06. BA250009 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
20345 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250009 – Wendt Project Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 (Continued from March 13, 2025) Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Hever Lopez, Professional CAD Design LLC. Property Owner: Brandon Wendt Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front (south) setback of 12’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.1.a 2) Proposed fourth driveway entrance where only one parking area entrance and one parking area exit, or one combined parking area entrance and exit is allowed along any one street per MCZO Article 1102.7.12 Site Location: APN 502-27-072W @ 6827 N. 176th Ave - 176th Ave. & Glendale, in the Waddell area Site Size: 50,071 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: None Background: 1. 2005: Single family residence constructed on parcel. 2. 2016: Current owner (applicant) purchases parcel. 3. 2019: Easement is memorialized creating new parcel setback configuration. 4. May 31, 2023: Initial building permit application for attached RV garage (B202305736). The permit is pending determination for variance request associated with a reduced front yard setback. 5. March 11, 2024: Application for detached RV garage and parcel block wall (B202402677). This permit was issued on August 28, 2024. It has not yet received final inspection. 6. February 3, 2025: Applicant applies for the variance to allow attached RV garage expansion into the required front (south) yard. Page 2 of 8 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / 175th Ave then Single-family residence Variance Request: 8. The applicant proposes to reduce the required front (south) yard setback from 40 feet to 12 feet for a new 1,911 sq. ft. attached RV garage addition to facilitate new storage space. Staff notes there is an existing CMU wall constructed along the southern easement, with direct access to the site from 176th Ave. The wall was approved under permit B202402677. Excerpts from proposed site plan (north to top of page/top exhibit, and north to left-hand of page/bottom exhibit) Page 3 of 8 Photograph of subject site looking east along southern easement with subject property to the left of the existing block wall. Page 4 of 8 Photograph of subject site looking east. Site Analysis: 8. The parcel is 50,071 sq ft. in size and is rectangular in shape. The parcel has been developed with a main residence, a newly constructed RV garage and an external storage shed. The site is accessed off of 176th Ave, which is a roadway consisting of private easements and is not maintained by MCDOT. 9. The main residence structure faces west with a small garage attached to the south. 40’ to the south of the garage, a block wall separates the parcel from a 20’ wide ingress/egress easement located entirely on the subject parcel. The residence on the site was constructed in 2005. At the time of construction, the easement on the south parcel boundary was not recorded though it had been previously utilized as an access way for a larger piece of land. The current owners purchased the parcel in 2016. The 20’ roadway easement was recorded in 2019. Due to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) regulations, the recorded easement effectively shifted the lot frontage from the west to the south. It’s important to note that considering the south as the front rather than the west lends a larger principal building envelope to the lot with less encumbrance from setbacks. 10. The current under roof configuration is approximately 7,767 sq. ft. in size with a lot coverage of 15.5%. The proposed footprint addition of 1,911 sq. ft. will create a under roof configuration of 9,678 sq ft utilizing a total lot coverage of 19.3%. Page 5 of 8 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 6 of 8 Zoning District map 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 Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (south street line) 40-feet 12-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (north lot line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (east lot line) 30-feet n/a Min. Street Side Yard Setback (west street line) 20-feet 20-feet Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,560-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 145-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 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. Page 7 of 8 “We are requesting this variance to adjust the setback on the south side of the property from 12', measured from the property line. This adjustment will not encroach upon the 20' easement, as an existing wall clearly defines and restricts the easement within the property boundaries. Because of the access easement on the southside I lose that area moving my "setback" in not allowing me to extend my property further south.” 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 peculiar condition of the property stems from the presence of a 20-foot easement on the south side, which significantly restricts the usable area of the lot. This condition, which was established prior to the current ownership and is not self-created within the line of title, creates an unnecessary hardship under the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance by imposing a setback requirement of 40 feet in addition to the existing easement. This double restriction leaves limited buildable space on the property, preventing efficient use of the lot while still adhering to the ordinance. Our request for a reduced setback of 12 feet, starting from the property line, ensures that no encroachment occurs within the easement, while also mitigating the hardship caused by these combined restrictions.” 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. “Granting the requested variance to adjust the setback on the south side of the property from 40 feet to 12 feet would not negatively impact the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed adjustment respects the 20-foot easement by ensuring no encroachment occurs within its boundaries. The variance allows for more efficient use of the property while maintaining the intent of the ordinance, which is to balance development with orderly spacing and land use. Additionally, the presence of an existing wall clearly defining the easement ensures that the adjustment does not disrupt neighboring properties or compromise safety, access, or aesthetics in the area. By granting this variance, the property can achieve functional use without undermining the ordinance’s broader goals of preserving the community’s character and promoting equitable land use.” 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. Page 8 of 8 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 identify a peculiar condition facing the property that when presented with the ordinance requirement prevents reasonable development of the property. The lot is already developed with a single-family residence. • There is not an undue physical hardship facing the property not self-created in the line of title. The property was created by unregulated land division. The current property owner created the access easement making the south the front of the lot. • The encroached area is screened with a block wall which arguably reduces impact of the building expansion. • The new construction maintains a 32’ seperation from the parcel boundary but only 12’ from the street line. • The applicant has area for expansion in the north portion of the parcel as evident in the recent construction an additional RV garage (B202402677). 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 12-foot front (south) setback line for APN 502-27-072W. b) Variance approval establishes up to 4 driveway accesses on west parcel boundary for APN 502-27-072W. Presented by: Andrew Lorentzen 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: 1 approx. Generated February 27, 2025 2:44 PM BA250009 Application Name: Legal Description WENDT PROJECT Applicant Case Address 2N 2W 11 Hever Lopez 6827 N 176TH AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:502-27-072W 6232491025 info@professionalcadesign.com WADDELL, AZ 85355 Map scale 1:793 Supervisor District No. Variance Lot for new setbacks on south property for new rv garage not livable Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION APPLICATION ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE Is this Design Build? Yes No Is this Residential? Yes No Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. Residential Variance Non-residential Variance Interpretation BA Blanket Variance Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No 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): 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: ______________________________ I Variance Lot for new setbacks on south property for new rv garage not livable B202305736 6827 N 176TH AVE WADDELL 85355 NO CITY/TOWN NO CITY/TOWN 50,071 11 2N 2W 502-27-072W N/A Professional cad design LLC HEVER LOPEZ 2961 W Fairmount Ave, PHOENIX AZ 85017 (623) 249-1025 info@professionalcadesign.com BRANDON WENDT 6827 N 176TH AVE WADDELL AZ 85355 (623) 261-2122 BRANDON WENDT HEVER LOPEZ 01/10/2025 RESIDENTIAL 01/10/2025 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /23 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. 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. We are requesting this variance to adjust the setback on the south side of the property from 12', measured from the property line. This adjustment will not encroach upon the 20' easement, as an existing wall clearly defines and restricts the easement within the property boundaries.Because of the access easement on the southside I lose that area moving my "setback" in not allowing me to extend my property further south. The peculiar condition of the property stems from the presence of a 20-foot easement on the south side, which significantly restricts the usable area of the lot. This condition, which was established prior to the current ownership and is not self-created within the line of title, creates an unnecessary hardship under the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance by imposing a setback requirement of 40 feet in addition to the existing easement. This double restriction leaves limited buildable space on the property, preventing efficient use of the lot while still adhering to the ordinance. Our request for a reduced setback of 12 feet, starting from the property line, ensures that no encroachment occurs within the easement, while also mitigating the hardship caused by these combined restrictions Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /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. *Additional sheets may be attached. ** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION Granting the requested variance to adjust the setback on the south side of the property from 40 feet to 12 feet would not negatively impact the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed adjustment respects the 20-foot easement by ensuring no encroachment occurs within its boundaries. The variance allows for more efficient use of the property while maintaining the intent of the ordinance, which is to balance development with orderly spacing and land use. Additionally, the presence of an existing wall clearly defining the easement ensures that the adjustment does not disrupt neighboring properties or compromise safety, access, or aesthetics in the area. By granting this variance, the property can achieve functional use without undermining the ordinance’s broader goals of preserving the community’s character and promoting equitable land use.