheduling November 6 as the next DRB session). The Ardan case was the only substantive agenda item.

Other Notable Items

September 18, 2025 DRB meeting minutes: Approved unanimously 6–0 with no discussion.

Administrative announcements: The scheduled DRB meeting for the following week was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. The next meeting is scheduled for November 6, 2025, with one or two items anticipated. No other items were on the October 9 agenda.

═══════════ CONTEXT & INTERPRETIVE NOTES ═══════════

The board's decision to continue—rather than approve with conditions or deny—represents a middle path that signals the project is salvageable but requires material change. Vice Chair Brand's motion language emphasizing "more contextually appropriate manner" echoed the board's core critique: the current design fails the test of contextual fit, particularly when compared to the established Casa de Amigos community.

The unanimous vote reflects rare alignment among DRB members on a contested design, and the meeting transcript reveals that alignment did not emerge from dismissal of the applicant's constraints, but rather from skepticism that the constraints are truly immovable. Board Member Robinson explicitly asked whether rotating the site plan or reducing units might help; Board Member Feki pressed the applicant on the feasibility of a variance and whether staff could support it. The board essentially told the applicant: "We believe you can do better; take more time, explore a variance, reduce units, or redesign the southeast corner—resubmit when you've found a solution."

The next iteration of this project will likely feature either (a) a variance application for the frontage open space requirement, enabling the applicant to relocate open space and shift units westward, or (b) a material reduction in units (perhaps from 23 to 20–21), allowing the southeastern units to gain more setback. Alternatively, the applicant may abandon the project if these changes prove economically unfeasible.

View source transcript ▼

Source: Development Review Board - October 9, 2025 — October 9, 2025. Auto-generated YouTube transcript; may contain transcription errors.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Scottsdale Development Review Board public meeting. The purpose of the development review board is to maintain the quality of development in Scottsdale by reviewing all design aspects of proposed development and the relationship of its design components and the surrounding environment and community. The board also reviews all preliminary plats for subdivisions to asssure conformance to the policies and ordinance requirements. Um, so, uh, Caitlyn, roll call.

Councilwoman McAllen, present. Vice Chair Brand, here. Commissioner Joiner. Board member Peaser, here. Board member FE. Board member Mason here. Board member Robinson here. Six present. Thank you. Thank you. Citizens wishing to speak during public comment time or speak specifically on any agenda item may fill out the blue request card to speak. And citizens who are interested in submitting written comment may fill out a yellow written comment card. Um, and you can bring that over to Caitlyn.

I believe we do have some public speakers. And I remind the audience that the board's review relates to the design matters and does not include consideration of existing zone district designations. zoning entitlements or allows or allowed uses within the zoning districts. The board's motion may be to approve to approve modified with stipulations to deny the request or continue the case. Thank you for your interest and time and we will start. Okay.

So, we will begin public comment with um Meen Penquitch. Oh, the non-aggenda. Sorry. I'm so sorry. We do we have any Oh, we have to do the um Brad. Yes. Thank you and good afternoon, Counciloman McAllen. Just want to note we do not have any public comment on non-aggendaized items. The public comment has been submitted today is for the one agenda item we do have.

As far as administrative report, I just want to mention that um next week's meeting that was regularly ska scheduled has been cancelled. There are no agenda items for that meeting. So, it has been cancelled. Our next meeting will be November 6th and I do do believe we have one or two items on that agenda to discuss. So November 6th, hope to ever see everybody here. And uh that concludes my administrative report. Thank you. Thank you.

Um with that, can I have a um motion to approve the minutes of the September 18th, 2025 development review board meeting? Uh so moved. I'll move to approve the regular meeting minutes of the September 18th development review board meeting as presented. Second. Thank you. Councilwoman McAllen. Yay. Vice Chair Brand. Yes. Commission or board member Paser. Yes. Board member FE. Yes. Board member Mason. Yes. Board member Robinson. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

So Brad, do the staff presentation first. Certainly. Uh, Councilwoman McAllen, we'll have, excuse me, staff present the one agenda item to start and then we'll go from there. Thank you. Hello. Uh, Councilwoman McAllen, uh, Vice Chair Brand, and members of the board. My name is Chris Zimmer. I'm a senior planner here with the city of Scottsdale and I'm here to present the Ardan Scottsdale. Give you a little context on the uh site.

It is just north of the intersection of East Mckelps Road and North Miller Road. Little detailed aerial to give you a little bit of understanding of what it exists today. It is just uh west of Miller Road. The existing zoning surrounding the site is R5. The only other zoning district adjacent to this property is the R17 which is directly uh west of uh North Miller Road. Some site details. It's currently vacant. Uh the applicant is proposing five three-story buildings consisting of 23 units.

The parcel size is just over an acre. Uh building height is 36 feet allowed um exclusive of the rooftop appertinances. Um they are proposing 33 feet 4 in excluding the rooftop apartments. The parking required based on the units and the size is 50. Uh they have provided 50 spaces 46 for the units and four for guest parking. Uh the open space requirement for this is about 8,465. Uh the applicant has provided 8,794. Uh the asterric is for the frontage open space.

I'll come back to that just to give you guys an understanding of how the site has kind of developed over time. Um and where the site configuration has come from. Uh the number of dwelling units allowed for this property per the density would be about 26 and they are only proposing 23 currently. Here's a site plan. Uh you can see that the access is off of North Miller Road and creates somewhat of a tea uh on the site.

Refu is provided on site as well as all the necessary easements for uh public access. Here's the open space plan. These are some uh elevations for the proposed development. This is the landscape plan. Uh you'll see on your dis that I did provide you with an updated one. Uh the big change on that one is just changing the artificial turf to uh regular turf or real turf. Here's some renderings for the proposed development.

Uh the top one is off of North Miller Road and the bottom right one is on the adjacent uh the adjacent west uh property line or sorry east property line of the rendering. Um one of the main factors that has driven the site configuration currently as you see is the frontage open space. Um I've highlighted it in blue on this open space plan. Uh the requirement for frontage open space is approximately 6,650 square feet and they've provided 6,670.

Um and that has pushed most of the buildings uh towards the back as our code does not allow uh open space to go any further than what the width is of that uh distance between the open space. Um if I can show that right here. essentially this opening it can't go any further than about half uh public communication. So we've received three uh in direct opposition of the project. One in support or actually two in support now.

Uh that second one is actually on the dis as well that we just received today and the remaining were some suggestions for the the proposed development. The action requested is approval for the site plan landscape plan building elevations for a new 23 multifamily development uh in five three-story buildings on a plus or minus 1acre site. Uh that completes staff's presentation. The applicant is here. He does have a presentation as well and I am happy to answer any questions you guys have.

Any questions? Anyone? Okay. All right, Taylor. Madam Chair, I know we have 10 minutes. Would it be okay to get a couple extra minutes because the landowner would like to make a statement up front if that's okay? All right, great. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is David Free. I live at 6902 East 1st Avenue, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 and I'm the developer on this project. I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself before the team gives the presentation.

I've been a resident of Oldtown Scottsdale for the past 27 years. I not only live here, I've built my career and my businesses here as well. You may recognize me from community involvement as well as seeing me around town with my wife walking my dog. I'm a local guy. I love this city and genuinely care about its future. I have experience in developing smaller projects here in Scottsdale, so I understand and appreciate the city's expectation for quality and design.

This particular site has been especially challenging due to its size and shape, but we were committed to creating something that fit within the existing codes, asked for no special favors, and resulted in a project we could be proud of. Because of those challenges, it took 18 months for us to get to this point. I know a couple of our neighbors, u Mein and Trevor and and a few other folks are here today to share their concerns. Mr.

Earl from our team has met with them in person, over Zoom, on the phone to hear their concerns and to best address th those concerns. We have made sincere efforts to resolve their concerns, but unfortunately, city codes have limited what we were able to do. It hasn't been for a lack of effort. We truly want everyone to feel good about this project.

So, while we recognize that some still wish certain things were different, the high-end town homes we are proposing will turn this vacant, unsightly lot, often attracting vagrancy, into a residential enclave. Our goal is to elevate the area and to be great neighbors for years to come. As I said at the outset, our team has been working closely with the city staff for more than a year and a half on the design and the site fit.

We believe the end result is a thoughtful, highquality development that reflects Scottsdale standards and character. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the VRB. For your record, I'm Taylor Earl with the law firm of Earl and Curley. We're at 3101 North Central Avenue and thank you for that additional couple of minutes. So, um here also with Mark Tomichek who is the architect of record on this site and uh I may have some phone a friend moments if you have questions.

So, uh so staff alluded to this. I will just note that um originally the rendering was done off of off of Miller Road, but we subsequently had to reshuffle the site. We didn't updo the renderings because it's just showing the building, but this would be if you were like in that internal kind of looking southward. this is the view that you would see.

So, um I think that what we tried to do on the design was uh to not just take the same image and sort of copy paste, copy paste, copy paste all the way down, but to make it feel more cohesive and um and to not just feel like it was constantly being copied and pasted. So, the way these work is that you would have uh this would be the front and then off of the back you would have uh the driveway. So, you have a two-car garage.

Um, I will just note too that off the renderings, one little change between the rendering elevations is we've removed those sort of that block up off off of front doors and that just has an open an open area. So, a little bit of history on the site because I do think it's sort of relevant to kind of where we're at today. Um, I'm just going to show you the evolution through the historic aerials.

Um, as we proceed, you've got some uh looks like manufactured housing to the north and eventually you get manufactured housing to the east of the sites. Uh and then what comes into east of the site are the condos uh where at least some of the residents live today. Originally there were some single family homes on the site. Uh and then ultimately you get to where we're at today. You've got apartments to the north, you've got the condos to the east. Uh and then the site is now vacant.

Um there's a multifamily project on the northwest side of the site and we have the support letter that you received is from those owners that live in that particular spot. Um, we also went through an abandonment process.

There was this little finger of Pulk Street that was still there and so that's now been approved for abandonment by the city council and those four parcels combined with that little portion of Pulk Street would come into one unified uh development rather than having a peace mill development along the way. This is kind of the state of repair disrepair that Pulk Street had gotten in because it gets kind of weird that it was even a public street um sort of over the years.

Um, and so it has been a site that's received some some vagrancy. And so we think this will be a good way to get it cleaned up. Zoning on it is R5 and then the R5 to the north and to the east and then also commercial zoning to the south. So just wanted to put the context in there. And then also I think the land use here is important that we have urban neighborhoods both for our site and for the condos to the east of us. Um, all right.

And in terms of elevations, I'll uh just zoom in here on a couple of things. So, in terms of livable square feet, we're about 1,700. And then there's two balconies per unit. Again, these are not divided this way. They're you get the first floor, second floor, and third floor as part of the unit. Uh and then the kcar garages are 200. So, you're about 2,000 overall, including the livable and and the uh extra space as well.

Um, and then our intention here is to have high-end finishes within the unit so that these will be very nice quality uh units. And um that that's really what the developer is seeking here is something that fits the site but also is a high quality. We think it'll you know bring a good uh measure of quality to the area so as people either develop or redevelop that you're having a nice mark for hey this is high quality up in this area.

Um I mentioned that um again we can come back to any of these things you'd like to for. In terms of the area we think that this area is really well positioned 303 the 101 the Indian bend wash which is why we think a product of this high quality will succeed at this area. We think there is a market for something of this type. U in terms of the general plan we put this within our narrative but I think it's worth repeating just a few things here.

um talking about the health, welfare, safety, convenience of persons, we're adding in the vicinity. We're bringing in high-end residential that also puts eyes on the street in a neighborhood that really needs it. We think it'll act as a catalyst. Uh I think that'll increase in values in the general area and uh kind of shows how you can do small infill successfully. Um determining the appropriateness of all development in terms of community goals.

We think that it builds upon Scottdale's design ethos for quality development. Uh we have the deciduous trees and and shrubs that staff talked about. Uh and we have larger living area than if it were for apartments for example. Um car general plan also talks about character areas and addressing edges.

So we think that given the location of of Miller here on the edge and next to temp that this is a good development for this particular location consistent with that uh in terms of communications with the neighborhood. So uh just want to run you through that timeline. And so originally the architect sent out the notification that was about a year ago. Uh then there was an abandonment case that was again separate from today's proceedings. Uh and then ultimately went to the abandonment.

That's where my lynn made her comments. So I reached out gave her my card and say hey happy to to follow up on because they were sounded like design comments um and hadn't heard from her. So I reached out to staff got the information was texted her said would you like to meet? She said that would be great. And so we were able to go meet on site uh and Trevor was there and another gentleman.

And so I was able to see kind of the spacing and talk through some potential u m mitigation measures kind of wanted to listen and understand the concerns uh that they had and uh and then we had a zoom meeting.

So as a follow-up I did some research on things that I wasn't quite sure of at the time talked to staff did some research came back talked more about the mitigation measures and then me and I had a follow-up phone call a few days later and then there's been some small text messages uh back and forth. So definitely tried to keep the line of communications open. Um this was our original plan and um that was ultimately slightly revised.

The main difference uh really the key difference here was the turf that staff mentioned but also uh on the east side there putting in a tree uh the shoestring acacia. We understand the sort of nature of that space. And so there was some concern about what trees we would have in that space. And so um these were a great tree for that spot. They're fast growing. They're evergreen, drought tolerant. Um they can thrive in full sun but also do well in shady locations. and they can fit.

They grow upright and straight. And so we think that this is a good tree worked with Tim McQueen who does a lot of work uh in this in the valley and swap that tree out. Um and there's also some existing this tree this this picture is about a year old, but we think this is still reflective of what's happening. So there's some good trees on their side.

We had offered also to if they wanted us to to plant trees on their side of the fence um to fill in maybe some of the holes, maybe trees had been there in the past and had died since. Um and that was one of the offers that we made to the neighbors which they uh politefully declined. Um so we respect that but we wanted you to know that we did try to to offer something. Um there was a question early on about early on about lighting.

I think that question has been resolved but um just some we have wall packs of the low lighting you know zero foot candles at the property line. Um staff did get into the open space. That's something that came in sort of late in the process and and Milen had talked about, hey, why not just shuffle that open space and kind of put it over between us. Um, that would, you know, help everybody and and that is something that we we totally understand.

Um, but it's just has to be at that location because of the frontage requirements and the calculations. Um, and so it isn't something that we could just pull away from Miller Road and put in a different location. It needs to be at that location because it is a frontage open space requirement. Um, this is a big important part of the site too is this hammerhead turnaround. Making sure that that street lines up so that we can have garbage or also fire trucks come in, back out and leave.

So, making sure that we had that ability was a very important part of the site. Design in a site this small um in the sort of you know Jshape uh was difficult, but that is something that was ultimately reviewed and approved by uh fire and refues. Um, this is the sort of spacing I want to just mention real quickly here. Uh, between the units, which I know my Lynn's going to talk about as well. Um, setbackwise, we're at about 24 feet, but that there is a 4ft overhang.

And so, if you were to say from second story to second story, you'd be looking at about 20 feet, 20, just under 21 feet. And then it gets wider as you go further north. And so, that that distance becomes wider. Um again 29 is a setback for 25 uh between second stories um just north of the site. So there's a subject site at the bottom just north of the site. Um this is a condition that you see that same type of spacing is one that you would see just north of the site uh in this project here.

So if you see here, you know, just measuring it off of the aerial, you're looking at about between 14 and 23 at that location and about 20 feet at that location. You see that there's trees that can um grow here in that second arrow into that space. And also that spacing is something that's just very near to the site. It's typical of urban development where you would have uh sort of less spacing in between.

If you go down a little bit uh or up a little bit on Miller Road and McDow, you see for this long run of about 300 plus feet, you have a similar sort of spacing in between 20 feet here and about 19 ft in that location. And then just across the street, you also have again conditions where you're having a sort of narrow spacing for these stretches.

Also, if you think about single family homes, um if you look at the standards there, you would have, you know, these are the different lot areas for these R17 10 and 18. Heights allowed 30 feet. Sideyard setbacks are allowed to be 5 to 710, which means the spacing between buildings is anywhere between, you know, 10 feet to 20 feet in between those single family homes. So, with that, happy to answer any questions. Uh, because that's my time. Great.

Um, do we want to ask questions or wait and then have them do public comment? Councilwoman McAllen, that's up to you and the board if you'd rather have public comment first before some deliberation. Does anybody have any questions? Okay, let's go with public comment. Thank you, Taylor. Okay, so the first public comment is Min Pankitz and she has been donated time from Carmen Kalash and Barbara Bonia and so uh we're going to give you 10 minutes. Is that will that give you time? Thank you.

That's not it. That's the plan. Yeah, that's not my document. Technical adjustments. Excuse me. And I apologize, council member and members of the DRB. Maybe we could take the other public comment first if that person does not have a presentation while we work through the technical difficulties. Okay. Apologize for that. We can be flexible in that case. Um public comment we have Trevor Krauss and he has donated time from Mario Rodriguez. So you'll have uh five minutes. Trevor. Thank you.

Madame Chair and members of the board. My name is Trevor Krauss. I'm the HOA president and a longtime property owner at 303 North Miller Road, Kasa de Amigos condominiums. I'm here to ask the board that you please take notes and take note of our concerns. My unit uh sits at Casad Amigo sits directly uh abuing the new development um and which going to have the balconies um you know over overlooking my bedroom of my unit.

I'm here to communicate our community's concerns regarding the layout and design of this development which at three stories will remove our basic sun access and basic privacy not because especially those balconies uh from the west side of our two-story building. I want to let you know that we are fully aware of the R5 requirements and the setbacks and understand that the developer can build to the minimum standards of uh R5 and three stories. We're not opposed to this development.

We're happy that, you know, there's going to be a useful outcome, you know, to that land. Um, I'm realistic about this. We just are concerned about the setbacks mostly. Um, we don't oppose it. Um, it just seems that perhaps our condominiums weren't, you know, brought into fully consideration. Um, I'm here to ask that you review this request from the our perspective.

Our southwest most uh building has bedroom windows that if the development is approved and built as proposed is going to, you know, they're going to completely lack this natural light that we've had for years. It's 2006, you know, it's been growing. We have some beautiful big trees that are there uh that are probably going to be affected uh negatively as well.

Uh in addition to our west side, there's a landscape that I affir you know mentioned and we have decades old mature trees that you know give us shade and and are quite nice to look at quite frankly. Um and the lack of sun access by this new development uh will undoubtedly kill our landscape. I I don't know too many trees that actually grow.

They are said to grow in low light conditions, but you know, we're talking about, you know, less than 20 feet, uh, you know, for, you know, it's couple hours of light. In addition, uh, it's going to cast a perpetual shadow on our trees and bedrooms. We'll lose our investment in the landscaping, but we'll also be losing a significant resale value, I believe, and equity within our affected units, especially those directly affected.

Our largest concern is the minimal separation provided between buildings in the Ardan southeast corner and our units. We have reviewed all the existing R5 developments adjacent to each other in our community.

And while we do acknowledge that there are some that do a butt uh to each other in uh you know minimal ways, uh we feel that you know perhaps a setback uh more appropriate setback uh can be you know found within the architectural elements and your understanding of that we have developments just north of us uh which uh rather uh yeah north of us that are right on Miller Road. There's no setback. It's in the same city, same street.

Um, approval of this development as it is proposed will set a precedent and uh in our neighborhood for non-contextsensitive planning and that leaves behind permanent consequences of poorly planned building locations with no access to natural light, a minimal uh amount of privacy. Maybe they could balconies can go on the other side um you know and not be directly over our our our bedrooms for instance. Um, you know, I would we're open to, you know, working with the developer for sure.

Um, we've, uh, worked in good faith with them and we'd, you know, really appreciate some consideration perhaps from the council members, um, involved. Um, we want to have a little bit more setback, have that 21 foot distance between our building and the proposed building. Uh, which most of that setback is actually our existing setback, by the way.

that will not only increase our it's well that's going to reduce our values but if I think we've set them back we can increase everybody's values and we can all be kind of happy about that uh outcome. Um it just seems like a no-brainer to me to take consideration a little bit further of that setback.

Um I'm here to request that the board provide additional stipulations for spacing on the southeast side of Ardan or continue the case so that a more contemplative Ardan design development can be presented in the future. both parties uh the future owners of your you know town homes uh and our community will only benefit with larger setbacks which will benefit both communities. We'll have more natural light.

We'll have uh more privacy you know mutually and I believe that uh you know it will make both of our properties more attractive to future homeowners and residents. I thank you very much council members madam chair for your service and consideration of our m matter. Thank you Trevor. Okay, our next speaker will be um Meen Penquitch and you'll have 10 minutes. All right. Uh thank you madame chairs and members of the board. My name is Milen Pinkvich.

I am a resident at 303 North Miller Road and I am actually residing in that um southwest building of Casa Amigos. So, I'm going to present our concerns to the board. I've already forwarded them in advance because I wanted you to take a look at them. So, I appreciate your attention to this. And I also appreciate staff's ability to let us have this opportunity. It's really hard sometimes for residents to verbalize things in three minutes without visuals. So, thank you so much for the opportunity.

So our biggest concern is the privacy and the layout uh particularly of the souththeast portion of the Ardan development which is three stories high to our two stories and thank you and um it towers over our development and we don't have a problem with development here. We just want that sunlight and we want that privacy. Um, so this is a rendering of what it would look like uh to have these developments over here.

Um, and these are balconies that for some reason are facing our landscape rather than inside the the the development itself. Um, we also feel like it's a shame. This is one of those conditions with the zoning ordinance is there to protect uh the single family residences. However, the setback honestly uh sight context is provided for the windowless sides of homes. Uh some of our neighbors have chosen to even put sheds. If they have windows there, they have blocked their windows.

But then when it comes to our windows, um we only have a six-foot uh setback that they're providing to the property line. And I wanted to point this out. If you drove on city of Scottsdale roads today to get here, you drove on 11 foot width lanes. So, it's almost half of that for the setback. And if you parked on the parking lot here, you likely park on an 8.5 width parking spot. So, the setback is less than that. Um, so I I wanted to show you in this presentation. I've seen this case before.

I am a planner. I work for city of Phoenix. I work for city of Scottsdale. And this is one of those conditions where I understand the developers need to fit as much as possible on one site, but then that makes the site uh sort of unusable in many ways. Um and that leaves that legacy behind. So we have some landscape concerns. Um, as we talked about, you can see our tree line leans to the west because that's the afternoon sun that those trees have been getting for decades.

And we have the concerns that with the three stories, we will lose that afternoon sun as well. I understand that they have shown uh examples that are similar to this uh where trees have grown. Those are trees that were planted under those conditions, not trees that all of a sudden after decades get that shade. Um, I wanted to show you, you know, our trees lean to the west and uh that's that's our landscape and mostly our 15 foot uh setback.

Um, I also feel like this landscape is very unrealistic. But we have some tree species that uh truly uh have such a wide canopy, minimum 10 ft, and they're being placed in positions like near the trash refues where a trash truck will completely destroy them. Honestly, any landscape near a trash refuge and on that side of the refuge, if you think of a summer day, uh the microclimate that's created by that metal hot can uh will destroy that landscape.

So that is required landscape that will be destroyed. it can be replaced but likely every summer or every trash truck will destroy it. Likewise, the parking lot in the middle of the two eastern buildings or the the parking space in the middle of the two eastern buildings is lined by Lentanas. That is a condition that yes, an inspector that inspects the site to approve it will give it the check and then the moment it gets used, it will forever be stomped on.

It can be replaced and it will continue to be stomped on. So that is unusable land space. um landscape space. And likewise um we have the use of this red push pistache. Like I said, those trees, if you ever seen them, they're very majestic, very beautiful. 10 to 20 feet canopy, but we are fitting it in like six to 10 feet of setback. And we don't think that's realistic and that they will grow to that uh to that amount. um even with the shade that we have from both our developments.

Now, um we also have some fence and access concerns. We feel like the site plan is unrealistic and kind of disingenuous. We actually have a wooden gate and the site plan is not calling it. Uh the only thing I found labeled on the site plan is the property line. We've been told this is our fire access. Uh but I've done a dive deep dive search on this and I cannot find it. And uh I I can only find the recorded plat showing it as an eastment, but I cannot find the recorded easement itself.

If it is indeed a fire access, I would say it's probably secondary if fire needs to get in by the pool and uh it's now blocked in this landscape with uh trees and bushes. Um there is also another space that shows us an opening. It's not an opening. That's an existing chain link fence. And um this is a different presentation, but uh during the floods that we have two weeks ago, that's where the water seeped through onto our path from our guest parking is a f uh chain link fence.

So that would be a condition where it floods when the the soil of the ground is permeable and once it's built up, I can't even imagine. I know that sites are supposed to have retention, but uh we do have that concern. uh we found it out that they were not labeled and we feel like uh it's almost an attempt to not talk to us about this. Um and then in terms of packing stuff on the site is we're supposed to have an ADA path.

If you had a person with a true disability try to walk or roll to the norththeast corner of the site, uh that's not the shortest path for a person with a disability. A full path should be provided, but it cannot because we're trying to pack the required landscape everywhere else. I think this site needs less units to be able to function well and not just have items checked off. Um, I've already talked about this. It's kind of like a corridor.

If that chain link fence goes away, that's for homelessness activity that we already see on our site. Uh we talked a little bit about lighting concerns. Not not only the landscape lighting, but if we have bedroom windows, two balconies that are constantly having their TVs on or lights on at 20 ft, again, less than the width of two traffic lanes. Uh that's a concern for our lighting. And uh we have a concern regarding neighborhood quality. So I work for city of Tempe.

I've seen this floor plan before. One bedroom per bathroom and no dining room. That means three tenants living in a space. And in the city of Scottsdale, you do need a vehicle to get around. So that would be three tenants with three vehicles. So the moment four people move in that are three uh roommates uh in four units, we will have a parking spillover. And we do have a concern about this. Uh these are not for home ownership.

They seem to be developed more for tenants uh short-term and um medium-term rental. And we've already seen other developments in our city that are listed at Airbnb Hotels.com as short-term rentals. Um, we talked about the parking and our concern regarding the parking. And I wanted to talk about context. I only have two minutes, but we took a look at all of the developments up and down Milan Road from McDow to Mckelps Road. And here is the separations that we find.

um 70 foot separation, 60 foot separations. Um we have 85 ft separation at the closest spot. We have a condition where we have the 15 ft that only occurs for less than 20 feet. Uh for the rest of the time the developer has provided about 80 feet separation between buildings and then we have 50 feet 75 ft 60 ft and then we get us at 21 ft. Um so the average distance between developments is 59 ft. Um and that is considering that very low uh separation of the 15t between the two developments.

So what we are asking is um I'm sorry this is the wrong presentation but um I had some requests of the board. So uh what we want is a setback at the Ardan at 30 ft and that is because um it's less of the average distance of buildings. Uh and this isn't a twotory to twotory. This is a twotory to three story. So, we're accounting for that additional shade that is casted during the afternoon from the three stories. We want a realistic landscape plan that will not die and become unusable.

And uh we also want a realistic plan that actually calls out the chain link fence in our gate and an investigation of you know whether that is an access or not. Um I wanted to thank you for your time. I wanted to thank you for uh reviewing this presentation with me and I wanted to thank staff for allowing us to show you visually uh what sometimes residents have to do verbally in three minutes. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Meyn. Okay, questions I can start. Please.

I know board member Brand like someone else to start for him. So, you know, I have several questions to the applicant and staff, I guess, but uh and I met with the applicant and they're very helpful to present the case and um I mentioned, you know, I'm okay with elevation. I did express some concern on the southeast corner for site layout. So, would like to get a couple of question rolling. A matter of fact, the neighbor brought up several point also. I'm hoping staff could help us clarify.

Um I think just to go back to the neighbor comment there is this emergency access is there an easement in place where we're blocking it. Have we looked into this? Councilwoman McAllen board member for key uh there is no current access. Uh essentially with the pulk abandonment that occurred over in September 30th, uh all the access necessary for the uh proposed site um was removed. Okay. Um there was no access to that adjacent Kasa de Amigos parcel. Fair enough.

And I don't think you guys will be able to release an easement if obviously they're not the owner to it. So I I I figured this the case, but I just want to ask uh there is a question about the offside drainage on the south side. Uh, is the offsite drainage now blocked based on this development? Board member Fee, uh, not that staff is aware of.

The storm water department did review the drainage report submitted uh, with this proposal and gave it uh, the thumbs up, but there is no offsite drainage from the south side. We don't we're not aware or not aware. Maybe it's a question to the applicant. I guess will the applicant be able to answer this? So I want to make sure I'm I was understand my lint. Um and and so was the concern that there is water flowing from east to west onto our site currently?

It seems there is water coming from their property to your property. Yeah. Okay. And the concern is that we would somehow not be receiving water that we're currently receiving. Well, no, you will you'll be receiving it. It's historical there. But are you addressing it if there is truly water coming? How it's addressed? My understanding from the neighborhood that getting blocked was a proposed layout.

So well I I guess what I would say is that and Mark can come speak to this as well but we're not aware of any easement for drainage purposes in that corner. You don't have to have an easement but if there is an existing condition it will be considered historical condition. You don't need an easement for drainage. So is there a drainage situation where water coming into your property you have to address it. You don't have to have an easement.

uh respectfully if if if I have two adjacent properties and I want to accomplish my drainage on my neighbor's property, you absolutely would need an easement. No, you don't. You this are an historical case right now. So if it's already there and if the water happened, I mean if if this is a case, everyone in Scotsel and North Scots will block property line and don't let any of the washes happen because I tell you there is no easement to any of the washes.

But this is an historical drainage situation. If there is water crossing right now, it should be addressed and I'm assuming staff look into it, but this is an item which should definitely, you know, address. So I'm Mark Thomasek, 4368 North Civic Center Plaza, Scottsdale, Arizona. I'm the architect on the project. Um, as far as I'm aware, every property owner is responsible to retain 100% of their own rainwater that falls on their property.

We have our civil engineer that has done all the calculations from all the water on our property and we are retaining and fortunately we do have that front frontage where all the water is coming. Um nobody is allowed to send rainwater off to somebody else's private property unless it's a easement or a rightaway. I I wish this is the case man. This is what I do for a living too. I'm telling you if you have off-site coming in for your property you have to address it. You don't block it.

It's what's there. So I understand what you're saying, but this is what I do in every day. If every wash, let me finish. If there is a project, if if this is the case, every off-site project get the blocked because it's your property create a huge adverse impact for every development. This is why you go through the entitlement process. So my question is clear. Is there off-site flak right now coming to your property and is it addressed? This is a whole question.

So, our civil engineer has done all the work. They've worked with staff. I didn't hear anything about it. I wasn't made aware of it and nobody informed us of it. Okay. So, so I think this is a point staff need to get to the bottom of because as staff knows obviously if there's outside drainage need to be addressed even if there is no easement you don't just block outside drainage and create adverse impact. This why you go through the entitlement process.

So this item it need to be technically reviewed. Obviously staff I don't know probably already checked it but if not we owe the neighbor you know an answer on this. Um I a couple of things and I had I know I mentioned to uh Mr. earlier my preference even before you know outside of what neighbor concern is to move these houses further west and I think the big push back which I could see what is this open space right I mean the requirement of open space and I will wait for uh maybe the Mr.

car and the planner to be with me. But so this whole discussion on variance, I mean you have a project here because when I look at the site plan, I mean you're showing 24 in or 36 inch box tree which is a lot of money awesome trees you're showing in the east side and I look at those trees half of them or more like if you look at the canopy they're hitting the the building. I mean this is like 10 ft as you know the neighbor mentioned it. I had it noted.

I mean you have the balcony at 10 feet and you're six feet away. I don't even see how those 36inch box has any chance of living. So how does this meet the requirement of landscaping to have I mean a 36inch box eventually would be 20 to 25 ft canopy where you don't even have six feet room for this canopy. I mean it's either we have to approve smaller landscaping which obviously I don't recommend but those three will not survive. There is no way.

So how those trees will survive I guess in this situation. Board member for key uh looking at the landscape plan that is just a rendering essentially of what the canopy could be. It doesn't necessarily equate to how the tree would grow. Um I think Taylor and his team can kind of give you a little bit more understanding of the trees that are going to be proposed in that area and how they currently and will grow. Yeah, I would love to look at this.

I'm looking at the landscape plan and they do show the right canopies. They're showing 20 feet canopy right now based on the six feet setback. So I'm curious how those three will survive. I mean I'm counting at least seven trees on the east side. So what what are those trees? I guess are there like 7 feet tall and I mean they're not 20 ft canopy as it presented. Can we learn a little bit about those trees? Sure.

So the the nature right so Steph's correct right so the the landscape plan is being is shown in that canopy but they can these trees can be groomed for that area now if there's a concern and we want to go to mountain laurels which would be a much different canopy we can certainly do that we can meet you asked about meeting the requirement we can certainly meet the requirement with trees that have a much more limited canopy but we're also We're hearing concerns about privacy and so what we're trying to do is find the right tree that could grow in that space um that could be groomed and trimmed without it having to you know some that have the more sort of round canopies will be a little more challenging these that can be grow in that sort of straight space.

We thought this was a good tree and in working with a landscape architect talking about neighbors concerns we came up with this species of tree. Now again if if the concern is that the canopy would be too large we can reduce that to a smaller tree but we're trying to to right find the right balance. But even that smaller tree though and again I'm not a landscape architect but I mean even this tree you show here I cannot even imagine this tree trim for six feet.

I mean this is here what you show in this screen on the left side this is at least 18 to 20t canopy right. So trimming it on six feet just to make it between the balcony and obviously you know the um the trunk. I don't know how this will happen. This where I'm confused. So those trees over there, I don't see in see those three growing. I don't see them even meeting any requirement with how close you are between the canopy and the property line. Yeah.

And so so just thinking out loud with you what we could do in that spot if the concern is obviously this we're just showing a generic you know we're showing the species, right? But if the concern is that hey we're not sure that it would succeed in that area um we can build in options into the landscape plan. So if in the future we need to swap that out, we can um and we can put it in the approval that that can be changed to this tree if it needs to be.

And obviously we have to stay in conformance with our plan, right? If that tree dies, has to be replanted. But if we want to put in options so we're not just replanting the same tree and having the same result, we can certainly do that. I would also just note that or we can go out of the gate and we can choose a smaller canopy tree that don't get very large. Also to the north, I would just say the conditions different, right? As I showed in that slide, right?

So if we're talking about just a couple of P I'm talking about the south side we're talking about the eight trees on the south but to your point if the site plan get approved as it is these trees doesn't work and should be replaced now again it put you in requirement issue what not but based on how tight this area and based what you have on the canopy it's going to be taking a lot of uh creativity to put some trees that live there what's proposed today if this site plan go forward doesn't work so it has to be changed like those trees will not work based on six feet away from between the canopy and property line they're now going to grow and I think we have to look into this aspect so this been said I go back to my original point on the open space and I understand we're stuck on open space and at the same time what we do here when I look at this architect did a good job it's a nice building the owner has the right to develop it we're looking at site plan so when I look at the site plan here I see this a huge open space in front that doesn't make any sense to me and I see his entrances coming in from the east side which people will come in from the east side to come into their houses.

So in my mind the best area to have open area will be where people coming into their places. So and I mentioned this to the applicant I say well we have to go through variance we have to go through all kind of like uh processes but it is the right thing to do. So where does where can we help from the board here standpoint or from staff to make the site plan better?

What's what's our option other than the variance and if there is a variance can we support the variance as a board so we give some room on the east side it address some of the neighbor but more is a better sight plan people coming in it's even better for the applicant where you have a better circulation better entrance to those to those units if I can board member fi just weigh in for a moment uh this board is not allowed to grant variances uh it's just not one of the powers that DRB has and from a legal standpoint, the city cannot compel a property owner to go get a variance.

So, uh I would just like to remind the board to keep that in mind. While it's something that the applicant could do voluntarily, the city can't compel them to go get a variance. Understood. Can we So, we don't have any authority to reduce the open space. So, we only have to look at the restriction and critique the site plan as it is. Correct. Whatever the existing development standards are, uh the board is bound by evaluating the application with the existing development standards.

How how far how tough is can we suggest the variance or we cannot even suggest it? Um I you know I think the board is certainly able to provide suggestions in terms of what the applicant can be required to do or how the application can be handled. I don't believe it can be done in a way where we're essentially forcing them in a roundabout way. Fair enough. Um, so one one question also that came in um, as far as guest parking, I know this has came up before.

I think we do have two parking guest parking in the north side of the drive, right? I think you show three parking uh, one ADA and two uh, and then and then one sort of due east of the main drive. So there's four guest spaces in addition to the garages. Where where is the fourth one? I'm sorry. If you were to sort of drive into the project and keep driving without turning, you would hit it. So, we're uh the the one straight uh between those two houses. Okay. Or two units.

Is this what required right now for for space? Okay. Um so going again from my side, I I see what the applicant doing. I can relate to them. At the same time, I really have hard time with this corner on the east side. I mean, just having this overhang to be that the canopy to be class that close to the property line. I mean, this is going to be horrible experience even for the people living there. I mean, you're coming in into a really tight area where I I find it really challenging.

Now, I take you guys look at all other option. I will leave it to other board member to see how they think about it. If we're stuck in a layout, we're stuck in a layout. I don't know if there is more flexibility on the unit. Uh if there is something else could be done, but I really could relate about this east side, especially on those row of five units. Um it's it's not the best layout. It really isn't.

It's like we're forcing it there and I I I saw what you did on the comparison and I can relate to that. However, what you showed there, all of those are the same development. This is not two different development.

So the all of the example you show 22 feet 26 feet 27 feet these are part of the same development during planning of a future project it wasn't uh a distance from an existing condition and it's a threetory next to twotory again I'm not looking at that but this layout on the east I'm having really challenge with and I don't have the answer what the right solution on it and I want to be fair to you as well but I just want to bring this up maybe other board member um have a better idea or better English to present it or better vocabulary or whatn not but the last item is what the applicant mentioned about the ADA another I don't know I I have no idea if meet ADA or not probably staff or the applicant to answer to this is there any ADA challenge based on the distance this has been reviewed and is ADA compliant okay fair enough uh I will leave it to the other board member here those are my comment thank you thank you councilwoman McAllen if I may real quickly just to follow up on board member FK's questions about the site drainage.

Um, as uh Mr. Zimmer noted, our storm water staff did review and approve the applicant submitted drainage report. Within that drainage report, it does acknowledge existing conditions which are essentially full runoff because there's no on-site retention. That runoff goes to the southeast corner of the site presently as noted by one of the speakers.

Um, but the report, excuse me, further states that off-site flows will be collected in proposed swells and routed around the site while remaining separate from the on-site flows uh on-site runoff. Those swells will then direct the the flow to the south side of the site where it will exit the property via the wall opening existing wall openings in the property of the south as it does today.

And that would leave flow leaving the site uh locations and post-developed conditions the same as the and without any increase over the pre-developed conditions. And and this is typical. I mean you have the historic in and out but I don't see it here. This is was my challenge. So is there any way where we can show the channel? Can you show Can you point to the channel that just referred to that collecting the offsite currently? I don't think I have Yeah, probably not.

I don't I don't think we have the civil plan. This is not an issue that had been previously raised, so we weren't prepared to to show that.

apologies but um but it but it sounds like it's been reviewed and and approved by the city so I think they are at least aware of it but just the channel is on the south side is this what's going on do we know where this channel counciloman counciloman McAllen board member for key that's what it sounds like for the the drainage report I again I don't have that civil plan in front of me yeah and I don't see the channel on the landscape plan so it's something we'll have to clarify as well if there is an off-site channel we should have it labeled or at least shown to make sure the grading didn't work for it.

And I believe that southside is an alley. Is that not the alley between this and circle K? Yeah, Councilman McAllen. It is a driveway. Yes. That enters into the Casa development. Okay. We we just want to make sure there is no adverse impact to the neighbor or any floodings. Yeah. want to put that in. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, Council Member Brandt, did you have a question? Madam Chair, if we do have an answer, we do have the graphic if Oh, please go ahead. Hey, we're gonna make it work.

Uh, how do we zoom? Go here. Make this work. Wait for it. my phone. That's a that's a great exhibit to have up for my first question on here. If you can scroll over to the eastern part of that, you have both a existing sitewall and an on-site new retaining wall. Is that correct? It shows it right here.

It looks like along your property line there's an existing wall and then about two feet off of that you've got a retaining wall shown and then somewhere in there you're planting a tree between those two walls. Uh no, the the property to the south is lowered than we are. So this retaining wall is sort of sub terranean for us. Mhm. So it it's holding our property from, you know, spilling over into the I'm talking about as it turns up northbound on the eastern property edge.

If you kind of scroll the phone down a little bit. Yep. So you've got flow that's happening along there. You've got a it looks like a 3-ft max retaining wall and then you've got an existing screen wall that's right next to it. And if I'm looking at your plan correctly, you've got trunks of trees in that twoft area between a 3-ft retaining wall and a existing sight screening wall. So, can someone explain to me how a tree is going to grow between two walls that are 2 feet apart? Yeah.

So, the Yeah. And and Mark can jump in here too, but because we have it as part of a network of of paths, it allows the roots to go north and south. If we were putting it in a box of 2 by two, it'd be a little different than if you're putting it in a strip where the roots can go north and south. With all due respect, man, I've done a lot of work and we would never plant a tree between those two walls.

If even if it even if it did work, it would uproot and kill the foundation of the existing screen wall. You're going to have to plant that tree on the high side of of the retaining wall. I mean, you would admit that, correct? Mr. Tomzac, you guys are going to have to plant that tree on the tree will be outside of that. It will be closer towards our building. Yeah. Closer to your building. Yeah.

Which is again, if you're looking at the setback and that's the other question on this condition because I think this is the highlight just in general. When we reviewed the case, this is the condition that is the most difficult to swallow. I will 100% agree with Mr. key that every single example that he showed was an internal property condition that was designed within its own community and it was a space that trees were growing in.

But the reason why trees were growing in there is that there were weren't multiple screen walls or anything between in that 25 ft. It was an open condition. So it wasn't it wasn't a borderline between two properties. It was two buildings that were on the same property. So, this is a much different condition because you've got a property line, you've got existing screen wall, foundation, and now you've got a retaining wall in there. Um, so I was I was also going to ask Mr.

Carr or um uh from from the planning side, the the development standard for the set the building setback is this what type is this considered a rear property line or a side property line? And what's the setback standard here? Certainly, Councilwoman McGallen, Vice Chair Bran, when it comes to multifamily zoning as this is R5, there's not really a side or rear. Um, there's usually just a front and then everything else.

And so, this would be that every everything else uh that gets captured is not a front. And that would be uh typically either they could go as close as zero. The code says when you're when an R5 uh development like this butts another R5, they can actually build a building on the property line. But if a a setback is provided, it needs to be at least 10 ft. Okay. And is there language within the R5 that defines overhangs as allowable to go into setbacks or what's the language?

I know that's in the downtown code, but can you outline the language? Certainly, vice chair. Um within our residential districts, this zoning ordinance provides a exception for overhangs of certain parts of the building to overhang or or encroach into the setback requirement. This building is taking advantage of the maximum amount I believe at 4T. Are those does it does the verbiage describe occupiable patio spaces or is it just is it intended for roof eaves? It's both.

Um the language does describe both eaves and balconies. Okay. Thank you. Um I was I was going to ask the question to you. You've talked about this being um in process for 18 months. Um was when was the original submitt for DRB the first your first full complete submitt. So the the the Yeah. So we we marked it 18 months a little bit more but from the preapp date being in uh April of 2024. Oh from a preapp. Okay. Yeah. When was the actual So how long has this been in DRB right now?

I can answer that vice chair brand. The application was submitted um October 29th 2024. Okay. So it's been about a year. What's been is the complication on this from the the length of time have you guys had to go undergo redesign for this um uh redesign of the site during the DRB process? Yeah. Do you Mark, do you want to speak to that? You've been more involved in that. Yeah. So, we worked and met with staff multiple times. Um our initial site didn't even have that open frontage space.

That came up a little bit later. It's not a common. It only happens on a portion of Miller Road. So, it's not something that happens on every road in Scottsdale. It's just here. So, that came about after the second review. So, then we had to readjust everything. Then, uh, refuge and fire on a site this small, which right now this property has no turnaround or anything. So making that work, working with refues to make sure that they can come in safely, turn around and get out took some time.

Um, and then the abandonment also kind of took took part of it. So there's just a lot of moving parts. We worked hard. The civil challenges also took some time. So, you know, you put everything together and its to about 12 months on a project this size. No, I agree. I I just I'm actually just for our own benefit trying to understand the length of time that it takes to get these projects through uh an entitlement like this.

I'm you know we're we're all trying to be sensitive to making sure that we're making great decisions and about doing great projects here and just trying to fully understand the path that you guys took to get here. But sometimes it's not always that clear. Um, let's see other questions that I had. I we'll get into um I'm I'm in agreement with Mr.

Fiki that um in a lot of these side and backyard conditions and even as you were discussing the the R5 and different residential neighborhoods about the sideyard conditions about a five foot or a zero wall, those those conditions aren't occupiable balconies and frontages of units. Those are truly side conditions of walls and normally those are side conditions that don't have a lot of windows in them.

First of all, it's a building code issue because of your proximity to the property line, but these are also nonvisible conditions. Like I live in a really tight single family neighborhood that has 5 yard or 5ft sideyard. There are no windows. We don't have like a a big patio facing out there on, you know, that's not where people are doing this.

So from a historical context and and the relevant comparison of these conditions, I think that your comparison analysis is off because you clearly have a front and back of a unit and you've got a you know the the endcap of these units is really the side condition where you've got limited openings and you've got one side that has a fully that has multiple openings. It's your living space that opens up onto a balcony and that's the part that is really the front of the house.

And unfortunately, that's the portion that is up against a really minimal setback and it's not a true kind of sideyard condition. So, I think there's some clarification of of information that you've shared that has different it it does show similar dimensions, but it's a very different application that that is just showing a different condition. So, I appreciate the exhibits from both um the neighbor's presentation and and Mr.

Earl's presentation, but as you're looking through this stuff, there's you're presenting dimensions and even even in everyone's presentation, even the neighbor's presentation, these are conditions that just have that are anomaly conditions and there's it's not a repeated condition. So, um I appreciate all the work from from both parties but but anyhow, um see, Mr. Bran, can I make a comment on that? Yes. Is that all right?

Um yeah so so agreed that contexts are very different um sites are very different I think some of the examples that were shared that we're pointing to 70 ft it's because it's across a street or you add in the driveway or there was a a drainage channel and so sites that are big sites that have the ability to put in a driveway or something like that in between I mean I've worked on a lot of sites as well and the first thing I sort of think about is okay can we shuffle this can we move that can we and the challenge on this site is that it's so small and there isn't simply a way where you can just shuffle the driveway to the east side or somehow put uh the open space that's required on Miller to be pushed over there.

So, we I want you to know and the board to know that we did try to look at those things and when we originally met this goes back to an earlier comment, you know, one of the things we talked about was that we would be willing to plant trees on their side. Not something that can be stipped to here. We can put it on the record and we're still willing to do that. um that we would put those on their side. We also offered to do some type of privacy screening on their windows.

We were trying to think out of the box. Things that I sort of explained couldn't be stipped because it's offsite, but that we could do a letter, we could put it on the record today. I mean, there's things that we tried to be creative about it, but it it is simply just the site. These infill developments um are very difficult. Um and we obviously can't control how their project was built and the location in which it was was built.

And we're just stuck with the property that we have and the space that we have and trying to make it high level and and fit. Okay. Um Donna, do you have any questions? Um I don't have any questions. Uh everything that I was thinking has already been addressed. I immediately um when I was looking at this thought variance for that front set that set back against Miller um I didn't realize we can't make a recommendation for a variance um which is unfortunate.

The other thing I'm looking at well there was also somebody mentioned and I don't know who it was that this was a conceptual site plan and or landscape plan. I don't take this as being conceptual. When we were talking about the circumference of the trees and that sort of thing. Um I, you know, to me I've and I've drawn hundreds of landscape plans for residential developments. You draw them to scale and with what you think the maximum size will be.

And to me, these maximum sizes, I agree, just do not fit in this area. Plus, if you look at that sideyard up against the other development, it's wider at the north side versus the south side, which means it just gets worse as you you go along that property line. So, you know, even at the very north side, I don't see the trees fitting. At that south end, that south corner, it's ridiculous to think that they would fit in there.

Um, and I just, you know, I understand that you're trying to get the maximum number of units to the site, but sometimes a site just will not accommodate that maximum number and still be livable. And that that was the main thing I wanted to say. Thank you. Um, board member Peter, do you have any comments? I guess the only thing that I would say is I realize that we've been counseledled up here that we can't recommend uh trying to get a variance on the open space at Miller Road.

My question would be is would they be allowed to apply for a a variance for that or is this just is this just chiseled in stone that nothing can be done with it? You're done. Councilwoman McAllen, board member Paser, the applicant could certainly voluntarily, as uh Mr. Morrison stated, um request a variance. Um but the staff and the DRB has no say in that process. That's a process that happens outside of the purview of this board. No, I understand.

I was just kind of curious from the standpoint that u what we've heard here today is everything that's been going on over the last year between the residents uh next door and the Ardan and it just didn't seem like that ever was a subject that was brought up. Was that ever approached? Actually, it was um and so I appreciate the opportunity to address that. So when this was originally as as Mark mentioned, it wasn't brought up in our first reviews.

it came up later because it's kind of a funky area on Miller. Um, and so we we did ask that question. Um, and I don't want to characterize staff's inappropriately, you know, or misstate it, I should say, but we sort of took from it. You can always file, but I don't know if that's something staff support um or that would be granted.

Um, and and if I've misstated, Brad, please correct me, but I can tell you that I just went through a variance process that was somewhat similar in that we had a a building in a location. Um, and the board asked, "But can it be can you meet the standard staff? Can they meet the standard?" Because there is a is necessary to preserve reasonable property rights. Is it truly necessary? Could it be moved?

And they said, "Yes, it could be moved." And I said, "Well, if I do that, I'm going to be putting that building closer to the resident to the south, whereas right now it's up against the street where we're asking to keep it. I'd have to put it up against the resident. I understand, but can it be done?" And that was a huge problem with our application is that it it was the feeling that it can be done here.

We have a site plan that although it's not um you know, there's these concerns, they will say, "But can it be done?" And so that's a huge problem. And so we we took from that that yeah, we can go file something. Um but we got real grave concerns, including my own personal recent experience, that that wasn't going to be successful. So we we absolutely understand and if we had designed this plan without any of those restrictions, we would not have put our open space all along Miller Road.

We would have spread it out. We would have done the things we're talking about or tried to, right, and try to shuffle it around. Um there's frankly the other challenge is that we have the the hammerhead and so you have that that road needs to be aligned north and south, right? So you can't have a situation where it's it's offset like this. But again, we did go down that path. So I I want you the board to understand there wasn't something that we just dismissed out of out of hand.

That we did go down that path. Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate that because based on everything I've heard here from the board tonight, we when we all opened this plan up and saw that that southeast corner was like had a neon light around it. It was and then hearing the comments that were made at planning commission council last week u and I think that the last board meeting here it was it's been highlighted all through this process.

So, it's just a real concern to have the situation set up where an existing project is going to be uh so affected by a new project. I also agree with that a lot of the projects to the north that were shown were built as a single project with the setbacks against their own buildings, not against the buildings in the next property. So, I kind of discount those type of things because they knew what they were doing when they built those properties. But I appreciate your answer. Yeah.

And and just to be clear, I I just wanted to address the concern that it was uh, you know, maybe an unlivable condition or that trees couldn't grow in that environment, right? I I do recognize the difference between something that's internally done versus external. I appreciate that, but I wanted to show that this is not something without precedent that that there are people living in that environment or that trees are not growing in that space. Thank you, Board Member Fake.

I I just have again will I can I can understand the applicant they've been through this process for a while came in and you know from what I'm hearing from the board this this section on the east side has a challenge and I will you know like from staff I would really encourage staff if this is continue and whatever happened that to support the variance if you could support the variance because this makes so much sense to it will add so much value to this development.

So from my side right now when I look at this I think something has to give. I mean I will and I hearing for the board member uh probably the best approach here to to continue this for you guys to look into site plan maybe reduce some square feet or pursue a variance to get more square footage but build a situation on the east side here.

Maybe how somehow add another 14 ft there 10 to 14 just to get the tree built up get in a situation that work and u I think this could be something maybe you know like instead of putting it for a vote today maybe just get to have continue it just to get the site plan to work out better instead of voting on it today this will be my recommendation uh the second part I want to mention um I notice you guys and in this thing you put Mr.

earlier on the screen for elevation wise you guys filling up like 4 feet as well is this like how does this relate to the elevation on uh Miller roll I guess when I show when I look at your plan that you show on your phone so you're adding four feet to the existing rate now I fill is there any situation why we're filling four feet no that's the current condition no the current condition is 92 you're going finish lower elevation 96.4 for Can you put the phone back? Yeah. Yeah.

Go back to the screen you were showing us on the wall or whatever works for you. I'm wondering an additional challenge that we haven't really even brought up, but there's a property to the north. So, this property right here we are giving them access to their property. So this driveway that's ours is also they're going to be using that. So that was just an additional challenge where we couldn't really move that drive north or south to create this hammerhead the poke alignment.

So that had to stay and then the hammerhead had to stay and we ran out of property. Um so again I'm only an architect. I'm not an engineer.

I don't know for no good but I'm guessing we started here and we have to meet these contours and that's how they ended up where they ended up but you are you are filling 4T though if you look at the site ex inside your existing elevation right now it's 92 and your finished lower elevation is 96.4 from my scene yeah we go so 924 and your finished so 4T fill and this is 4T filled because of this situation at the entrance because you're could you're going The existing here is 95. Okay.

So you're this coming back to be your ultimate output somewhere over there or I don't know something to look at just to make sure again drainage part you are filling four feet. This will be expensive. I mean you're you're adding 5,000 6,000 cubic yard. So I don't know if there is an opportunity to reduce the height. Maybe this help a little bit but maybe it is what it is. So I just want to point this out. So thank you. Thank you. Um board member Mason I know you're online.

Do you have any questions? I've been looking at this. I've reviewed site with the with the applicant and looking at the configuration of where the town houses are. It's a very tight house situation do much of anything. The only thing you could really do is to sacrifice the open area uh on the west side of the property and that would would create a problem. allow some shifting of the units on the eastern side, but that would also impact the area for the turnaround for the vehicles.

It's a very very tight space. I to my impression, I think the owner has done a really good job of fitting in as best he can uh without within this very tight situation.

My concern is that you know that that we have the R5 zoning and it has been existing there and and yeah when people build an R buy into R5 zoning they are aware that there can be another R5 property built next door or they should be and this is a situation where the property is going in and it anytime you build a property it's going to impact other people who's with the idea that well you're building a property in my view or building a property in my you know casting light on my shadows but private property rights allow him to do that.

And I think that looking at the limitations of the site, it seems like it's one of the best possible outcomes unless you start allowing them to allow us variations on the the open space on the uh east on the western side of the property. I don't see much else that can be done. That's just my opinion.

And I don't know what the architect thinks about those suggestions, but if you did that, that would allow the uh unit the the unit which is on the southeastern part to be maybe moved to the west another four four feet, but uh I'm not sure that would solve the problem. Thank you very much. Okay. Um with that, any more comments? Do I have a motion? I'm going to make a I'm going to make a motion real quick.

Um hopefully I I do think that in the spirit of the discussion today, um I believe that the that the overall use and the infill and the layout of the site is a good use. And this is me personally. I think what we've said, we're not opposed to this.

I think that given the guidelines and the context of the area and and of how we survey the success and the quality of what's being proposed that the tapered condition along the eastern property edge from the northern edge down to the southern is presenting a real problem. I I will say that me personally, I'm not sure about Mr.

or or the other members that have commented, but it seems like the northern edge condition is not nearly as much of an issue as the southern edge along the east property line. That that northern edge, it's the tapering effect along with the the the um change in grade that again you've got a retaining wall condition there. You've you've got retaining of of three to four feet that you're also trying to grow a tree in.

Like I I will point out that I don't believe the the bottom five trees are are even viable. I don't think that anything with a root structure is viable there minus some hedges and ground cover just because of the proximity of a screen wall and a and a retaining wall. So I do believe though that the condition on the north edge and the property and the setback conditions are are appropriately laid out.

And I I think we've all looked at this and thought if if your desire is to not lose units that a quality site layout may involve pursuance of a variance of the historical setback and front frontage open space that's specifically the property of the north to the north of here. And I don't know if that's how I do not know how variances are are processed.

Um, but I would like to give as a board I would like to make a motion that gives you room to pursue that and to understand that while not denying this this but I I believe that what we've said today is that is that this plan needs to change in order to meet meet um meet what we view as how we judge these plans.

But I'm going to with that said, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to continue this case um to allow the applicant time to work with staff and to understand um how the frontage open space may be offset to come forward with a better site plan that addresses the southeast corner of the site in a more contextually appropriate manner. Can I can I throw something in there, sir? Sure.

If we were to rotate clockwise the site plan to where the property and the buildings are parallel to match so everything would match what we have on the north. Would that be a solution that would That's a good question. I think if you did that though you'd be looking at adding 8 feet to the setback of the southern edge which would put you out of your range of your frontage open space. Well, and that's why we are where we are.

But if I would defer to me, I would be in support of that if the northern edge was aligned across the entire east edge of the property. I can't speak for the other board members. So, okay. So, we have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Uh, Councilwoman Mckllen, if I could just intervene for one second before we take the second.

Uh for clarification purposes, uh Vice Chair Brand, it would be helpful if we could just clarify whether or not the motion to continue is to a date to be determined or to a date certain. To be determined. Thank you. I'll second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Um does anybody else have any comments? Um I am going to voice. Oh, okay. Board member Mason.

As I understand what we are suggesting here is that the the two units on the western side, southern western side are to get a variance to move those into this open space on the western side which would allow the unit on the southeastern corner to then be moved forward. Is that what we're suggesting that we get a variance to to eat into or reduce the amount of open space requirement on that uh southwest corner? Board member uh Mason, I will let board member Brandt speak to his motion.

Let me clarify. Sorry. The motion is not to suggest a specific movement at all. The motion is to continue the case to allow the applicant to explore conditions uh a changes or variance a variance process that may improve the property condition on the southeast corner. We're not specifically saying move this here or move this there. We're we're making a continuence to allow them the time to work with staff to explore options. Thank you for your clarification. I do want to speak to this.

Um my one comment is I'm I'm really concerned about the drainage because the drainage is falling off into the road that enters into your um units. Uh this would be a perfect weekend to look at it. It's supposed to rain the entire weekend. Just a suggestion. Okay. Um so it's been moved and seconded to um uh continue this to a date to be determined later. Um, roll call vote, please. Councilwoman McAllen, yay. Vice Chair Brand, yes. Board member Paser, yes. Board member FE, yes.

Board member Mason, yes. Board member Robinson, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so this will be continued. Thank you all. Um, and unanimous adjournment. Correct. Thank you. So moved.

Watch on YouTube →