02.BA250049 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250049 – Veldhuizen Property 
Hearing Date:
October 16, 2025
Supervisor District:
4
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant / Owner: 
Angel Cardiel
Requests:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed rear yard setback of 6 feet where 15 feet is the minimum 
permitted in the R1-6 RUPD zoning district per zoning case Z2003002.
2)
Proposed lot coverage of 52% where 45% is the maximum permitted in 
the R1-6 RUPD zoning district per zoning case Z2003002.
Site Location:
APN 503-54-275 @ 13511 W. Remuda Dr. in the Peoria area.
Site Size:
7,209 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family Residence / R1-6 RUPD
Open Violation:
No Violation on Property
Background:
1.
August 13, 2001: The Board of Supervisors approved a request to rezone from Rural-43 to Rural-43 
R.U.P.D./P.A.D., 
R1-18 
R.U.P.D./P.A.D., 
R1-7 
R.U.P.D./P.A.D., 
R1-6 
R.U.P.D./P.A.D., 
R-2 
R.U.P.D./P.A.D., R-4 R.U.P.D./P.A.D. and C-1 P.D. for Rancho Cabrillo, approximately 600 acres (Case 
Z2000183) and a Development Master Plan (Case DMP200005).
2.
June 18, 2003: The Board of Supervisors approved a major amendment to the Development Master 
Plan (DMP20005) and a modification of stipulations to the zoning (Z2000183). 
3.
December 20, 2006: The Board of Supervisors approved the final plat for the Rancho Cabrillo Parcel 
B Subdivision, which includes 225 lots, including the subject site, and 9 tracts.  
4.
October 31, 2017: Building permit B201710548 was approved for the construction of a new single-
family residence. 
5.
April 14, 2019: Building permit B201808740 was approved for the installation of solar panels.
6.
August 18, 2023: The current owner takes possession of the subject parcel via Warrant Deed 
recorded under docket number 2023-0435205.  
7.
July 30, 2025: The owner applies for the subject variance request.

Page 2 of 7
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
8.
On-site:
R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence
North:
R1-6 RUPD / Remuda Dr. then a Single-family residence
South:
R1-6 RUPD / Retention/Open Space
East:
R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence
West:
R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence
Variance Requests:
9.
The applicant is requesting two variances for parcel 503-54-275 in order to facilitate the 
development of an attached full covered patio in the rear yard. The variance requests are for a 
rear  yard setback of 6’ where a minimum of 15’ is required for the R1-6 RUPD zoning district; and 
a lot coverage of 52% where the maximum allowed is 45%.
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 7
Proposed Porch Elevation 
Site Analysis:
10.
The subject site is developed with a single-family residence, the parcel is a rectangular shaped 
lot measuring 67.5 feet in width and 115 feet in depth for an overall area of 7,209 square feet. The 
applicant desires to attach a 560 sq. ft. covered patio structure to the rear of the residence. An 
attached patio is considered part of the primary building and must meet the 15’ minimum setback 
that defines the principal building envelope. If detached, an accessory structure does not have to 
meet the same setback, but cannot occupy more than 30% of the rear yard. The covered patio of 
560 sq. ft. if detached would occupy approximately 55% of the rear yard.
11.
The Rancho Cabrillo, Parcel B subdivision was rezoned from R1-6 RUPD prior to development, 
under zoning case Z2000183 to allow for the development of mixed-residential uses with an open 
space/trails system and a commercial parcel. The developer of the subdivision built larger homes 
on relatively smaller lots without anticipating additional detached/attached structures. The 
approved Rancho Cabrillo R1-6 RUPD zoning standards per Z2000183 are shown below:
Standard
Base 
Zoning 
District 
(R1-6)
Z2000183
Zoning District 
(R1-6 RUPD)
Min. Front Yard Setback 
20-feet
20-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback 
25-feet
15-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback 
5-feet
5-feet
Maximum Height 
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
6,000-sq. ft.
35,000-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
60-feet
50-feet
Lot Coverage
50%
45%

Page 4 of 7
Aerial photo of subject site
Zoning District map with R1-6 RUPD zoning

Page 5 of 7
Zoning District Standards:
12.
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 required standards are indicated in 
bold).
Standard
R1-6 RUPD
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback 
20-feet
20-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback
15-feet
6-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback 
5-feet
5-feet
Maximum Height 
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
6,000-sq. ft.
6,000-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
50-feet
50-feet
Lot Coverage
45%
52%
           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.” 
13.
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 current single family residence is zoned R1-6 with current setback of 15 feet at the rear yard. 
This variance request is to revise the 15 feet rear yard setback to 6 feet. We are also proposing the 
variance of the existing 45% lot coverage allowed to be 50%. The proposed extended covered patio 
with the current setbacks would create a shallow patio from the existing exterior wall and would be 
cost/time effective.”
14.
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.
“The proposed extended patio cover measuring 40 ft by 14 ft provides essential shade and outdoor 
living space. Due to the existing layout, following the standard 15 ft setback would restrict the patio 
to an unusable width of the approximately 5 feet. This limitation imposes practical difficulties on 
homeowners by substantially diminishing usable outdoor living area and home enjoyment. Granting 
this variance to reduce the rear setback to approximately 6 feet would be consistent with similar 
approved improvements in the area and cause no adverse impact to adjacent properties. Please 
note that this home also backs up to a community greenbelt/retention area leaving 80 – 90 ft to 
the closest backyard neighbor.”

Page 6 of 7
15.
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 subject property uniquely backs onto a community greenbelt and retention area, providing 
approximately 80 – 90 feet of separation between the homeowner’s rear property line and the 
nearest backyard residential neighbor. Consequently, privacy, openness, and airflow – the intended 
benefits of setback regulations – are inherently maintained despite the reduced setback. In 
summary granting this variance harmoniously aligns with the Zoning Ordinance’s goals of 
promoting functional, attractive, and enjoyable residential spaces. Due to site specific conditions 
(the expansive greenbelt buffer), the variance presents no adverse impacts on neighboring 
properties or overall community welfare.”
Findings: 
16.
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.  
17.
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. Typical for most 
residential properties, the subject parcel is flat and not encumbered topographical or 
physical constraints.
•
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the MCZO 
will be preserved with the variance, a covered patio can be developed in multiple ways 
without a need for a variance.

Page 7 of 7
•
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the strict application of the MCZO to the 
property has caused undue to physical hardship that prevents reasonable development of 
the property.
18.
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 minimum 6’ south setback for APN 503-54-275.
b)
Variance approval established a maximum lot coverage of 52% for APN 503-54-275.
Presented by:
Paola Jaramillo, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 0 approx.
Generated September 24, 2025 8:42 AM
BA250049
Application Name:
Legal Description
Veldhuizen Property
Applicant
Case Address
4N 1W 3
Angel Cardiel
13511 W REMUDA DR
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:503-54-275
4806507453
info@cardielsconcreteandmore.com
PEORIA, AZ 85383
Map scale 1:290
Supervisor District No.
Variance on setbacks for patio cover