Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants lot-coverage variance for Arroyo Norte lot after builder cites buyer options and similar nearby lots
Summary
The Board of Adjustment on Feb. 13 approved a lot-coverage variance to allow up to 32% coverage for a lot in Arroyo Norte Unit 9 after the builder said optional features commonly selected by buyers would otherwise require multiple individual variances.
Maricopa County’s Board of Adjustment approved a variance on Feb. 13 allowing a maximum lot coverage of 32% for a lot in Arroyo Norte Unit 9 in a R1-18 RUPD zoning district, after William Ryan Homes said multiple lots in the subdivision already exceed the 30% lot-coverage limit and buyers select optional features that increase coverage.
Planning staff explained the proposed residence by William Ryan Homes—without the optional patio, casita and detached RV garage—would yield about 19.2% coverage; the combined options increase coverage above the 30% maximum. Staff noted that removing any one of the three options would return coverage below 30% and that a lattice patio would be counted at 50% of its roof footprint per department directive (transcript referenced department directive 20 21 0 1), which could also bring coverage to 29.9% under specific conditions.
Andrew Goodwin of William Ryan Homes told the board some nearby lots in the same unit are at 31.2% and 31.8% coverage and said buyers choose the casita and RV garage options; he said the standard plan approvals constrain patio sizes and that an approved lattice calculation would still leave the lot slightly over the limit in his quick calculation. A prospective buyer, Christine Hopper, told the board she had been told during purchase negotiations that the selected plan would be allowed and that removing the extended patio would alter the interior layout and restrict sliding doors that connect indoor-outdoor living areas.
Vice Chairperson moved to approve the variance “subject to the language outlined in the staff report”; Member Carden seconded. The motion carried 5-0 by roll call (Member Carden, Member Clapp, Member Ward, Vice Chairperson and Chairman Loper voted yes). Board members noted that other lots had similar features and suggested the developer could consider a RUPD modification if many remaining lots require special relief.
Staff and applicants discussed how permitted standard plans, lot-specific permitting and reactive enforcement (citizen complaints) can affect long-term compliance with lot-coverage rules; no conditions beyond the staff report were added to the approval on the record.
