04.BA250021 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
10158 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250021 – Allinich Property Variance Hearing Date: June 19, 2025 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Alan Christensen, A Christensen Architect LLC Property Owner: Gregory Allinich Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed rear/north setback of 15’ where 25’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 605.4.3. Site Location: APN 232-05-751 @ 12302 W. Titan Ct. – Conquistador Dr. and Titan Ct., in the Sun City West area Site Size: 20,000 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-7 Senior Citizen Overlay (SC) Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. November 7, 1978: Sun City West Unit 12 is platted, with the subject lot being created as Lot 469. 2. 1980: The existing single-family residence is constructed. 3. October 1, 2023: The current property owner takes ownership of the lot via warranty deed MCR- 20230536238. 4. February 28, 2024: The property owner applies for permit B202402188 for a 34’x40’ garage. Subsequently, the homeowner seeks HOA approval for the proposed, detached garage. However, the HOA prohibits detached structures and requires a covered walk connecting the home and garage, thus the garage becomes part of the lot’s primary building and must be contained within the principal building envelope. 5. March 31, 2025: The applicant applies for the subject variance to allow for permitting of the attached garage encroaching outside the principal building envelope regarding the rear setback. Page 2 of 7 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: R1-7 SC/ Single-family residence North: R1-7 SC / Single-family residence South: R1-7 SC/ Single-family residence East: El Mirage Rd then Rural-43 / Vacant West: R1-7 SC / Single-family residence Variance Request: 7. The applicant proposes to vary the north rear-yard setback from 25’ to 15’ to accommodate HOA requirement for the proposed shop/garage to be attached to the residence. This building is allowed as a detached accessory structure per county zoning as it meets zoning requirements for detached buildings. Maricopa County does not enforce HOA rules. Excerpt from proposed site plan, oriented north. Page 3 of 7 Birds-eye view of the property facing east towards El Mirage Rd. The garage would be built on the western side of the house. Site Analysis: 8. The parcel is of an awkward pentagonal shape but is not atypical of Sun City West lots platted on cul-de-sacs. It exists on the eastern border of Sun City West backing adjacent to Old El Mirage Rd. and the Agua Fria River generally separating Sun City West from Sun City to the east with some intervening developed area annexed into the City of Peoria and City of Surprise. Virtually no changes appear to have been made to the lot since its development. Aerial photo of subject site Page 4 of 7 Aerial image & surrounding environs Zoning District map Page 5 of 7 Zoning District Standards: 9. 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 R1-7 SC Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Rear Yard Setback (north property line) 25-feet 15-feet Lot Coverage 45% 22% 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.” 10. 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 property in question does not fit the typical lot setback sketch example from the original Sun City West Unit 12 (Exhibit A). The Narrative and associated exhibits show similar lots that DO fit the typical lot designation and show that this property is different in that is configured with one front, one rear, (a through lot to a street), and 3 sideyards. The other lots shown all face other definitive rear yards, this example does not. 11. 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 non typical lot configuration noted above places a technical restriction on this property as the Sun City West CC&R’s require an overhead connection to the main house which we have with a trellis that will also end up occurring later in the nearby rear yard patio. This Sun City West CC&R requirement however ahs created an issue with Maricopa County setbacks. The Sun City CC & R department has visited the site and approved this location.” 12. 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. Page 6 of 7 “The functional appearance of the lot line in question is a side yard as it both a continuation of a side yard to the NW and opposite to another side yard to the South. There is no notable change to the intended use of the property as the Sun City West CC & R department reviewed this both prior to purchase for this use and after formal design drawings and staking were provided. They, as the local design community, are supportive of the project. The attached side yard photos clearly indicated that this is viewed as a side yard much different than the solid masonry rear site wall. Findings: 13. 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. 14. 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 find a peculiar condition of the property as there do not appear any topographical impediments to placing or designing the structure in such a way to meet required setbacks. • Staff does not consider the lot’s morphology/shape a hardship since it was platted in that shape. • Maricopa County does not enforce HOA rules and thus the HOA for the garage to be attached is not a hardship created by application of a county ordinance requirement. 15. 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 15’ rear setback line (north) for APN 232-05-751. Presented by: Joel Landis, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Page 7 of 7 Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application (1 page) Narrative Report (3 pages) Site Plan (4 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated May 29, 2025 9:17 AM BA250021 Application Name: Legal Description Allinich Shop Applicant Case Address 4N 1W 26 Alan Christensen 12302 W TITAN CT Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:232-05-751 (602) 361-8902 alan.acallc@gmail.com SUN CITY WEST, AZ 85375 Map scale 1:402 Supervisor District No. Minor side/rear setback infringement for an Accessory Building