07. BA250008 BOA Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA250008 – Christiansen Residence  
 
Hearing Date:  
 
March 13, 2025 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
2 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant:  
Teresa Carlson 
 
Property Owners: 
Christiansen Brandy/Carlson Dennis L/Teresa 
 
Request: 
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Proposed front yard (west) setback of 26’ where 40’ is the minimum 
permitted in the Rural-43 zoning district per MCZO Article 503.4.1.a 
 
Site Location: 
APN 220-14-011U @ 731 N. 101st Pl. in the Mesa area 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
44,213 sq. ft.  
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Single-family residence / Rural-43 
 
Open Violation: 
No Violation on Property 
 
Background: 
 
1. 
Circa 1996: Earliest historical aerial shows the development of the single-family residence. 
 
2. 
March 15, 2013: The current owner takes possession of the subject parcel, per deed 20130666868. 
 
3. 
November 15, 2024: The applicant submitted permit BLDR2404525 for a new front yard covered 
patio. Plan Review commented that it does not meet the required front yard setback requirements 
in the RU-43 zoning district. 
 
4. 
February 3, 2025: The applicant applied for the subject variance to allow the development of a front 
yard covered patio to be located within the front yard setback. 
 
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: 
 
Rural-43 / Single-family residence  
 
West:  
Rural-43 / Single-family residence

Page 2 of 6 
 
Variance Request: 
 
6. 
The applicant desires to construct a 422 sq. ft. covered patio that will encroach into the required 
front yard (west) of parcel 220-14-011U. The minimum required front yard setback is 40’ in the 
Rural-43 zoning district, the applicant is proposing the covered patio 26’ from the street line. The 
applicant submitted a building permit, BLDR2404525 for the addition of a covered patio attached 
to the single-family residence, but because it fails to meet the minimum front setback it will not 
be permitted in the proposed location unless a variance is approved.  
 
7. 
The existing single-family residence was developed in 1996 per the earliest Maricopa County 
historical aerials and is in compliance to most of Rural-43 development standards; except for the 
front yard setback. The residence is setback only 36’ encroaching 4’ into the required front yard. 
 
Excerpt from Site Plan 
 
 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
8. 
The subject site is a rectangular lot with an area of approximately 44,213 sq. ft. (1.01 acres). It 
has direct access and frontage along 101st Pl. The site is currently developed with a 2,590 square 
foot single-family building that encroaches into the required 40’ front yard. However, as the 
residence was in existence prior to January 1, 2000 it’s location/setback is legal non-conforming; 
and staff is comfortable memorializing the existing 36’ front/west setback of 36’.  The proposed 
covered porch attached to the single-family residence will cause the lot’s primary building to 
encroach an additional 10’ (or 14’ total) into the required front yard at a front/west setback of 26’. 
 
9. 
Existing development and use of the site is consistent with the zoning district’s development 
standards and use regulations, and other zoning ordinance requirements. The area surrounding 
the subject site has been developed with single-family residence of varying sizes and typologies. 
There do not appear to be any physical barriers to development, such as the existence of flood 
zones or hillside.

Page 3 of 6 
 
Site Aerial Photo  
 
 
 
 
Aerial Photo & Surrounding Environment

Page 4 of 6 
 
Zoning District Map 
 
 
 
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: 
 
 
Standard 
 
RU-43 Zoning 
District 
Proposed with 
Variance 
Min. Front Yard Setback (West Property Line) 
40-feet 
26-feet  
 
  
 
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 conditions – 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.   
 
“There are no peculiar conditions facing the property. This application for a variance request is for 
the addition of a outdoor patio on the residential property. The request for a 10 foot variance at the 
front of the subject 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

Page 5 of 6 
 
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. 
 
“None.” 
 
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 the variance will not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the 
zoning ordinance because the variance is for an outdoor patio addition to residential property. The 
reason for the variance is that Planning and Development denied out permit because the set back 
on the property is 40 feet. The house is at the setback. We are only requesting a 10 foot variance 
exception. 
 
We are submitting the variance request to request that an exception is granted and allow us to 
proceed forward with our patio extension. We would like to install a patio facing west so we can 
watch the sunsets from out patio. The installation of the patio will also provide energy saving 
benefit. It would help block the west facing sun from hitting our home directly. “ 
 
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, Art. 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the 
relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find, that there exists 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 finds that there is a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is 
not self-imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find, that strictly applying 
the requirements of the zoning ordinance causes an unnecessary hardship such that there is no 
viable use of the property without the variance and reasonable development of the property is 
prevented.  
 
If the Board finds that there exists a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-
imposed, and that 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, that 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.

Page 6 of 6 
 
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: 
 
 
• 
There is no apparent physical hardship – such as slopes, washes, or drainage easements 
facing the property that would prohibit reasonable development of an accessory use meeting 
the 40’ minimum front yard setback on either side or to the rear of the existing single-family 
residence.  
 
• 
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the strict application of the MCZO to the property 
has caused undue to physical hardship that prevents the reasonable development of the 
property. In fact the lot is already developed with a single-family residence. The accessory 
use can be developed meeting the minimum 40’ front yard setback in a different location of 
the site, providing the benefits the applicant is seeking to obtain from the a patio as mentioned 
in their questionnaire. 
 
• 
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the MCZO will 
be preserved with the variance. Variances were not needed nor sought to ensure development 
of the single-family residence on the property. Placing a front yard covered patio on the 
property is not feasible, but a patio may be developed in multiple ways without a need for a 
variance. Furthermore, the proposal impedes the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 
 
 
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 26’ front yard setback from west lot/street line for APN 
220-14-011U 
 
 
Presented by: 
Paola Jaramillo, Planner 
Reviewed by: 
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager  
 
Attachments: 
Case Map (1 page) 
 
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) 
 
Site Plan (1 page) 
 
Engineering Comments (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated February 27, 2025 4:18 PM
BA250008
Application Name:
Legal Description
CHRISTIANSEN PROPERTY
Applicant
Case Address
1N 7E 14
Brandy Christiansen
731 N 101ST PL
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:220-14-011U
(602) 571-1685
dandtcarlson@yahoo.com
MESA, AZ 85207
Map scale 1:758
Supervisor District No.
House sits at the 45ft set back asking
from approval to add 10ft patio across

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
12/2/24 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE 
PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION 
APPLICATION FORM 
 
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE 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): 
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes  
  No  
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: _________Teresa Carlson__________________________________________   Date:  ___January 28, 2025______________ 
Teresa Carlson
January 28, 2025
Teresa Carlson
January 28, 2025
Patio addition (Requesting a 10 foot variance)
n/a
731 N. 101st PLACE
MESA, AZ. 85207
1.01
14
1
7 EAST
220-14-011U
N/A
I
TERESA CARLSON
TERESA OR DENNIS CARLSON
731 N. 101st PLACE
MESA
AZ
85207
(602) 571-1685
HIKING4US@YAHOO.COM
TERESA CARLSON, DENNIS LEE CARLSON, and BRANDY CHRISTIANSEN
TERESA OR DENNIS CARLSON
731 N. 101st PLACE
MESA
AZ
85207
(602) 571-1685
HIKING4US@YAHOO.COM
TERESA CARLSON
TERESA CARLSON
Residential

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
12/2/24 
 
 
 
RESIDENTIAL 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.
THERE ARE NO PECULIAR CONDITIONS FACING THE PROPERTY.  THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE ADDITION OF A 
OUTDOOR PATIO ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.  THE REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE AT THE FRONT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
NONE.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
 
 
 
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 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
6/17/24 
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CAUSE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING ORDINACE BECAUSE 
THE VARIANCE IS FOR AN OUTDOOR PATIO ADDITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.  THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE IS THAT PLANNING 
AND DEVELOPMENT DENIED OUR PERMIT BECAUSE THE SET BACK ON THE PROPERTY IS 45 FEET.  THE HOUSE IS AT THE SETBACK.  WE ARE 
ONLY REQUESTING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE EXCEPTION. 
 
WE ARE SUBMITTING THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO REQUEST THAT AN EXCEPTION IS GRANTED AND ALLOW US TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH 
OUR PATIO EXTENSION.  WE WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL A PATIO FACING WEST SO WE CAN WATCH THE SUNSETS FROM OUR PATIO.  THE 
INSTALLATION OF THE PATIO WILL ALSO PROVIDE AN ENERGY SAVING BENEFIT.  IT WOULD HELP BLOCK THE WEST FACING SUN FROM HITTING 
OUR HOME DIRECTLY.

SHEET:
PROJECT:
TITLE:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
A1
SITE PLAN AND PROJECT DATA
NOVEMBER 14, 2024
241025
731 NORTH 101ST PLACE
CARLSON RESIDENCE
ATTACHED COVERED PATIOS
MESA, AZ 85207
MESA/ GILBERT, ARIZONA
RIGHT ANGLE DRAFTING, LLC
kevin@rightangledrafting.com
(480) 406-1830
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 20'
PROJECT DATA
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL NOTES
SHEET INDEX

Planning & Development 
Engineering Plan Review 
 
 
 
 
Daniel Lechwar 
Engineering Associate 
Planning & Development 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 
Phoenix, Arizona 85008 
Phone: (602) 372-2923 
Fax: (602)506-3282 
www.maricopa.gov/planning 
Email address:  
Daniel.lechwar@maricopa.gov    
 
Date: 
February 25, 2025  
Memo To: 
Darren Gerard, Planning Manager, Planning & Development 
Attn: 
Paola J. Quintero, Planner, Planning and Development  
From: 
Daniel Lechwar, Engineering Associate 
Planning & Development Department 
 
cc: 
Bob Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and Development 
 
Subject: 
BA250008 – Residential Variance 
 
  
 
Address: 
731 N 101st PL, Mesa, AZ 85207 
 
APN(s): 
220-14-011U 
 
 
PND Engineering: Has no comments or objections on the variance request. 
 
 
Other Maricopa County Agencies must review and recommend approval of this project. 
Please contact me if you have any questions or require clarification of these comments. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revised 3/1/23 
Page 1 of 1