05. BA250004 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
22542 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250004 – Arroyo Norte Unit 9 Lot 09 Hearing Date: February 13, 2025 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Andrew Goodwin, William Ryan Homes Arizona, Inc. Property Owners: William Ryan Homes Arizona, Inc. Request: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed lot coverage of 31.4% where 30% is the maximum permitted in the R1-18 RUPD zoning district per MCZO Article 602.5.4 (as amended by condition ‘e’ of case Z2002092) Site Location: APN 202-23-634 – 43816 N. Acadia Way, New River, AZ 85087 Site Size: 16,800 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / R1-18 RUPD Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. August 13, 2002: The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approves case Z2002092: a zone change with overlay from Rural-43 to C-1, R1-7 RUPD, R1-8 RUPD, R1-18 RUPD, and R1-35 RUPD for the planned Arroyo Vista (since renamed Arroyo Norte) community. The site comprises approximately 204 acres and is generally located east of I-10 and south of Circle Mountain Road. 2. October 23, 2019: The final plat for Arroyo Norte – Units 8, 9, and 10 is approved by the BOS. The subject parcel (APN 202-23-634) corresponds with Lot 9 in Unit 9 of the subdivision and is subject to the R1-18 RUPD regulations previously approved under Z2002092. 3. December 5, 2024: The current owner, William Ryan Homes Arizona, submits two building permit applications for review: BLDR2405234 for a single-family residence and BLDR2405238 for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). 4. December 9, 2024: William Ryan Homes Arizona is granted the current deed to the property, per Maricopa County Recording Number 20240653155. 5. January 16, 2025: The applicant submits the subject variance request. Page 2 of 7 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: R1-18 RUPD / Single-Family Residential North: R1-18 RUPD / Single-Family Residential South: R1-18 RUPD / Single-Family Residential East: R1-18 RUPD / Single-Family Residential West: R1-10 RUPD / Single-Family Residential Variance Request: 7. The applicant, Andrew Goodwin of William Ryan Homes Arizona, is requesting a variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a lot coverage of 31.4% where 30% is the maximum permitted in the R1-18 RUPD zoning district. As the owner, William Ryan Homes seeks to develop a single-family residence with an attached patio cover. In addition to the SFR, the owner seeks to develop two detached accessory structures: an ADU toward the southwest corner of the property and an RV garage parallel to the south side lot line. Put together, the SFR with the patio cover and two accessory structures would add up to a lot coverage of 31.4%. Since this exceeds the 30% maximum lot coverage permitted, a variance is necessary or else the building plan must be revised for the permits to be issued. Excerpt from the proposed site plan Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 8. The RUPD regulations established for what is now the Arroyo Norte subdivision differ to varying degrees from the base regulations established by the MCZO for the corresponding zoning districts, including R1-7, R1-8, R1-10, R1-18, and R1-35. Within Unit 9 of the subdivision, which is zoned R1-18 RUPD, the minimum lot area and lot width regulations are more liberal than those for the R1-18 base zoning district. The RUPD specifically requires a minimum lot area of 15,750 square feet (vs. 18,000 square feet) and a minimum lot width of 105’ (vs. 120’). Indeed, the subject parcel measures an area of 16,800 square feet and a width of 105’. 9. Conversely, the rear setback, street side setback, and lot coverage regulations are all stricter within the RUPD than what base zoning allows. The RUPD requires a rear setback of 40’ (vs. 30’), a street side setback of 20’ (vs. 15’), and a maximum lot coverage of 30% (vs. 35%). The RUPD also requires a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 24,000 square feet (vs. 18,000 square feet), although this would be measured as an average across the entire R1-18 RUPD zoning district. In other words, the sum of the areas of all residential lots and open space tracts when divided by the number of primary dwelling units cannot be less than 24,000 square feet. All other regulations within the R1-18 RUPD remain the same as the base zoning district, although it does specify that maximum height shall be limited to 30’ and to two stories. 10. Per the developer’s site plan, the residence alone, including the attached garage, the covered entry, and the covered patio, would measure an area of 3,726 square feet under roof for a lot coverage of 22.2%. However, the detached RV garage would measure 1,265 square feet, and the detached casita would measure an additional 280 square feet. Added together, all proposed structures on the property would measure an area of 5,271 square feet for a lot coverage of 31.4%. According to the applicant, the RV garage and casita were included as options with development of the residence, as was the 500-square-foot covered patio attached to the rear of the residence. The prospective buyers chose all three options with their purchase of the property. However, as the table below illustrates, removing any one of these options would bring lot coverage back under 30%. The prospective buyers would be able to choose between any two of the three options for project modification and no variance would be necessary. 11. It is also important to note that the lot coverage of a lattice patio cover would be calculated at only 50% of its roof/cover footprint, per Department Directive 2021-01. Reduction if Option Removed Total Area Under Roof Total Lot Coverage Current Proposal (SFR + Patio + RV Garage + ADU) 5,271 SF 31.4% Current Proposal but with Lattice Patio Cover 250 SF 5,021 SF 29.9% Current Proposal – Patio 500 SF 4,771 SF 28.4% Current Proposal – RV Garage 1,265 SF 4,006 SF 23.8% Current Proposal – ADU 280 SF 4,991 SF 29.7% 12. This confirms that reasonable development of the property with a single-family residence – the primary purpose of the R1-18 RUPD zoning district – is possible without need for variance. There is no apparent peculiar condition facing the property that, when presented with the MCZO standards, creates an undue physical hardship preventing reasonable development of the property. Although the subdivision is in the foothills of Daisy Mountain, the property itself is mostly flat. There is a drainage tract directly behind (west) of the property, but this has no impact on the property itself. The property is rectangular in shape and is, overall, typical of a moderate- density single-family residential property in unincorporated Maricopa County. For this reason, a variance would fail to preserve the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. Page 4 of 7 Aerial Photo of the Subject Site Aerial Image & Surrounding Environs Page 5 of 7 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 (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold). Standard R1-18 Base Zoning District R1-18 RUPD Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback 30-feet 30-feet 30-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 30-feet 40-feet 40-feet Min. Side Yard Setback 10-feet 10-feet 10-feet Min. Street Side Yard Setback 15-feet 20-feet N/A Maximum Height 30-feet 30-feet 30-feet Minimum Lot Area 18,000-sq. ft. 15,750-sq. ft. 16,800-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 120-feet 105-feet 105-feet Lot Coverage 35% 30% 31.4% Average Lot Area per Dwelling Unit 18,000-sq. ft. 24,000-sq. ft. 24,000-sq. ft. Page 6 of 7 State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 state that 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.” 14. Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “Parcel is located in R1-18 RUPD Zoning District, which when created reduced the Max Lot Coverage from 35% allowed to 30%. If approved the variance would allow the Max Lot Coverage for this parcel to increase to 31.4%. The previously approved and subsequently constructed model home on 202- 23-637, building permit B202211611, was approved with a lot coverage of 31.8%. Additionally there are several other parcels in the Subdivision that are have a lot coverage over 30%: “- 202-23-684, B202310603 at 32.8% “- 202-23-685, B202302650 at 31.2% “- 202-23-637, B202211611 at 31.8%” 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 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. “This lot is under contract to sell upon completion with the buyer selected options from our Standard Approved Plans: SP20210224, SP20210226, & SP20210227. With the buyer's need for 280sqft Casita(SP20210227) the lot coverage increases from 29.7% to 31.4%. R1-18 Zoning normally allows for a Max Lot Coverage of 35%” 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. “The impact of the requested variance would be negligible in that the construction of this ADU would be unnoticed as abutting parcels, 202-23-633 and 202-23-635 both have the same Casita(SP20210227). Additionally the parcels that abut these parcels, 202-23-636 and 202-23-632, also have the same selected Casita(SP20210227). The intent of the established scenic corridor would remain intact as the visuals from the I-17 would remain unimpeded. With various other constructed lots that were mistakenly approved with lot coverages also over the Max of 30% the impact of this lot would cause no additional impact.” 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 Page 7 of 7 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 a 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: • Reasonable development of the property with a single-family residence – the primary purpose of the R1-18 RUPD zoning district – is possible without need for variance. The residence alone, as planned, would meet all the applicable regulations established by the RUPD, including lot coverage. Only when all three development options are included – an extended patio cover, an RV garage, and a casita – does lot coverage exceed the required maximum of 30%. Even if only one of these options were to be removed, the lot coverage requirement would be met. • There is no apparent peculiar condition facing the property, nor has any unnecessary hardship been created by such condition. Although the subdivision is in the foothills of Daisy Mountain, the property itself is mostly flat. There is a drainage tract along the west lot line, but this has no impact on the property itself. The lot is rectangular in shape and is, overall, typical of a single-family residential property in Maricopa County. For this reason, a variance would fail to preserve the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. 19. 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 maximum 32% lot coverage for APN 202-23-634. Presented by: Nick Schlimm, Planner 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 3 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated January 21, 2025 10:48 AM BA250004 Application Name: Legal Description Arroyo Norte Unit 9 Lot 09 Applicant Case Address Andrew Goodwin 43816 N ACADIA WAY Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-23-634 (602) 451-1452 agoodwin@wmryan.com NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 Map scale 1:471 Supervisor District No. Requesting a Variance to allow for 31.4% lot coverage on a parcel that currently allows for 30% Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet /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: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ Increase allowed Max Lot Coverage from 30% to 31.4% 43816 N Acadia Way, New River, AZ 85087 South of New River, North of Anthem, East of I-17 Corridor 0.38 16,800.00 10 6 North 2 East 202-23-634 Arroyo Norte Unit 8 9 & 10 ■ Andrew Goodwin 602-451-1452 300 N 56th St Suite 200 Chandler AZ 85226 (602) 451-1452 agoodwin@wmryan.com William Ryan Homes Arizona Inc Chad Pronovost 300 N 56th St Suite 200 Chandler AZ 85226 (602) 490-8309 cpronovost@wmryan.com Chad Pronovost Andrew Goodwin R1-18 RUPD / Single Family Resisdence with detached RV Garage and Casita Docusign Envelope ID: 8779E55E-100B-40F3-92DB-CEC1254D14FA 1/15/2025 1/15/2025 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 6IWMHIRXMEPVariance Application Packet 6)7-()28-%0VARIANCE 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. Parcel is located in R1-18 RUPD Zoning District, which when created reduced the Max Lot Coverage from 35% allowed to 30%. If approved the variance would allow the Max Lot Coverage for this parcel to increase to 31.4%. The previously approved and subsequently constructed model home on 202-23-637, building permit B202211611, was approved with a lot coverage of 31.8%. Additionally there are several other parcels in the Subdivision that are have a lot coverage over 30%: - 202-23-684, B202310603 at 32.8% - 202-23-685, B202302650 at 31.2% - 202-23-637, B202211611 at 31.8% This lot is under contract to sell upon completion with the buyer selected options from our Standard Approved Plans: SP20210224, SP20210226, & SP20210227. With the buyer's need for 280sqft Casita(SP20210227) the lot coverage increases from 29.7% to 31.4%. R1-18 Zoning normally allows for a Max Lot Coverage of 35% 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 6IWMHIRXMEPVariance Application Packet The impact of the requested variance would be negligible in that the construction of this ADU would be unnoticed as abutting parcels, 202-23-633 and 202-23-635 both have the same Casita(SP20210227). Additionally the parcels that abut these parcels, 202-23-636 and 202-23-632, also have the same selected Casita(SP20210227). The intent of the established scenic corridor would remain intact as the visuals from the I-17 would remain unimpeded. With various other constructed lots that were mistakenly approved with lot coverages also over the Max of 30% the impact of this lot would cause no additional impact.