Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Uh, welcome to our June 19th Maropa County Board of Adjustment hearing. I'm sitting in today as chair for um, Chairman Loper, who's not available to attend. Uh, Rosley, would you please take the roll call? Chairman Loper, Vice Chair Person, present. Member Carden, present. Member Clap, present. Member Ward present. Chairman, we have a quorum. Excellent. Um, I need to read some announcements here real quick. 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 Maropa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the Planning and Development website one week prior to the hearing at www.mmaropa.gov. GV/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 give a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witnessing to give testimony on a particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker card for in-person attendance. You can get these up here. um or registering your desire to comment as notice on as noted on the published agenda. Also, at the appropriate time for each case, the chairman 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. We do have a pretty long agenda today, so I'll ask that um our speakers try to keep their comments pretty short. Staff will provide the chairman with names of persons who have registered and noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. I do already have a list of six. So if there are others, now you know what to do. Um the chairman 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 chairman will conduct the hybrid inperson and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chairman regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chairman will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds. Um so with that um we need to approve the minutes from the May 15th hearing. Are there any comments to those? Seeing none, they're approved. Right. We don't have to take a vote on that. Um and then we have a few announcements. Darren, I'll turn that over to you. Yes. Um, Madam Chair, uh, item two, BA250015 is being continued to July 17th. There's no action necessary by no vote for that. Okay. And then um, oh, this is still showing the minutes on these announcements from last time. So that's why it's saying number one was withdrawn, but that was last month's. Okay, great. Um, so with that, can we continue on to the first item? We've got case BA25002 that will be presented by Joseph. Thank you, chair, members of the board. Uh BA25002 is for the Tempson property. Uh the subject site is located in the Apache Junction area uh north of the northwest corner of Meridian and Apache Trail. Uh it is within the R5 zoning district and is approximately 35,000 square feet in size. The applicant is proposing an increase in rear yard coverage uh up to

64% uh where 30% is the maximum allowed uh per the ordinance. Uh the request is for a proposed 7200 square foot detached accessory structure uh to be located on the western uh portion of the property uh in the rear of the residence. Um staff uh was unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property as it is a regular rectangular shape, exceeds the minimum zoning district standards and is devoid of any unusual or remarkable geographical features that would inhibit uh reasonable use of the property. Um if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutorial test and has stated its findings on the record, uh the granting of this variance will memorialize a maximum allowed uh coverage of 64% rear yard coverage, excuse me, of 64% for APN22065003U. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you, Joseph. Are there any questions of staff? Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Um, please make your way to the podium and state your name and address for the record and then continue with the I'm Anthony Thompson. I am the owner of 52 North Meridian. I'm not sure if your mic is working. Are you guys able to hear? Sorry to interrupt you. Uh, I'm Anthony Thompson. Good job. I get a little bend over a little more. for my help. Um, I am owner of 52 North Meridian. Um, yes, you can proceed with your presentation. Thank you. I'm just hoping the board will see that the the little

bit difference in that we're asking for the variance in size. It will shouldn't really be uh any kind of an eyesore to the neighborhood. It's borders a back of a general commercial shopping center, an apartment complex to the north, and it would just make better use I'd be able to make better use of the land, being able to put that that size of building on it. Thank you. Um, are there any questions of our speaker? Um, okay. Thank you. Sit tight. We're going to see if there are any um I don't have any people up here that wish to speak. Are there any in the audience that would like to speak on this case or any registered online? Nobody online wishing. Okay. To speak. Thank you. Um well, that'll close the public hearing and um open it up to the board members for discussion. This is in district two. Question. Yes, ma'am. The existing structure is that residential. Correct. Yes. And what will be the use of the new structure? It'll be residential. It'll just be to house stuff indoors, RV, um play toys like uh you know, I have a off-road stuff that we use and as well as some a little bit of shop equipment. Uh the pictures that I've seen of your property shows a lot of equipment outside that doesn't seem to be related to residential. So could you explain that? Uh we had some of that parked there during constru remodeling. There is a few pieces of equipment there currently. Correct. Yes. And those would be if those aren't removed, they will be indoors in this facility. That's what I want to do and put everything indoors.

Why is the structure so large compared to the residence on the property? 7,200 square feet is a very large Yeah. I have structure for this particular piece of property. It's just to be able to make use of it. I have a lot of equipment. Have a I have a 30 foot fifth wheel I want to put indoors. Um I have off-road equipment like, you know, o uh Polaris Rangers. Um I have other equipment I want to store indoors. I have a skidster and uh some stuff I just don't want in the hot sun. If I can store it indoors, it just gets it out of the weather. Are there any commercial uses on the property? No. Thank you. Any other questions? Member Cardon, member Ward. Thanks. Um I I agree with member Clap. It does seem rather large. I understand you have have all those things. It given where the property is in the surrounding area, I'm not super concerned about it, but it's not in my district. So I, you know, um, open to a motion from another board member. I am concerned about the size of this building because it really appears to be more likely to be used for some sort of commercial use. It seems excessively large for residential property. So my concerns here are, could you reduce the size of it? Absolutely. If you I'm here to I asked for the max obviously if you guys are going to tell me has ask me less and I'm just asking you to tell me what I can put there. Um I don't I think you have two options here. you can either reduce the size of this structure in my mind um even though the surrounding property might be able to handle a structure this large or you

could consider making this a reszoneed commercial property because it just appears to be more commercial than residential. But if you were to reduce the property, then I would at least if you look, one of the graphics I saw shows a portion of the structure in the rear rear yard setback of 2400 square ft. And I would propose that you reduce this accessory structure by 2400 square ft to make it 4,800 ft² rather than 7200 square ft. That would be my suggestion, but I'd like to hear from the rest of the board. Yeah, I wasn't reading this that it was within the setback, but rather they were saying that this is the part back here where it's 64%, the orange square on the one graphic is the 64%. So, that part is is needing to be 30%. So, I don't know if you would have to reduce it by 2400 square feet, if I'm reading that correctly, Joseph, to get to the 30%. Explain that graphic to me. Does this say it's extending into the rear set setback 2400 ft? Yes, member Clap and uh Chairman Persona. Um, so the the structure in the proposed location um does encroach into the rear yard setback. Accessory structures are permitted to be within the rear setback area up to 30% of that required rear yard. Uh the proposed structure and the proposed location uh covers 64% of that rear yard. Uh which is why the need for the variance exists. And if it were 4,800 square feet, what would be the percentage coverage of the property? it member clap. It It depends where the

structure would be located. Um presumably a smaller structure would be able to be further away from the rear lat line. Um it it's important to also consider the overall lot coverage of the property. It still accommodates the size of the structure. The only issue is that rear yard setback area. the presumably a um reoriented design may be able to alleviate this issue. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind putting up that graphic um with the orange square. Not that one. There's another one with an orange square. But you don't know what the percentage of the coverage would be if if it was reduced to say 4,800 ft. Uh, member Clappit, it would likely be under that 30%. It it just depends where uh the structure is located. Yeah, I mean obviously they can they can make it whatever dimensions they want. It's just that appears to me to be very large for the property. Uh, madame chair, uh, member clap, uh, I guess one question that I think you're getting at is, uh, there's a lot that we don't have the overhead for it, but um, that what you're looking at on page three of the staff report, it shows a u, a large building, the western edge of which is colored orange. That's what's encroaching into the rear yard, right? I guess the question would be if they move this building if if if the gentleman were to move this building say 10 feet further west closer to the primary building the house um would that reduce him to where he's 30% within the required yard if he was only a few feet from the I don't think

okay are you saying it's not possible to move it that's what Joseph's thinking I don't know if we could defer to the applicant. Yeah. So, I think there's two options and where you're going with Darren. Uh, and I'm looking at at this. I don't know if you have that. It looks to me like the area that we're talking about, the 64% is this orange rectangle, which is 2400 square ft. So, that that actually is a shed that was put up by the previous owners, and I'm actually plan on tearing that down. It's it's okay. It's got a real I mean, I'm a tall guy, and it's a real short seat. get in there. Oh, there. Thank you. Yeah. So, um, regardless, but I think this is showing that the 7200 that you're proposing, 2400 square ft of it is equating to 64% coverage in that rear yard. So, if you cut that 2400 in half, you're pretty darn close to the 30% threshold, right? And then if you cut that orange part in half and scooted the new structure just a little tiny bit closer to your main structure, I think you could maybe get to a point where you don't need the variance. Oh, nice. So So that would involve looking at this, that would involve taking off part of that the the shed part of the back that's on the back of the house, right? Remove that and then move it closer to the to the home. Yeah. And it would be within reason. I mean, I'm this is me like doing math on the fly, which could be a bad idea, but I think and I can't read all the dimensions despite my glasses, but I think if you you know, you've got the long rectangle, if you made that half as tall, for lack of a better word, okay, then you're basically at 32%. And then if you took the whole bigger structure and scooted it a little tiny bit east, you may be able to then pull a little bit more of it out and you would be under the 30%. So, I'm wondering if

if we should consider just rather than denying it or continuing to talk about it, continuing it so that you can look at this. I will gladly do that. That's what it requires to get this done. I mean, because that little building is not really of use to me. I plan on taking it down anyways. So, if it's part if it'll make this pass where I can Well, and then you may not even need it. So, I I think that um you know, if one of you guys wants to go ahead and make that motion, it seems like a a smart thing for you so we don't have to um create more challenges. I think there were others that wanted to speak. I don't want to interrupt that, but I think that's a reasonable solution to continue this so that you can redraw this property so that you aren't getting into this problem of 64% coverage on the So, the building would essentially be the same size just reconfigured by and and eliminating that little back part. Correct. Okay, that that works. Well, so my my motion would be to continue this case until the next meeting in uh July. Would I would I go ahead and talk with Joseph on resubmitting plans and and do we have a second for that motion? Second. Thank you for Rosley. Will you please take take roll call vote? Member Cardon. Yes. Member KLP. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Chair, we have a motion for an I'm sorry, a motion for a continuence by a vote of four to zero. Thank you. And we may or may not see you next month if you're able to um resolve it and not have to come back before us. Appreciate your flexibility. Right. Well, thank you for taking the time. Thanks. Um, so number two was continued uh as Darren mentioned. So we're going

to skip over that. We're going to go to number three. Um, TU25002. Uh, Daniel, take it away. Madam Chair. Yes. If I could real quickly um, one announcement that I um, make at the end. This is Joseph Mueller's last u time with us here at the BOA. He's moving to be the senior planner at city of Buckeye. Well, I'm really sad, but I'm I do work in Buckeye, too. So, I'm I hope that uh I'll cross paths with you there and have really enjoyed working with you. Thank you so much. Best of luck. Thank you, Joseph. Okay, let's continue with number three while they're resolving that. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, chair, members of the board. Case TU2500020, Red Hot Fireworks 2025. It's a request for uh temporary seasonal sales of fireworks for the July 5th um holiday. The uh site is located at 812 East Carefree Highway in the Phoenix area um and is and would be um on the western half of the 55 5 acre parcel. Um staff did not find um I'm sorry. Um uh the reason why this application is on is being um heard in front of the board of adjustment is that uh staff received one memo of opposition uh from a registered area of interest. um that area of interest um appear the comment appears to be a person um representing the personal um opinion from the area of

interest rather than um representing the uh Desert Hills Land Trust um as as what the um um the opposed is registered as. Um otherwise the um staff did not receive any other further opposition after posting of the site. Um this the applicant has ran the um this would be the eighth request for the similar uh use and so the the applica the applicant has uh run the um seasonal sales successfully in the past and staff has no issues with recommending approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for Daniel? Okay, hearing none, we'll go and open the public hearing. Um is the applicant present here or online? terwoman she's online. I'm just trying to connect need to unmute her. You so she's selfmuted. So Joanna, we need you to unmute on your end, please. No luck,

Madam Chair. I guess we could ask her. Okay, there. There we go. There we go. I'm here. Sorry about that. Um, thank you. Yes, please state your name and address for the record and then you can proceed with your presentation. Absolutely. My name is Joanna Noriega. I'm the chief operating officer for Red Hot Fireworks. Um, did you want the address of the location? I think just your address. Sure. Our business address is 1620 East Country Lane, Gilbert, Arizona, 85298. Thank you. Go. You can go ahead. Our first slide here just goes into deep detail in regards to our narrative and what we do throughout the season. Um we we actually do a shortterm seasonal temporary sales. Uh we do have a signed a lease from the land owner as well as we get a liability insurance for a million dollars for the owner as well as Maricopa County. Uh we've been at this location uh for quite some years. uh basically have had no issues running firework cells at this location. Uh next slide. Our next slide goes into detailed description of laws and regulations that we abide by during our season. Uh we uh basically run everything and make sure every legal based on the laws in Arizona. Um kind of goes into deep detail in regards to consumer fireworks. Um uh regarding this slide. Uh next slide. Yep. Perfect. Um this slide uh goes into depth regarding consumer fireworks classification. The state firework uh bill basically

states that we could only sell novelties, toy smoke, and safe and sane, which we abide by uh making sure that we uh do not sell anything that explodes or goes in the air. Uh next slide. If you can see number one on the maps location and as you can see there are other chains and other places that do sell consumer fireworks the same as we do. Uh Fries Food, Walmart, Target, Safeway, Albertson's and many more that also sell in parking lots and around the valley. Go ahead and get the next slide. slide goes over um that we will be utilizing uh the entrance on Carefree Highway. We will be using and accessing the same uh entrance that the storage company uses. Uh that's the only little bit of change is that we will be uh accessing that entrance and exit u compared to uh how we have been prior. Um it's just a bit easier to access in and out through that uh access uh right next to the storage. Um let's see. All right. Uh next, this slide uh shows that we've been approved by Daisy Mountain Fire Department. Uh here's our fireworks sales permit uh for the duration of our season. Uh basically they're approving that we follow all fire department rules and regulations. uh confirming that we use you know fire extinguishers that we have a water canister on site. Um so that is our approval from the Daisy Mountain Fire Department. Next slide. Uh this basically goes into a little bit of detail in regards to um our mission and who we are. We have successfully and

safely sold consumer fireworks to Arizona for over 16 years. Uh we it's our mission to sell safe and sane and abide by laws and regulations um of Arizona when it comes to selling fireworks. Go ahead with next slide. We are a a small familyrun business that follows laws here in Arizona while trying to make a living. Uh this is our last slide and I appreciate your guys' time and the board for letting us present. Um and thank you so much. Thank you. Um are there any questions of the applicant by the board? Okay. Um seeing none, are there any people here in the audience or online that wish to speak? Nobody else online indicating they'd like to speak. Okay. Thank you. Um, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I'll turn it over to the board. This is in district three, which is my district, but I'm happy to hear any comments from the rest of the board. Member Carden. Uh, Chairman Persona, I'd be happy to make a motion for approval as that's how I feel, unless you'd like to engage any other further discussion. I'm not see you like to speak. I'm seconding unless you Okay. Yeah. Why don't you make the formal motion and then we'll go from there. I move that we approve TU250020. Second. Rosie, would you please take a roll call vote? Member Carden, yes. Member Clap, yes. Member Ward, yes. Chair Person, yes. Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Great. Thank you. Happy early 4th of July. All right, we will move on to case number four, BA250021,

the Allenich property variance, and Joel is going to walk us through that one. Uh, chair Pan, members of the board, uh, BA2521 is a variance request for a property on Titan Court in Sun City West. This request for a variance of the rear setback requirement. Uh, the standard in Sun City West is 25 ft. They're proposing 15 ft. Uh the site is located at the end of a culde-sac at the eastern boundary of Sun City West. It remains as originally platted with no significant alterations. Uh this is coming to us as a result of an HOA uh requirement that states that accessory structures must be must be attached to the primary structure. Uh if detached, uh the proposed structure would comply with all setback requirements. With that said, Maroba County does not enforce HOA architectural or design standards. Uh therefore no pecular condition exists on the property that would prevent them from uh being in compliance with existing county zoning regulations. Uh the variance is being solely sought due to the HOA preference and not due to state constraints at this time. I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you Joel. Um I have a question if there are no others. So you mentioned the HOA requirement that the county is not bound by but so there the applicant is locating the structure where they are because of an HOA requirement. Uh Cherone that's correct. Okay. Thank you for clarifying madam madam chair I just for clarification they're not I don't believe they're locating it based on HOA requirement. They're connecting it to the primary structure because of an HOA requirement. Okay. Thank you. So if it were detached then we would be dealing with different setback. That's correct. Okay. Or or or attached in a different location. Understood. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Joel? All right. Um we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here or online to speak? Not here.

I'm not seeing anybody online indicating they'd like to speak as well. Okay. Um, seems to me we should probably continue this so that we can hear what they have to say. Um, does someone want to make a motion to do that unless you have another option? I move we continue BA250021 to the um designated July meeting. What is it? July July 17th. Second by member Carden. Uh Rosley, will you please take a roll call vote? Member Carden. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Here we have a motion for a continuence by a vote of four to zero. Thank you. Thanks, Joel. Um, all right. We are moving on now to case number five, BA250025, the Sunset Cove Investments LLC property. Um, and this one is back to Daniel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, BA2500025 uh is a request for uh maximum lot coverage of 28% where 25% is the maximum permitted for the zoning ordinance. Uh the location is 3902 West Cayanta Trail um in the Lavine area. The request is the applicant seeks to um permit a 12,084 square ft primary residence along and this includes um two accessory structures. one of which would be an accessory dwelling unit um connected by a uh excuse me pardon my French port kosher um and that would be the res um the request for that as well. So um there is no peculiar condition facing the lot at this time. Um nothing

prevents reasonable development of the lot. The lot is fairly flat. No um in fact there has been a a mcdot reduction as well along this along the eastern side for the um future rideway. So there is plenty of um space and there and the applicant did not indicate um or provide a particular condition that faces the lot. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Um can you please point out on this slide? I'm having a hard time seeing it because it's small, but where the um Oh, it's a lot coverage, so it's not a setback. That's why. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Daniel? Okay. Um, hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here or online? I have I have Chris Mccardi online. Uh, there you go, Chris. Go ahead. All right. Thank you guys. Um, basically, we're trying to build our personal house. I live in the neighborhood. Our problem is the ADU and the house. We're just trying to do a porticochet that connects the two. And by doing that, because it's got a solid roof, I go over my my lot coverage. Um, it's it's really just for the look of the house. It looks better with that there. Um, it connects shade for the uh ADU unit. So, I'm just trying to get a little bit uh more coverage. It's actually 27 12% versus 28 um than what was on the paper. But yeah, it's the porticochet that's creating the issue. the rest of the house is is within the parameters of Maricopa County and it fits in the neighborhood because I I live in this neighborhood as well currently. Um, thank you Mr. McCarti. Are there any questions by the board members? Thank you. Um, is there anyone else registered online or in the audience that would like to speak on this item?

Okay, seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is in district five. I know the area well. Thank you. And that's a beautiful home you've got. I have no problem at all with with approving this variance. Um, and so with that, I would like to make a motion to approve um number BA250025 and establish a maximum lot coverage of 28% for APN300-81-016K. Thank you, Member Ward. Member Carden, is that a second? Okay. There's like some mimming going on, so I wanted to check. Okay, we've got a motion and a second to approve Rosley. Will you please take the roll call vote? Member Carden, yes. Member Clap, yes. Member Ward, yes. And I'm anxious to see the end result. Chair Person, yes. Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Great. Thank you, Rosley. Thank you, Daniel. All right, moving on. Um, case number six, BA250027, the Chavez property, um, presented by Nick. Thank you, Chair Person, members of the board. Case BA250027 is a request for a variance to permit a lot width of 136 ft on parcel 300 11039A, where 145 feet is the minimum permitted in the rural 43 zoning district. Uh the substandard lot width resulted from poor lot splitting practice with an unregulated land division circa 1985. Uh the sibling parcel to the west has since been developed whereas the subject parcel has remained vacant since the lot split. However, historic aerial photographs have shown grading on site as early as the 1970s with dirt stock

piles appearing as early as the 1990s. Uh a code violation was opened on site in 2021 due to citizen complaint shortly after the current owners purchased the lot. Now the owners are proposing to build a single family residence on site and if the board approves this request development of a residence would likely resolve the violation as the grading and drainage work required uh would likely eliminate the stock piles though at any rate they would need to be addressed uh with any issued building permit. Um that having been said staff is unable to identify peculiar condition facing the property. Uh it's rect rectangular in shape, gentle in slope and not encumbered by hillside or areas of flood plane. Uh staff is unable to identify an undue hardship created by the zoning ordinance. Uh the substandard width was avoidable and the need for variance could have been avoided um had more care been taken when the split uh when splitting the parent parcel. Uh worth noting though is that according to the owner, he had contacted the owner of the sibling parcel to the west um regarding the possibility of purchasing its eastern most 15 ft. um that would have brought the lot width of the subject site to about 151 feet which would have negated the need for variance and the sibling parcel uh still would have met lot width requirements. Um however according to the owner um the other owner the one of the sibling parcel was unwilling to sell any land hence why they came in for this variance request. Um, so with that, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record, uh, the grant of this variance will memorialize item A. Variance approval establishes a 136 ft lot width for APN 311039A. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Nick. Um, any questions of Nick? Um, I just want to clarify our only action is the variance for the lot width, nothing to do with the grading violation. Uh, chair person that is correct. Thank you. Um, with that I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's

representative here or online? I am online. Excellent. Um, please state your name for the record and then you can proceed with your presentation. My name is Manuel Chavez and I live at 6126 South uh 64 Drive in Lavine. Um well, like Nick just explained, uh we just need a variance so we can build a home. Um like he did mention, I have tried um buying, you know, actually I I gave a couple of options. I say 15 feet, then I say, "Well, give me 10 ft." He actually has a a block chance at 11 feet from what's our property line that he's already not using and he still say no. Um I offer I think way more than what I should have but you know you know just to avoid all this conflict and he's just you know he insisted no. Um you know even though he was the the person liable for for this bad split. Um, with that said, I mean, this is my only option and yeah, we just want to build a a home and we need this variance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chavez. Um, are there any questions of our speaker? Um, hearing none. Um, hang tight in case we have more questions. Is there anyone else here or online that wishes to speak about this case? Nobody. Nobody else online indicating they'd like to speak. Nadia. Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I'll turn it over to the board. This is in district five. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. This one as well. I move that we approve BA2500027 memorializing a variance approval of 136 ft lot width for APN300-11-039A.

Thank you. Member Ward, do we have a second? Second. Second by member Clap. Rosley, will you please take the roll call vote? Member Carden, yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Here we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Excellent. Thank you. Best of luck, Mr. Chavez. Um, we will now move on to case number seven, BA250028, the Biolante property. And we are back to Daniel who I have to say is the most sustainable of all of us because look he is bringing his phone and reading it instead of the reams of paper. So thank you. I appreciate that madam chair. Uh case BA250028 Bante property is um located at 8427 North 192nd Avenue in the Wadell area. The proposed the proposal for this case is uh a proposed maximum lot coverage of 64.66% 66% where 40% is the maximum allowed and a proposed grading and construction of a pool barrier outside of the lots development envelope were otherwise prohibited. Um the site is located in um the Sonoron Ridge Estates Unit 2 recorded plat with um a plat note that's um severely restricts um the buildable area and disturbances outside of the outside of the building envelope. Um that is plat number plat note number seven and this is due to manage um off-site flows for the rest of the subdivision. Um the CA the the original permitting for the for the um primary residence um also included um those um drainage um mitigation efforts with a um rip wrap

along the southern end edge of the property to manage those flows. Um but this request would be for an additional um um for additional um disturbances related to pool barrier and uh the pool construction along with um some uh finishing of um decomposed granite in the front yard. There isn't there isn't uh apart from the apart from the um the lot being in a flood plane. Um there since the property already received a building permit for the primary residence um for this application uh staff didn't find a particular condition facing the property for this new construction of the pool and the pool barrier. Be happy to answer questions. Thank you. Madam chair just to add the variance request is not to vary the platinum requirement. It's the rule 43d uh which includes the plat notes but they're also part of the thanks for clarifying that. Um any questions for Daniel or Darren? All right. Um I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Do we have the applicant or applicants representative here or online? Oh, good morning. Um, please state your name and address for the record and then Good morning. My name is Francisco Vada. My address is 285 West Complex, Tempe, Arizona. Is it there? Can you hear me now? No. Okay. My name is Francisco Bada and my address is 285 Westp Place Temp Arizona. Thank you. You can proceed with your

presentation. Okay. Or whatever you want to share. Had a had a PowerPoint. Is is it available or no? Okay. Yeah. Slice number one is actually just shows where the property is located and the existing improvements that are around there. Slide two. Same thing, just a a better closeup. As you can see, the property's located within what? Okay. As you can see, the property is located with a flood plane. Okay. a which requires uh very special erosion protection because it's right next to the floodway. The floodway is actually the red and the flood planes the blue here. Here I took some pictures and uh at different locations at the property corners and also I highlighted the uh disturbance area and the rib prep area as well as where the homeown association requested that we actually landscape that area. And there's a table there. Go back. There's a table there, but it's pretty hard to see where actually I highlighted or put a quantity to disturbed area. for example, the rip wrap, the uh also the the um DG placement which shows percentages. Next, this is actually the northwest corner looking east.

As you can see, all the DG is actually being considered a disturbed area which uh the homeowner association requested to place it there. Also, as well, if you're looking south where the back of curb is, it's also DG, which uh the homeowner requested uh the association requested to be placed to make it look good, to enhance the property. Next, this is the northeast corner of the property. If you're looking, sorry, sorry about that. Okay, it's good now. Okay, I was actually in the north. Uh, which one? North. Okay. Yeah, the northeast property uh the northeast corner of the property as you can looking south is uh you can actually see the fence on the right hand side which is actually raw iron fence and also disturbed area that was previously disturbed by a road there and during the construction of the fence. If you look west, you look towards the street, it's also disturbable. We actually planning to reveate all that area to make it natural again. This is southeast corner there. You actually just view it from a different side. Uh the left picture shows disturbed area based

due to the uh raw iron fence. And then if you look west, you can actually see DG that was placed as well as the rib wrap to protect the residents. Next southwest corner of the property, if you look toward the north, you can actually see the placement of the GED requested by association. And then if you look east, you can see the 20 foot wide rip wrap that was placed to protect the property based on the flows. That rip wrap is pretty much 20 feet wide, 8 feet deep. It's pretty much the equivalent of uh some gabians. It's, you know, it's less expensive than gabians for erosion protection. That's why it was okay. So, it it's not it's not very, you know, economic to to put it there. And the size of the rock was approximately the medium size was two feet. So, it's pretty good work done there. Next, this is just my closest slide. As you can see where the property is and then highlighted in red, there's another residence there which apparently exceeds the 40%. You know, I'm not putting the finger on them, but pretty much if you can see that property also exceeds probably the 40%. Also, if you look at it, it has DG up in front to enhance the property also. Same color. And next, that's it. That's it. That's it. So right now what we're actually uh

one of the the requested percentage okay if I cannot get it I probably can reduce it if I re if I remove the existing DG that was placed based on the home association request and I can uh revge that area and I can again about based on the table I think I can at around um 8% you know I can actually give back around 8%. The other option that I can actually do is you know if you actually consider the rip wrap as gabas I mean that's 10%. So if instead of the 50 instead of the 64 it comes down to 54 and I can actually do a little bit to reduce it but I'm requesting the entire area and there's no hardcape. It's only DG that been placed. So it's actually very easy to remove very to replace with natural vegetation. Thank you. Um, are there any questions for Mr. Bedia? Seeing none, are there any other folks here in the audience or online that would like to speak? No one else online indicating they'd like to speak. Okay, thank you. Um, hang tight. We might have additional questions for you. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is in district 4, which I believe is Chairman Loper's district and he's not here. Um, do the rest of you have any any of you have comments or questions? Member Carden? No questions. I uh I just it looks like the applicant here is is uh really taking

care of the property and aware of all the various concerns and I would move that we approve BA250028. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by member Clap Rosalie. Will you please take the roll call vote? Member Carden, yes. Member Clap, yes. Member Ward, yes. Chair Person, yes. Here we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Thank you. Best of luck, Mr. Vidia. Thank you. Um, we will now move on to case number eight, TU250028, Phantom 10 at Fries and Daisy Mountain and Nick. Thank you, Chair Person, members of the board. Case Tu250028 is a request to allow a temporary fireworks sales tent on parcel 20305989 in the C2CUPD zoning district. Uh the parcel corresponds with a Fry Signature grocery store uh and its parking lot located at the northeast corner of Daisy Mountain Drive and Gavalene Peak Parkway in Anthem. Uh setup is scheduled to begin tomorrow, June 20th. Uh sales would begin on June 26th and end on July 5th. Uh the tent would be removed within 10 days. Uh for the duration of the temporary use, hours of operation would be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. uh at least two staff or as many as five would be on site during hours and merchandise would be securely kept in a metal storage container overnight or otherwise when not being sold. Uh during the posting period, staff did receive one item of opposition expressing concern that the tent might exacerbate traffic congestion uh with additional concern that the site's proximity to nearby schools could increase the the odds of fireworks getting into the wrong hands. Uh the opposed party proposed the possibility of limiting the tent's operating hours and establishing age limits for consumers. Uh nevertheless, staff believes that the applicant has

satisfied the MCCO requirements for seasonal sales. And furthermore, the request does not differ substantially from similar requests that are commonly approved in the county prior to the 4th of July. Uh so with that, staff recommends approval of TU250028 subject to conditions A through E as outlined in the staff report. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Nick. Um, any questions of Nick? Um, seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant here or online to speak? Uh, yeah, I'm online. My name is Joey Witter, the regional manager for Phantom Fireworks. Address is PO Box 160421 in Clearfield, Utah. And I'd just like to say it's really nothing new to the area or the neighborhood. I think to uh address the concerns, the tents in a placement that doesn't affect the traffic flow and the fire department's requirement of a perimeter on each side. We have the exits on the sides to make sure nobody's walking into traffic or anything like that for safety reasons. and our footprints much smaller than some of the others in the county uh at this location, but I feel like we're taking up one of the more minimal spots of the parking lot and it shouldn't be an issue as far as traffic flow goes. With regards to the safety, obviously we want our children and everybody safe in the neighborhood, but the the statute does have a limitation on purchases for anybody under 16. So, you have to be 16 or older to purchase any legal fireworks in the state of Arizona anyhow. So, I think that will be adhered to in addition to our additional safety standards that we place inside of our locations for all of our consumers. You know, our our deal is is that one firework injury is too much. Uh, unfortunately, most the fireworks injuries tend to be stupidity driven, lack of common sense type of stuff. Um, but when used properly and safely, I I

think, you know, it's a relatively safe deal and I don't have any concerns that, you know, the fireworks are going to get in hands of young children no matter what hours we're open, etc. But yeah, and I'm open to any questions that the board has. Any questions for me? Thank you, Mr. Witter. Any questions the board? I'm not seeing any. Are there any other folks here or online that wish to speak? No one else online indicating they'd wish to speak. Okay. Thank you, Nadia. That I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This one is in district three, which is my district. Apparently, we get I get all the firework cases today. Um, I have no issues with this. I just want to make sure that I'm not leaving out any other feedback from the rest of you. Member Carden. No other feedback, but would you like me to make a motion? Go for it. I move we approve TU250028. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Great. Seconded by member Clap Rosley. Please take the roll vote. Member Carden. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Person. Yes, here we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Thank you, Rosley. Best of luck, Mr. Witter. Um, we will now move on to number nine, BA250031, the Bender Residence and Martin. Good morning members of the board. This

is a variance B8250031 for the Bender property. Uh this is a request for a proposed westside setback of 0 feet where 5T is the minimum permitted in the R3 zoning district. There's another request to uh for the proposed south rear yard setback of 8 feet where 20 ft is the minimum permitted in the R3 zoning district. And then there's a proposed lot coverage of 70% where 65% is the maximum permitted in the R3 RUPD zoning district where this site is at. And this site is located in the Rio Verie area, one of the original town sites right next to the city center area um on that display right there. All right. So, uh, the applicant is proposing to add a new golf cart garage, storage room, and small open trellis, patio cover on the west side of the existing residence. To accomplish this, the applicant is requesting to eliminate the 5- foot wide west sideyard setback of the lot. Another request is to me memorialize the encroachment of the existing rear patio cover into the lot's rear yard which was from the required 20t to 8 feet that was built before January 1st 2000. Apparently it looked like it might have been done right up to the subdivision was platted probably around 1978 or 79 on that. With the proposed home additions on this parcel the total lot coverage increases from 60% to 70%. The property owners are requesting an additional variance request to increase the maximum lot coverage to 70%. Now within this RUPD since they're very small lots, the actual lot coverage is not 60, it's 65% which is an a difference of 5% from the the zoning ordinance has it on there. So based on upon what the applicant has submitted at staff analysis of the report, staff offers the following observations. The lot is small with only the western part of the lot inside the required sideyard or the southern portion of the lot

inside the required rear yard as the only viable options for expansion of the home's footprint. The lot is located next to a 15- foot wide landscape tract that's next to another lot with five foot sideyard. Even with the elimination of the west sideyard, there is still 20 feet between the two homes with a 15 foot 15 ft of undevelopable land in between. Thus, eliminating the lot's sideyard would create a minimal impact to the neighborhood of attached dwelling units. The lot is located adjacent to a golf course to the south and the existing attached patio of the home has been there since the home was built in the early 1980s, probably like 78, 79, 80. And so reducing the rear yard to 8 ft would not be noticeable nor negatively impact the surrounding area. The increase of lot yard coverage would hardly be noticeable to the neighborhood since there is an undevelopable landscape track, open golf course, and a wide landscape street in front of the home that's uh would also provide a bit large buffer on there. And according to the applicant, the community's HOA is in favor of the proposal. It meets their architectural design standards and they're they're approving that on that part. And uh based upon what the applicant has submitted and staff's analysis in the report, staff offers the following positive and negative observation to the board may consider in their final vote of this request. And this concludes staff's presentation. Thank you, members of the board. Thank you very much. Um any questions of staff? All right. Um seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here or online? Hi, this is Rick and Tammy Bender of uh 25446

Danny Lane. Um we're excited for our project. Um currently we have uh 14 houses on our block that were originally made with carports and currently we are down to only three that are open carports. So, this is a part of a carport um expansion with our golf cart and storage unit that uh we and our community are looking forward to achieve to to beautify this road. Um, as Martin said, we are across the street from our brand new community coffee shop and everything. So, uh so this is kind of a a beautifification of the neighborhood. Um other than that, uh I think we are open for questions. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Bender? All right. I'm not seeing any right now, but hang tight in case we have some. Is there anyone else here or online that wishes to speak on this item? No one else online indicating they'd wish to speak. Thank you. Um, all right. With that, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, open up to the board. This is in district two. appears to me that this is a reasonable request from the resident to um uh do all the changes that they plan at this property. So, my inclination would be to approve, but I'll wait and see if there's any other comments from the board. Not seeing any. Then I will make a motion to approve BA250031. Go. And it looks like we've got another mimed in second from Miss uh member Carden. So, Rosley, will you please take a roll call vote? Member Carden, yes. Member Clap, yes. Member Ward, yes. Chair Person, yes. Here, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 4 to zero. Excellent. Um, enjoy your new golf

cart garage. All right, we are now on to number 10, case BA250032, the Oberg property. and um Daniel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, BA2500032, the Opraone property is located at 1 19819 West Clarendon Avenue in the Buckeye area. The site is uh 44,69 square ft and the request is a increase in rear lot coverage um of 50% where 30% is the maximum allowed per the zoning ordinance. Um the applicant is requesting an overall rear lot coverage of 50% um for construction of a three bay RV garage and an attached ADU. The the structure sits back about 10 ft from the rear property line. However, um the ex the proposed um location of the RV garage um takes up too much of that rear yard. Um and so the request um and so for and so the request is to um um increase that percentage for the rear lot coverage. Um I think but but yeah that that should be it. I have if you have any other questions please let me know. Thank you. Thank you Daniel. Um any questions of Daniel? All right we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. is the applicant or applicant's representative here. Great. Come on down to the podium, state your name and address for the record and then you can proceed. Hello, my name is Herby Obergon. The address is 190 jeez where 19819 West Clarendon Aav in Buckeye, Arizona. And I'm here just to request for a variance to be able to build our personal residence and uh that

location of that rear garage to be able to stay at the 10 ft Um they originally asked us to move it forward closer to the house, but we're trying to obtain the maximum yard space in between the uh residence and the garage. So that's why we're applying for the variance. Thank you. Um are there any questions for Mr. Obergon? I'm not seeing any. Hang tight in case there are more. or is there anyone else online or here that wishes to speak? No one else online indicating they'd like to speak. Thank you. Um so with that, we'll close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This one is in district 4, which is in um Chairman Loper's district. Uh are there any comments from the rest of the board? Member Carden? Uh my only comment is I'm just looking at the area and it it looks like uh that there's other similar structures in backyards like this and not seeing any opposition. I I feel like this uh this one would be okay. So I would move that we approve BA250032. Thank you. Member Carden, is there a second? Second. Okay. Member Clap. Um, Rosley, will you please take the roll call vote? Member Carden, yes. Member Club, yes. Member Ward, yes. Chair Person, yes. Here, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Thank you. Best of luck. Thank you very much, Daniel. Um, we'll move on to number 11, case BA250034, the Brown Property Variance, and Joel Uh, chair person, members of the board,

uh, BA25034 is request for variance to a front step back requirement for an attached garage. Uh, what's required in the zoning district is 20. They're proposing 11 ft. Um, this site is located at the end of a culde-sac with a bulb at the front of the parcel pushing setbacks inward. Uh, with that said, it is in the rear subdivision. The lot remains as originally platted with no significant alterations since it development. Uh this is going to be for an attached garage that will front an existing golf cart garage. Uh the applicant states that no other place on the lot uh is they have no other place in the lot where they can expand this garage. Uh with that said, there does not appear to be a peculiar condition that prevents compliance with the county zoning regulations. It appears variance is sought solely due to preference. Although one can argue the bulb of the lot uh does limit site development at the front setback. Of that staff's available to answer any questions. Thank you, Joel. Um, any questions of Joel? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, is the applicant here? Great. Um, please state your name and address for the record and then proceed. Jay Brown, 18948 East Waxwing Drive, Rio Birdie. Uh, thank you, uh, Madam Chairman. I was uh I was reading through the report and for the life of me I couldn't uh get my arms around some of the comments and it hit me late yesterday afternoon and I I apologize to to uh Joel uh because it was late in the day. I couldn't get a hold of him. While this says it's a onecar garage, uh it's actually a golf cart garage. What I'm doing is pulling forward my existing golf cart garage. I'm an avid woodworker and right now I share my shop with my golf cart and my golf clubs and my bikes and my whatever my wife throws in there. So, I'm actually I'm actually just pulling forward uh my golf cart garage. So, there'll be no cars there. In fact, um I joked with you can tell from the

size it's it's 14 and 1/2 ft deep on the outside dimensions. Um so, when it's finished, it's 13 and 1/2 ft. So, for the fun of it, I went out and res I measured my little uh grocery getter last night, and it's 15 feet deep, my car. So, I told my wife, I said, "I think you could get it in there once, but you'd never get it out." So, it's uh it's truly a uh truly a golf cart garage. So, I'm uh I'm really just trying to make space to the my my woodworking shop has to stay where the golf cart garage is because a golf cart garage has to be forward uh obviously for ingress and egress. Uh I would note in the report it also it also did talk about the need uh the zoning requirement for uh two spaces uh off the street that that stays intact because I have a double a double garage. So that's that stays uh in intact and um as I noted there our HOA uh does not allow overnight parking outside anyway. So you have to put your vehicles in. So that kind of goes in conjunction with that. So, it's I apologize that that was that we're that it's labeled as a onecar garage. It's it was never intended to be that. Thank you for clarifying. Appreciate that. Um, any comments or questions for Mr. Brown? Member Clap. Yeah, thank you. I sat and looked at this last night and kept trying to figure out why you were building it this way and thinking, is he not just going to extend the garage that's behind it? you know, so you clarified it for me and I really appreciate that because that was the only thing I was really puzzling over is what your plan was here. Yeah. So, appreciate your comments. That really clears up my my uh concerns about the garage. It's actually with almost within 10 square feet square footage wise of my golf cart garage is just shaped a little different. Yeah, I kept trying to figure out how big of a garage you would need for a golf cart versus a car and so you've clarified it. Thank

you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Um, great. Uh, what about any There's no other speakers here online. Anyone? No one else online indicating they wish to speak. Um, thank you. You can have a seat. We'll let you know if we have any other questions. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is in district two. Yeah, I I understand what the uh property owner is trying to do here. I think it is fine according to his plans. And I would move to approve BA250034. Okay. Thank you. Second by member Cardon. Um Rose Lee, will you please take the roll call vote? Member Carden, yes. Member Clap, yes. Member Ward, yes. Chair Person, yes. We have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Good luck. All right. And we are on to our last case. Um Andrew's been sitting so patiently. Case BA250037, Lord Shade Company. And we'll turn it over to you, Andrew. Thank you, chair and members of the board. BA2500037 is a request to amend the rear yard setback to 17 feet from 20 feet which is required by a previously approved RUPD overlay on an 8,241 square foot parcel in the R16 RUPD zoning district of Sun City West. The request is intended to allow the construction of an attached shade awning uh structure to the rear of the home. The structure covers approximately 144 square feet at 16 by9 in size feet in size. Staff cannot identify any requirement of the ordinance that when it's applied to the particular condition has created an unnecessary hardship. Staff would like to note however that this request is due to the attached nature of the awning which if

constructed in the same location using the same materials would not need additional entitlement if it was a freestanding structure. Thank you for your time. At this point I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Appreciate that. Are there any questions for Andrew? Okay, hearing none. Um, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative online? Yes, we are here. Uh, thank you chair, members, and persons of the board. This is Travis Martin Martin speaking um in regards to BA250037. Um, I am the project coordinator with Sonor and Shade and I am here with the homeowner, Mr. Sean Lord at the project property location of 13345 West Juniper Drive in Ctoella Country Club. Um we are proposing to install this solid alumin alum wood style insulated roof patio cover um project with the dimensions that Andrew listed as 9 ft projection by 16 feet wide totaling 144 square ft. Um, this would make the total lot coverage 33 feet or I'm sorry, 33%. Um, we have supplied Andrew with the HOA approval letter approving this um, patio cover project as they maintain a 10-foot rear building setback. Um, and yeah, the um, I've got the homeowner here. If you have any questions, we would like to open it up to uh, questions from any of the the members. and uh we thank you for your time and consideration of approving this project. Thank you, Travis. Um I do have one question. So in the report it says that you cannot construct it as a detached structure with four posts. Can you just elaborate on that a little bit please? Okay. Yeah. The the footings that would be required um per the engineering code

of these structures would be too large to put them next to the house. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. You're welcome. Um are there any other questions of our speaker? I'm not not seeing any. Are there any people registered online that would like to speak? Nadia? No one else online. Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. We'll turn it over to the board for discussion. This is in district 4, which is member Loper's or Chairman Loper's district. Um, I don't have any issues with this. Um, but want to be sensitive to other thoughts. Any other feedback? Okay. Um, well, I'll entertain a motion if someone is willing to do that. Member Carden. I move that we approve BA250037. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member clap. Yeah. Member Ward. You guys are tying every time. Um, we have a motion and a second. Would you please take a roll call vote, Rosalie? Member Carden. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. We have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Great. Thank you. Best of luck with your new awning. Um, that looks like it concludes our agenda for today unless there's any other things that we need to discuss. All right. Well, appreciate you all. Hope you're uh staying cool out there. Thank you guys in the back for keeping us safe and um happy summer.