Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM December 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 November 9, 2017 Meeting 39 4 Petition No. ARB 17‐77 – a request from Rose Kartchner, represented by 1 Cheney‐Walters‐Echols, for a variance from the requirements of UDC Sec 2.8 for the SF‐10 Single Family Residential district, to allow the side yard setback to be 2.3 feet instead of the required 5 feet due to the irregular shape of the front yard for property located at 2712 Harvard Dr. (Teri Clashin) 5 Petition No. ARB 17‐80 – a request from Joe Lloyd for a variance from (1) 15 the requirements of UDC Sec. 2.8 to allow for a 18 foot front yard setback in the required 30 foot front yard setback in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District for property located at 1501 E. 20th Street (Durango Joe’s). (Helen Landaverde) Business from: Floor: 6 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 17-80 Variance to allow for an 18 foot front yard setback in the required 30 foot front yard setback in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District December 7, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 17-80 is a request from Joe Lloyd for a variance to allow for an 18 foot front yard setback to the required 30 foot front yard setback in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. The property is legally described as: All of Tract 1, and the North 10 feet of an abandoned alley adjacent to and adjoining said Tract 1 on its South side, in Block 2, of the Cole Subdivision, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico. Otherwise located at 1501 East 20th Street GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant .......................... Joe Lloyd Representative ................ Joe Lloyd Property Owner ............... 2LS Group Holdings, LLC Location of Property ....... 1501 East 20th Street (P8003969/R0031875) Nature of Petition………..The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for an 18 foot front yard setback in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. Applicable Regulations... City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Pursuant to UDC 2.8 Density and dimensional standards the required front yard setback in the LNC District is 30 feet. Zoning .............................. LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District Existing Use ..................... Commercial Surrounding Zoning……. North: OP, Office Professional South: SF-7, Single-family Residential East: LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District West: LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District Surrounding Land Use… North: Commercial East: Commercial South: Residential West: Commercial Public Notice……………..Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, November 19, 2017. Adjoining property owners were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, November 15, 2017, and a sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, November 22, 2017. Staff .................................. Helen Landaverde, Associate Planner 15  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 2 of 24 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback to allow for the expansion of an existing uncovered patio for a Durango Joe’s coffee establishment in the LNC District. The applicant proposes to extend the existing uncovered patio by eight (8) feet. The subject property is a corner lot with double-frontage. The existing patio is approximately 32 feet away from the north front property line. The patio encroaches six (6) feet into the required front yard, permitted under Section 2.8.3(C)(d)(2) and it is located 26 feet from the north front property line. The applicant is requesting to reduce the north front yard setback from 30 feet to 18 feet for the expansion of the existing patio to provide additional outdoor seating for patrons. San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the size of the property is 0.42 acres (19,411.860 sq. ft.). The Durango Joe’s coffee establishment occupies 1,024 sq. ft. of the property and has a drive through service. Pursuant to UDC 2.8.1 Density and dimensional standards the minimum front yard setback is 30 feet in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial. The uncovered patio encroaches six (6) feet into the required 30 foot front yard (north front property line), permitted under Section 2.8.3(C)(d)(2). Other buildings in the area are approximately 30 feet away from the front property line and are mostly commercial uses without drive through services. The sizes of the properties in this area range from 0.3 acres to 1.37 acres. The applicant proposes to expand the existing uncovered patio by eight (8) feet (8’ x 29’= 232 sq. ft.) to allow for an additional 8-10 seating spaces for patrons. Presently, the Durango Joe’s has seven tables with 14 seats inside and three patio tables with six seats; totaling 20 seats. There are 19 marked parking spaces for the current use on the property, which meets the off-street minimum parking requirements (1.0 per 3 seats = 6.66 parking spaces, 2 spaces minimum). The proposed patio expansion will increase Durango Joe’s seating to 30 seats and requires a minimum of 10 parking spaces. There is sufficient off-street parking for the current use and for the proposed patio expansion. The exisitng drive through service currently meets the vehicle stacking standards of the UDC Section 5.2.9 with aisle widths of approximately 20 feet for 60 degrees angle parking (one-way) and 24 feet for 90 degree angle parking. Table 1. Minimum Number of Spaces ACTIVITY TYPE MINIMUM STACKING SPACES MEASURED FROM Restaurant drive-through 6 Order box B. Size. Stacking spaces must be a minimum of nine feet by 20 feet in size. 16  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 3 of 24 C. Location. Stacking spaces may not impede on- or off-site traffic movements or movements into or out of off-street parking spaces. Table 2. UDC Parking Diagram Dimensions There are two existing curb cut entries to the property. The applicant is in the process of expanding the parking area in the rear yard; however, the access drives and internal circulation will remain the same. Pursuant to UDC 5.4.4 Fence and wall location and height the maximum fence height on the front property line is three feet, rising evenly to a maximum of 54 inches (4.5 feet) at setback line, and thereafter a maximum of six feet. With the approval of this variance, an 18-foot front yard setback to the north property line would allow for a six-foot tall fence and/or wall at the setback line. However, a six-foot tall fence structure at the setback line would not be in character with the area. The applicant has expressed that he would like to maintain the existing height of the patio wall; a four-foot tall stucco wall. The LNC District has a 30 foot front yard setback and the fence height may be increased over three feet (36 inches) at the front property line by 0.60 inches per foot, which would allow for a maximum wall height of 3’ 9/12” which is only 1.2” inches taller than allowed. Farmington’s Complete Streets Program core value Aesthetics encourages “building facades, building forms, appropriately scaled streetscaping that is pleasing in appearance and welcoming to residents and visitors alike” (Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2016: 6) and the Complete Streets Advisory Group (CSAG) call attention to creating spaces that “extend the public realm and create outdoor dining experiences” (ibid, 2016: 8). Also, Complete Streets core value Economic Vitality promotes urban street elements such as outdoor patio seating that can provide spaces to “encourage locals and tourists to linger and shop” (Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2016: 7). The applicant is requesting a variance to front yard setback on the north only from 30 feet to 18 feet for the expansion of the existing uncovered patio to provide additional outdoor seating for patrons. 17  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 4 of 24 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 subject property is unique. Properties in this area are mostly commercial uses and meet the 30 foot front yard setback for the LNC district; however, the subject property is the only commercial use with a drive through service. The subject property is small for a commercial use (0.42 acres), the requirements for off-street parking, vehicle staking areas and internal circulation limit potential improvements to the property. Across the street is a shopping center with several properties that are from 0.67 acres to 1.35 acres in size. To the east, the property is 0.52 acres. The applicant is requesting approval to reduce the north property line front yard setback from 30 feet to 18 feet for the expansion of the existing uncovered patio to provide additional outdoor seating for patrons. 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 the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the area. Properties in this area are mostly commercial uses. The applicant’s property is the only commercial use with a drive through service. The property is smaller for a commercial use (0.42 acres). The requirements for off-street parking, vehicle staking areas and internal circulation limit potential improvements to the property. The proposed expansion to the uncovered patio would allow the applicant to provide additional seating for patrons and maintain the design of the building. This criterion IS met. 18  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 5 of 24 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 applicant is requesting approval to reduce the north property line front yard setback from 30 feet to 18 feet for the expansion of the existing uncovered patio to provide additional outdoor seating for patrons. The requested variance is a reasonable use of the land and it is consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed patio extension is relatively small and will add 232 sq. ft. and will not make a significant visual impact. Also, the requested variance promotes Farmington’s Complete Streets Program Aesthetics and Economic Vitality by creating spaces that would “encourage locals and tourists to linger and shop” (Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2016: 7) and “extend the public realm and create outdoor dining experiences” (ibid, 2016: 8). 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 to reduce the north property line front yard setback from 30 feet to 18 feet is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code. The proposed front yard setback of 18 feet for the north property line does not significantly obstruct visibility. The applicant is proposing to improve and enhance the integrity of the site by creating a community space that will encourage aesthetics and economic vitality in the area. 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 LNC, Local Neighborhood District. The use is commercial 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. 19  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 6 of 24 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 applicant’s property is small for commercial purposes (0.42 acres). The current internal circulation system along with the existing off-street parking limits potential improvements to the property and adhering to the UDC requirements would prevent the applicant from making improvements and development on the subject property. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 17-80 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, and would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 17- 80 from Joe Lloyd for a variance to allow an 18 foot front yard setback to the required 30 foot front yard setback for the north property line at 1501 East 20th Street in in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for building permits. 2. The patio wall and/or other fence structures in the north front yard must not exceed a maximum of four feet at the 18-foot front yard setback. 20  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 7 of 24 21  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 8 of 24 22  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 9 of 24 Photos of subject property Picture of front yard 23  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 10 of 24 Measurement of proposed patio expansion 24  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 11 of 24 25  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 12 of 24 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 17-80 1501 E. 20TH ST-DURANGO JOES Deadline: 11/1/17 City of Farmington Departments CD Complete Streets concepts, including bicycle and pedestrian amenities such as providing bicycle racks and providing areas for dining outdoors, should be encouraged throughout Farmington. Director – M. Holton An extended patio could provide clearer definition to the site's two (2) driveways along 20th Street, thereby eliminating potential conflicts. CD Addressing – Planning Division CD Chief Building Official – D. Childers No comment CD Long Range Planner CD MPO – D. Garcia CD Oil & Gas Inspector – L. Simms CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering – L Aligarbes No conflict with the existing power line nearby. ELEC T & D – R. Romero FIRE Fire Captain – D. Doudy FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne No comment POLICE Code Compliance – TM. Romero No comment POLICE Sergeant – P. Flores PRCA C. Styron No comment PW City Engineer – N. Westerling PW Engineering – T. Sitta No comment PW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller PW Traffic Engineer – C. Trask PW Water/Waste Water – M. Tso No comment Other Entities 26  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 13 of 24 New Mexico Gas Company – L. Moore No comment CenturyLink – K. Michael No comment Enterprise Field Services Comcast Cable – M. Johnson CH2MHILL OMI – R. Rosen Field Services Farmington School District – C. Lyons 27  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 14 of 24 28  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 15 of 24 29  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 16 of 24 30  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 17 of 24 31  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 18 of 24 32  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 19 of 24 33  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 20 of 24 34  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 21 of 24 35  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 22 of 24 36  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 23 of 24 37  ARB 17-80 Staff Report Page 24 of 24 38  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD November 9, 2017 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, November 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 Jeff Johanson Paul Martin Lynn Scott Members absent: None Staff present: Teri Clashin Mary Holton Helen Landaverde Cindy Lopez Karen Walker Ellen Wayne Others addressing the Board: Matt Dodson Charles Holmes Callie Vanderbilt 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 and seconded by Board Member Johanson to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Approval of the Minutes from the October 5, 2017 Regular Meetings Board Member Dennis made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2017 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Scott 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 17-76 Variance to the height of a fence in the front yard Discussion of ARB No. 17-76 on November 9, 2017 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 17-76, a request from Tammy Bruyere, represented by Chris Haiby with Viking Security Fence, LLP, for a variance from the requirements of UDC Section 5.4.4 Fence and wall location and height for SF-7 Single- family Residential District, to allow for a 5’6” tall fence structure (2’6” tall retaining wall topped by a 3’ tall picket fence) in the front yard setback for property located at 3500 Colgate Avenue. A permit was issued on August 23, 2017 to the applicant for the replacement of a chain-link fence on top of a retaining wall that is over three feet tall and less than six feet. However, the replacement retaining wall was set back three feet from its original location. The applicant proposes to build a three foot picket fence on top of the already built 2’6” foot tall retaining wall. The combined height of the proposed fence structure would be 5’6”. Ms. Landaverde stated that Pursuant to UDC 5.4.4 Fence and wall location and height the maximum fence height on the front property yard setback and at the front right-of-way line is 3 feet, rising evenly to a maximum of 54 inches at setback line, and thereafter to a maximum of six feet. The SF-7 District has a 25 foot front yard setback. Research shows that the subject property is 0.2 acres and a portion of the property has a sloped front yard. Other properties in the area have flat front yards, said Ms. Landaverde. The applicant previously had a fence structure over three feet tall that consisted of a chain-link fence on top of a retaining wall at the front property line. The previous retaining wall was located along a sidewalk, and required guardrails. The replacement retaining wall was set back 3 feet and does not require guardrails. The applicant is requesting a variance to the retaining wall and fence height to allow for a 5’6” tall fence structure within the front yard setback for safety purposes to prevent children from falling off when they play in the front yard and to improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The requested variance is a minimum easing of the Code. The request is a reasonable use of the land and is consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed fence structure is in harmony with the general intent of the Code, and does not significantly obstruct visibility. Staff recommends approval. Board Member Dennis asked if the previous retaining wall and fence was legal nonconforming. Planning Manager Cindy Lopez said it was legal nonconforming, but when the petitioner chose to move the retaining wall back 3 feet, he now had to come into conformity or ask for a variance. Chris Haiby, from Viking Fence Company, 639 Highway 170, said the retaining wall is actually 3 feet tall, and has a 36” drop. The retaining wall was moved back due to a meter can that had limited access. Mr. Dennis asked if the elevation of the yard increased when the retaining wall was moved back. Michael Web, who resides at 3500 Colgate, said the elevation at the front of the yard was matched to the elevation near the house to straighten out the slope of the yard. Mr. Web showed the Board Members pictures of the front of his house with the new retaining wall. Mr. Dennis asked why a fence was necessary in the front yard. Mr. Web said a fence would help contain his dogs and his grandkids inside the yard. He said his insurance company required a fence due to the 36 inch drop from the retaining wall. Administrative Review Board Action of November 9, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Dennis and seconded by Board Member Scott to approve Petition No. ARB 17-76, a request from Tammy Bruyere, represented by Chris Haiby with Viking Security Fence, LLP, for a variance from the requirements of UDC Section 5.4.4 Fence and wall location and height for SF-7 Single-family Residential District, to allow for a 5’6” tall fence structure (2’6” tall retaining wall topped by a 3’ tall picket fence) in the front yard setback for property located at 3500 Colgate Avenue. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis, Johanson Martin, and Scott. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED 5-0 Reason for vote: Board Member Martin said the fence structure was there before and the new structure is similar to the old structure. Board Member Johanson said the request was reasonable and there are issues with safety and insurance. Board Member Scott said the new structure is similar to what had been there before. Chair Cooper stated the fence structure appeared to be in harmony with the neighborhood and noted agreement with conditions 1-7 in the ARB Agenda Book which states reason for agreement to allow the variance. Petition No. ARB 17-68 Variance to the size of an accessory structure Discussion of ARB No. 17-68 on November 9, 2017 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented a staff report for ARB 17-68, a remanded request from Matt Dodson for a variance to allow: (1) a detached shop/storage building with a second story, 4,000 square feet (40’x75’x2) and (2) a carport measuring 600 square feet (40’x15’), totaling 4,600 square feet, to keep and repair multiple personal vehicles for property in the SF-7 SMHAO, Single-family Residential District with a Special Mobile Home Area Overlay, located at 455 Taylor Dr. The applicant is also proposing to install a wood shop on the second floor. The applicants’ property is larger than the required minimum lot size and larger than other properties in the area. Lots vary in size from 0.12 acres to 0.33 acres. Accessory structures in the area vary in size from 96 square feet to 840 square feet. Pursuant to UDC Section 2.5B, stated Ms. Landaverde, accessory structures must be subordinate to the principal use and structure. If the accessory structure is within the allowed building footprint, it shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct within the allowed buildable footprint a two-story metal shop/storage building that exceeds the size limitation by 230% for accessory structures. Ms. Landaverde said the request is not consistent with the neighborhood, is not a minimum easing of the code, will not be subordinate to the principle structure and is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the code. Staff is recommending denial. Board Member Dennis said the building footprint is 2,000 square foot. He asked if the structure would be allowed if it did not have a carport. Ms. Landaverde said it would not be permitted because it would still be a 4,000 square foot structure with the second story. Matt Dodson, who resides at 620 Gladeview Drive, stated that he has tremendously trimmed down the size of the shop from his previous request. He said he plans to have a toilet, sink, and microwave on the second floor, but the height of the roof on the second floor would not be very tall with the 20 foot height restriction of the building. Mr. Dodson said the carport is intended to protect his RV from the weather. He said the lot is surrounded by trees and the structure will not affect the neighbors. Mr. Dodson stated that he has spoken with neighbors on each side of the access to his property and they were receptive to selling some of their property to him so that he could widen his access. With a wider access, Mr. Dodson said, he could subdivide the property in the future. Charles Holmes, a real estate agent with San Juan Realty at 624 E. Main Street, stated that a 2- story shop would adversely impact the neighborhood. He said he was speaking on behalf of the property owner of 411 Taylor who has an adobe structure that was built in 1910. Mr. Holmes said adobe structures need sunlight and a 2-story shop would block the sunlight from 411 Taylor. Mr. Holmes said a large shop structure would negatively impact property values in the neighborhood. Calle Vanderbuilt resides at #7 Road 3598 and owns the house at 411 Taylor. She said she and her husband bought the property because of the central location of the home. Ms. Vanderbuilt said she believes a 2-story shop would negatively affect property values and would block the sun from her home at 411 Taylor. She mentioned that the shop would not be subordinate to the principle structure and felt it would be injurious to herself and to her property rights. She asked the Board to deny the request. Mr. Dodson said the home at 411 Taylor was too far from his property for a 2-story building to block the sun and felt the adobe home would not be affected by his shop. Mr. Dodson said he has 15 vehicles that he would like to put in the proposed shop. He mentioned he could bring all of his vehicles to the property even without a shop. He said he could park them there and nobody could do anything about it. Mr. Dodson said he encouraged the Board to pass his petition. Charles Holmes stated the only benefit for a 2-story industrial shop in the neighborhood would be for the property owner. Mr. Holmes said that type of structure would become an issue in the future when people want to sell their properties. Board Member Dennis said the request is an easing of what had been presented previously and that Mr. Dennis had supported. Mr. Dennis said he did not see the structure as a detriment to the neighborhood and said it was a minor easing of the code. Board Member Johanson said the petitioner has a large parcel of property and has now found out that he can subdivide if he makes the access wider. Board Member Scott said she drives past the area every day and the structure would be visible from Auburn. She said a 2-story industrial structure would be detrimental to the area. Chair Cooper said part of the discussion is that the proposed structure would be a minimum easing of the code. It is not a minimum easing of the code with the second story and the carport. There is no evidence that overturns the 7 criteria stated in the staff report. Administrative Review Board Action of October 5, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Scott to deny Petition No. ARB 17-68, a request from Matt Dodson for a variance to allow: (1) a detached shop/storage building with a second story, 4,000 square feet (40’x75’x2) and (2) a carport measuring 600 square feet (40’x15’), totaling 4,600 square feet, to keep and repair multiple personal vehicles for property in the SF-7 SMHAO, Single-family Residential District with a Special Mobile Home Area Overlay, located at 455 Taylor Dr. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Johanson, Martin, and Scott NAY: Board Member Dennis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DENIED 5-0 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: There was no business from the Members Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: The November 9, 2017 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. with a motion by Board Member Martin that was seconded by Board Member Scott by a vote of 5-0. _________________________________ ________________________________ Ireke Cooper- Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant