Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM October 5, 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 September 7, 2017 Meeting 47 4 Petition No. ARB 17-66 – a request from Michael Smith for a variance to 1 allow a 6-foot tall fence in the front yard of the property located at 704-C W. Arrington. (Teri Clashin) 5 Petition No. ARB 17-68 – a request from Matt Dodson for a variance to 24 allow: (1) a 26 foot tall detached shop/storage building with a second story, 6,300 sq. ft. ((42’x75’)x2) and (2) a carport measuring 630 sq. ft. (42’x15’), totaling 6930 sq. ft., to keep and repair multiple personal vehicles for property located at 455 Taylor Dr. (Helen Landaverde) 6 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment 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.  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 17-66 Variance to allow a six (6) foot tall fence on the front property line. September 19, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 17-66 is a request from Michael Smith for a variance to allow a six (6) foot tall fence (cedar picket) on the front property line in the SF-7, Single Family Residential district, for property located at 704 C West Arrington Street (R4007461), in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico. The property is legally described as: Brimhall Subdivision Replat A, Lot 2 in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico. Otherwise located at 704 C West Arrington Street. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant ..........................Michael L. Smith Representative .................Michael L. Smith Property Owner................Michael L. Smith Location of Property .......704 C West Arrington Street, Brimhall Subdivision Replat A, Lot 2 (R4007461). Nature of Petition………..The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a six (6) foot tall fence on the front yard property line in the SF-7, Single Family Residential District. Applicable Regulations ...The City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Pursuant to UDC Sec. 5.4 Fences and Walls for the SF-7, Single Family Residential the maximum fence height on the front property line is three feet. Zoning ..............................SF-7, Single Family Residential District Existing Use .....................Residential Surrounding Zoning……. North: SF-7, Single Family Residential District South: SF-7, Single Family Residential District East: SF-7, Single Family Residential District West: SF-7, Single Family Residential District Surrounding Land Use… North: Residential East: Residential South: Residential West: Residential Public Notice……………..Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, September 17, 2017. Adjoining property owners were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, and a sign was posted on the property on Friday, September 22, 2017. Staff ..................................Teri Clashin, Associate Planner 1 BACKGROUND The petitioner Michael Smith is requesting a variance to allow a six (6) foot tall fence on the front property line for privacy. The subject property is located at 704 C West Arrington Street (Lot 2). The San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the size of the property is 0.18 acres (7,879.44 ft²). The petitioner leases out the property, which currenlty has a manufactured home located on Lot 2 and takes street access to Arrington Street through a private road (access easement). The subject property is part of the Brimhall Subdivision. The Brimhall Subdivision Replat A was recorded on December 20, 2007. This minor subdivision contains four lots, each 0.18 acres. A 20-foot access and utility easements run through the center of the four lots. All four lots take access to Arrington Street via the joint access easement. Both Lot 2 (subject property) and Lot 3 are not located directly on Arrington Street. Pursuant to UDC Section 5.4 Fences and Walls, the purpose is to provide adequate privacy and security without impeding or obstructing vision at intersections. The subject property (Lot 2) is not located directly on Arrington Street; instead the property takes access to Arrington Street via the joint access easement. Due to the subject property being located 130 feet from Arrington Street, the petitioner is requesting to install a six (6) foot tall fence around the property including the front yard for safety and privacy. The petitioner has stated that due to the residential area having a large number of vagrants and theft, a six (6) foot fence around the property would allow for safety and security. The properties to the north and west have back yard fences up to six (6) feet tall that abut the subject property. However, pursuant to Sec. 5.4 Fences and Walls, in Residential Districts fences and walls located in required front yards (setback) shall be limited to a height of three feet at the front right-of-way line, rising evenly to a maximum of 54 inches at the setback line, and thereafter a maximum of six feet. The minimum front setback for SF-7, Single Family Residential District is 25 feet. The petitioner is planning to put a six (6) foot tall fence around the property for privacy and safety. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for a six (6) foot tall fence on the front property line with a zero foot setback. If the variance is approved, the petitioner will hire a surveyor to re-establish the existing property lines to make certain that the fence is built within the property lines. 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: 2 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 Brimhall Subdivision consists of four lots that share a joint private access easement to Arrington Road. The subject property (Lot 2) takes access to Arrington Street via the shared access easement. The subject property is not located directly on Arrington Street. There are no concerns with obstructing views on Arrington Street. A variance for a six (6) foot tall fence would not cause any issues. 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 purpose of UDC Section 5.4 Fences and Wall purpose is to provide adequate privacy and security without impeding or obstructing vision at intersections or of the front of the residence (front door). The subject property (Lot 2) is not located directly on Arrington Street; instead the property takes access to Arrington Street via the joint access easement. The maximum fence height on the front property line is three feet in a Residential District. The applicant is proposing a six (6) foot tall fence on the front property line in order to secure their residence. The fence will not obstruct views at an intersection or of the front door to the residence. The literal interpretation of the provision of the UDC would not deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the surrounding area. 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 requested variance is a minimum easing of the UDC. The request for a six (6) foot tall fence on the front property line is consistent with the UDC 5.4 Fences and Walls, 5.4.1., where the purpose is to provide for adequate privacy and security without impeding or obstructing visions at intersections or of the front door of the residence. The request for a six (6) foot tall fence would not obstruct any views at intersections or to the front door of this residence, since the subject property (Lot 2) is not directly located on Arrington Street. 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 requested variance for the proposed six (6) foot tall fence on the front property line will not create a visibility obstruction with the neighboring properties in the Single Family Residential District. The proposed height of the fence will allow residential 3  security and safety. The subject property (Lot 2) shares a joint access easement to Arrington Street and it does not take direct access to Arrington Street. The proposed fence will not be injurious to the surrounding neighbors or otherwise detriment to the public welfare. 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. The proposed variance will not permit a use otherwise allowed in the Single Family Residential District. The use is residential and 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 suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were denied. The variance is a reasonable request for a property that is not located directly on single access point to the roadway. The strict compliance to the front yard setback is in place for properties that have direct access to roadways. In addition, the neighbor’s properties to the north and west abut the subject property (Lot 2) with six (6) foot back yard fences. The strict compliance to the front yard setback for a six (6) foot tall fence would result in an unreasonable hardship. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 17-66 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. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 17-66 from Michael L. Smith, for a variance to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of three feet on the front property line and allow for a six (6) foot tall fence on the front property line for property located at 704 C West Arrington Street (R4007461), in the SF-7, Single Family Residential District. The applicant must apply for a fence permit. 4  5 *Note: Property lines are off in picture.  *Note: Property lines are off in picture. 6 7  *Note: Property lines are off in picture. 8  Photos of subject property 9 10 11  *Note: Property lines are off in picture. 12 The petitioner will place 6-foot tall fence within their property lines. Pictometry – property lines are off. --- Variance for 6-foot tall fence (cedar picket) --- Additional 6-foot 13 fence around side and back yard. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Photos of subject property 33  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 17-68 455 TAYLOR DR Deadline: 9/18/17 City of Farmington Departments CD “UDC Sec. 2.5 - Accessory uses and structures. 2.5.1 Authorization. Any accessory use normally and customarily associated with a primary use, permitted by right consistent with applicable provisions of this UDC, may be permitted. However, any accessory use customarily associated with a primary use permitted only by special use permit, must meet all special use requirements. The establishment of such accessory uses shall be consistent with applicable design and performance standards set forth in this UDC. 2.5.2 General standards. All accessory structures and uses shall comply with the following standards: A. No accessory structure or use shall be constructed or established on any lot prior to the issuance of a building permit for the principal structure or an occupancy permit for a principal use to which it is accessory. This provision shall not prohibit the issuance of a permit for a Director – M. Holton detached garage at the time of issuance of a building permit for a principal dwelling unit on the subject parcel. B. Accessory uses and structures must be subordinate to the principal use and structure on the subject lot in terms of area, extent, and purpose. The total gross floor area of all accessory structures that are built in the required rear and side yard on a lot shall not exceed 1,000 square feet or 50 percent of the total gross floor area of the principal structure on the lot, whichever is greater. Any accessory structure that is constructed within the allowed building footprint shall not exceed 2,000 square feet or 50 percent of the total gross floor area of the principal structure, whichever is greater; or exceed 20 feet in height. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to agricultural uses. C. Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, accessory structures and uses shall comply with all applicable regulations of this UDC, including the maximum height and setback regulations. No 34  accessory use or structure shall cause any of these standards to be exceeded for the underlying zoning district. D. A normal and customary accessory structure may be attached or detached from the principal building. … F. No more than three accessory buildings shall be located on a single parcel in a residential district. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to agricultural uses. …” The principal structure, the home, is 1,560 square feet. The proposed shop/storage building, which prompts the need for the variance at 3,150 square feet & its height, is over twice the size of the principal structure. The difference also prompts the question as to which is the principal structure. It is noted that the sheer size of this building in comparison with the home will detract from the residential nature of the neighborhood as the lot will appear to resemble a commercial use as indicated on the submitted site plan. The petitioner needs to provide additional details on the planned use for the accessory structures: The petition indicates that the petitioner will use the accessory structure to rebuild and store cars he is working on – Is this in conjunction with a business? Will the occupant of the associated home primarily use the shop/storage building and/or the carport? Additionally - How many accessory buildings are there currently located on the lot? CD Addressing – Planning Division 1- A building permit will be required. CD 2- 5/8 inch type x drywall will be require on the ceiling of the first floor. Chief Building Official – D. Childers 3- The area of the first floor used for the storage of vehicles will need to slope to the exterior a minimum of 1%. CD Long Range Planner CD MPO – D. Garcia CD Oil & Gas Inspector – L. Simms 35  CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering – L Aligarbes No comment ELEC T & D – R. Romero FIRE Fire Captain – D. Doudy FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega The proposed plan has a structure protruding LEGAL into the sewer line easement. This creates potential liability issues when or if the sewer line would need to be replaced which could cause damage to property that extends into the City Attorney – J. Breakell easement. The applicant has not demonstrated that special conditions or circumstances exist and is asking for a substantial easing of the Code requirements. LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No comment POLICE Sergeant – P. Flores PRCA C. Styron No comment PW The size of the proposed structure is not consistent with the residential nature and typical ration of landscaped vs impervious surfaces causing additional storm water runoff. If the petition is approved a NM PE stamped drainage design should be required as part of the building permit. If the storm water is going to leave the City Engineer – N. Westerling site, provisions for conveyance of the storm water to the arroyo need to be addressed. Does it require a private drainage easement on adjacent properties or several easements, a ditch or some other conveyance method. The City will not maintain this ditch, it's the responsibility of the property owner. PW Storm water must drain to the street or a drainage easement. Otherwise, a drainage and Engineering – T. Sitta grading plan prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) must be submitted with the building permit application. PW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller PW Traffic Engineer – C. Trask 9/12/17 verbal: No comment PW Water/Waste Water – M. Tso No comment Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – L. Moore No comment CenturyLink – D. Willato No comment 36 Enterprise Field Services Comcast Cable – M. Johnson CH2MHILL OMI – R. Rosen Field Services Farmington School District – C. Lyons 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD September 7, 2017 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members present: Acting Chair-James Dennis Jeff Johanson Paul Martin Lynn Scott Members absent: Ireke Cooper Staff present: Teri Clashin Mary Holton Helen Landaverde Cindy Lopez Karen Walker Others addressing the Board: Adam Benavidez Leonard Wootton Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Acting Chair Dennis 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 Scott and seconded by Board Member Johanson to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Approval of the Minutes from the July 6, 2017 Regular Meetings Board Member Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 6, 2017 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johanson 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 17-57 Variance to the rear yard setback Discussion of ARB No. 17-57 on September 7, 2017 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 17-57, a request from Adam Benavidez for a variance to 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 10 feet to allow for a larger manufactured home on property located at 812 E. Spruce Street. The petitioner proposes to place a single-wide 16’ x 72’ manufactured home at this site. The dimensions of the property are approximately 102’ x 60’ and it is located in the Shady Grove Subdivision No.3, which was annexed into the city in 1975. The property is 0.141 acres and is currently vacant and undeveloped. There are many structures in this subdivision that encroach into the required setbacks areas and are nonconforming. Research did not find building permits for accessory structures and/or for manufactured homes in this subdivision. Additionally, variances for properties in this subdivision were not found. Ms. Landaverde said the minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet in the MF-L SMHAO District. The minimum lot area for single-family uses is 6,000 sq. ft. The size of the majority of the lots in this subdivision is approximately 60 feet wide and 102 feet deep. An access easement may be required if the property to the east continues to take access via the subject property. San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the applicant is also the owner of the property to the east. The request is a minimum easing of the code and it would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the code, and will not be injurious to the neighbors. The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 17-57 is appropriate with the condition that the petitioner provides a paved driveway for two parking spaces at 9 feet by 19 feet per space. Board Member Dennis commented that there have been several petitions with this same issue because trailers are built larger now. Mr. Dennis asked if the City would consider changing the regulations. Cindy Lopez stated that this would be considered when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. The Board Members and staff discussed what was considered the front of the property. Ms. Lopez said the front of the property is the side where the driveway is placed. Adam Benavidez of #48 Road 4720, Bloomfield, NM said he owns the two lots to the east of the proposed property. Board Member Martin asked Mr. Benavidez why there was a trailer parked across all three lots. Mr. Benavidez said it was that way when he bought the properties and when that trailer is vacated; he plans to put in another trailer that fits in the lot more appropriately. Administrative Review Board Action of September 7, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Johanson and seconded by Board Member Scott to approve Petition No. ARB 17-57, a request from Adam Benavidez for a variance to 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 10 feet to allow for a larger manufactured home on property located at 812 E. Spruce Street. AYE: Acting Chair Dennis, Board Members Johanson, Martin, and Scott. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Cooper APPROVED 4-0  Petition No. ARB 17-60 Variance to the rear yard setback Discussion of ARB No. 17-60 on September 7, 2017 Planning Manager Cindy Lopez presented the staff report for ARB 17-60, a request from Leonard Wootton for a variance to allow a 10 feet 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. The owner bought the property with an existing covered patio attached to the back of the residence. The petitioner would like to enclose a portion of the patio. He would like to add a fireplace and an outdoor kitchen. The enclosure will also provide some privacy and protection from the hot sun. The request is a minimum easing of the code. Community Development received a letter from a neighbor in support of the variance. The home owner is to stay away at least 5’ from an underground cable that runs parallel with south line of property. The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 17-60. Board Member Martin asked if Building Inspection has seen the property. Leonard Wootton of 5607 Villa View Drive said they had been out to look at the property. Mr. Wootton described the proposed renovations he wanted to make to the patio. Board Member Martin recused himself once he realized that Mr. Wootton worked for a company that Mr. Martin does business with. Administrative Review Board Action of September 7, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Johanson and seconded by Board Member Scott to approve Petition No. ARB 17-60, a request from Leonard Wootton for a variance to allow a 10 feet 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. AYE: Acting Chair Dennis, Board Members Johanson, and Scott. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Cooper RECUSED: Board Member Martin APPROVED 3-0 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Acting Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members Business from Staff: Cindy Lopez introduced Jeff Johanson, a new member to the ARB. Adjournment: The September 7, 2017 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. with a motion by Board Member Martin that was seconded by Board Member Scott by a vote of 4-0. _________________________________ ________________________________ James Dennis-Acting Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant