06.BA250077 BOA Staff Report REV 1_7
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
30471 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250077 – Amarel Property Hearing Date: January 15, 2026 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Michelle Green, Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C. Property Owners: Bryan & Nicole Amarel Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed west street-side setback of 3’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.1.c. 2) Proposed east street-side setback of 10’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.1.c. Site Location: APN 219-39-241B @ 13839 E. Casey Ln. in the Rio Verde foothills area Site Size: 54,224 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. 2003 or 2004: Maricopa County issued the building permit, B200311135 for the existing single- family residence on the property. 2. December 2, 2004: The original owners recorded a deed (2004-1414761) for what would become the subject property: APN 219-39-241B 3. May 24, 2005: The parent parcel, APN 219-39-241, was formally split into four child parcels of approximately equal area. Of these four, the subject parcel is the northeasterly parcel. 4. April 15, 2008: The current owner took possession of the subject property. 5. August 15 – 18, 2025: The owners submitted applications for two building permits: BLDR2506571 for a detached casita and RV garage, and BLDR2506625 for a custom swimming pool and ancillary improvements. 6. November 20, 2025: The owners submitted this variance request. Page 2 of 9 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Vacant East: Rural-43 / Single-family residences West: Rural-43 / Vacant Variance Requests: 8. The applicant and property owners are requesting variances to MCZO Article 503.4.1.c. to permit: 1) a detached accessory dwelling unit (itself with an attached RV garage) located 3’ from the street line (edge of easement) for 138th Way along the west side of the property, and 2) a poolside ramada located 10’ from the street line (edge of easement) for 139th Street along the east side of the property. From both street sides, the MCZO requires a minimum setback of 20’. Detached accessory structures cannot be located within a required front yard, including within the minimum street-side setback. This is unlike in an interior side setback, hence the request for variances. Building permits for the ADU and swimming pool (including related improvements like the ramada) are currently in review. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Page 3 of 9 Site Analysis: 9. The subject property, in most ways, represents a typical lot in the Rio Verde foothills area. The property is in a lot-split area, having been created via unregulated land division in 2005. The property slopes slightly downward toward the east (in the direction of the Verde River) but is otherwise relatively flat and features no areas of designated floodplain. There is a wash that bisects the south half of the property in a southeasterly direction, as noted on the site plan (although it is not easily discernable on the most recent aerials of the site due to heavy vegetation, it is more apparent in older aerials when the vegetation was thinner). The applicant references the wash as one of the primary factors necessitating a variance. Aside from the existing primary residence, its driveway, and some xeriscape landscaping immediately surrounding the residence, native desert vegetation abounds throughout the property. 10. Perhaps the least typical characteristic of the property is that it features street frontage along three of its four lot lines. Through lots and corner lots are common in the area, but properties with frontage along three lot lines are generally rarer. On the subject site, the north lot line is the shortest with Casey Lane providing frontage, so the required 40’ front setback is measured from this easement. The west and east lot lines, with frontage from 138th Way and 139th Street, respectively, are street-side lot lines, requiring minimum 20’ setbacks from the easements. To the east, 139th Street is entirely opposite the lot line, so the required setback is simply measured from the lot line. To the north and west, however, the lot lines serve as the centerlines for Casey Lane and 138th Way, respectively, so the required setbacks are measured in addition to the easement half-widths. Casey Lane measures a half-width of 15’, requiring a de facto front setback of 55’. Likewise, 138th Way measures a half-width of 10’, requiring a de facto street side (west) setback of 30’. The owners are not proposing any development within the required front setback. 11. If not for the street-side easements, the proposed improvements would be allowed by-right in the locations shown on the site plan, since detached accessory improvements can be located within interior side yards. However, it is worth noting that the RV garage proposed with the ADU would connect to the main driveway, which itself connects to 138th Way along the street side of the property, meaning that the intended location for the ADU is tied directly to the adjacent yard being a street-side rather than an interior side. 12. Assuming the property owners proceed with the proposed swimming pool, there does not appear to be a feasible alternative location for the detached ADU that does not encroach on the existing west street-side setback, on the wash, and/or within 3’ of the primary residence. The only alternative besides variance to the west setback would be to attach the RV garage and casita to the primary residence. However, in addition to extensive remodeling, this would also require relocating AC units and electrical panels located on the west side of the residence. 13. On the other hand, if the proposed pool were to be abandoned, the ADU and RV garage could be reoriented toward the east side of the property with driveway access to 139th Street (versus sharing a common driveway with the primary residence to 138th Way). MCZO Article 1102.7.12 allows one driveway (or even one entrance and one exit) per street. 14. Regardless of whether variance would be necessary to accommodate the proposed ADU, staff notes that the development of a primary residence means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the Rural-43 zoning district, and by extension, the MCZO. Variances to accommodate accessory uses (especially where a primary use already exists without need for one) arguably do not fulfill this statutory requirement. As for the proposed ramada, based on review of site aerials, the site plan, and the supplemental questionnaire, it seems the ramada could possibly be relocated 10’ to the west to prevent need for variance to the east setback. Page 4 of 9 2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Site 2016 Aerial Image of the Subject Site (the wash is more apparent in this image) Page 5 of 9 2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Eagle View of the Subject Site (dated October 7, 2021) Page 6 of 9 Zoning District Map 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 Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to Casey Ln. – north) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to south lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Street Side Setback (residence to 138th Way – west) 20-feet 3-feet Min. Street Side Setback (residence to 139th St. – east) 20-feet 10-feet Maximum Height 30-feet 30-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 54,224-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 164-feet Lot Coverage 25% 14% 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 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.” Page 7 of 9 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. “Our client is proposing to construct an accessory building, a pool and a ramada on his property. The Property is an approximately 1-acre parcel with a wash running through the south portion. This wash significantly limits where structures can be located on the lot. The proposed accessory building is located as close to the wash as possible and cannot be located any farther south. The structure also cannot be moved to the east because of the location of the main house which already exists. The ramada on the east side of the property is encroaching 10 feet into the side yard setback because of the wash and location of the pool. “The other unique circumstance in this case is that the lot is bound by streets on three sides. There is 138th Way (a private drive) on the west and 139 St. (also a private drive) on the east of the property, with Casey Lane to the north.” 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 unnecessary hardship related to these variances is that the wash running through the south portion of the property significantly reduces the developable area of the property forcing the property owner to encroach into the side yard setbacks to reasonably add and accessory building, pool and ramada to his property. This lot also has special circumstances because it is surrounded on three sides by streets which changes how the side yard setbacks are measured, from the easement line not the property line. In this case we also have the front yards of the properties to the east, abutting our client’s side yard where under normal circumstances we would have side yards abutting side yards. See Figure 1 Context, below. None of these circumstances were created by the property owner, nor are they in the line of title.” 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 cause a negative impact on the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance because ultimately the required separation between buildings intended by the ordinance is achieved. In this case there are two private drives along the side yards that will help to create the building-to-building separation distance intended by the ordinance. The lots on the east side of the property front on 139th Street and their required front yard setback is 40 feet. This is double what the yard requirement would be if the private drive was not there. If the private drive was not there the lot lines on the lots adjacent to the east property line of our client’s property would be considered side yards and the required setback would only be 20 feet. See Figure 2 Building to Building Setbacks if Variance is Approved, below. The condition we have is a setback on the adjacent property of 40 feet, with the private drive easement of 20 feet and 10-foot setback on our client’s property which gives us a total of 70 feet of separation from building-to-building. Under ordinary circumstances the ordinance only requires a total of 40 feet building-to-building separation Page 8 of 9 on a side yard. With respect to the west property line, if the variance were approved we would have a building setback on the adjacent property of 20 feet, with the private drive easement of 20 feet, then the 3 foot setback our client is requesting which gives us at total 43 feet of building to building separation which is 3 feet more than the 40 feet of building to building separation that would be required by the ordinance under normal circumstances.” 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 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. 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. Although having street frontage along three of four lot lines is atypical, it is not a characteristic unique to this property. Washes are also common on residential properties in the Rio Verde area. • When the existing primary residence was developed, the property had street frontage only along the north and west lot lines. Frontage along the east lot line appears not to have been established until adjacent residences were developed circa 2017. However, the addition of frontage along a third lot line did not impact the conformance of the residence to the Rural-43 development standards. The fact that a primary use in the form of a single- family residence was developed on the property without need for variance indicates that there was and remains no unnecessary hardship facing the property. • Further, the establishment of a primary use of the property in the form of a single-family means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the Rural-43 zoning district, and by extension, the MCZO. Variances to accommodate accessory uses (especially where a primary use already exists without need for one) do not fulfill this statutory requirement. Page 9 of 9 • The location of the wash, if left in its natural state, pushes development northward on the lot and thus squeezes lot improvements within the encumbered building envelope toward the east and west street-sides. 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 a 3’ west street-side setback line as measured from the street line for APN 219-39-241B. b) Variance approval establishes a 10’ east street-side setback line as measured from the street line for APN 219-39-241B. 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: 1 approx. Generated December 24, 2025 8:43 AM BA250077 Application Name: Legal Description Amarel Variance Applicant Case Address 5N 6E 30 MICHELLE GREEN 13839 E CASEY LN Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:219-39-241B 6023400900 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 Map scale 1:820 Supervisor District No. Variance to side yard setbacks 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 PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION FORM ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE 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): Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No 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: ______________________________ Variance to reduce the west side yard setback to 3 feet and the east side yard to 10 feet 13839 E. Casey Lane, Scottsdale AZ 85262 East of Scottsdale and south of the Tonto National Forest 1 acre 5,4224 30 5N 6E 219-39-241B I Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C. Michelle Green 206 E. Virginia Avenue Phoenix AZ 85004 602-340-0900 Bryan & Nicole Amarel Bryan Amarel 13839 E. Casey Lane Scottsdale AZ 85262 Brian Amarel Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C. Bryan Amarel Digitally signed by Bryan Amarel DN: C=US, E=bamarel@henselphelps.com, O=Hensel Phelps, OU=Operations, CN=Bryan Amarel Date: 2025.11.20 11:36:50-07'00' 11/20/2025 Michelle Green Digitally signed by Michelle Green Date: 2025.11.19 17:04:46 -07'00' Bryan Amarel Digitally signed by Bryan Amarel DN: C=US, E=bamarel@henselphelps.com, O=Hensel Phelps, OU=Operations, CN=Bryan Amarel Date: 2025.11.20 11:37:18-07'00' RU-43 Single Family Dwelling 11/19/2025 11/20/2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE 13839 E. Casey Lane, Scottsdale AZ, APN No. 219-39-241B (the “Property”) This is a request to reduce the side yard setbacks for a single-family home on a corner lot. The Property is zoned RU-43 which requires a 20-foot building side yard setback per Section 503.4.1.c of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the side yard setbacks are proposed to be reduced to 10 feet along 139th on the eastern property line and 3 feet along 138th Way on the western property line. See Exhibit 1 Site Plan and Figure 1 Context. Our responses to the questions below explain how our proposal meets the criteria for a variance set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. 1. Please discuss and explain what the peculiar condition(s) is/are 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. Our client is proposing to construct an accessory building, a pool and a ramada on his property. The Property is an approximately 1-acre parcel with a wash running through the south portion. This wash significantly limits where structures can be located on the lot. The proposed accessory building is located as close to the wash as possible and cannot be located any farther south. The structure also cannot be moved to the east because of the location of the main house which already exists. The ramada on the east side of the property is encroaching 10 feet into the side yard setback because of the wash and location of the pool. The other unique circumstance in this case is that the lot is bound by streets on three sides. There is 138th Way (a private drive) on the west and 139 St. (also a private drive) on the east of the property, with Casey Lane to the north. Page 2 of 3 2. Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar condition/the peculiar conditions on the site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is not self-created in the line of title. The unnecessary hardship related to these variances is that the wash running through the south portion of the property significantly reduces the developable area of the property forcing the property owner to encroach into the side yard setbacks to reasonably add and accessory building, pool and ramada to his property. This lot also has special circumstances because it is surrounded on three sides by streets which changes how the side yard setbacks are measured, from the easement line not the property line. In this case we also have the front yards of the properties to the east, abutting our client’s side yard where under normal circumstances we would have side yards abutting side yards. See Figure 1 Context, below. None of these circumstances were created by the property owner, nor are they in the line of title. Figure 1 Context Page 3 of 3 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. Granting the variance would not cause a negative impact on the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance because ultimately the required separation between buildings intended by the ordinance is achieved. In this case there are two private drives along the side yards that will help to create the building-to-building separation distance intended by the ordinance. The lots on the east side of the property front on 139th Street and their required front yard setback is 40 feet. This is double what the yard requirement would be if the private drive was not there. If the private drive was not there the lot lines on the lots adjacent to the east property line of our client’s property would be considered side yards and the required setback would only be 20 feet. See Figure 2 Building to Building Setbacks if Variance is Approved, below. The condition we have is a setback on the adjacent property of 40 feet, with the private drive easement of 20 feet and 10-foot setback on our client’s property which gives us a total of 70 feet of separation from building-to-building. Under ordinary circumstances the ordinance only requires a total of 40 feet building-to-building separation on a side yard. With respect to the west property line, if the variance were approved we would have a building setback on the adjacent property of 20 feet, with the private drive easement of 20 feet, then the 3 foot setback our client is requesting which gives us at total 43 feet of building to building separation which is 3 feet more than the 40 feet of building to building separation that would be required by the ordinance under normal circumstances. Figure 2 Building to Building setbacks if Variance is Approved 15'-0" 15' ROADWAY & UTILITY EASEMENT DKT. 12821, PG 283 , MCR 20' PRIVATE INGRESS EGRESS & PUE PER DOC NO.2004-1414764 MCR 20'-0" 10' TO P.L. FF=2475.22 CASEY LANE 139 TH 138 TH WAY B.S.L. 40'-0" PROPOSED RAMADA - 495 SF - B.S.L. 20'-0" 40'-0" PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING - 1724 SF - ELEC. PANEL (E)AC (E)AC (N)A/C (N)A/C SITE WALL (E)AC (E)AC ENTRY ENTRY PROPOSED POOL EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3839 E. CASEY LN. SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 APN 219-39-241B 164.87' 164.86' 330.04' 330.04' (SIDE BLDG SETBACK) (FRONT BLDG SETBACK) (REAR BLDG SETBACK) 20' POWER DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT PER DOC NO.2004-0634124, MCR PROPERTY LINE END OF PAVEMENT END OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY LINE END OF PAVEMENT END OF PAVEMENT 20' PRIVATE INGRESS EGRESS & PUE 10'-0" 13'-6" TOP OF WALL 8'-0" REQUIRED SETBACK REQUIRED SETBACK 20' -0" B.S.L. REQUIRED SETBACK REQUIRED SETBACK PROPOSED SETBACK 16' MIN. DRIVEWAY PROPOSED SETBACK PROPOSED 10'-0" B.S.L. BUILDING HEIGHT: 21'-6" AFF. BUILDING HEIGHT: 10'-7" EXISTING DRIVE EXISTING PATIO EASEMENT 10'-0" PROPERTY LINE 20'-0" EASEMENT 13'-0" 3'-0" F.O.W. TOP OF WALL 12'-6" TOP OF WALL 6'-6" WASH WASH WASH 20'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING RU-43 ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING RU-43 ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING RU-43 PROPERTY INFORMATION OWNER: NICOLE & BRYAN AMAREL ADDRESS: 13839 E. CASEY LN. SCOTTDALE, AZ PARCEL NUMBER: 219-39-241B LOT AREA: 54,224 SQ. FT. ZONING: RU-43 OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING HOUSE: 3422 SF EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE 922 SF EXISTING DETACHED LIVING 374 SF EXISTING COVERED PATIOS 652 SF NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: 1724 SF PROPOSED POOL RAMADA 495 SF TOTAL AREA UNDER ROOF: 7589 S.F. LOT COVERAGE: 7589 S.F. / 54,224 SF = 14% OK PROJECT NAME DATE SHEET TITLE ISSUE ALL PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND MAY NOT SHOW COMPLETE SCOPE OF WORK REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW INSTALLATIONS OR FINISHES. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THESE SHEETS ARE SUGGESTIONS ONLY. REFER TO SPEC SHEET FOR EXACT TYPE & LOCATION OF FIXTURES. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NOTIFY DESIGNER OF ANY CONFLICTS. INFORMATION ON THESE SHEETS MAY HAVE BEEN GATHERED AND COMPILED FOR DEISGNER FROM OTHER SOURCES. EVERY EFFORT WAS MADE TO ENSURE ACCURACY OF THIS DRAWING AND DATA HOWEVER NO GUARANTEE IS GIVEN OR IMPLIED AS TO ACCURACY OF SAID DATA. BY REVISIONS ALL PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND MAY NOT SHOW COMPLETE SCOPE OF WORK REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW INSTALLATIONS OR FINISHES. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THESE SHEETS ARE SUGGESTIONS ONLY. REFER TO SPEC SHEET FOR EXACT TYPE & LOCATION OF FIXTURES. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NOTIFY DESIGNER OF ANY CONFLICTS. INFORMATION ON THESE SHEETS MAY HAVE BEEN GATHERED AND COMPILED FOR DEISGNER FROM OTHER SOURCES. EVERY EFFORT WAS MADE TO ENSURE ACCURACY OF THIS DRAWING AND DATA HOWEVER NO GUARANTEE IS GIVEN OR IMPLIED AS TO ACCURACY OF SAID DATA. V-SP V-SP SITEPLAN 11.17.25 AMAREL RESIDENCE AMAREL RESIDENCE 13839 E. CASEY LN. 13839 E. CASEY LN. SCOTTSDALE, AZ SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 85262 NO . DESCRIPTION DATE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 SIMPLE SITE PLAN N 8'-0" 1/2" 0" 0" 16'-0" 1" 32'-0" 2" 64'-0" 4" Scale 1/16" = 1'-0"