Discussion and possible action on any and all matters regarding Minor Variance Case No. 2025-0007. A request from Hugo Garcia on behalf of Irma Barragan, property owner, for a minor variance to reduce the front minimum setback from 15 feet to 14 feet  for the construction of a new cmu fence/wall in the Community Commercial (C-2) Zoning District.   Assessor's Parcel Number 775-45-190 located at 544 N Archibald Street in San Luis, Arizona.

The property is located on lot 10 of the San Luis Townsite Addition No. 1 and Lot No. 9 Subdivision. The lot has an area of 16,142 square feet. The reason for this request is that the applicant wants to build a fence/wall on the property at a distance of 14 feet from the front property line instead of the 15 feet required by the City Code.

The new cmu fence/wall is planned in the same location as an existing chain link fence. The new fence/wall at the required 15' setback would encroach upon two existing lights, an electrical panel and a concrete pad.
 
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 rezoning code would occur from its, and literal interpretation, and enforcement.
 
GENERAL PLAN:
This area is designated as Mixed Use Activity Center in the City of San Luis 2040 General Plan. The Mixed Use Activity Center land use designation supports the C-2 Zoning District which allows for a vehicle parking lot for passenger vehicles.

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 any 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.            

Staff does not find that there are any special circumstances or conditions relating to this request. The lot is in a rectangular shape and has a generous size for commercial use. Two existing lights, an electrical panel and concrete pad are what come in conflict with the proposed cmu fence/wall being at the setback line.

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.            

There are no special circumstances or conditions. The conditions creating the request were created by the property owner, which have been in place for over 25 years.

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 the reduced setback is necessary to the preservation of substantial property rights. The cmu fence/wall can be situated at the 15' setback with the relocation of the lights, electrical panel and concrete slab reduction.

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 setback reduction is to the front street side and no structure is adjacent. As required by Zoning Ordinance, written acknowledgment from each adjacent property to the notification of the requested minor variance is necessary. City staff requested a total of six (6) signatures of adjacent property owners and received three (3) signatures. Signatures that couldn't be collected were from the property to the west which is BLM land, and properties to the east across the right-of-way which are owned by out of state entities.

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

Staff recommends DENIAL of Minor Variance Case No. 2025-0007, a request by Hugo Garcia on behalf Irma Barragan, property owner, for a minor variance to reduce the front minimum setback from 15 feet to 14 feet. This recommendation is based on the hardship criteria not being successfully addressed.