Board of Adjustment - meeting_joint_regular

Good morning. We'll go ahead and get started. Thanks for your patience. Um I'm going to read some announcements real quick. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning and Development Office. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can we do roll call first?

gosh, yes. Please take the roll call. Chairperson. Here. Vice Chair Club. Here. Member Ball. Member Loper. Present. And member Ward. Present. Madam Chair, we have a quorum. Thank you. Sorry about that. I'm going to start over here cuz these are fascinating. Um this meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS section 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the Planning and Development website 1 week prior to the hearing at maricopa.gov/planning. With respect to the hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the board. For each case, the applicant will get be given a set amount of testimony to present a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witness wishing to give testimony on a particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This should be done by filling out the speaker's card for in-person attendance or registering desire to comment as noticed on the published agenda. At the appropriate time for each case, the chair will ask those attending in person and online who wish to speak to a case to raise their hand by clicking on that icon on the webinar screen. Staff will provide the chair with the names of people who have registered and noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each named participant one at a time. Such testimony shall be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes. However, the actual amount of time allowed for testimony shall be at the discretion of the board chair. The chair will conduct the hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all

motions and seconds. Um do we have any comments or questions about the minutes from last month's meeting? Hearing none, we'll consider those approved and we'll continue on to the agenda. The first case is BA 260006, the Arellano property, and I'm going to turn it over to Isaac. Good morning. Thank you, Chairperson members of the board. Our BA 260006 is an application for a residential variance to the development standards in the R in the RU-43 zoning district located in district 3 at 38613 North 19th Avenue in the North Phoenix area. It's on the corner of 19th Avenue and West Irvine Road. The subject site is also 54,948 square feet or 1.26 acres and currently vacant. The applicant seeks to develop a single-family residential structure within the property along with a potential accessory structure. However, no building permit application has been received. The applicant seeks a 10-ft side yard setback along the property dimension line that is a 173 ft and also a 10-ft rear yard setback um which is not required for the accessory the structure depicted on the site plan um but is for potential relocation of future development. Some key features of the lot is the substandard lot width of 135 ft along the south property line where 145 ft is the required minimum. The irregular contours that form the shape of an L and the flood plain and Skunk Creek that are located within the property. Staff received no objection or comments from Maricopa County agencies such as MCDOT, Environmental Services, or from

any areas of interest or any public comments. Based upon what the applicant has submitted in the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following observations that the board may consider. Uh there is a wash on the south end of the subject parcel that limits development pushing it northward towards the interior north side yard. The property dimension of 173 ft. The substandard lot width in conjunction with the location of the wash minimizes the amount of develop developable space within a typical building envelope. And the 10-yd rear the 10-ft rear yard setback request uh is speculative and not shown on the site plan uh for the future single-family residence. It is also not required or necessary for the detached accessory structure that is depicted on the site plan. However, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and states its findings on the record, the granting of this variance will memorialize the following. And the variance would approve The variance approval would establish a 10-ft side yard setback along the 173-ft dimension property line and also a lot width of 135 ft. And I'm happy to answer any questions from the board. Thank you. So, I'm looking at the map that you have or the site plan excerpt that you have on the screen. I can see where the 10-ft um requested or proposed um setback on the north property line is, which is actually the southern north property line, right? Um for the east and west Yes, thank you. The east and west, I'm having a hard time even with my glasses. Okay, so we're talking about the little guy down there. Okay, that's the east one and then the west one, where are we showing that? Is that for one of these buildings further north on the

um like top part of the lot? Chairperson. Members of the board. Uh so, the house is shown right there. If you see the 173 dimensioned lot line, Mhm. that is where the future development may take place of the single-family residence. Um they're not showing the 10-ft on the rear that would be required for an SFR for the single-family residence. Ah, thank you. So, that accessory structure would would meet the setback requirements for a detached structure. However, they did in conversations with the applicant, they did state that they may need to relocate the SFR in the future and therefore they were seeking a rear uh a rear yard variance and side yard. Okay. Um thank you, Isaac. Are there any other questions of Isaac from members of the board? Okay, I can't see if anyone's raising their hand, but I'm not hearing any.

None for me. Okay, thank you. Um I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Great. If you could come on down to the podium and state your name for the record, please. Good morning. My name is Carlos Arellano. Great. Nice to meet you and please share your presentation. Yes, so that is what I have in mind. And as requested on the on the side of the 19th Avenue, uh um I'm requesting the variance to the uh 135 so it will allow me that future structure. And um and also my way in and out. Um the uh residence, as you can see, I'm asking for the variance of the of the 10th run on the north. And also the flexibility uh to have 10 on that um which is at the east. So, that I um once I submit an official request or a blueprint, I have uh the uh freedom because of the irregular L shape of the lot. Uh I want to have the freedom to move uh the residence so that I will be in terms with um the septic, the wash, and the boundaries. So, uh That would That's my request. Thank you. Um I I have a question. So, are the septic tanks all proposed or any of them already installed? They are proposed. Okay. And um I can see because of the irregular shape of the lot why that north setback reduction is being requested. Um but I'm wondering like could those septic tanks be pushed north so that

other accessory structure could be moved and potentially not need the variance? Well, um the uh plan was the um was constructed using what the um the county setbacks for the septic, the wash, the boundaries, and everything. Um it was constructed based on those. So, in my in my opinion, which I'm not an expert, I'll say it is not possible, but you know, I will leave it up to you. And uh again, you know, based on the L shape and what is required, that was pretty much the only way that those can really fit so that it will respect the boundaries and the wash and the and the structure and the well and all that. Um thank you for clarifying. So, Isaac, is that there are there are setbacks for the septic tanks that Mr. Yano's referencing? Chairperson, members of the board, uh so, from a structure, the set the septic system would be required to maintain 10-ft distance. Okay. And that would include

Testing. Testing. Good. Okay, so you were saying there is a 10-ft requirement from structure, and then are there setbacks these all these 50-ft dimensions referencing setbacks from the wash and the property lines? There would potentially be more space to move the septic system north if they were to move the So, if they were to move the single-family residence further east along the east property line, uh there's there wouldn't be any conflict. They can still move the septic system north uh from a zoning perspective. Okay. I Yeah, I just don't think if they moved it east far enough to not require the variance for the north setback, then they're creating an issue for the east, probably, but um thank you. You answered my question. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Not from me. Okay.

Nor from me. Nor from me. All right, thank you. Are there any other people online that want to speak about this? Chair, we don't have anybody online registered to speak. Okay. Thank you. Um hang tight in case we have more questions, but I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is in my district, but I'm curious to hear other folks' thoughts before um or entertain a motion to move forward. Madam Chair, this is board member Loper. Um I'm in support of the variance. The uh the site plan as presented um That coupled with the aerial Actually, the aerial uh portrays a much harsher condition given the wash implications on the lot, and I'm supportive of the variance request based on the um the hardships presented by the by the topographic and uh drainage conditions. Thanks for your thoughts. Um anyone else or anyone want to make a motion on this one? I'd be happy to make a motion out of that if no one else does. Go for it. In the case of BA260006, I move approval of the variance as presented uh subject to uh the condition outlined in the staff report. Thank you. We have a motion from member Loper. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by member Ward. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote? Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper? Yes. Member Ward?

Yes. And Chairperson? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for approval [clears throat] by a vote of 4 to 0. Thank you. Best of luck to you getting home. Um Chairperson, it's Sorry to interrupt. I wanted to make sure was that approval including the 10-ft rear setback? It's including all of the items requested. Okay, cuz um I'm not certain if you need to reopen this item cuz the um the um item memorialized in 13A Excuse me. Um does not reference the rear yard setback, so I'm not certain if you want to reopen that item to include that show me request. 13A So, on memorialized the following 13A 10-ft setback on the north. Oh, and it doesn't include the other two? It It includes two items, but does not include the rear yard setback because staff's initial um analysis did not include um the detached accessory structure the way it was shown on the site plan. Okay. Um member Loper, do you want to amend and restate your motion? Uh yes, I move for approval of BA 260006 to include the rear yard setback um uh at 10 ft as presented as requested by the applicant. Thank you. And uh can I get a second on that one? Second. Seconded by member Ward. that roll call vote, please. Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. And Chairperson? Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 4 to 0. Great, thank you. And thanks for the clarification, Rachel. Um thank you. Best of luck to you.

Um all right, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, BA260012, the Newman property, and that is also Isaac. Thank you, Chairperson, members of the board. BA260012 is an application for a residential variance to the development standards in the RU-43 zoning district located in District 4 at 27458 North 143rd Avenue in the Surprise area. Subject site is 51,352 sq ft or 1.18 acres and currently vacant. The applicant seeks to develop the parcel for a single-family residence and currently has a building permit application in review for which plan review comments have been received regarding the front yard setback. While the location depicted on the submitted site plan currently shows 36 ft, the applicant has anticipated that he will move the future single-family residence closer to the front yard to allow for more space to develop accessory structures or additions to the residence. There are also plans to relocate the shipping container depicted on the plan to a location that will meet existing RU-43 setback requirements. The west end of the subject site is located uh within a FEMA-designated flood plain uh that limits development, and there is also a FEMA-designated floodway that runs from north to south in the middle of the parcel. Due to access roads on the east and west side of this parcel, which include North 143rd Avenue and a private access easement, the parcel is also considered a through lot, which does require two front two frontages on both sides. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following observations. The wash located closer to the east end

of the property pushes development west and provides a natural division of the property into two portions. Due to the location of 143rd Avenue along the east end and the private access easement on the west, the double frontage parcel does require that there are 40-ft setbacks on both sides. Locating the single-family residence on the west end of the parcel would be away from the wash and it would align it with existing development in the local area. New construction would otherwise be limited to a smaller portion of land on the east side of the wash along 143rd. If the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory tests and has stated its findings on the record, then the grant of this variance will memorialize the following. A variance approval would establish a 20-ft front yard setback along the west property line uh for APN 503-52-415C. And I'll be happy to answer any questions for the board. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Isaac? I find none. Thank you. Um hearing none, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing, and is the applicant here? Figured that might be you. Please come on down and state your name for the record. Good morning. My name is John Newman. And we bought this property to to build a house on a couple years back and finally getting real close, believe. But but we knew of the floodway setback but there's an erosion setback also to make it tougher. So, what we had to do is to move the house to the west, which would be the front front end of the the property

and uh just make it squeeze by. But to do that, we we need the the west setback to be moved from 40 ft to 20. And that this will leave room um if I possibly in the future want to put two more bedrooms on the property that would be to the south without having to request another variance. Um the the container would would get moved to the north in the setback. Another thing that's you know kind of hard is we've got the well on the one corner, so I'm there's four of us on it and there's some tanks underground. So, I'm got to give up that space, too. Mhm. Thank you. Um I Was that the end of your

I guess so. Okay. I did have a question. I noticed in the staff report background section it said there was a code complaint for an occupied RV and unpermitted structures that um you were responsible to comply by February 3rd of this year. What's the status of that?

Well, is I I got to get the the variance so that we can finish. They won't give me the residential permit until the the variance is is cleared up. So, that's that's why I'm here today is to get that done. Um and then I can I can get the residential uh permit and um uh also a permit to occupy the property. So, you're saying that is the critical path for you to do that so then you can move out of of work. And start Yeah, and you know start building and you know move forward that way. Um All right. Thanks for clarifying. Are there any other questions for Mr. Newman? Not from me. Okay. Thank you.

me. Thank you. Um are there any folks online that would like to speak? Chair, we do not have anybody online to speak. Okay. Um [snorts] we'll hang tight. I'm going to go ahead and and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board for discussion. This is in district four. Madam Chair, Yes. Uh this is board member Loper uh representing district four. If it's okay, I'll go ahead and make a motion. Yes, take it away. Given the constraints of the property and as uh presented by the applicant, I would move for approval of BA260012 uh subject to the um conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by member Ward. Rosalie, roll call, please. Vice Chair Klapp. Yes. Member Loper. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chairperson. Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 4 to 0. Thank you. That's a vote to approve. Well, thank you. We can finally start building. Let's go. And so and so many little tumbling blocks and waiting on this contractor for this so I could give it you know to to the permit center and we're real close. It's a lot of work but um I I feel like you're you're making some progress.

Beautiful property out there. day. Thank you. It is. You don't have a lot of room. Good luck. Uh thank you. That concludes our agenda for today unless there's anything else. So, I'm going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting and um thank you all. Thank you, everyone.