Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM November 4, 2021 - 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from October 7, 2021 4. Petition ARB 21-63 – a request from Steven D. Husson, property owner, for a lot split for a variance to allow for a side and rear setback of 1 foot for an 8-foot high accessory building in the rear north west corner of the property. 5. Petition No. ARB 21-66 – a request from Cole Stoneman for a variance to allow wall signage in excess of the maximum allowed under Section 5.8.7.A.2.a. 6. Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7. Adjournment ALL DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK‘S OFFICE WITHIN 15 DAYS. ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  Minutes Administrative Review Board October 7, 2021 The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members Present: Chair James Dennis Vice Chair Brian Erickson Paul Martin Members Absent: Shorty Rogers Staff Present: Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Mike Safrany Others Addressing the Board: Robert Sherman Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m. by Chair James Dennis and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Roll call was taken: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson and Board Member Martin were in attendance. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Vice Chair Erickson to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Approval of the Minutes from the April 8, 2021 Regular Meetings Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2021 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Martin and passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Swearing of Interested Parties All interested parties that wished to speak at this meeting were sworn in by Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant. ____________________________________________________________________________ Petition ARB 21-55 – 3105 N. Sunset Ave. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request • Petitioner is Steven Merrell, property owner • Represented by Bill Anglin  • Request is for a second 24-foot wide driveway cut on N. 35th Street to install a circular driveway. • Variance to Section 5.3.3.C of the Unified Development Code (UDC) • Zoning is SF-10: Single-family residential Applicable Code 5.3.3 Driveway and parking lot access C. Maximum curb cut width. Curb cuts shall conform to the following maximum width requirements: (1) Residential. Maximum width of curb cuts accessing residential uses only shall be as follows: a. Curb cuts accessing one-car garages, carports or paved driveway: 12 feet. b. Curb cuts two-car garages, carports or paved driveway: 24 feet. c. Curb cuts three-car garages, carports or paved driveway: 32 feet. d. The maximum curb cut for any residential property shall not exceed 32 feet. Vicinity/Zoning Map Aerial Map of Subject Property Photo of 3501 N. Sunset Avenue Criteria • Per Section 5.2.11.F.4 off the UDC, circular drives are allowed for residential construction fronting on collector or arterial roads. West 35th Street is designated as a future Collector Street in the MPO Major Thoroughfare Plan. • The proposed variance is not injurious to the neighborhood. An additional driveway cut on West 35th would not present any safety issues to the neighborhood. There would be approximately 125 feet from the driveway cut on W. 35th to the intersection with Melrose Dr. • Not allowing an additional driveway cut would cause the applicant to suffer unnecessary safety issues. Public Input No public input has been received. Recommendation The Planning Division recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-55 from Steven Merrell for a variance from Sections 5.3.3.C of the City of Farmington Uniform Development Code to allow for an additional 24-foot wide curb cut on N. 35th Street allowing for construction of a circular drive with the following condition: 1. The new curb cut driveway and adjacent sidewalk will need to meet ADA standards for sidewalk and driveway aprons. Discussion: Chair Dennis asked Planning Manager Escobar if the 32 feet is cumulative. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes, that is how it was interpreted. Chair Dennis asked if the petitioner or the petitioner representative was in attendance. They were not. Chair Dennis asked if there were any interested parties who would like to speak. There were none. Board Member Martin made a motion to APPROVE Petition ARB 21-55, a request from Steven Merrell, represented by Bill Anglin for a variance to Section 5.3.3.C of the Unified Development Code. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Erickson. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Martin NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Rogers APPROVED 4-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Petition ARB 21-59 – 1605 El Redonda Cir. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request • Petitioner is Letha Hart, property owner • Represented by Robert Sherman • Request is for a variance to the 8-foot minimum side setback requirement • Zoning is MF-L: Multi-family Low Density SMHAO • Parcel is 0.13 acres Applicable Code Section 2.81. of the UDC Vicinity/Zoning Map Aerial Map of Subject Property Bonita Subdivision Plat Photo of 1605 El Redondo Circle Criteria • In staff’s opinion, the special condition the applicant claims is a result of a large manufactured home put on a small lot. This condition was self-imposed at the time of the home placement. • The property already has a large carport, an accessory structure and a covered front patio, making full use of the property. • The new awning on the west side will encroach by a total of 1 foot 11 inches. The new patio on the south side will encroach by 1 foot 10 inches. In staff’s opinion, this request is not a minimum easing of the code related to setback minimums. Public Input No public input has been received. Recommendation • The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 21-59 from Letha Hart at 1605 El Redondo Circle for two structures that encroach into the side yard minimum setback of 8 feet. Discussion: Board Member Martin asked if the petitioner was looking to get the current structure into compliance or if they wanted to add something. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the porch and awning started to be built without a permit. Chair Dennis asked if the northeast side of the house is on the property line. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it does look that way to her, but it could be the overhang of the house. Planning Manager Escobar stated that most of the homes in this subdivision do encroach on the setbacks because the subdivision was developed previous to the 2007 codes. Planning Manager Escobar stated that after analyzing this application the Board does have the discretion to make a positive finding, should there be enough evidence that it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Board Member Martin stated that he believes that the plat and the blue line on the aerial are the same and there is a survey inconsistency of what the property owner has fenced and what they own. Planning Manager Escobar stated that her analysis is according to the fence line. Board Member Martin stated that he was suprised that the Fire Department did not have any comments on this application and he would like to hear from the petitioner or their representative. Chair Dennis stated that he agrees with Mr. Martin in regards to the plat and the GIS layer being the property line and asked Planning Manager Escobar if some of the property might have been deeded over. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she could not find any record of property exchanges. Chair Dennis asked if the petitioner or the petitioner representative was in attendance. Robert Sherman, Farmington NM, representing Letha Hart, stated that Ms. Hart has resided at her residence, 1605 El Redondo Circle, for 14 years and the fence line has always been in that location. Mr. Sherman stated that the back awning is about 12 feet from the fence line and the opposite side is almost 12 feet to the fence. Mr. Sherman stated that they were unaware that a variance was needed and asked Planning Manager Escobar if the Board had the pictures he had sent. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the pictures Mr. Sherman sent were in the Board’s packets. Mr. Sherman stated that he and Ms. Hart are requesting the variance for the porch that has been built. Mr. Sherman stated that the previous porch was damaged and the existing porch was built so the porch could be enjoyed. Mr. Sherman stated that the structure was built and does not drain into the neighbor’s property. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Sherman how much he added on to the porch and what were the measurements before the addition was added. Mr. Sherman stated 8 feet in width and 11 feet in length has been added and he is not sure what the measurements were previously. Board Member Martin asked Mr. Sherman if he is the one who made all the improvements and if it was completed. Mr. Sherman stated yes. Board Member Martin asked Planning Manager Escobar what would happen if the application is denied. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the petitioner would have the option to appeal their decision to City Council, but should the application be denied by City Council the structures would have to be removed. Board Member Martin asked if the application was a result of a Code Compliance complaint. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there was an inquiry made to the Building Division on whether the petitioner had obtained a building permit, the Building Division then went to the property location and informed Mr. Sherman that a permit was needed. Planning Manager Escobar asked Mr. Sherman how they get into the unit. Mr. Sherman stated that they get in through the porch. Planning Manager Escobar stated that when this application was reviewed at the Development Review Committee meeting the Fire Department did not have any issues because they felt that access into the unit would not be impacted. Chair Dennis asked if there were any interested parties who would like to speak. There were none. Chair Dennis stated that he feels that the variance would help the occupants and does not see how the variance would impact the neighborhood negatively. Board Member Martin asked if the applicant met the front yard setback. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she did not measure that. Board Member Martin stated that setback was a concern for him, should the house catch fire and the potential to burn the neighbor’s house. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there is approximately 18 feet from structure to structure, fire code requires 10 feet. Vice Chair Erickson stated that what stands out most to him is that the Fire Department made no comment and there are no comments from neighbors. Board Member Martin expressed concern regarding previous decisions made on previous application and the idea that some rulings were in favor and some were not in regards to variance requests. Planning Manager Escobar stated that previous ruling cannot be used in the decision making process. Chair Dennis stated that he believes that the various requests are a minimum easing of code and does not believe that the applicant did not build without a permit on purpose. Chair Dennis asked how much the encroachment is. Planning Manager Escobar stated that according to the petitioner representative it is a foot and an inch. A motion was made by Vice Chair Erickson to APPROVE Petition ARB 21-59, a request from Letha Hart, property owner, represented by Robert Sherman for a for a variance to allow encroachment into the required side yard setback for a new porch (south side) and awning (west side). Vice Chair Erickson stated that his reason for approval is the distance between the homes being outside the fire separation, there being no comments from the Fire Department, no adverse effects to the neighborhood and no comments from surrounding property owners. The motion was seconded by Chair Dennis. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Martin NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Rogers APPROVED 4-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Discussion Regarding Site Visits Chair Dennis stated that the topic of site visits came up when he had a conversation with Planning Manager Escobar. Chair Dennis referenced Petition ARB 21-35, 3107 Mortensen Road, stating that Board Member Rogers had been contracted to frame the house at 3107 Mortensen Road. Chair Dennis stated that after Board Member Rogers went to the property, Board Member Rogers stated to Chair Dennis that he believes that the denial of Petition 21-35 was a mistake. Chair Dennis stated that he then went over to the site and stated that had he had more of a visual he would have possibly had a different opinion. Chair Dennis stated that he has previously been advised that the Board should not do site visits. Chair Dennis asked the Board how they felt on the topic of site visits. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she did reach out to NM League of Cities and Towns and the City Attorney, both advising discouraged site visits for ARB Members. Planning Manager Escobar stated the reason being that the Administrative Review Board is technically a court when hearing petitions. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if a board member were to drive by a site and that influences their decision and it is not expressed in the meeting, it does put the discussion at risk because it was not discussed in the public forum. Planning Manager Escobar stated that an alternative might be for staff to bring more pictures of the site. Chair Dennis stated that not visiting sites is consistent with what he was previously instructed with the role of the ARB. Chair Dennis asked if the Board is confused and does not have enough information to make a decision on a petition, could that petition then be tabled until further information is provided or a site visit could be set up. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct and the site visit would be posted with members of the public being invited to attend and minutes would be taken. Planning Manager Escobar stated that board members do have the time from when they receive their packet and before the meeting to reach out to staff to ask for additional information. Vice Chair Erickson stated that he believed that he had a grasp of on Petition ARB 21- 35 from the photos, but also understands that going to the site does give a different perspective. Chair Dennis stated that he feels that if board members are not comfortable making a decision that more information should be requested. Vice Chair Erickson stated that he would like to see more pictures from staff. Board Member Martin stated that ARB does serve as a court and should know nothing about what is being presented by both parties and should not know anything so a fair decision can be made with information that is being presented. Planning Manager Escobar stated that staff will provide more pictures and provide more information for each petition. ____________________________________________________________________________ Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: Board Member Martin stated that his term is up and that this would be his final meeting as a Board Member. Board Member Martin thanked staff for all that they do. Chair Dennis and Vice Chair Erickson thanked Board Member Martin for his service on the ARB. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar introduced Mike Safrany, Associate Planner. Adjournment: Board Member Martin made a motion to adjourn the October 7, 2021 meeting of the Administrative Review Board; the motion was seconded by Vice Chair Erickson. The meeting of October 7, 2021 was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ James Dennis Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 21-63 Variance to Section 2.5.2.E and 2.8.3.3.c of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code requiring a minimum three-foot side setback and a minimum five-foot rear setback for an accessory structure in the RE-20: Residential Estates District. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 21-63 is a request for a variance to allow for a side and rear setback of 1 foot for an 8-foot high accessory building in the rear northwest corner of the property. The Unified Development Code requires a 3-foot side setback and a 5-foot rear setback for accessory structures. LEGAL DESCRIPTION RANCHO DE ANIMAS LOT 15 BK. 1665 PG. 277 Otherwise located at 4601 Rancho De Animas Drive GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Steven D. Husson Property Owner Same Representative N/A Location of Property 4601 Rancho de Animas Dr. Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for a side and rear setback of 1 foot for an 8-foot high accessory building in the rear northwest corner of the property. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.8.3.3.c states: Residential accessory structures that are separated at least ten feet from the principal structure may be constructed in a rear yard; provided, the total square footage of all structures does not exceed forty percent of the lot size, is not greater than 15 feet in height, and the distance from any part of such structure to a side lot line is at least three feet, except that accessory buildings or structures of 120 square feet or less may extend to the rear and/or side lot line, provided such structures are not greater than ten feet in height, and no portion of the structure crosses into or drains onto adjacent property. Zoning RE-20 – Residential Estates Existing Use Residential Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use  North: RE-20 – Rancho de Animas Subdivision South: RE-20 – Rancho de Animas Subdivision East: RE-20 – Rancho de Animas Subdivision West: GC & SF-7: Agave Subdivision Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Thursday, October 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, October 22, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to allow for a reduction of setbacks for a accessory structure. Accessory structures greater than 120 square feet are required to have a minimum 3-foot side setback and a minimum 5-foot side setback. The accessory structure has already been placed on the property without a permit. The building is setback 1 foot from the rear and 1 foot from the side property lines. There is a platted 20-foot drainage easement along the northern property line. The property is 0.59 acres. PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE Per the petition application, the homeowner placed the accessory structure (shed) in the best location to access from a stone driveway. The shed will be used to store a trailer. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Engineering – Toni Sitta There is a 20-foot drainage easement at the back of the property. According to the City’s GIS database, there are no public works utilities, including drainage structures in this easement and it is not located in a floodplain. However, because this is an easement by plat, an encroachment permit will be required with the understanding that the City will not be responsible for any damages to accessory structures placed in the easement as part of the encroachment permit. The City reserves the right to request the structure to be moved, at the owner’s expense, in the event future drainage facilities are required in the easement area I believe placing the accessory structure on pillars is a good compromise, in the event this easement takes on water. According to the Unified Development Code, structures are not to be permitted within utility, including drainage easements. However, it is my understanding that construction could be allowed if one of the following conditions are met: 1) A replat requesting the abandonment of the easement across this property. The City would request documentation from a certified New Mexico Professional Engineer regarding the reasoning why the easement should be abandoned and that by abandoning the easement, it will not negatively impact the properties that are adjacent to the properties along the remaining portions of this easement; or 2) Application for an encroachment permit with the following conditions: a) The City will not be held accountable for any damages to the accessory structure placed within this easement in the event of a flood or drainage within or resulting from this easement; b) The City reserves the right to request the structure to be moved, at the owner's expense, in the event future drainage facilities are needed within the easement area; c) The structure is elevated in a manner in which drainage can pass, unimpeded, in the event drainage flows within this easement. Building Official – Derrick Childers This shed has already been constructed without a permit. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report. CURRENT PHOTO OF PROPERTY ZONING/VICINITY MAP AERIAL MAP RANCHO DE ANIMAZ SUBDIVISION PLAT 1996  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. Staff cannot identify any special condition that would prevent the accessory structure from being relocated to conform to the required setbacks. Also the structure should be relocated out of the drainage easement or a replat should be submitted abandoning the drainage easement. The backyard is big enough to accommodate moving the shed out of the easement. This criterion is NOT met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. The shed could be relocated to meet requirements. 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. In staff’s opinion, this is not a minimum easing of the code, specifically in relation to the encroachment on the drainage easement. This criterion is NOT met. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. At the time of this report, staff has received no input from the neighbors. 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 RE-20 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. Other properties do have structures in the drainage easement. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant should be able to site the shed on the property in a location that meets code requirements. This criterion is NOT met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 21-63 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 minimum side and rear setbacks for an accessory structure. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 21-63 from Steven Husson property owner of 4601 Ranch de Animas Drive, for a reduction to 1-foot of the required side and rear setbacks for an accessory structure. A  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 21-63 4601 RANCHO DE ANIMAS DR. DEADLINE: 9/29/2021 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers FYI, this shed has been constructed. 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 – R. Frost POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW I have reviewed the property and subdivision plat for 4601 Rancho De Animas regarding the ARB 21-63 petition regarding a setback variance. There is a 20 ft drainage easement at the back of the property. According to the City’s GIS database there are no Engineering – T. Sitta public works utilities, including drainage structures in this easement and it is not located in a floodplain. However, because this is an easement by plat, an encroachment permit will be required with the understanding that the City will not be responsible for any damages to accessory structures placed in the easement as part of the encroachment permit. The City reserves the right to request the structure to be moved, at the owner’s expense, in the event future drainage facilities are required in the easement area I believe placing the accessory structure on pillars is a good compromise, in the event this easement takes on water. Below is my review on this request. I do not have knowledge why the 20 ft drainage easement is located along the west side of these properties since I don't have access to the subdivision construction plan files for the Rancho De Animas Subdivision at this time. However, below is my quick review of the area and the petitioner's request. Isaac and Lisa, please feel free to let me know if I have misspoke or am misinformed on the information I listed below: I noticed in the aerial photography that there are existing accessory structures in the 20 ft. drainage easement on Lots 16 and 13 in this subdivision. I am unsure when or if they were permitted, I do not have these properties listed in my database of reviews and therefore may have been permitted prior to 2015. The County Assessor's Office lists Lots 13 and 16 both being developed in 2001, however the drainage easements were created with the subdivision in 1996 and would have existed when these structures were permitted, IF they were permitted. I am not aware of any drainage structures located within this easement. City GIS does not show utilities within this drainage easement, however, the easement may be for the purpose of drainage that comes from the hillside to the west of the property. The drainage to the south of this property  goes west to east through the subdivision. The drainage easement is not located within a floodplain. According to the Unified Development Code, structures are not to be permitted within utility, including drainage easements. However, it is my understanding that construction could be allowed if one of the following conditions are met: 1) A replat requesting the abandonment of the easement across this property. The City would request documentation from a certified New Mexico Professional Engineer regarding the reasoning why the easement should be abandoned and that by abandoning the easement, it will not negatively impact the properties that are adjacent to the properties along the remaining portions of this easement; or 2) Application for an encroachment permit with the following conditions: a) The City will not be held accountable for any damages to the accessory structure placed within this easement in the event of a flood or drainage within or resulting from this easement; b) The City reserves the right to request the structure to be moved, at the owner's expense, in the event future drainage facilities are needed within the easement area; c) The structure is elevated in a manner in which drainage can pass, unimpeded, in the event drainage flows within this easement. 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE REQUEST PETITION NO. ARB 21- 63  NOTIFICATION LETTERS CLARK THOMAS P JR AND SHERYL 4751 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM A ANIMAS DR 87402 4555 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM DAVIS ROBERT M AND GAYLE H ANIMAS CT 87402 GRHH PINION HILLS LLC ETAL 855 W BROAD ST STE 300 BOISE, ID 83720 HABEN, GERALD W AND 4551 RANCH DE FARMINGTON, NM CHARLEENE ANIMAS DR 87402 FARMINGTON, NM KETCHELL PAUL R AND ALETHA M 4702 SUNDANCE RD 87401 MCCLELLAND MICHEAL L AND 4700 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM DIANE M ANIMAS DR 87402 MIHELICH JOSHUA P AND 4651 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM COURTNEY L ANIMAS DR 87402 4640 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM RICHARDS, CHARLOTTE B ANIMAS DR 87402 VALDEZ, HENR AND ANDREA 4505 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM TRUST ANIMAS CT 87402 WEBSTER BERNIE J AND STELLA C 4750 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM TRUST ANIMAS DR 87402  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 21- 66 Variance to Section 5.8.7.A.2.a of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow wall signage in excess of the maximum allowed per the code. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Leaser is requesting a waiver to Section 5.8.7.A.2 which limits the total available signage along a wall to 1 square foot per each linear foot of wall length. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL NUMBER 2072174107466 Otherwise located at 5920 E. Main Street GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Cole Stoneman, tenant Property Owner Marcia Graham Location of Property 5920 E Main Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the maximum square footage allowed for a sign in the General Commercial zoning district. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 5.8.7.A.2.a. states: The total area of wall signs on a particular wall or a section of wall shall not exceed one square foot of wall sign for each linear foot of length of that wall, which length shall be measured by applying the same principles as are used to measure building frontage, subject to residential restrictions. b. The total area of all wall signs on a building shall not exceed one square foot of wall sign for each linear foot of building frontage or the maximum total area per district, whichever is less. The fact that signs may be permitted on more than one wall of the building shall not increase this maximum. c. On a multi-tenant building, there may be a separate wall sign for each occupant with an outside entrance serving the general public, but this provision shall not increase the total area of signage permitted on the building. Zoning GC – General Commercial Existing Use Office Complex Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: MF-M – Country Club Villas  South: GC – General Retail East: GC – General Retail W West: GC – General Retail Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Thursday, October 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, October 22, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to allow for wall signage in excess of the maximum square footage allowed per the Unified Development Code (UDC). Per Section 5.8.7.A.2.a of the UDC regarding wall signs, sign square footage is based on the length of the wall. The property at 5920 E. Main Street has one wall facing East Main. This wall has existing signage for current tenants. It appears that the pop-out feature on the south facing wall was specifically designed for tenant signage. The south facing wall is 84 feet in length. Per the code, this would allow for 84 feet of signage. There is already over 200 square feet of signage along this wall. PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE Per the applicant, the Main Street signage provides the best visibility for his business. His sign would replace the Pella Spa sign that was previously installed. Pella Spa has relocated. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Deputy City Attorney – Russel Frost Based upon the previous lessor using a similar sign in the same spot, I can see a strong argument to justify the variance. I don’t mind increasing the size of the sign and allowing for a variance. However, I am worried that signs from future tenants might be affected by this variance. I anticipate a problem with the new lessors as building managers lease the empty suites and new tenants make similar request for a sign variance. Is the space large enough to allow for a variance for all tenants? INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report. CURRENT PHOTO OF PROPERTY ZONING MAP  STAFF 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 suite where the applicant’s business is located is on the west side interior of the building and there would be minimal visibility of a sign at the suite location. 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. As the applicant states in his petition, other businesses in the complex have been allowed to place their signage on the Main Street wall. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. This request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to have sign visibility allowed for other businesses in the area. This criterion IS met. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed variance is not 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 this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the GC: General Commercial District. It is possible that future tenants in the building complex may seek their own variance. Each application would be evaluated on its own merits. 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. Not allowing additional may negatively impact the applicant’s business. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 21- 66 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 wall signage maximum. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-66 from Cole Stoneman for a variance from Section 5.8.7.A.2.a of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for an additional 14.6 square feet of signage above the maximum square footage available.  Planning Memo Comments Summary ARB 21-66 5920 E. Main St. DEADLINE: 10/15/21 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 No Comment LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Based upon the previous lessor using a similar sign in the same spot, I can see a strong argument to justify the variance. I don’t mind increasing the size of the sign and allowing for a variance. Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost However, I am worried that signs from future tenants might be affected by this variance. I anticipate a problem with the new lessors as building managers lease the empty suites and new tenants make similar request for a sign variance. Is the space large enough to allow for a variance for all tenants? 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 No Comment 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  NOTIFICATION LETTERS CHERRY KENNETH W AND FARMINGTON, NM 87402- GERALDINE F 5809 PLAZA DR 8215 COLE CHARLES P AND NADINE M 2020 N 21ST PL PHOENIX, AZ 85006 COLE CHARLES P AND NADINE M 2020 N 21ST PL PHOENIX, AZ 85006 FOUR CORNERS COMMUNITY 500 W MAIN ST STE BANK 101 FARMINGTON, NM 87401 FULLER GLEN AND REBECCA TRUST 6990 FOOTHILLS DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 3602 COLGATE HOAGLUND GLEN AND JESSICA AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87402 MELLOY BROTHERS MOTOR LTD ALBUQUERQUE, NM CO LLC 7701 LOMAS NE 87110 SHYAMA LLC 5915 E MAIN ST FARMINGTON, NM 87402 ZIEMS FORD CORNERS INC 5700 E MAIN ST FARMINGTON, NM 87402