03.BA260023 Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19999 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260023 – Duce Property Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Travis Campbell Property Owner: Allen Duce Trust Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed rear setback of 6’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO, Section 502 and as amended per Z79-74 Site Location: APN 219-43-675 @ 19102 E. Poco Rio Dr. in Rio Verde Site Size: Approx. 13,692 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-8 RUPD Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. March 15, 1982: The subject parcel is created when Maricopa County approves the final plat for the Rio Verde Unit 8 subdivision. The subject parcel is platted as Lot 960. 2. 1992: The existing single-family residence is constructed onsite. 3. September 8, 2022: The current owners take possession of the subject parcel. 4. March 16, 2026: The applicant submits this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: R1-8 RUPD / Single-family residence North: R1-8 RUPD / Golf course South: Poco Rio Dr., then R1-8 RUPD / Single-family residence East: R1-8 RUPD / Single-family residence West: R1-8 RUPD / Single-family residence Page 2 of 7 Variance Request: 6. The property owner is requesting a variance to permit a rear yard setback of 6’ from the north lot line. The R1-8 RUPD zoning district requires a minimum rear setback of 20’. The property owners are hoping to build an attached pergola or lattice patio cover on the north side of the existing single-family residence. This pergola would encroach 14’ into the required rear yard. Although the MCZO allows detached accessory structures within required rear yards, they are allowed only so long as they are located at least 3’ from rear and side lot lines. This allowance does not apply to an attached accessory structure, which is considered part of the primary structure. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan (South on Top) Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 7. The subject property was created when Maricopa County approved the final plat for the Rio Verde Unit 8 subdivision in March 1982. The subject parcel has not changed in its configuration or its parcel number since. In 1992, the current single-family residence was constructed onsite per building permit 92-3680. No subsequent building permits are on file for the property. In keeping with this, no new construction appears to have taken place on the property since the primary residence was developed. The applicant or property owners have not yet submitted construction permit applications for the proposed pergola pending determination on this variance request. 8. The property is generally flat or slopes very slightly toward the Verde River less than one mile to the east. The property is landscaped with xeriscape and predominantly native drought-tolerant vegetation and features no significant topographical features such as a wash or a floodplain. The property is neighbored by similar single-family residences to the east and west, as well as across Poco Rio Drive to the south. To the north of the property is one of Rio Verde’s signature golf courses owned and maintained by the Rio Verde Country Club. Overall, the property appears to be typical for a single-family lot in the Rio Verde community. 9. The primary residence is oriented at a slight angle relative to the lot lines. Its setback from the rear (north) lot line appears to range from approximately 33’ at its most distant to approximately 22’ at its nearest, just meeting the minimum 20’ setback required in the R1-8 RUPD zoning district. As the applicant notes in the submitted supplemental questionnaire, there is minimal space available for an attached accessory shade structure without encroaching into the required rear setback. However, staff notes that structurally detaching the proposed pergola from the primary residence (potentially even by just a matter of inches) would exempt it from the setback requirements regulating primary structures. MCZO Article 806.2 allows detached accessory structures to be built up to 3’ from rear and side lot lines so long as the total required yard coverages do not exceed 30% of any required rear or side setback area. The pergola, if detached, would not present a coverage issue. Lattice structures and pergolas are calculated at 50% lot coverage (per Department Directive DD-2021-01), and even if the roof of the pergola were counted at 100% lot coverage, it would still measure less than 30% of the rear setback area, assuming the dimensions shown on the site plan are correct. 10. For these reasons, staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property nor an undue hardship created by the existing orientation of the primary residence. By structurally detaching the pergola from the residence, the need for variance could be negated entirely. Furthermore, the development of a single-family residence as the primary use demonstrates that the property fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. Page 4 of 7 2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Page 5 of 7 Zoning District Map Zoning District Standard: 11. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold). Standard R1-8 RUPD Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to south lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to north lot line) 20-feet 6-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to east/west lot line) 0-feet or 10-feet* 10-feet Maximum Height 30-feet 30-feet Minimum Lot Area 8,000-sq. ft. 13,692-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 80-feet 112-feet Lot Coverage 35% ≈28% *Per RUPD: Interior Side Yard is “0 Ft. or 10 Ft. (Zero Lot Line, one side only, & 10’ other side, or 10’ both sides)” Page 6 of 7 State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 302.2.2 state that the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a Variance from the terms of the Ordinance when, owing to a peculiar condition of the land that is not self-created in the line of title, a strict interpretation of the Ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship, as long as in granting such Variance the general intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will be preserved.” 12. Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “The current setback was changed and is now at 25'. The home itself in certain areas is closer than the newer setback. There are no neighbors to the rear of the property as it is a golf course. The homeowners would like us to apply for a variance because having a setback line beyond the home does not give them the oppurtunity to create shade and an outdoor space for them to enjoy their yard. The proposed structure is a lattice shade cover that is attached. There are no windows or enclosures, just the posts, beams and lattice.” 13. 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 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 updated setback in the rear makes building anything in the backyard extremely difficult. Having a setback that goes beyond the house seems unreasonable when the only thing on the other side of the property is a golf cart path for the golf course. It is not typical for rear setbacks to exceed the main livable building in a yard.” 14. 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. “There would be no negative impacts because the side of the property we are seeking to build a shade structure on is facing a golf cart path/ golf course. This is just a shade structure. There are no windows or enclosed areas, only the posts, beams and lattice. We are not seeking a variance for livable square footage or a tall structure.” Findings: 15. 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 302.2.2, 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. 16. 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: • Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. It is rectangular in shape, meets minimum area and width requirements, and is not encumbered by unusual topographical features like hillside slope, washes, or floodplain. • Development of a single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. A primary use was established without need for variance. Enforcement of the MCZO without a peculiar condition cannot be interpreted as imposing an unnecessary hardship on the property. • Detaching the pergola from the primary residence would allow it to be placed generally where proposed without need for a variance. 17. 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 6’ rear (north) setback line for APN 219-43-675. Presented by: Nick Schlimm, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 2 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated April 23, 2026 9:30 AM BA260023 Application Name: Legal Description Duce Lattice Cover Applicant Case Address 4N 7E 6 Travis Campbell 19102 E POCO RIO DR Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:219-43-675 6026032151 RIO VERDE, AZ 85263 Map scale 1:363 Supervisor District No. Looking for a Variance to build an attached shade structure. The lot backs up to a golf course and the setbacks have been changed to 25' in the rear which is farther than the nearest point of the house with Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION APPLICATION ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE Is this Design Build? Yes No Is this Residential? Yes No Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. Residential Variance Non-residential Variance Interpretation BA Blanket Variance Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No REQUEST Description of Request: Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: Related Case Number(s): PROPERTY INFORMATION Address (if known): General Location (include nearest city/town): Size in Acres: Square Feet: Legal Description: Section: Township: Range: Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): Subdivision Name (if applicable): APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION I (property owner) authorize (applicant’s name) to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER - Signature required The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application. The property owner further acknowledges that it is the property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application. Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. Property Owner Signature: Date: INSPECTIONS By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION - Signature required I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded. Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: Date: ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as amended. Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ I To allow for the construction of an attached lattice cover in the backyard. Need setback to be changed from 25' to no closer than 8' to rear. 19102 E POCO RIO DR RIO VERDE, AZ 85263 Rio Verde 0.31 13,692 6 4N 7E RIO VERDE UNIT 8 LOT 923-1016 A1-A8 S & W PR RDS Shade by Design 4807099619 1510 Phoenix AZ 85022 (602) 281-6370 permits.sbdaz@gmail.com Allen Duce Trust Sharyn/Al Duce 19102 E Poco Rio Dr Rio Verde AZ 85263 (612) 801-8310 Allen Duce Travis Campbell 03/16/2026 03/16/2026 03/16/2026 219-43-675 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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 current setback was changed and is now at 25'. The home itself in certain areas is closer than the newer setback. There are no neighbors to the rear of the property as it is a golf course. The homeowners would like us to apply for a variance because having a setback line beyond the home does not give them the oppurtunity to create shade and an outdoor space for them to enjoy their yard. The proposed structure is a lattice shade cover that is attached. There are no windows or enclosures, just the posts, beams and lattice. The updated setback in the rear makes building anything in the backyard extremely difficult. Having a setback that goes beyond the house seems unreasonable when the only thing on the other side of the property is a golf cart path for the golf course. It is not typical for rear setbacks to exceed the main livable building in a yard. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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 There would be no negative impacts because the side of the property we are seeking to build a shade structure on is facing a golf cart path/ golf course. This is just a shade structure. There are no windows or enclosed areas, only the posts, beams and lattice. We are not seeking a variance for livable square footage or a tall structure.