Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM May 9, 2019 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 4, 2019 Meeting 28 4 Petition No. ARB 19-25 – a request from Ricky Wenzel for a variance to allow an 1 additional curb cut of 26-feet to access a two-car garage in the SF-10, Single- family District, for property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place. (Francisco Alvarado) 5 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 6 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 19-25 Variance to allow for an additional curb cut of 26 feet, in the SF-10, Single-family 10 Residential District 6403 Hillcrest Place May 9, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 19-25 is a request from Ricky Wenzel for a variance to allow for an additional curb cut of 26 feet for a two-car garage for property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place in the Country Club Manor Replat E Subdivision in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District. There is an existing driveway curb cut (front yard) of approximately 53 feet. Pursuant to UDC Section 5.3.3(C)(1) Maximum curb cut width, curb cuts for two-car garages shall not exceed 24 feet, and the maximum curb cut for any residential property shall not exceed 32 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 through 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 allow for an additional curb cut of 26 feet for a two-car garage in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District. There is an existing driveway curb cut (front yard) of approximately 53 feet. Applicable Regulations .. City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): UDC 5.3.3(B) Driveways and parking lot access, driveways shall have a minimum of one-foot clearance on each side of a vertical obstruction exceeding 0.5 feet in height. UDC 5.3.3(C)(1) Maximum curb cut width, the required maximum width of curb cuts accessing two- car garages shall be 24 feet. The maximum curb cut for any residential property shall not exceed 32 feet. Zoning .............................. SF-10, Single-family Residential District Existing Use .................... Residential Surrounding Zoning/……North: SF-10, Single-family Residential District/residential 1 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 24, 2019. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday April 17, 2019. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, April 26, 2019. Staff Francisco Alvarado, Associate Planner BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for an additional curb cut of 26 feet for property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place (R0021274) in the Country Club Manor Replat E Subdivision in the SF-10, Single-family 10 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 memo indicate that there are two detached structures, a residential structure, a swimming pool, and a detached garage. A variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet was approved in 2018 (ARB 18-28), to allow for the detached garage measuring 1,200 ft.² (30’ x 40’) on the property. Pursuant to UDC Section 5.3.3(C)(1), curb cuts shall conform to the following maximum width requirements: b. Curb cuts two-car garages, carports or paved driveway: 24 feet. d. The maximum curb cut for any residential property shall not exceed 32 feet. The proposed additional curb cut of 26 feet for the two-car garage would be two feet wider than the maximum width required. There is also an existing driveway curb cut of approximately 53 feet to gain front-yard access. The combined width of the existing and proposed curb cuts would amount to 79 feet, exceeding the maximum width permitted by 47 feet. The applicant also has 45-foot (35-foot property) access to the subject property and off-street parking via Lola Lane. Research indicates that the property was built in 1959, prior to the 1969 zoning ordinance. Staff found, within 0.4 miles of the applicant’s property, four properties with building permits and curb cuts exceeding the maximum length requirements. Details for each property are as follows:  Permit no. 46351: SF-10 district, two street curb cuts, 48 feet combined, in Country Club Manor subdivision, issued 10/10/2015. 2   Permit no. 55178: SF-7 district, one street curb cut and one cul-de-sac curb cut, 44 feet combined, issued 05/23/2012.  Permit no. 55082: SF-7 district, one street curb cut and one cul-de-sac curb cut, 58 feet combined, issued 05/03/2012.  Permit no. 47786: SF-7 district, one street curb cut of 50 feet, issued 10/02/2006. Effect on other modes of transportation The 2020 Comprehensive Plan considers that a “safe and efficient transportation system is essential to the city’s economic growth. It consists not only of an integrated system of roadways, but includes alternative modes of transportation”. The Plan identifies the need to make streets more user-friendly, with pedestrian and bike facilities.1 Currently, there are no pedestrian facilities on Hillcrest Place and, in the Country Club Manor Replat E Subdivision, only two properties built in 2015 have adjacent sidewalks. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recommends, as a planning principle of walk- and bike-friendly communities, limiting “the interruption of the pedestrian experience by driveways, [and] encouraging vehicular access from alleys or shared driveways when possible, as well as establishing driveway maximums in urban areas”.2 On the other hand, the addition of a curb cut to the subject property would align with the traffic movement versus land access principle of the City’s Major Thoroughfare Plan. Figure 1 depicts the mutual conflict between traffic movement and direct access to property. “No facility can move traffic effectively and also provide unlimited access at the same time. Extreme examples of this concept are freeways and cul-de-sacs: the freeway moves traffic very well with few opportunities for access, while the cul-de-sac, [where the subject property is located], provides unlimited opportunities for access, and doesn’t move traffic very well.”3 Only trips having an origin or destination at a lot on the cul-de-sac would be made on such a street.4 1 Farmington Comprehensive Plan (2002). Chapter 6 Transportation, pp. 6-1, 6-2. 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. (2016, December). HUD USER. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Creating- Walkable-Bikeable-Communities.pdf 3 Tucson Department of Transportation. (2011). Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson, p. 4. 4 Farmington Comprehensive Plan (2002). Chapter 6 Transportation, p. 6-7. 3  Figure 1. Traffic Movement Versus Land Access The STRAVA Heat Map (Figure 2), an online tool that displays traveler’s route choice behavior and is presented in Farmington’s 2019 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, shows scarce presence of bicycle and foot trips surrounding Hillcrest Drive, Country Club Drive and immediate intersections (brighter lines indicate higher frequency of use).5 Figure 2. STRAVA Bicycle and Pedestrian Movement 5 Strava Global Heatmap. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2019, from https://www.strava.com/heatmap 4  Figure 3. Road Classification On-street parking The proposed curb cut would mean taking away one on-street, cul-de-sac parking space for neighbors’ guests. Hillcrest Place, where the subject property is located, intersects Country Club Drive. The curb length from the beginning of the Hillcrest Place cul-de-sac to the intersection is approximately 130 feet. According to Duanmu et al.,6 the average car length is 16 feet, with a space factor of 2 feet. Taking these dimensions into account, there is space for five cars to park on one side of the street (excluding the cul-de-sac) without blocking driveways or affecting intersection visibility. Minimum clearance requirements There are two (2) existing devices on the property’s northeast corner: one (1) water meter and one (1) water meter can located near the proposed driveway area. Upon review, staff from Water and Waste Water recommended that the proposed driveway shall have a minimum of 4-foot clearance from the devices to prevent any damage. Research found that the proposed driveway area is more than 4 feet away from the water meter and can. Pursuant to UDC Section 5.3.3(B) Driveways and parking lot access, driveways shall have a minimum of one-foot clearance on each side of a vertical obstruction exceeding 0.5 feet in height. There are bushes exceeding 0.5 feet in height east 6 Duanmu, J., Taaffe, K., & Chowdhury, M. (2010). Minimizing patient transport times during mass population evacuations. Transportation Research Record, 2196(1), 150-158. 5 of the proposed driveway area. Research found that there is clearance of approximately 4 feet between the bushes and the driveway. Curb backing requirements Pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 24-2-5(a), “after a curb has been removed, an apron or driveway shall be placed from the curb line to the sidewalk. If no sidewalk exists, such driveway or apron shall be constructed a distance of four feet in back of the curb and raised to the top of the previous curb grade in such a manner as to prevent any drain water from running behind the curb. The driveway or apron must consist of concrete, a minimum of six inches thick, or bituminous compound not less than two inches thick, on the approved base”. Pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 24-2-5(b), “on all proposed curbing removals and on all existing curbing lay-downs which provide for access onto paved streets, there shall be required a minimum of four feet behind the curb line of properly placed and graded concrete or asphaltic concrete pavement”. UDC Development Standards Pursuant to UDC Section 5.2.6(2) Off-street parking location, “No more than 50 percent of the required front yard may be used for off-street parking or for a driveway providing access to a garage, carport or parking area located behind the front yard setback.” The front yard property line is 125-foot-long, and the proposed combined curb cut would be 79 feet in length, covering 63% of the required front yard. 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 existing circumstances are self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. He applied for a variance to place a two- car garage in a portion of the subject property that did not have driveway 6  access. It is a self-imposed hardship to have placed a garage prior to securing access to the property through a curb cut variance. This criterion IS NOT 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 interpretations of the provisions of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. The maximum curb cut for any residential property shall not exceed 32 feet. This criterion IS NOT met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The requested variance is not a minimum easing of the UDC. The proposed curb cut of 26 feet would be a minimum easing on itself, but there is already a 53-foot curb cut on the property. The combined length of the proposed addition and the existing curb cut exceeds the maximum width permitted by 47 feet. It also exceeds the longest curb cut in the same subdivision by 29 feet, and the longest residential curb cut found within 0.4 miles by 21 feet. This criterion IS NOT 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 not in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code. However, the proposed curb cut would be on a cul-de-sac, which, after reviewing the Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The cul- de-sac provides opportunity for land access, and would not create a burden to parking space on Hillcrest Place, or interfere with pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle movement. This criterion IS met. 7  5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. The granting of this variance will allow a use not otherwise allowed in the SF-10 District. This criterion IS NOT 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 request were denied. The subject property and off-street parking can be accessed via the Hillcrest Place 53-foot front yard driveway and the Lola Lane 45-foot rear driveway. This criterion IS NOT met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes denial of ARB 19-25. However, Community Development recommends reducing the width of the existing 53-foot curb cut to 24 feet, and allowing for an additional 24-foot curb cut. This would be in alignment with the maximum allowed curb cut width for a two-car garage, and would also result in a combined curb cut width equivalent to the widest curb cut (48 feet) with a building permit (no. 46351) in the same district (SF-10) and subdivision (Country Club Manor). RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 19-25, a request from Ricky Wenzel for a variance to an additional 26-foot curb cut, in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District for property located at 6403 Hillcrest Place (R0021274) in the Country Club Manor Replat E Subdivision. However, Community Development recommends reducing the width of the 8 existing 53-foot curb cut to 24 feet, and allowing for an additional 24-foot curb cut. This would be in alignment with the maximum allowed curb cut width for a two-car garage, and would also result in a combined curb cut width equivalent to the widest curb cut (48 feet) with a building permit (no. 46351) in the same district (SF-10) and subdivision (Country Club Manor). Curb cut separation shall be subject to the approval of the director (UDC Section 5.3.4.C, Curb cut separation on collectors and local streets). 9 10 Existing access to property 11 Photos of subject property 12 13 14 Location of water meter/water meter can 15  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 19-25 6403 HILLCREST PL City of Farmington Departments CD Director – CD Addressing – Planning Division CD Chief Building Official – D. Childers No comment CD Long Range Planner CD MPO 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 ELEC T & D – R. Romero FIRE Fire Captain – D. Doudy FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega No comment LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No comment POLICE Sergeant – P. Flores PRCA S. Reeves/ R. Crosby No comment PRCA ORII – C. Styron No comment PW City Engineer – N. Westerling PW Engineering – T. Sitta No comment PW Streets Superintendent PW Traffic Engineer – I. BlueEyes Existing Water Meter and Water Meter Can PW Water/Waste Water – M. Tso should not be located in proposed driveway area. Damage to can and meter can occur. Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No comment CenturyLink – D. Willato Enterprise Field Services Comcast Cable – M. Johnson CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara No comment Farmington School District – C. Lyons 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD April 4, 2019 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members present James Dennis Jeff Johanson Paul Martin Oliver Roe Members absent: None Staff present: Francisco Alvarado Derrick Childers Helen Landaverde David Sypher Karen Walker Others addressing the Board: Simon Alvarez Le Na Amburn Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chair James Dennis and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Board Member Johanson and seconded by Board Member Dennis to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Approval of the Minutes from the March 7, 2019 Regular Meetings Board Member Johanson made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2019 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Roe and passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Approval of the Open Meetings Resolution A motion was made by Board Member Johanson and seconded by Board Member Roe to approve the Open Meetings Resolution for 2019 and passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Swearing in of Witnesses All parties that wished to speak on behalf of any agenda item were sworn in by Karen Walker. Petition No. ARB 19-17 Variance to allow for an existing building to encroach into the required rear yard & interior side yard setbacks, and to allow a second story addition with a zero-foot interior side yard setbacks. Discussion of ARB No. 19-17 on April 4, 2019 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 19-17, a request from Simon Alvarez to reduce the rear yard setback from 25-feet to 0-feet, to reduce the interior side yard from 8-feet to 0-feet, and to allow a second story addition for a bedroom and porch with a 0-foot interior side yard setback for the existing building in the MF-L, Multifamily Low Density District for property located at 943 Schofield Lane. Original construction for the single family home was completed in 1955, prior to the 1969 and 2002 building code. Additional alterations to the home were also made prior to that time and completed in 1999. Ms. Landaverde said ARB 19-17 meets the variance criteria listed in section 8.12.4 of the UDC, Unified Development Code. Community Development recommends approval. Chair Dennis asked if the footprint of the home will be changed and if the original home was built with 0-foot setbacks. Ms. Landaverde said the footprint will not change and confirmed that the home appears to have been built with 0-foot setbacks. Derrick Childers, Chief Building Inspector, discussed issues that would have to be met concerning the fire code due to the setbacks. Simon Alvarez, 943 Schofield Lane, said he is trying to remodel the inside and outside of his house. Administrative Review Board Action of April 4, 2019 A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Johanson to approve Petition No. ARB 19-17, a request from Simon Alvarez to reduce the rear yard setback from 25-feet to 0-feet, to reduce the interior side yard from 8-feet to 0-feet, and to allow a second story addition with a 0-foot interior side yard setback for the existing building in the MF- L, Multifamily Low Density District for property located at 943 Schofield Lane. AYE: Chair Dennis, Board Members Johanson, Martin, and Roe. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED 4-0 Petition No. ARB 19-19 Variance to allow four duplexes and accessory structures to encroach into the rear, side, and front yard setbacks for an existing building Board Member Martin declared a conflict of interest and recused himself. Mr. Martin acted as the representative for Sakura Engineering for this petition. Discussion of ARB No. 19-19 on April 4, 2019 Associate Planner Helen Landaverde presented the staff report for ARB 19-19, a request from Scott Bird, represented by Sakura Engineering to reduce the rear yard setback from 25-feet to 0-feet, to reduce the interior side yard setback from 8-feet to 0-feet, and to reduce the front yard setback from 20-feet to 0-feet, for the existing building in the MF-M, Multifamily Medium Density District for property located at 241 N. Schwartz Avenue. The original construction for a single family home and four duplexes was completed in 1965, which predates the 1969 Development Code. The 1969 Development Code has the same setback requirements as the current UDC, Unified Development Code. The petitioner is proposing to do a lot split; however, the existing structures do not meet the required setbacks in the MF-M District. The variance request is for buildings A-G, as shown in Figure 2 of the ARB April 4, 2019 Agenda Book. The Chief Building Official, Derrick Childers, commented that the open area between the two carports will need to be addressed prior to a lot split to meet the requirement of the IRC. This petition does not meet criteria 1 and 7 in section 8.12.4 of the UDC. The Community Development Department recommends denial of this petition; however, the ARB Board has authority to determine whether criteria 1 and 7 are met and has final authority on the approval or denial of this petition. 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 property, developed in 1964, has remained composed of one single family home along with four duplexes. This petition anticipates a lot split, through summary plat. That is why the variance in some areas of the property do not currently have a property line. The desire to have a lot split and a variance that anticipates the split, speaks to how this petition is self-imposed, and/or self-created. An approvable scenario would be if the lot line was imposed by a court ruling, or something the petitioner has no control over. This criterion is not met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant has a self-imposed situation that a variance to UDC regulations would resolve. If the lot remained in its current state, land uses and lot configurations could remain and no unnecessary hardship would exist. An example of when an unnecessary hardship would occur is if the denial of a variance would prohibit the petitioner from building a single family or four duplex residences. This criterion is not met. Board Member Johanson asked what the options were for the petitioner to meet the code. Derrick Childers said the intention is to stop conflagration between the two carports if a fire should happen so that the fire did not spread as quickly to other buildings. The options are to tear one of the carports down or to build a 1-hour fire wall to prevent flames from spreading sideways. Mr. Childers said he has discussed the issue with Sakura Engineering and Sakura is proposing to build two 1-hour walls, one on each carport. The recommendation is to prevent the rapid spread of fire. Paul Martin, Sakura Engineering, 125 W. Main Street, said the residences have been there for a long time. The 4 brick duplexes were built before the metal carports were built. Mr. Martin said he is working with the building department to design two 1-hour fire walls between the two carports. He said the owner of the remaining units understands what needs to be done if changes are made in the future. Mr. Martin said there is approximately 18” between these two carports. Chair Dennis asked if there would be room to clean the area between the fire walls. Mr. Martin said there will be a 2-3” gap at the bottom of the fire walls. Le Na Amburn, 241 N. Schwartz, Apt. 4B, presented pictures showing the carports. She said she has no problems with the lot split or the variances. Paul Martin reminded the Board that they were only approving the variance to the setbacks. He said the variance was for the entire property at 241 N. Schwartz so that a variance would not be necessary again. Board Member Roe questioned criteria 7 as to whether the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the petition were denied. Ms. Landaverde said the lot split is self- created and is not considered a hardship. Ms. Landaverde suggested making a variance recommendation for the existing structures and not to the setbacks for the entire property so if the structures were ever removed, the property could come into compliance. Chair Dennis asked what would happen if the carports were torn down. Derrick Childers said the only life safety issue is between the two carports. Even without the lot split, the carports would not meet conformity. Chair Dennis asked if approval of this petition will set a precedence. Mr. Childers said it would not set a precedence. This is a reasonable solution whether the property is split or not. Administrative Review Board Action of April 4, 2019 A motion was made by Board Member Roe and seconded by Board Member Johanson to approve Petition No. ARB 19-19, a request from Scott Bird, represented by Sakura Engineering to reduce the rear yard setback from 25-feet to 0-feet, to reduce the interior side yard setback from 8-feet to 0-feet, and to reduce the front yard setback from 20-feet to 0-feet for the existing building in the MF-M, Multifamily Medium Density District for property located at 241 N. Schwartz Avenue. AYE: Chair Dennis, Board Members Johanson, and Roe. NAY: None ABSTAIN: Board Member Martin ABSENT: None APPROVED 3-0 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: David Sypher introduced Francisco Alvarado, the new Associate Planner for Community Development. Adjournment: The April 4, 2019 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 6:51 p.m. _________________________________ ________________________________ James Dennis-Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant