Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A City of Farmington Administrative Review Board January 3, 2013  A G E N D A Administrative Review Board January 3, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. Item No. 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Election of Officers for 2013 3 Approval of the Agenda 4 Approval of the Minutes from the October 4, 2012 Meeting 33 5 Petition: ARB 12‐17 – a request from Identiti Resources, represented by 1 Robert Bailey, for a variance to the square footage of a wall sign at 4917 E. Main Street, Suite F located in the GC, General Commercial District. 6 Petition: ARB 12‐18 – a request from Bob Durbin for a variance to the height 17 of a principal free‐standing sign and to allow two 12‐square foot pole signs at a height of 12.5 feet within 25 feet of each other on one street frontage (Apache) in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. 7 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 8 Adjournment ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599‐1101 or 599‐1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 12-17 Variance to the Maximum Square Footage of a Wall Sign at 4917 East Main Street, Suite F January 3, 2013 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 12-17 is a request from Identiti Resources, represented by Robert Bailey of San Juan Signs, for a variance to allow a 44.5 square foot wall sign on a building frontage of 20 linear feet for property located at 4917 East Main Street, Suite F, in the GC General Commercial District. The property is legally described as: Lot 5B-6 of the Four Corners Marketplace Subdivision, Replat G. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant.............................. Identiti Resources Representative .................... Robert Bailey of San Juan Signs Property Owner ................... Hawkins, Smith & Christensen Location of Property........... 4917 East Main Street, Suite F. (The applicant is locating in a new commercial building. The applicant used Suite G as the location on the variance application. However, the address for the location to be occupied by the applicant is Suite F. This was confirmed with the applicant prior to public notice being made.) Nature of Petition ................ The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a wall sign of 44.5 square feet (38.2 inches by 168.0 inches). The applicant has 20 linear feet of building frontage. Based on the standards of Section 5.8 of the UDC, the applicant would be allowed a wall sign of 20 square feet. This is a new sign on a new commercial building. Applicable Regulations ...... City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): According to Section 5.8.7 A. (2), wall signs may be up to one square foot of wall sign per linear foot of building length. Zoning .................................. GC General Commercial District Existing Use ........................ Retail sales Surrounding Zoning……. North: GC General Commercial District South: SF-7 Single-family Residential District East: IND Industrial District West: GC General Commercial District Surrounding Land Use… North: Commercial South: Residential East: Hotel West: Commercial Public Notice…………….. Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, December 19, 2012. Adjoining property owners were sent notice by certified mail on Monday, December 17, 2012, and a sign was posted on the property on Thursday, December 20, 2012. Staff ...................................... Fran Fillerup, Associate Planner 1  ARB 12-17 Staff Report Page 2 BACKGROUND and ISSUES The applicant is proposing to install a 44.5 square foot wall sign (38.2 inches by 168.0 inches) and is requesting a variance to Section 5.8.7 A. (2) which limits wall signs to one square foot per linear foot of building frontage. The applicant’s space in the shopping center is 20 linear feet wide and would be allowed a wall sign 20 square feet in size. The sign the applicant is requesting is 222 percent of the size of a sign allowed according to the standards of the UDC. The applicant received approval of Petition ARB 12-05 in April 2012 for a variance to allow a wall sign in Suite C of the building next door. That sign replaced a non-conforming sign of a previous Verizon retailer. This sign is for a new wall sign on a new building. Private restrictive covenants The shopping center in which the applicant is located (Four Corners Market Place) is subject to restrictive covenants, including standard sign criteria. A copy of the standard sign criteria is attached as an exhibit. According to Section 1.8.3 of the UDC, the “UDC is not intended to abrogate, annul or otherwise interfere with any private easement, agreement, covenant, restriction or other private legal relationship. However, what is disallowed by the city shall not be allowed by private covenant. The city is responsible for enforcing this UDC; it does not enforce private agreements, easement, covenants or restrictions except those specifically required for the administration and enforcement of this UDC.” While the city does not enforce private restrictions, it is the City’s policy to respect them. Criterion 2 states that the signage overall height shall not exceed 36 inches while individual letters shall not exceed 36 inches in height unless pre-approved by the landlord. The overall height of the sign is 38.2 inches. The applicant has obtained approval from the landlord for the sign as it is proposed. A copy of that letter is attached as an exhibit. While the landlord may allow a sign exceeding the center’s standard sign criteria, signs must also receive approval from the City under the terms of the UDC. ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the ARB must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. There are no special conditions or circumstances which exist at the applicant’s sign, building or business location which are not applicable to other business locations in the GC district. The shopping center is permitted to have wall signs and freestanding signs in accordance with the standards of the UDC, which are applicable to other business locations in the GC district. While the applicant’s leased space within the shopping center is approximately 400 feet from East Main Street, the applicant has space on the freestanding signs along East Main Street. This criterion IS NOT met. 2  ARB 12-17 Staff Report Page 3 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would not deprive the applicant of some of the rights commonly enjoyed by other businesses in the GC district. The standard limiting the size of a wall sign to one square foot per linear foot of building frontage is consistently applied in the GC district. In order to provide a sign for the applicant along the roadway, the shopping center provides a space to the applicant on the freestanding sign on East Main Street. In the adjoining commercial building to the west, 4917 East Main Street, Suites A through E, there are three other businesses plus the applicant’s current location. Cold Stone Creamery has a 39-square-foot wall sign with a building frontage of approximately 21 feet permitted in 2002. This represents a 180 percent increase over the size allowed by the current standard. Nails & Spa has a 28-square-foot wall sign with a building frontage of approximately 21 feet permitted in 2004. This represents a 133 percent increase over the size allowed by the current standard. The standards limiting wall signs to one square foot per linear foot of building frontage in the GC district were not applicable until the UDC came into effect in 2008. Titan Insurance has a 17-square-foot sign with a frontage of approximately 21 feet and conforms to the standards for a wall sign in the GC district. The applicant’s previously existing sign (which was the subject of Petition ARB 12-05) has not been changed. That is a 227-square-foot sign permitted in 2004. Also within the same commercial shopping center, Albertson’s has a 190-square-foot wall sign on a frontage of 237 linear feet permitted in 2009. First Financial Credit Union has three 37-square-foot wall signs on three walls of approximately 72 linear feet permitted in 2011. Sportman’s Warehouse has a wall sign of 181 square feet on a wall with 198 linear feet permitted in 2012. Anytime Fitness is the other tenant in the same building as the applicant. They have a 49-square-foot sign with a frontage of 72 linear feet which was also permitted in 2012. This criterion IS NOT met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The variance requested is not a minimum easing of the requirements of the UDC. The standards of the UDC allow 20 square feet of wall sign at this business location. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a sign which is 222 percent of the size of the allowable sign area. This is not a minimum easing of the requirements of the UDC. In the application, the applicant cites the variance granted for ARB 12-05 in which they received a variance for a sign 214 percent of the size of the allowable sign area. The applicant states that the variance requested here is approximately ratio as the variance granted for ARB 12-05. In that case, the applicant was replacing a sign that was approximately 540 percent of the size of the allowable sign area. This variance request is for a new sign on a new commercial building. This criterion IS NOT met. 3  ARB 12-17 Staff Report Page 4 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The variance is not in harmony with the general interest, purpose and intent of the UDC. Section 5.8.1 of the UDC relating to the purpose of sign requirements states that “the purposes of the sign regulations are: to encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication in the city; to maintain and enhance the pleasing look of the city; to preserve Farmington as a city that is attractive to business; to improve pedestrian and traffic safety; to minimize the possible adverse effects of signs on nearby public and private property; and to otherwise implement relevant provisions of the Farmington Comprehensive Plan. “Urban design is a major emphasis of the comprehensive plan. In particular Chapter 10 of the plan provides design guidelines recognizing expressly that ‘improvements to the appearance of one element (of urban design) will foster improvements in other areas. The city’s sign standards should include regulations for maximum allowable signage for wall, ground, window signs, sign-spacing and even recommend styles in keeping with the desired overall visual appearance, formed through consensus of citizens and elected officials.’ “A major purpose of this UDC is to ensure that signs in the community are compatible with the image that the city seeks and in which the city continually invests.” The proposed sign would be an increase of 222 percent of the maximum allowable size for a wall sign at this location. Limiting the size of signs is intended to improve the visual appearance of the community with standards formed through consensus of citizens and elected officials. The signs standards are intended to enhance the pleasing look of the city. The variance requested is not in harmony with the intent of the sign standards of the UDC. This criterion IS NOT met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting this variance will not permit a use that is not otherwise allowed in the GC district. The applicant’s request is for a variance to a wall sign and wall signs are allowed in the GC district. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. In their application, the applicant does not rely on nonconforming signs on other properties in the GC district. While the applicant states that there are other signs which are larger than the one they are proposing, they do not specify any signs. This criterion IS met. 4  ARB 12-17 Staff Report Page 5 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant would not suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were denied. While the applicant’s business location is approximately 400 feet from East Main Street, the applicant has a portion of the freestanding signs along East Main Street to indicate that they are located in the shopping center. This criterion IS NOT met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that denial of ARB 12-17 is appropriate. The variance request is not a minimum easing of the requirements of the UDC, but is 222 percent of the allowable size of the wall sign. Section 5.8.1 of the UDC describes the purpose for sign regulations and cites the need to set standards for the maximum size of wall signs, among other sign regulations, in order to meet various goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 12-17 from Identiti Resources, represented by Robert Bailey of San Juan Signs, for a variance to allow a 44.5 square foot wall sign on a frontage of 20 linear feet for property located at 4917 East Main Street, Suite F, in the GC General Commercial District. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  PETITION NO. ARB 12‐17 VERIZON SIGN ‐ 4917 E. MAIN, SUITE F Deadline: December 14, 2012 City of Farmington Departments CD ‐ Director – Mary L. Holton Comments are incorporated in the staff memo. CD – Addressing – Planning Division No Comments CD ‐ Chief Building Inspector – Leo Hardie No Comments CD ‐ MPO ‐ Joe Delmagori No MPO comments. City Manager’s Office – Bob Campbell No objections ELEC ‐ Customer Care Manager – Nicki Parks No Comment ELEC ‐ Engineering ‐ Luwil Aligarbes No conflict. O.K. ELEC ‐ T & D ‐ Steve Henson No Response Fire Department criteria will be met through the FIRE – Fire Marshall – Bob Popa Building Inspection process. LEGAL – Deputy City Attorney – Jennifer Breakell No comment. Code Compliance has no comment regarding the POLICE – Code Compliance requests listed above. The Police Department has no opinion as to the POLICE –Captain McPheeters merits of this petition. There are no apparent public safety issues associated with the request. PRCA – Roger Drayer No Response PW – Engineering‐ Virginia King No Response PW – Engineering – Nica Westerling No Response PW ‐ Streets Superintendent ‐ Jim Couch No Response PW ‐ Traffic Engineering Admin – Steve Krest No Response PW ‐ Water/ Wastewater Admin – Ruben Salcido No Comment Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – Ryan HOlden No comment CH2MHILL OMI No Response Comcast Cable‐Mark Johnson No Response Enterprise Field Services No Response Farmington School District No Response CenturyLink Communications ‐ Laurence Joe CenturyLink ‐ No conflict U.S. Post Office No Response Williams Field Services‐Lloyd Bell No Response 16  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 12-18 Variance to the Height and Distance between Signs January 3, 2013 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 12-18 is a request from Bob Durbin for a variance to the height and distance between principal free-standing signs to allow two 12 square foot pole signs at a height of 12.5 feet within 25 feet of each other on one street frontage (Apache) for his property located at 2851 W. Apache in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. The property is legally described as: Lot 4, Block 1 of Westland Park Subdivision No.7 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant.............................. Ice Cube Enterprises, Inc. Representative .................... Bob Durbin Property Owner ................... Bob Durbin Location of Property........... 2851 W. Apache Nature of Petition ................ The applicant is requesting a variance to the height and distance between principal free-standing signs to allow two 12 square foot pole signs at a height of 12.5 feet within 25 feet of each other on one street frontage (Apache) for his property located at 2851 W. Apache in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. Applicable Regulations ...... City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Section 5.8.7 Principal free-standing signs. Zoning .................................. LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial District Existing Use ........................ Vacant Surrounding Zoning……. North: GC General Commercial South: LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial East: GC General Commercial West: MF-M Multiple-family Residential Surrounding Land Use… North: Vacant South: Vacant West: Residential East: Mini Warehouse Storage Public Notice…………….. Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, December 19, 2012. Adjoining property owners were sent notice by certified mail on Monday, December 17, 2012, and a sign was posted on the property on Thursday, December 20, 2012. Staff ...................................... Cynthia Lopez, Senior Planner 17  ARB 12-18 Staff Report Page 2 BACKGROUND The petitioner, Bob Durbin recently purchased this property for the installation of a small (8’ x 24’) ice cube house. He has installed two other ice cube houses in the city limits. One is at the southeast corner of Southside River Road and East Broadway. Another is just north of the 7-to- 11 on the northeast corner of 30th Street and Butler Avenue. The property was approved for a zone change from MF-M Multiple-family Residential to LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial on September 25, 2012. Section 5.8.7 A(1)b of the Unified Development Code limits the height of a principle free- standing sign in the LNC district to 10 feet in height. Section 5.8.7 A(1)a limits the area of a principle free-standing sign to 50 square feet and Section 5.8.7 A(1)d limits the distance between two signs on the same street frontage to a minimum of 300 feet from each other. The petitioner is proposing to install two 12 square foot principle free-standing signs (24 square feet total) to an overall height of 12.5 feet within 25 feet of each other. The poles will be 12.5 feet in height but the top of the signs will be only 11 feet in height. The poles will have lights mounted on the top and security cameras mounted next to the signs (see attached pictures and diagram). The petitioner is requesting the variance to allow these signs because he feels that they will help to camouflage the security cameras and lights which are there for the safety and security of his customers. The cameras also help to prevent vandalism or attempted break-ins for the ice cube house. ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the ARB must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The property is approximately 15,202 square feet and the petitioner is proposing to install a 192 square foot building on the site (1% of the land area). The impact of such a small building on a fairly large parcel of land will be minimal. The signs together equal a total of 24 square feet for a project that would allow up to 50 square feet (less than 50% of the allowed signage). The fact that the proposed signs are only 25 feet apart would create a visual sense that they are one sign. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. The property has approximately 160 feet of street frontage along W. Apache and approximately 135 feet of street frontage along Westland Park Drive. The property is 18  ARB 12-18 Staff Report Page 3 approximately 15,202 square feet and of a typical size for a Local Neighborhood Commercial use. The applicant shares the same rights as any other property in the same district. This criterion IS NOT met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The petitioner is proposing that the signs will face Apache Street on the north rather than Westland Park Drive on the east. The closer of the two proposed signs will be approximately 90 feet from the corner and approximately 80 feet from Westland Park Drive. The proposed signs are approximately 30 feet from W. Apache. This location and distance from the street minimizes the impact of the signs on the residential properties to the south. The request to install the signs one (1) foot above the allowed 10 foot height and to locate the proposed signs (24 square feet total) within 25 feet of each other is a minimum easing of the code. This criterion IS met. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The petitioner is proposing that the signs will face Apache Street on the north rather than Westland Park Drive on the east. The property directly to the north is currently vacant and is zoned GC General Commercial. The proposed signs are located in such a way that they will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhoods to the south. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Signs are a permitted use in the LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial district. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses and no permitted uses in the same district or in other districts are being considered as grounds for the issuance of this variance. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The owner believes that the signs help to camouflage the security cameras that he needs on site to protect his property from vandalism and attempted break-ins. There is 19  ARB 12-18 Staff Report Page 4 no regulation regarding having the cameras mounted on multiple poles without the signs. However, the signs are only 12 square feet each (totaling 24 square feet) which is less than the minimum allowed (50 square feet) of one pole sign. The owner would need to separate these signs by 300 feet to meet the code, which would put them on the extreme corners of his property, too far away from the building to monitor the activity around the building. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 12-18 is appropriate as the signs are minimal (less than 50% of allowable principle free-standing signage) and they will face north away from the residential properties to the south towards the GC General Commercial to the north. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 12-18 from Bob Durbin for a variance to the height and distance between principal free-standing signs to allow two 12 square foot pole signs at a height of 12.5 feet within 25 feet of each other on one street frontage (Apache) for his property located at 2851 W. Apache in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. 20 21  l[ I t \ 'u ICE 4 l t s ,rl* L $ l, \ii Qro',*L to,= [ 22  n lal LI 1r? sS, Eqq I ti z - Xir ol { fn U' 1t? -.1 Ei-= E.e.: E d rt o f rn (, I 'ut' zt'zt"r K;"t'- 9*o ?\, -@{ro .fn \,. \4- 23 ot iff; =9 3 g.E I lB ryry *tr-ft s$fl-fl, 0nlilKlllG WATER 24 25 26  'ft4i, <5 ./ r€ 4 € r..- e € <J €tr € r€ d rG{ID \9 FI Gt e d ,:47 27  Er{l @ E=I Drg Eng F @ GI fi- 28 e lbr. 29  PETITION APPLICATION ilrnplut. applications Jlanning Division Com m u'ltty Development Department will not be accepted. City of Farmington 800 Municipal Drive Return completed application to: Farmington, NM 87401 (sos) see-r3r7 (sOs) se9-1299 (fax) o Annexation and / or o Summary Plat o Zone Change to _District Zoning n. Special Permit o Temporary Use Permit o Preliminary Plat ')C YarianceUse (ARB) Proposed Length ofUse: o Final Plan \ \ o Well site equipment modification INFORMATION Appli."nr'' Nrr"' flJ15.*/lZ,, r.! Proiect Locarion: frW[ UJ" Ah.*. Addt"tt' 2r,3pAruo,s f", FApnr;p.t{\,") Qfqs Existing Use: di-t u E-Mair: S"f@ 6."f J*".Liu - (l,n\- Proposed Use: aCe (*o.*- Telephone: fpc- e* -Lb.ll Current Zoning: KelationshiP to Property owner: Asseqsor 's Parcel l.D. and/or Tax l.D. Number: 0t;ler Rop 33 toS Legal Description of srbl:.,i1!"'.yiol4 ,',t 61"".L t ,,€,J,rtl",,J?erksoUlcisir^, (.. ? !1Propertysubjecttodeedrestrictions,covenants'orhomeowne,,'u,,o lf Yes, please provide copy with application. REPRESENTATIVE / CONTA Name: E-Mail: Phone: Address: OWNERSHIP fK(JfEK I I (JWNEK (ldentif General partners, Managing parmer, Corporation President and Secreary. Specify type of ownership interest Fee, Real MORTGAGE HOLDERS 1tr any; Estate Contract, Option to Purchase) Name:EoBb,r<kJ n,,""-'.* 3," Address:fuio rtt, Name: SeD""L." Phone:gflb- B+l owNERCERTtFtcATtoN re Aeto,.5 A. F*glu;rr#, Ad d ress: 3ooz- rrl",t[r.l "o J C ; ". * J- -h*" g43i I (Phytkot ond Moiting) I cenifr drat I am an owner and the information and exhibits herewitft are true and correct to the best of my knowledge in filing this application, I am acting witi the knowledge and consent of all Persons in interest and understand that without the consent of all persons in interest the-requestld actlon cannot lawfully bJaccomplished, give my Permission for authorized oflicials of the City of Farmington or Planning and Zoning Commission to enrcr the premises described in this application. I uniersand applications willgenerally be reviewed by CiylcEncil at thei{rst regular session followirig the P&Z review. N"'u'FonAup&;rr Ownei'sSignature: r I^ L l)l' ) i Address: 4oro466u P, fnntui^ry#^., Ar+ct Phon e / emait: {a{ W [3 z" ^ t'b, I t d"[ 66"6J unLip,rnt 30 31  PETITION NO.ARB 12‐18 2851 W. APACHE ‐ ICE CUBE ENTERPRISES Deadline: December 14, 2012 City of Farmington Departments CD ‐ Director – Mary L. Holton Comments are incorporated in the staff memo. CD – Addressing – Planning Division No Comments CD ‐ Chief Building Inspector – Leo Hardie No Comments CD ‐ MPO ‐ Joe Delmagori No MPO comments CD – Oil & Gas Inspector No Comments City Manager’s Office – Bob Campbell No objections ELEC ‐ Customer Care Manager – Nicki Parks No comment The 12.5’ tall signs will not interfere with the ELEC ‐ Engineering ‐ Luwil Aligarbes existing distribution line. Ok, Luwil ELEC ‐ T & D ‐ Steve Henson No Response Fire Department criteria will be met through the FIRE – Fire Marshall – Bob Popa Building Inspection process. LEGAL – Deputy City Attorney – Jennifer Breakell No Comment Code Compliance has no comment regarding the POLICE ‐ Code Compliance requests listed above. The Police Department has no opinion as to the POLICE ‐Captain McPheeters merits of this petition. There are no apparent public safety issues associated with the request. PRCA ‐ Roger Drayer No Response PW ‐ Engineering‐ Virginia King No Response PW – Engineering – Nica Westerling No Response PW ‐ Streets Superintendent ‐ Jim Couch No Response PW ‐ Traffic Engineering Admin – Steve Krest No comment PW ‐ Water/ Wastewater Admin – Ruben Salcido No Response Other Entities CH2MHILL OMI No Response Comcast Cable‐Mark Johnson No Response New Mexico Gas Company – Ryan Holden No comment Enterprise Field Services No Response Farmington School District No Response CenturyLink – Laurence Joe No Response U.S. Post Office No Response Williams Field Services‐Lloyd Bell No Response 32  Draft Minutes ARB October 4, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD October 4, 2012 - 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members Present: Chairman Tom O’Keefe Derrick Childers Ireke Cooper Nick Martin Members Absent: Tim Christensen Staff Present Fran Fillerup Mary Holton Cindy Lopez Dee Dee Moore Other Attendees Jennifer Begay Terry Page Robert Romero Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman O’Keefe and, there being a quorum, the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Board Member Childers, seconded by Board Member Cooper, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Approval of the Minutes from the September 6, 2012 Regular Meeting A motion was made by Board Member Childers to approve the minutes of September 6, 2012. The motion was seconded by Board Member Cooper. The motion passed by a voice vote of 4-0. 33  Draft Minutes ARB October 4, 2012 Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 12-15 Variance to the Maximum Allowable Square Footage of a Freestanding Sign 3000 E. 20th Street Discussion of ARB 12-15 on October 4, 2012 Associate Planner Fran Fillerup presented the staff report for a variance request from Peterson Properties to increase the maximum allowed square footage for freestanding signs at their property at 3000 E. 20th Street. Currently the petitioner has one freestanding sign of 180 square feet and is requesting an additional 180 square foot sign identical to the existing sign. Within the GC General Commercial District zone the allowed size of freestanding signs is 200 square feet; however, the petitioner has 840 feet of linear frontage and is able to separate the existing and proposed signs by 300 feet. Staff feels that this is a minimum easing of the sign ordinance and the UDC requires the sign to not be within the safe sight triangle. The petitioner has indicated that the sign will be located in a planter area along 20th Street. Mr. Robert Romero of 1521 Edith Boulevard, Albuquerque, NM, spoke as the representative for Peterson Properties. He stated that they are in support of the approval recommended by the Community Development Department. As a multi-tenant complex, the owner is looking to expand and add an additional 12,000 square feet of building area. The proposed sign will allow the new tenants to advertise. Board Member Martin asked if there were plans to keep the “enter” sign at the proposed location on 20th Street. Mr. Romero stated that they were to help identify the entrance and to aid traffic flow. There was no one else who spoke in favor or in opposition to this petition. Board Member Childers indicated that he is in agreement with staff. He added that one sign at 360 square feet would be too big, but that he felt this location could even support two signs at 180 square feet each. He added that it is a large percentage over what is allowed; but because of the size of the property, it appears to be a minimum easing of the code. Chairman O’Keefe stated that with an addition it will allow an increase in the linear feet of building. Board Member Martin stated that initially he thought the 360 square feet was too large, but upon further reading, he realized that it was two signs and that they fit the character of the location. Ms. Jennifer Begay of 2300 Kevin Circle asked if the sign would be illuminated because she lived behind the property and didn’t want the lights to shine into her home. Mr. Fillerup addressed her concerns stating that the total height of the sign is approximately 24 feet, but that the message board is on the bottom, like the existing sign. The proposed sign is along 20th Street. Mr. Romero added that the sign has internal illumination and is about as bright as the council chambers. He added that this sign will not produce any spillover or trespass light into the neighborhood. Ms. Begay stated that this explanation answered her concerns. Administrative Review Board Action of October 4, 2012 Board Member Childers made a motion to approve ARB 12-15 from Peterson Properties, represented by Mae Peterson, for a variance to allow a total of 360 square 34  Draft Minutes ARB October 4, 2012 Page 3 feet of freestanding sign for two signs on property located at 3000 East 20th Street in the GC General Commercial District, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Board Member Cooper and upon voice vote the motion to approve was passed by a 4-0 vote. AYE: Chairman O’Keefe and Board Members Childers, Cooper and Martin. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Christensen MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED 4-0 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 12-16 Variance to Reduce Setbacks to Zero for the Proposed Fire Station #1 301 N. Auburn Discussion of ARB 12-15 on October 4, 2012 Senior Planner Cindy Lopez presented the staff report for a variance request from the City of Farmington, represented by Fire Chief Terry Page for zero setbacks. There are 6 lots involved in this request. The request is for 301 N. Auburn which consists of two lots, zoned LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial District and for four lots west of the alley zoned MF-L Multi-Family Low Density District. She identified that there is a 20’ alley between the two groups of lots. The zero setback request is for all sides of the property. The proposed new Fire Station #1 is planned to be built on the west side of the alley (4 lots) then the existing fire station will be demolished and a new administration building (2 lots) will be built on that site. This area is similar in character to the CB Central Business District, two blocks to the south, which has zero setbacks. Ms. Lopez indicted that on page 22 of the agenda the draft proposed drawings show that the buildings may be located to the south end of the 4-lots and only a small portion of the building may encroach on the setback along Lorena Street. She stated that staff has examined this draft site plan and determined that this variance request for zero setbacks meets the justification criteria and that the request is a minimum easing of the code. She also stated the proposal is within the character of the neighborhood and will continue to meet the services of the community as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends approval. Board Member Childers indicated that according to the draft plan there is little need for the variance. Ms. Lopez stated that they are requesting the zero setbacks in advance so that the design and construction will not be slowed down if changes to the building plan are made, that especially on the southern property lines and where the proposed building meets the alley. Board Member Martin asked about the upper floor connection via the overpass/patio. Ms. Lopez stated that there are electric lines in the alley and that the drawing, which is a draft, makes use of the connection to the proposed administration building. Mr. Martin asked how tall the bays are. Ms. Lopez suggested that Fire Chief Terry Page could best answer that question. 35  Draft Minutes ARB October 4, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Page stated that the approximate height of the bays is between 14 & 16 feet and that they are needed regardless of the connection between the two buildings. He added that the alley can not be abandoned because of existing utilities, such as sewer and electric lines and would not have public traffic. There was no one else who spoke in favor or in opposition to this petition. Ms. Lopez stated that there was a lady in attendance tonight but that her questions were answered prior to the start of the meeting and she had left the meeting. Board Member Cooper, using the scale of the current site plan stated that if the current setbacks were in place it really shrinks the area left to build on. He also brought up residential protections to the neighbor to the north. Board Member Childers indicated that the area to the north shows an irrigation ditch. Ms. Lopez stated that the ditch will be underground and that the area above the ditch can not be built on. However, she added that the area could be used for parking. Board Member Childers stated that he agreed with the comments by Acting Chairman of the MRA Commission, George Sharpe and that you can’t know what is going to be built. He added that it is almost a rezoning, and might be appropriate to be rezoned, and, by granting this variance he felt that the commission was kind of rezoning. Director Mary Holton stated that as a business that provides community service and public service this is being viewed for a setback variance rather then a rezoning and that she felt that at least the street sides and the alley could have zero setbacks to provide enough flexibility for what is needed to build the Fire Station. Mr. Page stated that this is a very preliminary conceptual design and especially the administration building, which shows two stories. There is talk of making that building only one story which would be on Auburn and La Plata Streets. He stated that he understands that this seems to be the cart before the horse. Chairman O’Keefe stated he had a problem understanding why this is unique versus any other development, whether the setback request is zero or five feet. He questioned what setbacks are required to make the project work, would 15 feet work, or even 5 feet, he felt it was hard to understand without a specific plan in place. Ms. Lopez stated that the project needs relief from the existing setbacks. The National APA Group identifies that 55,000 square feet of property is required for this type of service, however the combined size of the 6 lots is only 39,000 square feet, so it is necessary to be able to use all existing space to provide adequate building size and function for the fire department. Board Member Childers asked about the safe site triangle being able to be maintained. Ms. Lopez stated that all of the requirements in the zoning code including the design standards will have to be met. Board Member Martin asked that if 55,000 square feet were required for a 1-story building, what was required for a 2-story building. Ms. Lopez stated that she did not find information regarding 2- story fire stations as 1-story fire stations were the rule of thumb. Board Member Childers added that zero setbacks would make very little difference in this area and that the variance is an easier path than a rezone but still wants to make sure the safe site triangle is met. Board Member Cooper added that only two blocks away the zoning has zero setbacks on Main Street. Board Member Childers added that this is consistent with what is in the neighborhood. 36  Draft Minutes ARB October 4, 2012 Page 5 Administrative Review Board Action of October 4, 2012 Board Member Childers made a motion to approve ARB 12-16 a variance request from the City of Farmington, represented by Terry Page for zero setbacks on properties located at 301 N. Auburn (2 lots) and the 4 lots northeast of the corner of Lorena and La Plata Streets. The motion was seconded by Board Member Martin and upon voice vote the motion to approve was passed by a 3-1 vote. AYE: Chairman O’Keefe and Board Members Childers and Cooper NAY: Board Member Martin ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Christensen MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED 3-1 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff Business from Members: There was no business from the Members Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 6:33 pm. ___________________________ ___________________________ Tom O’Keefe, Chairman Dee Dee Moore, Office Manager 37