04.BA250051 BOA Staff Report

Page 1 of 8
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250051 – Romanowski Variance 
Hearing Date:
September 18, 2025
Supervisor District:
3
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant / Owner: 
Mark Romanowski 
Requests:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County 
Zoning Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front setback of 21’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted 
per MCZO Article 503.4.1.a and;
2)
Accessory Structures outside of the platted building envelope 
where no structures are permitted and; 
3)
Block wall outside of the platted building envelope where only 
post, rail or a type of fencing that is non-obstructive to drainage 
are permitted per the R1-35 RUPD zoning district.
Site Location:
APN 211-23-199 @ 615 E. Blue Eagle Ln. – 7th St and Joy Ranch 
Rd, in the north Phoenix area
Site Size:
36,067 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / R1–35 RUPD
Open Violation:
None
Background:
1.
1987: Desert Hills RUPD established as case Z 85-225 and amended Z 85-225A.  The 
Desert Hills Estates final plat was recorded, MCR 315-6.
2.
1996: Home is constructed on parcel. 
3.
May 21, 2019: Current owner takes possession of property.
4.
June 23, 2025: Applicant applies for accessory structure building permit.  
5.
July 17, 2025: Applicant applies for variance request.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:

Page 2 of 8
6.
On-site:
R1–35 RUPD / Single-family residence
North:
R1–35 RUPD / Single-family residence
South:
R1–35 RUPD / Single-family residence
East:
Rural-43 / 7th St. then Single-family residence
West:
R1–35 RUPD / Single-family residence
Variance Requests:
7.
The applicant proposes a group of variances to allow the construction of a detached 
garage within the front yard area of single-family parcel zoned R1-35 RUPD . These include 
a request to reduce the front setback to 21’ where 40’ is the minimum required, permitting 
construction outside of the platted building envelope and to install a block wall outside of 
the envelope where only certain fencing types are allowed. The building envelope 
limitations are a development standard of the R1-35 RUPD zoning district.
Excerpt from recorded plat, subject site is lot number 145

Page 3 of 8
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Photograph of subject site

Page 4 of 8
Site Analysis:
8.
The parcel is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, Blue Eagle Ln.. Due to the orientation of 
the parcel and the street, the front is only at the bulb of the cul-de-sac.  However, this entire 
required front yard is within the delineated drainage easement (DE).  The recorded plat 
(MCR 315-6) also delineates building envelopes (BE) for each lot. These BEs deviate from 
the ordinance standards as part of the R1-35 RUPD zoning district standards. For instance 
the subject lot is Lot 145 of Desert Hills Estates. It’s BE is based upon a north lot line 
designated as the front and thus a south lot line as the rear. The east and west are 
designated as side lot lines. This even though the east lot line would normally be 
considered a street line for 7th St. It is however separated from the lot by a platted non-
vehicular access easement (NVAE). This all has the affect of having the front oriented to 
the north in alignment with other lots along the south side of Blue Eagle Ln.
9.
Based on the R1-35 RUPD zoning, the plat was designed to allow all fencing types within 
the BE. Outside of the BE only wood, pipe rail, wrought iron without plasterers, single wire 
strand or corral post type fencing is allowed. This is mainly due to the drainage 
requirements set forth with the plat. The subdivision utilizes delineated BEs on each lot 
and an extensive DE natural drainage network rather than formalized drainage 
infrastructure  and common retention areas.
Aerial photo of subject site

Page 5 of 8
Aerial image & surrounding environs
Zoning District map

Page 6 of 8
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
R1-35 RUPD
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to north & west 
property lines) 
40-feet
21-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (east property line)
40-feet
n/a
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to south property line)
20-feet
n/a
Maximum Height 
20-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
25,000-sq. ft.
25,000-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
100-feet
100-feet
Lot Coverage
20%
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.  
“The ordinance being referred to is MCDD 2012-10 and MCDD 2011-04 and 
MCZO. Article
1106.2 and Article 601.4 and MCZO Chapter 2- Definitions: Setback Line and 
Street and
Street Line. The property at 615 E Blue Eagle Lane is an irregular shape leaving 
boundary setbacks and useable space limited. We are requesting a variance to the 
north boundary setback (40 feet) to be able to put an accessory building on that 
portion of the property 21 feet 6 inches from the boundary line. This will allow us to 
maximize the use of our property.”
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.
“Due to the irregular shape of the property including the septic system which is located on

Page 7 of 8
the northeast section and a wash/drainage easement on the northwest side of the property,
there is limited useable space for an accessory building within the ordinance guidelines.
The variance will allow us to place the accessory building in the area between the septic
and drainage easement. If we were to move the accessory building outside the 40-foot
property boundary it would then be in the drainage easement or over the septic system on
the property.”
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 request will not impact the neighborhood, which is the intent of the
ordinance. Granting this variance will allow the accessory building to be set back on our
property, away from the main street and view of the neighbors. The neighboring property
to the north that shares the property line is a floodway for the neighbors wash and thus
not useable for any residential building space. Placing our accessory building within the
40-foot setback will not impact their property utilization either.”
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:
•
The platted lot has a designated front along the north lot line which is not along 
actual street frontage. The street frontage is a cul-de-sac along the northwest lot 
line and separated from the lot’s building envelope by a drainage easement.

Page 8 of 8
•
The parcel requires conformance to building envelopes which limit accessory 
structures and fencing types. No fencing is permitted within drainage easements. 
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 a front 21’ (north) setback line for APN 211-23-199. 
b)
Variance approval establishes that a building to be permitted outside of the platted 
building envelope for APN 211-23-199 may be permitted based upon a 21’ front 
(north) setback line. 
c)
Variance approval establishes that a block wall may be permitted outside of the 
platted building envelope for APN 211-23-199. All wall construction must meet 
MCZO drainage provisions at time of permitting. No walls or fencing is permitted 
within the platted drainage easement/s.  
Presented by:
Andrew Lorentzen, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (3 pages)
Z 85-224A Desert Hills Estates R1-35 RUPD memo (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
3
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated September 4, 2025 2:46 PM
BA250051
Application Name:
Legal Description
NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING
Applicant
Case Address
6N 3E 29
KRISTEN/MARK ROMANOWSKI
615 E BLUE EAGLE LN
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:211-23-199
(602) 402-8782
romanowski.mark@gmail.com
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Map scale 1:698
Supervisor District No.
TO ALLOW ACCESSORY BUILDING TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE 40 FOOT BOUNDARY SET BACK.
RELATED TO BUILDING PERMIT BLDR2505023

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.
The ordinance being referred to is MCDD 2012-10 and MCDD 2011-04 and MCZO. Article
1106.2 and Article 601.4 and MCZO Chapter 2- Definitions: Setback Line and Street and
Street Line.
The property at 615 E Blue Eagle Lane is an irregular shape leaving boundary setbacks and
useable space limited. We are requesting a variance to the north boundary setback (40
feet) to be able to put an accessory building on that portion of the property 21 feet 6 inches
from the boundary line. This will allow us to maximize the use of our 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.
Due to the irregular shape of the property including the septic system which is located on 
the northeast section and a wash/drainage easement on the northwest side of the property, 
there is limited useable space for an accessory building within the ordinance guidelines. 
The variance will allow us to place the accessory building in the area between the septic 
and drainage easement. If we were to move the accessory building outside the 40-foot 
property boundary it would then be in the drainage easement or over the septic system on 
the property. 
-------- --------
Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application 
Packet 12/1 /23

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 this variance request will not impact the neighborhood, which is the intent of the
ordinance. Granting this variance will allow the accessory building to be set back on our
property, away from the main street and view of the neighbors. The neighboring property
to the north that shares the property line is a floodway for the neighbors wash and thus
not useable for any residential building space. Placing our accessory building within the
40-foot setback will not impact their property utilization either.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION 
-------- --------
Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application 
Packet 12/1 /23

NORTH ARROW
A.
THE WORD "ARCHITECT" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS REFERS TO THE TENANT.
B.
THE WORD "ALIGN" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SUPERCEDES ANY DIMENSIONAL
INFORMATION INDICATED.  IF DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, PROMPTLY NOTIFY ARCHITECT.
C.
THE WORD "PROVIDE" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS MEANS FURNISH AND INSTALL.
D.
THE WORD "CLEAR" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN THAT THE CONDITION
IS NOT ADJUSTABLE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECT.  CLEAR DIMENSIONS
ARE TYPICALLY TO FINISH FACE OF MAJOR SURFACE.  GC TO COORDINATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR BASE BOARD OR OTHER PROTRUSIONS WITH ARCHITECT.
E.
THE WORD "MAXIMUM" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN THE CONDITION IS
SLIGHTLY ADJUSTABLE BUT MAY NOT VARY TO A DIMENSION OR QUANTITY GREATER
THAN SHOWN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECT.
F.
THE WORD "MINIMUM" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN THE CONDITION IS
SLIGHTLY ADJUSTABLE BUT MAY NOT VARY TO A DIMENSION OR QUANTITY LESS THAN
SHOWN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECT.
G.
THE SYMBOL "+/-" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN THE DIMENSION OR
QUANTITY IS ADJUSTABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ACTUAL CONDITIONS.  IF ACTUAL
DIMENSION VARIES BY MORE THAN 2" FROM DIMENSION NOTED AS "+/-", INFORM
ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING.
H.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, DIMENSIONS GOVERN.  LARGE SCALE DETAILS GOVERN
OVER SMALL SCALE.  GC TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN
DRAWING DIMENSIONS AND FIELD CONDITIONS.
NEW STANDARD PARTITION OR WALL INFILL
EXISTING  PARTITION TO REMAIN
MARICIOPA COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
2018
INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
EACH CODE IS ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENTS PER LOCAL JURISDICTION
70522
GRANT
HILDEBRANDT
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
:
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
,
U
.
S
.
A
.
PROJECT NUMBER:
ISSUE DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT DATA SEE SITE PLAN SHEET 
PROJECT NARRATIVE 
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT TEAM
SHEET INDEX 
PROJECT JURISDICTION:
ZONING:
PARCEL #:
OCCUPANCY OF PROJECT:
PROJECT TYPE:
NUMBER OF FLOORS:
THIS PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE:
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
ABBREVIATIONS 
AFF
ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
ACT
ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE
ADA
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
AIA
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
ASTM
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS
BLDG
BUILDING
BD
BOARD
CLG
CEILING
CL
CENTERLINE
CLR
CLEAR
CJ
CONTROL JOINT
DIM
DIMENSIONS
EA
EACH
ELEV
ELEVATION
EQ
EQUAL
EXST
EXISTING
FEC
FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET
FIN
FINISH
FF
FINISH FLOOR
GA
GAUGE
GC
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GL
GLASS
GWB
GYPSUM WALL BOARD
MAX
MAXIMUM
MIN
MINIMUM
NIC
NOT IN CONTRACT
NTS
NOT TO SCALE
OC
ON CENTER
OCCUP
OCCUPANT(S)
PTN
PARTITION
SIM
SIMILAR
SF
SQUARE FOOT
TBD
TO BE DETERMINED
TMB
TELEPHONE MOUNTING BOARD
TOW
TOP OF WALL
TYP
TYPICAL
UNO
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
VIF
VERIFY IN FIELD
THE FOLLOWING ABBREVIATIONS MAY APPEAR THROUGHOUT THIS SET, AND ARE 
DEFINED HERE. MANY ARE INDUSTRY STANDARD AND WE STRIVE TO ONLY ABBREVIATE 
WHEN NECESSARY.
PROJECT GOVERNING CODES
SYMBOL LEGEND
DRAWING CONVENTIONS 
ARCHITECTURAL GENERAL NOTES
CLIENT:
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
A.
GC TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AT THE
JOB SITE AND NOTIFY ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF ANY OMISSIONS, DISCREPANCIES,
AND/OR CONFLICTS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
B.
GC TO PROVIDE BLOCKING IN PARTITIONS AS REQUIRED TO SECURE ALL
WALLMOUNTED ITEMS TO PARTITIONS. ALL BLOCKING SHALL COMPLY WITH
APPLICABLE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
C.
THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS CONVEY DESIGN INTENT AND THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY LABOR AND MATERIALS TO COMPLETE
THE WORK.  MEANS AND METHODS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR.
D.
ALL MANUFACTURED ARTICLES, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE APPLIED,
INSTALLED, CONNECTED, ERECTED, USED, CLEANED, AND CONDITIONED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS AND
INSTRUCTIONS UNLESS SPECIFIED HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY.
E.
COMMUNICATION, DATA, SECURITY AND SIMILAR SYSTEMS WILL BE FURNISHED AND
INSTALLED BY THE TENANT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE IN THE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS.  IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH THE TENANT'S VENDORS AND PROVIDE CONDUIT, BOXES, AND
OTHER ROUGH-IN REQUIREMENTS TO FACILITATE FINAL INSTALLATION.
F.
THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND
ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE JOB.
G.
SHEET INDEX SHOWS COMPLETE LIST OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THIS
PROJECT.
H.
ONLY THE MOST CURRENT APPROVED SET OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
ON THE JOB SITE.
4/22/2025 9:40:46 AM
C:\Users\Grant\Downloads\wetransfer_20-015-romanowski-paio-expansion_lt-rvt_2025-04-21_1325\25-001 Romanowski Detached Garage.rvt
KRISTEN ROMANOWSKI 
NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SHED AND INSTALLATION OF NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING.
DOCUMENTATION FOR GARAGE DETAILS UNDER SEPARATE DRAWING PACKAGE.
615 EAST BLUE EAGLE LANE
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
MARICOPA COUNTY
R1-35
211-23-199
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ACCESSORY BUILDING
1 FLOOR(S)
1,265 SF
WEST CORNER OF EXISTING
BUILDING
KRISTEN ROMANOWSKI
615 EAST BLUE EAGLE LANE
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING
25-001
04/22/2025
COVER
SHEET
A1
KRISTEN ROMANOWSKI
615 EAST BLUE EAGLE LANE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85086
LEOGAL821@YAHOO.COM
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
CURRENT
REVISION
CURRENT
REVISION
DATE
CURRENT
REVISION
DESCRIPTION
A1
COVER SHEET
A2
SITE PLAN - DEMO
A3
SITE PLAN - NEW
REV
DATE
DESCRIPTION
04/22/2025
SITE-PLAN_v1.pdf is not approved. Please refer
to Zoning Plan Review Comments attachment to
site plan (sheet 3A). The reviewer, Patrick
Maloney, AICP, may be reached at 602-506-7172,
Patrick.Maloney@Maricopa.Gov

E BLUE EAGLE LN
LOT  145
APN: 211-23-199
ZONING: R1-35
36,067 SF (0.83 ACRE)
EXISTING HOME 
AND PATIO
ADJACENT LOT 144
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
280.00'
B.S.L.
40' - 0"
B.S.L.
20' - 0"
B.S.L.
40' - 0"
ADJACENT LOT 133
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 132
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 134
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 143
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 147
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 146
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
170.00'
150.32'
140.15'
C125
97.48'
N 7TH STREET
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
EXISTING 
CONCRETE 
DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE, TYPICAL. 
VERIFY IN FIELD WITH 
INSPECTOR PRIOR TO 
CONSTRUCTION.
64'
54'
23'
11'
21'
44'
SEPTIC
EXISTING 
SEPTIC 
FIELD
P.U.E.
8' - 0"
9'
40'
18'
GATE, TYP. 
EXISTING 
METAL VIEW 
FENCE, 
(TYP.)
POOL
GRAVEL
EXISTING 
SHED TO BE 
DEMOLISHED
SCOPE OF WORK
SITE REFERENCE
THIS PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
70522
GRANT
HILDEBRANDT
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
:
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
,
U
.
S
.
A
.
70522
GRANT
HILDEBRANDT
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
:
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
,
U
.
S
.
A
.
PROJECT NUMBER
ISSUE DATE
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
4/22/2025 9:40:46 AM
C:\Users\Grant\Downloads\wetransfer_20-015-romanowski-paio-expansion_lt-rvt_2025-04-21_1325\25-001 Romanowski Detached Garage.rvt
KRISTEN ROMANOWSKI
615 EAST BLUE EAGLE LANE
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
25-001
04/22/2025
SITE PLAN -
DEMO
A2
NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING
1" = 20'-0"
1
SITE PLAN - DEMO
REV
DATE
DESCRIPTION
04/22/2025
EXISTING 
BLOCK  WALL
FENCE, 
(TYP.)
5' - 0"

E BLUE EAGLE LN
LOT  145
APN: 211-23-199
ZONING: R1-35
36,067 SF (0.83 ACRE)
EXISTING HOME 
AND PATIO
ADJACENT LOT 144
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
280.00'
B.S.L.
40' - 0"
B.S.L.
20' - 0"
B.S.L.
40' - 0"
ADJACENT LOT 133
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 132
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 134
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 143
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 147
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT LOT 146
APN: 302-81-078
ZONING: SF-8.5
RESIDENTIAL
170.00'
150.32'
140.15'
C125
97.48'
N 7TH STREET
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
EXISTING 
CONCRETE 
DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE, TYPICAL. 
VERIFY IN FIELD WITH 
INSPECTOR PRIOR TO 
CONSTRUCTION.
64'
54'
23'
11'
21'
44'
SEPTIC
EXISTING 
SEPTIC 
FIELD
P.U.E.
8' - 0"
9'
40'
18'
GATE, TYP. 
EXISTING 
METAL VIEW 
FENCE, 
(TYP.)
POOL
GRAVEL
23' - 3"
40' - 3"
21' - 6"
30'
42'-2"
NEW 3:12 SLOPE PITCHED ROOF VERSATUBE 
STEEL FRAME GARAGE. FOUNDATION AND 
FRAMING DESIGN UNDER SEPARATE 
PACKAGE. FINAL DIMENSIONS SHALL NOT 
EXCEED 30' X 42'-2" X 20'.
SCOPE OF WORK
SITE REFERENCE
THIS PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
70522
GRANT
HILDEBRANDT
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
:
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
,
U
.
S
.
A
.
70522
GRANT
HILDEBRANDT
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
:
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
,
U
.
S
.
A
.
PROJECT NUMBER
ISSUE DATE
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
4/22/2025 9:40:46 AM
C:\Users\Grant\Downloads\wetransfer_20-015-romanowski-paio-expansion_lt-rvt_2025-04-21_1325\25-001 Romanowski Detached Garage.rvt
KRISTEN ROMANOWSKI
615 EAST BLUE EAGLE LANE
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
25-001
04/22/2025
SITE PLAN -
NEW
A3
NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING
NOTE:  THIS SITE PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT 
OF SURVEY AND IS BASED  ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CLIENT OR 
OBTAINED THROUGH READILY AVAILABLE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.  THE 
EXISTING SITE INFORMATION PORTRAYED HERE SHALL BE 
CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL.  CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SITE 
CONDITIONS AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE CONFORMANCE WITH THE 
INTENT OF THESE DRAWINGS.
1" = 20'-0"
1
SITE PLAN - NEW
PROJECT NARATIVE:
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SHED AND INSTALLATION OF NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING. 
DOCUMENTATION FOR GARAGE DETAILS UNDER SEPARATE DRAWING PACKAGE.
PROJECT OWNER:
KRISTEN ROMANOWSKI
615 EAST BLUE EAGLE LANE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85086
LEOGAL821@YAHOO.COM
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 145, OF DESERT HILLS ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE 
OF T HE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 315 OF 
MAPS, PAGE 6.
ZONING:
R1-35 (SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT)
PARCEL #:
211-23-199
SITE ACREAGE (FROM CITY PROVIDED LOT:
36,067 SF GROSS (0.16 ACRES)
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE:
2,343 SF EXISTING
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS:
14.9% EXISTING
YARD REGULATIONS (PER MARICOPA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 6):
FRONT YARD 
40'
SIDE YARD 
20'
REAR YARD 
40' 
PER MARICOPA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 11 - GENERAL REGULATIONS, 
SECTION 1106. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES, ARTICLE 1106.2 LOCATION, DETACHED 
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS MAY BE BUILT IN THE REQUIRED REAR AND/OR SIDE YARD SETBACK, 
BUT SHALL NOT OCCUPY MORE THAN 30% OF ANY REQUIRED YARD, AND SHALL NOT BE 
NEARER THAN THREE FEET TO ANY SIDE OR REAR LOT LINE.
PROJECT INFORMATION
THIS PROJECT
LOT COVERAGE
 2,343 SF
 1,032 SF
 1,265 SF
    720 SF
  0 SF
RESIDENCE 
ATTACHED 
GARAGE 
ACCESSORY 
BUILDING 
PATIO 
SHED 
TOTAL
 5,360 SF
REV
DATE
DESCRIPTION
04/22/2025
EXISTING 
BLOCK  WALL
FENCE, 
(TYP.)
5' - 0"
1.R1-35 Zoning District and Final Plat Development
Standards: Please be advised no detached accessory
buildings/structures allowed within the 40-ft. front
setback. A building setback line (BSL) is a line
measured from the interior edge of the right-of-way
line or ingress/egress road easement line or property
line as applicable. The proposed detached
building/structure must be located a minimum of 40
feet from the northern parcel boundary lot line and
existing cul-de-sac R/W line. For obtaining permit
approval and zoning clearance. Revise the site plan
accordingly meeting setback clearance for the
proposed new construction. It’s recommended to
relocate the proposed detached accessory
building/garage from 21-ft .6”. to the minimum 40-ft.
(MCDD 2012-10 and MCDD 2011-04 and MCZO
Article 1106.2 and Article 601.4 and MCZO Chapter 2
– Definitions: Setback Line and Street and Street
Line).

• 
30 I W. Jefferson St., Ste. 1070 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
Phone: (602) 506-7139 
fa,;: (602) 506-3711 
www.maricopa.gov/planning 
M 
. 
) 
ar1copa '.Jounty
Planning & Development Department 
Date: 4/2/21 
To: 
Planning & Development Department staff 
From: Darren V. Gerard, AICP l 
Re.: 
Desert Hills Estates Subdivision 
Desert Hills Estates Subdivision was recorded in MCR 315-06. It includes 
APNs 211-23-055 through 211-23-212. The recorded plat does not reference 
the approved zoning nor list the Rl-35 RUPD zoning district development 
standards. 
Desert Hills Estates RUPD (case# Z 85-225 as amended Z 85-225A): 
•
100' min. lot width
•
25,000 sf min. lot area
•
60' front & 3' side/rear setback for corral fencing
•
No obstruction of any kind may be constructed or vegetation be planted
within the drainageways lying outside the building enveloped defines for
each lot, and maintenance of said drainageways is the sole responsibility
of the lot owner.
•
Fencing outside of the building envelopes is restricted to post and rail or
similar type which will not obstruct drainage.
•
All buildings will be within the building envelopes as shown on plat for
each lot. Block wall fencing may be used within the building envelopes
only.