03. BA240034 BOA Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA240034 – Petrovsky Property  
 
Hearing Date:  
 
January 16, 2025 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
3 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant:  
Matt DeRosa, Minimal Living Concepts  
 
Property Owner: 
Ann Petrovsky 
 
Requests: 
Variances to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Proposed front setback of 50’ where 60’ is the minimum permitted per 
MCZO Article 501.4.1.a. 
 
2) 
Proposed hillside disturbance of 1,438 sq. ft. outside of the lot’s principal 
building envelope where prohibited per MCZO Article 1201.6. 
 
Site Location: 
APN 202-18-069C @ 43625 N. Cottonwood Canyon Rd. – Cottonwood 
Canyon Rd. & Sierra Vista Dr. in the Cave Creek area 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
190,008 sq. ft.  
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Natural desert / Rural-190 
 
Open Violation: 
No Violation on the Property  
 
Background: 
 
1. 
February 13, 2007: The subject property was split from the parent parcel and the site’s access 
easement was created (MCR Bk. 900 Pg. 28).  
 
2. 
May 7, 2020: The current owner took possession of the subject property. 
 
3. 
November 13, 2024: The subject variance request was submitted.  
 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 
 
4. 
On-site: 
Rural-190/ Natural desert 
 
North:  
Rural-190 / Natural desert  
South:  
Rural-190 / Single-family residence 
East: 
 
Rural-190/Natural desert 
 
West:  
Rural-190/ Single-family residence

Page 2 of 8 
 
Variance Requests: 
 
5. 
The applicant proposes to build a 1,200 sq. ft. new residence on this lot that is classified as 
hillside. The plan is to place the new home in a part of the lot with lower slopes to create the least 
amount of hillside disturbance. The most optimal location on this lot is to place the home 50’ 
away from the parcel’s access easement inside the required front yard. Thus, the request is to 
reduce the required 60’ front yard to 50’ from the access easement that parallels the 118’ long 
north property line for a lot in the Rural-190 zoning district. Additionally, the most optimal location 
to place the lot’s private well and underground water storage tank is inside the 30’ wide interior 
side yard. According to the applicant, this is the best location for the well because it is easier for 
a drilling truck to access and is in a place on the lot that can accommodate the required 100’ well 
setback from the future home. This hillside disturbance outside the lot’s building envelope will 
require an additional request to allow 1,438 sq. ft. of disturbance. Once the well, water line, and 
tank will be constructed the area will be brought back to its natural state.   
 
                                                                       Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 8 
 
                                                                                  Close-up Enhances Site Plan  
 
 
Photographs of subject site

Page 4 of 8 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
6. 
The site is at the base of Continental Mountain with elevations of 2,600’ at the lot’s southwest 
corner to 2,810’ in the lot’s northeast corner. The terrain of the site is mostly mountainous with 
approximately 96.4% of the lot observing slopes of 15%+. The southwest portion of the lot 
observes fewer steep slopes than any other portion of the lot. The entirety of the lot has typical 
Upper Sonoran Desert vegetation. There is a paved accessway from Cottonwood Canyon Rd. 600’ 
to the west that zigzags through the site creating multiple front yards. The narrowest segment of 
frontage is only 118’ wide but due to the unorthodox morphology of lot the lot width measured at 
the requested 50’ front setback line measures out to a lot width of 461.9’ (see exhibit below), far 
exceeding the minimum 300’ for the Rural-190 zoning district.  
 
7. 
The proposal to place the new home in the  southwest portion of the lot with the least steep slope 
and closer to the access easement is the most optimal development location on this site and will 
result in the least amount of hillside disturbance.   
 
8. 
It could be argued that moving the home in another location of the lot; however, the rest of the lot 
is far steeper than this part of the lot, making these requests reasonable.  It could also be argued 
that moving the well site to another part of the lot but the location for the well was determined by 
the well company as the best location to maintain the required 100’ well setback from the future 
home and with the best access for a drill truck.   
                       
                                                                           Front Yard and Lot Width Exhibit

Page 5 of 8 
 
 
Aerial photo of subject site [close image of subject site] 
 
 
 
 
 
            
                                                        Aerial image & surrounding environs [zoomed out image of area]

Page 6 of 8 
 
                                                            
                                                          Zoning map of the site and adjacent parcels 
 
 
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-190  
Zoning District 
Proposed with Variance 
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to access easement)  
60-feet 
50-feet from the access 
easement parallel to the 
118’ north property line 
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line) 
60-feet 
145-feet 
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to west property line) 
30-feet 
82-feet 
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east property line) 
30-feet 
304-feet 
Maximum Height  
30-feet 
10.5-feet 
Minimum Lot Area 
190,000-sq. ft. 
190,008-sq. ft. 
Minimum Lot Width 
300-feet 
461.9-feet 
Lot Coverage 
10% 
0.7% 
Hillside Disturbance in Buildable Area (Lot Max.) 
75,000 sq. ft. 
< 75,000 sq. ft. (39.4%) 
Total Area of the Lot That is Hillside   
183,186 sq. ft. 
183,186 sq. ft. (96.4%) 
Total Area of Hillside Disturbance 
10,690 sq. ft. 
183,186 sq. ft. (96.4%) 
Total Area of Hillside Disturbance Outside Lot’s Buildable 
Area 
None 
1,438 sq. ft. (0.76%) 
 
        Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards

Page 7 of 8 
 
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.   
 
“This property has a 30' Ingress/Egress Easement (MCR. BK 900 Pg 28) that intersects the 
property multiple times. This easement intersects the front property line and is requiring the 
building to be set back farther than the 60' front property setback requirement of the RU-190  
Zoning type.  The proposed use of the property with the variance request is for a residential  
single-family home.  The hardship created by this easement is that we are being required to  push 
the building farther south into a steeper area of the property which would cause the elevation of 
the building to be several feet below the current proposed elevation.  This also creates a hardship 
by making the driveway to the building have a greater slope which would  make it very difficult to 
meet the maximum required slope percentage of a driveway based on Maricopa Development 
Standards if we are forced to move the building.” 
 
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 hardship that is created here is due to the 30' Ingress/Egress Easement (MCR.  BK 
900 PG 28) that intersects the front property line.  We can no longer be setback 60' from the front 
property line, but instead we would have to be setback 60' from the interior easement line which 
would move our building about 7' farther to the south and into a steeper slope of the property where 
the elevation change from the existing road to the finish  floor of the building would be several feet 
greater than what is currently proposed.  This would increase the driveway slope percentage and 
make it very difficult to conform the maximum required slope percentage of a driveway per the 
Maricopa Development Standards.” 
 
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. 
 
“The granting of this request would not cause a negative impact on the Zoning Ordinance because 
the rule that we have to be setback 60' from the interior easement line instead of  the front property 
line is not explicitly stated in the zoning ordinance but is instead a staff interpretation of the Zoning 
Ordinance.  The granting of the request would also not cause a negative impact on the Zoning 
Ordinance because the building would still be approximately 50' away from the easement and would 
in no way interfere or come close to impeding on the Ingress/Egress easement. The placement of 
this building would still allow future improvements to the roadway while still maintaining a 
significant distance from the easement.”

Page 8 of 8 
 
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. 
 
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: 
 
 
The lot is almost entirely hillside with slopes at or more than 15%.  
 
The southwest portion of the lot observes the least steep slopes of any portion of the lot.   
 
The southwest portion of the lot with the least steep slope is proximate to the roadway 
forming the lot’s front along it’s western and northwestern lot lines. 
 
The request to vary the required front yard closer to this roadway is reasonable and 
expected to mitigate hillside disturbance with development of the lot.   
 
The placement of the well infrastructure inside the west side yard of the lot creating the 
hillside disturbance outside of the lot’s principal building envelope will be restored.   
 
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 50’ front setback line from the street line (edge of access 
easement) parallel to the northwest lot line measuring 118’ in length for APN 202-18-069C.  
b) 
Variance approval establishes 1,438 sq. ft. of hillside disturbance outside the lot’s 
principal buildable envelope related to disturbance for a well, water line, and underground 
water storage tank for APN 202-18-069C.  
 
 
Presented by: 
Martin Martell, Planner 
Reviewed by: 
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager  
 
Attachments: 
Case Map (1 page) 
 
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) 
 
Site Plan (2 pages) 
 
Floor Plan / Elevation (2 pages)  
 
Planning Engineering Comments (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
3
Gross Acres: 4 approx.
Generated December 19, 2024 11:14 AM
BA240034
Application Name:
Legal Description
Petrovski Residence
Applicant
Case Address
6N 4E 10
Jared Amzallag
43625 N COTTONWOOD CANYON RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:202-18-069C
6027932107
planning@minimallivingconcepts.com
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331
Map scale 1:1,457
Supervisor District No.
Request to reduce the required 60' front yard setback to 50' in the Rural-190 zoning district and allowing
for 1,438 SF of hillside disturbance outside of the lot's building envelope.

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
We are requesting that we can be 50' away from the Ingress/Egress Easement rather than 60'
43625 N COTTONWOOD CANYON RD, Cave Creek AZ, 85327
Cave Creek
4.362
190,008 SF
10
6 North
4 East
202-18-069C
Matt DeRosa
Agent
8280 E Gelding Dr
Scottsdale
AZ
85260
(386) 506-9024
matt@minimallivingconcepts.com
Ann Petrovsky
Owner
PO Box 1704
Cave Creek
AZ
85327
(928) 460-0699
Ann Petrovsky
Matt DeRosa
11/08/2024
RU-190
11/08/2024
11/08/2024
Docusign Envelope ID: B913F374-7DBD-4CB8-B710-A6EC89FA542D
RECEIVED 14. NOV 24
        BA240034

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application 
Packet 12/1/23 
 
 
 
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.
This property has a 30' Ingress/Egress Easement (MCR. BK 900 Pg 28) that intersects the 
property multiple times. This easement intersects the front property line and is requiring the 
building to be set back farther than the 60' front property setback requirement of the RU-190
 Zoning type.  The proposed use of the property with the variance request is for a residential
 single-family home.  The hardship created by this easement is that we are being required to
 push the building farther south into a steeper area of the property which would cause the 
elevation of the building to be several feet below the current proposed elevation.  This also 
creates a hardship by making the driveway to the building have a greater slope which would
 make it very difficult to meet the maximum required slope percentage of a driveway based 
on Maricopa Development Standards if we are forced to move the building.
The peculiar hardship that is created here is due to the 30' Ingress/Egress Easement (MCR.
 BK 900 PG 28) that intersects the front property line.  We can no longer be setback 60' 
from the front property line, but instead we would have to be setback 60' from the interior 
easement line which would move our building about 7' farther to the south and into a 
steeper slope of the property where the elevation change from the existing road to the finish
 floor of the building would be several feet greater than what is currently proposed.  This 
would increase the driveway slope percentage and make it very difficult to conform the 
maximum required slope percentage of a driveway per the Maricopa Development 
Standards.
Docusign Envelope ID: B913F374-7DBD-4CB8-B710-A6EC89FA542D
RECEIVED 14. NOV 24
         BA240034

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application 
Packet 12/1/23 
 
 
 
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 
The granting of this request would not cause a negative impact on the Zoning Ordinance 
because the rule that we have to be setback 60' from the interior easement line instead of
 the front property line is not explicitly stated in the zoning ordinance but is instead a staff 
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.  The granting of the request would also not cause 
a negative impact on the Zoning Ordinance because the building would still be 
approximately 50' away from the easement and would in no way interfere or come close 
to impeding on the Ingress/Egress easement. The placement of this building would still 
allow future improvements to the roadway while still maintaining a significant distance 
from the easement.
Docusign Envelope ID: B913F374-7DBD-4CB8-B710-A6EC89FA542D

SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1" = 4' VERT.
1" = 40' HORIZ.
PROP. RETAINING WALL
EX. GROUND
PROP. DRIVEWAY
PROP. SURFACE
DRIVEWAY PAD ELEV. = 2685.00
PROP. RETAINING WALL
 SECTION B-B
SCALE: 1" = 4' VERT.
1" = 40' HORIZ.
EX. GROUND
EX. NATURAL
DRAINAGE
CHANNEL
PROP. SURFACE
PROP. FF = 2686.00
PROP. PILLAR
FOUNDATION
MAXIMUM
BUILDING
HEIGHT
25'
MAX
BUILDING
HEIGHT
10.50'
BUILDING
HEIGHT
PROP. TOP
OF HOUSE
2696.50
ALAN B HAGIE REVOCABLE TRUST
LISA M HAGIE REVOCABLE TRUST
APN: 202-18-070
RESIDENTIAL
MARTIN J SCOTT /
BRODKOWITS ALISA R
APN: 202-18-051F
VACANT
VAN CAMP SUE TR
APN: 202-18-015P
RESIDENTIAL
30.00' ESMT
FOR INGRESS/EGRESS
MCR: BK 900 PG 28 &
20160852436
FD 1
2" REBAR ALM
CAP RLS14199
FD 1
2" REBAR RLS11062
 YELLOW CAP
FD 1
2" REBAR
NO CAP OR TAG
PROPOSED WELL
BY OTHERS
PROPOSED SEPTIC
BY OTHERS
EX PUBLIC
UTILITY
EASEMENT
MCR:
20160852436
EX. DRAINAGE PIPE
EXTREME OUTFALL
ELEV. = 2640.80
100' WELL
RADIUS
SEE SHEET GP02
FOR RETAINING
WALL DETAILS
SEE STRUCTURAL
SHEET S3 DTL B1
FOR RETAINING
WALL CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED DEN
FF = 2686.00
PAD = 2685.33
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PAD
FF = 2685.00
SAGUARO CACTUS TO BE
REMOVED BY OTHERS
ADELFIA LLC
APN: 202-18-069A
VACANT
30.00'
SIDE BSL
N COTTONWOOD CANYON RD
PROP. 12"
SD PIPE
PROP. SIDEWALK
SEE SHEET GP02
FOR GRADING
N 87°27'58" E
118.53'
N 00°26'47" E
319.13'
S 72°44'37" E
270.35'
S 89°44'31" E
73.26'
S 00°26'47" W
429.55'
N 89°44'31" W
73.25'
S 78°37'49" W
385.05'
N 00°26'47" E
262.56'
PROP. PILLAR FOUNDATION
SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS
SITE TBM, SET PIN
ELEV. = 2689.74
NAVD 88
DRIVEWAY CONNECTION
TO 30' INGRESS/EGRESS
ESMT PER MCR:
20160852436
PROP. 12.00'
DG DRIVEWAY
PROP. 2500 GALLON
UNDERGROUND WATER
STORAGE TANK BY OTHERS
SLOPES UNDER
15% (TYP)
SLOPES OVER 15%
PROP. AREA OF
DISTURBANCE
9,547 S.F.
30.00'
SIDE
BSL
60.00'
REAR
BSL
VEGETATION SHALL BE
REESTABLISHED PER
MCZO ARTICLE 1201.6.2.1
7,700 S.F.
FALL PROTECTION
36" STEEL GUARDRAIL
SEE SHEET GP02 FOR DETAIL
50.97'
60.00'
FRONT
BSL
2640
2650
2630
2650
2640
2660
2630
2670
2660
2690
2680
2700
2690
2680
2710
2720
2730
2740
2739
2720
2730
2790
2740
2750
2760
2760
2750
2770
2790
2780
2690
2680
2700
2710
2670
2660
2760
2780
2770
2800
2810
2680
2690
 SECTION C-C
PROP. RETAINING WALLS
PROP. DW PAD
FF ELEV. = 2685.00
EX. GROUND
SCALE: 1" = 4' VERT.
1" = 40' HORIZ.
 SECTION D-D
PROP. FLOWLINE
PROP. SIDEWALK
SCALE: 1" = 4' VERT.
1" = 40' HORIZ.
MAXIMUM
BUILDING
HEIGHT
25'
MAX
BUILDING
HEIGHT
PROP. PILLAR
FOUNDATION
EX. GROUND
PROP. FF = 2686.00
10.50'
BUILDING
HEIGHT
PROP. TOP
OF HOUSE
2696.50
 SECTION DW-DW
PROP. DRIVEWAY CL
MAX 15% SLOPE
SLOPE: 12.13%
DRIVEWAY PAD
FF ELEV. = 2685
EX. GROUND
SCALE: 1" = 4' VERT.
1" = 40' HORIZ.
9.70'
80.00'
N
n
WILLIAMS
JEFFREY L.
25995
O
Z
I
R
A
g
i
S
e
t
a
D
S
I
G
E
R
F
I
T
R
E
C
I
S
S
E
F
O
R
P
D
E
R
E
T
.
A
.
S
.
U
,
A
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
d
e
)
L
I
V
I
.
O
N
E
T
A
C
I
C
(
R
E
E
N
I
G
N
E
L
A
N
O
GRADING AND 
DRAINAGE PLAN
RCF
RCF
HRW
23039GP01.DWG
GP01
2/3
12.10.24
R.B. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PETROVSKY GRADING
& DRAINAGE PLAN
NOTHING FOUND 
PROPERTY LINE
FINISHED FLOOR ELEV
FOUND AS NOTED 
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
FF
BSL
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS 
MCR
TOP OF FOOTER
TF
TOP OF WALL
TW
BOOK 
BK
PAGE 
PG
LEGEND
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES 
OHE
FLOW LINE
FLOW LINE
FL
CONCRETE
C
FINISHED GRADE
FG
FOUND
FD
PROPOSED
PROP
EXISTING
EX
HILLSIDE AREA'S TABLE
GROSS AREA OF LOT (S.F.)
190,008 S.F.
      -
AREA OF HILLSIDE (S.F.)
183,186 S.F.
 96.40%
PREVIOUS HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE (S.F.)
15,306 S.F.
 8.10%
PROPOSED HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE (S.F.)
10,690 S.F.
 5.62%
TOTAL  HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE (S.F.) 
10,690 S.F.
 5.62%
TOTAL  HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE (S.F.) OUTSIDE
BUILDING ENVELOPE 
1,438 S.F.
 0.76%
12.10.24
RECEIVED 10. DEC 24
         BA240034

PROPOSED STRUCTURE
FF = 2686.00
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
PAD
FF = 2685.00
12.49'
C=85.00
FG=84.00
FG=87.60
FG=86.88
C=94.00
C=84.98
C=85.00
C=85.91
C=86.00
C=86.00
C=86.00
C=91.23
C=95.40
C=93.26
C=89.53
C=92.97
C=85.00
FL=84.20
FL=85.99
FL=85.01
FG=91.80
FG=90.24
FG=89.58
FG=88.96
FG=88.24
FG=86.51
FG=85.55
C=90.99
FG=84.22
FG=85.00
FL=78.00
FG=83.50
FG=83.50
FG=83.45
FG=83.90
C=87.80
C=89.52
18.73'
25.01'
FG=83.94
FG=83.25
-12.64%
-10.51%
-12.40%
C=87.56
62.00'
19.00'
2695
2694
2693
2692
2691
2690
2689
2688
2687
2686
2685
2685
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2680
2678
2679
2681
2682
2680
2685
690
2676
2677
2678
2679
2681
2682
2683
2684
2686
2687
2688
689
691
692
2675
2680
2685
2690
2673
2674
2676
2677
2678
2679
2681
2682
2683
2684
2686
2687
2688
2689
2691
2692
2693
2694
2690
2695
2686
2687
2688
2689
2691
2692
2693
2694
2696
2697
2698
FG=90.94
FG=90.97
FG=90.97
FG=84.52
FG=84.95
12" SD PIPE 31.00 LF
SITE TBM, SET PIN
ELEV. = 2689.74
NAVD 88
60' FRONT
SETBACK
N
n
WILLIAMS
JEFFREY L.
25995
O
Z
I
R
A
g
i
S
e
t
a
D
S
I
G
E
R
F
I
T
R
E
C
I
S
S
E
F
O
R
P
D
E
R
E
T
.
A
.
S
.
U
,
A
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
d
e
)
L
I
V
I
.
O
N
E
T
A
C
I
C
(
R
E
E
N
I
G
N
E
L
A
N
O
N
n
WILLIAMS
JEFFREY L.
25995
O
Z
I
R
A
g
i
S
e
t
a
D
S
I
G
E
R
F
I
T
R
E
C
I
S
S
E
F
O
R
P
D
E
R
E
T
.
A
.
S
.
U
,
A
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
d
e
)
L
I
V
I
.
O
N
E
T
A
C
I
C
(
R
E
E
N
I
G
N
E
L
A
N
O
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
RCF
RCF
HRW
23039GP02.DWG
GP02
3/3
12.10.24
R.B. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PETROVSKY GRADING
& DRAINAGE PLAN
NOTHING FOUND 
PROPERTY LINE
FINISHED FLOOR ELEV
TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
FF
BSL
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS 
MCR
TOP OF FOOTER
TF
TOP OF WALL
TW
BOOK 
BK
PAGE 
PG
LEGEND
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES 
OHE
FLOW LINE
FLOW LINE
FL
CONCRETE
C
FINISHED GRADE
FG
FOUND
FD
PROPOSED
PROP
EXISTING
EX
0.50'
RETAINING WALL DETAIL
N.T.S.
NOT TO SCALE
N.T.S
12.10.24
15.00'
6" DRAINAGE OPENING
FLOWLINE FLUSH WITH DRIVEWAY
3.00'
36" STEEL GUARDRAIL
PER 2018 IRC R312
1
2" CABLE
4" (TYP)
FOUND AS NOTED

A2
©
1.
2. 
3.
4.
5.
2020
8280 E GELDING DR. UNIT 104
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
Notes
1/4"=1'-0"
Scale
Sheet No.
2020.01
Project No.
Revisions
1
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN
GENERAL NOTES:
1.
GRID LINES ARE TO FACE OF STUD OR FACE OF
CONCRETE U.N.O
2.
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN FIELD
3.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DIMENSIONS SHALL
TAKE PRECEDENT OVER SCALE
WALL LEGEND
 2X6 FRAME WALL
 2X4 FRAME WALL
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
FIXTURE LEGEND
SINK W/ DISPOSAL
BAR FRIDGE
DISHWASHER
WASHER/DRYER (ELECTRIC)
WATER HEATER
MINI SPLIT C/U LOCATION
I/U MINI SPLIT AIR HANDLER
HOSE BIBB - PROVIDE BACK FLOW PREVENTER AND
SHUT OFF VALVE AT FRONT LOCAITON
100A ELECTRICAL SUB-PANEL
WATER CLOSET (PROVIDE MIN. DISTANCES AS
INDICATED)
5'-0 1/2" MIN.
15 1/2"
MIN.
15 1/2"
MIN.
PO BOX 4058
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85327
PLUMBING FIXTURE CLEARANCES
21" MIN.
15"
MIN.
15"
MIN.
PER IRC 2018 SECTION R106.1.1
21" MIN.
30"
MIN.
30"
MIN.
24" MIN.
AT OPENING
BEDROOM 1
9'-0"
BATHROOM 1
9'-0"
BATHROOM 2
9'-0"
BEDROOM 2
9'-0"
KITCHEN 
9'-0"
LIVING
9'-0"
UNCOVERED DECK
16'-0" x 10'-0"
LANDING
4'-0" x 4'-0"
62'-0"
31'-0"
31'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
16'-1 1/2"
2'-10 1/2"
16'-1 1/2"
2'-10 1/2"
62'-0"
3'-1 1/4"
4'-2 3/4"
4'-0"
7'-2 1/2"
4'-2 3/4"
8'-2 3/4"
8'-2 3/4"
4'-2 3/4"
7'-2 1/2"
4'-0"
4'-2 3/4"
3'-1 1/4"
31'-0"
31'-0"
6'-3 1/2"
6'-3 1/2"
9'-10"
12'-9"
12'-9"
2'-11"
2'-11"
15'-2"
2'-11"
3'-0"
8'-4"
D3
01
A4
01
A4
02
A4
02
A4
03
A4
03
A4
3
A
4
A
3
A
4
A
D5
D6
1
A
1
A
D2
D1
D4
D4
D1
06
A6
16
A6
11
A6
14
A6
05
A6
7'-9 1/2"
7'-9 1/2"
8'-10"
2
A
5
A
6
A
6
A
2'-11"
Docusign Envelope ID: 4A67023A-F13A-4CA3-A23F-67608AB44071
RECEIVED 14. NOV 24
         BA240034

+8'-0"
T.O. WINDOWS
+10'-6"
T.O. ROOF
+0'-0"
FINISH FLOOR
+8'-0"
T.O. WINDOWS
+10'-2"
T.O. ROOF
+0'-0"
FINISH FLOOR
A3
©
1.
2. 
3.
4.
5.
2020
8280 E GELDING DR. UNIT 104
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
Notes
1/4"=1'-0"
Scale
Sheet No.
2020.01
Project No.
Revisions
1
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
+8'-0"
T.O. WINDOWS
+10'-6"
T.O. ROOF
+0'-0"
FINISH FLOOR
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
WESTERN STATES
24GA. STANDING SEAM
METAL SIDING UL-790 CLASS
A FIRE RATED
(ICC ESR-4730)
PRL 250 SERIES
ALUM.  FRAME
WINDOW
PRL MAX SLIDER
SYSTEM
PRL MAX SLIDER
SYSTEM
PRL MAX SLIDER
SYSTEM
PRL 250 SERIES
ALUM.  FRAME
WINDOW
WESTERN STATES
24GA. STANDING SEAM
METAL SIDING UL-790 CLASS
A FIRE RATED
(ICC ESR-4730)
WESTERN STATES
24GA. STANDING SEAM
METAL SIDING UL-790 CLASS
A FIRE RATED
(ICC ESR-4730)
WESTERN STATES
24GA. STANDING SEAM
METAL SIDING UL-790 CLASS
A FIRE RATED
(ICC ESR-4730)
PRL 250 SERIES
ALUM.  FRAME
WINDOW
PO BOX 4058
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85327
PRL 250 SERIES
ALUM.  FRAME
WINDOW
K STYLE
SEAMLESS GUTTER
20G METAL
K STYLE
SEAMLESS GUTTER
20G METAL
ALUMINUM
GUARDRAIL AND
CABLE RAILING
(VIEW RAIL)
ALUMINUM
GUARDRAIL AND
CABLE RAILING
(VIEW RAIL)
24GA BREAK METAL
TO MATCH STANDING
SEAM SIDING
24GA BREAK METAL
TO MATCH STANDING
SEAM SIDING
24GA BREAK METAL
TO MATCH STANDING
SEAM SIDING
24GA BREAK METAL
TO MATCH STANDING
SEAM SIDING
ALUMINUM
GUARDRAIL AND
CABLE RAILING
(VIEW RAIL)
PRL 250 SERIES
ALUM.  FRAME
WINDOW
40"
40"
40"
40"
40"
40"
40"
40"
K STYLE
SEAMLESS GUTTER
20G METAL
ALUMINUM
GUARDRAIL AND
CABLE RAILING
(VIEW RAIL)
7'-0"
7'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
PRL 250 SERIES
ALUM.  FRAME
WINDOW
1'-0"
7'-0"
1
1
1
1
-9'-0"
L.N.G.
+/-19'-6"
1
1
-9'-0"
L.N.G.
+/-19'-6"
1
1

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: 
November 26, 2024  
Memo To: 
Darren Gerard, Planning Manager, Planning & Development 
Attn: 
Martin Martell, Planner, Planning and Development  
From: 
Daniel Lechwar, Engineering Associate 
Planning & Development Department 
 
cc: 
Bob Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and Development 
 
Subject: 
BA240034 –Residential Variance  
 
  
 
Address: 
43625 N Cottonwood Canyon Rd. Cave Creek, AZ 85331 
 
APN(s): 
202-18-069C 
 
 
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