12.BA250037 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
15091 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA250037 – Lord Shade Canopy
Hearing Date:
June 19, 2025
Supervisor District:
4
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Travis Martin, Sonoran Shade LLC
Property Owners:
Sean & Susan Lord
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed rear setback of 17’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per
MCZO Article 606.4.3
Site Location:
APN 510-04-064 @ 13345 W. Junipero Dr. – W. Junipero Dr. and N. De La
Guerra Ct., in the Sun City West area
Site Size:
8,421 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / R1-6 RUPD
Open Violation:
None
Background:
1.
December 28, 2005: Corte Bella subdivision plat recorded.
2.
December 31, 2024: Current owner purchases parcel.
3.
March 24, 2025: Application for shade awning applied. Subsequent review identifies spacing issues.
4.
May 12, 2025: Applicant submits for subject variance request.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
5.
On-site:
R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence
North:
Junipero Dr. then R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence
South:
R1-6 RUPD / Golf Couse
East:
R1 - 6 RUPD / Single-family residence
West:
R1 - 6 RUPD / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
Page 2 of 6
6.
The subject parcel is a 8,421 sq. ft. lot with a ‘wedge’ shaped with the larger side opening
towards the street. The applicant is requesting to amend the rear yard from 20’ to 17’ for the
installation of an attached patio covering. The front of the parcel measures approximately
75.94’ wide with rear tapering down to 53.37’ wide. The unique shape of the parcel is due to its
location which is on the inside of a curved road. The parcel backs up to open space of a golf
course.
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Photograph of rear yard where proposed patio cover is proposed.
Page 3 of 6
Site Analysis:
7.
The neighborhood was created under the R1-6 RUPD permitting the developer to reduce the rear
setback standards from 25’ to 20’. The RUPD further reduced the front yard from the required 20’
to 10’. An attached awning exists on the parcel, built to conform to the RUPD building envelope
standards. The proposed attached shade structure intends to project 3’ into the required rear
yard. As the structure is intended to be attached to the home, the awning would be considered
part of the dwelling unit. A detached structure of the same design would be allowed to be built in
the rear yard setback up to 3’ off the property line per existing county standards.
Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environs
Page 4 of 6
Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/8/20).
Zoning District map
Page 5 of 6
Zoning District Standards:
8.
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
R1-6 Zoning
District
R1-6 RUPD
Zoning District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to north property line)
20’
10’
(18’ Garage)
n/a
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line)
25-feet
20-feet
17-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east/west property line)
5-feet
5-feet
n/a
Maximum Height
30-feet
30-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
6,000-sq. ft.
6,000-sq. ft.
6,000-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
60-feet
50-feet
50-feet
Lot Coverage
50%
55%
55%
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.”
9.
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 peculiar condition of this property is the shallowness of the rear yard and the house being built
at an angle as well as the rear BSL of 20’. Zoning is an R1-6 R.U.P.D with a PAD overlay Enforcement
of the R1-6 R.U.P.D zoning regulation imposes hardship on the property owner attaching the
structure to the home with be more aesthetically pleasing to the community and property.“
10.
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.
“Enforcement of the R1-6 R.U.P.D zoning regulation imposes hardship on the property owner due
to constant sun exposure on back of home and inability to construct as a 4 post freestanding cover.
The plan reviewer has informed us that we can construct the same exact cover in the same location
but detached from the home and we cannot construct as a detached structure with 4 posts. it will
need to be attached to the home.”
11.
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
Page 6 of 6
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.
“This variance would not cause a negative impact on the zoning ordinance. This variance would
better enhance the property and community by eliminating two posts next to the home. By
approving this variance we would only be encroaching into the BSL by 3’. This variance would be a
safer option as well since attaching to the home is engineered to be more structurally sound than
a detached structure.”
Findings:
12.
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.
13.
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 cannot identify any requirement of the Ordinance that, when applied to the peculiar
condition, has created an unnecessary hardship.
•
A shade structure unattached to the residence, located in the same place built of the
same materials to the same size would be allowed.
14.
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 17’ rear (south) setback line for APN 510-04-064.
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 (1 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 0 approx.
Generated May 29, 2025 8:49 AM
BA250037
Application Name:
Legal Description
Lord patio cover project
Applicant
Case Address
4N 1W 15
Travis Martin
13345 W JUNIPERO DR
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:510-04-064
(480) 360-5273
travis@sonoranshade.com
SUN CITY WEST, AZ 85375
Map scale 1:304
Supervisor District No.
9'x16' Solid Aluminum Patio Cover addition attached to back of home
501 North 44th St, Suite 200 Phoenix AZ 85008 (602) 506-1472
Variance Supplemental Questionnaire
Internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning
8/14/2015
Planning & Development
Department
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
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.
Single answer responses will not be accepted as the application will be deemed
incomplete. Provide full written justification on how the variance application
meets the statutory legal test. The following are not justification for a variance:
self-created hardship, financial hardship or aesthetic considerations.
1. Explain and discuss the peculiar condition(s) on 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. Explain how
enforcement of the Zoning Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose a
hardship on the property owner.
Peculiar conditions include slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location,
washes, vegetation, easements, and unusual topographic features of the property.
2. Explain the unnecessary hardship that the peculiar condition(s) on the site create with
respect to the existing Regulation(s) and Standard(s) of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.
The peculiar condition of this property is the shallowness of the rear yard and the house
being built at an angle as well as the rear BSL of 20’.
Zoning is an R1-6 R.U.P.D with a PAD overlay
Enforcement of the R1-6 R.U.P.D zoning regulation imposes hardship on the property owner
attaching the strcutre to the home with be more aethetically pleasing to the community and
property
Enforcement of the R1-6 R.U.P.D zoning regulation imposes hardship on the property owner due to
constant sun exposure on back of home and inablity to construct as a 4 post freestanding cover. The plan reviewer has
informed us that we can construct the same exact cover in the same location but detached from the home and we cannot
construct as a detached strucutre with 4 posts. it will need to be attached to the home.
501 North 44th St, Suite 200 Phoenix AZ 85008 (602) 506-1472
Variance Supplemental Questionnaire
Internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning
8/14/2015
3. Explain and discuss how this variance would not cause a negative impact on the
general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Purpose of the MCZO – “Promote the public health, peace, safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare of the citizens of Maricopa County..”
4. Evidence of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with construction work
within 120 days after variance decision by the Board of Adjustment. Provide evidence of
the ability and intention to proceed with construction work within 120 days (4 months)
after Board of Adjustment decision. Discuss if there are building permit(s) or as-built
permit(s) currently filed with the Planning and Development Deaprtment and the
current review status. Specify the permit number(s). If no permits have been filed, please
provide a timeline for building permit(s) submittal and projected timeframe for
construction.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN APPEAL/INTERPRETATION
This variance would not cause a negative impact on the zoning ordinance. This variance would
better enhance the property and community by eliminating two posts next to the home. By approving this variance
we would only be encroaching into the BSL by 3’.
This variance would be a safer option as well since attaching to the home is engineered to be
more structurally sound than a detached strucutre.
We are always booking installations 4 weeks out from the time we get HOA and Building Permit Approval.
I can send the County the installation dates once they have been selected.
Existing Building Permit Number is BLDR2502500
It was redlined due to setbacks which is why we are submitting for a variance
Site Plan
Lord Residence
13345 W Junipero Dr,
Sun City West, AZ 85375
Parcel: 510-04-064 Lot #64
CORTE BELLA COUNTRY CLUB LA SALINAS UNIT S MCR 801-41
SONORAN
SHADE LLC
ROC: 348185
15411 W
WADDELL RD
SURPRISE, AZ
85379 STE
102-196
Scale: 1” = 20’
0
5
10
15
20
Iapmo 195
20PSF
120C
2018 IRC/IBC
Area Summary
Lot: 8,421 sf
Living: 1,905.5 sf
Att Garage: 540 sf
Covered Patio: 180 sf
New Solid Aluminum
Patio Cover: 144 sf
Total: 2,769.5 sf
Lot Coverage: 33%
Vicinity Map
Front
Courtyard
Living
1,905.5 sf
Attached
Garage
540 sf
Cov Patio
180 sf
New Patio
Cover 144 sf
17’ to rear
16’ to
side
24’ to
side
10’ BSL
5’ BSL
5’ BSL
20’ BSL
10’ PUE
3’ WME
6.5’
7.5’
12’
14’
20’
NORTH
W Junipero Dr
34.65’
51.29’
120’
120’
53.37’
Golf Course
Residence
Residence
Project Notes:
Material: Duralum
Colors: Ceiling is Sandalwood
Posts/Beams/Trim are Beechwood