BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT

Meeting Date: 9/2/2020

ACTION Fike Property, 4719 N 75th Way, 11-BA-2020 Request to consider the following: 1. Request by owner for a variance to the City of Scottsdale Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.504E.1. pertaining to the required setback for a property with Single-Family Residential (R1-7) zoning located at 4719 N 75th Way.

OWNER Joanne Fike and Janice Gibbons (480) 367-3287

APPLICANT CONTACT John DiTullio - Titus Brueckner & Levine (480) 483-9600

LOCATION 4719 N 75th Wy

BACKGROUND History The subject site was annexed into the City of Scottsdale in 1961 through Ordinance No. 121 and the City of Scottsdale R1-7 zoning was applied. This property is Lot 128 on the Scottsdale Unit II subdivision which was platted and recorded with Maricopa County in January of 1958. The existing main structure on the site was permitted and constructed in Maricopa County in 1958. An additional permit was issued for a fence in 1999. Zoning/Development Context The subject site is zoned Single-family Residential (R1-7) and is located at the intersection of E. Highland Avenue and N. 75th Way, surrounded by single-family detached as well as attached multi-family dwellings.

Board of Adjustment Report | 11-BA-2020

Zoning Ordinance Requirements Pursuant to Section 5.504.E.1. of the City of Scottsdale Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to the required front yard setback: each lot shall have a front yard with a minimum depth of twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of ten (10) feet, which would reduce the required front setback on this parcel from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. Code Enforcement Activity There has been no code enforcement activity as of the writing of this report. Community Input City of Scottsdale hearing postcards were sent to properties within 750 feet of the subject site. As of the writing of this report, staff has received four letters in support of the variance request and zero letters in opposition. Discussion The applicant is proposing a front-loading carport accessed from N. 75th Way as part of a remodel. A section of the northern most portion of the will be converted from livable space into an open carport, which is proposed to extend past the front of the house providing enough depth to park two in tandem. The applicant is requesting a variance of ten (10) feet, to allow the front-loading carport to be located within the front yard. Alternatively, the R1-7 zoning district standards allow side loading to be constructed within the front yard, as close as ten (10) feet from the front property line (see interpretation exhibit; Attachment #10). Side loading carports may not encompass more than twenty (20) percent of the front yard setback area, must be structurally integrated with compatible materials to the main building’s , and must be constructed so that a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the front side of the carport remains open.

VARIANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS 1. That 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 of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district: Applicant Statement: The applicant states that the R1-7 lot is small and in order to provide parking for two cars, a deep front loading carport would need to be constructed utilizing the existing driveway on the north side of the lot. The applicant claims the side load carport option would exceed the twenty (20) percent maximum coverage allowed by the zoning district and the side load carport would not fit the character of the neighborhood, which has front loaded driveways.

Page 2 of 5

Board of Adjustment Report | 11-BA-2020

Staff Analysis: The R1-7 zoning district has a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. The subject property is approximately 6,400 square feet and is similar in size, shape, and topography to other properties in the Scottsdale Terrace Unit II subdivision. An original carport on the north side of the home was enclosed into interior livable space years ago. A typical carport fits the dimensions of 10 x 18, or 180 square feet. The maximum front yard coverage for a carport in the R1-7 zoning district is twenty (20) percent. The subject property has a front yard of 1,340 square feet; twenty (20) percent of that being 268 square feet. Based on staff analysis, a side load carport could fit within the front yard without exceeding the twenty (20) percent maximum coverage allowed by the zoning district.

2. That the authorization of the variance is necessary for the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district, and does 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: Applicant Statement: The applicant states that residents should be able to reinvest and redevelop without significantly altering the existing character or feel of a neighborhood. The applicant states there are homes in the subdivision with shade structure carports extending out within the twenty (20) foot front setback and references the two homes to the north. Staff Analysis: As an alternative to the proposed front-loading carport, the R1-7 zoning district allows for a side loading carport to be located within the twenty (20) foot front setback at a minimum of ten (10) feet from the front property line. Other properties in this subdivision and within the R1-7 zoning district must meet these same standards. The home immediately to the north was issued a building permit in 2005 for a lattice covered (see Attachment #9) and the property two lots to the north of the subject parcel was issued a building permit in 1991 for a shade (site plan is no longer on file). The referenced structures within the front setback area on those two lots were approved as covered patio areas, which are allowed in the R1-7 district, but they were not shown or approved as carports. Plans submitted now must provide more detail.

3. That the special circumstances applicable to the property were not self-imposed or created by the owner or applicant: Applicant Statement: The applicant states the new owners of the property inherited the lot without the existence of a carport or , so they did not create the special circumstances. The applicant believes a carport or garage is a necessary basic improvement given the Arizona climate.

Page 3 of 5

Board of Adjustment Report | 11-BA-2020

Staff Analysis: The R1-7 zoning district has a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. The subject property is approximately 6,400 square feet and is similar in size, shape, and topography to other properties in the Scottsdale Terrace Unit II subdivision. The R1-7 zoning district standards allow for side loading carports at ten (10) feet from the front property line.

4. That authorization of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or to the public welfare in general: Applicant Statement: The applicant states the carport on the edge of the lot would not materially impact residents or workers in the vicinity and they reference the two neighbors to the north with the covered porch and patio shade. The applicant claims the construction of a carport to allow a second to be parked on the property will remove parking from the congested street and improve safety and view corridors. Staff Analysis: The carport may not be materially detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare in general, however the carport could be constructed to meet code as a side load carport and would provide the safety and view corridors as described in the applicant’s statement above.

SUMMARY Based on the facts presented by the applicant, the evidence would support a finding that the property may not have special circumstances that would warrant relief from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The size of the property is smaller than the typical 7,000 square foot lot in the R1-7 zoning district, however it is similar in size to other lots in the subdivision. The shape, topography or configuration of the property is not unique and applicable. Further, the applicant’s proposed variance does not appear that it would be detrimental to persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood. There are options for covered parking that would not require a variance. However, the decision about whether the criteria have been met is for the Board to make after hearing all the evidence at the hearing.

Page 4 of 5

Board of Adjustment Zoning Variance Project Narrative

575-PA-2020, Fike Property, 4719 N. 75th Way, Scottsdale, Arizona

Type of variance requested, section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance to be varied:

The variance request is for Section 5.504.E.1 of the Scottsdale Zoning Code. The variance request is for a small portion of a new 2-car carport structure to be placed in the front yard 20 foot setback. Please see the Site Plan submitted.

The new carport to be built along the side of the property on the northern side is approximately 296 square feet. The square foot portion of the new carport to be extended into the front yard setback is about 115 square feet but the only construction in the setback area will be 2 support posts and a crossbeam roof structure connected into the existing roof and integrated into a new covered porch extension over the front walk from the carport to the front . The carport is open air on the sides. The front facing roof façade and posts will receive decorative treatment.

With the integration into the new covered porch, the extension distance of 10 feet into the front yard setback will seem much smaller as the covered porch improvement comes out from the house 4 feet 6 inches. The adjacent neighbor to the north has a similar setup with a carport coming out from the garage on the side of his property in the front setback as does the neighbor adjacent to his north. Please see the photos submitted of our property and adjacent properties. We have attached letters of support from both side-lot adjacent neighbors.

The current property owners, the daughters of the longtime owners/parents who have passed away (Mrs. Fike in March of this year at 99), are conducting renovations of the property so that one of the daughters may move there to be closer to her sister and remaining family. The daughters both grew up in the house. After world War II, where Mr. Fike went from fighting Rommel’s Afrika Korps in the North African desert to being in the frigid Battle of the Bulge, he apparently had an affinity for the desert and moved to Scottsdale in the late 50’s, owned his own gas/service station in Tempe and helped the real general, Mrs. Fike, raise his family in this house. The renovations being conducted by the daughters actually involve reducing the size of the square footage of the house from 1,877 livable square feet to 1,581 livable square feet. The reduction in size of the existing home is to create the new 2-car carport as none exists there now and there is no garage. The existence of a carport and/or a garage exists in practically all of the 80 lot subdivision of Scottsdale Terrace 2.

1. That 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 of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district:

Carports/and or garages are commonplace in the Scottsdale Terrace 2 subdivision. This neighborhood consists of very small R1-7 lots (our lot is approximately 67’ by 95’) and surrounded by even smaller lots and attached townhomes in the Villa Monterey subdivision. In order to provide for efficient parking for 2 cars on this lot a deep side carport needed to be constructed utilizing the existing driveway on the north side of the lot. This carport which goes back to the rear edge of the main house will provide for 2 car parking well-away from the street sidewalk. We estimate the end of the second car will be approximately 20 feet from the public sidewalk when parked. See Site Plan. This will be a much greater distance for the end of a second car than many of the lots surrounding us. One of the prime motivators for setback controls in the front is to make sure cars do not park stacked and jut out into the sidewalk. Our design prevents this and the common scenario of a garage door even with the front plane of a home with driveway parking for a second car stacked behind the garage door typically would not provide the same amount of clearance to a sidewalk than our design. In our design, the carport allows the cars parking stacked one behind the other to be closer than they would with a closed garage door and a second car stacked behind that closed door.

These lots are very small, the City does provide a structure to do a front yard side loaded carport/garage intruding 10 feet into the front setback but this option is not achievable on a number of grounds. First this 2 car carport would go over the 20% requirement of front yard coverage, the carport would have to extend sideways across the front of the house covering almost 2/3 of the front of the house. This coverage would block the natural light from the few existing smaller , cut across the front entry to the home, require destruction of the 2 fully mature original large mesquite trees in the front yard, require a curved front entry driveway from the street, require a second stacked parked car to be on a curve, require people to back out manipulating curves and, probably worst of all, require passersby to look at the full side- silhouette of 2 cars in the front yard across the front of a home. This is a drastic nonconformance with the neighborhood character of front yard, front loaded driveways accessed by driveways pushed to the edge of a lot. This is the character of the Scottsdale Terrace 2 neighborhood. For these reasons, it is why we believe we have found no example of a front yard, side loaded carport/garage structure in the Scottsdale Terrace 2 subdivision.

This area is also within walking distance to the downtown central business district evening activity area. There are signs in the neighborhood now stating that there should be only resident parking in this area (sign off Miller as you enter neighborhood). Despite that on weekends given its proximity to the CBD there are parking problems for the residents and the City should be encouraging as much design as possible to promote capacity on the lots and to remove on-street parking wherever possible. This objective of less on-street parking also helps reduce vehicle and biking accidents and, in general, pedestrian accidents. Also, the area is surrounded by more dense zoning and enhanced traffic from such developments, so providing enhanced useable capacity to park two cars on these very small single-family lots decreases street congestion promoting overall traffic flow improvement. If a second car is pulling up to a home and has a choice of a covered second spot in a driveway or uncovered in the sun in front of the house most drivers will choose the covered second spot and not park in front of the house on the street in the sun.

2. That the authorization of the variance is necessary for the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district, and does 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: This property is in the R1-7 district and the Code states the purpose of this district “is to promote and preserve urban single-family residential development. Lot size permits the highest density of population attainable in a single-family residential district.” This is a purpose that requires flexibility and adjustment to real world circumstances. It is very clear what kind of pressures these close-to-CBD residential neighborhoods face in the light of expanding multi-family developments and accompanying activity impacts and conversion of older less negative externality causing commercial uses to new evening oriented entertainment uses. Residents seeking to reinvest and redevelop without significantly altering the existing character or feel of a neighborhood should be encouraged. It is an important public policy directive boards of adjustment have been given, you have to balance preservation of character against hardship without unduly acting to stymie important reinvestment activity in areas that keep areas vital, looking good and stable. The City already has a policy whereby it says carports and garages can be built in front yard setbacks. Unfortunately, the nuts and bolts of that option have not been made attractive enough when people weigh the negative impacts and hurdles involved and how it can change the character of a neighborhood by promoting this type of building in fronts of homes on small lots. We have found no examples of such structures being built in our subdivision.

Homes in our subdivision in the same zoning district have garages in the front of their homes with shade structure carports extending out from them within the 20 foot setback. The two homes to our north are immediate examples. See photos provided. The whole neighborhood has some version of either garages or carports to the side of the main structure of the house. What we are proposing is completely in-line with this design and the intrusion into the setback by the integrated carport roofline with the existing house will flow together and not look like a stand- out obtrusive structure. The integration of this slight extension of the end of the carport roofline will also blend into the new front porch extension which will come out from the front of the house just under 5 feet thereby making the appearance of a carport extension from the existing house line seem much less and fully integrated. Our design promotes the much mentioned objectives in the R1-7 district to keep the fronts as open as possible, in character with existing designs and promoting more efficient and desirable parking designs on-lot as opposed to on- street. This design to utilize the existing side yard area is the historical original location of the initial carport constructed when the home was originally built. We are recreating the original historical character but in a modernized enhanced way that recognizes modern lifestyles and a basic need for 2 car shaded parking on-lot.

3. That the special circumstances applicable to the property were not self-imposed or created by the owner or applicant:

The new owners of the property inherited this property without the existence of a carport or garage. The new owner did not create these special circumstances. The Arizona Supreme Court in the fairly recent case of Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix (2017) indicated that variance applicants who purchase or otherwise obtain property with pre-existing problems are not prohibited from seeking variances. You cannot per se be prohibited from seeking a variance through self-imposition by receiving property through a conveyance or other means. The new owners of the property are not seeking this variance for any reason other than utility of function and improving the limitations of older modified designs which they inherited when getting title to the property recently. The applicants are seeking to remove portions of the existing dwelling to put in place basic improvements that are missing regarding protection of cars associated with a home. There exists now no garage or carport and this is a necessary basic improvement given our climate. We have designed the most functional, minimal impact design possible for a 2 car shade improvement which is integrated in design with the existing structure and in character with our neighbors and the neighborhood. The new carport space and structure will be mainly hidden and integrated by the body of the main house (about two-thirds of the new space) and the remaining structure that extends past the existing line of the existing house will be conjoined with the new covered front walkway porch roof thereby giving the impression of a solid view flow of the front of the house from the north to the south as you view from the front. The first car parked deep in the carport will be practically un-viewable and the second car with a straight entry will have the smallest portion of the car silhouette (the rear) facing the street. It is a sensible design providing basic utility in conformance with its immediate neighbors and surrounding neighborhood character.

4. That authorization of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or to the public welfare in general:

The improvement of a carport on the edge of a lot intruding into the side portion of the front yard will not materially impact any resident or worker in the vicinity. As stated before, our two immediate lot neighbors to the north have lattice carport structures and have not been the subject of any complaints or issues based on our discussions. The existence of useable carports works a positive purpose of encouraging lot owners and visitors with cars to use the shaded carport areas for parking removing parking from these older, narrower, curvilinear streets in this congested high traffic volume area thereby improving safety, view corridors and improving security. This area has a demonstrated nonresident street parking problem as is evidenced by the signage in the neighborhood trying to control parking availability to residents at certain times. The improvement recreates the existing design scheme for the property, a side yard front entry carport which is also the predominant mode of on-lot parking in the neighborhood in both the R1-7 and the higher density areas. We have canvassed the immediate neighborhood and received multiple letters of approval including our neighbors on both sides. These types of necessary quality of life improvements in the long run will work to solidify the long-term stability of inner city neighborhoods surrounded by higher density and transitioning commercial areas. Zoning tools need to reflect realistic objectives that balance existing character and changing needs and the adjustment process is an important step in achieving outcomes that are legal and desirable to supplement the broad strokes of zoning codes that by their nature cannot anticipate every reasonable circumstance that needs additional thought and attention. We are hopeful that the Board will recognize that strict application of of this section of the Code will cause peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties depriving this property of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned properties. We believe the impact of this “area variance” is quite minimal, does not impact or affect the character of the community involved and only provides to the new owner a basic requirement of utility of this property given the climate and ordinary expectations. The new owners are not seeking this action to be able to make the property larger and more valuable, in fact they are taking away square footage which brings testament to the importance of the function of carports in our community. The applicant has worked hard to design something that is integrated into the existing structure and historically fitting, by in fact, recreating the carport concept which was there when it was originally constructed. We know you have voluntarily accepted this difficult responsibility and this service is appreciated as this forum and this outlet is needed and valuable. We appreciate the time and attention you have spent thinking about our situation on this matter. ATTACHMENT 2

Q.S.

18-45 Google Earth Pro Imagery Context Aerial 11-BA-2020 ATTACHMENT 3

Q.S.

18-45 Google Earth Pro Imagery Close-up Aerial 11-BA-2020 ATTACHMENT 4

Q.S.

18-45 Aerial Zoning Aerial 11-BA-2020

ATTACHMENT 7 hàyløllt?"?F.b áar¡1n*'a'

July 24,2020

To: City of Scottsdale Board of Adjustment

Re: Resident¡al Remodel of 4719 N. 75th Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85251

Dear Sirs,

I am a neighbor of Joanne Fike and Janice Gibbons, the sisters who own the above residence. We have seen and approve ofthe carport design proposed for the property.

Sincerely,

N w" v{ta T S'[l'/tu( A t. NL{'I &re"t?ûrq$5 ñonrÀs$s-

luly 24,2020

To: City of Scottsdale Board of Adjustment

Re: Residential Rernodel of 47t9 N. 75th Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85251

Dear Sirs,

We are neighbors of Joanne Fike and Janice Gibbons, the sisters who own the above residence. We have seen anfl approve of the carport design proposed for the property.

Sincerely,

4tûs ,\l WY b l.bjhhv acro¡s sl.ttl.

July 24,2020

To: City of Scottsdale Board of Adjustment

Re: Residential Remodel of 47L9 N. 75th Way, Scottsdale, AZ 8525L

Dear Sirs,

We are neighbors of Joanne Fike and Janice Gibbons, the sisters who own the above residence. We have seen and approve ofthe carport design proposed for the property.

Sincerely,

r fu¿Ar- . 76 4 + a tþA,lAAøa rt1/¿ . ØfT+zfut¿,*a. flføt t{€+td^bô^. 6.c-v?PÂg, .slfo€þ,

July 24,2020

To: City of Scottsdale Board of Adjustment

Re: Residential Remodel of 47L9 N. 75th Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85251

Dear Sirs,

I am a neighbor of Joanne Fike and Janice Gibbons, the sisters who own the above residence. We have seen and approve ofthe carport design proposed for the property.

Sincerely,

7536 Ë. ktct+¿frivb AVs

ATTACHMENT 10