08.BA260049 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
15621 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260049 – KG Rentworth LLC Property Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Bosco Iturbide, Studio Draft LLC Property Owner: KG Rentworth LLC Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Reduction of required rear yard (west) setback from 25 feet to 5 feet per MCZO Section 502 Site Location: APN 218-26-077W @ 189 N. 81st St. Mesa 85207 Site Size: 7,672 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / R-5 Background: 1. May 25, 2025: Parcel is created via unregulated land division of parent parcel 218-26-077J. 2. June 24, 2025: Current owner takes possession of the subject property. 3. December 17, 2025: Residential building permit BLDR2510036 not approved due to proposed setback encroachment. 4. May 19, 2026: Subject variance request filed. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: R-5 / Vacant North: R-5 / Vacant South: R-5 / Vacant East: R-5 / Vacant West: 81st St then R5 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 1. The applicant has pending permit BLDR2510036. The residence was originally proposed as a duplex with entrance and home orientation off of 81st St. to the west. However, in order to avoid an encroachment into the required yard extending from 25’ of right of way reservation east of 81st Street, the applicant re-oriented the home to face eastward to a single driveway within a Page 2 of 8 designated ingress/egress easement along the eastern lot boundary. The change would have the effect of re-designating the front yard along 81st Street as a rear yard and redesignating the rear yard on the east side as a front yard from the driveway easement. Even with the reorientation, variance is requested to reduce the re-designated rear setback (west) along 81st Street from 25’ to 5’. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 8 Photographs of Subject Site Site Analysis: 2. The site is unencumbered by any natural obstacles. The site is flat and surrounded by development. A half width 25’ right-of-way reservation exists within all lots lining the eastern side of 81st St. between Boise St. and Akron St. Page 4 of 8 Aerial photo of subject site Page 5 of 8 Zoning District map Page 6 of 8 Zoning District Standards: 3. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold). Standard R-5 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence from eastern ultimate street line) 10’ 10’ Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence from western ultimate street line) 25’ 5’ Min. Side Yard Setback (residence from northern & southern lot line) 5’ 5’ Maximum Height 40’ 40’ Minimum Lot Area 6,000-sq. ft. 6,000-sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width 60’ 60’ Maximum Lot Coverage 60% 60% Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.” 4. Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “Variance is being requested in order to meet the rear setback requirement. The situation is that work has already commenced per the approved plans but the ROW Reservation was not included. In order to meet the ROW Reservation we are changing the orientation of the home from facing West to East which is what would cause us to not meet the rear building setback. The hardship imposed by the zoning ordinance without a variance would result in substantial financial losses due to the significant time, planning, and investment already committed to the projects prior to the newly identified ROW Reservation requirement and the resulting redesign efforts needed to accommodate it.” 5. Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance are applied. Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property. "Being that the proposed homes and overall residential use remain the same, and only the orientation of the structures is being adjusted to accommodate the recently identified 25-foot Page 7 of 8 MCDOT ROW Reservation, denial of the requested variances would create an unnecessary financial hardship. The ROW Reservation requirement was not previously identified during earlier stages of review and is therefore not self-created in the line of title. The three adjacent lots were already in the final stages of review and awaiting permit issuance when the additional ROW requirement significantly reduced the available building area and required substantial modifications to all three projects in order to satisfy the new requirement. The resulting delays and redesign efforts have also impacted the lender and investor financing associated with the developments." 6. Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. "Granting the requested variance would not negatively impact the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance because the project remains consistent with the original residential use, density, and character of the surrounding area. The request is not to intensify the use of the property, but rather to accommodate the recently identified ROW Reservation requirement while maintaining the same home and overall site improvements. The variance request is limited in scope and is necessary due to circumstances discovered after approvals had already been issued and construction had commenced. The orientation change of the residence is being made in good faith to comply with the ROW Reservation requirements, and the requested relief would allow the project to proceed without creating adverse impacts to neighboring properties, traffic, access, public safety, or utilities. Approving the variance would preserve the reasonable use of the property while still maintaining the overall intent of the zoning regulations and neighborhood compatibility." Findings: 7. The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self- imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the property without the variance. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 8. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: Page 8 of 8 • Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property that when presented with application of the ordinance requirement presents an undue physical hardship that prevents reasonable development of the lot. • The R-5 multi-family residential would permit a multi-story multi-family residential building without the need for variances. 9. And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: a) Variance approval establishes the east lot line as the front lot line for APN 218-26-077W. b) Variance approval establishes a 5’ rear (west) setback line as measured from the ultimate street line for APN 218-26-077W. Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 2 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated May 29, 2026 1:41 PM BA260049 Application Name: Legal Description 81st St PROJECT Applicant Case Address 1N-7E-20 Bosco Iturbide 189 N 81ST ST MESA, AZ 85207 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:218-26-077W 4802339847 MESA, AZ 85207 Map scale 1:245 Supervisor District No. REAR SETBACK REDUCTION BA260049 RCVD 5/19/26 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE ARS §11-816 B.2 The Board of Adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance when, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship, if in granting such variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved. 1. Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar condition(s) facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) to be varied. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose a hardship on the property. 2. Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar condition/the peculiar conditions on site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is not self-created in the line of title. Variance is being requested in order to meet the rear setback requirement. The situation is that work has already commenced per the approved plans but the ROW Reservation was not included. In order to meet the ROW Reservation we are changing the orientation of the home from facing West to East which is what would cause us to not meet the rear building setback. The hardship imposed by the zoning ordinance without a variance would result in substantial financial losses due to the significant time, planning, and investment already committed to the projects prior to the newly identified ROW Reservation requirement and the resulting redesign efforts needed to accommodate it. Being that the proposed homes and overall residential use remain the same, and only the orientation of the structures is being adjusted to accommodate the recently identified 25-foot MCDOT ROW Reservation, denial of the requested variances would create an unnecessary financial hardship. The ROW Reservation requirement was not previously identified during earlier stages of review and is therefore not self-created in the line of title. The three adjacent lots were already in the final stages of review and awaiting permit issuance when the additional ROW requirement significantly reduced the available building area and required substantial modifications to all three projects in order to satisfy the new requirement. The resulting delays and redesign efforts have also impacted the lender and investor financing associated with the developments. BA260049 RCVD 5/19/26 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 3. Please discuss and explain how the granting of the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. *Additional sheets may be attached. ** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION Residential Variance Application Packet 6/17/24 Granting the requested variance would not negatively impact the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance because the project remains consistent with the original residential use, density, and character of the surrounding area. The request is not to intensify the use of the property, but rather to accommodate the recently identified ROW Reservation requirement while maintaining the same home and overall site improvements. The variance request is limited in scope and is necessary due to circumstances discovered after approvals had already been issued and construction had commenced. The orientation change of the residence is being made in good faith to comply with the ROW Reservation requirements, and the requested relief would allow the project to proceed without creating adverse impacts to neighboring properties, traffic, access, public safety, or utilities. Approving the variance would preserve the reasonable use of the property while still maintaining the overall intent of the zoning regulations and neighborhood compatibility. ’ 201 SD 201 SD ’ Arizona Blue Stake, Inc. 10' 5' BA260049 BA260049 RCVD 5/19/26