Discussion and possible action on any and all matters regarding Minor Variance Case No. 2025-0005. A request from Vianey Vega, Vega & Vega Engineering on behalf of Comite de Bienestar, for a minor variance from the City of San Luis Zoning Code to reduce street side minimum yard setback from 10 feet to 8 feet for the construction of townhome in the Medium-High Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. Assessor's Parcel Number 783-05-179, located at 3780 E. Santa Palmira Street in San Luis, Arizona.

The property is located at Bienestar Estates 10 Townhome Subdivision and has an area of approximately 3,520 square feet. The reason for this request is that the applicant is in the process of building a new townhome on the subject property at a distance of 8 feet from the street side property line instead of the 10 feet required by the City of San Luis Zoning Code.

A construction permit (Permit Case No. 2024-0831) has already been issued, and five inspections have been completed to date. This property was part of an early building permit issuance program that allowed limited construction activity prior to final subdivision acceptance, subject to certain restrictions, including limited ulitily connections, restricted certificate of occupancy, and fire access requirements. Based on this situation and other issues created by the Early Building Permit Program, staff is actively reviewing and evaluating the program's procedures to reduce the risk of similar issues in the future. 

During the early stages of the construction of this townhome, the perimeter subdivision wall had not yet been installed. Although a general floor plan for the units was submitted with the permit application, it did not clearly show individual property lines. Due to oversights by both the project engineer and City staff during plan review and inspections (including setback inspection), construction was allowed to proceed, creating the current encroachment issue. When the wall was later constructed, it became evident that the townhome was too close to the street side property line, particularly due to the visibility triangle constraints that affect this irregularly shaped lot.

The purpose of the minor variance procedure is to allow for up to a maximum twenty percent (20%) variation from a development standard or dimension requirement of the zoning code where a practical difficulty, unnecessary hardship, or a result inconsistent with the general purposes of the zoning code would occur from its, and literal interpretation, and enforcement. 

GENERAL PLAN:
This area is designated as a Medium Density Residential in the City of San Luis 2040 General Plan. The Medium Density Residential land use designation supports the R-2 Zoning District, which allows the construction of single-family residential townhomes.

AGENCY REVIEW:
City staff explained to the applicant the requirements and procedure of a Minor Variance. It was verified that the property owner would be able to request a Minor Variance and that it would not need to go before the Board of Adjustment.
 
As part of the review process, all land use cases are reviewed by various City and outside agencies. We have not received comments. 

ANALYSIS:
A variance is not a right, as it may be granted to an applicant only if the applicant establishes compliance with all of the hardship criteria established in A.R.S.§9-462.6 and in City Code §18.15.060 (C).
 
Pursuant to State Statutes, the Board may not:

1. Make any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning classification or zoning district.
2. Grant a variance in the special circumstances applicable to the property are self- imposed by the property owner. 

The Zoning Administrator or Hearing Officer approves, approves with conditions or denies an application for minor variance filed pursuant these regulations any person may appeal that decision in writing, including any required appeal fee, within fifteen (15) days of the decision and request that the minor variance be placed on the agenda or the next regularly scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting.
 
In all cases, the review shall address all of the following hardship criteria: 

1. There exist special circumstances or conditions regarding the land or building referred to in the application, which do not apply to other properties in the zoning district.            

The Subdivison consist of 30 lots and this lot is the only lot that includes a visibility triangle cut-out at the rear of the property, resulting in an irregular shape that differs from the rest of the subdivision. The irregular shape represents a unique conditions not shared by other lots in the subdivision. 

2. The above special circumstances or conditions are preexisting and are not created or self-imposed by the owner or applicant. There are no special circumstances or conditions.            

The situation arose in part due to oversights during design and permitting, which are linked to applicant and staff actions and could be considered partially self-imposed. 

3. The variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights. Without a variance the property cannot be used for purposes otherwise allowed in the zoning district.            

Staff does not find that the construction of this dwelling with reduced setback is necessary to the preservation of substantial property rights. A townhome residence can be constructed in the lot in compliance with the required setbacks.

4. The authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, or to the neighborhood or the public welfare.            

Any reduction of setbacks, even though some changes are minimal, increases the potential fire spread between structures. In this case, this potential hazard is reduced since the lot is a corner lot and does not have an adjacent property owner on the proposed reduced setback. As required by Zoning Code, written acknowledgment from each adjacent property to the notification of the requested minor variance is necessary. City staff requested a total of four (4) signatures of adjacent property owners and received four (4) signatures.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has provided the information and material necessary for the review of the request. 

Although the Minor Variance request substantially meets some of the required criteria, it does not meet all four. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of Minor Variance Case No. 2025-0005, a request by Vianey Vega, Vega & Vega Engineering on behalf of Comite de Bienestar, for a minor variance to reduce street side minimum yard setback from 10 feet to 8 feet.