HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__03-17-22_0552_321
NOTICE OF MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
FOUNTAIN HILLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Chairman Paul Ryan
Vice Chairman Carol Perica
Boardmember Nick Sehman
Boardmember Erik Hansen
Boardmember Jeremy Smith
TIME:5:30 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING
WHEN:THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022
WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Boardmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the
Town’s Council, various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Board of Adjustment
meeting.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a
right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings
of the Commission are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject
to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such
recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a
child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S.
§1-602.A.9 have been waived.
REQUEST TO COMMENT
The public is welcome to participate in Board of Adjustment meetings.
TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM, please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back of
the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion of that item, if
possible. Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed three
contiguous minutes to address the Board. Verbal comments should be directed through the Presiding
Officer and not to individual Boardmembers.
TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment card,
indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST and agenda
item, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion, if possible.
REGULAR MEETING
1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE – Chairman Ryan
2.ROLL CALL – Chairman Ryan
3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda.
Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Board, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and
manner restrictions. The Board will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public
unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public,
individual boardmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter
be placed on a future Board agenda.
4.CONSIDERATION OF approving the meeting minutes of the Board of Adjustment January 21,
2021.
5.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Application of Rauf Moosavi for
a variance to reduce the 30-foot minimum front and street-side yard building setbacks for a
proposed four-plex multi-family development, located at the southwest corner of Sunflower
Drive and Mountainside Drive (Address: 16049 E. Sunflower Drive, APN 176-05-444) in the R-3
multi-family residential zoning district. (VAR22-001)
6.BOARD DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.
7.SUMMARY OF BOARD REQUESTS from Development Services Director.
8.REPORT from Development Services Director.
9.ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed
by the Board of Adjustment with the Town Clerk.
Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2022.
_____________________________________________
Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice) or
1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain
agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Board with this agenda are available for
review in the Development Services' Office.
Board of Adjustment Meeting of March 17, 2022 2 of 2
ITEM 4.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/17/2022 Meeting Type: Board of Adjustment
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services
Prepared by: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information:
Request to Board of Adjustment (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving the
meeting minutes of the Board of Adjustment January 21, 2021.
Staff Summary (Background)
The intent of approving meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action
that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's
website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
N/A
Risk Analysis
N/A
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
N/A
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends approving the minutes of the Board of Adjustment January 21, 2021.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment January 21, 2021.
Form Review
Form Started By: Paula Woodward Started On: 03/05/2022 05:18 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/05/2022
ITEM 5.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/17/2022 Meeting Type: Board of Adjustment
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services
Prepared by: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner
Staff Contact Information: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner
Request to Board of Adjustment (Agenda Language): HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER
AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Application of Rauf Moosavi for a variance to reduce the 30-foot minimum
front and street-side yard building setbacks for a proposed four-plex multi-family development, located
at the southwest corner of Sunflower Drive and Mountainside Drive (Address: 16049 E. Sunflower Drive,
APN 176-05-444) in the R-3 multi-family residential zoning district. (VAR22-001)
Staff Summary (Background)
Applicant: Rauf Moosavi, Moosavi Design Group, Inc.
Applicant Contact Information: 14300 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 113
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 451-8823
Property Location: 16409 E. Sunflower Dr.
APN 176-05-444
Lot 4 of Plat 601-A
APPLICABLE TOWN CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Article 2-8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Section 2-8-4 Duties
B. It shall be the duty of the board of adjustment to hear and decide appeals for variances from the
terms of the zoning code only, if because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning code
will deprive such property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property of the same
classification in the zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that
the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located.
C. The board of adjustment may not:
1. Make any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning classification or zoning district, make
any changes in the terms of the zoning code or make changes to the zoning map, provided the
restriction in this paragraph shall not affect the authority to grant variances pursuant to this
article.
2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by
the property owner.
APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Chapter 2 PROCEDURES
Section 2.07 Appeals and Variances
B. Variance.
1. Any aggrieved person may appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the terms of
the Zoning Ordinance if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including
its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance will deprive such property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property of
the same classification in the same Zoning District. Any variance granted shall be made subject to
such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authority shall not constitute a granting of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the zone in which
such property is located.
2. The Board shall hear the appeal at the next regularly scheduled meeting after the required
advertising requirements have been fulfilled. Notice of the hearing shall be made by publishing a
notice thereof in the official newspaper of the Town and by posting the property affected not
less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The notice shall set forth the time and place of
the hearing and include a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
3. A variance shall not be granted by the Board unless the alleged hardship caused by literal
interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance results in more than personal inconvenience
and/or personal financial hardship, and is not the result of actions of the applicant.
4. In granting a variance, the Board shall impose such conditions and safeguards as are
appropriate to ensure that the purpose and intent of this ordinance remain intact.
5. No nonconforming use or violations of this ordinance with respect to neighboring lands,
structures, or buildings in the same Zoning District, and no permitted use of lands, structures or
buildings in other zoning districts shall be considered grounds for granting a variance.
6. Every variance shall be personal to the applicant therefore and shall be transferable and shall
run with the land only after completion of any structure or structures authorized thereby.
7. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to empower the Board to change the terms of
this ordinance, to authorize uses which violate any other Town ordinance, to affect changes in
the zoning map, or to add to or change the uses permitted in any Zoning District.
Chapter 5 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 5.06 Yard, Lot, and Area Requirements
Sub-Section B. Application
No building shall be erected, nor shall any existing buildings be altered, enlarged, moved, or rebuilt, nor
shall any open space surrounding any building be encroached upon or reduced in any manner, except in
conformity with the yard, lot, area and building location regulations hereinafter designated for the
zone in which such building or open space is located, except as otherwise specifically provided.
Chapter 11 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 11.10 Density, Area, Building and Yard Regulations
Zoning District = R-3
Required Building Setbacks:
Front = 30’, or 1.5 the height of the abutting building wall plane, whichever is greater.
Side = 10’, or height of abutting building wall plane whichever is greater.
Street Side = 30’, or 1.5 the height of the abutting building wall plane, whichever is greater.
Rear = 30’, or 1.5 the height of the abutting building wall plane, whichever is greater.
Staff Summary (background):
Mr. Rauf Moosavi, on behalf of the property owners, submitted a variance request to reduce both the
minimum front and street side building setbacks for the 20,576 sq. ft. corner lot located at 16049 E.
Sunflower Drive. In the case of corner lots, the shorter street frontage is considered the front yard.
Conversely, the side with the longer street frontage is considered the street side yard. The applicant is
requesting a minimum building setback of 20' for the front yard, and 15' for the street side yard; a
reduction of 10' and 15' feet, respectively.
Relief from these minimum setback requirements is being requested to accommodate a 4-plex luxury
multi-family development. As noted in the applicant's narrative and conceptual site plan, the two units
to the north would consist of two stories with access through a ground level garage and main entrance
porch. The units to the south have been designed as three stories, including a basement, first floor and
second floor. These two units are down-hill and the topography allows for the creation of partial
basements.
The property was created in 1973 with the recordation of Plat 601-A. The property is undeveloped and
considerably steep, with slopes of at least 20% in grade. The far southern portion of the property is
most gently sloped. However, this area is also within the regulatory floodway. Such areas are
unbuildable, as floodways are necessary for the conveyance of flood waters during a 100-year storm
event and must be kept clear of impediments.
The adjacent properties to the north, south and west, are also zoned R-3, which allows one dwelling
per 3,000 sq. ft. of area. The property to the west is zoned R-4, which allows more dense development.
The adjacent property to the west is also undeveloped, while the properties across the streets to the
north and west contain multifamily developments. As mentioned earlier, the southern portion contains
a floodway, which is part of an unnamed wash bifurcating much of Plat 601-A. Additional development
exists south of the wash. This area is also zoned R-3 and appears to contain several examples of
pre-existing and non-conforming structures that encroach the current minimum building setback
limits.
Request for Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 11.10, Front and Street Side Yard Setback in
R-3:
The applicant has requested the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to both the required front and
street side yard setback for the R-3 zoning district. The zoning ordinance requires a 30' minimum
building setback for both the front and street sides in this zoning district.The applicant is requesting an
approximately 20’ setback from the front property line and 15' from the street side property line, a
reduction of 10' and 15', respectively.
FINDINGS:
The four findings which must be made by the Board of Adjustment in order to grant a variance are
listed below. The applicants have provided their written justifications for each criterion in their
attached narrative. Staff’s responses are noted below:
1. There exist special circumstances or conditions regarding the land, building or use referred to in
the application which does not apply to other properties in the district.
Applicant:
"Corner Lot: The lot is abutting Sunflower Drive and Mountainside Drive, and thus has two street
yards with 30' setbacks from each road.
Topography: The project site has steep slope gradients with an average of 25' elevation
difference from North to South and, with 10' difference in elevation from West to East.
Natural Wash: Despite 30' rear setback, the flood plain at the southern border required 45' to
55' setback that reduces the buildable area by at least 25%."
Staff: Many neighboring lots with R-3 zoning district are fairly steep. However, staff believes
there are very few multifamily residential parcels in the Town containing the regulatory
floodway. Approximately, 3,200 square feet of the southern portion of the subject property is
encumbered by the regulatory floodway, making this portion undevelopable. When coupled with
the minimum building setbacks, only about 25-30% of the lot is buildable. The R-3 Zoning
District allows up to 50% of the lot to contain buildings.
2. The above special circumstances or conditions are preexisting and are not created or self-imposed
by the owner or applicant.
Applicant:
"The project site encompasses approximately 21,000 square feet, with steep slope gradients
from North to South with a total drop greater than 20 feet and from East to West with a drop of
average 10 feet...[There is a] 10' PUE easement at southern side and no buildable area of Flood
Plain..."
Staff:
The lot was created in 1973 with the recordation of Plat 601-A under different ownership. Staff
believes the regulatory floodplain/floodway to the south was established by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency at a much later date. Neither of these circumstances appear to
be created or self-imposed by the property owner. Further, the lot narrows significantly as it
moves south which reduces the area available for development.
3. The Variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights. Without a Variance
the property cannot be used for purposes otherwise allowed in this district.
Applicant:
"Per zoning requirements, we are allowed to build 6 units with 10,350 s.f. total covered area on
this property. Due to site constraints, the proposed number of units on this proposed project is
only limited to 4 units, and the total under roof will be only: ± 8,329 s.f. The total gross floor
area ratio (G.F.A.R.) will be: ±13,960 s.f. The topography on the southern portion of the site
dictates to have a basement area on the two of the units as bonus space to units 3 & 4."
Staff:
Although existing topography and local/federal regulations present several challenges for a
four-unit multifamily development on the property, staff believes there is adequate room for a
less dense development of one, two, or three units. However, if one considers that a 21,000
square foot property in the R-3 zoning district could potentially contain a density of 6 units, then
an argument could be made that the existing conditions and regulations precludes the owners
from developing the property "for purposes otherwise allowed in this district." Note that the
applicant is proposing only four residential units and not the maximum allowable. Without the
ability to construct enough units on the property to make it financially feasible, the property, in
effect, has lost substantial property rights.
4. The authorizing of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in
the vicinity, to adjacent property, or to the neighborhood or the public welfare.
Applicant:
"Design concept will be in conjunction with the physical condition of neighborhood and the
demographic of the street...The height of building exterior walls will be less than the required
30' high from natural grade, with various breaking points, as well as recessed and projected
features in the facade...Roof systems and parapet walls shall be designed to conceal all roof-top
mechanical equipment from view from adjacent properties and from public roads and shall
comply with current Town of Fountain Hills ordinance...Landscaping materials will consist of
both native and naturalized vegetation that will make the project internally consistent with the
proposed uses and buffer this site from surrounding uses."
Staff: One concern with approving the variance would be the potential impact on the sight
distance for drivers on Sunflower trying to turn left onto Mouintainside Drive. The existing
topography makes this challenging. However, this concern will be largely mitigated by the
regulatory sight visibility triangle at northeast corner of the lot, which prohibits walls, vegetation
and other fixtures of greater than three feet in height.
Another concern is how the relief from the setbacks will affect viewsheds from neighboring
properties. It appears that development of this property will inevitably affect views from the
properties uphill to the north and east, regardless of the building setbacks being enforced.
However, until a detailed site plan is submitted for staff review, which is a requirement for all
development regardless of the Board's decision, it will be difficult to determine how the views
will be affected exclusively as a result of relief from the front and streetside setbacks.
The two concerns mentioned above were mentioned by at least 5 neighboring residents upon
receiving notification of this variance request. Two of these residents expressed their concerns
in writing. A copy of their emails are attached to this staff report.
Compliance with State Law:
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment FIND that the special conditions exist that do not
apply to other property, that the special conditions were pre-existing, that the variance is necessary to
preserve property rights, and that the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in
the area and approve the requested variance.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
Town Code Article 2-8-4 - Board of Adjustment Duties
Town Code Article 2-8-6 - Variances
Zoning Ordinance Section 1.12 Definitions – Front Yard, Street Side Yard
Zoning Ordinance Section 2.07.B – Variance
Zoning Ordinance Section 5.06.B Yard Lot and Area Requirements
Zoning Ordinance Section 11.10 Density, Area, Building and Yard Regulations
Arizona Revised Statute 9-462.06 – Board of Adjustment
Arizona Revised Statute 9-462.06 – Board of Adjustment
Risk Analysis
NA
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
NA
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment FIND that of the required four criteria for granting a
zoning variance have been met and that the requested Variance from the provisions of Zoning
Ordinance Section 11.10 be APPROVED.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt the findings outlined in the staff report and the applicant’s requested Variance from the
provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Section 11.10.
Attachments
Case Map
Aerial Photo
Narrative
Site Plan
Elevations
Letters from Residents
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Development Services Director John Wesley 03/09/2022 09:59 AM
Form Started By: Farhad Tavassoli Started On: 03/07/2022 02:24 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/09/2022
CASE:
VAR22-001
SITE / ADDRESS:
16049 E. Sunflower Dr.
APN #176-05-444
REQUEST:
A variance to the required front and street
side yard minimum building setbacks of 30
feet
Site Location
Aerial Photo
Subject
Property
MOOIAVI
DESIGN GROUP
ARC.HIT.ECTS
ARCHITECTURE
MASTER SITE PLANNING
INTERIOR DESIGN
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
Subiect:
Project Narrative
New Multifamily Development
16049 East Sunflower Drive
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
Request for setback variance from Board of Adjustment, Town of Fountain Hills.
M&P Smart Homes LLC, the owner, is proposing to build a 4 plex luxury multi-
family homes located at 16049 East Sunflower Drive, Town of Fountain Hills per
the attached schematic site plan, proposed floor plans and exterior elevations.
Lot information:
The subject property, currently zoned as R-3 multi family residence, is located at
the Southwest corner of Sunflower Drive and Mountainside Drive. The project
site encompasses approximately 21,000 square feet, with steep slope gradients
from North to South with a total drop greater than 20 feet and from East to West
with a drop of average 10 feet.
Township right of ways, set backs and other requirements for the project site are
noted as below:
• Right of ways: Sunflower Drive: 30', Mountainside Drive: 30'
• Landscape set backs: 1 O' along streets and 5' sides.
• Building setbacks: 30' at Sunflower, Rear: 30', Mountain side Dr.: 30' and
west side: 1 O', total lot coverage: maximum 50 percent.
• Future Building height: 30' max. from natural grade.
• 10' PUE easement at southern side and no buildable area of Flood Plain:
45'-50'
Design per Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance:
Per Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance and code study:
• Multi-family one unit per 3,000 s.f. of land use= (20,000 / 3,000 = ±6)
• Total Building Area: %50 x 20,700 = 10,350 s.f. one floor area
• The maximum buildable area in 2 stories could be gross floor area
(G.F.A.R.) 20,700 s.f.
Per zoning requirements, we are allowed to build 6 units with 10,350 s.f. total
covered area on this property. Due to site constraints, the proposed number of
units on this proposed project is only limited to 4 units, and the total under roof
will be only:± 8,329 s.f. The total gross floor area ratio (G .F.A.R.) will be:
±13,960 s.f. The topography on the southern portion of the site dictates to have
a basement area on the two of the units as bonus space to units 3 & 4.
Moosavi Design Group Architects, Inc.
14300 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite113 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: 480-451-8823 Fax: 480-451-8824 www.moosavidesign.com
"We are committed to meet and exceed our Clients' expectations."
Driveway and Parking Requirements:
The vehicular access to this unique site has been carefully studied.
We have a couple of site access roads with Town of Fountain Hills Planning and
engineering staff and under their supervision, the proposed solution seemed the
only feasible access to this site.
Each unit will need 2 parking stalls, plus ¼ per unit for guests. Therefore, total
proposed parking for the proposed development is: 2x4 units = 8 Garages plus 2
exclusive outdoor parking for guests.
Hardship:
The lot exhibits following unique site characteristics and challenges to
design and construct multi-family homes on it.
• Corner Lot: The lot is abutting Sunflower Drive and Mountainside Drive,
and thus has two street yards with 30' setbacks from each road.
• Topography: The project site has steep slope gradients with an
average of 25' elevation difference from North to South and, with
1 O' difference in elevation from West to East.
• Natural Wash: Despite 30' rear setback, the flood plain at the
southern border required 45' to 55' setback that reduces the
buildable area by at least 25%.
• Vehicular accessibility: 26' wide access road from Mountainside
Road at the middle of the site which significantly limits the design
criteria. An alternate option was discussed with Town of Fountain
Hills Planning and engineering, and it seems the proposed access
road is the best option based on site contours without significant cut
and fill soil operations.
Conceptual Design based on physical condition of land:
The site plan under influence of a central 26' wide driveway, has divided the
property into two sections:
• Northern units have been designed as two story with access through
ground level garage and main entrance porch. These two units are up-hill,
and the first-floor plan is carefully designed as split-level to carry out
balanced cut and fill operations, following natural contour lines and
grades.
• Southern Units have been designed as three story, basement, first floor
and second floor. These two units are down-hill and the topography
allowed to create partial basements for these units.
• For all four units, the first floor is designed to have living, dining, kitchen
and a bedroom, and the second floor is designed to have 3 bedrooms
and a loft overlooking into the living room.
Building Mass and finish material:
Design concept will be in conjunction with the physical condition of neighborhood
and the demographic of the street. Materials, finishes, and accessories will be
carefully selected with earth tone colors and finishes in consistency to the
2
neighborhood buildings. A few exterior design features are carefully considered
in the preliminary design as noted below:
• The height of building exterior walls will be less than the required 30' high
from natural grade, with various breaking points, as well as recessed and
projected features in the fac;ade. The recessed areas create shade and
shadow and tectonic style.
• Roof cantilever awnings and the parapet walls are in different heights,
and parallel to the natural slope on the grade create harmonica! point of
view.
• The foundation walls and basement retaining walls will be all solid grout
masonry block walls with single score facing, mixed with horizontal bond
beams, raised on natural grade with a couple of feet wainscot caps and
cast concrete molding, switches to wood stud structure with smooth finish
Stucco.
• The exterior fac;ade patterns will be carefully chosen by including various
interesting architecturally pleasing features such as: metal railings on top
of main entrance porches/balconies, horizontal border stripes and vertical
treatments, different height parapet walls, extended cantilever canopies
and smooth stucco system, and etc.
• The building exterior colors will be carefully chosen to complement with
the nearby and the residential neighborhoods.
Rooftop mechanical Equipment Screens
Roof systems and parapet walls shall be designed to conceal all roof-top
mechanical equipment from view from adjacent properties and from public roads
and shall comply with current Town of Fountain Hills ordinance.
Conceptual Hardscape/ Landscaping
A preliminary study of the existing site conditions by the landscape architect
indicated the necessity of maintaining existing mature trees and plants.
Additional landscaping will be installed within the altered landscaped area
including ground cover surrounding the building footprint. Landscaping materials
will consist of both native and naturalized vegetation that will make the project
internally consistent with the proposed uses and buffer this site from surrounding
uses. The irrigation system will be installed to revegetation with respect to the
water conservation of Town of Fountain Hills.
Furthermore, the landscaping will provide aesthetic amenities to the owners and
visitors to the site. The conceptual goal of the landscape element of this project is
to create aesthetically pleasing views.
Request for Variance based on design Hardship:
We are kindly seeking Board of Adjustment Approval to grant variance on both
Sun Flower Drive and Mountain Side Drive setbacks as noted below:
• Reduce front setback from 30' to 20' along Sunflower Road
• Reduce side setback from 30' to 15' along Mountainside Road.
• Remove the height restriction from standard 1 0' Western side setback.
• Remove extra 6' garage setback to allow garage to be in line with 26'
private driveway
3
1
Farhad Tavassoli
From:dennis erwin <wheatman1@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 8, 2022 10:57 AM
To:Farhad Tavassoli
Subject:request for zoning variance for 16049 East Sunflower Dr.
This message originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
have verified the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Board of Adjustments:
I am opposed to the issuance of a variance for the above
mentioned address for three reasons.
1. The 10 foot encroachment on the north would not match the set-
back of the other homes to the west on Sunflower. One
requirement for variances is they do not detract from the "feel" and
design of the existing houses. This variance would, in my opinion,
stick out too far into the right-of-way. It would stick out like a "sore
thumb", and detract from the ambiance of the neighborhood.
2. The 15 foot encroachment on the east or Mountainside Drive
side would be VERY dangerous. Drivers fly up and down that hill,
and many times my wife and I have sat on our balcony and
watched drivers blow through the stop sign at the corner of
Sunflower and Mountainside. Plus drivers at the stop sign heading
east would have their sight line dramatically impaired not having an
unobstructed view of traffic heading north on Mountainside. A 15
foot encroachment is HUGH when you have speeding cars.
3. I would like the Board to remember there is a maximum height
building code. Althought I know this building would limit our sight-
line, builders in many jurisdictions are required to erect sight-line
strings so that adjoining properties would be able to see the impact
of these buildings. We moved to Fountain Hills 18 years ago to
enjoy the views.
2
I hope the Board seriously consider these concerns.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Dennis M. Erwin
13600 North Fountain Hills Blvd.
1
Farhad Tavassoli
From:dennis erwin <wheatman1@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 8, 2022 11:20 AM
To:Farhad Tavassoli
Subject:additional concern for variance of 16049 East Sunflower Dr.
This message originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
have verified the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Board of Adjustments,
One more concern I have after looking at the elevations is the
proposed trash bin site. This is not an option for trash containers
since they are in the sight lines of other residences. A complex of
this size would produce a lot of trash which, in this location, is
exposed to wind, rain, coyotes, wild pigs. It should be placed in the
interior of the complex somewhat protected.
Also I see a potential for an accident with an slow moving trash
truck pulling out onto Mountainside with a proposed limited sight
line and reaction time. As I stated earlier, traffic speeds on
Mountainside going north and south is ridiculous.
It also appears that the smallest building Unit 4 at 1254sq. ft. is
almost in the wash. Has there been a study done as to high high
the water reaches during heavy rains. We have seen this wash fill
up quickly and run high and wild with a "normal" rainfall.
Thank you,
Dennis M. Erwin
1
Farhad Tavassoli
From:Janis Delvo <janinmont@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 8, 2022 2:00 PM
To:Farhad Tavassoli
Subject:Variance request for 16049 E Sunflower Dr
This message originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified
the sender and know the content is safe.
March 8, 2022
Farhad Tavassoil,
Senior Planner
Town of Fountain Hills
To Whom it may concern
This letter is to address the concern over the variance request(VAR22-001) for new construction on 16049 E Sunflower
Dr.
We are concerned over the sight impact on the corner of Sunflower Dr. and Mountainside. We see a lot of people run
that stop sign and if the set back is allowed, it will be harder to see the traffic coming.
The other concern is the plans only show 2 extra parking spaces so that means there will be more parking on the street.
Sunflower is only 3 cars wide so when there are cars parked on both sides traveling the street becomes hazardous.
The lot on 16039 just recently sold so if this variance is allowed I’m sure they will want the same allowance too. Most
likely more cars on the street!
It would seem it would be more reasonable not to build a four-plex in that location for safety reasons for all in the
neighborhood and the general public that go through this area.
Sincerely,
Frank and Janis Papscun
16029 E Sunflower Dr.
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
509-293-4155
Sent from my iPad
1
Farhad Tavassoli
From:gibworldr <gibworldr@cox.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 8, 2022 6:14 PM
To:Farhad Tavassoli
Subject:16049 E Sunflower Dr. (VAR22-001)
This message originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
have verified the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail is in reference to the request for a variance for 16049 E Sunflower Dr (VAR22-001)
To: Farhad Tavassoli, AICP, CFM
As a property owner at 16029 E Sunflower Drive, these are my concerns regarding the applied reduction of
setback of 30' on both Mountainside Drive and Sunflower Drive:
1. I am concerned with the visual safety in the flow of traffic at both streets.
2. I have concern with the the designated thoroughfare for wildlife. There is a lot of wildlife in this area.
3. I have concern with the flow of water properly deverted in this flood zone areas. In the past during storms I
have witnessed strong currents of water flowing near/in the lower building site.
Please send me the four criterias, used when variances are requested, that you shared with me in our
conversation today.
Thank you for returning the call today to my mother, Rose Gibson, with information she requested in my
behalf.
Sincerely,
Kelli Lin Gibson
SEent from my Galaxy Tab® E