BOA_STAFF REPORT_WEED_RESIDENCE_012826.DOCX

PL250279 – WEED RESIDENCE 
Page 1
January 28, 2026
STAFF REPORT
WEED RESIDENCE (PL250279)
Project Address
1309 East Orange Street
Property Owner
TK Citrus LLC, Kate Hartley Weed /Tyson Weed
Applicant
Kate Hartley Weed
Zoning District (current/proposed)
R1-6
Gross / Net site area
0.15 acres
Accessory Building Area
322 s.f.
Lot Coverage
37% (40% maximum allowed)
Accessory Building Height
10’-4” 
Accessory Building Setbacks 66’ north front, 48’ west side, 2’ east side, 10’ south rear (5’, 5’, 
5’, 5’ minimum for a detached accessory structure 10’ to 11’ in 
height)
COMMENTS
This site is located on the south side of East Orange Street and is south of East 8th Street and east of 
South Dorsey Lane. The property is Lot #39 of the Carlson Park subdivision and is within the University 
Height Neighborhood Association. The subject property is zoned R1-6, Single-Family Residential and 
currently contains a four (4) bedroom, two (2) bathrooms, 1,535 square foot single-family residence. The 
property is adjacent to single-family residential in all directions and multi-family residential to the 
northwest, at the corner of Dorsey Lane and Orange Street. The current property owner bought the 
residence in late 2013 and in December of 2025 it was conveyed to TK Citrus LLC, a Real Estate, Rental 
and Leasing business owned by Kate and Tyson Weed. This address is not the primary residence of 
the owners; however it is listed as occupied by a family member on the County Assessor’s site. 
The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the east side yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for an 
existing detached accessory building. Setback requirements for a detached accessory building are 
determined based on the height of the building. The subject building is a maximum of 10’–4”, therefore 
the required setbacks are a minimum of 5’. The building meets the setbacks to the north, west, and 
south. The building is built up to the south property line, however, the south setback is taken from the 
midpoint of the alley, which is 20’ wide. The building was constructed, without building permits, in the 
mid 1990’s and appears on Maricopa County historic aerial imagery between 1993 and 1996. Ownership 
of the property has changed several times since the detached building was constructed. According to 
ownership information, the current owner/applicant is the fourth owner of the property since the detached 
building was constructed. 
A complaint was received on June 13, 2008, (IP080130) stating that there is a structure in the back yard 
that did not receive building permits. Field inspections occurred in October and December of 2008 and 
January of 2009, but no further action was taken by the property owner or the City. After 15 years of 
inactivity, an additional field investigation occurred on 4/26/2024 confirming there was still a structure in 
the back yard and building permits had not been issued. A building permit (BP241323) application was 
submitted on 6/14/2024 but was not accepted due to missing information. A complete application was 
submitted on 1/12/2025 and routed for review. Review comments were sent to the applicant on 
1/16/2024 requesting corrections be made to the plans. A second submittal was not received by the City 
and the building permit application expired on 6/10/2025. The applicant applied for the subject variance 
on 8/18/2025. If a variance is granted, staff and the applicant have had communication with Building 
Safety who have indicated that a building permit will be required, and the existing structure must meet 
all building code requirements.

PL250279 – WEED RESIDENCE 
Page 2
January 28, 2026
The applicant is requesting the Development Review Commission take action on
VAR250008
Variance to reduce the east side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a detached accessory 
building.
PUBLIC INPUT

Neighborhood meeting was required

Neighborhood meeting was held on December 8, 2025, from 6:00 p.m. to 6:35 p.m. at Creamery 
Park, 1520 East 8th Street.  

Staff was in attendance until 6:30 p.m.

The applicant, applicant’s spouse, and two (2) neighbors were in attendance.

See attached summary of meeting provided by the applicant, (EXHIBIT 21-42).

One email was received from a property owner within the 600’ notification radius in opposition to 
this request with concerns regarding setting a precedent of allowing an ADU within 2’ of a 
property line. The applicant stated in their submittal that no changes are proposed for the garage. 
If the building were to be converted into an ADU, significant improvements would be needed and 
building permits must be reviewed and approved.

Staff received four (4) emails in support of this request. The applicant also submitted a letter of 
support from the adjacent neighbor to the east, who was also in attendance at the neighborhood 
meeting.
  
VARIANCE
The required side yard setback for a detached accessory building is determined by the height of the 
structure from grade. At 10’-4” in height from grade, the required rear yard setback for the building is 
five feet. The existing building requires a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from five 
feet to two feet for a detached accessory building within the R1-6 zoning district. 
Section 6-309 D. Variance Approval Criteria (in italics):
1.
That special circumstances are applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, 
location, or surroundings; The subject property is rectangular in shape and does not have any 
topography or grade issues that would require the detached building be built two feet from the east 
property line. The sewer line to the property runs through the rear of the property to the main 
residence but does not appear to be close enough to warrant construction to within two feet of the 
east property line. The special circumstance concerns incorrect information provided by the seller to 
the current property owner. According to the Sellers Property Disclosure Statement submitted by the 
applicant (EXHIBIT 5-11), the seller indicated that they were not aware of any zoning violations on 
the property. They also indicated that repairs were made, and a room was added to the residence. 
They stated that those modifications did not require a permit but did not explain why a permit was 
not needed. It is unknown what repairs and modifications were made, aside from adding a bedroom, 
but constructing or removing walls, plumbing, and electrical work need to obtain a building permit. 
The applicant bought the residence with the understanding that there were no zoning violations on 
the property, according to the seller’s disclosure form. It appears that neither the seller or buyer’s 
real estate agent contacted the city to verify if permits for interior modifications were issued or inquire 
about any violations on the property; the seller’s realtor provided incorrect information to the 
perspective buyer.
2.
The strict application of this Code will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property 
of the same classification in the same zoning district; Properties within Carlson Park Subdivision are 
fairly consistently 66 feet wide on Orange Street west of Gary Drive, with larger lots ranging from 67 
to 72 feet on Don Carlos and east of Gary Drive. There has been a history of obtaining relief for side 
yard setbacks. There are five (5) approved Variances for setback reductions within a 600-foot radius 
of the subject property, listed below:

PL250279 – WEED RESIDENCE 
Page 3
January 28, 2026

1332 East Don Carlos – Approval of a Variance request to reduce the required side yard 
setback from 7 feet to 3 feet to permit construction of a family room.  (A-70-7.18)

1301 East Orange Street – Approval of a Variance request to reduce the required side 
yard setback from 7 feet to 3 feet and a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 
15 feet to 11 feet for an addition (A-84-8.3).

1326 East Orange Street – Approval of a Variance request to reduce the required side 
yard setback from 7 feet to 3 feet to accommodate a carport enclosure to a guest room.  
(BA910164)

1305 East Orange Street – Approval of a Variance request to reduce the required side 
yard setback from 7 feet to 1 foot and a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7 
feet to 1 foot for an existing storage shed.  (BA970224)

1314 East Orange Street – Approval of a Variance request to reduce the required front 
yard setback from 25’ to 18’-6” for a patio.  (BA980264) 
Strict application of the Code deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the 
area and zoning district.
3.
The adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the 
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; As 
provided in the above analysis, approval of this Variance would not constitute a grant of special 
privilege because the granting of variances to reduce setbacks are present elsewhere in the Carson 
Park Subdivision.
4.
A variance may not be granted if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-
imposed by the property owner.  The circumstances of the detached garage were not created by the 
current property owner and were not conveyed to the owner when they purchased the property. After 
being contacted by the City and informed of the open violation in 2024, the owner has taken steps 
to apply for a building permit for the garage and to seek a variance to be sure the property complies 
with the Code.
REASONS FOR APPROVAL:
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the public input received, and the above analysis 
staff recommends approval of the requested Variance. This request meets the required criteria and will 
conform to the conditions.
SHOULD AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BE TAKEN ON THIS REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING 
NUMBERED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL APPLY, BUT MAY BE AMENDED BY THE 
DECISION-MAKING BODY.  
CONDITION(S) OF APPROVAL:
1.
This Variance is valid for the plans as submitted on September 4, 2025, and is not applicable to 
any future modifications of the subject site.
2.
The Variance is valid only after a Building Permit has been obtained and the required inspections 
have been completed and a Final Inspection has been passed. As part of the Building Permit 
process, on-site storm water retention may be required to be verified or accomplished on this Site. 
CODE/ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS:
THE BULLETED ITEMS REFER TO EXISTING CODE OR ORDINANCES THAT PLANNING STAFF OBSERVES ARE 
PERTINENT TO THIS CASE.  THE BULLET ITEMS ARE INCLUDED TO ALERT THE DESIGN TEAM AND ASSIST IN 
OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT AND ARE NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST.

PL250279 – WEED RESIDENCE 
Page 4
January 28, 2026
DEADLINE: Approval shall be void if the development is not commenced or if an application for a 
building permit has not been submitted, whichever is applicable, within twelve (12) months after the 
approval is granted or within the time stipulated by the decision-making body. The period of approval 
is extended upon the time review limitations set forth for building permit applications, pursuant to 
Tempe Building Safety Administrative Code, Section 8-104.15. An expiration of the building permit 
application will result in expiration of the development plan.
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE: Specific requirements of the Zoning and Development Code 
(ZDC) are not listed as a condition of approval but will apply to any application.  To avoid unnecessary 
review time and reduce the potential for multiple plan check submittals, become familiar with the ZDC.  
Access the ZDC through www.tempe.gov/zoning or purchase from Community Development.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: Verify all comments by all departments on each Site Plan Review. If questions 
arise related to specific comments, they should be directed to the appropriate department, and any 
necessary modifications coordinated with all concerned parties, prior to application for building permit.  
Construction Documents submitted to the Building Safety Division will be reviewed by planning staff to 
ensure consistency with approvals prior to issuance of building permits.
HISTORY & FACTS:
May 9, 1958
City of Tempe annexed the 490 acres into the City, including the subject 
property.
April 11, 1958
City Council approved the Carlson Park Subdivision Plat which includes the 
subject property.
1993 - 1996
Historic aerial photography shows the subject detached accessory structure 
appears on the property. Building permits were not submitted for the 
construction.
June 13, 2008
Building Safety issued a Correction Notice for non-permitted work for a 
detached accessory building (IP08130).
December 2, 2013
Applicant and current owner purchased the residence.
April 26, 2024
Building Safety contacted the current owner informing them of the violation 
(IP08130) for a non-permitted building.
June 14, 2024
Applicant submitted a building permit (BP241323).
June 10, 2025
Building permit BP241323 expired due to inactivity.
August 18, 2025
Applicant submitted the subject Variance application.
December 8, 2025
Applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting.
January 28, 2026
Board of Adjustment is scheduled to hear this request for a Variance to reduce 
the required side yard setback from 5 feet to 2 foot for a detached accessory 
building.
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE REFERENCE:
Section 6-309 Variances