01.BA250067 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18503 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250067 – 223 Saddle Mountain LLC Property Hearing Date: January 15, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Cutter Zaug, Allen Consulting Engineers Property Owner: 223 Saddle Mountain LLC Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front setback of 42’ where 80’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.1.a & MCZO Article 1105.2 Site Location: APN 211-73-023C @ 223 W. Saddle Mountain Rd. – Saddle Mountain Rd. and 3rd Ave., in the Desert Hills area Site Size: 1 acre Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: FI2500119 (Flood Control District Code Violation) Background: 1. March 19, 2002: Parcel created by minor lot division from parent parcel 211-73-023A. 2. April 16, 2025: Current owner takes possession of the subject property. 3. May 9, 2025: Building permit BLDR2503836 submitted for the primary residence. 4. May 30, 2025: Floodplain Use Permit initiated FCP2500495. 5. June 5, 2025: Notice of Floodplain Inspection Report sent to property owner with findings indicating placement of fill and development within the delineated floodplain without permits (FI2500119). 6. November 20, 2025: Subject variance request administrative complete and routed to reviewing agencies. 7. January 6, 2026: Applicant files right-of-way reservation action request to Maricopa County Department of Transportation to reduce mid-section line future right of way setback. Page 2 of 8 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 8. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Saddle Mountain Rd. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 9. The applicant proposes to reduce the 40’ front yard setback to maintain development of a primary residence outside the floodplain that encumbers the southern portion of the parcel. The primary residence is proposed to be setback 2 feet from the 40’ ingress, egress and public utilities easement identified as Saddle Mountain Rd. where an additional 40’ setback would be required, for a total of 80’ from the northern property line. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 8 Photograph of subject site looking south Site Analysis: 10. The 1-acre parcel fronts Saddle Mountain Rd. in a lot-split area of Desert Hills. A 40’ ingress, egress and public utilities easement is recorded at the first 40’ of the property providing right-of- way for Saddle Mountain Rd. a mid-section line road. The applicant recently requested a right-of- way reduction or waiver for this alignment with MCDOT. Only one other property at the southwest corner of Saddle Mountain Rd. and Central Ave. has obtained a reduction in the additional setback for Saddle Mountain from 40’ to 25’. The southern approximate 137’ of the lot is designated floodway and floodplain. The southern portion of the lot hosts a wash. The eagle eye exhibit below captures the clearing of vegetation and the added fill material in comparison to the 2025 Aerial photo provided by the County Assessor. Page 4 of 8 2025 Aerial photo of subject site (grading and floodplain fill not shown) Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel with unpermitted grading and fill shown (aerial image dated 3/1/25). Page 5 of 8 Aerial image & surrounding environs Zoning District map Page 6 of 8 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 (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to mid-section line) 80-feet (40’ mid-section alignment reservation + 40’ front yard setback) 42’ Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east/west property line) 30-feet n/a Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. n/a Minimum Lot Width 145-feet n/a Lot Coverage 25% n/a 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.” 12. 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 site is currently impacted by a FEMA Zone AE floodplain associated with an existing wash located along the south property line. The 100-year peak discharge within the wash is approximately 1,192 cubic feet per second (cfs), resulting in the regulatory floodplain extending north and affecting roughly 75% of the buildable area. Locating the residence within the floodplain would introduce significant flood and scour risks and would necessitate substantial and costly drainage and structural protection measures. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 503.4, the required minimum front yard setback is 40 feet. We are requesting a reduction of this setback to 0 feet to allow the proposed residence to be positioned further away from the wash and outside of the floodplain limits.“ 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 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, Page 7 of 8 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 imposed on this lot is the required 40-foot front yard setback. Due to the existing FEMA floodplain and historical drainage conditions on the site, adherence to this setback renders the lot unbuildable in a manner consistent with neighboring properties. The requested reduction is necessary to reasonably develop the property while maintaining public safety and compliance with floodplain management standards. The property remains in its natural condition, and the hardship is not self-created. The physical constraints resulting from the existing floodplain and historical drainage patterns are inherent to the site and not the result of any actions by the property owner.” 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. “The requested variance will not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The primary intent of the zoning standards, including setback requirements, is to ensure orderly development, maintain neighborhood character, and protect public health and safety. By reducing the front yard setback, the proposed residence can be positioned outside the FEMA Zone AE floodplain and further away from the existing wash, thereby enhancing life-safety and mitigating flood risk. Additionally, the proposed configuration will maintain a residential density and development pattern consistent with surrounding properties. No adverse effects to adjacent parcels, drainage flows, or community aesthetics are anticipated. Instead, the variance enables a safe and reasonable use of the property while remaining aligned with the core objectives of the zoning ordinance.” 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 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. 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. Page 8 of 8 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: The parcel is significantly encumbered by floodplain and floodway delineations present along the southern 137’ of the parcel, together with a significant mid-section line setback requirement that requires a total setback of 80’ from the northern property line. Arguably these conditions together are an obstacle to reasonable development of the lot. The building permit has unsuccessfully gone through five review cycles in attempts to accommodate the required setback and maintain appropriate drainage conditions. However, the applicant has not exhausted all administrative remedies to reduce the mid-section line reservation with MCDOT. Staff is concerned that a 2’ setback from a future collector route presents a public safety concern. The applicant has recently filed for a MCDOT right-of-way reduction waiver to request evaluation and determination on the required 40’ for mid-section alignment. If the area reserved for future right-of-way were to be reduced, it’s likely the floodplain and floodway encumbrances at the southern end of the lot would still require reduction in the front yard setback to reasonably accommodate a single-family residence, but the variance request would have to be adjusted or reduced. 17. 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 42’ setback line from the northern property line (or 2’ from the street line due to 40’ future right-of-way reservation for a mid-section alignment) for APN 211-73-023C. Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages) Site Plan (2 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated December 24, 2025 8:32 AM BA250067 Application Name: Legal Description 223 Saddle Mountain LLC Property Applicant Case Address 6N 3E 20 Anthony Zaugg 223 W Saddle Mountain RD Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:211-73-023C 4803927369 PHOENIX, AZ 85086 Map scale 1:596 Supervisor District No. Reducing a building setback from 40' to 0'. BA250067 RCVD 11/20/25 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 site is currently impacted by a FEMA Zone AE floodplain associated with an existing wash located along the south property line. The 100-year peak discharge within the wash is approximately 1,192 cubic feet per second (cfs), resulting in the regulatory floodplain extending north and affecting roughly 75% of the buildable area. Locating the residence within the floodplain would introduce significant flood and scour risks and would necessitate substantial and costly drainage and structural protection measures. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 503.4, the required minimum front yard setback is 40 feet. We are requesting a reduction of this setback to 0 feet to allow the proposed residence to be positioned further away from the wash and outside of the floodplain limits. The unnecessary hardship imposed on this lot is the required 40-foot front yard setback. Due to the existing FEMA floodplain and historical drainage conditions on the site, adherence to this setback renders the lot unbuildable in a manner consistent with neighboring properties. The requested reduction is necessary to reasonably develop the property while maintaining public safety and compliance with floodplain management standards. The property remains in its natural condition, and the hardship is not self-created. The physical constraints resulting from the existing floodplain and historical drainage patterns are inherent to the site and not the result of any actions by the property owner. BA250067 RCVD 11/20/25 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 The requested variance will not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The primary intent of the zoning standards, including setback requirements, is to ensure orderly development, maintain neighborhood character, and protect public health and safety. By reducing the front yard setback, the proposed residence can be positioned outside the FEMA Zone AE floodplain and further away from the existing wash, thereby enhancing life-safety and mitigating flood risk. Additionally, the proposed configuration will maintain a residential density and development pattern consistent with surrounding properties. No adverse effects to adjacent parcels, drainage flows, or community aesthetics are anticipated. Instead, the variance enables a safe and reasonable use of the property while remaining aligned with the core objectives of the zoning ordinance. FINISH FLOOR CERTIFICATION CIVIL ENGINEER PROJECT DESCRIPTION INDEX FEMA FIRM INFORMATION BUILDING AREA CUT & FILL QUANTITIES 98292 G&D 1 2 11/17/2025 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE G.&S.R.B.&M., MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. BENCHMARK SITE DATA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNER BASIS OF BEARINGS REFERENCE DOCUMENTS VICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 20' 15 10 5 20 0 10 20 SITE THIS 80281 C u t t e r A . Z a u g g DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE: MARICOPA COUNTY P&D RESIDENTIAL NOTES AND CONDITIONS SURVEY CERTIFICATION HOUSE FOOTPRINT TEMPORARY BENCHMARK 98292 G&D 2 2 11/17/2025 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE G.&S.R.B.&M., MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. LEGEND SCALE 1" = 20' 15 10 5 20 0 10 20 X X X X X X X FF=1898.00 PAD=1897.33 WS WS WS WS E APN: 211-73-023B SMITH JULIE K/BRYAN APN: 211-73-023E JAY R BULFER AND TERRI J BULFER REV TRUST APN: 211-73-024D ROBERTS CLAYTON H W SADDLE MOUNTAIN RD A A B B 80281 C u t t e r A . Z a u g g SECTION B-B SECTION A-A FF=1898.00 PAD=1897.33 FF=1898.00 PAD=1897.33 BA250067 RCVD 11/20/25