05.BA260007 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
17769 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260007 – Cordoba Property Hearing Date: February 12, 2026 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: David Flores Property Owner: Cordoba Properties, LLC Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front (south) setback of 5’ where 10’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. 2) Proposed rear (north) setback of 3’ where 25’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Site Location: APN 220-39-039 @ 9716 E. Birchwood Ave. in the east Mesa area Site Size: 6,122 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family mobile or manufactured home / R-5 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. November 1961: The subject property was created when Maricopa County approved the Apache Paradise Unit One subdivision plat. 2. Circa 1974: A mobile home was placed on the property, although it did not meet the required front, rear, or west side setbacks. 3. July 23, 2025: The current owner took possession of the subject property and removed the original mobile home shortly thereafter. 4. January 15, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. Page 2 of 9 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: R-5 / Single-family mobile or manufactured home North: Right-of-way for drainage, then R-5 / Single-family mobile or manufactured home South: Birchwood Ave., then R-5 / Single-family mobile or manufactured home East: R-5 / Single-family mobile or manufactured home West: R-5 / Single-family mobile or manufactured home Variance Requests: 6. The applicant and property owner are requesting variances to MCZO Section 502 to permit a front yard setback of 5’ and a rear yard setback of 3’ for the Cordoba Property. The R-5 zoning district requires a minimum front setback of 10’ and a minimum rear setback of 25’. The property owners have recently removed the original mobile home that was placed on the property circa 1974 and are proposing to place a new manufactured home onsite. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Page 3 of 9 Site Analysis: 7. The subject property was created in 1961 as Lot 63 of the Apache Paradise Unit One subdivision. The most peculiar characteristic of the property is its rhombus shape with side lot lines at acute angle to the street frontage, which significantly reduces the total area – and, in turn, the buildable area – of the property relative to what would be expected given the dimensions of each lot line. The unusual shape, narrow depth, and small size of the building envelope altogether restrict opportunities for placing a mobile home or manufactured home of reasonable size and orientation on the property. Based on the proposed dimensions of the home and the attached improvements, the only way to fit the home within the existing building envelope would be to remove both the attached carport and the attached patio, and then to reorient the mobile home unit itself south and clockwise several degrees. As shown in the annotations on the next page, this could be feasible, but there would still be insufficient room for either a patio or a carport (let alone both) within the established building envelope. 8. Staff notes that few, if any, of the mobile home units throughout the Apache Paradise Unit One subdivision appear to meet required rear setbacks. The subdivision plat did not establish setbacks unique to the subdivision, nor is it subject to an RUPD overlay zoning district. The plat and subject parcel do predate the establishment of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance in May 1969, but the subject parcel already meets the R-5 lot width and lot area requirements. Setbacks would only be considered legally nonconforming where the placement of a mobile home unit on a property predated May 1969 as well. Per the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office Parcel Viewer, the previous mobile home that was just removed from the subject property had been placed there in 1974. Most other mobile home units in the subdivision have been placed since 1969 as well. 9. Despite the prevalence of nonconforming rear setbacks, only two other parcels in the subdivision (three if including Apache Paradise Unit Two) have been subject to variances. One such parcel is two parcels due east of the subject property along Birchwood Avenue (Parcel 220-39-037, which is subject to an approved variance per case BA2021041). In the analysis for that variance, staff noted that the previous MCZO effective in 1961 regulated that mobile home units measure at least 25’ x 35’. Although these were minimum required dimensions, the standard was based on what were then typical dimensions for mobile homes. Reasonably, then, the subdivided lots were sized to accommodate the mobile homes that were typical of the time. But in the years since, mobile homes (and manufactured homes since 1976) have generally become larger. As the site aerials show quite clearly, modern manufactured homes are arguably too large to fit within the established building envelopes throughout the subdivision. Reducing the rear setback would not put the subject property at odds with other parcels in the subdivision; to the contrary, it would legally permit what is already the de facto norm. Though reducing the rear setback to 3’ would bring the proposed manufactured home right to the minimum setback required per building code, staff notes that a 60’ right-of-way for drainage and public utilities separates the rear lot lines of the subject property and the property across the way, so the homes on both properties would be effectively set back a significant distance. 10. Though some mobile or manufactured homes throughout the subdivision encroach on required front setbacks as well, site aerials suggest that this is a much less common problem. Staff notes that, until January 9, 2026, the R-5 zoning district required a minimum front setback of 20’. The applicant’s site plan acknowledges this. However, with the updated MCZO, the required front setback is now 10’. The site plan shows that the livable area of the proposed manufactured home would meet this setback, but the attached carport would bring the front setback down to just 5’. There is arguably less justification for a front setback reduction; removing the attached patio and shifting the home at least 5’ north would negate the need for a front setback reduction and still allow the home to meet the minimum 3’ rear yard required per building code. Doing so would also allow the attached carport to remain part of the proposal and in a location proximate to the street. Page 4 of 9 Site Plan Excerpt with Staff Annotations 2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Site Page 5 of 9 2025 Aerial Image of the Apache Paradise Unit 1 Subdivision 2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Page 6 of 9 Zoning District Map Zoning District Standard: 11. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold). Standard R-5 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to south lot line) 10-feet 5-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to north lot line) 25-feet 3-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to east lot line) 5-feet 5-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to west lot line) 5-feet 5-feet Maximum Height 40-feet <40-feet Minimum Lot Area 6,000-sq. ft. 6,122-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 60-feet ≈82-feet Lot Coverage 60% ≈37% State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 302.2.2 states the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a Variance from the terms of the Ordinance when, owing to a peculiar condition of the land that is not self-created in the line of title, a strict interpretation of the Ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship, as long as in granting such Variance the general intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will be preserved.” 12. Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. Page 7 of 9 “The lot has an irregular, rhombus-like shape, which significantly restricts the buildable area when standard setbacks are applied. “The property directly abuts a 60-foot-wide wash at the rear, providing substantial open space and physical separation from neighboring properties to the north. “When purchased, the lot contained a mobile home with additions that appeared to be unpermitted. The owner has since removed all existing structures and cleared the site for a new code-compliant unit. “An existing septic system remains onsite and will be used for the new home. “The lot’s shape and make strict adherence to the 20-foot front and 25-foot rear setbacks impractical and render the lot nearly unusable. These conditions are pre-existing and not self- imposed by the owner.” 13. 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 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. “1. Unique Physical Conditions: The combination of the lot’s irregular geometry, and a 60-foot-wide wash to the rear creates a hardship not commonly shared by surrounding properties. “2. Not Self-Imposed: These conditions existed prior to the current owner’s purchase and were not created by any actions of the applicant. “3. Reasonable Use of Property: Without relief, the remaining buildable area is insufficient for a standard dwelling and accessory structures. If the lot were rectangular with standard dimensions, the owner’s proposed improvements would comply with all setbacks. “4. Minimal Impact to Neighbors/Public: The presence of the 60-foot wash at the rear ensures adequate separation and open space, even with a reduced 3-foot rear setback. The modest shade structures or carports will not negatively impact adjoining properties or public welfare in the rear or front. Due to the lot and unit position, only the carport will be within the 5’ requested front setback, and the livable structure will be more than 10’ setback from the property line. “5. Precedent in the Neighborhood: Several nearby properties have structures within setback areas. City staff confirmed that adjacent lots with similar physical constraints have been granted comparable setback variances.” 14. 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. Page 8 of 9 “Precedent in the Neighborhood: Several nearby properties have structures within setback areas. City staff confirmed that adjacent lots with similar physical constraints have been granted comparable setback variances.” Findings: 15. 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 302.2.2, 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. 16. 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: • There appears to be a peculiar condition facing the subject property in that it was created for the mobile homes that were typical in the 1960s, which were relatively small compared to today’s manufactured homes. The small area of the lot, together with the unusual rhombus shape at acute angle to the street and the required 25’ rear yard setback, make it difficult to place a modern manufactured home within the required building envelope. Although a small mobile home or manufactured home without any attachments could still be feasibly developed within the existing building envelope, the nature of most modern manufactured homes and the amenities that come with them make this outcome unlikely. The peculiar conditions of the property, therefore, arguably create an unnecessary hardship, as evidenced by the fact that most of the surrounding properties have mobile homes or manufactured homes encroaching within their required rear yards. • Staff notes that the Apache Paradise Unit One subdivision plat includes a note requiring that all single-family residences placed therein be mobile homes (which may be interpreted to include manufactured homes). Granting the requested variance to the rear yard setback would allow a modern manufactured home to be comfortably placed on the subject property. Furthermore, reducing the rear setback would not put the subject property at odds with other parcels in the subdivision, but in fact would legally permit what is already the de facto norm. Finally, the 60’-wide drainage and public utility easement located opposite the rear lot line means that any manufactured home would be set well back from any property across the way. Said property would therefore not be affected by Page 9 of 9 a reduced rear setback on the subject property. Accordingly, staff finds that granting the requested variance to the rear yard setback would preserve the intent of the MCZO. 17. 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 a 5’ front (south) setback line for APN 220-39-039. b) Variance approval establishes a 3’ rear (north) setback line for APN 220-39-039. Presented by: Nick Schlimm, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 2 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated January 29, 2026 3:18 PM BA260007 Application Name: Legal Description Birchwood Mobile Applicant Case Address 1N 7E 22 David Flores 9716 E BIRCHWOOD AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:220-39-039 (480) 648-5406 MESA, AZ 85208 Map scale 1:318 Supervisor District No. Variance request for adjustment to front and rear setbacks due to irregular shaped lot. REAR BSB 25' - 0" BSB 20' - 0" BSB 5' - 0" BSB 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 5' - 0" 10' - 0" PROPOSED FRONT BUILDING SETBACK (5'-0") AT CARPORT & SHADE STRUCTURES PROPOSED FRONT BUILDING SETBACK (10'-0") AT BUILDING PROPOSED REAR SETBACK (3'-0") 24' 10' 10' 52' MOBILE HOME UNIT +/- 1,248 SF COVERED PATIO +/- 520 SF 2-VEHICLE CARPORT +/- 520 SF 10' - 0" EXISTING SEPTIC E Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by www.workroomaz.com workroom STUDIO 623.920.5106 1/16" = 1'-0" 10/20/2025 12:36:48 PM G01 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 25020 CORDOBA PROPERTIES LLC Birchwood Ave October 20, 2025 DMF No. Description Date N APN:220-39-039 9716 E BIRCHWOOD AVE, MESA AZ ZONING: R-5 LOT SIZE: 6,122 LOT COVERAGE: 2,288 SF (38%)