06. BA250003 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
16853 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250003 – Garst Property Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: David Montoya, Southwest Building Solutions Property Owner: Eric Garst Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed street-side setback of 5’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 601.4.1.c Site Location: APN 220-05-007B @ 1510 N. 104th St. – southwest corner of 104th St. and McLellan Rd., in the Mesa area Site Size: 35,380 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1 - 35 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. June 6, 2019: The subject parcel was created via unregulated land division from parent parcel APN 220-05-007 per split control #186027. 2. November 16, 2020: The subject property was conveyed to the current property owner per MCR 2020-1119976. 3. October 25, 2024: Property owner submitted building permit BLDR2403983 for a 1,500 sq. ft. accessory structure. This permit cannot be approved because the proposed structure fails to meet the minimum street-side setback. 4. October 25, 2024: A 1’ VNAE was recorded along the lot’s eastern boundary per recorded document MCR 20240570108. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: 104th St. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence Page 2 of 8 Variance Request: 6. The applicant is requesting a 5’ street-side setback from the eastern lot line, a street line along 104th St., where a minimum 20’ street-side setback is required. Variance approval will allow for approval of permit BLDR2403983. The permit proposes a 1,500 sq. ft. accessory structure, a detached RV garage, within the required street-side yard. It will be setback 5’-12’ from the street line. The required street-side yard is a type of required front yard. The subject lot is a corner lot with frontage along the north, McLellan Rd. and along the east, 104th St. The narrowest frontage, McLellan Rd. is considered the front by ordinance definition, and 104th St. is considered a street- side with a required yard half the depth of the required front yard. 7. The applicant had recorded a 1’ VNAE along 104th St. to negate the street-side setback requirement; however current staff interpretation of the ordinance is that a VNAE only prohibits access from a lot onto a street but does not alter required setbacks. The ordinance does specifically state that a through-lot, with frontages along opposing lot lines, can utilize a VNAE to eliminate one of the opposing frontages from being considered a front and to be treated as a rear lot line. Detached accessory buildings may encroach into required rear yards. They may also encroach into required side yards. They may not encroach into required street-side yards (a type of front yard) or required front yards. 8. A VNAE cannot be utilized to negate the street-side yard of a corner lot. The ordinance is very specific to the VNAE only impacting minimum setbacks on through-lots as described above. The subject property is a corner lot. It is also important to note that the VNAE was recorded across a driveway connection onto 104th St. 9. The applicant notes the desired placement of the detached RV garage is to be near the existing driveway, and a different location in the rear yard is not practical due to location of the existing septic system and a large sport court covering a significant portion of the rear yard. Page 3 of 8 Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 4 of 8 Photograph of subject site looking south from 104th St. showing existing driveway. Site Analysis: 10. The subject lot is of a regular size and shape typical of residential lots in the R1-35 zoning district. It meets the district’s minimum lot area and width. The property is relatively flat and is void of notable geographic features. Staff notes that the VNAE crosses over an existing driveway onto 104th St. The driveway must be removed if the VNAE remains in place 11. It appears there is room for the proposed, detached RV garage to be located on the existing slab / sports court in the rear yard. Further, the City of Mesa commented that the proposed structure maintain at least a 10’ setback. The property is within the city’s municipal planning area, Mesa is the ultimate annexing municipality, and a 10’ setback would be consistent with the setback requirement if/when the property is annexed. 12. Staff notes that variance approval establishing a lesser street-side setback would not only apply to the currently proposed accessory structure but also to any potential future construction on the property. This potentially entitles further encroachment of structures towards 104th St., a county- maintained local street. Page 5 of 8 2025 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 6 of 8 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 13. 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 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to east property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (west property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to south property line) 30-feet n/a Min. Street Side Setback (residence to east property line) 20-feet 5-feet Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 35,000-sq. ft. 35,380-sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 145-feet Lot Coverage 25% 17.6% 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.” Page 7 of 8 14. 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. “We are building an accessory structure, and the east side of the property has a 20’ street side setback and we are requesting to reduce the setback to 5’. “ 15. 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. “A 20’ setback would create a difficult angle to enter the garage and would require significantly more excavating including breaking up concrete. A 5’ setback would create a straight path to park the vehicles. Also, if we moved the building 20 ft off the road it would overlay the east most part of our existing underground septic system and we would have to remove part of our existing cement sport court/retaining wall to make room to the south.” 16. 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. “We have recorded a non-vehicle access easement (NVAE), recording No. 20240570108, to eliminate the access on the east side of the property to the existing garage. The only access would be from the north and create a straight path to park in the new accessory garage.” Findings: 17. 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 Page 8 of 8 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. 18. 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: • After reviewing the submission, staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property. The site meets minimum lot area and width requirements, is of regular rectangular shape and relatively void of topographical features. • The existing development of the site, demonstrates reasonable use of the property. • Staff notes that that granting of a variance for a reduced streetside setback would apply not only to the proposed accessory structure but also any potential future development on the site. This could lead to further encroachment of structures, including expansion of the primary residence, towards 104th St. 19. 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 5’ east street-side setback line for APN 220-05-007B. Presented by: Joseph Mueller, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages) Site Plan (1 page) City of Mesa Comment (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 2 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated February 27, 2025 2:34 PM BA250003 Application Name: Legal Description Eric Garst Variance Applicant Case Address 1N 7E 11 Devin Bell 1510 N 104TH ST Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:220-05-007B (480) 208-9542 devin@southwestbuildings.com MESA, AZ 85207 Map scale 1:606 Supervisor District No. Setback variance in relation to residential accessory building permit BLDR2403983. Accessory building to be inside of 20' street side setback. 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. We are building an accessory structure, and the east side of the property has a 20’ street side setback and we are requesting to reduce the setback to 5’. 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. A 20’ setback would create a difficult angle to enter the garage and would require significantly more excavating including breaking up concrete. A 5’ setback would create a straight path to park the vehicles. Also, if we moved the building 20 ft off the road it would overlay the east most part our existing underground septic system and we would have to remove part of our existing cement sport court/ retaining wall to make room to the south 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. We have recorded a non-vehicle access easement (NVAE), recording No. 20240570108, to eliminate the access on the east side of the property to the existing garage. The only access would be from the north and create a straight path to park in the new accessory garage. 1 Joseph Mueller (PND) From: Tye Hodson <Tye.Hodson@mesaaz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 8:33 AM To: Joseph Mueller (PND) Subject: FW: BA250003 - Garst Property This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. Dear Joseph, Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal for 1510 N 104th St and sorry for the delay. The subject property is within Mesa’s Planning Boundaries. If annexed, the property would have a Mesa 2050 General Plan Placetype designation of Rural Residential and a Sustain Growth Strategy. The property would likely be zoned Single Residence-35 (RS-35) and would be subject to development standards in Section 11-5-3 of the Mesa Zoning Ordinance. This section requires a 10-foot street side setback. As currently proposed, the structure would not meet this requirement and be considered legally non-conforming if annexed into the City of Mesa. To minimize non-conformities, Mesa staff recommends relocating the building further into the lot's interior to comply with this 10-foot setback. I'm happy to discuss these recommendations further if needed. Best regards, Tye Hodson Development Services Long Range Planning P: 480-644-6038 I mesaaz.gov From: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 12:56 PM To: Theresamquinn@hotmail.com; dp.dahler@q.com; ndcook1@msn.com; jen079@hotmail.com; lkirch@ajcity.net; Planning Info <planning.info@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah <nana.appiah@mesaaz.gov>; John Bailey (MCSO, Chief) <J_Bailey@MCSO.Maricopa.gov>; GregHarmon@msn.com; azcakes@mac.com; Jack Farmer <jack@santolinafarm.com>; ghanna@fs.fed.us; planningdivision@pinal.gov; Teresa Retterbush (PRK) <Teresa.Retterbush@Maricopa.Gov>; Scott Wilken <swilken@azmag.gov>; kcotner@azmag.gov; pe@azland.gov; Frank McWilliams (MCSO) <FrankMcWilliams@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; tsprague@azgfd.gov; Project Evaluation Program - Game and Fish <pep@azgfd.gov> Subject: BA250003 - Garst Property Good afternoon, We have received the above variance request on APN 220-05-007b, 1510 N 104th St, in the Mesa area. The subject par cel is zoned R1-35 and has an existing single-family resi dence. The applica nt is proposing a street si de setba ck Good aŌernoon,