05.BA260018 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
13706 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260018 – Popeyes AC Property Hearing Date: April 16, 2025 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Iker Mata Property Owner: Popeyes Air Conditioning and Heating LLC, and Propiedades de Inversion Arizona LLC Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed rear (west) setback of 4’ where 25’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502 and; 2) Proposed street-side (south) setback of 5’ where 10' is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502 Site Location: APN 218-26-077N @ 163 N. 81st St. – Akron St. and 81st St., in the Mesa area Site Size: 7,672 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant (residence under construction) / R-5 Background: 1. October 1, 2024: Parcel is created via unregulated land division of parent parcel 218-26-077L. 2. October 8, 2024: Current owner takes possession of the subject property. 3. December 9, 2025: Residential building permit BLDR2502779 is issued by staff in error. Zoning clearance review overlooks that the required 25’ half-street future right-of-way reservation for a local street alignment (81st St) was not illustrated on the site plan. 4. January 21, 2026: Applicant’s contractor passes four building inspections. Applicant is notified of the setback error prior to vertical construction. 5. February 6, 2026: Stop Work Order issued. 6. February 25, 2026: Subject variance request filed. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: R-5 / Single-family residence foundation Page 2 of 9 North: R-5 / Single-family residence foundation South: Akron St. then R-5 / RV Storage East: R-5 / Vacant West: 81st St. then R-5 / Single-family residence Variance Requests: 8. The applicant has pending permit BLDR2502779. The residence was originally proposed as a duplex with two driveway entrances and home orientation off of 81st St. to the west. The applicant was advised of the ultimate street line and encroachment into the required setback after permit issuance but prior to vertical construction. The applicant modified his plans. He re-oriented the home to the east with a single driveway serving a proposed single-family residence with attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The driveway is from an ingress/egress easement along the eastern lot boundary. This does not require the foundation to be modified but a variance to the west/rear setback and south/street-side setback is still necessary. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 9 Photographs of subject site Site Analysis: 9. 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. Aerial photo of subject site Page 4 of 9 Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 5 of 9 Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 3/1/25). Page 6 of 9 Zoning District map Page 7 of 9 Zoning District Standards: 10. 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 R5 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence from eastern property line) 10-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence from western property line) 25-feet 4’ Min. Side Yard Setback (residence from northern property line) 5-feet n/a Min. Street-Side Yard Setback (residence from southern property line) 10-feet 5’ Maximum Height 40-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 1,000-sq. ft. n/a Minimum Lot Width 60-feet n/a Lot Coverage 60% n/a 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.” 11. 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 be tens of thousands of dollars wasted as they have already been spent on the project to do the underground plumbing, foundation and the lumber and truss packages that have been paid and delivered. “ 12. 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. Page 8 of 9 “Being that the property being built is still the same and only the orientation is being switched, not approving this variance would cause and extensive financial hardship as the work completed thus far and the money that has already been spent on the project would have to be forfeited..” 13. 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. “Approving this variance would not change the property type or intended use of the land which would follow the zoning ordinance.” Findings: 14. 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. 15. 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: • After reviewing the submission, staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that prevents reasonable development of the lot. • The R-5 multi-family residential would permit a multi-story multi-family residential building. • However, staff notes the permit for a duplex was previously issued in error that would have resulted in the building encroaching into the required rear yard / ultimate street line and within the street-side setback. The applicant has voluntarily modified his building plans to lessen encroachment into required setbacks. 16. 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 218-26-077N. b) Variance approval establishes a 4’ rear (west) setback line for APN 218-26-077N. Page 9 of 9 c) Variance approval establishes a 5’ street-side (south) setback line for APN 218-26-077N. 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 March 30, 2026 2:11 PM BA260018 Application Name: Legal Description 163 N 81st street Mesa Arizona 85207 SFR+ADU Applicant Case Address 1N 7E 20 Iker Mata 163 N 81ST ST Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:218-26-077N (480) 309-1120 MESA, AZ 85207 Map scale 1:244 Supervisor District No. Rear setback reduction BA260018 RCVD 2/26/26 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 be tens of thousands of dollars wasted as they have already been spent on the project to do the underground plumbing, foundation and the lumber and truss packages that have been paid and delivered. Being that the property being built is still the same and only the orientation is being switched, not approving this variance would cause and extensive financial hardship as the work completed thus far and the money that has already been spent on the project would have to be forfeited. BA260018 RCVD 2/26/26 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 Approving this variance would not change the property type or intended use of the land which would follow the zoning ordinance. 3/23/2026 CUSTOM HOUSE 20240192435 Akron St. 25' DKT1954 Page274 8 BA260018 RCVD 3/24/26 Street Side (south): 5' per BA260018 25'-0" R/W