REPORT TO THE - Maricopa

Agenda Item: 4 – BA2017005 Page 1 of 7

Report to the Board of Adjustment

Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department

Case: BA2017005 - Schouw Property Hearing Date: March 16, 2017 Agenda Item: 4 – Regular Agenda Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant / Property Owner: Charles and Susan Schouw Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa Zoning

Ordinance to permit:

An existing single-family residence to setback 1.66 feet from the side (southwest) property line where 10 feet is the minimum required per MCZO, Art. 602.4.2

Site Location: 203-01-900 @ 42114 N. Long Cove Way – Anthem Club Dr. and

Anthem Way (Anthem) Site Size: 11,414 square feet (0.26 acres) Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence/R1-18 RUPD zoning district Open Violation: V201601403 Citizen Support/Opposition: No known opposition


Background: 1. May 9, 2001: A building permit (B200104129) was approved for a single-family residence

on the subject site.

2. January 6, 2015: The prior owner applied for a building permit (B201500065) for a pergola attached to existing residence. Staff provided comments to the owner that included mention of the setback issue that is now the subject of this request.

3. December 28, 2015: The owners took possession of the subject property under a Warranty Deed recorded with docket number 20150910118.

4. October 5, 2016: A complaint was submitted regarding the construction of a pergola without zoning clearance/building permit. A violation case was opened by staff (V201601403) and the violation was verified shortly thereafter. The owners were notified of the violation on October 20, 2016.

5. November 7, 2016: The current owners applied for a building permit (B201608178) for a pergola attached to existing residence. Staff provided comments to the owner that included mention of the setback issue that is now the subject of this request.

6. February 15, 2017: The owner applied for the subject variance request.

Reviewing Agencies Comments:

7. Engineering (Transportation, Drainage, and Flood Control): No objections to the request, see attached memo dated February 27, 2017.

8. Environmental Services Department (MCESD): No objections to the request, see attached memo dated March 2, 2017.

Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 9. On-site: R1-18 RUPD/Single-family residence North: R1-18 RUPD/Single-family residence

South: R1-18 RUPD/Single-family residence East: Long Cove Way/R1-18 RUPD/Single-family residence

West: Golf Course/R1-10 RUPD Site Analysis:

10. The subject site is located in the Anthem Country Club subdivision, Unit 16 “Long Cove”.

This subdivision has a total of 100 lots and 9 tracts. It appears that all of the lots in this subdivision are developed with single-family residences. The City of Phoenix is the nearest municipality which is approximately 2 ½ miles to the south of the subject site. Interstate-17 and Daisy Mountain Drive exit are located approximately 2 ¾ mile to the southwest.


Aerial of general area

11. The subject site is a rectangular shaped lot that fronts onto Long Cove Way to the

southeast. The total area of the lot is 11,414 square feet and the site is currently developed with a 3,170 square foot residence, a 640 square foot attached garage, and 415 square pergola which brings the total lot coverage to 4,225 square feet or 37%. The subject site is relatively flat and there are no discernable conditions related to the site that may present a hardship. Aerial of subject site and immediate area


12. The need for this request was made known with the zoning review of a building permit (B201608178) that was applied for by the property owners in response to having been notified of a violation related to the unpermitted structure. In researching this request staff learned that the prior owner had applied for permit (B201500065) and that permit could not be approved due to the setback encroachment that is the subject of this request. Staff provided comments to the prior owner that included the setback encroachment as reason the permit could not be approved. Staff noted discrepancies between the site plan originally provided with this request and the related building permit. Staff requested that the applicant verify the measurements from the columns to the property line and the overhang to the property line. The applicant then supplied two site plan versions to clarify. The pergola is attached to the residence and the overhang is 20” from the southwest property line at the closest point. The support columns are 4’-3” from the property line at the closest point.

Excerpt from site plan showing distance from property line to overhang

Excerpt from site plan showing distance from property line to columns


Photos of the completed pergola


13. In considering this request, staff noted the absence of topographical or physical hardship related to the property that may enable staff to support this request. While staff is sympathetic to the applicant’s request that references physician letters and HOA approval, staff also notes there are reasonable alternatives to the request in that shade can be obtained through a variety of means such as a retractable awning or trees.

The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold).

Standard R1-18 RUPD

Zoning District Proposed Standard

Front Yard Setback 20/14-feet* 21-feet Rear Yard Setback 21-feet 28-feet Side Yard Setback (northeast) 7-feet 7.5-feet Side Yard Setback (southwest) 7-feet 1.66-feet (overhang) Side Yard Setback (southwest) 7-feet 4.25-feet (columns) Maximum Height 39-feet 20-feet Minimum Lot Area 9,775-sq. ft. 11,414-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 84-feet 89-feet Lot Coverage 50% 37%

Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards * 14’ for lots with casitas or side loaded garages

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.”

State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests:

14. Statutory Test -1 Peculiar condition – Explain and discuss the peculiar condition on the

property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation or Development Standard to be varied. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulation or Development Standard would impose a hardship on the property owner.

“According to MCZO Article 603.4.2 the required side yard setback of 7’ is too narrow to maximize the shade needed for the existing and approved side patio”.

15. Statutory Test 2 – Unnecessary Hardship – Explain the unnecessary hardship the peculiar

condition on the site create with respect to the existing Regulation and Standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. “Charles has Parkinsons disease and a cancer survivor, which has him on medicated prescription, requiring him to be outside, without direct sun light. The 7’ SB, gives minimal shade to this area of the patio”.


16. Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance - Explain and discuss how this variance would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.

“This is for Charles direct health and functionality of using this space. It is also visually appealing and enhances the entire backyard”.

17. Per MCZO – Evidence of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with construction work within 120 days after variance decision by the Board of Adjustment. Provide evidence of the ability and intention to proceed with construction work within 120 days (4 months) after Board of Adjustment decision. Discuss if there are building permit or as-built permit currently filed with the Planning and Development Department and the current review status. Specify the permit number. If no permits have been filed, please provide a timeline for building permit submittal and projected timeframe for construction. “B201608178”.

Findings: 18. If the Board determines the variance request as discussed in the Analysis section of this report,

in accordance with ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO, Art. 303.2.2 - owing to peculiar condition, a strict interpretation of the MCZO would not work an unnecessary hardship on the property; and further, in granting the variance, the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will not be preserved based upon the applicant’s responses for the statutory tests; then, the Board must make findings and conclusions with a motion for Denial.

19. However, if the Board determines the variance request as discussed in the Analysis section of

this report, in accordance with ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO, Art. 303.2.2 - owing to peculiar condition, a strict interpretation of the MCZO would work an unnecessary hardship on the property; and further, in granting the variance, the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved based upon the applicant’s responses for the statutory tests; then the Board must make findings and conclusions with a motion of Approval. In such event staff offers the following Conditions of Approval. a) General compliance with the site plan stamped received March 1, 2017. b) Failure to complete necessary construction within one year from the date of approval,

shall negate the Board's approval. c) Satisfaction of all applicable Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance requirements,

Drainage Regulations, and Building Safety codes.

Presented by: Glenn Bak Reviewed by: Darren V. Gerard, AICP, Deputy Director Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Vicinity Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (2 pages) Engineering Comments (1 page) MCESD Comments (1 page) Physician Letters (2 pages) Memo from Homeowners Association (1 page) Correspondence (3 pages)

Documents

REPORT TO THE - Maricopa