Scottsdale resident urges stricter site‑plan setbacks for proposed development at 303 N. Miller Road
Loading...
Summary
A Scottsdale resident told the Development Review Board she is concerned a proposed three‑story development (case 32‑DR‑2024) would sit as little as 21–25 feet from her bedroom window and asked staff to require applicants to show surrounding property outlines and setbacks on site plans.
A Scottsdale resident told the Scottsdale Development Review Board on Sept. 11 that a proposed development west of her condo at 303 North Miller Road would sit uncomfortably close to her home and urged staff to change application requirements so site plans show adjacent property outlines and setbacks.
Mylene Pankiewicz, identified herself as a Scottsdale resident and said she lives at 303 North Miller Road. “I’m not against development. I’m happy to have my vacant lot developed next door to me, but not 20 feet away from my bedroom window,” Pankiewicz said, and added that the current submittal for case 32‑DR‑2024 shows only about a 21‑foot separation from her bedroom window and that the proposed structure is three stories, described in her remarks as about 25 feet from her unit.
Pankiewicz told the board she has worked in land‑use and transportation planning in Tempe and Scottsdale and said she filed written comments with staff and prepared a presentation she plans to bring back at the next meeting. “I will be outlining more specifically what my concerns are in regards to design and regards to spacing and overall in regards to the neighborhood health of my neighborhood,” she said.
Her request to staff, as stated to the board, was to amend developer submittal requirements so that site plans explicitly include neighboring property outlines and existing setbacks, not only the proposed development footprint. The board’s role, as the councilwoman presiding at the meeting said in opening remarks, is to review design aspects of proposed development and how design components relate to the surrounding environment; the board does not consider zoning entitlements or allowed uses for the property.
No formal action was taken on the comment during the meeting. Brad Carr, delivering the administrative report, noted schedule changes for upcoming meetings and did not indicate an immediate staff response to Pankiewicz’s request. Pankiewicz said she would return if the case is discussed at the board’s next meeting.
The transcript indicates the case referenced as 32‑DR‑2024 is set for review by the board; participants who spoke about the item did so during the public‑comment portion rather than as part of a noticed agenda action.
