Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM May 4, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Item Page No. 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes from the March 9, 2017 Meeting 22 4 Approval of the Open Meetings Resolution 21 5 Petition ARB 17-28 – a request from Stotz Equipment, represented by 1 Daniel de la Torre, for a variance to the fence height on the front property line for property located at or next to 1201 Troy King Road in the PIP, Planned Industrial Park district. (Helen Landaverde) 6 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 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.  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 1 of 20 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 17-28 Variance to the maximum permitted fence height on the front property line with a 0’ front yard setback from the right-of-way May 4, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 17-28 is a request from Stotz Equipment, represented by Daniel de la Torre for a variance to the fence height on the front property line for property located at or next to 1201 Troy King Road (R6000568) in the PIP, Planned Industrial Park. The property is legally described as: Lot 2 of the Biel-Westerman Subdivision, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico Otherwise located at or next to 1201 Troy King Road. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant..........................Stotz Equipment Representative ................Daniel de la Torre Property Owner ...............Huron Farm Management LLP Location of Property .......Lot 2 of Biel-Westerman Subdivision (R6000568) Nature of Petition………..The applicant is requesting a variance to the fence height on the front property line in the PIP, Planned Industrial Park to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of three feet and allow for a six-foot tall chain-link fence on the front property line with a 0’ front yard setback from the right-of- way. Applicable Regulations...City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Pursuant to UDC 5.4.4 Fence and wall location and height, the maximum fence height on the front property line is three feet. Zoning ..............................PIP, Planned Industrial Park Existing Use.....................Industrial Surrounding Zoning……. North: PIP, Planned Industrial Park South: PIP, Planned Industrial Park East: PIP, Planned Industrial Park West: PIP, Planned Industrial Park Surrounding Land Use… North: Industrial East: Industrial South: Industrial West: Industrial Public Notice……………..Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, April 16, 2017. Adjoining property owners 1  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 2 of 20 were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, April 12, 2017, and a sign was posted on the property on Friday, April 21, 2017. Staff ..................................Helen Landaverde, Associate Planner BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to the fence height on the front property line to allow for a six-foot tall chain-link fence in the PIP, Planned Industrial Park. Stotz Equipment has indicated that they would like to secure their agricultural machinery from vandalism and burglary. The purpose of a six-foot tall chain-link fence on the front property line is to increase the security and privacy of the front yard. The applicant has also indicated that they would like to maximize the use of their property. The subject property is approximately 0.61 acres and the applicant also owns the property south of the subject property at 1201 Troy King Road (R6000568). The size of that property is approximately 7.55 acres. Pursuant to UDC 5.4.4 Fence and wall location and height the maximum fence height on the front property line is three feet. In the PIP District six-foot tall fences are not permitted closer than 45 feet from the front property line. A six-foot tall chain-link fence was built on the front property line without building permits and without a variance approval at the applicant’s own risk. The applicant provided a letter indicating that if the variance is not approved he will relocate the fence. The properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned PIP. The properties to the east have chain-link fences located on the front property line or edge of pavement approximately 16 feet of Troy King Road that do not meet the minimum front yard setback for six-foot tall fences in the PIP District. Research shows that the fences are pre-existing and are shown as pre-existing in building plans for 1280 Troy King Road (see Exhibit B). One of the properties, 1200 Troy King Road, was granted a variance to allow a front yard setback of 32 feet in 1986 (see Exhibit C). The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a six-foot tall chain-link fence on the front property line with a 0’ front yard setback from the right-of-way. 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 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 2  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 3 of 20 not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The need for a variance is self-created as the applicant has constructed a six- foot tall chain-link fence without permits from the City in order to protect their agricultural machinery from vandalism and burglary. The applicant’s propery is less than an acre (0.61 acres) and smaller than the surrounding properties. Yet, there is no minimum lot area requirement in the PIP District. The applicant has indicated that unique circumstances exists since the property owners to the east of the property currently have six-foot tall fences (see Exhibits H to I-3). The required front yard setback for a six-foot tall fence is 45 feet in the PIP District. However, the existing six-foot tall fences across from the applicant’s property (to the east) were approved a variance to allow a front yard setback of 32 feet (see Exhibit C) or were pre-existing (see Exhibit B) in the PIP District. This criterion IS NOT 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 maximum fence height on the front property line is three feet. The applicant is proposing a six-foot tall fence on the front property line in order to secure their equipment from vandalism, burglary and to deter trespassers. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the UDC would deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the surrounding area under PIP zoning ordinance. The properties to the east across Troy King Road and in the PIP District have six-foot tall fences either along the property line or within 16 feet of the front property line. This criterion IS 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 requested variance is a minimum easing of the UDC. The request for a six- foot tall chain-link fence on the front property line is consistent with the surrounding character. The properties directly across from the subject property to the east have six-foot tall chain-link fences located either on the property line or with 16 feet of the front property line. The fences do not meet the minimum front yard setback for the PIP District. This criterion IS met. 3  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 4 of 20 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 requested variance for the proposed six-foot tall chain-link fence on the front property line will not create a visibility obstruction with the neighboring properties or oncoming traffic in the PIP District. The proposed height of the fence will allow visibility through the fence. In addition, Troy King Road has a 100 foot wide right- of-way. The fence is approximately 18’4” from the edge of pavement. The front yard portion of the subject property does not have a sidewalk. Granting the variance to the requested fence height on the front property line will not be inconsistent with other fences located in the PIP District. The proposed fence will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Road access to the subject property will be located at 1201 Troy King Road (see Exhibit E). Granting the variance would not be contrary or opposed to the general purpose and intent of the Code. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting this variance will not allow a use not otherwise allowed in the PIP, Planned Industrial Park. The use is industrial and it is an allowed use in this 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. Non-conforming uses or buildings on other properties are not used to justify the requested variance. This criterion IS met. 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. The applicant also owns the property next to the subject property at 1201 Troy King Road (R6000568) and the size of that property is approximately 7.55 acres. Although the subject property is less than an acre, there would be no 4  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 5 of 20 difficulty in the use of the property for the purpose of securing agricultural machinery if the requested six-foot tall chain-link fence is not placed on the front property line. The applicant is not proposing to enclose the entire subject property of 0.61 acres or make improvements and development on the subject property; which could limit and reduce the buildable area to the owner’s property. The strict compliance to the front yard setback for a six-foot tall fence would not result in an unreasonable hardship. This criterion IS NOT met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 17-28 is appropriate. The request is a minimum easing of the code and it would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the code concerning fence regulations and screening standards. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 17- 28 from Stotz Equipment, represented by Daniel de la Torre, for a variance to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of three feet on the front property line and allow for a six-foot tall chain-link fence on the front property line with a 0’ front yard setback from the property line for property located at or next to 1201 Troy King Road (R6000568) in the PIP, Planned Industrial Park District. The applicant must apply for building permits. 5  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 6 of 20 EXHIBIT A 6  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 7 of 20 EXHIBIT B 7  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 8 of 20 Pet. No. 24-86 1200 Troy King Variance EXHIBIT C 8  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 9 of 20 EXHIBIT D 9  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 10 of 20 10  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 11 of 20 EXHIBIT F 11  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 12 of 20 EXHIBIT G 12  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 13 of 20 EXHIBIT H 13  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 14 of 20 EXHIBIT I-1 14  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 15 of 20 EXHIBIT I-2 15  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 16 of 20 EXHIBIT I-3 16  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 17 of 20 EXHIBIT J 17  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 18 of 20 EXHIBIT K 18  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 19 of 20 EXHIBIT L1 19  ARB 17-28 Staff Report Page 20 of 20 EXHIBIT L2 20  RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION SETTING AND ESTABLISHING A REGULAR MEETING DAY, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2013-1466 AS RATIFIED WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 2013-1466 as ratified, each board, commission, committee or other policy making body of the City of Farmington which holds regular meetings shall annually, subject to the ratification and approval of the City Council of the City of Farmington, establish a regular meeting day, time and place; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Review Board of the City of Farmington has determined and does recommend to the City Council that the regular meeting day, time and place of the Administrative Review Board of the City of Farmington and the location where a copy of the agenda of such meetings may be obtained shall be as set forth in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON: That the regular meeting day, time and place of the Administrative Review Board of the City of Farmington shall be held on the first Thursday following the first Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico and that the location where a copy of the agenda of the regular meeting may be inspected seventy-two (72) hours in advance of the meeting shall be at the Community Development Department, Municipal Annex, 805 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. PASSED, SIGNED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _______ day of May, 2017. By: Chairperson, Administrative Review Board  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD March 9, 2017 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members present: Chair Ireke Cooper James Dennis Paul Martin Lynn Scott Members absent: None Staff present: Derrick Childers Cindy Lopez Karen Walker Others addressing the Board: Johnathan Aikele Sabrina Harrelson Matchulat Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Cooper and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Board Member Dennis, seconded by Board Member Scott to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0 Approval of the Minutes from the February 9, 2017 Regular Meetings Board Member Dennis made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2017 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Scott and passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0 Swearing in of Witnesses All parties that wished to speak on behalf of any agenda item were sworn in by Karen Walker. Petition No. ARB 17-16 Variance to reduce the backyard setback from 50 feet to 15 feet Discussion of ARB No. 17-05 on February 9, 2017 Senior Planner Cindy Lopez presented the staff report for ARB 17-16, a request from Johnathan Aikele for a variance from the requirements of UDC Section 2.8 Residential Districts Density and Dimensional Standards for the Rural Agricultural District on 0.44 acres located at 3250 La Plata Highway. Ms. Lopez stated that Mr. Aikele is requesting a variance to the required 50-foot front and rear yard setbacks and to the minimum lot area of one acre in the RA, Rural Agricultural District to allow for the construction of a home addition. The house has approximately a 44 foot front yard setback and a 15 foot rear yard setback. The lot is 19,166 square feet which equates to lots in the SF-10, Single Family District. This property, as well as several properties along La Plata Highway, do not meet the RA requirements, but were annexed into the City as RA. The properties to the east and south, continued Ms. Lopez, are vacant and are zoned IND, Industrial. Those properties are leased by Mr. Aikele for his business. There is a residence to the north. Staff recommends approval as the variance request is a minimum easing of the code and is harmony with the neighborhood. Johnathan Aikele, who resides at 3250 La Plata Highway, stated that two of his neighbors to the north submitted letters of support. The Board acknowledged those letters. Sabrina Harrelson Matchulat, who resides at 3270 La Plata Highway, stated that she feels Johnathan and his family are a great addition to the neighborhood and she loves having them as neighbors. Ms. Harrelson Matchulat stated that she believes the addition to the residence is beneficial and will improve the neighborhood. Board Member Dennis commented that the motion should include the property be deemed fully legal in the RA district rather than remaining legal nonconforming so Mr. Aikele can continue to build what is necessary without having to petition for a variance. Ms. Lopez stated that the approved variance will provide the necessary setbacks. Administrative Review Board Action of March 9, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Dennis and seconded by Board Member Scott to approve Petition No. ARB 17-16, a request from Johnathan Aikele for a variance to allow a 44 foot front yard setback and a 15 foot rear yard setback on 0.44 acres in the RA, Rural Agricultural District for property located at 3250 La Plata Highway. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis, Martin, and Scott. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None. APPROVED 4-0 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: Board Member Martin requested Chair Cooper attend the appeal of the ARB decision for Petition ARB 17-04 at the March 14, 2017 City Council meeting. Chair Cooper stated that he plans to attend the City Council meeting. Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: The March 9, 2017 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 6:14 p.m. with a motion by Board Member Martin that was seconded by Board Member Dennis by a vote of 4-0. _________________________________ ________________________________ Ireke Cooper-Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant