11.BA260056 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18026 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260056 – Carrillo Property Variance Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Aaron Castro Property Owner: Angelica Carrillo Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front (south) setback of 9’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 502 Site Location: APN 102-13-017 @ 9436 W Missouri Ave – Missouri Ave. and 91st Ave., in the Glendale area Site Size: 44,057 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: V2600518 Background: 1. July 1971: The subject parcel is created as Lot 12 of the Pendergast West subdivision. 2. 1980: The existing single-family home is constructed on the parcel. 3. April 2018: The current owner acquires the parcel by warranty deed MCR20180328159. 4. March 30, 2026: Violation V2600518 is issued for constructing a carport in the front yard without a permit and for parking commercial equipment on the property. 5. May 21, 2026: To resolve the violation, the applicant applies for building permit BLDR2604021 for the carport. Zoning plan review staff determines that the carport is in the front yard, requiring a variance. 6. May 27, 2026: The applicant files this variance request so the building permit may proceed. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: Page 2 of 7 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: A-1 / Vacant City of Glendale East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: N 95th Avenue then PAD / Under construction facility City of Glendale Variance Request: 8. The applicant proposes to reduce the required front setback from 40’ to 9’ to allow an existing carport to remain in its current location. The applicant’s narrative states that the carport was built before the current owner took possession of the property. Staff’s review indicates otherwise. Aerial imagery from 2018, when the current owner took possession, shows the carport location vacant, and the most recent aerials (below, from late 2025) likewise shows no carport structure. The only evidence of the carport is the photographs submitted by the applicant and those taken by Code Compliance staff during the violation investigation in April and May of 2026. Excerpt from proposed site plan Photograph of subject site provided by the applicant from the corner of 94th Ln and Missouri Ave facing northeast. Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 9. The site is fully developed and appears to be of a flat topography with mature trees and several accessory structures. Aerial photo of subject site taken October 2025. The carport would be in the southeast corner. Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 4 of 7 Eagle view of subject site looking west into subject parcel (aerial image dated 11/13/25). Zoning District map. All other parcels are within City of Glendale. Page 5 of 7 Zoning District Standard(s): 10. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (carport to south property line) 40-feet 9-feet Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.” 11. Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “The subject property located at 9436 W Missouri Ave, Glendale, AZ 85305 contains an existing residential structure that was constructed within the required front setback area. The current front setback requirement is 40 feet; however, the existing structure encroaches into this setback area.The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced front setback of 10 feet in order to Page 6 of 7 maintain the existing structure in its current location. Requiring full compliance with the current setback standards would create an unnecessary hardship, as it would likely require substantial demolition and reconstruction of the existing improvements.The property is already developed, and the requested variance is intended to legalize and maintain the existing residential improvements while preserving the current use of the property. The request is not intended to intensify the use of the site, but rather to allow the existing structure to remain without causing unnecessary financial hardship to the property owner.” 12. Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance are applied. Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property. “The unnecessary hardship is created by the location of the existing structure in relation to the current front setback requirement. The structure already exists and has been established on the property for an extended period of time. Strict enforcement of the 40-foot front setback would require significant demolition or relocation of the existing structure, creating an unreasonable financial and practical burden on the property owner.The condition is not self-created by the current owner, as the structure was existing prior to the current variance request. The applicant is seeking relief only to allow the existing condition to remain and to bring the property into compliance through the variance process.” 13. Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. “Granting the requested variance would not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance because the request is limited to allowing the existing residential structure to remain in its current location. The variance would not increase the density, change the residential character of the neighborhood, or create additional impacts to adjacent properties.The surrounding area already contains developed residential properties, and approval of the variance would simply allow the existing structure to remain without creating adverse effects on traffic, drainage, public safety, or neighboring properties. The request is consistent with the overall residential use of the area and would help preserve the continued use and maintenance of the property.” Findings: 14. The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. Page 7 of 7 If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self- imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the property without the variance. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 15. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: • There does not appear to be a peculiar condition encumbering the property. • The carport can be rebuilt elsewhere on the property within the setbacks. 16. And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: a) Variance approval establishes a 9’ front (south) setback line for APN 102-13-017 Presented by: Joel Landis, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages) Site Plan (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 2 approx. Generated May 29, 2026 1:36 PM BA260056 Application Name: Legal Description CARRILLO PROJECT Applicant Case Address Aaron castro 9436 W MISSOURI AVE GLENDALE, AZ 85305 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:102-13-017 (623) 888-2035 GLENDALE, AZ 85305 Map scale 1:534 Supervisor District No. Request for a front setback variance reduction from 40 feet to 10 feet in order to allow the existing residential structure to remain in its current location at 9436 W Missouri Ave, Glendale, AZ 85305 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE ARS §11-816 B.2 The Board of Adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance when, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship, if in granting such variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved. 1. Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar condition(s) facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) to be varied. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose a hardship on the property. 2. Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar condition/the peculiar conditions on site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is not self-created in the line of title. The subject property located at 9436 W Missouri Ave, Glendale, AZ 85305 contains an existing residential structure that was constructed within the required front setback area. The current front setback requirement is 40 feet; however, the existing structure encroaches into this setback area.The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced front setback of 10 feet in order to maintain the existing structure in its current location. Requiring full compliance with the current setback standards would create an unnecessary hardship, as it would likely require substantial demolition and reconstruction of the existing improvements.The property is already developed, and the requested variance is intended to legalize and maintain the existing residential improvements while preserving the current use of the property. The request is not intended to intensify the use of the site, but rather to allow the existing structure to remain without causing unnecessary financial hardship to the property owner. The unnecessary hardship is created by the location of the existing structure in relation to the current front setback requirement. The structure already exists and has been established on the property for an extended period of time. Strict enforcement of the 40-foot front setback would require significant demolition or relocation of the existing structure, creating an unreasonable financial and practical burden on the property owner.The condition is not self-created by the current owner, as the structure was existing prior to the current variance request. The applicant is seeking relief only to allow the existing condition to remain and to bring the property into compliance through the variance process. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 3. Please discuss and explain how the granting of the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. *Additional sheets may be attached. ** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION Residential Variance Application Packet 6/17/24 Granting the requested variance would not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance because the request is limited to allowing the existing residential structure to remain in its current location. The variance would not increase the density, change the residential character of the neighborhood, or create additional impacts to adjacent properties.The surrounding area already contains developed residential properties, and approval of the variance would simply allow the existing structure to remain without creating adverse effects on traffic, drainage, public safety, or neighboring properties. The request is consistent with the overall residential use of the area and would help preserve the continued use and maintenance of the property. CL CL CL CL E) 2 CAR GARAGE (NOT LIVABLE) 360 SQ.FT E) LIVABLE RESIDENCE 1,916 SQ.FT E) REAR PATIO (NOT LIVABLE) 1,008 SQ.FT E) DETACHED LIVABLE AREA 680 SQ.FT E) DETACHED GARAGE 240 SQ.FT ASBUILD DETACHED CARPORT 2,365 SQ.FT 1 2 2 3 W W 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 SHEET: SCALE: 04/28/2026 DATE: CASTRO CHECKED BY: CASTRO DRAWN BY: INFOCADSTRO @GMAIL.COM CONTACT: No. Revisions Date CARRILLO PROJECT PER PLAN 9436 W MISSOURI AVE GLENDALE 85305 G&D CONTRUCTION SERVICES , LLC owns designs, concepts, information data, and details contained in these drawings, they could refer to brands only as complementary information. cannot be used by others without a written approval signed by G&D CONTRUCTION SERVICES , LLC A-000 NOTE NOTE: PROPERTY LINE DIMENSIONS ON SITE PLAN ARE OBTAINED FROM COUNTY ASSESSOR'S WEBSITE AND ARE TO BE USED AS A POINT OF REFERENCE ONLY. FOR EXACT DIMENSIONS, PLEASE CONTACT A REGISTERED SURVEYOR. CADSTRO SHOULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE IF THE DIMENSIONS FOUND ON COUNTY ASSESSOR'S WEBSITE ARE INACCURATE, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO GET A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" N 0 20' 40' (NOT ALL USED) LEGEND LIVABLE RESIDENCE 1,916 SQ. FT. 2 CAR GARAGE 360 SQ. FT. REAR PATIO 1,008 SQ. FT. DETACHED LIVABLE AREA 680 SQ.FT. DETACHED GARAGE 280 SQ. FT. AS BUILD CARPORT 2,365 SQ. FT. LIVABLE 2,596 SQ. FT. NON LIVABLE 4013 SQ. FT. TOTAL 6,609 SQ. FT. TOTAL FOOT PRINT 6,609 SQ. FT. LOT SIZE 44,057 SQ. FT. LOT COVERAGE 15.00 % MAX LOT COVERAGE 25 % AREAS TOTAL AREAS , , , , , , AND TRELLIS PORCH KEY NOTES VICINITY MAP 9436 W MISSOURI AVE GLENDALE 85305 RU-43 NO CITY/TOWN 16 2N 1E 12 102-13-017 1980 PROJECT INFORMATION OWNER PROJECT ADDRESS: ZONING: JURISDICTION: SECTION T.R.: LOT.: PARCEL #: CONSTRUCTION YEAR: CARRILLO ANGELICA CENTRAL LINE SET BACK LINE. OVERHANG WATER LINE WL PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT P.U.E. BUILDING SETBACK LINE B.S.L. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION F.F.E. WM WATER METER SL CL PROPERTY LINE. EXISTING SIDEWALK S/W RIGHT OF WAY R/W. P.U.E. B.S.L. FIBER CABLE F0 PL SL CL ELECTRIC LINE. UGE 200 AMPS METER GM GAS METER CONCRETE PAVERS DRIVEWAY 1. 200 AMP ELECTRIC SERVICE LOCATION UNDERGROUND 2. EXISTING WOOD GATE 3. WATER METER 3 4" 4. EDGE OF ASPHALT/PAVEMENT 5. EXISTING 6' CMU FENCE AS BUILD CARPORT SCOPE OF WORK