Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM December 3, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. This meeting will be held via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83659824732 Item No. 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes from November 5, 2020 4 PUBLIC HEARING: Petition ARB 20-54 – a request from Jim Valdez for a variance 1) to reduce the rear yard setback from 25’ to 20’, and the front yard setback from 20’ to 10’ to allow for the replacement of a 14’ x 76’ mobile home, and 2) to waive the paved driveway requirement for property located at 1428 Tory Avenue, in the MF-L/SMHA, Multi-family Low Density Residential District with a Special Mobile Home Area overlay, in the Odaffer Subdivision. 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 Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session via Zoom Virtual Platform on Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members Present: Chair James Dennis Vice Chair Cindy Lopez Brian Erickson Paul Martin Members Absent: None Staff Present: Beth Escobar Andrea Jones Elizabeth Sandoval Others Addressing the Board (Via Zoom Virtual Platform): Katherine Kuchera Kelly Stone Martin Snowbarger Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Dennis and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Vice Chair Lopez and seconded by Chair Dennis to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Approval of the Minutes – July 9, 2020 & October 8, 2020 Regular Meetings A motion for this item was postponed due to lack of members present at each meeting. Swearing in of Witnesses All parties that wished to speak on behalf of any agenda item were sworn in by Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant. Discussion of Petition No. ARB 20-51 Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the staff report for Petition No. 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. Legal, Non-Conforming Status - 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. Vicinity Map – Comprehensive Plan Designation – Subject Property – Analysis – The petitioner purchased the property in 2011 and it has been used as a single- family residence since that time. San Juan County Assessor’s records shows this property has been listed as residential since construction in 1950. This property qualifies as legal, non- conforming. Sections 9.2.4 and Section 9.3.3 prohibits the reestablishment of a non-conforming use or the reconstruction of a non-conforming structure if it is destroyed by more than 50 percent. Allowing the rebuilding of the residential structure on the property would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Denial of the variance would prohibit the property owner from refinancing the property and prevent the sale of the property. Conclusion - The Community Works Department concludes that the variance application meets the criteria for approval included in Section 8.12.4 of the UDC, that ARB 20-51 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 reconstruction and reestablishment of a single-family structure and use should the existing building be destroyed by more than 50 percent. Recommendation - The Community Development Department 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 with the following stipulation: Any new construction shall comply with current building and fire codes. Discussion Chair Dennis asked if the property was damaged at this time. Planning Manger Escobar stated that the property was not damaged at this time and Mr. Sanchez, Petitioner, was laid off from his job and is trying to sell the property to avoid foreclosure, but could not secure financing without the variance. Board Member Paul Martin joined the meeting at 6:11 p.m. Chair Dennis asked if there were any interested parties that would like to be heard regarding this petition. Kathrine Katura, 605 W. 24th St., asked if the zoning in the area is mixed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct; there is a mix of General Commercial and Multifamily High-density. Mr. Sanchez’s property is in commercial zoning and is considered legal nonconforming. Ms. Kature stated that she is in favor of Mr. Sanchez’s request for the variance. Chair Dennis called for any other interested parties. There were none. Chair Dennis called for Board discussion. Vice Chair Lopez stated that she does not believe that the ARB is authorized to grant this variance because in her opinion this is a zone change. Vice Chair Lopez stated that this is a commercial district that has a nonconforming use, once it is taken away and allowed as commercial and residential on that piece of property we are making a zone change, it is a spot zone. Vice Chair Lopez stated that the authority for a zone change is the City Council and City Council only. Mr. Sanchez should go through the proper process of a zone change or a special use permit. Planning Manager Escobar stated that staff did have the Legal Department look at this application, as well as the two previous applications, with the City Attorney determining that it is viable that the ARB grant a variance to the two sections of the code. The petitioner does not have the option to request a special use permit because of an ordinance that was adopted in 2018 that does not allow special use permits for residential uses to carry forward to new owners. Vice Chair Lopez stated that Mr. Sanchez could get a zone change and that she disagrees with the legal opinion for this application. Planning Manger Escobar stated that it is the City Attorney making that opinion. Vice Chair Lopez stated that this application is a zone change and the ARB does not have the authority to approve a zone change. Chair Dennis stated that his understanding is that these conditions weren’t a problem with financial institution prior to just recently. With the stipulation that a homeowner could not rebuild should something significant happen to them, that puts individuals in a tough situation to sell or refinance their property. Chair Dennis stated that he feels that the Board needs more clarification, but if it is the opinion of the City Attorney he has comfort in that opinion. Board Member Martin stated that opinions can be taken into account and the ARB has to make the ultimate decision to approve or deny the application based on the information that is presented. Vice Chair Lopez stated that 7.7.4 of the UDC states that the powers that be of the ARB, the powers and duties of the ARB make decisions on administrative decisions and the ARB are the interetritors of the code. Vice Chair Lopez then stated that the ARB needs to decide for themselves if we feel that Section 8 of the UDC tells us that we cannot make changes to a use to a piece of property, that is not within the ARB authority. The authority to make a change to use of a property falls with the City Council. Chair Dennis stated that Vice Chair Lopez referenced that the ARB cannot authorize a change of use. Chair Dennis then asked Vice Chair Lopez how she sees this application as being a change of use. Vice Chair Lopez stated that changing a commercial property that does not allow single families, to a property that will now allow commercial and single family if the house is destroyed. If the house is destroyed it will allow, no matter who owns it, it will allow commercial and residential and the whole point of nonconformity and rezoning the property was that it was not able to revert back to commercial without the authority of City Council. If the property is destroyed by more than 50% it is not a minimum easing of the code, that is a complete obliteration of its nonconforming use, it’s creating the property to be able to have commercial and residential and that’s a zone change. Chair Dennis asked Vice Chair Lopez how she feels about the house being there before the zone change. Vice Chair Lopez stated that she is only stating her interpretation of the code. Vice Chair Lopez then stated, yes the house was there before the change and the applicant could have come in anytime from 2011 for a zone change and made it a proper zoning. Vice Chair Lopez stated that now that is not the case, the applicate is now stuck and they are telling us that want us to obliterate the nonconforming by allowing it to be legitimate for it to be rebuilt. Planning Manager Escobar stated the section of the code that Vice Chair Lopez sited, 7.3.3. , is the exact same section that the City Attorney reviewed and in the determination of the City Attorney, you are not changing the use but granting a variance to two section of the code, which is within the Administrative Review Boards authority. The staff is only trying to grant protection to the property owner. Without the variance the property owner is not able to rebuild if his home is destroyed by more than 50% or sell the property. The request is a variance from two specific sections of the code and not for a change of use. Board Member Martin stated that the property does have value and since the property has been destroyed by 50%. Chair Dennis stated that the property has not been destroyed and the applicant only wants a variance to sell the property. Vice Chair Lopez stated that if the property is a commercial property and has a commercial property value and if the property is destroyed by more than 50% a commercial endeavor could move onto the property. Chair Dennis stated that the problem is that currently the house is not destroyed and the applicant would like to keep the property as a residential use. Vice Chair Lopez stated that the property could be sold as a commercial property now. Board Member Martin stated that since the applicant is in a commercial zone, the house could be remodeled to fit the zone. Vice Chair Lopez stated that the applicant also has the option to do a zone change, which would make the property in conformance. Chair Dennis asked why the property was not included when the zoning was changed. Vice Chair Lopez stated it was a long time ago but slowly they have been changing the zoning. Vice Chair Lopez stated that she does feel bad for the applicant, but she disagrees with the City Attorneys legal opinion and believes that this is a zone change and authority to grant zone change is City Council. Board Member Martin asked how long might it take for the applicant to go through the zone change process. Vice Chair Lopez stated that it takes about 60 days. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if the ARB does not approve this application, the next step would be for the applicant to appeal to Council. Vice Chair Lopez stated that Council could override the ARB decision. Board Member Martin stated that he is fine with that. Board Member Erickson asked if the ARB denied the application and the applicant appeals to Council, then Council could approve the application; not actually changing the zoning. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct and that Council would look to the City Attorney for guidance and also at the two previous applications that were approved by the ARB. Vice Chair Lopez stated that she was not in attendance for those approvals and that mistakes were allowed to be made. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the previous two applications have not been challenged and it was presented to the ARB that they do have the authority to make the decision to grant the applicant a variance. The Board’s decisions in the cases stands. Chair Dennis stated that the 50% is criteria that triggers code stipulation and financial institutions are looking at this and Board Member Martin stated that was not the Boards fault. Chair Dennis stated that is the hardship that is brought before us. Vice Chair Lopez stated that the applicant has other options. Board Member Erickson stated that he values the opinion of the City Attorney and if they believe that it is within the ARB authority to grant this variance then he agrees, but there needs to be a better solution for these types of applications. Board Member Erickson stated that he would like some clarification from the City Attorney on why this is the best option for the applicant, as opposed to a zone change that would be more official. Board Member Martin stated that the point is the home has not burnt down. Board Member Erickson stated that was correct, but it is preventing the applicant from selling the property. Board Member Martin stated that he can’t help that. Chair Dennis stated that the applicant does want to sell the property so he does not lose it because of his circumstances. The previous applications were also in need of refinancing. Board Member Martin stated that was on the applicant and not on the Board. Chair Dennis stated that is why we use the criteria and we might say that it could be considered minimal easing of the code since the home has not built down. Vice Chair stated that the applicant needs to go through a zone change and then financing could happen. By granting this variance the Board would be granting a zone change, which the Board does not have the authority to do. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a zone change does have a greater impact on the neighborhood. Administrative Review Board Action for Petition No. ARB 20-51 A motion was made by Vice Chair Lopez and seconded by Board Member Martin to deny Petition No. 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. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Lopez, and Board Member Martin NAY: Board Member Erickson ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DENIED 3-1 Discussion of Petition No. ARB 20-52 Chair Dennis stated that he has a conflict of interest, as he is representing the petitioner. Vice Chair Lopez will continue the meeting. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the staff report for Petition No. 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. Vicinity Map – Subject Property – Proposed Site Plan – Analysis – The curved radius at the northwest corner and the grade drop off are special conditions related to this property. 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. Denial of this variance would negatively impact the ability to construct a single-family home comparable to existing homes in the subdivision. Conclusion - The Community Works Department concludes that the variance application meets the criteria for approval included in Section 8.12.4 of the UDC, that 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 a reduction of the 20-foot required setback to a garage to ten feet. Recommendation - The Community Works Department 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. Discussion Vice Chair Lopez asked Mr. Dennis if he had any discussion regarding the application. James Dennis, 120 E. 28th St., Farmington NM, stated that he is the representative for the applicant and stands for any questions. Vice Chair Lopez asked if the property starts to go north from the corner where the 10 ft. setback is being requested from the garage, would it only be that corner that would impact the setback. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the property has a 20 ft. setback and 2 garages. Vice Chair Lopez asked if the rest of the setback is 5 ft. for the property. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Vice Chair Lopez asked how much distance a vehicle would have to pull in off the road and be fully off the road and is the property line showing inside the sidewalk area. Mr. Dennis stated yes, that would be inside the sidewalk line. Vice Chair Lopez asked if the sidewalk would be 4 ft. Planning Manager Escobar stated they would be 5 ft. Vice Chair Lopez asked if it would be the 10 ft. plus the 5ft. of the sidewalk so a vehicle could fully pull off the road while waiting for the garage door to open. Mr. Dennis stated that was correct. Board Member Martin stated that he noticed that Blake Barnett is the owner of a lot. Board Member Martin stated that his private engineering firm represents Mr. Barnett in past projects. Board Member Martin stated that he wanted to state that for the record that Mr. Barnett was a previous client. Vice Chair Lopez asked Board Member Erickson if he saw that as a conflict of interest for Board Member Martin. Board Member Erickson stated that he did not see it as a conflict of interest. Vice Chair Lopez also stated that she does not see it as a conflict of interest. Vice Chair Lopez asked what the backyard setback was. Mr. Dennis stated that it was zero. Vice Chair Lopez asked where the back would be. Planning Manager Escobar stated that rear setback is 15 ft. and where the north arrow is located on the site plan is the rear. Vice Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone present who received a letter of being 100 ft. from the property. Kelly Stone, President of the Cottonwood Heights Homeowners Association, stated that there are some other things that she thinks that have not been considered yet. There is a zero property line rule for the area, on the zero side there are to be no windows for the privacy of the neighbors. Ms. Stone stated that she also has several concerns; first there is an architectural committee that has to approve any kind of building in the neighborhood, they have not received an invitation to look at any building plans. Second, the post office has placed the neighborhood mailboxes on the corner of the property and there is also an area on the back that is currently being considered part of the community area that is covered with rocks right now. Marty Snowbarger, 2205 Ranch Dr., Vice President of the Cottonwood Heights Homeowners Association, stated that his main concerns are for safety of the children in the neighborhood and maintaining sight distance while coming around the corner near the property. Mr. Snowbarger mentioned that he is a retired police officer with the City of Farmington, who worked in the Traffic Division. Planning Manager Escobar stated that staff has estimated that this request would not reduce the 20 ft. corner visibility triangle. Mr. Snowbarger stated that he is not opposed to the development and his only concern is the sight angles. Planning Manager Escobar stated again that there is no negative impact to the visibility triangle. Vice Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak regarding this petition. Mr. Dennis stated the applicant will work with the Homeowners Association in regards to any safety issues. Mr. Dennis stated that he has reviewed the covenants of the subdivision and he did not see that there was an active architectural review board, but he will supply a set of plans for their review. Mr. Dennis also stated that he would like to speak to the post office to move the mail bank to move them to the little island across from the property when the lot development starts. Ms. Stone asked if the front door would be on the side where the dark vehicle or white vehicle is parked on the subject property picture. Vice Chair Lopez stated that the dark vehicle would be where the garage is, with the front door also facing that direction but further east. Mr. Dennis stated that the front entrance would be on Ranch Dr. Vice Chair Lopez asked what the height of the fence was that is on Farmington Avenue. Ms. Stone stated that the fence on Farmington Avenue is owned by the Home Owners Association and it is a standard height fence. Mr. Dennis stated that the fence is at least 6 ft. Vice Chair Lopez asked if the corner would be left open. Mr. Dennis stated that he would like to speak with Mr. Snowbarger to review the fencing options to avoid encroaching on the sight triangle. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if the property owner wanted to put in a fence, a fence permit would need to be obtained through the City of Farmington, with Code Enforcement reviewing any issues with the sight triangle. Planning Manager Escobar also stated that the City of Farmington does not enforce CCR’s and that she assumes the petitioner wanted to get the variance before going through the architectural review. Ms. Stone stated that she is good with that. Vice Chair Lopez asked if the property owner plans to install windows facing the neighbor’s house. Mr. Dennis stated that the issue with windows and a zero lot line, the fire code restricts the percentage of windows that can be installed. If privacy is concerned, the windows being installed would be for daylighting and not visual. Vice Chair Lopez closed the public comments. Board Member Erickson asked that at this time if the Board was only approving a variance for the setback of the garage. Vice Chair Lopez stated that was correct. Administrative Review Board Action for Petition No. ARB 20-52 A motion was made by Board Member Erickson and seconded by Board Member Martin to approve Petition No. 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. AYE: Vice Chair Lopez, Board Member Erickson and Board Member Martin NAY: None ABSTAIN: Chair Dennis 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 Staff: Planning Manager Escobar stated that the variance request on October 8, 2020 from Mr. Lewis McMullen went to City Council on October 27, 2020. City Council remanded the decision of the ARB and approved the variance to allow for placement of the accessory structure in the front setback of Mr. McMullen’s property. Chair Dennis asked if the minutes of the Council meeting were available. Planning Manager Escobar stated that they were and she would send a link to the Board. Business from the Members: The approval of the minutes was called for approval of July 9, 2020 meeting; a motion was made by Board Member Erickson, seconded by Vice Chair Lopez. The motion passed by roll call vote, 3-0. Chair Dennis was not in attendance for the July 9, 2020 meeting and did not vote. The approval of the minutes of October 8, 2020 meeting, a motion was made by Board Member Erickson and seconded by Chair Dennis to approve the minutes. The motion passed by roll call vote, 3-0. Vice Chair Lopez was not in attendance for the October 8, 2020 meeting and did not vote. Adjournment: The November 5, 2020 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. A motion to adjourn was made by Vice Chair Lopez and seconded by Board Member Erickson and passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. _________________________________ ____________________________________ James Dennis – Chair Elizabeth Sandoval - Administrative Assistant  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 20-54 Variances to 1) reduce the rear and front yard setbacks and 2) waive the paved driveway requirement, in the MF-L/SMHAO, Multi-family Low Density Residential District with a Special Mobile Home Area Overlay 1428 Tory Avenue December 3, 2020 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 20-54 is a request from Jim Valdez for a variance 1) to reduce the rear yard setback from 25’ to 20’, and the front yard setback from 20’ to 10’ to allow for the replacement of a 14’ x 76’ mobile home, and 2) to waive the paved driveway requirement for property located at 1428 Tory Avenue, in the MF-L/SMHA, Multi-family Low Density Residential District with a Special Mobile Home Area overlay, in the Odaffer Subdivision. The property is legally described as: Odaffer Subdivision Lot 4 Block 3 BK.1663 PG.76, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico. Otherwise located at 1428 Tory Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Jim Valdez Property Owner Jim Valdez Location of Property 1428 Tory Avenue (R0029365) Nature of Petition Variance 1) to reduce the rear yard setback from 25’ to 20’, and the front yard setback from 20’ to 10’, and 2) to waive the paved driveway requirement. Applicable Regulations UDC Section 2.8.1: MF-L rear yard setback is 25’; front yard setback is 20’. UDC Section 5.3.3.A: All driveways providing access to parking areas shall be paved. Zoning Multi-family Low Density Residential District with a Special Mobile Home Area Overlay Existing Use Residential Surrounding Zoning North: MF-L/SMHAO – Residential Land Use South: MF-L/SMHAO – Residential East: MF-L/SMHAO – Residential West: MF-L/SMHAO – Residential Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, November 15, 2020. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, November 11, 2020. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, November 20, 2020. Staff Francisco Alvarado, Associate Planner  ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicant, and property owner, is requesting a variance 1) to reduce the rear yard setback from 25’ to 20’, and the front yard setback from 20’ to 10’ to allow for the replacement of a 14’ x 76’ mobile home, and 2) to waive the paved driveway requirement for property located at 1428 Tory Avenue, in the MF-L/SMHA, Multi-family Low Density Residential District with a Special Mobile Home Area overlay, in the Odaffer Subdivision, recorded in 1958. San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the size of the property is 0.14 acres, or 56.5’ x 106.5’, as shown in the Odaffer Subdivision plat. Aerial photographs and other sources provided in this memo indicate there used to be a 14’ x 76’ mobile home on site. The applicant intended to replace the old mobile home with a better model of same dimensions, which triggered the variance requirement. Per the petitioner and the Tax Assessor’s website, both the old mobile home and the replacement are legally considered 14’ x 76’. The County Assessor’s website does not count the mobile home tongue into the total length (14’ x 80’). This request is based on legal dimensions. Pursuant to the City of Farmington Unified Development Code: • Section 2.8.1 Residential base zoning district density and dimensional schedule, the rear yard setback requirement in the MF-L District is 25’. • Section 5.2.3.A Minimum off-street parking requirements, two parking spaces are required per mobile home dwelling unit. • Section 5.3.3.A Paving requirements, all required parking areas must be connected to a public street or alley by means of a driveway or private access easement. All driveways providing access to such parking areas shall be paved. PROPOSAL The applicant, and property owner, is requesting a variance 1) to reduce the rear yard setback from 25’ to 20’, and the front yard setback from 20’ to 10’, and 2) to waive the paved driveway requirement. The request is compatible with existing development conditions in the neighborhood. This subdivision is zoned MF-L, Multi-family Low Density, but has single-family characteristics. No properties were identified as having a multi-family use. In single- family districts, the required rear yard setback is 15’, but the applicant is requesting 20’. Also, only 1 out of 12 residential structures on Tory Avenue meets the district’s front yard setback; similarly, only 3 homes meet the rear setback. Also, no properties have driveways on this street.  ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 3 1428 Tory Avenue  ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 4 Previous mobile home Current conditions  ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 5 Proposed layout  ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 6 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 special condition is that Mr. Valdez desires to place a more modern mobile home than the one that was originally set on the property. The permit for the new home triggers the paved driveway requirement that did not previously exist. This subdivision is from 1958, and existing setback requirements are prohibitive for mobile home parking permits. In the neighborhood, properties display similar development characteristics to the request being pursued. Most properties on Tory Avenue do not meet the front and rear setbacks, and no paved driveways exist on that street. 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. 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 variance request is to allow the applicant to place a modern mobile home of same dimensions. 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. It is reasonable to place a mobile home on this property, in a district that has a Special Mobile Home Area Overlay. The intent of the overlay is to provide  ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 7 citizens with affordable housing options. The request to reduce the rear and front yard setbacks and waive the requirement for a paved driveway is a minimum easing of the code given similar development characteristics throughout the neighborhood. 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 granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, purpose and intent of the code. Property owners in the neighborhood will not be adversely affected, as the surrounding structures are placed in similar fashion to the request. Allowing the renter to replace the mobile home with another one of the same size same without a paved driveway is also compatible with the other properties in the area. The proposal is not 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 not otherwise allowed in the MF- L/SMHAO 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. Nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have not been considered as grounds for this variance request, nor has any permitted uses been grounds for issuance of this variance. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance request were denied. The property was bought with a 14’ x 76’ mobile home, and the applicant wishes to continue the use that has existed at this location before he UDC was adopted. the mobile home is currently parked, as well as the property subject to  ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 8 the request. In addition, the paved driveway requirement would result in additional hardship for replacing a mobile home on a street without those characteristics. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of Petition ARB 20-54 is a minimum easing of the code, meets the intent of the code and is a property that has characteristics unique enough to reduce the rear yard setback from 25’ to 20’, and the front yard setback from 20’ to 10’, and 2) to waive the paved driveway requirement without adversely affecting the neighbors or the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 20-54 from Jim Valdez for a variance to reduce the rear and front yard setbacks, and waive the paved driveway requirement. ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 9 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 10 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 11 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 12 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 13 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 14 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 15 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 16 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 17 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 18 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 19 ARB 20-54 Petition Report Page 20