Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM November 5, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. This meeting will be held via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81276115090 Item No. 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes from July 9, 2020 & October 8, 2020 4 PUBLIC HEARING: Petition ARB 20-51 – a request from Raul Sanchez, owner of property at 932 Glade Lane, for a variance to Sections 9.2.4 & 9.3.3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) prohibiting rebuilding of a non-conforming building on a property for a non-conforming use. These sections of the Code prohibit the rebuilding of a non-conforming structure or the reinstatement of a non-conforming use if destroyed by fire, elements or other cause, by more than fifty percent. 5 PUBLIC HEARING: Petition ARB 20-52 – a request from Bernard Bro and Cynthia Dunnahoo, potential purchasers and Blake Barnett, property owner, represented by James Dennis, for a variance to Sections 2.8.1: Density and Dimensional Setbacks and 2.8.3.C: Required Yards of the Unified Development Code to reduce the required front yard setback for a garage from 20 to 10 feet. 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 20-51 Variance to Sections 9.2.4 & 9.3.3: Non-conformities, Destruction or Demolition, of the Unified Development Code prohibiting rebuilding of a non-conforming building on a property for a non-conforming use. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 20-51 is a request from Raul Sanchez, owner of property at 932 Glade Lane, for a variance to Sections 9.2.4 & 9.3.3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) prohibiting rebuilding of a non-conforming building on a property for a non-conforming use. These sections of the Code prohibit the rebuilding of a non-conforming structure or the reinstatement of a non-conforming use if destroyed by fire, elements or other cause, by more than fifty percent. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Ten (10), Block Four (4), of Mission Heights Addition, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico, as shown on the Replat of said Addition filed for record April 2, 1956. Otherwise located at 932 Glade Lane GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Raul Sanchez Property Owner Raul Sanchez Location of Property 932 Glade Lane Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for the potential of rebuilding a non-conforming building and reestablishing a non-conforming use if the existing single- family residential structure on the property is destroyed by more than 50 percent. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Section 9.2.4 states: Destruction or demolition. If a nonconforming use or structure containing a nonconforming use (see section 9.3.3) is destroyed by fire, the elements or other cause, it may not be rebuilt except in conformity with the provisions of this UDC. In the case of partial destruction of such a use not exceeding 50 percent of its replacement value, reconstruction may be permitted by special use permit, provided, however: A. The size and function of the nonconforming use shall not be expanded; and B. Work on the restoration of the use must begin within six months and be completed within 12 months of the time of the calamity. Section 9.3.3 states:  ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 2 Destruction or demolition. If a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire, the elements, or other cause, it may not be rebuilt except to conform to the provisions of this UDC. In the case of partial destruction of a structure occupied by a nonconforming use not exceeding 50 percent of its replacement value, reconstruction may be permitted by the special use permit, provided, however: A. The size and function of the nonconforming use shall not be expanded; and B. Work on the restoration of the use must begin within six months and be completed within 12 months of the time of the calamity. Zoning GC- General Commercial Existing Use Single-Family Residential Surrounding Zoning North: MF-H Multi-Family Medium Density Land Use South: GC-General Commercial City of Farmington Property East: MF-H Multi-Family Medium Density West: SF-7 MF-H Multi-Family Medium Density Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, October 18 2020. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, October 14, 2020. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, October 23, 2020. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND Per Section 9.1.2 of the UDC: The use of land, use of a structure, or a structure itself; including but not limited to substandard parcels, or structures not complying with applicable dimensional standards, shall be deemed to have nonconforming status when each of the following conditions are satisfied: A. The use or structure does not conform to the regulations prescribed in the district in which such use or structure is located and was in existence and lawfully constructed, located and operating prior to, and at the time of the event that made such use or structure nonconforming. B. The event that made such use, structure, lot or parcel nonconforming was one of the following: annexation by the City of Farmington, adoption of this UDC or a previous Zoning Ordinance, acquisition of land by the city for public purposes, amendment of this UDC, or by court order. C. The nonconforming use or the use occupying the nonconforming structure has been operating since the time that the use or structure first became nonconforming without abandonment, as abandonment is defined in section 9.2.5, cessation of a nonconforming use.  ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 3 According to the San Juan County Assessor’s database, the residential structure at 932 Glade Lane was constructed in 1950. It is listed on the San Juan County Assessors tax records as a single-family residence. The current property owner purchased the property in 2011 as a single-family residential unit. The property has been used as a single-family residence since prior to 2007 when the current Uniform Development Code was adopted. This makes the structure and use legal, non-conforming. Future Land Use Plan Designation This property is designated Residential Single Family Urban. Legal, Non-conforming Use Law The concept of legal, non-conforming property, or grandfathering, has been in existence since the first zoning laws adopted in the early 1900’s. In general, the prohibition against rebuilding a non-conforming structure or reestablishing a non-conforming use if destroyed by more than 50 percent is included in zoning regulations in order to attempt to bring the property into conformance with existing zoning regulations and the current comprehensive plan. A brief survey of zoning regulations of other municipalities in New Mexico shows there is no consistency in codes related to legal, non-conforming issues. Some cities prohibit rebuilding or reestablishment no matter the percentage of destruction, and some cities do not prohibit rebuilding at all. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report. Vicinity Map  ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 5 Aerial Map of Property  ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 6 Future Land Use Plan Designation 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 Administrative Review Board (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. Per the petitioner’s application, he purchased the property as a single-family residence and was not aware of the General Commercial zoning. 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 fact that the residential use is not in conformance with the underlying zoning deprives the property owner of the right to sell or refinance his property. 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. This request is a minimum easing of the code and would allow the property owner to have the full use of his land. The existing use as a single-family residential property has been in place since 1950 without creating any issues for the surrounding neighborhood. The majority of properties in the immediate vicinity are multi-family residences. Rebuilding the residence if it became damaged by more than 50 percent would not negatively impact the neighborhood. This criterion IS met.  ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 8 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 granting of this variance will not change any of the current uses on the property. The requested variance is in harmony with the general interest and the general purpose and intent of the Code by protecting the property rights and investment of the owner. Granting of the variance will allow for the full replacement of a single-family residential use. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Although single-family residential is not a permitted use in the General Commerial zone, the designation as legal, non-conforming entitles this property to the use and structure that currently exist. The variance being requested is to vest the single-family use even if the structure is destroyed by more than 50 percent. 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. Denial of the variance would prohibit the property owner from selling the property. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Planning Division concludes that approval of ARB 20-51 is a minimum easing of the code, meets the intent of the code and is a property that has characteristics unique  ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 9 enough to allow for the reconstruction and reestablishment of a single-family structure and use should the existing building be destroyed by more than 50 percent. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends approval of Petition ARB 20-51 from Raul Sanchez for a variance from Sections 9.2.4 and 9.3.3: Non-conformities, Destruction or Demolition, of the Unified Development Code to allow for reconstruction and reestablishment of a non-conforming structure and use at 932 Glade Lane if it is destroyed by more than 50 percent with the following stipulation: 1. Any new construction shall comply with current building and fire codes. ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 10 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 11 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 12 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 13 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 14 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 15  ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 16 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE REQUEST PETITION NO. ARB 20-51 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 17 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 18 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 19 ARB 20-51Petition Report Page 20  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 20-52 Variance to Sections 2.8.1 Density and Dimensional Setbacks and 2.8.3.C Required Yards of the Unified Development Code to allow for the reduction of the required front yard setback to a garage from 20 to 10 feet. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 20-52 is a request from Bernard Bro and Cynthia Dunnahoo, potential purchasers and Blake Barnett, property owner, represented by James Dennis, for a variance to Sections 2.8.1: Density and Dimensional Setbacks and 2.8.3.C: Required Yards of the Unified Development Code to reduce the required front yard setback for a garage from 20 to 10 feet. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot One (1), Block Three (3), of Cottonwood Heights P.U.D. Subdivision Number One, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico, as shown on the Plat of said Subdivision filed for record August 19, 1983. Otherwise located at 2207 Ranch Drive GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Bernard Bro and Cynthia Dunnahoo, potential purchasers Property Owner Blake & Kay Barnett Location of Property 2207 Ranch Dr. Nature of Petition The petitioners are requesting a variance to the required 20- foot setback to a garage. Setbacks for the Cottonwood Heights P.U.D were established through the plat and include a 20-foot garage setback. The petitioner is requesting a reduction of this required setback to 10 feet. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Section 2.8.3 Required yards (setbacks). (1) Measurements. Required yards refer to the unobstructed, unoccupied open area between the furthermost wall or wall edge of an allowed structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is located. Such yards shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as specified in this section. (2) Front and street yards. Front and street yards shall extend the full width of a lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the street lot line and a line parallel thereto on the site. Zoning PUD: Planned Unit Development Existing Use Vacant Surrounding Zoning North: PUD-Single Family Residential Land Use South: PUD-Single Family Residential East: Farmington Ave and OP: Office Professional  ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 2 West: PUD-Single Family Residential Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, October 18 2020. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, October 14, 2020. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, October 23, 2020. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The original plat for Cottonwood Heights PUD was recorded in 1983. As a Planned Unit Development, this plat included specific Building Setbacks for each lot. These required setbacks include a 20-foot setback to the garage. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report. Vicinity Map  ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 5 Aerial Map of 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 Administrative Review Board (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 subject property is Lot 1 of Cottonwood Heights Subdivision. It has a curved northern property line to accommodate the design of the entrance to the subdivision. The lot also has a grade drop off to the east. 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. Since 1990, one variance has been granted for a new residence in the Cottonwood Heights Subdivision with a garage setback of 15 feet and three variances have been granted for conversion of carports with non-conforming setbacks into garages. 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. This request is a minimum easing of the code and would allow the property owner to have the full use of his land. The placement of the new home, as proposed, would maintain a 20-foot visibility triangle for vehicular traffic from the point where Ranch Drive curves around the property. 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.  ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 7 The granting of this variance is in harmony with the intent of the Code allowing a functional single-family residence to be constructed on an empty lot. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. The granting of the variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the 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. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts 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. Denial of the variance would negatively impact the ability to construct a single- family home comparable to the existing homes in the subdivision. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Planning Division concludes that approval of ARB 20-52 is a minimum easing of the code, meets the intent of the code and is a property that has characteristics unique enough to allow for the reduction of the required front yard setback to a garage from 20 to 10 feet. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends approval of Petition ARB 20-52 from Bernard Bro and Cynthia Donnahoo for a variance from 2.8.1 Density and Dimensional Setbacks and 2.8.3.C Required Yards, of the Unified Development Code to reduce the required 20-foot setback to a garage to 10 feet. ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 8 ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 9 ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 10 ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 11  ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE REQUEST PETITION NO. ARB 20-52 ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 13 ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 14 ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 15 ARB 20-52 Petition Report Page 16