STAFF_REPORT_ADU_BUILD_HARVEY_RESIDENCE_APPEAL_030526.DOCX

City of Tempe — Regular City Council Meeting (2026-03-05)

View PDF Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 11092 characters
PL250081 – ADU BUILD – HARVEY RESIDENCE 
Page 1
March 5, 2026
STAFF REPORT
ADU BUILD – HARVEY RESIDENCE (PL250081)
PROJECT DATA: 
Project Address
Property Owner
36 East Cairo Drive
Michael Harvey and Mary Ann Harvey
Appellant
Applicant
Dawn Sinclair
3C Contracting, LLC
Zoning District
R1-6 (Single-Family Residential)
Gross / Net site area
0.17 acres
Total Bedrooms
5 bedrooms (main residence) / 1 bedroom (accessory dwelling unit)
Building Area
2,317 s.f. (Total)
692 s.f. (ADU)
Total Lot Coverage
31% (45% maximum allowed)
ADU Building Height
18’-4” (15’ maximum allowed)
ADU Building Setbacks
65’-9” front, 6’-4” east side, 50’ 10” west side, 17’-3” rear (20’, 5’, 5’, 5’ min.)
Vehicle Parking
2 spaces (2 min. required)
COMMENTS
On November 17, 2025, a building permit (BP250368) was issued for a single-story ADU at 36 East 
Cairo Drive. The applicant revised their plans from the original two-story ADU to a one-story ADU. As a 
result of the revised plans, the previously approved Use Permit should be vacated and the Appeal 
rendered moot.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
At the May 13, 2025 meeting, the Development Review Commission voted 6-0 to approve, on the 
consent agenda, two (2) Use Permits for the Harvey Residence ADU project (PL250081). The approval 
was for a Use Permit to allow a two-story accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a Use Permit to allow an 
increase in height of an accessory building over 15'. Due to this being approved on the consent agenda, 
no discussion or public testimony was heard. Prior to the hearing, staff received no comments in 
opposition to the requests. On May 22, 2025, Dawn Sinclair submitted an Appeal of the Development 
Review Commission’s approval of PL250081, stating that approval would be inconsistent with the 
surrounding neighborhood, create additional traffic, and decrease property values. Dawn Sinclair was 
not notified of the May 13th DRC hearing because she does not live within the 600’ notification area and 
lives approximately a half mile from the project site. 
With new code text implementation, and advisement from the City Attorney’s office, staff issued a Zoning 
Administrator’s Opinion on June 6, 2025, stating that a Use Permit is not required for height above the 
maximum height allowed for detached accessory buildings (15’) for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). 
This opinion was issued to clarify existing adopted code language as it relates to the state mandated 
development of an ADU (A.R.S. §9-461.18). A similar letter was also issued to the appellant, Dawn 
Sinclair, regarding the ZA Opinion which would have an effect on the appeal of the decision made by 
the Commission. The ZA Opinion would dismiss the need for the Use Permit relating to the height of the 
ADU, thereby the eligibility of an appeal of this specific Use Permit. However, the appeal of Use Permit 
for the two-story addition would still be heard by City Council.

PL250081 – ADU BUILD – HARVEY RESIDENCE 
Page 2
March 5, 2026
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
On June 17, 2025, Dawn Sinclair filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s opinion (PL250217), 
challenging that the Zoning Administrator does not have the authority to dismiss an appeal or change 
zoning regulations. The appeal also contested that no longer requiring a Use Permit for ADU height is 
legally incorrect.  
At their July 23, 2025, meeting, the Board of Adjustment voted 6-1 to deny the appeal and upheld the 
Zoning Administrator’s opinion that a Use Permit is not required for height above the maximum height 
allowed (15 feet) for detached accessory buildings that are accessory dwelling units (ADU) because of 
statutory requirements, and upheld the Zoning Administrator’s decision that only one Use Permit request 
is eligible for appeal to the City Council for the ADU-HARVEY RESIDENCE, which is the Use Permit to 
allow a second story.
CITY COUNCIL
At the September 18, 2025, meeting, Tempe City Council heard the appeal of the remaining prior Use 
Permit approval to allow a second story for an ADU building. During the hearing deliberation, Council 
moved to postpone the appeal decision and directed staff to prepare a formal Zoning Administrator’s 
Opinion to clarify the legality of requiring a Use Permit to construct a two-story ADU against the State 
Law provisions (7-0 vote approval). The Community Development Director sought an outside expert and 
delegated the Honorable Gary Donahoe to serve as Special Zoning Administrator to render this 
interpretation. Judge Donahoe (ret.) was asked to provide guidance on whether the Use Permit process, 
as set forth in the Tempe Zoning and Development Code, be required for an application for a second-
story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at the Harvey residence, consistent with state law? If the answer 
to this question is “yes,” are there any limitations that should be placed on the City’s Use Permit process 
in order to remain consistent with state law? And, to what extent, if any, can the City require a Use 
Permit process for second-story ADU applications in general?
On October 3, 2025, Honorable Gary Donahoe issued a Special Zoning Administrator’s Opinion stating 
that the City of Tempe does not have the legal authority to require a Use Permit pursuant to ZDC Section 
3-420 for any two-story ADU because it conflicts with A.R.S. § 9-461.18. 
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 20, 2025, Dawn Sinclair submitted an Appeal of the Special Zoning Administrator’s Opinion 
(PL250363).
December 17, 2025, the Board of Adjustment voted 6-1 to approve the appeal and overturn the Special 
Zoning Administrator’s Opinion stating that the City of Tempe does have the legal authority to require a 
Use Permit for a two-story ADU. The result is that the City of Tempe shall continue to require a Use 
Permit for a two-story ADUs.
PUBLIC INPUT
Staff have not received any new public comments since the September 18, 2025, City Council meeting. 
USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA AND OPTIONS:
Council’s Options on Appeal

Vacate the approval of the Use Permit and render the appeal moot.

Approve the appeal of the Development Review Commission’s decision (find in favor of the 
appellant and effectively deny the Use Permit which would prevent the development project 
moving forward without further changes to the site plan);

PL250081 – ADU BUILD – HARVEY RESIDENCE 
Page 3
March 5, 2026

Deny the appeal of the Development Review Commission’s decision (find in favor of the DRC, 
and effectively approve the Use Permit; project would move forward to next steps); 

Deny the appeal of the Development Review Commission’s decision, with modified or added 
conditions (the Council may decide that conditions are needed to address any deleterious effects 
from the proposed use). The City Council may choose to keep, modify, or add to any proposed 
conditions;

Continue to a future date certain, requesting additional information before making a final decision 
on the appeal; or,

Remand back to the Development Review Commission for further consideration on the Use 
Permit issues raised. If this occurs, Council should give specific direction to DRC as to why they 
are sending back for further consideration. 
Zoning and Development Code Use Permit
The ZDC sets out the approval criteria for Use Permit to be considered to include the following:
Section 6-308(E) Approval Criteria for a Use Permit:
1.
A use permit shall be granted only upon a finding by the decision-making body, that the use 
covered by the permit, the manner of its conduct, and any buildings which are involved, will not 
be detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the 
neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general, and that the use will be in full conformity to any 
conditions, requirements, or standards prescribed therefore by this Code.
2.
In arriving at the above determination, the following factors shall be considered, but not be limited 
to:
a.
Any significant increase in vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
b.
Nuisance arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare 
at a level exceeding that of ambient conditions.
c.
Contribution to the deterioration of the neighborhood or to the downgrading of property 
values, the proposed use is not in conflict with the goals objectives or policies for 
rehabilitation, redevelopment or conservation as set forth in the City’s adopted plans or 
General Plan.
d.
Compatibility with existing surrounding structures and uses.
e.
Adequate control of disruptive behavior both inside and outside the premises which may 
create a nuisance to the surrounding area or general public.
Section 3-420(C) Additional Use Permit approval criteria for second-story additions:
1.
The proposed second story is designed to be compatible with the architecture of the residence 
and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2.
There are design considerations for privacy to adjacent properties and protection of existing solar 
appurtenances on adjacent lots.
3.
There is sufficient parking on site or on the street frontage to accommodate guests. Addition 
shall be required to meet current single family parking standards pursuant to Section 4-603, 
parking ratios.

PL250081 – ADU BUILD – HARVEY RESIDENCE 
Page 4
March 5, 2026
Zoning and Development Code Appeal Criteria
Section 6-803 A.
1.
The petition for appeals to the City of Tempe shall contain:
a.
The name of the applicant and the city case file number;
b.
The name, address and signature of each petitioner; and
c.
The specific grounds for appeal. The appeal shall be limited to the issue(s) raised in the 
petition.
STAFF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
The request for a Use Permit for a two-story addition was reviewed by staff twice since March of 2025. 
During these reviews, Planning staff provided comments and corrections which the original applicant 
took into consideration for a later submittal of the proposal. The largest change to the development 
included removing second story windows from the proposed building. Staff recommended the second 
story windows be removed due to privacy concerns that could be raised by neighbors. That applicant 
agreed with these concerns and removed the windows, as shown in the final submittal of the site plans 
and building elevations. 
In analyzing the request for the Use Permit, staff concluded that the five criteria and additional three 
criteria for second-story additions were met by the proposed design and recommended the Use Permit 
for approval by the Development Review Commission. The only unique condition of approval was to 
require that the ADU be painted to match the existing house. 
On November 17, 2025, a building permit (BP250368) was issued for a single-story ADU at 36 East 
Cairo Drive. The applicant revised their plans from the original two-story ADU to a one-story ADU. The 
City also received a formal withdrawal of the use permit to allow a 2nd story ADU.  Staff, therefore, 
recommend that the City Council vacate the decision made by the DRC and render the appeal moot.