Village of Los Lunas Planning & Zoning Agendas

MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2016 The Village of Los Lunas Planning & Zoning Commission met in their regular session on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 6:00 pm in the Village Council Chambers. Members present were as follows: Commissioners David Crawford, Terry Ulibarri, Stephanie Williams, Frank Vigil & Walter Baca. Staff members present were Christina Ainsworth, Community Development Director, Erin Callahan, Special Project Planner & Marie Marquez and Recording Secretary. Members of the public present were as follows: Bryan Willis. Jerene Willis, Shannon Gibby, Stephen Gibby, Rebecca Newport, Jim Jaynes, Berinda G. Jaynes, Attorney Larry Guggino, Village Attorney & Adolph Lopez, Building Inspector! Code Enforcement Supervisor. The Meeting was called to order by: Chairman Stephanie Williams APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner, Frank Vigil made a motion to approve the agenda, Commissioner Walter Baca seconded the motion. Everyone voted yes, motion carried. SWEARING OF PARTICIPANTS AGENDA ITEMS: ZONE CHANGE Rebecca Newport - VARIANCE Stephen & Shannon Gibby — ITEM 1- ZONE CHANGE - Rebecca Newport Chairman S. Williams introduced Item 1- The purpose of this commission is to have a public hearing and to recommend to Council approval or disapproval of this Zone Change submitted by Rebecca Newport. Erin Callahan was called up to present the item. Rebecca Newport, acting on behalf of Huning Limited Liability Partnership has applied for a zone change from C-i to SU for the property located in Parcel C-2, Section 20, Township 7N, R2E, NMPM, Village of Los Lunas. It is 1.2003 acres with the physical location of 340 Los Cerritos Rd. NW, for the purpose of allowing an entertainment facility to include a party center with a miniature golf course. Currently it is owned by Huning Limited Liability Partnership, but it is in the process of being purchased by Serendipity Incorporated. The surrounding zoning and land use to west and south are both C-i Commercial, to the north is SU Zoning, Village water retention pond. To the east is also SU zoning, which is a State of NM property. The future land use for this area is projected to continue to be commercial to the west & south and there is higher density residential to the north currently on the other side of the Village drainage pond. However, the extension of a commercial use miniature golf facility will still be consistent with the current development for this area. There are no current plans to convert the drainage pond into a higher density housing. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 100 feet of this proposed location on February t4 h and the original staff report states that we have received no letters or phone calls in opposition of this request, however, today we received one letter of opposition by Los Lunas Investors, LLC and has been included in your packets. This opposition is not to the use, but to the location of the driveway into the property. The owners are concerned that there may be a traffic flow issue created with the driveway on the south side of the property and would prefer to see a driveway entrance on the north side. However, our public works director, Michael Jaramillo has responded to this concern. He feels there would not be a traffic flow issue and has approved the site plan with the driveway as is. The Community Development Department reviewed this case in a staff meeting on February 23. The applicant is seeking to establish a miniature golf course with a small indoor party center. The property is zoned C-i which allows for the party center but not for the miniature golf course which is only allowed in the SU zone, so the applicant is seeking to rezone to SU which will allow for both uses. The applicant was asked to submit an updated site plan to show more information, since the first one did not meet further standards for changes to a special use zone. This is because the change to a special use zone, if zone change is approved, that also constitutes an approval of the site plan. The items that were addressed were: the need for additional parking spaces, need to confirm that the Village pond to the north is adequate to house the drainage that would be required for this new facility, to add landscaping and show the location for the dumpster and show the retaining wall that will be constructed to the north boundary of the site, in order to backfill the part that is right now serving as the southern edge of the drainage pond. Ms. Newport has responded to all of these comments with her updated site plan. In regards to the dumpster location, Michael Jaramillo has provided comments on the dumpster location as well. The Planning & Zoning Commission is able to recommend the approval of the zone change to SU and the Erin commented that recommendation of approval is also a recommendation to approve the site plan itself. The Commission can either recommend approval of the site plan with no changes or can be approved provided that comments are addressed prior to the Council Hearing which is next week, or that the plan is not approved. Community Development Department recommends that the plan be approved pending the change to the dumpster location as well as any other comments that the commission feels would be necessary to address before final approval. Erin was open for any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner F. Vigil asked about the signs/lighting. Erin said, the sign issue was discussed prior to this meeting and the applicant has agreed to place a free standing sign temporarily. Ms. Newport will address the lighting and other issues. There were no further questions. Rebecca Newport, applicant came up and gave a brief summary of her proposed plan. She said, she was a resident of Los Lunas, and there is not much of anything for kids to do here, so she said, there is not much of an alternative for kids to do much of anything, but no center for kids to have birthday parties or anything like that. They need to keep jobs and revenue here in the Village. She said, the miniature golf course would be a (9) hole golf course and 3 party rooms 1000 sq. feet. If approved she would like to see construction starting at the end of this month. She is waiting for drawings to send to Adolph for permits needed. Commissioner W. Baca asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Newport replied with the hours of operation as a template to get started. In the summer it would be open till 11:00 pm and 10:00 am for the , weekends. Off season time October March perhaps 6 or 7 and weekends till about 11:00 p.m. — Commissioner W. Baca inquired about the music? Will there be loud music? Ms. Newport said, it shouldn’t be loud music and of course any nuisance regulations will be followed. There will be some background music but nothing beyond their premises. She explained the lighting to the the commissioners. Commissioner D. Crawford questioned the water use. Ms. Newport replied, there will be ample lighting and no water usage. Ms. Newport said, she will use artificial landscaping. Total area is about 3000 sq. feet total. There were no public comments for or against. Chairman called for a motion to recommend to Council approval of this zone change. Commissioner W. Baca made a motion to recommend approval of this zoning based on the approval and recommendations of the Community Development Dept. Findings are that it is in conformance with the review criteria of the Village of Los Lunas Municpal Code as reflected on the staff report and other criteria that staff identifies from the plan. Commissioner T. Ulibarri seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor, motion carried. ITEM 2 -VARIANCE - Stephen & Shannon Gibby Chairman S. Williams introduced Item 2- The purpose of this commission is to have a public hearing and to approve or disapprove this Variance submitted by Stephen & Shannon Gibby. Chairman S. Williams called on Erin to give the background and rational of this request. Erin approached the podium. She said, this is an application for a Variance. The location of this property is 1946 Camino Rustica SW in the Rancho Valencia Subdivision. The request is for a Variance to allow a shade structure and what is being proposed is, that they continue to retain a shade structure that is currently built in their site setback. The owners are Stephen & Shannon Gibby who are representing themselves. The notice to property owners was mailed on February 4 t h and the Community Development Department has received no letters or phone calls in opposition of this request. The surrounding land use is entirely R-1 residential and the expected future land use is entirely single family residential. The applicant is requesting a variance for the purpose of allowing a shade structure to remain within their site setbacks. The basis of their request i.e the hardship that would allow the granting of the variance. There is a hill in their backyard that prohibits the construction of a shade structure that would conform to the Village zoning regulations. Community Development Department reviewed this case in a staff meeting on February 23, 2016. The owners of the property erected a wooden shade structure in 2014 without a building permit. The structure is located in their side yard setback and is built up to their property line, and is also greater than 120 sq ft. which means they should of acquired a building permit. The municipal code permits the location of accessory structures within the side yard if, they comply with the side setbacks and the side restrictions as outlined within. The applicant applied for a building permit after construction of the structure, and it was denied due to nonconformity with the village zoning regulations. Additionally, the shade structure is 5 ft. from the neighboring residence. The building code requires a separation distance of 10 ft. between structures for fire prevention. A zoning variance may be granted, if the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship for the property owner and the owners argued, that the steep hill in their backyard which starts approximately 30 ft from the rear wall of their house is a hardship that prevents a shade structure from being constructed in their rear yard. The approval of variances is governed by the municipal code in section 17.20.0 10 and a variance may be granted if the following 5 conditions are met. This is how a hardship is determined. Erin read the conditions and staff comments. (1) If applicant complies strictly with the provisions of this title & can make no reasonable use of his property. (staff comments are, the property is being used as a single family residential home, not having a shade structure does not impact the reasonable use of the property as a residential home. Additionally, the applicant has a large rear yard that would accommodate a shade structure even with the hill). (2) The hardship relates to the applicant’s land rather than personal circumstances. (The applicant constructed the shade structure without obtaining a building permit in an area that is not permitted, this is not the condition of the land, although the hill the applicant is referring to is the condition of the land, it does not prohibit the construction of a shade structure in a permissible area). (3) The hardship is unique rather than one shared by many surrounding properties. (no, the hill is shared by all the properties on their block at least 6 additional properties have a similar hill). (4) the hardship is not the result of the applicants own actions. (The necessity for a variance for the shade structure is a result of the applicants actions namely not obtaining a building permit prior to constructing the structure, as stated previously, the rear yard is quite large and would accommodate a shade structure). (5) The variances would not resolve the extension of the nonconforming structure. (no, the shade structure does not meet the zoning regulations and a variance would permit a nonconforming situation to continue) Images of the shade structure were shown on the screen. Based on all these conditions and of the criteria for a granting of a variance for hardship, Staff does not feel that the application does not meet any of those criterias, Community Development Department recommends denial of this Variance. Erin was ready to answer any questions. Chairman S. Williams asked about the residence next door. Erin asked that Adolph Lopez be called up to answer those questions. Adolph Lopez, Code Enforcement Supervisor / Building Inspector was called to answer questions related to this application. He said, the residence next door was not occupied yet. Commissioner W. Baca asked Adolph if that roof was going to drain into the other yard. Adolph’s reply was, that the roof of that structure is of Lattice so it shouldn’t be an issue. Commissioner D. Crawford asked, was it because of the space between? Adolph’s reply was, the reason the building permit was denied was that it didn’t meet the setbacks required. Adolph told the commissioners that in the Rancho Valencia Subdivision on the westside did come in for a zoning variance for the whole subdivision for a separation of a 5 yd in R- 1 zone. He said, our standard zone is 7 2V ft in the R- 1 zone, but the developer did come in because he was having issues due to the size of the lot, so he requested a variance for a 5 ft. setback & P & Z and the Council did approve it for a 5 yd. setback. Now it doesn’t meet the setbacks, it has a 10 ft. fire buffer separation between structures. Chairman S. Williams asked if they came in now to ask for the bldg. permit? Adolph said, when his Code Enforcement Officer did the rounds the structure was already up and so a violation notice was sent for illegal construction; after that they came in for a permit. That’s when it was denied. Chairman S. Williams asked Adolph what resolution could there be if any? Adolph said, he would consider this an accessory structure except that it is attached. If you read our ordinance it states that an accessory structure should have a 10 ft. setback from any other structure. So there’s no way they can meet that setback. Stephen & Shannon Gibby applicants came up. Stephen had some additional documents he gave to the commissioners. He said, they closed on the home at the end of August of 2014. The structure was started in March of 2015. At that time there were no residents living on neither side. The shade structure is intended for their dog so they have a place to get out. What Mr. & Mrs. Gibby did was go around the neighborhood Camelot, Los Cerritos, Huning Ranch. We saw a lot of these structures, so his father- in -law and himself started building one. They didn’t think they needed a building permit since there was no water or power usage. As soon as we were notified, we did go in to apply for a building permit, it was rejected out of hand. We were given about 5 different reasons, every time we went in it was different. The first time it was because it was greater than 120 sq. feet. It’s actually two different structures, one in the front and then a gap by the window on the side to allow an access in case of a fire and then the large one in front it’s not 120 sq. ft. it’s 117 sq. ft. When we mentioned that we reduced the size of the back one . to be less than 120 sq. ft. they told us, no it’s not acceptable. Then we started discussing the rules for setbacks actually given to us by Code Enforcement. He went over with them with the Commissioners. He said, if our structure is not attached to the house in any way, there is a gap of 4”. Christina intervened by clarifying that statement. She said, if it is detached it must be 10 ft. away even if it’s not physically attached. He said, he took 17 pictures of the different structures around the Village of Los Lunas. If all of these were permitted then we would think it’s arbitration of reinforcement of the law and considered discrimination. There is 3 similar structures and there’s no problem with them. Chairman S. William asked the Gibbys if they understood the fire issue? He said, we do, he said there is one very similar to ours on 561 Angel Loop which is next to the house and next to a tree which to me constitutes a greater fire hazard. There is another on 450 Angel Loop & actually covered with trees and all vegetation is dead and a greater fire hazard. We didn’t realize we needed a building permit. Chairman S. Williams asked Mr. Gibby if their restricted covenants addressed this issue at all? Mr. Gibby said, they do but we have to get it approved by the designing review committee, so when my wife contacted Officer Jess Weston he told her that we could come in and apply for a building permit, that it could be approved because it’s over 120 sq. ft. and as long as they had prior approval from the design committee they’ll approve the building permit. At that time the design committee said, no, you have to have a building permit before we can approve the structure, so it’s a catch 22 the entire time. Erin Callahan was open for questions from staff, but there were no further questions. Chairman S. Williams called for public comments for or against this request! Jerene Willis neighbor across the street came up. She said, they went over to congratulate them on how nice their structure was. Bernardo Ordio also came up he lives east of the subject property. He said, he was a firemen some time back and he said, in no way is it a fire hazard. He said, the structure is a credit to the area and sees no problem. Christina read the regulations & requirements for hardship variance and apparently none of them have been met. Larry Guggino, Village Attorney approached the podium and told the public, everyone needs to understand the uniqueness that necessitates the needs for the variance. He said, it is the use of the property with respect to the zone that has been applied to the property. Ex: the use of this property is residential R- 1 & the side setbacks is 5 ft instead of 7 2 V ft, so the issue is, that has to be decided, can this property due to its size and due to the hill still be used as residential property? If the answer is due to the size of the lot and due to the hill it couldn’t be used as a residential piece of property, then a variance would maybe be in order, but in this case, the property is already being used as a residential property. That is what variances mean. Variances do not deal with accessory uses of building, or properties, or zones. They deal with primary uses. The primary use of this property is residential. The question in this case is is this — building an accessory bldg..? If it is, it can’t be closer than 10 ft. so we know this isn’t an accessory building in the sense of the definition of the setbacks because it’s closer than 10 ft. to the house. So it’s not a detached accessory building because it’s within 10 ft. so its part of the , building. Variances aren’t granted for what landowners do to create the need for the variance, it has to be created based on the land itself. Mr. Guggino told the commissioners that the question that must be asked is: Is this property of such a shape that they can’t use it for it’s designed use without the grant of variance and that’s when you answer the 5 questions. In this case under our Ordinance, this is considered part of the house, it’s not considered an accessory bldg., because it just doesn’t meet the setbacks. Commissioner Frank Vigil asked Christina if this had to go to Council? She said, Planning & Zoning makes the final decision. He then asked if this is denied, what are the options? She said, there is an appeal process, but couldn’t answer the procedures right then. It can either go to Council or District Court, but she will find the steps to do that and let the applicant know. Commissioner T. Ulibarri thanked Larry Guggino for all the information, but he said, I think we got off track. He said, what we have here tonight is a beautiful structure, well built for dogs, neighbors love it, I think it’s great. However, our ordinance states that you had to come in and first of all apply for a permit, they didn’t do it. Secondly, the setbacks have to be in this case 5 ft. on each side, they didn’t comply, now he’s coming in for a variance. We have no alternative to go by the ordinance. He must take that down, he said, we cannot grant a variance. The house is fine, his property is fine, yes he has a hill out there but he will have to deal with it. We can’t be granting variances because he’s got a hill back there, we can’t let him get by because he is right on the property line. If there is a fire, whose going to be paying for that? In the City, we have an ordinance we must comply with and the ordinance states: The building code requires a separation distance of 10 ft between structures for fire prevention, based on that, Commissioner T. Ulibarri was ready to make a motion. Chairman S. Williams called for a motion. Commissioner T. Ulibarri made a motion to deny this Variance for all the reasons that our Code Enforcement Officer supports & all the reviews he’s gone through. Commissioner D. Crawford seconded the motion. 4 Commissioners voted for the denial, Commissioner F. Vigil voted that perhaps it should not be denied and requested more information as to why the variance was previously approved for the developer. The vote was 4 to 1 to deny the Variance. Chairman S Williams told Mr. Gibby that there was an appeal process, and he could contact the Village for the procedure to do that. ITEM 2— APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Minutes of 1/20/16 Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to approve the minutes for January 20, 2016. The minutes were tabled due to a couple of corrections. Commissioner D. Crawford made a motion to table the minutes until the next meeting. Commissioner F. Vigil seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ITEM 3- DISCUSSION Community Development Activity Report Christina gave an update on some of the activities — that will be taking place in the Village such as the construction at the transportation center, the tree that was placed at the interchange. The construction should not take more than 4 months. Commissioner W Baca made a comment that notification was not given. Christina apologized, she said it happened really fast. She also told the commissioners that Council did vote to move forward with the negotiation of buying the mobile home park as well as the 5 acre property that’s between the transportation area and Los Lentes. That is intended to provide another access to the transportation center at a future date. They are starting a little shopping center in front of home depot as well, and they are still working to recruit someone to the Merrilatt building, they are close to making a decision. Planet Fitness Gym is also going up behind Buffalo Wild Wings, Freddie’s Burgers is in the works. Adolph gave them a little briefing on the Casa de Pizza building. Code Enforcement — Commissioner S. Williams made a statement that maybe more education should be given out to the public like PNM don’t dig before you call. Commissioner T. Ulibarri also brought up the fact that sometime back someone built a porch next to LL Elementary and had to tear it down because the setbacks were not met. He said, if they go to district court, the judge is going to go by the comments you make. The judge makes his findings according to what is done here by the commission as well as the minutes. We need to update all ordinances. Commissioner F. Vigil complimented Code Enforcement officers, he said they are always out there and they are nice to work with, they have a tough job to do. The Fire Station Bond also went through, so they will be building another Fire Station most likely in the Business Park area on the westside. ITEM 4- ADJOURNMENT Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner F. Vigil made a motion to c adjourn. Commi sion.r W. Baca seconded the motion. Everyone voted yes, motion carried. Stephànie Williams, Clairman Frank V il/o oner David Crawford, Commissioner VIalter Baca, Commissioner 7 — - Terryiarri, Commissioner [ U