Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM September 7, 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 July 6, 2017 Meeting 42 4 Petition No. ARB 17-57 – a request from Adam Benavidez for a variance to 1 setback requirements for the MF-L SMHAO, Multifamily Low Density Special Mobile Home Area Overlay District to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 11 feet to allow for a larger manufactured home on property located at 812 E. Spruce Street. (Helen Landaverde) 5 Petition No. ARB 17-60 – a request from Leonard Wootton for a variance 25 to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback in the required 15 foot rear yard for a pre-existing patio cover for property in the SF-10, Single Family Residential District, located at 5607 Villa View Drive. (Cindy Lopez) 6 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment The City of Farmington has implemented security procedures that necessitate the need for all attendees of this meeting to enter through the front doors. All decision of the Administrative Review Board are final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk ‘s office within 15 days. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 17-60 Variance to reduce the backyard setback from 15 feet to10 feet September 5, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 17-60 is a request from Leonard Wootton for a variance to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback to the required 15 foot rear yard setback located at 5607 Villa View Drive (R0037336) in the SF-10 Single Family Residential District. The property is legally described as: Lot 2, in block K, of the Lee Max Terrace Subdivision, in the city of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico Otherwise located at 5607 Villa View Drive GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant ............................. Leonard Wootton Representative .................... Leonard Wootton Property Owner ................... Leonard Wootton Location of Property ........... 5607 Villa View Drive (R0037336) Nature of Petition ................ The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback to the required 15 foot rear yard setback to enclose a portion of the existing covered patio. Applicable Regulations ...... Pursuant to the Unified Development Code Table 2.8.1 the required rear yard setback in the SF-10 Single Family Resiential District is 15 feet. Zoning .................................. SF-10 Single Family Residential District Existing Use ........................ Residential Surrounding Zoning……. North, south, east and west: SF-10 Single Family Residential District Surrounding Land Use… North, south, east and west: Residential Public Notice…………….. Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, August 20, 2017. Adjoining property owners were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, August 16, 2017, and a sign was posted on the property on Friday, August 25, 2017. Staff...................................... Cynthia Lopez, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback to the required 15 foot rear yard setback in the SF-10 Single Family Residential District for property located at 5607 Villa View Drive. The owner bought the property with an existing covered patio attached to the back of the residence. The patio is only about 6 feet from the rear fence but the property actually extends beyond the fence by another 4 feet, leaving the patio 10 feet from the rear property line. Staff does not have record of a building permit for the patio. However, the patio could have been built more than 10-12 years ago and the City does not keep building plans beyond that time. The patio gets sun exposure from the west. The owner would like to enclose a portion of the patio to block the sun exposure so that the family can enjoy the patio. It tends to get hot in the evenings. They are proposing to install two walls and to stucco the walls to match the existing home. The enclosure will also provide some privacy to the patio. 25 ISSUES Electrical Engineering The home owner is to stay away at least 5’ from underground cable that runs parallel with south line of property (see attached map). Please contact Dale Smith for questions. 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 not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The applicant purchased the property with the existing covered patio that is located 10 feet from the rear property line. There is no evidence that the patio received a building permit or a variance at the time it was installed. The owner bought the property in 2002. Therefore the patio is at least 15 years old, if not older. There have been no complaints from neighbors regarding the patio. The property owner had expectations that the patio was legal when he purchased the residence. 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 literal interpretation of the provisions of the UDC would deprive the applicant of some of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the surrounding area. The owner has the expectation that the patio was legally established when it was constructed prior to his purchase of the property. Other neighbors with legally established patios would have the right to enclose a portion of their patio’s with approval of a building permit. 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 width of the property at the rear property line is approximately 114 feet. The patio width parallel to the rear property line is approximately 23 feet. A reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet for the patio is for a small portion of the required rear yard (0.06 percent). 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. 26  The requested variance is in harmony with the general interest, purpose and intent of the Code. The purpose of the required rear yard setback is to provide open space at the rear of the house. It is also a safety issue to allow for access around the house structure for emergency service needs. A reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet will still allow access and utilizing a small percentage of the open space for the patio is minimal. 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 SF-10 Single Family Residential District. Residential uses do allow attached and partially enclosed patios. 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 non-conforming uses or buildings on other properties are 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 suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were denied. The covered patio structure had existed when the current owner bought the property in 2002. It cannot be determined that a building permit was or was not issued for the patio. The owner would like assurance that the patio meets code by the granting of this variance so that he can enclose a portion of the patio for the enjoyment of his family. Without evidence or this variance approval, the owner would not be able to enclose any portion of the patio. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 17-60 is appropriate. The request is a minimum easing of the code, generally in harmony with the neighborhood and will not be injurious to the neighbors. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 17-60 from Leonard Wootton for a variance to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback to the required 15 foot rear yard setback located at 5607 Villa View Drive (R0037336) in the SF-10 Single Family Residential District. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD July 6, 2017 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members present: Chair Ireke Cooper James Dennis Jeff Johanson Paul Martin Lynn Scott Members absent: None Staff present: Helen Landaverde Mary Holton Karen Walker Others addressing the Board: John Palau Brant Thrower 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 Martin, seconded by Board Member Dennis to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Approval of the Minutes from the May 4, 2017 Regular Meetings Board Member Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2017 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Dennis and passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 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 17-51 Variance to reduce the front yard & side yard setbacks Discussion of ARB No. 17-51 on July 6, 2017 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 17-51, a request from John Palau, representing Deborah Montgomery, for a variance to allow (1) a 15-foot front yard and a 0-foot side yard setback and (2) a minimum lot area for nonresidential uses at 8,708.75 sq. ft. for property in the LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial district, located at 210 N. Auburn. The applicant is requesting this variance to allow for renovation of a legal nonconforming office building with a new façade and a roof extension. The property is in the Ross Subdivision. The office building was built in 1985 approximately 15 feet from the front property line, within 0 feet of the north side property line and approximately 5 feet of the south side property line. The footprint area of the office building is 3,097 square feet. There are six marked parking spaces for the current use on the property. The property does not meet the off-street minimum parking requirements for office use. The UDC, Unified Development Code requires 12 parking spaces. The minimum lot area for nonresidential uses in the LNC District is 10,890 sq. ft. The minimum front setback is 30 feet and the minimum side yard setback is 20 feet. The previous zoning code, said Ms. Landaverde, was C-1 Local Commercial which did not have minimum front or side yard setbacks. The C-1 zoning code was in effect at the time the building was built. Therefore, the property is legal non-conforming. Ms. Landaverde stated that the proposed renovation to the façade and the roof will improve the overall energy efficiency of the office building according to the applicant. The applicant is also proposing to meet the off-street minimum parking requirements by providing marked parking spaces on the rear side of the property. Ms. Landaverde showed examples of other properties on north Auburn with similar setbacks. The renovations are consistent with the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of petition ARB 17-51. Board Member Dennis asked if the petitioner was expanding the building. Ms. Landaverde said the petitioner was extending the parapet at the edge of the roof but was not expanding the size of the building. John Palau, who resides at 2227 E. Orangewood Avenue in Phoenix, AZ, said the pitched roof that currently exists on the building has caused water damage. Mr. Palau said he intends to create a second parapet with an architectural detail. This will provide shade for the four large windows on the front of the building and will solve the leakage issue. The roof section will move forward approximately 18 inches in one section. Mr. Palau said he has no intention of extending in the rear or on the sides of the building. Brant Thrower of 412 W. Arrington, stated that he owns the building 2 doors down and asked why there was a need for a variance on the side setback if the front façade was the only part that was being changed. Ms. Landaverde said the building is considered legal nonconforming because it was built before the current zoning requirements were adopted. When the petitioner chose to make changes to the legal nonconforming building, the variance was required. Board Member Dennis asked if the petition was approved, would the property be considered legal rather than legal nonconforming. Director Mary Holton said it would be considered legal. Board Member Dennis asked if the building would require any recommendations by the MRA, Metropolitan Review Agency. Ms. Holton said the building was in the MRA Civic Center District. However, because it is a commercial use, it is not located in the residential overlay and is exempt from review by the MRA. Administrative Review Board Action of July 6, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Scott to approve Petition No. ARB 17-51, a request from John Palau, representing Deborah Montgomery, for a variance to allow (1) a 15-foot front yard and a 0-foot side yard setback and (2) a minimum lot area for nonresidential uses at 8,708.75 sq. ft. for property in the LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial district, located at 210 N. Auburn. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis, Johanson, Martin, and Scott. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None. APPROVED 5-0 Discussion on Possible ARB Commissioner Rules of Procedure Director Mary Holton presented a proposal for Rules of Procedure for the ARB. An example of Rules of Procedure established by the Planning & Zoning Commissioners was given. Ms. Holton said something similar can be drafted for the ARB if the Board Members were interested. Chair Cooper expressed a desire to establish Rules of Procedure for the ARB. Mr. Copper asked for a shortened version than what is used by Planning & Zoning. He felt some sections were not applicable to the ARB. Mr. Cooper also asked that on Page 8, Section2, Item B in the last sentence regarding Item 4 that ‘proponents rebuttal’ be changed to read ‘cross-examine’. Board Member Martin asked why there was not a penalty for people who did not tell the truth after they were sworn in. He felt it was a motion without a meaning and said it bothered him that there were no consequences for people’s actions if they lied. Chair Cooper remarked that people who lied often contradicted themselves and it was sometimes easy to tell when someone was not telling the truth. Ms. Holton said she would discuss consequences with the City Attorney. The Board Members discussed possible changes to make in the procedures of the ARB meetings. Ms. Holton said she would work with the ARB members to get the language correct for Rules of Procedure for the ARB. She said a draft would be presented at the next scheduled meeting. Ms. Holton suggested forming a sub-committee to work on the Rules of Procedure. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: Chair Cooper introduced new member Jeff Johanson and welcomed him to the ARB. Mr. Cooper then asked for a moment of silence to honor Bruce Childers who passed away earlier today. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: The July 6, 2017 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. with a motion by Board Member Martin that was seconded by Board Member Dennis by a vote of 5-0. _________________________________ ________________________________ Ireke Cooper-Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant