Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM July 5, 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 June 7, 2018 Meeting 27 5 Petition No. ARB 18-46 – a request from Dennis Mould, represented by 1 Scott Hatch, for a variance to allow a vehicle repair (auto detailing) shop to be less than 200 feet from any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property, for property in the IND, Industrial District, located at 4550 Rowe Avenue. (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.  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 18-46 Variance to allow for a vehicle repair (auto detailing) shop to be within less than 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property, in the IND, Industrial District 4550 Rowe Avenue July 5, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 18-46 is a request from Dennis Mould, represented by Scott Hatch for a variance to allow for a vehicle repair (auto detailing) shop to be less than 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property; for property located at 4550 Rowe Avenue in the IND, Industrial District. Pursuant to UDC Section 2.4.59(C) “No repairs shall be conducted within 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary.” The property is legally described as: Lot 1B, of the Padilla Subdivision, Replat A, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico, filed for record September 24, 2003. Otherwise located at 4550 Rowe Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant .......................... Dennis Mould, represented by Scott Hatch Property Owner ............... Dennis Mould Location of Property 4550 Rowe Avenue (R0037867) Nature of Petition ............ The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a vehicle repair (auto detailing) shop to be less than 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property, in the IND, Industrial District. Applicable Regulations ... City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Pursuant to UDC Section 2.4.59(C) “No repairs shall be conducted within 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary.” Zoning .............................. IND, Industrial District Existing Use ..................... Industrial/commercial Surrounding Zoning/ …..North: IND, Industrial/commercial Land Use South: SF-7, Single-family Residential/residential East: GC, General Commercial/vacant West: IND, Industrial/commercial Public Notice…………….Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, June 17, 2018. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday June 13, 2018 and Sunday June 17, 2018. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, June 22, 2018. Staff Helen Landaverde, Associate Planner  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicant Dennis Mould, represented by Scott Hatch, is requesting a variance to allow for a vehicle repair (auto detailing) shop to be less than 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property. The subject property is located at 4550 Rowe Avenue in the IND, Industrial District. San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the size of the property is 0.810 acres. Research indicates that there is a mini lube garage, a storage warehouse, and a three-bay carwash structure on the property. In addition, the following businesses previously operated at this location prior to the adoption of the Unified Development Code in 2008; except for Lubricators Incorporated:  Countryside Construction (1989-2017)  Pinon Hills Xpress Lube & Wash (2004-2007)  Tucker’s Express Lube (2008)  Lubricators Incorporated (2010-2011) On June 24, 2014 a special use permit (SUP 14-09) was approved by City Council. Petition SUP 14-09 was also a request from Dennis Mould for the subject property, 4550 Rowe Avenue, to allow for (1) a craft distillery and tasting room and (2) a waiver to the 200-foot distance requirement from any residential structure for a liquor store. The special use permit expired in accordance with UDC 8.9.6, Expiration of approval. Unified Development Code Pursuant to the UDC 8.9.6(A) Expiration of approval. “A. Special use permits shall be valid for a period of 18 months from the date of approval. If construction or operation of the approved use has not commenced within this period, the special use permit shall expire.” Research shows that the operation of the approved craft distillery and tasting room did no commence within 18 months from the date of approval. Consequently, the approved special use permit for (1) a craft distillery and tasting room and (2) a waiver to the 200- foot distance requirement from any residential structure for a liquor store has expired. A vehicle repair shop is an allowed use in the IND District subject to the following requirements: UDC 2.4.59 Vehicle repair; paint and body shops. (Retail, service and commercial use categories; vehicle repair). Vehicle repair and lubrication, oil changes, paint and bodywork and other maintenance services shall comply with the standards of this section. A. All repairs must be conducted within an enclosed building.  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 3 B. All inoperable automobiles upon which repairs are to be conducted shall be enclosed behind a six-foot screening fence. C. No repairs shall be conducted within 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary. D. No automobile repair or service facility shall be permitted to have bay doors facing a residential use located within a residential district. Farmington Comprehensive Plan The 2020 Future Land Use Plan indicates that this area is between Commercial and Residential Single Family Urban. The proposed use (a detail shop) supports the following goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan: “Objective 8.21: Assure that there are adequate and appropriate sites for industrial and commercial business locations. Action 8.5.22: Support local businesses. Encourage local shopping.” The proposed use for the subject property further supports the City’s Economic Development Plan, Chapter 22, Article 22 of Farmington’s Municipal Code3: Goals. The goals of the economic development plan are as follows: “3. Affirm support of local business creation, retention and expansion.” Proposal The petitioner’s representative, Scott Hatch, relocated his detail shop business, King Detail, from 1509 Schofield Lane to 4550 Rowe Avenue in August 2017. The Planning Division normally conducts the zoning compliance and approval process prior to the relocation of a business for business license registration purposes. Mr. Hatch relocated his detail shop before notifying the City Clerk of the business relocation. Upon updating the new location of the detail shop and during the zoning compliance and approval process, it was discovered that the detail shop is next to (north) of a residential district (SF-7) and within less 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary per UDC 2.4.59(C). Currently, the mini lube garage is being used as an auto detailing shop. The nearest residential structure from the mini lube garage is approximately 189 feet away. The three-bay carwash structure is not being used for the auto detailing shop; nevertheless, the nearest residential structure is approximately 56-71 feet away from the carwash structure. The three-bay carwash structure openings face Main Street and it is closed off by a solid wall facing the residences. The surrounding properties are commercial, 1 Farmington Comprehensive Plan (2002). Chapter 8 Economic Development (2002: 8-10). 2 Farmington Comprehensive Plan (2002). Chapter 8 Economic Development (2002: 8-11). 3 City of Farmington (2018) Municipal Code. Available at: < https://library.municode.com/nm/farmington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CICO_CH22PLDE>  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 4 zoned IND, Industrial and GC, General Commercial District, except for the properties to the south, which are zoned as SF-7 Single-family Residential. Mr. Hatch is currently working with Ziems Ford and has relocated his business to be closer to the dealership at 5700 East Main (see attachment and Figure 1). Additionally, Mr. Hatch has expressed that the existing car wash building would be more accommodating for the growth of his business due to the existing facilities on the subject property. Mr. Hatch has a two year lease agreement with the petitioner for the use of the subject property as an auto detailing shop. The hours of operation for King Detail are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday and is closed on Sunday. The business has a total of three (3) employees including Mr. Hatch. The applicant is requesting a variance to operate a detail shop business on the subject property to be less than 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property. Figure 1. Subject Property 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  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 5 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the applicant’s property. Prior to the adoption of the UDC in 2008 and the 200-foot distance requirement, vehicle repairs had been existent on the applicant’s property. Currently, the applicant’s property meets many of the UDC requirements for vehicle repairs except the distance requirement. There are existing facilities that are appropriate and consistent with the proposed use (a detail shop); however, the applicant has a much greater challenge adhering to the 200-foot distance requirement in comparison to other properties that were developed for vehicle repair after the adoption of the UDC in 2008. The existing circumstances are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. 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 properties in the same district. The applicant’s property has functioned as an industrial use, including vehicle repair, for many years prior to the adoption of the UDC and briefly in 2010 to 2011. There are existing facilities that are appropriate and consistent with the previous uses and the proposed use (a detail shop). The strict adherence to the 200-foot distance requirement from residential uses and residential boundaries would not allow for the practical and reasonable use of the applicant’s property in the IND District. 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. A variety of businesses (Countryside Construction, Piñon Hills Xpress Lube & Wash, Tucker’s Express Lube and Lubricators Incorporated) have previously  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 6 operated on the subject property. There is an existing mini lube garage, storage warehouses, and a three-bay carwash structure on the subject property, which supported the previous uses at this location and are also compatible with the proposed use (detail shop). The nearest residential structure from the mini lube garage is approximately 189 feet away. The three-bay carwash structure is approximately 56-71 feet away from the nearest residential structure. The carewash structure has a solid wall that faces the residences.The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner and in conformity with the existing building. 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 proposed reduction to the required 200-foot distance for vehicle repairs (detail shop) from any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property will not alter the character of the neighborhood; will not be injurious to the neighborhood; or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The surrounding properties are commercial, zoned IND, Industrial and GC, General Commercial District, except for the properties to the south, which are zoned as SF-7 residential. The nearest residential structure from the mini lube garage is approximately 189 feet away. The three-carwash building is approximately 56-71 feet away from the nearest residential structure, but has a solid wall that faces the residences. The storage warehouse next to the three-bay carwash structure will function as a visual and noise barrier between the detail shop and the residences. In the past the subject property has operated commercially and there have been a variety of businesses (Countryside Construction, Piñon Hills Xpress Lube & Wash, Tucker’s Express Lube and Lubricators Incorporated) at this location without any complaints and/or zoning violations. The proposed reduction to the required distance for vehicle repairs should not create significant impacts on the surrounding area. 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 IND, Industrial District. This criterion IS met.  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 7 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 suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were denied. The strict adherence to the code would restrict the practical and reasonable use of the land. In the past and for many years, prior to the adoption of the UDC in 2008 and the 200-foot distance requirement, the applicant’s property functioned as a commercial use and an industrial use that included vehicle repair. The property has existing facilities that are appropriate and consistent with the previous uses and with the proposed use (a detail shop). Subsequently, the adoption of the UDC in 2008 and the 200-foot distance requirement for vehicle repairs, prevent the applicant from complying with all the requirements listed in Section 2.4.59 for vehicle repairs. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that the request for ARB 18-46 is a minimum easing of the code, is in harmony with the neighborhood, and will not be injurious to the neighbors. The property has a unique circumstance and the approval will allow the applicant a practical and reasonable use of the property. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 18- 46, a request for a variance from Dennis Mould, represented by Scott Hatch, to allow for a vehicle repair (auto detailing) shop to be less than 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary property; for property located at 4550 Rowe Avenue in the IND, Industrial District. ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 8 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 9  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 10 Photos of subject property ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 11 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 12 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 13 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 14  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 15 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 18-46 4550 ROWE AVE. Deadline: 6/19/18 City of Farmington Departments CD No comments on the proposal. However, zoning records indicate that this tract is zoned IND, not GC. Please verify and ensure all required notices are correct. Additionally, on June 24, 2014, the City Council adopted the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and approved Petition SUP 14-09, a request from Dennis Mould for a special use permit to allow a craft distillery at 4550 Rowe Avenue in the IND Industrial District, including a waiver to the Director – M. Holton distance requirement of 200 feet from any residential structure for a liquor store. The following UDC provision applies: 8.9.6 Expiration of approval. A. Special use permits shall be valid for a period of 18 months from the date of approval. If construction or operation of the approved use has not commenced within this period, the special use permit shall expire. 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  ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 16 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 No comment POLICE Sergeant – P. Flores PRCA C. Styron No comment PW The previous use of the lot was a car wash and lube place. This seems to conform to the prior uses. The rear (east side) of the property abuts a commercial City Engineer – N. Westerling property that would front on both Pinon Hills (future) and Main, that lot was previously proposed as a car lot with a shop again supporting the use. PW Engineering – T. Sitta No comment PW Streets Superintendent PW Traffic Engineer – C. Trask 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 Field Services Farmington School District – C. Lyons ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 17 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 18 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 19 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 20 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 21 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 22 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 23 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 24 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 25 ARB 18-46 Petition Report Page 26  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD June 7, 2018 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, June 7, 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 June Markle Others addressing the Board: Russell Hatch Scott Martin 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 Johanson and 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 3, 2018 Regular Meetings Board Member Dennis made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2018 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Martin and passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Board Member Martin expressed a conflict of interest for Petition ARB 18-36 and stepped out of the room. Swearing in of Witnesses All parties that wished to speak on behalf of any agenda item were sworn in by June Markle. Petition No. ARB 18-36 Variance to the minimum front yard setback Discussion of ARB No. 18-36 on June 7, 2018 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 18-36, a request from Carl Winters, represented by Scott Martin of Sakura Engineering & Surveying, for a variance to allow for (1) a two-story detached garage (approximately 30’ x 40’) and basement (approximately 12’ x 38’) to be 1,700 square feet in total gross floor area, and (2) to allow for the height of the garage to be 16-feet in the required rear yard area on property in the RE-1, Residential estate District, located at 6112 Via del Oro. San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records indicate that the size of the applicant’s property is 1.121 acres and the principal (residential) structure is 3,222 square feet. There are no existing accessory structures on the subject property. The applicant’s property, Lot 13, has a 54.54’ drainage easement within the required rear yard setback and building footprint, said Ms. Landaverde. The detached garage and basement would be allowed a minimum three-foot side yard setback and a minimum five-foot rear yard setback. However, the applicant is proposing to construct the detached garage and basement at an 11-foot side yard setback from the northwest property line and at a six-foot rear yard setback from the north property line outside the drainage easement and downhill from the street. Additionally, the proposed accessory structure will be placed 55 feet away from the principal structure. The proposed garage will store a motor home/5th Wheel. The applicant would like to secure the motor home within an enclosed accessory structure. He is also proposing a basement for additional storage room and work space. Ms. Landaverde said that pursuant to the UDC Section 2.5(B). Accessory uses and structures: “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.” And pursuant to the UDC Section 2.8(3)(c) Measurements and exceptions. “c. Residential accessory structures that are separated at least ten feet from the principal structure may be constructed in a rear yard; provided, that such accessory structure is not greater than 12 feet in height...” Ms. Landaverde stated that the proposed accessory structure will be 89 square feet over the allowed gross floor area and four feet over the allowed height in the rear and side yard area. The applicant is requesting approval to construct an accessory structure 5.52% larger than permitted and 33.3% taller than allowed for accessory structures and uses. The proposed accessory structure would not occupy more than 30% (2,223.63 sq. ft.) of the area of the required rear yard. The surrounding properties in this subdivision are zoned RE-1 District and meet the required setbacks for all uses including accessory structures; however, the applicant’s property (Lot 13) and Lot 12 have a drainage easement within the required rear yard setback and building footprint. Also, the topography for the subject property drops down from the street to the rear property line making it difficult for the applicant to make improvements to his property. The proposed structure will be approx. 186 feet to 341 feet away from the surrounding residential structures. The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 18-36. Board Member Dennis asked how the height is measured in regards to the grade of property. Cindy Lopez, Planning Manager, said it is measured from where the ground meets the building to half-way up the pitch of the roof. In this case, she said, it will be measured from the front of the accessory structure where it meets the grade. This particular structure will have a flat roof. Scott Martin, Sakura Engineering, 125 W. Main St. stated that the adjustments to the building will not be a major modification due to the topography of the site, and it will not adversely affect the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Martin said the garage door is 12 foot tall. Russell Hatch, 5603 Plaza Dr. stated that he owns the adjoining lot. He asked that his property not be disturbed by the construction. Chair Cooper acknowledged Mr. Hatch’s concerns to have his property respected. Board Member Discussion: Board Member Dennis said it appears appropriate to keep the RV in a garage. It would not be injurious to the neighbors and is a minimum easing of the code. Board Member Johanson said there are other large accessory buildings down the street. Administrative Review Board Action of June 7, 2018 A motion was made by Board Member Roe and seconded by Board Member Johanson to approve Petition No. ARB 18-36, a request from Carl Winters, represented by Scott Martin of Sakura Engineering & Surveying, for a variance to allow for (1) a two-story detached garage (approximately 30’ x 40’) and basement (approximately 12’ x 38’) to be 1,700 square feet in total gross floor area, and (2) to allow for the height of the garage to be 16-feet in the required rear yard area on property in the RE-1, Residential estate District, located at 6112 Via del Oro. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis, Johanson, and Roe. NAY: None ABSTAIN: Board Member Martin ABSENT: None APPROVED 4-0 Board Member Martin returned to the meeting. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: Chair Cooper asked if it was appropriate to talk about the appeal of the ARB’s decision by City Council concerning ARB 18-19, filed by Jarred and Kristen Santesson for a variance to allow for Fundamentals Child Development to have a six-foot tall vinyl fence on the front property line in the MU/RPO, Mixed Use/Residential Preservation Overlay District for property located at 209 N. Auburn. Cindy Lopez said the ARB’s decision to deny the variance request for a 6-foot tall vinyl fence on the front yard property line and have a play area in the front yard was reversed by the City Council on appeal. Business from the Members: Board Member Dennis asked what the vote count was. Ms. Lopez said it was 3-1 with Council Member Jeanine Bingham-Kelly voting against the appeal. Board Member Dennis asked Chair Cooper if he went to the City Council meeting. Chair Copper said he did go to the meeting, but said he would reserve his comments about the reversal. The remainder of this conversation is verbatim: Board Member Dennis-We voted unanimously. What are we doing here? Board Member Roe-That’s part of the process, right? It was a tough decision for us. It played on our heart strings. Board Member Martin-It was not a hard decision for me. My associate and myself have had 30- 40 years of experience dealing with Planning & Zoning, the ARB, and City Council, and we take this very seriously and make sure all are playing by the same set of rules. It’s my opinion that with our experience and knowledge of the way things are supposed to be, and working with staff that very carefully goes through these, it is appalling that the heart strings or emotions don’t count. It’s what the facts are and how the rules that we play as a society to do things. Just to let everybody go and do what they want, is going to worsen our community, and it’s going to look horrible. It’s clear we voted right. We did what we were supposed to do. I agree that they (City Council) can overrule us on an appeal, but they need to take their jobs a little more seriously because, 1-I’m offended, and 2-staff works hard on this and they know what the rules are more than we do. More than I do. And they had the same feelings that we did, and we did right. And I think a message needs to be given to City Council this is not just an emotional job. We are made to play by these rules and everybody plays by the same rules. Board Member Dennis-I agree with Paul’s (Martin) comments. In that meeting, I did not see the site prior to the meeting. Everything that was presented, that was the first time I was associated with it. We saw more people in here than any other meeting than I think we have had. It was all emotional rhetoric that was going back and forth. We listened to it all intently because we gave everybody their time. But when that meeting was over, I drove by that site, and it took me about 2 seconds to realize that we made the right decision. In that district, what was there, there were options that they still could have gotten what they wanted. There were even other solutions to getting that playground in the front yard had they given it enough thought. Sometimes you’ve got to think a little bit more, and we can’t solve their design issues for them here, but there were solutions that were much better than a solid 6-foot fence along that sidewalk. It kind of hurts because as Paul (Martin) said, we’re here because we take this seriously. We don’t always all agree, but we are pretty consistent in looking at what the issues are. Understanding what the planning department has already investigated. They give us good information all the time, and if this is political or somebody has attorney’s, we had local people, it shouldn’t be that way. If it was 3-2, or something like that, maybe that would say we voted the wrong way. All you had to do was just drive by there and you understand what the code is for. These codes aren’t perfect, but a lot of work has gone into them to try to make our community more consistent. It would be a lot of work in this community to try to right a bunch of wrongs, and we don’t need to add to that issue. Board Member Dennis to Chair Cooper-Did you get to speak at that meeting? Chair Cooper-no Board Member Martin-Did they ask for comments from ARB? Chair Cooper-In retrospect, I probably should have approached the podium, I felt that it was my place to be asked and not to come up and present evidence. Next time I think I’ll do it differently. Board Member Dennis-So what did we learn from that? Do we need to write something when that happens? We all can’t go to those (City Council meetings). Board Member Roe-We can’t have a quorum, correct? Is that the rule at that meeting (City Council meetings)? Cindy Lopez-If you all want to attend; we have to advertise that you’re all going to be there. We do write up a Findings of Fact that we present to them from what your decision is. You do have the right to make comments to the Mayor and Council. You can do that in written form if that’s what you choose to do. That would be something that would come from you. Board Member Martin-They can’t come back and reverse their decision now. It’s over and done with. Cindy Lopez-The only way they could reconsider it is if a Council member who voted for it asked to have it revisited. Chair Cooper-If I had to give somebody advice that would want to fill the Chairman’s position in the future, I would say, do as suggested, either write something or step up to the podium and introduce yourself as a representative of this board and ask if they (City Council) have any questions on why the (ARB) decision was made. I believe that everybody here made the right decisions that night for the right reasons in the best interest of the City. I think we did our job. I know it’s hard, but our job ends at the conclusion of this meeting and continues its own process. I appreciate everyone here making that very, very tough decision that night because I know it was hard. Board Member Dennis-We should make sure we have a good streetscape picture of this and take one after this is put in place to see if anybody can see why this code is there. Board Member Martin-This sets up to happen again. It sets up where the next person that comes in goes, ‘Well you let them do it’. We’re sitting here trying to enforce the rules, and they can go, ‘Well you let them do it’. I’ve been in that position where you have no recourse or anything else. You’re stuck. And when something that really, really is outside the rules comes up, and you’re sitting there, and they stick that picture in front of your face, saying ‘Well you let them do it’. We didn’t let them do it, so what I’m saying to the Board is, we continue on making the right decisions without emotions, without ‘they’re my best friend’, or whatever, then we make those decisions. I’ve sat up here and there have been occasions that the firm that I represent comes up and it was voted down. Didn’t happen very often. Maybe once or twice that it’s happened. But I never faulted the Board in doing your jobs to say ‘that was my best friend’ or whatever. It’s like, a minute ago, I got up and left so you guys could make the right decision and do what’s right and there would be no question about it. So I’m saying, we’ve got to continue to do our jobs. If they (City Council) do something, then they (City Council) have to live with it. We don’t have to. We did what was right according to the rules and according to the information that was given to us. I think we go forward with a positive attitude and say that we’re going to do our jobs every time. It’s not politics. It’s what we’re here to do. Business from Staff: Covered in the above information of Business from the Members. Adjournment: The June 7, 2018 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. _________________________________ ________________________________ Ireke Cooper-Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant