06.BA260031 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
21275 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260031 – Cook Property Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Braden Santarcangelo Property Owner: Cook Family Trust Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed lot coverage of 33% where 30% is the maximum permitted per MCZO, Section 502 and as amended per Z2002092. Site Location: APN 202-23-652 @ 3606 W. Arroyo Norte Dr. in the New River area Site Size: Approx. 17,798 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-18 RUPD Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. August 13, 2003: The Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved Z2002092, establishing zoning, including the R1-18 RUPD zoning district, for Arroyo Norte. Subsequently, Z2002092 was modified on May 18, 2005, with regard to the average lot area per dwelling unit, but otherwise, the RUPD development standards remained unchanged. 2. October 8, 2014: The BOS approved TA2014002, increasing the maximum lot coverage in the base R1-18 zoning district from 25% to 35%. 3. October 23, 2019: The subject parcel was created with the approval and recording of the subdivision plat for Units 8, 9, and 10 of the Arroyo Norte subdivision. The subject parcel is Lot 27 in Unit 9. 4. November 22, 2024: Final inspection passed for the single-family residence, per building permit B202405391. 5. April 10, 2025: The current owners took possession of the subject parcel. 6. July 11-12, 2025: Permits BLDR2501256 for a swimming pool and BLDR2501513 for a detached shade structure were finalled. Page 2 of 7 7. August 25, 2025: The owners submitted a building permit application (BLDR2506813) for a detached casita. Plan review indicates the proposed building will result in excessive lot coverage (aggregate area under roof). 8. April 7, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 9. On-site: R1-18 RUPD / Single-family residence North: R1-18 RUPD / Single-family residence South: Arroyo Norte Dr., then R1-18 RUPD / Single-family residence East: R1-18 RUPD / Single-family residence West: R1-18 RUPD / Single-family residence Variance Request: 10. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit up to 33% lot coverage where the R1-18 RUPD zoning district allows a 30% maximum lot coverage. The owners are hoping to build a detached casita on the east side of the existing residence, which would push the lot coverage over the limit established by the RUPD overlay zoning district. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 11. Z2002092 created an R1-18 RUPD that permitted a 30% maximum lot coverage standard. At the time, this was higher (more liberal) than the base zoning district’s 25% maximum lot coverage established in the ordinance. TA2014002 since amended the zoning ordinance and increased the maximum allowable lot coverage in the base R1-18 zoning district from 25% to 35%. Department Directive DD-2015-07 speaks to maximum lot coverage, noting and reiterating department policy that any legislatively approved RUPD overlay zoning district must specifically vary a development standard for it to be considered part of the legislative RUPD approval; and if not, then any subsequent ordinance amendment is considered applicable to the RUPD. The subdivision plat, which was approved five years after the relevant text amendment, illustrates a 30% maximum lot coverage for the R1-18 RUPD zoning district. 12. Regarding the property itself, it is generally flat and mostly rectangular in shape. Much of the property’s rear yard, particularly toward the northwest corner, has been developed with accessory features, including a swimming pool and a detached shade structure. Only the northeastern portion of the property to the rear of the house remains undeveloped. As illustrated on the applicant’s site plan, the owners are proposing to build a casita in this area. And while this casita would contribute to a total lot coverage that exceeds the R1-18 RUPD zoning district standards, it would still meet the base zoning district standard. (Conversely, if not for the RUPD, which allows a smaller minimum lot area, the property would be a substandard undersized lot). 13. Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Development of a single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship is created by the enforcement of the RUPD standards. The building permit for the casita remains in review and can be modified. 14. The site plan shows the casita setback 4.5’ from the east lot line. MCZO Article 602.3.5.A requires that detached casitas (accessory dwelling units, ADUs) be set back at least 5’ from side and rear lot lines. Prior to the January 2026 MCZO update, detached ADUs were allowed at a setback of no less than 3’ from side and rear lot lines. Furthermore, the owners submitted their building permit application for the casita in August 2025, five months prior to the MCZO update. If the building permit is issued and final inspections are completed no later than July 8, 2026, the casita may be subject to the minimum 3’ setback in accordance with the MCZO requirement in place with initial technical review of the permit. If the casita permit cannot be completed by said date, the owners will need to modify plans by shifting the location of their casita approximately 7” to the west to meet the current 5’ minimum setback requirement or seek a Variance to the setback. The site plan shows there is ample room to make this shift. Page 4 of 7 2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site Page 5 of 7 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Zoning District Map Page 6 of 7 Zoning District Standard: 15. 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 R1-18 RUPD Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to south lot line) 30-feet 30-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to north lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to east/west lot line) 10-feet 10-feet Maximum Height 30-feet 30-feet Minimum Lot Area 15,750-sq. ft. 17,798-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 105-feet 105-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 30% ≈33% 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.” 16. 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. “Lot coverage reduced from 35% to 30% per Z2002092 reducing owners’ ‘enjoyment’ of their property. Lot slopes from rear to street. We propose to maintain all off-site flows by virtue of proposed casita and fences/gates.” 17. 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 ‘peculiar’ condition is the reduction of the allowable lot coverage from 35% to 30%. We would propose a middle ground of 33% to allow for an on-site casita for family purposes.” 18. 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 variance would not indict the spirit of the R1-18 ordinance if off-site flows are maintained, as, per the information provided, the lot coverage was reduced to allow adequate drainage per plat.” Page 7 of 7 Findings: 19. 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. 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. 20. 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 lot area and width requirements of the zoning district, features a mild slope but is not encumbered by unusual topographical features like washes or floodplain. Furthermore, the development of a single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. That a primary use was established without need for variance means that enforcement of the MCZO cannot be interpreted as imposing an unnecessary hardship on the property. 21. 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 maximum lot coverage of 33% for APN 202-23-652. 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 3 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated April 23, 2026 9:31 AM BA260031 Application Name: Legal Description Cook Residence Casita Applicant Case Address 6N 2E 10 Braden Santarcangelo 3606 W ARROYO NORTE DR Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-23-652 (602) 758-0808 NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 Map scale 1:434 Supervisor District No. Requesting a lot coverage variance from 30% to 33% as an amendment to Z2002092 EXISTING POOL DWELLING ~ LOT #29 EXISTING 1-STORY APN#202-23-652 ARROYO NORTE, UNIT 9 TOP/FF 1938.53' (existing) DOG AREA MECH YARD TRASH TOP/FF 1938.53' (MATCH EXIST) S87° 16' 21" E 84.26' S87° 16' 21" E (M) 23.02' (M) 3'-0" V.N.A.E. 10'-8" B.S.L. 14'-4" B.S.L. 30'-0" B.S.L. 8'-0" P.U.E. 4'-53 4" 45'-75 8" EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY to REMAIN EXIST. COVERED PATIO LAWN AREA EXISTING SPA EXIST 96" GATE NEW 60" POOL GATE NEW 60" GATE EXIST.6' (h) BLOCK FENCE EXIST. 3' (h) BLOCK RET. WALL 6'-111 4" 13'-0" 4'-53 4" EXIST. W.M. EXIST. GAS EXIST. 400a SES SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN EXIST. SANITARY N01° 50' 43" W 171.26' N01° 50' 43" W 160.00' N88° 09' 13' E 105.00' PROP'D COV'D PATIO 95sf PROP'D DETACHED CASITA 721sf E ARROYO NORTE DRIVE ~ 40' EXISTING POOL RAMADA 504sf EXIST. LOWER RETAINING WALL to be REMOVED EXIST.6' (h) BLOCK FENCE EXIST.6' (h) BLOCK FENCE PHOTO 1 PHOTO 3 PHOTO 2 PHOTO 6 PHOTO 5 PHOTO 4 All reports, drawings, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other documents and instruments prepared by the Designer as instruments of service shall remain theproperty of the Designer, ABL Design Studio, LLC.The designer shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights. The use of this drawing shall be restricted to the original site for which it was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited tosuch use. Reuse, reproduction or publication by any method is prohibited without written consent from the Designer. CK-25 APRIL 6, 2026 the Cook Family A Detached Casita for 3606 W Arroyo Norte Drive Project No. PERMIT REVIEW Maricopa County Sheet Number: Drawing Title: Drawing Scale: Author: ABL Design Studio, LLC address: 17641 N 35th Street Phoenix, AZ 85032 ph: 602.758.0808 email: braden@abldesignstudio.com New River, AZ 85087 A1.1 1 of 1 Proposed Site Plan B.M.S as noted Proposed Site Plan 1 1" = 10'-0" NORTH PROJECT 5 0 20 10 A. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES 5% MINIMUM FOR THE FIRST 10 FEET. B. COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FINAL LOCATION OF METERS, DEVICES, AND ROUTING. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED MATERIAL AND LABOR FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL REQUIRED UTILITIES. C. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTURBANCE OF SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. D. EXCESS FILL DIRT (IF ANY) TO BE HAULED AWAY OR DISPOSED OF PER THE OWNER'S REQUEST. E. VERIFY WITH THE OWNER THE DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION OF ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND SITE ITEMS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. F. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL SITE ITEMS AND THE COORDINATION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH ZONING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. G. VERIFY ALL GRADES IN FIELD. H. SEE ELECTRICAL SHEETS FOR SWITCHING OF EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL. I. SUBGRADE TO BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY WITH 4" CONCRETE SLAB OVER 4" A.B.C. J. WATERPROOF ALL ABOVE-GROUND PLANTERS AND RETAINING WALLS. K. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED, WHERE APPLICABLE, A MINIMUM OF 1'-0" HIGHER THAN THE HIGHEST PORTION OF THE EQUIPMENT, AND SHALL MATCH THE ADJACENT BUILDING MATERIAL. A. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES- 2% MINIMUM FOR THE FIRST 10'-0". B. ALL MECHANICAL CONDENSER UNITS & COUNTY TRASH BARRELS SHALL BE SCREENED A MINIMUM OF (1) FT. HIGHER THAN THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE EQUIPMENT, AND SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT MAIN BUILDING. SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. THE POOL & SPA EQUIPMENT IS SCREENED WITHIN AN ENCLOSED ROOM PER DC RANCH STIPULATIONS. C. SELF-CLOSING & SELF-LATCHING DEVICES TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL DOORS & GATES WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO THE POOL WITH THE RELEASE MECHANISM LOCATED 54" MIN. ABOVE THE ADJACENT FLOOR OR GRADE SURFACE. D. THE SWIMMING POOL AND SPA ARE REVIEWED & APPROVED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. E. POOLS SHALL NOTE BE EMPTIED OR BACKWASHED INTO WASHES, STREETS,ONTO AN ADJACENT LOT, OR TRACT OF LAND. F.A GUEST HOUSE SHALL NEVER BE OFFERED FOR RENT. G. A GUEST HOUSE SHALL NOT EXCEED A GROSS FOOTPRINT SIZE GREATER THAN 50% OF THE FOOTPRINT SIZE OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. H. ANY PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO NATURAL WATERCOURSES AND ALL WALLS AND FENCES CROSSING NATURAL WATERCOURSES SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND POLICIES SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 37 (DRAINAGE AND FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE) OF THE SCOTTSDALE REVISED CODE. I. TEMPORARY SECURITY FENCING THAT IS REQUIRED OF IS OPTIONALLY PROVIDED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND POLICIES MANUAL. MARICOPA COUNTY GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES THE POOL, SPA, AND FOUNTAIN REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT AND REVIEW AND SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A BARRIER (IF REQUIRED) THAT SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO PLASTERING OR FILLING WITH WATER. - FROM THE PERIMETER: A PERIMETER WALL OR COMBINATION WALL AND FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE REAR YARD. WHERE THE CONDITION IS WALL ONLY, THE TOP OF THE WALL SHALL BE 60" MIN. ABOVE FINISHED GRADE ON THE LOW SIDE. WHERE THE CONDITION IS WALL AND FENCE, THE TOP OF THE SOLID WALL SHALL BE 48" MINIMUM ABOVE GRADE ON THE LOW SIDE. A 60" HIGH FENCE AND GATE WITH VERTICAL BARS SPACED SUCH THAT A 4-INCH DIAMETER SPHERE SHALL NOT PASS. THE GATE SHALL BE SELF- CLOSING AND HAVE A SELF-LATCHING DEVICE. THE RELEASE MECHANISM SHALL BE HIGHER THAN 54 INCHES ABOVE GRADE. - FROM THE RESIDENCE: SELF-CLOSING AND SELF-LATCHING DEVICES INSTALLED ON ALL DOORS WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO THE POOL & SPA WITH THE RELEASE MECHANISM LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 54 INCHES ABOVE THE FLOOR. A LOCKING LATCH WHICH USES A KEY MAY BE LOCATED AT ANY HEIGHT, PROVIDED THE DOOR IS NOT A PRIMARY EXIT. POOL/SPA BARRIER NOTES -DOORS WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO THE SWIMMING POOL THROUGH AN EXTERIOR WALL SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN ALARM WHICH PRODUCES AN AUDIBLE WARNING, PER UL-2017, WHEN THE DOOR/SCREEN ARE OPENED AND SHALL ACTIVATE WITHIN 7 SECONDS FOR A MINIMUM OF 30 SECONDS AFTER OPENING. ALARM MUST BE HEARD THROUGHOUT HOUSE DURING NORMAL HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES. -SELF-CLOSING DOORS WITH SELF-LATCHING DEVICES ARE ACCEPTABLE WITH RELEASE MECHANISM LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 54" ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR. -WINDOWS WITH ACCESS TO THE POOL AREAS WILL BE PROTECTED IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS: 1) EMERGENCY ESCAPE OR RESCUE WINDOWS FROM SLEEPING AREAS WITH ACCESS TO THE SWIMMING POOL WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH A LATCHING DEVICE NOT LESS THAN 54" ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR. 2) ALL OTHER OPENABLE WINDOWS WITH SIMILAR ACCESS WILL ALSO BE EQUIPPED WITH A LATCHING DEVICE NOT LESS THAN 54" ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR OR SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH KEY LOCK DEVICE THAT PREVENTS OPENING THE WINDOW MORE THAN 4" -PET DOORS WHICH PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE POOL AREA ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS NOTED ABOVE. POOL BARRIER REQUIRMENTS at WINDOWS & DOORS GENERAL SITE UTILITY NOTES THE CONCEPTUAL ROUTING & CONFIGURATION SHOWN FOR ON-SITE WATER, SEWER, ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS (AS WELL AS TELEPHONE, CABLE TV, ETC.) IS BOTH PRELIMINARY & SCHEMATIC AND IS SUBJECT TO UTILITY COMPANY, CONTRACTOR AND FIELD VERIFICATION. NOTE THAT PER MARICOPA COUNTY REQUIREMENTS: - ALL WORK & TRENCHING MUST BE RE-VEGETATED OR LANDSCAPED AFTER COMPLETION - ANY VERTICAL RISERS (i.e. WATER ENTRY, NATURAL GAS METER & ENTRY, ETC.) MUST BE SCREENED BEHIND THE SITE WALLS OR BY PLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPE PLANTING MATERIAL. - PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SLEEVING & PROTECTION FOR ANY LINES PASSING BELOW DRIVEWAY SURFACES, THROUGH SITE WALL FOOTINGS, ETC. SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT DATA R1-18 RUPD TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER ZONING DISTRICT OWNER APN 202-23-652 3606 W ARROYO NORTE DRIVE NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 LOT 27 ~ ARROYO NORTE UNIT 9 MIKE & CARRIE ANN COOK 3606 W ARROYO NORTE DRIVE NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 SITE ADDRESS LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING UNDER ROOF: EXISTING RESIDENCE TOTAL NON-LIVABLE AREA PROPOSED NEW CASITA AREAS: LIVABLE AREA 4,512 S.F. 816 S.F. 654 S.F. TOTAL PROPOSED UNDER ROOF: TOTAL LIVABLE, COV'RD. PATIOS, ETC. 202-23-652 LOT AREA 17,797 S.F. [.408 AC] 5,832 S.F. / 17,797 S.F. = 32.7% PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 27, OF UNIT 9, OF ARROYO NORTE - UNITS 8, 9, & 10, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA RECORDED IN BOOK 1495 OF MAPS, PAGE 48. 5,832 S.F. COVERED PATIO 95 S.F. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE = 30% (per Z2002092) or 5,339.1 S.F. POOL STORAGE 67 S.F. EXISTING POOL RAMADA 504 S.F. TOTAL EXISTING UNDER ROOF 5,016 S.F. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE [per R1-18 Zoning] = 35% VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 33% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.