Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM May 3, 2018 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 April 5, 2018 Meeting 24 5 Petition No. ARB 18-28 – a request from Ricky Wenzel for a variance to 1 reduce the required front yard setback from 30-feet to 20-feet to allow for a 30’ x 40’ detached garage in the SF-10 Single-family Residential District, for property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place. (Helen Landaverde) 6 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment All decisions 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.  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 1 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 18-28 Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet, in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District 6403 Hillcrest Place May 3, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 18-28 is a request from Ricky Wenzel for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet to allow for a 30’ x 40’ (1,200 ft.²) detached garage/workshop on property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place in the Country Club Manor Replat E Subdivision in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District. Pursuant to UDC 2.8 Density and Dimensional Standards, the required front yard setback is 30 feet. The property is legally described as: Lot 9E, in Block 3, of the Country Club Manor Subdivision, as shown on the Replat E of Lots 9 thru 17 of Block 3 and partial street vacation of the Amended Plat of said Subdivision, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico. Otherwise located at 6403 Hillcrest Place GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant .......................... Ricky Wenzel Property Owner ............... Ricky Wenzel Location of Property ....... 6403 Hillcrest Place (R0021274) Nature of Petition ............ The applicant is requesting a variance to the required front yard setback to allow for a 30’ x 40’ (1,200 ft.²) detached garage/workshop in the required front yard setback in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District. Applicable Regulations... City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): UDC 2.8 Density and Dimensional Standards, the required front yard setback in the SF-10 District is 30 feet. Zoning .............................. SF-10, Single-family Residential District Existing Use ..................... Residential Surrounding Zoning/ ….. North: SF-10, Single-family Residential District/residential Land Use South: SF-10, Single-family Residential District/residential East: SF-10, Single-family Residential District/residential West: SF-10, Single-family Residential District/residential Public Notice……………. Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, April 15, 2018. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday April 11, 2018. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, April 20, 2018. Staff Helen Landaverde, Associate Planner 1  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet to allow for a 30’ x 40’ (1,200 ft.²) detached garage/workshop on property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place (R0021274) in the Country Club Manor Replat E Subdivision in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District. San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the size of the property is 0.773 acres. Aerial photographs and other sources provided in this report indicate that there is a principle structure, a swimming pool and one accessory struture (a shed) on the property. The residential structure is 2,397 ft.². The shed structure measures approximately 143 ft.² Pursuant to UDC Section 2.5.2B any accessory structure constructed within the allowed building footprint shall not exceed 2000 ft.² or 50% of total gross floor area of principal structure, whichever is greater; or exceed 20 feet in height. The applicant is proposing to build a detached garage measuring 1,200 ft.² (30’ x 40’) on the property. The combined size of the two (2) accessory structures, (1) a shed and (2) proposed detached garage/workshop, would be less than 2000 ft.² and approximately 1,343 ft.². The surrounding properties in this subdivision are zoned SF-10, Single-family Residential District and meet the required setbacks for all uses including accessory structures except for the property to the east that has an accessory structure that does not meet UDC requirements. The applicant’s property is the second largest lot in this area. Lot sizes in this subdivision vary from 0.26 acres to 0.81 acres. The parcel slopes down to the south and west from the cul-de-sac. The biggest grade difference is in the location of the yard where the applicant wants to build the garage/workshop. 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 applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the 30-foot required front yard setback to 20 feet to allow for the construction of a detached garage/workshop. The property slopes significantly to the south in the location where the applicant 2  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 3 wants to build the proposed structure; which would require fill or a basement in order to place the structure at the required 30-foot front yard setback. The property to the east has a storage building that is built to the property line, along the same property line that is shared with the applicant’s property, and is not 10 feet from the principle structure. The applicant would like to build the proposed structured further away from the neighbor’s accessory structure by moving to the front property line by 20 feet. 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. Placing the proposed garage/workshop 10 feet into the required front yard setback, the structure will be further from the accessory structure that is on the neighbor’s property line to the east. 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 proposed detached garage would encroach into the required front yard setback by 10 feet. In addition, the subject property is on a cul-de-sac and will not obstruct the view of any intersection with the neighboring properties. 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 is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code. The subject property is on a cul-de-sac and the proposed 20-foot front yard setback will not create a visibility obstruction with the neighboring properties. The request will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. The granting of this variance will not allow a use that is not otherwise allowed in the SF-10 District. 3  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 4 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, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. 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. However, the most level part of the property is towards the front property line making it more efficient to build and place the proposed garage/workshop; further from the non-conforming structure on the neighbor’s property to the east. This criterion IS NOT met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 18-28 is appropriate. The request is a minimum easing of the code and will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. The request conforms to the existing character of the area. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 18- 28, a request from Ricky Wenzel for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet, in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District for property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place (R0021274) in the Country Club Manor Replat E Subdivision. 4  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 5 5  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 6 Old lot line 6  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 7 Photos of subject property 7  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 8 8  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 9 Proposed location for the detached garage 9  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 10 10  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 11 11  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 12 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 18-28 6403 HILLCREST PLACE Deadline: 4/17/18 City of Farmington Departments CD Director – M. Holton CD Addressing – Planning Division This project will require a building permit CD Chief Building Official – D. Childers if approved. CD Long Range Planner CD MPO – D. Garcia CD Oil & Gas Inspector – L. Simms CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No comment Customer Care Manager – L. ELEC Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering – L Aligarbes No comment 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 – M. Romero POLICE Sergeant – P. Flores PRCA C. Styron No comment PW City Engineer – N. Westerling PW Engineering – T. Sitta No comment PW Streets Superintendent PW Traffic Engineer – C. Trask 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 Enterprise Field Services Comcast Cable – M. Johnson CH2MHILL OMI – R. Rosen 12  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 13 Field Services Farmington School District – C. Lyons 13  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 14 14  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 15 15  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 16 16  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 17 17  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 18 18  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 19 19  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 20 20  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 21 21  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 22 22  ARB 18-28 Petition Report Page 23 23  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD April 5, 2018 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, April 5, 2018 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 Oliver Roe Members absent: None Staff present: Helen Landaverde Cindy Lopez Karen Walker Ellen Wayne Others addressing the Board: Russell Allen Charles Bisland Stephanie Buffington Kaylene Cribbs Trenton Keeling Shellie Patscheck Jarred Santesson Karen Santesson David Scott Chelsey Renn 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 Roe to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Approval of the Minutes from the March 8, 2018 Regular Meetings Board Member Dennis made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2018 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johanson and passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Approval of the Open Meetings Resolution A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Roe to approve the Open Meetings Resolution for 2018. 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 18-16 Variance to the minimum lot size Discussion of ARB No. 18-16 on April 5, 2018 Board Member Dennis recused himself from this petition and left the room. Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 18-16, a request from Russell Allen for a variance to the required minimum 2-acre lot size in the RE-2, Residential District. The proposal for Lot 3A is for 1.996 acres and Lot 3B is for 1.998 acres, for property located at 8565 Foothills Drive. The subject property was sold to the applicant as a 4-acre parcel. On December 8, 2017 the applicant submitted a Summary Plat application, Triple Eagle Subdivision, for a lot split. The property was surveyed for the lot split and it was discovered that the proposed lots did not meet the minimum lot size requirement in the RE-2 District. The square footage difference for Lot 3A is 152 square feet, approximately 1% less than the minimum required size. The square footage difference for Lot 3B is 65 square feet; less than approximately 1% less than the minimum required size. The requested variance is consistent with the City’s 2020 Future Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The property is directly across and borderlines the property where a well site exists. Pursuant to the Municipal Code Chapter 19 Oil and Gas Wells, “no building, other than buildings necessary for the operation of the well, shall be constructed or moved within 100 feet of any wellhead, production equipment or hydrocarbon storage tank. No building used as a place of assembly, institution, or school shall be constructed within 300 feet of any wellhead, production equipment, or hydrocarbon storage tank. No street shall be constructed or realigned to be within 75 feet of any wellhead, production equipment or hydrocarbon storage tank. Variances to this subsection may be granted by the administrative review board.” There is an existing residence to the south-east, approximately 242 feet from the gas well. The development of single-family dwellings on the proposed Lots 3A and 3B in the Triple Eagle Subdivision must meet the 100 feet proximity of well(s), tanks or pipelines. The Community Development Department recommends approval. Russell Allen, 5600 La Luz Trail, owner of Triple Eagle Construction, mentioned the lot sizes are very close to the 2-acre minimum. He said that the property was sold to him as a 4-acre lot. Charles Bisland, an affected party, 8655 Foothills Drive, said he tried to split his property several years back and was told he could not do it because one lot would be only 1.96-acres. Mr. Bisland said it would be to his advantage if Mr. Allen was granted the variance. Mr. Bisland questioned Mr. Allen on the type of homes he would be building. Mr. Bisland’s concern regarded depreciation to his property if Mr. Allen was not intending to build a quality home. Mr. Bisland asked about covenants for the property. Ms. Lopez stated that the City does not enforce covenants and the petitioner indicated on his application that there are no covenants for this property. Mr. Allen said he did not have floor plans yet, but intended to match the style in the area. He said Triple Eagle Construction intended to build houses that would increase the property value. David Scott, an interested party, 6175 San Marcos Drive, said he was against the approval of Petition ARB 18-16. Mr. Scott said the covenants in the neighborhood were part of his decision to purchase property in the area. He said he was concerned the granting of the petition would set precedence for future lot splits. Trenton Keeling-8668 Foothills Drive, said there have been issues regarding covenants in the Foothills area. He said he could not find any record of covenants, but was told he had to follow the covenants when he built his home. Mr. Keeling said there are several lots in the area that are not exactly 2-acres. He supports this request as it is such a small decrease in the lot sizes. Administrative Review Board Action of April 5, 2018 A motion was made by Board Member Johanson and seconded by Board Member Roe to approve Petition No. ARB 18-16, a request from Russell Allen for a variance to the required minimum 2-acre lot size in the RE-2, Residential District. The proposal for Lot 3A is for 1.996 acres and Lot 3B is for 1.998 acres, for property located at 8565 Foothills Drive. AYE: Board Members Johanson, Martin, and Roe. NAY: None ABSTAIN: Chair Cooper ABSENT: None RECUSED: Board Member Dennis. APPROVED 3-0 Petition No. ARB 18-19 Variance to the height of a fence on the front property Discussion of ARB No. 18-19 on April 5, 2018 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 18-19, a request from Jarred and Kristen Santesson for a variance to allow a six-foot tall vinyl fence on the front property line with a 0’ front yard setback, and to allow an outdoor recreation area within the required front yard area in the MU/RPO, Mixed Use/Residential Preservation Overlay District, at Fundamentals Child Development Center, located at 209 N. Auburn. Pursuant to UDC (Unified Development Code) 5.5.4 Fences and wall location and height, fences and walls located in the required front yard setback shall be limited to three feet at the front property line. Pursuant to UDC 2.4.16C Day care centers, “No portion of such (outdoor) recreation area shall be located within the required front yard area of the property.” The property consists of two separate buildings and an outdoor play area that occupies two parcels of land. The applicants are proposing to use the front yard area as a second outdoor play area. Ms. Landaverde noted that a day care center, the School of Montessori, existed on the property from 1997 to 2015; at which time Fundamentals Child Development purchased the property. Fundamentals Child Development currently provides care for 64 children. The applicants are preparing to expand their day care services to a total of 80 children and may later expand supervision to a total of 125 children, which is the maximum capacity for both buildings. The applicants are proposing to use the front yard area as a second outdoor play area, for children under 24 months, in preparation for the future expansion. Pursuant to New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) 8.16.2.21B the space requirement for outdoor activity space for each child using the area at one time is 75-square feet. In nonresidential districts such as in the MU/RPO District, front yard fences using wrought iron open design are permitted up to eight-feet tall. The required front yard setback in the MU/RPO District for a six-foot tall vinyl fence is 10 feet from the front property line. The properties to the north, south, and west are zoned MU/RPO District. The property to the east is zoned LNC. Most of the surrounding properties do not have front yard fences except for the property located at 212 North Auburn Avenue which is directly across from the subject property; there is a three-foot tall white picket fence located on the front property line. The Community Development Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 18-19, a request from Jarred and Kristen Santesson for a variance to allow Fundamentals Child Development to have (1) a six-foot tall vinyl fence on the front property line and (2) to allow an outdoor recreation area within the required front yard area, in the MU/RPO, Mixed Use/Residential Preservation Overlay District for property located at 209 N. Auburn. However, the Community Development Department recommends approval of a four-foot tall vinyl fence on the front property line with a 0’ front yard setback, but not in the sight triangle, and to allow a second outdoor recreation area within the required front yard area, in the MU/RPO, Mixed Use/Residential Preservation Overlay District. Commissioner Martin asked if the requirement for the sight triangle was necessary due to the alley next to the property. Ms. Landaverde said that City Code requires a 20’ x 40’ sight triangle for arterial and local/collector streets. Jarred and Kristen Santesson, 209 N. Auburn, owners of Fundamentals Child Development Center. Ms. Santesson said the goal and vision of Fundamentals is to offer the highest quality of care and education to families and children. They strive to provide the safest environment possible. In the process of expanding, they will be opening 2 more classrooms. Ms. Santesson said they have never used the Auburn entrance to the building. Access has always been from Lorena Street. She said that due to licensing requirements, they are not allowed to mix the 0- 24-month old age group with the 2-5-year-old age group. Having a front yard playground would allow them to have a separate playground for the younger age group. Mr. Santesson said they enjoy their current location, but it has a lot of pedestrian traffic. Some of the pedestrian traffic comes from a nearby unemployment office, a soup kitchen that utilizes former inmates, and a counseling service. Mr. Santesson said the taller, solid fence is needed for safety reasons. He said he is in Law Enforcement and knows from working with the Farmington Police Department that the area is designated as a Data Driven Analyzed Crime Table (DDACT) neighborhood. This means it is a high crime area, he said. Mr. Santesson stated that a vinyl fence would be more visually appealing than a chain link fence and would be safer for the children. He said he is aware of the sight triangle. Mr. Santesson said he has talked with the neighbors and every owner signed a petition in support of the six- foot tall vinyl fence. (The petition was not submitted to staff nor was it submitted to the Administrative Review Board.) Chair Cooper said he understands the need for safety, but a 6-foot tall solid fence would make the property look like a compound. Mr. Cooper felt the allowed 8-foot tall wrought iron fence would be more appropriate for the neighborhood, and suggested using some type of see-thru screening to allow for more protection for the children from passing pedestrians. Mr. Santesson said he would be willing to install a 5-foot vinyl fence, but did not feel a 4-foot tall fence would be safe enough for the children. Cindy Lopez, City Planning Manager, reminded the Commissioners that this is a Residential Preservation Overlay Area and protecting the character of the neighborhood is also important. Ms. Lopez suggested a 3-foot tall masonry wall with a wrought iron fence on top as a possible option that would still be acceptable for the neighborhood character. Stephanie Buffington, 1606 N. Cochiti Avenue, said she has a child that attends Fundamentals. She said the back playground is not appropriate for the smaller children. Shellie Patscheck, 3210 Foutz Road, said the variance criteria 8.12.4 in the UDC says if the Board cannot find specific positive findings of fact for each of the requirements, then they are allowed to approve the petition if specific finding says that the circumstances outweigh the strict reading of the requirements for the positive findings of fact. Ms. Patscheck said she is an attorney for the Titus & Murphy Law Firm and has 2 children who attend Fundamentals. She said she sees a definite need for privacy and safety as there is a doctor’s office across the street who sees sex offenders. A 6-foot vinyl fence is the only type of fence that will keep the children safe. Ms. Patscheck said she did not feel it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. The difference between a 4-foot vinyl fence to a 6-foot vinyl fence is not significant enough to cause a detriment, in her opinion, especially when the neighborhood is in support of the 6-foot fence. Chelsey Renn, 4904 Poquita Street said she has a child who attends Fundamentals. The children need more room. She said she agrees with the safety points where the children cannot be seen. Kaylene Cribbs, 502 E. 38th Street, said a wrought iron fence is not an adequate option and there is a need to prevent people from interacting with the children. Ms. Lopez noted that this is a 2 parcel property that was once a house. It is addressed on Auburn, which is considered the front of the property even though they utilize the rear entrance. Fundamentals would be allowed to install a 6-foot fence 10 feet from the front property line. She reminded the Board about the Residential Preservation Overlay Zone that is intended to protect the historic character of the area. She also reminded the Board that the UDC specifically addresses that play areas are not allowed in the front yard because of safety issues. Board Member Dennis stated that the regulations in the UDC and the RPO are important. A 6- foot solid fence is an ominous barrier in a front yard. Mr. Dennis said he understood the reason for safety, but the property is not big enough for what they want to do. Chair Cooper said he feels the Santessons will outgrow this facility. The UDC is there for a reason and a lot of thought and work was involved in developing the UDC. A solid fence does not fit the neighborhood. Administrative Review Board Action of April 5, 2018 A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Johanson to deny Petition No. ARB 18-19, a request from Jarred and Kristen Santesson. Ms. Lopez reminded the Board that a recommendation was included to allow a four-foot tall vinyl fence or a six-foot tall wrought iron fence on the front property line with a 0’ front yard setback. The Board has the option to consider this alternate recommendation or not. Ms. Lopez asked the Board to be more specific on their denial of the petition to include whether they want to deny the front yard play yard as well. A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Johanson to deny a six-foot tall vinyl fence on the front property line and to deny an outdoor recreation area within the required front yard area in the MU/RPO, Mixed Use/Residential Preservation Overlay District, for property located at 209 N. Auburn. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis, Johanson, Martin, and Roe. NAY: None 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 April 5, 2018 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned by Chair Cooper at 7:09 p.m. _________________________________ ________________________________ Ireke Cooper-Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant