Public Hearing followed by discussion and possible action on any and all matters regarding Variance Case No. 2024-0876 - Esparza Parking Lot. A request from Samuel Garcia Jr. P.E, on behalf of Guillermo Esparza owner, for a Variance from the City of San Luis Zoning Ordinance Section 18.75.040 Table No.15 to reduce the required parking spaces from 33 to 22 on properties located at 535 & 541 N Main Street in San Luis, Arizona. (Jose A. Guzman, Director of Development Services)

A.  Staff and/or Applicant presentation
B.  Open Public Hearing
C.  Call to the public on this item
D.  Close Public Hearing
E.  Action on Variance Case No. 2023-0876

The properties in question are located at 535 & 541 N Main Street; parcel numbers 775-46-253 & 775-46-026 and are zoned as Community Commercial (C-2). The request is to reduce the required parking spaces from 33 to 22 from the City of San Luis Zoning Ordinance Section 18.75.040 Table No.15. The variance will allow the owner to construct and provide joint parking spaces to the existing retail buildings. The Zoning Ordinance for commercial retail requires 1 parking space per every 300 square feet G.F.A. (Gross Floor Area). Both buildings have an approximate G.F.A. of 9,850 sf. in total, this would require a total of 33 parking spaces as per Zoning Ordinance. The properties are located in the downtown area of the City of San Luis, where parking spaces are limited and in high demand.

AGENCY REVIEW:
As part of the review process, all land use cases are reviewed by various City and outside agencies.

As required by the State Statute, staff sent notification letters to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project (12 letters). The city has not received any other significant concerns or objections from the various review agencies or adjacent property owners.

CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL:
All requests for a variance from the City of San Luis Zoning Ordinance must meet the criteria for a variance as set forth in the City of San Luis Zoning Ordinance. A variance is not a right. It may be granted to an applicant only if the applicant establishes compliance with all of the hardship criteria established in A.R.S. § 9-462.06 and Section 18.15.060 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance.  In all cases, the application 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.
2. The above special circumstances or conditions are preexisting and are not created or self-imposed by the owner or applicant.
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 this zoning district.
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.

The Arizona Revised Statutes § 9-462.069-462.06. Board of adjustment) further state that the Board may not:

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

ANALYSIS: 2. The above special circumstances or conditions are preexisting and are not created or self-imposed by the owner or applicant.

The existing buildings were built from 1963 to 1982 and no parking requirements were addressed during construction. However, the owner can comply with the current regulations by modifying the square footage of the building area or doing an additional agreement for shared parking with adjacent properties that would have excess parking.
 
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 this zoning district.

The approval of this variance request is not required to preserve substantial property rights.  The properties are currently being used as retail stores. If the variance is not granted, the property owner retains the ability to continue with the current use.
 
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.

Granting the variance is unlikely to have a direct, materially detrimental impact on individuals residing or working in the vicinity. However, it may contribute to potential parking challenges in the area and set a precedent for future business parking considerations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request and has determined that it does not meet all the required criteria, therefore staff recommends denial of Variance Case No. 2024-0876.