Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM June 3, 2021 - 6:00 p.m. Item No. 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of Meeting Minutes from April 8, 2021 4 Adoption of a resolution setting and establishing a regular meeting day, time and place for the Administrative Review Board 5 Petition No. ARB 21-32 – 8201 San Lucas Ct. - a request from Aaron Rasmussen for a variance to Section 2.5.2.D, to allow for an accessory structure 27.5 feet in height. The maximum height allowed for an accessory structure is 20 feet. 6 Petition No. ARB 21-34 – 6110 Via Del Oro Dr. - a request from Russel Hatch for a variance to Section 2.8.3.D.5 of the UDC prohibiting pools in the front yard and Section 5.4.4 limiting fence height to three feet in the front yard setback. Parcel# R4005159 is 1.00 acre and zoned RE-1, Residential Estates 1-acre minimum. Front yard setback is 35 feet. 7 Petition No. ARB 21-35 – 3107 Mortensen Rd. - a request from Alvaro Cordova to waive the sidewalk installation requirement of Section 7-1-2 of the City’s municipal code. Property owner has received a building permit for construction of a new residential unit on this 0.67 lot. Zoning is SF-7, Single-Family residential. 8 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 9 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 April 8, 2021 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session via Zoom on Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members Present: Chair James Dennis Brian Erickson Shorty Rogers Paul Martin Members Absent: None Staff Present: Andrea Jones Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Others Addressing the Board (Via Zoom Virtual Platform): None 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 Board Member Erickson and seconded by Board Member Martin to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Approval of the Minutes – December 3, 2020 A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Erickson to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Introduction of New Board Member Chair Dennis introduced Shorty Rogers as the new Administrative Review Board Member. Nomination and Election of New Vice Chair A nomination was made by Board Member Martin to elect Board Member Erickson as Vice Chair of the Administrative Review Board. A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Chair Dennis. The motion was passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Swearing in of Witnesses No petitions were heard. No witnesses were sworn in. Project Updates – Beth Escobar Planning Manager Escobar presented a presentation on 2021 Upcoming Development. Three Rivers Senior Living 124 units transition from assisted living to memory unit Phase 1 as well as a four story apartment facility. Chair Dennis asked when construction will start. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she does not know when construction will start, but that the contractor anticipates the opening of the facility in winter of 2022. Chair Dennis asked if the contractor was local. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the contractor is not local, but the superintendent was hired locally and the contractor is also looking to use as many local subcontractors as possible. Dollar General at 20th St. and Dustin Ave. • Needs to submit a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to FEMA • Installed underground drainage culvert • Installed shotcrete retaining wall • Open in summer 2021 Anasazi Inn • Plan is to demo the entire site • Divide into three commercial pads and sell to developers • Received $150,000 from City towards demo expense – public health and safety hazard • Currently pending environmental review Locke Street Eats • Proposal for 10 food truck pavilion • Outdoor pavilion, fire pit, picnic area • Near the Farmington Civic Center • Concerns addressed from Downtown restaurant owners Chair Dennis asked what would happen to the building currently occupied by the gym. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the gym and Locke Street Eats are run by the same owner and the gym will stay in the current building. Chair Dennis asked if the parking lot is north of the gym. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a challenge might be the number of food trucks and meeting the demand. There are currently about a dozen food trucks scattered around the city. There have also been other inquiries regarding food truck courts. Chair Dennis asked how parking and restrooms are evaluated. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there are currently no criteria in the UDC. The mobile food truck ordinance is in the Municipal Code. The new UDC establishes the requirement for a parking plan. There is currently not a formula for parking for food trucks. Parking is considered adequate for this location. ADA restrooms are required for the area. Board Member Martin asked if the restrooms at this location are open to the public. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the restrooms will be open when food trucks are onsite and the area will be fenced. Chair Dennis asked if the pavilion is enclosed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the pavilion is just a roof with posts. Totah Theater • $1 million renovation project • Partnership between San Juan County and City of Farmington • New equipment grant of $135,000 received from state • Will be part of Totah Studios supporting the film industry in Farmington • Construction estimated to be complete by summer Board Member Martin asked if this project was a private venture. Planning Manager Escobar stated that this project is partnership with the City of Farmington and San Juan County. Currently the City is recruiting a Downtown Coordinator whose office will be housed at this location. Board Member Martin asked if the venue will be used for theater space. Planning Manager Escobar stated that theater and film offices were being proposed for use of this location. 5201 E. Main St. • Located near Melloy Honda • 6,000 square foot restaurant as anchor tenant • Gas station/convenience store • 5,200 multi-tenant commercial • Challenges: connect sewer and water from north side of Main St. • Access easement from NMDOT Farmington Centre – 4109 E. Main St. • Old Halliburton property • Gas station/convenience store • 55,000 square foot retail store anchor tenant • Three additional retail/restaurant buildings • One access from E. Main St. and 2 from Gila St. Gas Station and Convenience Stores • Northwest corner of Wildflower Dr. and Browning Pkwy. • Southwest corner and Northwest corner of Pinon Hills Blvd. and E. Main St. • Southwest corner of E. Main St. and Rowe Ave. • Southwest corner of W. Main St. and Murray Dr. Discussion Chair Dennis asked for an update on the Pinon Hills Bridge. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she believes that the City Manager has been working specifically on that project, as well as other projects, but she does not have an update at this time. Board Member Martin asked for an update on the Carbon Capture Project. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she will check into this and report back with an update. Vice Chair Erickson stated that he has heard of some towns going in the direction of not allowing any more gas stations to be developed and only allowing electric charging facilities. Vice Chair Erickson asked if there had been any interest in developing any electric charging stations. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Farmington Electric Department has a plan to install 8 – 10 electric charging stations, mostly focused around park areas. There are also two privately owned stations. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she would work on an update. Chair Dennis mentioned topics of charging stations and zoning modifications that could possibly be in the works from the upcoming administration. Project Updates – Beth Escobar Planning Manager Escobar presented each member of the ARB with a hardcopy of the updated Unified Development Code. The new UDC was approved March 9, 2021 by resolution, effective April 5, 2021. A link with hyperlinks will be built in to the online UDC link. Planning Manager Escobar stated that what the Administrative Review Board does is listed in Article 8 of the UDC. The ARB hears variances, waiver requests to existing code; hear requests to appeals from administrative decisions from the Community Works Department, the ARB is a quasi-judicial board and decisions do have legal ramifications. ARB decisions can be appealed to City Council within a specific time period. Planning Manager Escobar highlighted that there is process to permit chickens on residential properties, with a maximum of 12 chickens and no rosters. Chair Dennis asked if anyone can have chickens. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that chicken sales are not allowed. Chair Dennis asked if this request for chickens was a big request. Planning Manager Escobar stated that yes it has been a big request. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the P&Z Commission and City Council did spend quite a bit of time on the sign code. The sign code did have to be amended to meet current legal restrictions on signs. Feather flag signs and sandwich boards are now allowed. Political signs on public right-of-way are restricted to certain locations and at the discretion of the City Manager. Political signs on private property are not controlled. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the legal non-conforming portion of the code has been eliminated from the code. Destroyed property destroyed more than 51% can now be rebuilt up to current code. Planning Manager Escobar stated that those are the highlights and asked if the board would like to address any changes to the code as applications start to come in. Board Member Martin stated that he would like to wait to address sections of the code as applications begin to come in. Board Member Martin asked about lots on home property and if the UDC had changed to go based on percentage of square footage. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is now 40% lot coverage. Board Member Martin asked if the pamphlet could be emailed to him and if that could be given out to his customers. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes the pamphlet can be emailed to him and it can be given out to customers. 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: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: The April 8, 2021 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. A motion to adjourn was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Vice Chair Erickson and passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. _________________________________ ____________________________________ James Dennis, Chair Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant  RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION SETTING AND ESTABLISHING A REGULAR MEETING DAY, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2013-1466 AS RATIFIED WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 2013-1466 as ratified, each board, commission, committee or other policy making body of the City of Farmington which holds regular meetings shall annually, subject to the ratification and approval of the City Council of the City of Farmington, establish a regular meeting day, time and place; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Review Board of the City of Farmington has determined and does recommend to the City Council that the regular meeting day, time and place of the Administrative Review Board of the City of Farmington and the location where a copy of the agenda of such meetings may be obtained shall be as set forth in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON: That the regular meeting day, time and place of the Administrative Review Board of the City of Farmington shall be held on the first Thursday following the first Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico and that the location where a copy of the agenda of the regular meeting may be inspected seventy-two (72) hours in advance of the meeting shall be at the Community Development Department, Municipal Annex, 805 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. PASSED, SIGNED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 2021. By: Chairperson, Administrative Review Board  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 1 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 21-32 Variance to Section 2.5.2 Accessory Uses and Structures of the Unified Development Code, specifically Section 2.5.2.D to allow for construction of a 27.5 foot high (at roof-line mid-point) accessory structure. June 3, 2021 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 21-32 is a request from Aaron Rasmussen, owner of property located at 8201 San Lucas Court, for a variance to Section 2.5.2.D of the Unified Development Code. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract Fifty, of the Cedar Ridge Estates #2, in the City of Farmington, San Juan County New Mexico Otherwise located at 8201 San Lucas Court GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Aaron Rasmussen Property Owner Aaron and Mindy Rasmussen Location of Property 8201 San Lucas Court Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of an accessory structure, 27.5-foot high at mid- point. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Section 2.5.1: Any accessory use normally and customarily associated with a primary use, permitted by right consistent with applicable provisions of this UDC, may be permitted. Section 2.5.2.B states: Accessory uses and structures must be subordinate to the principal use and structure on the subject lot in terms of area, extent, and purpose. The total gross floor area of all accessory structures plus the total gross floor area of the primary structure shall not exceed forty percent of the lot size. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to agricultural uses. (April 5, 2021 UDC). Section 2.5.2D: Accessory structures not for habitation placed within the building footprint based on setback requirements for the underlying zoning may not exceed 20 feet in height.* Zoning RE-2 Residential Estate 2 Existing Use Single-family Residential Surrounding Zoning North: RE-2 Cedar Ridge Estates Subdivision Land Use South: RE-2 Cedar Ridge Estates Subdivision East: RE-2 Cedar Ridge Estates Subdivision West: Unincorporated Federal Land  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 2 * Apartments and Guest Houses are permitted in the RE-2 zoning district and are limited to the same height maximum as the residential unit of 35 feet. Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, May 18, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, May 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, May 21, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The petitioner wishes to construct a 7,200 square foot recreation building on his 7.73- acre property. The maximum height, at mid-point of the roofline, of the structure, according to the permit submitted to the Building Division is 27.5 feet. The accessory structure will meet the required side setback of 35 feet and rear setback of 30 feet for the RE-2 Zoning District and will therefore be within the allowed building footprint. It is proposed to be placed approximately 75 feet west of San Lucas Court, a private road, and approximately 175 feet from the existing single-family residence to the south. The structure will be accessed by a gravel road from the back of the house. The petitioner plans to finish the exterior of the accessory structure to match the existing house, with a red tile roof and stucco walls. The proposed structure will be used as a recreational gym for the Rasmussen children and for guests of the family. This structure will not be open to the general public. Per the petitioner, the height and size are required to allow for the use of the structure to play basketball and volleyball inside. The Rasmussen children are active in both of these sports. There is sufficient hard surface parking available in the front of the existing residence to accommodate family and guests. The applicant is requesting relief from the Section 2.5.2.D of the Unified Development Code (UDC) restricting the height of an accessory structure within the required building setbacks to the maximum height of 20 feet. Effective April 5, 2021, the maximum allowance for all structures on a property is 40 percent of the lot size. The square footage of existing buildings, including the main house, plus the new proposed accessory structure on the subject property does not exceed the maximum lot coverage allowance. The proposed accessory structure will be approximately 30 feet lower in elevation than the existing house. The petitioner states in his application that landscaping will be replaced on the eastern property line to screen the structure.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 3 All roads in the Cedar Ridge Estates Subdivision are platted as public easements. (Cedar Ridge Estates #2 – 1973) INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: Comments received from the surrounding neighborhood are attached to this report. Concerns expressed by the neighbors include: • The size and height of the proposed building does not fit with the neighborhood. • Neighbors purchased their properties in this area with the expectation that all rules and regulations would be followed. • Potential of increase of traffic for a commercial use. • Impact on views. • Detrimental to property values. • Not in harmony with the neighborhood. All written comments received are attached with this report.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 4 Aerial Map of property Approximate location of accessory structure  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 5 Approximate location of accessory structure ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 6  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 7 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. A special circumstance related to this property is the size of the lot. At over seven acres, an addition of a 7,200-square foot accessory structure at 27.5 feet in height at mid-point would have an impact equal to or less than a residential house on a two-acre lot. 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 Section 2.5.2.D restricting the height of an accessory structure to 20 feet would prevent the applicant from constructing an indoor recreation center for his children. Pools and uncovered basketball and volleyball courts would be allowed without a variance at this location. This criterion is met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The request to increase the height of the accessory building to 27.5 feet is a 37 percent increase over the maximum allowable height of 20 feet. Per the applicant’s submittal, he has place the accessory structure with consideration of the impact on his neighbors. This criterion is met.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court 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. Based on the neighbor’s comments, this variance does not appear in harmony with the neighborhood. However, it is possible that the neighbors have misunderstood the intent of this variance request. This criterion is NOT met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. The property owner has stated that this facility would be used by family members and friends. This is not a commercial venture. Accessory structures and guest houses are a permitted use in the RE -2 Zoning 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 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 states that he and his family would not be able to enjoy their property to the fullest extent if this variance was not granted. This criterion is met. CONCLUSION The Planning Division concludes that approval of ARB 21-32 is a minimum easing of the code and meets the intent of the code and there are characteristics unique enough to allow for the variances in height requested. Staff has reviewed the public comments submitted. Per the applicant, the structure is not planned as a commercial use. The addition of an indoor gym should not generate any more traffic than a swimming pool, or outdoor recreational facilities typically found on single-family residential lots. With the  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 9 changes to the UDC effective April 5, 2021, the size of the proposed accessory structure complies with the current code. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-32 from Aaron Rasmussen for a variance from Section 2.5.2.D of the Unified Development Code to allow for a 27.5-foot high accessory structure at 8201 San Lucas Ct.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 10 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 21-32 8201 - SAN LUCAS CT. DEADLINE: 5/11/2021 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers No Comment CW Long Range Planner CW MPO – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix 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 – S. Goodsell PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW Engineering – T. Sitta No Comment CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 11 JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 12 Dear Ms. Sandoval, Ms. Escobar and the Administrative Review Board (ARB): We are writing to you with comments concerning the Application for a Variance Request Petition No. ARB 21-32 for Aaron Rasmussen and family at 8201 San Lucas Court under City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.5.2 for an accessory structure with a 27.5-foot height, where the maximum height for an accessory structure is 20 feet. We are the neighbors to the north at 8300 San Lucas Court and received notice of this project on May 18, 2021. We must object to the project for reasons which will be enumerated below. We are aware of the detailed comments submitted by Mike Eisenfeld, and we fully agree with them. We believe that the application as currently presented contains contradictory and conflicting elements, and action on a decision should be continued until the application is clear and unambiguous. If action is intended for today, we request a denial of the request for a variance for all of the reasons that have been presented. This application is reminiscent of the Whack A Mole game. There was going to be a guest house, and then there was not. There was going to be a lot split and then there was not. There was going to be Public Improvement District and then there was not. We have been informed by Planning that these elements are still out there, but just not at this hearing. We believe it is most essential that the complete project be presented at one time so the impacts of the whole can be properly evaluated. Piecemeal approval is not appropriate, in part because if the first element is approved, there is an implied approval for the subsequent elements. The applicant is not asking for a minor relaxation of the requirements, they are requesting a complete abrogation. The project is far too large for a rural residential neighborhood. The applicant started actual construction on this unpermitted project over a year ago, and the street has been partially blocked by construction debris ever since. Parts for a metal building and other construction supplies have been on the lot as long. Obviously the applicant expects approval of their requests. We have had  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 13 partial plans for a house prepared for our lot, at the north end of the street, however due to all of the uncertainty caused by the project before you, our plans are on indefinite hold. The applicant makes multiple references to a Miller project as justification for their project. The Miller project is hardly comparable; it is located on a major street, Hood Mesa, vs. San Lucas which is a minor street, for the project before you. The actual size of the current project is nearly double the square footage of the Miller project, and the Miller project was abandoned and never completed. Applicant takes the position that denial of the project will restrict their reasonable use of the property. We take the position that approval of this project will result in an unreasonable imposition on the adjoining properties. In summary, the only action you can take is to deny the project. Thank you for your consideration, Russell and Patricia Hanscom 8300 San Lucas Ct.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 14 Dear Ms. Sandoval, Ms. Escobar and the Administrative Review Board (ARB): We write to you with comments concerning the Application for a Variance Request Peon No. ARB 21-32 for Aaron Rasmussen and family at 8201 San Lucas Court under City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.5.2 for an accessory structure with a 27.5-foot height, where the maximum height for an accessory structure is 20 feet. We are the neighbors to the east at 8200 San Lucas Court and received notice of this project on May 16, 2021. We note that this application for an approximate 7,200 square foot commercial recreational building is virtually the same as the Variance Request No. ARB 20-13 that was submitted for a variance under Section 2.5.2 B (Accessory uses and structures must be subordinate to the principal use and structure on the subject lot in terms of area, extent, and purpose. 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. Any accessory structure that is constructed within the allowed building footprint shall not exceed 2,000 square feet or 50 percent of the total gross floor area of the principal structure, whichever is greater; or exceed 20 feet in height. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to agricultural uses.) of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section to be heard at the June 4, 2020 Administrative Review Board Regular Meeting. Please incorporate the June 4, 2020 Agenda for the City of Farmington Administrative Review Board Meeting on June 4, 2020 into the records for the current Variance Request Peon No. ARB 21-32. The analysis of Variance Request Peon No. ARB 21-32 by the City of Farmington Community Development Department included in the June 4, 2020 Agenda for the Administrative Review Board concluded that, "approval of ARB 20-13 is NOT a minimum easing of the code and does not meet the intent of the code and there are no characteristics unique enough to allow for the variances in height and size requested." The recommendation was denial of Peon ARB 20-13 where five of the seven criteria for the variance were not met. On May 29, 2020 we received an email from Elizabeth Sandoval telling us that the petitioner, Aaron Rasmussen, withdrew his variance application for Variance Request ARB 20-13 prior to the June 4, 2020 Administrative.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 15 Aaron Rasmussen then informed us that he planned on subdividing his property and he was going to build his recreational facility/gym. Now he's back with virtually the same variance request that was assessed with a recommended denial for Variance Request No. ARB 20-13. We have lived here since 2001 and aim to comply with all Cedar Ridge Estates requirements and City of Farmington codes. This is not simply a variance for a height restriction but the attempt to build a commercial scale recreational facility (and we have seen no plans for a "guest house" as mentioned in the application). We believe that notice of this project on May 16, 2021 neglected to include Code Sections 2.5.2 B. We are concerned that the size and intention of this commercial recreational facility does not represent a hardship, does not qualify for a variance and should be readily denied under both Code Sections 2.5.2 B and D. We note that the Farmington Unified Building Code Sections 2.5 allows a maximum size of an accessory use and structures to be 50% of the total gross floor area of the principal structure of the lot. The principal structure of the Rasmussen property at 8201 San Lucas Court is in dispute but let's say that it is 8,000 square feet, thus 50% (maximum size of home) for an accessory or structure is 4,000 square feet. San Lucas Court is a dirt street dead ending in an ephemeral wash that is in no way capable of handling expected traffic if a commercial sized recreational gym is built in the community here. In any case, the accessory building should be limited to 4,000 square feet in size and should not be allowed to be over 20 feet in height. In looking at the Justification for a Variance, a variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a peculiar 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.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 16 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. 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. 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. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. 6. That no non-conforming 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. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance required were denied. We don't believe that Variance Request Petition No. ARB 20-13 meets any of these 7 justifications for a variance and must be denied. 1. This situation is self-imposed by the attempt to build a commercial size recreational facility in a residential neighborhood, far exceeding the maximum structure size of 4,000 feet. 2. We don't seek to deprive the applicant of any right that we don't adhere to ourselves in retaining the character of the community and complying with the City of Farmington's Building Code. 3. This 7,200 square foot structure is not a minimum easing of the Code requirements, but rather a large deviation from the code. The surrounding neighbor’s property values could be diminished and harmed by the large amount of traffic and human activity associated with a 7,200 square foot recreational facility. 4. This is not in harmony with our neighborhood as it would set a precedent, would bring large amounts of traffic and would create a commercial scale undertaking in a residential neighborhood. Our quality of life should not be marginalized by a commercial scale recreation facility in our residential neighborhood. 5. A commercial scale recreation facility is not allowed in the district. 6. There are no accessory structures of 7,200 square feet that we are aware of in our neighborhood that have given any reason for a non-conformance circumstance. 7. There's no hardship. The Rasmussens have the opportunity to build a commercial recreational gym in a part of the City of Farmington that has the appropriate code. Cedar Ridge Estates, in Foothills, is strictly a residential district.  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 17 Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we trust that the City of Farmington will uphold the Unified Development Code, where both Code Section 2.5.2 B and D apply and hardships need to be considered in the context of the community. We are unable to attend the scheduled June 3,2021 Administrative Review Board meeting due to prior commitments. Please confirm timely receipt of these comments via email. Sincerely, Mike Eisenfeld and Erin Hourihan 8200 San Lucas Court  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 18 Victoria Torres 5101 Cordoba Way Farmington, NM 87402 May 19, 2021 City of Farmington 800 Municipal Dr. Farmington, NM 87401 Dear City of Farmington Community Development and Administrative Review Board, My name is Victoria Torres, and I am the property owner near the Rasmussen property. I am writing in regard to the property at 8201 San Lucas Court Farmington, NM owned by Aaron Rasmussen since 2012. In reference to petition ARB 21-32, I have completed my analysis and have determined that the variance request needs to be denied. All other homes in the cedar ridge estates area do not have large accessory buildings and therefore do not obstruct views, cause excess traffic, or decrease property value. The combination of a guest house, recreational gym/shop made of sheet metal is oversized in respect to the single-family residential area. With reference to Article 2.5B Code of Ordinance, the size and height of the structure would well exceed the 20 ft height limit and the total square footage would be unreasonable for the neighborhood. The appeal to this neighborhood is its openness, view of natural landscapes, low traffic, and quietness. It is the reason that many property owners including myself put roots down here. With the addition of this building, it would hurt this appeal, leading to decrease in property value. This large commercial sized building could accommodate a high occupancy of people, naturally concerning us over the dangerous traffic that could ensue on Cordoba Way and San Lucas. This could lead to disturbances in the area and increased risk of motor vehicle accidents. Also, in the event of a resale, there are a number of ways this building could be utilized that is unfit for a neighborhood. I appreciate the peace, quiet, and openness of my neighborhood; however, the sheer size of this building, eventual traffic, and interruption of natural landscapes would undermine the intention for placing these city ordinances in effect in the first place. This building would lead to the disturbance and obstruction of views to all neighbors to the north, east, and south of the property. Also, the proposed structure is cleared to be built in the front yard, as opposed to the back or side yards, as required by City. This would increase it’s the ability to obstruct views. For a single-family unit, an outdoor basketball/volleyball court should be more than able to meet their needs. Farmington is also unique in that there are a large number of schools, parks and recreational facilities that can be used by the Rasmussen family. We are keeping the same position as one year ago, simply asking that the Rasmussen  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 19 family respect and honor the ordinances that were put in place by the City of Farmington, and the city to deny the ARB 21-32 variance request. Respectfully, Victoria Torres  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 20 To. Planning and Zoning Administrative Review Board I am requesting that Variance Request Petition No. ARB 21-32 be denied for the reasons stated as follows. 1. This is a residential subdivision and the size of the proposed building should have to follow the requirements of the City Planning and Development Division Section 2.5.2b of the UDC. The height restriction of 20 feet and square footage size should be followed. I feel it was placed there to prevent homeowners from building to large of buildings. The building plan of 27.5 feet and 7200 square foot dimensions is to much building for a residential neighborhood. I do not feel this requested code change is minimal in any way as was stated in the variance request. 2. I purchased my home in the Farmington Cedar Ridge Estates knowing there were protective covenants and restrictions in place to prevent this kind of building from taking place. 3. The proposed size of the building would alter the scenic views of our neighborhood when on our property, taking walks or in transit. 4. When used as a recreational gym facility this will result in a large increase in traffic flow in what is normally a quiet neighborhood country setting located in the city limits. 5. Buildings of this size and height should be built in a location zoned for commercial buildings or constructed in the county that would require less building restrictions in size and design. 6. Consideration should be taken for the owners of the vacant residential building lots that are adjacent to the proposed building sight. These properties are close to the same elevation as the proposed building location and a building of this magnitude will reduce the ability to sell and therefore affect the property value of these residential building lots. 7. The City of Farmington Park and Recreation, Boys and Girls Club and Farmington Public Schools provide excellent facilities for sporting events, practices and games. Therefore, I do not foresee the denial of this request would create a hardship in anyway. 7. The San Juan County Assessors website shows the square footage of 8201 San Lucas CT as 2706 SQ FT. My understanding of Article 2.5.2b of the UDC, Total Gross Floor area is calculated by the external walls of the living area of the home excluding garages, decks, overhangs and sidewalks. I feel the maximum building size that should be allowed is 2000 SQ FT and a height of 20 Ft. Thank You for your time and consideration in this matter. Regards, Gary Torres 5101 Cordoba Way Farmington Nm 87402 ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 21 ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 22 ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 23 ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 24  ARB 21-32 8201 San Lucas Court Page 25 Mailing Labels NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP 1201 N MONTEREY BRISCO DORA G TRUSTEE AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87401-6342 EISENFELD MICHAEL A ET UX 8200 SAN LUCAS CT FARMINGTON, NM 87402 GILES ERIC J 3 PARTRIDGE LN LITTLETON, CO 80127 HANSCOM RUSSELL JR AND PATRICIA TRUST PO BOX 2727 FARMINGTON, NM 874992727 RASMUSSEN AARON AND MINDY 8201 SAN LUCAS CT FARMINGTON, NM 87402 TORRES GARY L AND VICTORIA J 5101 CORDOBA WAY FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 VILLALOBOS JULIO 4240 VISTA PINON DR FARMINGTON, NM 87401 WILLIAMS, DENNIS AND KIM 5290 CORDOBA WAY FARMINGTON, NM 87402  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 21-34 Variance to Section 2.5.2.C, 2.8.3.D.5.h of the Unified Development Code (UDC) prohibiting pools in the front yard and Section 5.4.4 limiting fence height to three feet in the front yard setback. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 21-34 is a request from Russel Hatch, owner of property at 6110 Via Del Oro Drive for a variance Sections 2.5.2.C, 2.8.3.D.5 and 5.4.4 to allow a pool in the front yard with the required 48-inch (four foot) fence/barrier. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TUSCANY ESTATES SUBDIVISION LOT 14 BK.1557PG.47 Otherwise located at 6110 Via Del Oro Drive GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Russel Hatch Property Owner Russel & Linda Hatch Location of Property 6110 Via Del Oro Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for construction of an in-ground pool and the required 48-inch pool barrier in the front yard setback. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington UDC states: 2.5.2 General standards. All accessory structures and uses shall comply with the following standards: C. Accessory structures shall not be placed in the front yard. 2.8.3 - Measurements and exceptions. (5) Projections/encroachments, general. The following features may project in required setbacks to the extent indicated. h. Accessory, open and uncovered swimming pools and home barbecue grills may occupy a required rear yard, provided they are not located closer than five feet to the rear lot line and not closer than three feet to a side lot line. 5.4.4 Fence and wall location and height. Fence and wall locations and heights shall be as follows unless otherwise specified in this UDC: A. Residential districts. (1) Fences and walls located in required front yards (setback) shall be limited to a height of three feet at the front right-of-way line, rising evenly to a maximum of 54 inches at setback line, and thereafter a  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 2 maximum of six feet; provided, however that properties approved for horses in the RA, RE-2 and RE-1 districts may have front yard fences up to four feet in height. This provision shall not apply to open wrought iron fencing with low opacity. Zoning RE-1: Residential Estates – 1 acre minimum Existing Use Residential – under construction Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: RE-1: Residential Estates 1 South: RE-1: Residential Estates 1 East: RE-1: Residential Estates 1 West: RE-1: Residential Estates 1 Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, May 18, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, May 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, May 21, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The Hatch’s are constructing a new house on their property. They wish to construct an in-ground pool in the front courtyard. This will encroach upon the required front yard setback. Required setbacks in the RE-1: Residential Estates 1 Zoning District. Front: 35 feet Rear: 30 feet Interior Side: 15 feet Street Side: 50 feet Per the Building Code, a four-foot barrier is required around a pool. The maximum height allowance for a fence in the front yard setback is three feet. It is possible that the proposed retaining wall can be used to meet the barrier requirements. The subject parcel is Lot 14 of the Tuscany Estates Subdivision, platted in 2005. The property is 143 feet deep and an average of 285 wide. Subtracting the required setbacks leaves a building envelope of 83 feet x 255 feet, or 21,165 square feet. The proposed pool is 14 feet x 37 feet. The pool was not included in the original building permit.  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 3 PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE The application from the petitioner states that the pool is being placed in front yard to make the house fit on the lot and take advantage of the best views. With the retaining wall, the pool should not be visible from the street. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS Chief Building Official – D. Childers: It is difficult to tell from the petition the extent of the variance for the height of the fence/retaining wall. Engineering – T. Sitta: No comment regarding the placement of the pool. Construction permits are required for the pool and the retaining wall. Pool drainage must be contained to the property. Pool drainage cannot go to septic tanks, as this may overwhelm and be harmful to the septic system. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report.  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 4 Zoning/Vicinity Map  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 5 AERIAL MAP  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive 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 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 configuration of the lot and the topography of the property appear to present challenges for development, however, there appears to be room on both the east and west sides of the house where the pool could be placed and conform with the regulations of the UDC. 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. Through careful design, this lot should be able to accommodate a house and a pool and conform to all regulations. 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 request to allow an accessory structure in the front yard setback is not a minimum easing of the code. Front yard setbacks are designed to create a uniform street appearance. Pools in the front yard can be very visible and may have less privacy than pools located in the rear yard and also may be less safe and easy to secure than pools in the backyard. This criterion is NOT met.  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 7 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. Having received no input from affected property owners, the proposed variance does not appear to be injurious to the neighborhood. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of a variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the RE-1 Residential 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 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 property owner has stated that the front yard location of the pool is his preference because of the layout of the house and the location of views. However, alternative locations for the pool on the lot appear to be available. This criterion is NOT met. CONCLUSION The Planning Division concludes that ARB 21-34, requesting a waiver to place an in- ground pool in the front yard setback is not a minimum easing of the code, does not meet the intent of the code and is not a property that has characteristics unique enough to allow for waiver of the regulations in the UDC. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends denial of Petition ARB 21-34 from Russel Hatch for a variance from Sections 2.5.2.C, 2.8.3.D.5 and 5.4.4 to allow a pool in the front yard with the required 48-inch (four foot) fence/barrier.  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 8 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 21-34 VIA DEL ORO DRIVE City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division It is difficult to tell from the petition the CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers extent of the variance for the height of the fence/retaining wall. CW Long Range Planner CW MPO – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega No Comment LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne No Comment POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW Engineering – T. Sitta • No comment regarding the placement of the pool.  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 9 • Construction permits are required for the pool and the retaining wall. Pool drainage must be contained to the property. Pool drainage cannot go to septic tanks, as this may overwhelm and be harmful to the septic system. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 10 ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 11 ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 12 ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 13 ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 14  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 15 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE REQUEST PETITION NO. ARB 21-34  ARB 21-34 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Page 16 NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP BRANDT ALICIA TRUST 7330 NAPLES DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 6111 VIA DEL ORO BROADBENT REBECCA L AND BRYAN K DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 BROWN JAMES B AND JOLENE A 6100 VIA DEL ORO FARMINGTON, NM 87402 BROWN JASON M AND TAMI JO 7651 TUSCANY WAY FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 FREEMAN CLINTON B AND ERICA R 7691 TUSCANY WAY FARMINGTON, NM 874020000 HATCH RUSSELL AND LINDA 5603 PLAZA DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 MCCARTY BRYAN F AND TESIA K 7631 TUSCANY WAY FARMINGTON, NM 87402 MOORE ROCKY A AND KELLY NANNA 7671 TUSCANY WAY FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 RESOURCE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 6517 FARMINGTON, NM 874996517 WINTERS CARL W AND BEVERLY 6112 VIA DEL ORO FARMINGTON, NM 87402  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 21-35 Variance to Section 7-1-2 of the City of Farmington Municipal Code requiring installation of a sidewalk along the front property line of a new residential house. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 21-35 is a request from Alvaro Cordova, owner of property at 3107 Mortensen Road, for a variance to Section 7-1-2 of the City of Farmington Municipal Code requiring the installation of a sidewalk. Mr. Cordova is asking for a waiver of this requirement. LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT SW CORNER OF NW1/4SW1/4 OF SEC 1 13 29. THENCE S88-59- 21E 460 FT, N01-05-41E 20FT TO TRUE PT OF BEG. THENCE N01-05-41E 124.26 FT, N71-51-49E 198.05 FT, S01-05-41W 189.22 FT, N88-59-21W 187 FT TO PT OF BEG. BK.1668 PG.824, PG.820 Otherwise located at 3107 Mortensen Road GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Alvaro Cordova Property Owner Same Location of Property 3107 Mortensen Road Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the requirement for installation of a sidewalk. Mr. Cordova is constructing a new home on this property. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Municipal Code Section 7-1-2 states: Sec. 7-1-2. - Sidewalks and ramps for handicapped. (a)The owner of any property upon which a building is constructed shall, before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, install sidewalks under the following circumstances: (1)Along the street adjacent to any residential building, where sidewalks on any adjacent lot abut the lot upon which such building is located. (2)In any commercial district. (3)In any manufacturing district, adjacent to any major street shown on the city major thoroughfare plan.(b)All such sidewalks shall be constructed pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 24 and shall have ramps for handicapped persons at each intersection. Zoning SF-7 – Single-family residential Existing Use Residential – under construction Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: SF-7 – Single-family residential South: SF-5 – Single-family residential/vacant  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 2 East: SF-7 – Single-family residential. Undeveloped City right- of-way West: SF-7 – Single-family residential Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, May 18, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, May 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, May 21, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND Mr. Cordova, property owner, was informed of the requirement to construct approximately 200 feet of a 5-foot wide ADA compliant sidewalk when he submitted a building permit for a new house on the subject property. The neighborhood along Mortensen Road is comprised of metes and bounds parcels and is not part of a recorded subdivision. There is a sidewalk in front of the house to the west at 3101 Mortensen Road. This home was constructed in 1978. The abutting sidewalk at 3101 Mortensen Road triggers the requirement in Section 7-1-2.a.1 requiring a sidewalk be installed along the street adjacent to any residential building, where sidewalks on any adjacent lot abut the lot upon which such building is located. This section of the municipal code was adopted in 1969. Mortensen Road is approximately 1,000 feet long and varies in width from 30 feet on the west end, 40 feet in the middle and 20 feet on the east end. PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE Per Mr. Cordova’s application, a sidewalk in front of the property that ends at the northeast corner of his property will guide all stormwater into the City of right-of-way. The cost of the sidewalk will add additional expense to Mr. Cordova’s owner/builder project. None of the other homes across the street or to the east have sidewalks. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Fire Marshall – Brandi Vega: I feel there should be a sidewalk continued on this property. There is sidewalk on the adjacent property that should be carried through, it is the city standard, there will likely not be another opportunity to require this property to install sidewalks, not requiring them sets a negative precedent, and without the sidewalk fighting fire in this location will be a muddy mess. COMMUNITY WORKS DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS In order to establish uniform, consistent and fair development standards, the City development standards were created. These standards not only ensure fairness and order, but over time, a beautiful connected and consistent high standard city. These standards are adopted by the City Council, it is Staff's duty to uphold them. This allows for installation of sidewalks that are needed now and in the future. If not installed now, it is likely providing sidewalks will be placed on the backs of other property owners who have, as a majority, already paid their fair share but would have the burden unfairly imposed again. All areas of  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 3 town deserve to be as well provided for as the next with quality accommodations. The rule of adjacent sidewalks is a minimal requirement. Several of the municipalities that I have worked in have had a ‘within 300' requirement. It would be short sighted to not equally provide for future needs. The mechanism prescribed to provide for items of public good and quality of life by the Citizens of Farmington, and most other cities of the United States, is at the time of development or subdividing of property. This provides for each development of property to bear the cost of its own fair share of quality of life issues city wide. Waiver of standards is a slippery slope. When waivers of standards are made for one individual, it is then required to be made equally throughout town. While it is true there can be extenuating circumstances, no significant viable reason for variance is found here. This is a neighborhood with several sidewalks that could be connected in the future. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report.  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 4 Current photo of property  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 5 Zoning/Vicinity Map  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 6 AERIAL MAP  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 7 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 the only property abutting an adjacent sidewalk. It therefore appears that this is the only property on the block where Section 7-1-2 can be applied. 3104 and 3110 Mortensen, directly across the street from the subject property, were subdivided in 1987 (Scruggs Subdivision) and sidewalks were not required at that time. All of the other homes on Mortensen Rd. are metes and bounds properties that do not abut existing sidewalks. 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. If a sidewalk is installed on 3107 Mortensen, there will only be two properties on this block with sidewalks. There are no additional vacant lots on Mortensen Road. 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 Municipal Code and would allow the property owner to have the full use of his land. Enforcement of Section 7-1-2 has varied in the fifty years this regulation has been on the books, especially in relation to metes and bounds (non-subdivision) properties. If at some point in the future an improvement district is formed, the property owner of 3107 Mortensen can participate in the funding of a project at that time. This criterion IS met.  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road 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 proposed variance is not injuries to the neighborhood. The majority of lots on Mortensen do not currently have sidewalks. Any future installation of sidewalks along this road would be through redevelopment of the area, allocation of available City funding or establishment of a Public Improvement District. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the SF–7 Single Family Residential 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 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 property owner is also the builder. He did not anticipate the cost of a sidewalk installation for his project. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Planning Division concludes that approval of ARB 21-35 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 waiver of the sidewalk requirement. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-35 from Alvaro Cordova for a variance from Sections 7-1.2 of the City of Farmington Municipal Code waiving the requirement for installation of a new sidewalk.  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 9 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 21-35 3107 MORTENSEN RD. City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers No Comment CW Long Range Planner CW MPO – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix I feel there should be a sidewalk continued FIRE on this property. There is sidewalk on the adjacent property that should be carried through, it is the city standard, there will Fire Marshall – B. Vega likely not be another opportunity to require this property to install sidewalks, not requiring them sets a negative precedent, and without the sidewalk fighting fire in this location will be a muddy mess. LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne No Comment POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 10 PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW Engineering – T. Sitta No Comment CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 11 ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 12 ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 13  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 14 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE REQUEST PETITION NO. ARB 21-35  ARB 21-35 1307 Mortensen Road Page 15 Notification Letter Mailout BOLTON JAMES WILSON AND SUZANNE ANGELA 260 STAGECOACH TRL DURANGO, CO 81301 CORDOVA MACHADO ALVARO 2447 CRANE AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87401 FIORINI DAVID E AND ALITA L 3116 MORTENSEN RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402-1945 GOSS ROBERT AND JAN 2600 ARCH LN FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 JOHNSON LISA A ET VIR 3111 MORTENSEN FARMINGTON, NM 87402-1944 JOSLIN CURTIS L AND EDNA D 3110 MORTENSEN RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 KUTAC WILLIE J JR 418 KATHLEEN PL FARMINGTON, NM 87401-3535 RL MORRIS CONSTRUCTION LLC PO BOX 6767 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 ROMERO JOHN J 3101 MORTENSEN RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402-1944 ZUBER LEOPOLDO 3112 MORTENSEN RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402