02.BA250071 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
29607 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250071 – Stephen’s Residence Hearing Date: January 15, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Reuel Moser, Rimrock Design Enterprises LLC Timothy and Sharon Stephens Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed street side setback of 15’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.1.C 2) Proposed rear setback of 30’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.3 APN 202-25-021E @ 49450 N. 15th Ave in the New River area 78,147 sq. ft. Single-family residence / Rural-43 N/A Applicant: Property Owners: Requests: Site Location: Site Size: Current Use / Zoning: Open Violation: Background: 1. April 2, 1986: The subject parcel’s current legal description first appears under previous ownership via warranty deed MCR 1986-0159026. 2. December 13, 1988: A zoning clearance, ZC88-6344, is obtained for a 1,280 sq. ft. single-family residence with a street side setback (north) of 71’ and a rear setback (west) of 41’, in conformance with Rural-43 zoning standards. 3. December 1996: The single-family residence is first observed through the historical aerial photos of the parcel. 4. February 29, 2024: The current property owner’s take possession of the subject parcel via recorded warranty deed MCR 2024-0103521. 5. Circa 2017,2018: An addition to the north and west ends of the residential structure are first observable via historical aerial photos. There is no record of permit for this construction. 6. November 5, 2025: The current application is received for a residential variance providing setback relief for the north and west ends of the subject parcel. Page 2 of 12 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence and detached accessory structure North: N. 15th Ave. and N. 16th Ave then Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural 43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Vacant Variance Requests: 8. The applicant, Reuel Moser, is requesting a variance to establish a 15’ street side setback on the north end of the subject parcel, as well as a 30’ rear yard setback on the west end. The encroachments are the result of a covered patio addition to the existing primary structure that was originally permitted in 1988. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 12 Photographs of subject site Page 4 of 12 Site Analysis: 9. The applicant’s request for a variance is a proactive measure in anticipation of plan review comments from the building review division. It is the intent of the applicant to pursue a construction permit for an unrelated addition on the south end of the existing primary structure. Upon parcel history search, no permit records were found for the existing covered patio additions Page 5 of 12 on the north and west ends of the primary structure. A review of the subject parcel’s historical aerial views indicate that the additions were constructed sometime between 2017 and 2018 under previous ownership. Neither the applicant nor the current property owner is aware of any permit history for these additions. Page 6 of 12 Page 7 of 12 The subject parcel is located within a rural and secluded section of the New River area that features low density single-family residential development on lots typically larger than the one- acre minimum requirements for the Rural-43 zoning district. These lots are principally derived from unregulated minor land divisions and accessed through private ingress/egress easements. The subject parcel features an upward slope that moves east to west, and which is a sub-set of larger, more drastic slopes within the broader area. These topographic features restrict the development with relation to parcel size and shape, as well as the locations of structures and access easements. Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 8 of 12 Eagle view of subject site looking south into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/19/2020) Zoning District Map Page 9 of 12 Zoning District Standards: 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 (east property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (west property line) 40-feet 30-feet Min. Street Side Yard Setback (north property line) 20-feet 15-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (south 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.” 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. “We respectfully request a variance from Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 503.4, which establishes required yard setbacks for the RU-43 zoning district. This request is to acknowledge and allow for the existing encroachments of the residence into the north (side) and west (rear) setback areas. Existing Conditions: The property contains a single-family residence that appears to have originally been constructed as an agricultural or storage structure and subsequently converted to residential use many years ago, prior to current ownership. A thorough review of County records revealed no prior building permits or zoning approvals for these improvements. It is likely that the existing encroachments resulted either from construction predating current zoning standards or from a lot split that redefined property boundaries. Proposed Use: The property will continue to be used for residential purposes, consistent with the existing zoning and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. A new addition is proposed on the south side of the existing residence, fully within the required setback areas. The variance is necessary only to recognize the nonconforming portions of the existing structure, which currently encroach into the north and west setbacks. The addition itself does not encroach on any setback and complies with all current development standards. Page 10 of 12 Hardship: There are no unusual slopes, washes, or easements contributing to the existing encroachments. The hardship arises solely from the location of the existing residence, which was constructed without the benefit of accurate surveys or recorded setbacks. Strict enforcement of Section 503.4 would require partial demolition of the existing structure to achieve compliance with the current setbacks. Such an action would confer no public benefit and would impose a substantial and unnecessary hardship on the property owner. In addition, strict enforcement would prevent the owner from making reasonable improvements to the home Requested Variance: The applicant respectfully requests a variance from Section 503.4 to recognize the existing encroachments of the residence into the setbacks: • North (side) setback: 15 feet (existing patio corner is 18’-6” from property line, home is 30’ from line) • West (rear) setback: 30 feet (existing patio corner is 31’-3” from property line, home is 33’-9” from line) The proposed addition fully complies with current setback requirements. The variance simply allows the County to review and approve the new construction while acknowledging the pre- existing, lawful nonconformity.” 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. “Strict enforcement of Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 503.4 would require the current property owner to alter or partially demolish portions of the existing residence to achieve full compliance with the required north and west setbacks. Such actions would provide no material public benefit, and would impose a substantial, unnecessary, and disproportionate hardship on the property owner, both financially and functionally, given that the residence is a fully habitable home with long-standing structural and utility systems The hardship is not self-created. The current owner purchased the property with the residence already located in its existing position, including the encroachments into the setback areas. These encroachments likely predate current zoning standards and may have resulted from prior development activity, lot reconfigurations, or historical construction practices. The property owner did not initiate these conditions, and they are inherent in the chain of title, reflecting circumstances that were legally established prior to current ownership” 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 this variance will not negatively affect the intent of Section 503.4 or the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed addition remains fully within the required setbacks, the Page 11 of 12 existing residence is already established in its current location, and overall lot coverage and development intensity remain modest. The variance simply recognizes pre-existing conditions and allows the property to be used in a manner consistent with its residential character and the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing the variance will enable the property owner to improve and enhance the existing home, addressing functionality, livability, and aesthetic qualities. The planned improvements will beautify the property and positively contribute to the neighborhood, maintaining the character and scale of adjacent lots while respecting the County’s development standards In conclusion, granting the requested variance provides relief from a hardship that is unique, not self-created, and unavoidable, while simultaneously preserving the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. This action supports responsible property use, thoughtful improvement, and overall neighborhood enhancement. We respectfully request the County’s favorable consideration and sincerely thank you for your review and attention to this request.” 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. 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: After reviewing the submission, staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that rendered the proposed covered patio addition unavoidable and necessary. The covered patio additions were constructed without benefit of an issued permit. An examination of the proposed site plan during plan review for a permit may have prevented the issues from arising. The current owner was not at fault for the unpermitted construction and encroaching additions, but it is still self-created in the line of title. Staff has informed the applicant that the scope of the Page 12 of 12 variance request, if approved, would provide relief from setback requirements but not from any building code or permitting requirements that may arise during permit review. 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 15’ (north) street-side and 30’ (west) rear setback lines for APN 202-25-021E. Presented by: Isaac Perez, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (4 pages) Site Plan (1 page) Letters of Support (6 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 2 approx. Generated December 24, 2025 1:26 PM BA250071 Application Name: Legal Description Stephens Variance Applicant Case Address 7N 3E 19 Reuel Moser 49450 N 15TH AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-25-021E 6029967707 NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 Map scale 1:981 Supervisor District No. Yard setback and encroachments Attachment “A” – Existing Conditions, Proposed Use, and Hardship We respectfully request a variance from Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 503.4, which establishes required yard setbacks for the RU-43 zoning district. This request is to acknowledge and allow for the existing encroachments of the residence into the north (side) and west (rear) setback areas. Existing Conditions: The property contains a single-family residence that appears to have originally been constructed as an agricultural or storage structure and subsequently converted to residential use many years ago, prior to current ownership. A thorough review of County records revealed no prior building permits or zoning approvals for these improvements. It is likely that the existing encroachments resulted either from construction predating current zoning standards or from a lot split that redefined property boundaries. Proposed Use: The property will continue to be used for residential purposes, consistent with the existing zoning and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. A new addition is proposed on the south side of the existing residence, fully within the required setback areas. The variance is necessary only to recognize the nonconforming portions of the existing structure, which currently encroach into the north and west setbacks. The addition itself does not encroach on any setback and complies with all current development standards. Hardship: There are no unusual slopes, washes, or easements contributing to the existing encroachments. The hardship arises solely from the location of the existing residence, which was constructed without the benefit of accurate surveys or recorded setbacks. Strict enforcement of Section 503.4 would require partial demolition of the existing structure to achieve compliance with the current setbacks. Such an action would confer no public benefit and would impose a substantial and unnecessary hardship on the property owner. In addition, strict enforcement would prevent the owner from making reasonable improvements to the home. Requested Variance: The applicant respectfully requests a variance from Section 503.4 to recognize the existing encroachments of the residence into the setbacks: • North (side) setback: 15 feet (existing patio corner is 18’-6” from property line, home is 30’ from line) • West (rear) setback: 30 feet (existing patio corner is 31’-3” from property line, home is 33’-9” from line) The proposed addition fully complies with current setback requirements. The variance simply allows the County to review and approve the new construction while acknowledging the pre- existing, lawful nonconformity. Attachment “B” – Unnecessary Hardship & Property Conditions Strict enforcement of Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 503.4 would require the current property owner to alter or partially demolish portions of the existing residence to achieve full compliance with the required north and west setbacks. Such actions would provide no material public benefit, and would impose a substantial, unnecessary, and disproportionate hardship on the property owner, both financially and functionally, given that the residence is a fully habitable home with long-standing structural and utility systems. The hardship is not self-created. The current owner purchased the property with the residence already located in its existing position, including the encroachments into the setback areas. These encroachments likely predate current zoning standards and may have resulted from prior development activity, lot reconfigurations, or historical construction practices. The property owner did not initiate these conditions, and they are inherent in the chain of title, reflecting circumstances that were legally established prior to current ownership. Attachment “C” – Impact on Ordinance Intent & Neighborhood Benefits Granting this variance will not negatively affect the intent of Section 503.4 or the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed addition remains fully within the required setbacks, the existing residence is already established in its current location, and overall lot coverage and development intensity remain modest. The variance simply recognizes pre-existing conditions and allows the property to be used in a manner consistent with its residential character and the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing the variance will enable the property owner to improve and enhance the existing home, addressing functionality, livability, and aesthetic qualities. The planned improvements will beautify the property and positively contribute to the neighborhood, maintaining the character and scale of adjacent lots while respecting the County’s development standards. In conclusion, granting the requested variance provides relief from a hardship that is unique, not self-created, and unavoidable, while simultaneously preserving the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. This action supports responsible property use, thoughtful improvement, and overall neighborhood enhancement. We respectfully request the County’s favorable consideration and sincerely thank you for your review and attention to this request. NORTH VICINITY MAP THIS SITE R-3 OCCUPANCY VN BUILDING TYPE ZONING RU-43 CODES LOT AREA 78,147 SQ. FT. OR 1.79 ACRES (MORE OR LESS) BUILDING AREA ;16'-3" (EXIST.) BUILDING HEIGHT ONE WITH LOFT (EXISTING) # OF STORIES LOT COVERAGE 4% or 3,355 SQ. FT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: THE NORTH 197.40 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. EXCEPT THE EAST 264.17 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19. PARCEL 2: AN EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY, AS CREATED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO 86-063505, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, OVER THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 264.17 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. PARCEL 3: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AS CREATED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 96-492043 AND THEREAFTER CORRECTED IN DOCUMENT NO. 97-361108, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, OVER THE EAST 20 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EXCEPT THE EAST 264.17 FEET THEREOF: AND ALSO EXCEPT THE NORTH 197.40 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL 4: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AS CREATED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN DOCKET 10646, PAGE 346, OVER: THE NORTH 30 FEET AND THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, AND THE WEST 30 FEET AND THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, AND THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS 49450 NORTH 15th AVENUE NEW RIVER ARIZONA 85087 ;320'-8" (EXIST.) EAST (FRONT) ;120'-7" (EXIST.) ;18'-6" (EXIST.) ;31'-3" (EXIST.) SOUTH (SIDE) WEST (REAR) SETBACKS NORTH (SIDE) EXISTING RESIDENCE FOOT PRINT EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE EXISTING DETACHED STORAGE SQ. FT. 185 1,520 3,355 TOTAL EXISTING FOOT PRINT INT. RESIDENTIAL CODE CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA 0 LBS GROUND SNOW LOAD 115 MPH WIND SPEED (MPH) EXPOSURE C WIND EXPOSURE CATEGORY CATEGORY B SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY NEGLIGIBLE DAMAGE FROM WEATHERING 12 INCHES DAMAGE FROM FROST LINE DEPTH MODERATE TO HEAVY DAMAGE FROM TERMITES NONE TO SLIGHT DAMAGE FROM DECAY 323 F WINTER DESIGN TEMPERATURE ZONE 2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY CLIMATE ZONE 202-25-021E A.P.N. INT. BUILDING CODE NAT. ELECTRIC CODE INT. PLUMBING CODE INT. FUEL GAS CODE INT. MECHANICAL CODE INT. ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE INT. FIRE CODE INT. EXISTING BUILDING CODE INT. GREEN CONSTRUCTION CODE 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2017 2018 2018 1,650 SQ. FT. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE ACTUAL 30'-0" ALLOWABLE ACTUAL 25% or 19,536 SQ. FT. REQUIRED ACTUAL 30'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0" 30'-0" 15'-0" 40'-0" (EXIST.) PROPOSED 30'-0" (EXIST.) NORTH VICINITY MAP THIS SITE EP EP EP EP EP O.H. ELEC. O.H. ELEC. O.H. ELEC. O.H. ELEC. O.H. ELEC. O.H. ELEC. O.H. ELEC. EXIST. PATIO COLUMN ;18'-6" EXISTING PATIO COLUMN ;31'-3" 40'-0" BUILDING SETBACK 40'-0" BUILDING SETBACK 30'-0" BUILDING SETBACK 30'-0" BUILDING SETBACK EXISTING HOUSE CORNER ;33'-9" EXISTING HOUSE CORNER ;30'-1" ;120'-7" EXISTING ;320'-8" EXISTING NORTH N89ø59'13"W +/- 395.83' ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" NORTH 15th AVENUE EXISTING DRIVE EXISTING SEPTIC PERMIT #881262 EXISTING STORAGE EXISTING GARAGE / WORKSHOP / STORAGE EXISTING RESIDENCE TO REMAIN PROPOSED ADDITION ;1,000 S.F. NEW F.F. SHALL MATCH EXISTING EXISTING DRIVE EXISTING GATE EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE TO REMAIN 197.40' +/- 395.83' 197.40' EXISTING WELL PUMP AND WATER STORAGE EXISTING COV. PATIO TO REMAIN GENERAL NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL N.A.O.S. EASEMENTS AND ANY OTHER PROTECTED AREAS AND TAKE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PRESERVE THESE AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. MISCELLANEOUS SITE STRUCTURES, SWIMMING POOLS, SPAS, FENCES, SITE WALLS, RETAINING WALLS AND GAS STORAGE TANKS REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMITS. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE CITY FOR THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (F.E.M.A.) WHERE REQUIRED. THIS DRAWING IS FOR PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN PLACE OF CIVIL DRAWINGS. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED. ALL CODES AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE TOWN, CITY, COUNTY OR STATE SHALL BE FOLLOWED. 6. VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND EQUIPMENT, UTILITY LINES , STORAGE TANKS, AND IRRIGATION LINES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PRESERVE ANY ITEM UNDERGROUND AND TO MAINTAIN IT'S PURPOSE. 7. CALL BLUE STAKE PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING STARTED. 8. 9. POOLS SHALL NOT BE EMPTIED OR BACK WASHED INTO WASHES, STREETS, ONTO AN ADJACENT LOT, OR TRACT OF LAND. 10. 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 THE ORDINANCE AND CODES. 11. TEMPORARY / SECURITY FENCING THAT IS REQUIRED OR IS OPTIONALLY PROVIDED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND POLICIES MANUAL. 14. MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN DURING CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID SEDIMENT RUN OFF FROM ANY DISTURBED AREAS. POOLS REQUIRE SEPARATE APPROVAL AND PERMIT. NO NATIVE PLANTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ADDITION. 16. 15. A GUEST HOUSE SHALL NEVER BE OFFERED FOR RENT. 12. A GUEST HOUSE SHALL NOT EXCEED A GROSS FOOTPRINT SIZE GREATER THAN 50% OF THE FOOT PRINT SIZE OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. 13. LOT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FROM THE LOT TO THE STREET OR DIRECTLY TO A WASH / OPEN SPACE AREA (AS ALLOWED BY JURISDICTION). AFTER FINAL INSPECTION THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE FINISH GRADE CAUSED BY LANDSCAPING. 17. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY OR ALTA SURVEY. BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS ARE DRAWN PER INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THIS FIRM. SURVEY COMPLETED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT: EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. 19. LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE FROM ABOVE GROUND FIELD SURVEY OF VALVES, MANHOLES, ETC. BLUE STAKE SHALL BE CALLED TO GET EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO DIGGING OR CONSTRUCTION. NO FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED THIS PERMIT. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT AND PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 96-492043 AND DOCUMENT NO. 97-361108 ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-020B ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-013B ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-012C ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-021D ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-021M ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-013C ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-012C EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN ADJACENT PARCEL - RESIDENTIAL A.P.N.:202-25-021Q 18. ALL LANDSCAPING DEPICTED IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. EXISTING TREES, SHRUBS, CACTI, PAVERS, BORDERS, AND OTHER SITE FEATURES MAY NOT BE SHOWN OR MAY BE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ANY WORK, AND EXISTING FEATURES SHALL BE PRESERVED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. THIS PLAN DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR A NATIVE PLANT SURVEY OR HARD-SCAPE PLAN. A1 09-08-25 Stephens Residence Addition 49450 N. 15th Avenue New River Arizona 85087 Architectural Site Plan DATE REVISIONS SHEET RIMROCK DESIGN ENTERPRISES L.L.C. Email: Reuelm@rimrockde.com Phone: 602-996-7707 Phoenix Arizona and Surrounding Areas These drawings, reports, plans, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other documents and instruments prepared by the design professional as instruments of service shall remain the property of the designer. The drawings and specifications shall not be used by anyone or on any project, or additions to this project, without written permission from this office whether the project for which they are intended is executed or not. the designer shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright thereto. RIMROCK DESIGN ENTERPRISES 06-15-07