02. BA240035 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18767 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA240035 – Boynton Residence Pergola Hearing Date: February 13, 2025 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Nate Banghart, Straight Line Landscape Property Owners: Boynton Robert Wood III/April Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed east side yard setback of 4’ where 7’ is the minimum permitted in the R1-8 RUPD zoning district per MCZO Article 604.4.2. Site Location: APN 202-23-275 @ 3745 W. Abrams Dr. in the Anthem/New River area Site Size: 11,832 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-8 RUPD Open Violation: No Violation on Property Background: 1. November 8, 2012: The parcel is recorded as lot 31 of the Arroyo Norte – Units 5, 6, & 7 Subdivision via survey MCR-2012-1016830 2. December 23, 2015: The single-family residence was built under building permit B20150859. 3. September 16, 2020: The current owner takes possession of the subject parcel, per deed 20200869232. 4. October 25, 2024: The applicant submitted permit BLDR2403977 for a new lattice patio cover, pergola, attached to the existing residence. Plan Review commented that it does not meet the minimum required side yard setback in the R1-8 RUPD zoning district. 5. December 10, 2024: The applicant applied for the subject variance. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: R1-8 RUPD / Single Family Residence North: R1-8 RUPD / Single Family Residence South: R1-8 RUPD / Single Family Residence East: R1-8 RUPD / Single Family Residence West: R1-8 RUPD / Single Family Residence Page 2 of 7 Variance Request: 7. The applicant desires to attach a 450 sq. ft. pergola on the east side of his residence. An attached pergola is considered part of the primary building and must meet the 7’ minimum setback that defines the principal building envelope. If detached, an accessory structure does not have to meet the same setback. The applicant submitted building permit BLDR2403977 for the pergola, but because it’s attached and fails to meet the setback it will not be permitted in the proposed location unless a variance is approved. The variance request is for a proposed side yard setback, for the eastern property line, of 4’ where 7’ is minimum permitted in the R1-8 RUPD zoning district. 8. The proposed pergola will be attached to the residence,. If it were detached it would be considered a detached accessory structure, which may encroach into the required side yard at a minimum 3’ side setback (MCZO Article 1106.2). Excerpt from Site Plan Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 9. The subject site is an unorthodox shape with a concave frontage that make the lot narrow to the rear and has an area of approximately 11,832 sq. ft. It is within the R1-8 RUPD zoning district in the Arroyo Norte – Units 5, 6, & 7 subdivision. The northern portion of the site is developed with a 2,355 sq. foot. single-family residence which was built in 2015 under an approved building permit, B20150859. 10. The site is relatively flat, there does not appear to be any physical barriers to development, such as the existence of flood zones or hillside. As proposed the attached pergola will encroach into the required east side yard. This structure will serve as shade for a proposed BBQ area. 11. The context aerial shows surrounding properties with the same or similar shaped lots within the subdivision. The subject sites lot shape is not a peculiar condition to the zoning district, the surrounding properties in the neighborhood have been developed under the R1-8 RUPD development standards without a need for a variance. Context Aerial Page 4 of 7 Site Aerial Photo Zoning District Map Page 5 of 7 Proposed Pergola Zoning District Standards: 12. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner: Standard R1-8 RUPD Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Side Yard Setback (East Property Line) / Principal building envelope 7-feet 4-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.” 13. 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. “The variance request is based on a combination of practical limitations and unique property conditions, including the narrowness and shape of the lot. Granting the variance would allow for the installation of a pergola in a way that is consistent with the overall intent of the zoning regulations, while not imposing undue hardship on the property, the neighborhood, or the environment. The variance would allow for better use of the property without negatively impacting neighboring properties or the overall character of the community.” 14. 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. Page 6 of 7 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 conditions on the property create an unnecessary hardship by limiting the ability to utilize the land for a practical and beneficial structure such as a pergola. Strict enforcement of the 7-foot side yard setback would not allow for reasonable use of the property and would require a shift to impractical locations on the property, and the unnecessary destruction of privacy features. These conditions were not self-created but were part of the original property layout when acquired. Therefore, granting the variance would allow the property to be used in a manner consistent with the zoning ordinance’s intent while respecting the unique characteristics of the land.” 15. 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 would not undermine the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The pergola is well-designed, low-impact structure that will complement the existing home and enhance the property’s value, aesthetics, and functionality without negatively affecting the surrounding community. It will not create any adverse impacts on privacy, views, safety, or the character of the neighborhood, and it aligns with the overarching goals of the zoning regulations: ensuring the reasonable use of property while maintaining the general residential integrity of the area. By allowing the variance, the property owner will be able to utilize the land more effectively while maintaining the community’s character and the neighborhoods overall quality of life. The variance would ensure that the property is used in a way that benefits both the owner and the larger community, without conflicting with the zoning ordinance’s intent. “ Findings: 16. 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. Page 7 of 7 In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 17. 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: • The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the MCZO will be preserved with the variance, the pergola may be developed in multiple ways without a need for a variance. If structurally detached the pergola could be erected in generally the same location. • The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the strict application of the MCZO to the property has caused undue to physical hardship that precents the reasonable development of the property. In fact, the property is already developed with a single-family residence. • The site is an irregular polygon shape with a concave frontage with a narrow rear, however it has not been demonstrated that this conditions is peculiar within the universe of the R1-8 RUPD zoning district. Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that would prohibit reasonable development of detached accessory structures. Staff notes the pergola can be redesigned so that it is detached or remain attached but reduced to fit within the principal building envelope. 18. 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 min. 4’ side yard setback, from the east lot line, for APN 202-23-275. 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 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated January 21, 2025 10:53 AM BA240035 Application Name: Legal Description Boynton Residence Pergola Applicant Case Address 6N 2E 10 Nathan Banghart 3745 W ABRAMS DR Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-23-275 6235821300 nate@straightlinelandscape.com NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 Map scale 1:372 Supervisor District No. Requesting variance for a patio extension / attached pergola that exceeds the side yard building setback due to the abnormal shape of the lot. 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. The variance request is based on a combination of practical limitations and unique property conditions, including the narrowness and shape of the lot. Granting the variance would allow for the installation of a pergola in a way that is consistent with the overall intent of the zoning regulations, while not imposing undue hardship on the property, the neighborhood, or the environment. The variance would allow for better use of the property without negatively impacting neighboring properties or the overall character of the community. The peculiar conditions on the property create an unnecessary hardship by limiting the ability to utilize the land for a practical and beneficial structure such as a pergola. Strict enforcement of the 7-foot side yard setback would not allow for reasonable use of the property and would require a shift to impractical locations on the property, and the unnecessary destruction of privacy features. These conditions were not self-created but were part of the original property layout when acquired. Therefore, granting the variance will allow the property to be used in a manner consistent with the zoning ordinance's intent while respecting the unique characteristics of the land. 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 requested variance would not undermine the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The pergola is a well-designed, low-impact structure that will complement the existing home and enhance the property’s value, aesthetics, and functionality without negatively affecting the surrounding community. It will not create any adverse impacts on privacy, views, safety, or the character of the neighborhood, and it aligns with the overarching goals of the zoning regulations: ensuring the reasonable use of property while maintaining the general residential integrity of the area. By allowing the variance, the property owner will be able to utilize the land more effectively while maintaining the community's character and the neighborhood's overall quality of life. The variance would ensure that the property is used in a way that benefits both the owner and the larger community, without conflicting with the zoning ordinance's intent. (G) (E) BOYNTON RESIDENCE LOT 31 3745 W ABRAMS DR NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 PARCEL # : 202-23-275 MCR # : 112923 -12" -6" EXISTING POOL 10' 4' 11'-6" 18" 24' 21' 10' TRAVERTINE TRAVERTINE PROPOSED PERGOLA SOD & SPRINKLERS PROPOSED PERGOLA 20' BSL 8' PUE 7' BSL 7' BSL 25' BSL 25' R/W 51.56' R=224.99' L=114.51' 136.17' 138.69' 4' 30' 29'-6" 12' 6'-6" 29'-2" 32'-6" 25'-2" PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PARCEL #202-23-274 ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PARCEL #202-23-276 EXISTING COVERED PATIO 19'-4" 8'-6" 5'-3" 4'-7" 5'-5" 21'-10" 12'-6" 30'-6" W ABRAMS DR PAVERS 2012-1016830 2012-1016830 DRIVEWAY 25' 45' 45' 24' 2' 5'-6" 55' 30' 10'-6" 10'-6" 4' 24' 40'-6" 25' GARAGE PROPOSED BBQ NEW PERGOLA: 450 SQ.FT. - ATTACHED @ HOUSE W/ LATTICE ROOF LOT COVERAGE ATTACHED AT EAVE HEIGHT - COLOR TO MATCH HOUSE PERGOLA & LOT INFORMATION NEW PERGOLA EX. FOOTPRINT - 2355 SQ.FT. NEW TOTAL FOOTPRINT - 2805 SQ.FT. NEW COVERAGE - 23.7% LOT SIZE - 11,832 SQ.FT. NEW PERGOLA - 450 SQ.FT. 0' 20' 10' SCALE: 1" = 20' 10.18.2024 DREAM STRAIGHT LINE LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONSTRUCT ENJOY Page 1 of 1 Revised 3/1/23 Alba L. Holloway Engineering Associate Planning & Development 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone: (602) 372-0850 Fax: (602)506-3282 www.maricopa.gov/planning Email address: alba.holloway@maricopa.gov Planning & Development Engineering Plan Review Date: January 8, 2025 Memo To: Darren Gerard, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Attn: Paola Jaramillo Quintero, Planner, Planning and Development From: Alba L. Holloway, Engineering Associate Planning & Development Department cc: Bob Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and Development Subject: BA240035 Residential Variance / East Side Yard Setback Reduction. Address: 3745 W Abrams Drive New River AZ 85087 APN(s): 202-23-275 PND Engineering has no comments on the variance request. PND Flood Control District has no comments on the variance request. No flood zones on lot. PND MCDOT has no comments 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.