Skip to main content

AgendaQuick™

View Agenda Item

HEARING OFFICER
AGENDA ITEM REVIEW FORM
2.A.
Hearing Officer Agenda
Meeting Date:
05/17/2016
Submitted By:
Jose A. Guzman, Assistant Planner, Development Services

ITEM:

MINOR VARIANCE CASE NO. 2016-0237: This is a request by Celerino A. Gallardo on behalf of Enrique VIllareal, property owner, for a minor variance to reduce both side setbacks from 7 feet to 5 feet 8 inches in the Medium-High Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, Assessor's Parcel #777-60-545. The property is located at 3687 E. Aracely Street, San Luis, Arizona.

SUMMARY:

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 strict, and literal interpretation, and enforcement.

Located at Bienestar Estates No. 9B Subdivision, the lot has an area of 6,209 sq. ft. The current lot is undeveloped. The applicant already has the plans for her new residence that is the reason why for applying for a minor variance.

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 Adjustments.

As part of the review process, all land use cases are reviewed by various City and outside agencies. We have received comments from the following agencies:
  1. City of San Luis Fire Department (5-4-16)
The City has not received any other significant concerns or objections from the various review agencies.

The Department of Development Services has reviewed the request and has the following comments:
  1. Provided on the City of San Luis Zoning Ordinance Chapter 6- Multiple Residence Zoning Districts- Table No. 5. The side setback require for R-2 Zoning District is 7 feet.  
ANALYSIS:
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. §9-462.6 and in Section 3.5 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance.

Pursuant to State Statues, 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.
The Zoning Administrator or Hearing Officer, upon finding that the variance request does not exceed a twenty percent (20%) reduction or increase in a development standard or dimension required by this code and can determine that the request complies with the four (4) hardship criteria established in Sec 3.5 (C) of this Ordinance, may approve the minor variance.

In the event the Zoning Administrator or Hearing Officer approves, approves with conditions or denies an application for a 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 of 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 to construct a house.
  1. 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 conditions for the request were created by the property owner and should be corrected through redesign of the plans.
  1. 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.
The Staff does not find that the construction of this dwelling with reduced setback is necessary to the preservation of substantial property rights. The owner has plenty of space in the lot to redesign the house that would fit in the lot.
  1. 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; the comment from Fire Department addresses this issue. As required by the Zoning Ordinance, written acknowledge from each adjacent property owner 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 one (1) signature, because two lots are vacant and the other one is under construction and the owner is unknown.

SUMMARY:
The applicant has provided the information and materials necessary for review of the request.

Staff recommends DENIAL of Minor Variance Case No. 2016-0237, a request by Celerino A. Gallardo, on behalf of Enrique Villareal, property owner, to reduce both side setbacks from 7 feet to 5 feet 8 inches. The property is located at 3687 E. Aracely Street, San Luis, Arizona and is zoned as R-2 (Medium-High Density Residential).

The reason for DENIAL is that the request does not meet the criteria of the City of San Luis Zoning Ordinance for a Minor Variance. 

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

I MOVE TO DENY MINOR VARIANCE CASE NO. 2016-0237

Attachments