A G E N D A - fmtn.org

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.

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board

City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM

October 7, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.

1. Call Meeting to Order

2. Approval of the Agenda

3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from June 3, 2021

4. Petition No. ARB 21-55 – 3105 N. Sunset Ave. - a request from Steven Merrell, represented by Bill Anglin, for a variance to Section 5.3.3.C of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to install a circular driveway with a new driveway cut on W. 35th Street.

5. Petition No. ARB 21-59 – 1605 El Redonda Cir. - a request from Letha Hart,

represented by Robert Sherman, for a variance to allow encroachment into the required side yard setback for a new porch (south side) and awning (west side).

6. Discussion Regarding Site Visits

7. Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff:

8. Adjournment

Meeting Minutes Administrative Review Board

June 3, 2021

The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, June 3, 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

Shorty Rogers

Members Absent: None Staff Present: Beth Escobar

David Sypher Elizabeth Sandoval

Others Addressing the Board: Russell Hanscom

Gary Torres Dennis Williams

Victoria Torres Russel Hatch Mark Sewell

Brian McCarty Carl Winters

Alvaro Cordova Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair James 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 Martin and seconded by Vice Chair Erickson to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Swearing of Interested Parties All interested parties that wished to speak at this meeting were sworn in by Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant. Approval of the Minutes from the April 8, 2021 Regular Meetings Board Member Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2021 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Erickson and passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Adoption of a Resolution Setting and Establishing a Regular Meeting Day, Time and Place for the Administrative Review Board

Chair Dennis made a motion to adopt the Resolution Setting and Establishing a Regular Meeting Day, Time and Place for the Administrative Review Board. The motion was seconded by Board Member Martin and passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Petition ARB 21-32 – 8201 San Lucas Court Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request

• Petitioner is Aaron Rasmussen, property owner • Variance from Section 2.5.2.D of the 2021 Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow for

an accessory structure 27.5 feet in height at the mid-roof line within the building footprint. • Maximum height for an accessory structure within the building envelope is 20 feet. • Zoning is RE-2: Residential Estates • Structure is 7,200 square feet • Approximately 75 feet side setback and 220 foot rear setback • Elevation for the accessory structure is approximately 30 feet lower than the house

Vicinity/Zoning Map

Aerial Map of Subject Property

Photo of Property

Staff Analysis • 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.

• 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.

• 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.

Criteria #4: Harmony with the Neighborhood

• 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.

Site Plan

Public Input

• Affected Parties • Hanscom • Torres • Eisenfield

• Interested Parties • Williams • Sartin

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 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.

Discussion: Chair Dennis asked if this application meets the criteria of the code then why is a variance needed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it meets 6 of the 7 criteria, but does not comply with criteria 4, Harmony of the Neighborhood. Chair Dennis asked if there are covenants. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she believed that there are deed restrictions that Cedar Ridge originally started in San Juan County and was then annexed into the City of Farmington; there have been two major plats and several replats to subdivide properties. Chair Dennis asked if this meets the zoning of this district. Planning Manager Escobar stated that we are here to hear the request for a variance for the increase in the height and the City of Farmington does not regulate deeds or covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R). Chair Dennis asked how we know that the height of the structure is correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there is a building permit on file and that Derrick Childers, Chief Building Official, has verified the height of the structure. Chair Dennis asked if there is a design for the structure. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is a metal building that the applicant pre-ordered and the metal building was pre-ordered before the applicant knew about the height restriction. Planning Manager Escobar called to see if Dr. Rasmussen was in attendance. Dr. Rasmussen was not in attendance. Planning Manager Escobar stated to the Board that Dr. Rasmussen was notified of the meeting time and place. Chair Dennis asked if there was a representative for Dr. Rasmussen present. Planning Manager Escobar asked the audience if there was a representative for Dr. Rasmussen present. There was not. Chair Dennis asked if there were any interested parties in attendance that would like to speak. Russell Hansom, 8300 San Lucas Court, asked the board if any of the members had visited or were familiar with the site of the proposed application. Chair Dennis stated that site visits are not something the board typically does. Mr. Hanscom stated that he is not in favor of the application from Dr. Rasmussen, stating that he does not believe that the changes proposed are minor but are a major change, the building is out of character and is not listed as a commercial building, but with a building that size, it could

become a building for commercial use. Mr. Hanscom read a letter he received, that he believes was sent by Dr. Rasmussen, see letter below:

Mr. Hanscom stated that he believes that letter was sent by the applicant, Dr. Rasmussen, and believes that the applicant intends to complete this project one way or another. Mr. Hanscom stated that the proposed building has been on site for a year and the roads have also been partially blocked for a year. The applicant lists access to the building through their lot from the south; however access is from San Lucas Court. Mr. Hanscom stated that he would rather look at a 7,200 square foot house rather than a metal building. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Hanscom if he had direct site lines of the applicant’s property from his property. Mr. Hanscom stated that he does. Mr. Hanscom stated that there is not a house built yet at 8300 San Lucas Court and that he currently lives to the east of the applicant and can see the proposed structure from his current residence. Chair Dennis asked if Mr. Eisenfeld was in attendance. Mr. Hanscom stated that Mr. Eisenfeld was not in attendance, but that he had sent a letter. See letter below:

Gary Torres, 5101 Cordoba Way, stated that the residents are not objecting to a recreational shop being built, but that the residents would like the building to be built to the 20 feet height requirement. Mr. Torres stated that the proposed specification of 30 feet in height is not a minimal easing of the code. Mr. Torres then stated that looking at the map it appears that the structure is in front of his house and according to the code, accessory structures cannot be placed in the front yard. Mr. Torres stated if Dr. Rasmussen could get 23-24 feet to the peak it’s manageable for a family time. Mr. Torres then referenced the letter that was sent by Dr. Rasmussen, stating that Dr. Rasmussen did not sign the letter, but sent the letter on his dental office letterhead. Mr. Torres then stated that he felt that other buildings in the neighborhood should not be used for the justification of this variance. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Planning Division does not use other properties in comparison when the Administrative Review Board is reviewing a variance. This is the reason other properties were not mentioned. Mr. Torres stated that he does not understand what Dr. Rasmussen is trying to do with a 27.5 feet building and the proposed building is just too much for the neighborhood. Chair Dennis asked Planning Manager Escobar if the proposed building was pre-engineered and the applicant purchased the building before realizing the height issue. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Chair Dennis stated that when pre-engineered buildings are purchased typically there is an eave height and if he had known about the height issue earlier he may have changed the building to make it flat and not pitched. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the property slopes down and there is a wash where the property flattens out. The slope from the existing house, the difference in elevation from where the accessory structure is to be placed is about 30 feet. Chair Dennis asked if the 30 feet was from finished floor to finished floor or top of roof to top of roof. Planning Manager Escobar stated it was from top of roof to top of roof. Planning Manager Escobar then stated that for clarification, Mr. Torres had mentioned the front yard, Dr. Rasmussen’s house is addressed to San Lucas Court, the City of Farmington defines the front

yard as what is in the setback, which is 50 feet. The code does not say that an accessory structure cannot be in the front of the house only that it cannot be in the front yard setback. Mr. Torres referenced the 30 foot drop, stating that the surrounding property is the same elevation as the proposed structure, should the surrounding property be developed, the structure will be in view. Chair Dennis stated that future homes could be oriented to avoid the view of the structure. Chair Dennis asked if there were any other interested parties that would like to speak. Dennis Williams, 5290 Cordoba Way, referenced the letter that Dr. Rasmussen sent; stating that he felt the letter was a threat to his neighbors. Mr. Williams then stated that his second concern was traffic in the neighborhood, stating that he felt the proposed structure would be used as a club for off season training, where there would not be just a couple kids coming over, but rather having a whole team come over for practice. Mr. Williams stated that traffic is limited in the area and there have been many accidents. Mr. Williams stated that when he looks out onto his back porch he sees an RV parked on Mr. Rasmussen’s property. Mr. Williams stated that the views of the mountains are not necessarily blocked, but the view of the mesas will be blocked. The road proposed from the property to the proposed structure does not exist at this time. Mr. Williams stated the proposed structure was purchased and asked if the variance was applied for by Dr. Rasmussen over a year ago. Planning Manager Escobar stated Dr. Rasmussen originally applied for a variance in March of 2020, just as the pandemic started, with the thought that his children would not be able to participate in sports during the pandemic. At the time letters were sent out for a variance on the height and the size, this was before the regulations were changed. There was the same amount of public input regarding the application at that time and Dr. Rasmussen chose to withdraw his application, therefore it was not presented to the Administrative Review Board. This April of 2021, Dr. Rasmussen reapplied for the variance for the height. Mr. Williams stated that Dr. Rasmussen knew there was a height requirement, bought the building in and placed it there. Mr. Williams stated that he felt that Dr. Rasmussen feels like the rules do not apply to him. Mr. Williams stated that north Foothills is a quiet neighborhood and a quiet space, I feel that the building represents the neighborhood. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Williams if he sold Dr. Rasmussen his property. Mr. Williams stated that he did not. Chair Dennis asked if there are restrictions in the area of the property. Mr. Williams stated that there are covenants, but there is not an active Homeowners Association. Chair Dennis asked, is there something in writing that says you cannot build detached buildings on your property? Mr. Williams stated that he does not know and is looking into that.

Planning Manager Escobar stated that there is a letter from Mr. Gary Sartin quoting the covenants. See letter below:

Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mr. Sartin refers to San Juan County zoning regulations in his letter and as we know, San Juan County does not have any zoning regulations. Board Member Martin stated that the City of Farmington does not have anything to do with covenants, which would be a civil matter. Board Member Martin asked Mr. Williams if there was a house on the Hanscom lot. Mr. Williams stated that there is not. Victoria Torres, 5101 Cordoba Way, stated that Dr. Rasmussen claims that she cannot see the proposed structure from her house, but she can. Mrs. Torres stated that her biggest issue is her driveway, entering from Cordoba Way, our driveway meets Dr. Rasmussen’s driveway, adding additional traffic that are going to use this proposed building, we do often have to dodge traffic

as it is, the driveway is a big issue. Mrs. Torres added that she does not see how a gravel road can be added by Dr. Rasmussen’s house because Dr. Rasmussen’s house is off a cliff and it is impossible, unless a big road is made off of San Lucas Court. Mrs. Torres stated that Dr. Rasmussen thinks the front of his house is the back of his house, the front of his house faces San Lucas Court. Chair Dennis asked Mrs. Torres if her house was there before Dr. Rasmussen. Mrs. Torres stated that her house was built in 1977 and that Dr. Rasmussen’s house was built around 2012 or 2013. Mrs. Torres stated that it is aggravating because of the driveway and the possible increase of traffic with the proposed structure. Mrs. Torres stated that Dr. Rasmussen tends to tell a lot of stories and that everything is conflicting. Mrs. Torres stated that she does not know how the City of Farmington can change the rules for Dr. Rasmussen and say that it is alright for him to build a 7,200 square foot building. Mrs. Torres asked if people’s front yards are facing the street. Chair Dennis stated that the criterion is wherever your home is addressed off of is your front yard and that Dr. Rasmussen cannot be in his front yard setback, but he is well beyond that. Chair Dennis stated that Dr. Rasmussen does have 7 acres of property and when he purchased his property he probably anticipated building on his property. We do not have a call in whether you like the way your neighbor’s house looks. Mrs. Torres stated that she is upset with the City of Farmington because the requirements were changed and does not see how the rules could be changed and not let anyone know. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mrs. Torres is referring to changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) and the City of Farmington had nine months of public hearings in regards to changes to the UDC. These public hearings were published on the City of Farmington’s website, in the Daily Times, all the agendas were published on the City of Farmington’s website as well. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Dr. Rasmussen did not either comment or participate in the change to the UDC; it was other property owners of large and small properties who were trying to fit what they wanted to do on their land that participated. The change to the UDC was posted in the newspaper for 30 days and the City Council then took action on the UDC changes. Mrs. Torres stated that she still thinks that Dr. Rasmussen should not be allowed to build this big building in his front yard. Mrs. Torres stated that Dr. Rasmussen will now probably want his neighbors to pay for something that he wants to do. Mrs. Torres then stated that Dr. Rasmussen involved everybody, put a lot of anxiety upon everybody and then did not show up to this meeting. Planning Manager Escobar stated to Chair Dennis that if there aren’t any more comments from the public, she could give him some options to move forward. Mr. Martin stated that he wanted to make a comment and then stated that he would like to wait. Planning Manager Escobar stated to Chair Dennis that he could now close the public comment and have discussion among the board. Chair Dennis asked if there were any other interested parties that would like to speak.

Mr. Torres stated that he would like to say that Mr. Eisenfeld’s property is on the slope. Mr. Torres stated that he would just like to have the 20 foot code enforced. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mr. Eisnefeld’s letter is in the packet. Board Member Martin stated that Dr. Rasmussen has stated that the road improvements would have to be paid for by Dr. Rasmussen’s neighbors. Board Member Martin stated that he objects to that stipulation and believes that road improvements in that neighborhood would need a road improvements district to be in place and that each person abutting the improvements for the road would participate in that improvements district and each individual would pay their share to develop that street. Board Member Martin stated that he does not think that the City of Farmington would want to do a paving improvement district in the near future, so a subdivision improvement district would be warned by each individual homeowner. Planning Member Escobar stated that when Dr. Rasmussen withdrew his first variance request, shortly after Dr. Rasmussen submitted a summary plat to subdivide the proposed lot into two lots. When the Planning Division reviewed the summary plat, Dr. Rasmussen was given a list of improvements that would be required, which included pavement of the street, sidewalk and gutter, installation of water and wastewater. Dr. Rasmussen was told that he has the option to go before City Council and ask for a public improvement district, an action that is driven by City Council. David Sypher, Community Works Director, stated that the one clarification and unique circumstance that had not been brought up is that the properties that line the road have already signed a No Protest LID (Local Improvement District). Mr. Sypher stated that what that means is that a previous owner, as well as current owners, being that the agreement runs with the land, in exchange for not having to build the road at the time, promised that they would not protest an improvement district. This means with a new person doing a subdivision it would trigger having to put in a road and by doing so they would go to City Council and already have a petition with five out of the six participants’ agreement to pay their fair share. Planning Manager Escobar stated to Chair Dennis that without the applicant being present, the Board does have the option to table the petition. Chair Dennis asked that if Dr. Rasmussen decides to subdivide his property, is that what is going to trigger a subdivision improvement district, which has already been basically agreed to. Planning Manager Escobar stated that when Dr. Rasmussen submitted his summary plat, that did trigger the improvement requirements. Dr. Rasmussen was then advised that he could then go to Council to pursue the public improvement district and that there was already more than 50% participation. Planning Manager Escobar also stated that if Dr. Rasmussen does not pursue the public improvements district at this time it does not revoke the previous obligation from the property owners. Chair Dennis called for Board discussion. Board Member Martin stated that whether the petitioner is here or not he thinks the staff has put this presentation together well and he would lean more to the people being here to make a decision. Chair Dennis stated that he knows that it is difficult when you have a big open space and open view and then someone wants to put a building in there. The open space does belong to

someone else and it is allowed, but then also affects your neighbors view. Our only issue is can this proposed building have a variance for the height. Board Member Martin asked under RE2 what is the maximum number of lots that can be placed on 7 acres. Planning Manager Escobar stated that three would be the maximum, unless you had a good engineer, you could possibly do four. Chair Dennis stated under Criteria #4, he feels that he would have a hard time agreeing that criteria is not being met. The safety concerns regarding traffic, those should have been taken care of when the sites were developed originally. Vice Chair Erickson stated that he believes that part of Criteria #4 is to be in harmony with the neighborhood and that this is the neighborhood, referring the audience. Vice Chair Erickson stated that none of the other neighbors have a building like that and for Dr. Rasmussen, he looks out his door and the proposed structure does not obstruct his view. Vice Chair Erickson stated that he feels that placing the structure does not meet the criteria, it is not in harmony. Vice Chair Erickson stated that it would be different if Dr. Rasmussen was in attendance and had a neighbor who supported him, but that all his neighbors are here and are in opposition. Chair Dennis stated that he appreciates the comments from Vice Chair Erickson, but the Board does not have a say in what type of building a person puts in their backyard and how good it looks. We do not have the luxury to say that we do not think it is right to put a metal building in your backyard. Mr. Williams stated that there is an issue and a requirement for height. The City does have a requirement for height; the height is what is going to make this building unusual. The size of the building is tiny compared to 7 acres; the height is a huge difference. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Williams if he would be in objection if the proposed building had a flat roof. Mr. Williams stated if the roof was a 20 foot flat roof, then it would be within the City requirements. Mr. Williams stated that now that the rules and regulations have changed the size is no longer the issue. Mr. Williams stated that he is concerned about the height and he does not think that any of the kids are going to the NBA or are going to play professional volleyball; a 20 foot ceiling is adequate. Mr. Williams stated that the height is what bothers him. Vice Chair Erickson asked if there is an opportunity to build the proposed structure below grade. Chair Dennis stated that yes, but we are not here to design a building for Dr. Rasmussen. It is possible to find a design solution and it could be done. Vice Chair Erickson stated that he agrees that it is not the Board's place to suggest designs. Planning Manager Escobar asked Board Member Rogers if he had any comments. Board Member Rogers stated that he thought that if he lived in Dr. Rasmussen’s neighborhood he would be in opposition.

Chair Dennis stated that the Board has the option to table this application or could have a vote on it. Board Member Martin asked what the outcome is if there is a tie vote. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there is nothing specific about a tie vote in the UDC, it would be a determination of the City Attorney. The motion would be stated a tie vote, not approved, not denied and Dr. Rasmussen would have the opportunity to have the application reheard. Board Member Martin made a motion to TABLE Petition ARB 21-32, a request from Aaron Rasmussen, property owner, 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, to be heard at the July 8, 2021 ARB meeting where Dr. Rasmussen would need to be present. The motion was seconded by Board Member Rogers. The vote was tied 2-2, the motion failed.

AYE: Board Member Martin, Board Member Rogers NAY: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to DENY Petition ARB 21-32, a request from Aaron Rasmussen, property owner, 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. The motion was seconded by Board Member Rogers. The vote was tied 2-2, the motion failed.

AYE: Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Rogers NAY: Chair Dennis, Board Member Martin ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

Board Member Martin made a motion to APPROVE Petition ARB 21-32, a request from Aaron Rasmussen, property owner, 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. The motion was seconded by Chair Dennis. The vote was tied 2-2, the motion failed.

AYE: Chair Dennis, Board Member Martin NAY: Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Rogers ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

DENIED

Petition ARB 21-32, a request from Aaron Rasmussen, property owner, 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, was DENIED. The petitioner, Dr. Aaron Rasmussen has the 15 days to appeal this decision to City Council. Planning Manager Escobar stated that notices would be sent out to those who received a letter regarding this petition, should an appeal be filed with City Council. ____________________________________________________________________________

Petition ARB 21-34 – 6110 Via Del Oro Drive Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request

• Petitioner is Russel Hatch, property owner • 6110 Via Del Oro Drive • Request is to place a pool and a wall in excess of 3-feet high in the front yard setback • Zoning is RE 1: Residential Estates 1 acre minimum lot • Setback requirements:

• Front: 35 feet • Rear: 30 feet • Interior Side: 15 feet • Street Side: 50 feet

Applicable Code

• 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) 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:

(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 maximum of six feet

Vicinity/Zoning Map


Tuscany Estates Plat

Site Plan

Photo of 6100 Via Del Oro/Wall

(Slide 8)

6110 Via Del Oro

(Slide 9) Alternative Locations

Staff Analysis • 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.

• Through careful design, this lot should be able to accommodate a house and a pool and conform to all regulations.

Public Input

• No public input has been received. 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. Discussion: Board Member Martin asked if the dirt in slide #9 was filled with dirt. Planning Manager Escobar stated that in slide #8 you can see that the property is not as high, so they did fill the property. Chair Dennis asked if on the house that pool is going to be placed, will there be a retaining wall at the lot line, with a 4 foot wall on top of that. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a retaining wall permit has not been obtained. Per Derrick Childers, Chief Building Official, the retaining wall does not have to be in front of the pool at a certain distance, it does have to be a certain height, and it cannot be climbable and must be fully secured. Chair Dennis asked if it would have to be 4 feet in height above the grade. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Chair Dennis asked what is being asked for in this application. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there are two things being asked for, first a variance to put the pool within the front 35 foot required setback and a variance for the height of whatever is used to secure the pool that meets building code. Chair Dennis stated with the design of the house, it looks like the petitioner has used up their building envelope just with the design of the house. Chair Dennis then stated that he assumes that the location of the pool has something important to do with the location of spaces in the house, to make it more usable.

Planning Manager Escobar stated that in Mr. Hatch’s application not only mentions the convenience from the front master bedroom but the views in the front. Chair Dennis opened the discussion for public comment. Russel Hatch, 6110 Via Del Oro Drive, stated that the lot was 300 feet wide and 100 or so feet deep. Mr. Hatch stated that he did take some pictures of the proposed site. See pictures below:

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4

Mr. Hatch stated that when the project first started he knew he was close. Mr. Hatch stated that he has seen this proposed layout in other places, with the entryway in the front side of the house. The east end of the building is back about 10 feet, the house does not sit square with the lot. The pool can be moved back 4 feet or to the east, if that helps. The blocks being used are stacked bricks. There will be fencing at the top, above the grade of the house. Mr. Hatch stated that a permit was issued. The pool could be moved but the current location is ideal. There will be one gate on the west side of the property; the east side will be blocked off. The house is 110 feet from end to end. Mr. Hatch said he did visit with his neighbors on the street and showed them what he was trying to do. Mr. Hatch stated that he would like to request to place a retaining wall in the front and bring it up to the level of the house, place two rows of block above that for the separation wall and slide the pool back against the house as they can. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Hatch if part of his plan is to have a drive through garage. Mr. Hatch stated that is correct. Mr. Hatch stated that he was planning to have guests go around the back of the house through the side, so they wouldn’t have to go through the garage. Chair Dennis asked how much separation Mr. Hatch would be able to get between the pool and the house. Mr. Hatch stated that he was going to try and get at least 3 feet. Mr. Hatch stated that the pool being installed is a fiberglass pool, not a flexible fiberglass. Chair Dennis asked what the dimensions of the pool are. Mr. Hatch stated that the pool is 15x35 or 15x40. Chair Dennis asked how deep the pool is. Mr. Hatch stated that the pool is 7.5 feet in the deep end and tapers up. Chair Dennis stated that his concern is that by having the pool that close to the house, someone may jump off the pool from the house. Board Member Martin asked where the location of picture #3 was. Mr. Hatch stated that the picture is across the street from another house up the street, showing the fence running down the street. This house faces the west. Board Member Martin asked if any of the neighbors were in the room. Mr. Hatch stated that some neighbors, his contractor and his wife were in the room. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Hatch if the pool is installed tight to the house, how much room will there be opposite. Mr. Hatch stated that he thinks he would have about 10 feet from the pool to the wall, possibly a two foot section with gravel for drainage and possibly install pavers. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if the pool is 10 feet back from the wall, which would be at 25 feet a variance would not be needed; 35 feet is a front setback. Planning Manager

Escobar stated that it is up to the board to grant the variance to give Mr. Hatch room to be as far back as possible. Chair Dennis asked if the fence is 25 feet from the property line and the pool is another 10 feet from there, then a variance is not needed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that according to the site plan the line is at 25 feet and if the pool can be moved back 10 feet from that line, Mr. Hatch would be outside of the setback. Mark Sewell, Contractor, stated that the fence is drawn into the setback to line up with the long diamond block fence in picture #2 above, in thought that the walls could be lined up with the 18 feet setback from the street. Planning Manager Escobar stated the reference property is the side and it is addressed off the other side of the street. Board Member Martin asked if the side yard from picture #2 is Mr. Hatch’s front yard. Board Member asked if the property owner met the side yard setback and if in the UDC it states that if a home is on a corner lot there is not a side yard but two front yards. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mr. Hatch does meet the side yard setback and would have to meet the visibility triangle and would have to meet the setback. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she did not issue this permit, but it does look like it is within code. Mr. Sewell stated that the pool can be away from the wall and still be off of the house and will be in the setback, picture #1 shows the pool could have more room if the house is cocked a little. David Sypher, Community Works Director, stated that the space required from the face of the building to the edge of the pool can be 0, if it is within the 35 foot setback, according to the Chief Building Official. Chair Dennis opened the discussion to the public. Brian McCarty, 7631 Tuscany Way, stated that his property is northwest of Mr. Hatch. Mr. McCarty stated that he is neither for nor against this petition. Mr. McCarty stated that he heard that there were no plans submitted yet submitted for the pool, yet Mr. Hatch and Mr. Sewell stated that they cocked the house 10 feet to accommodate the pool, so it sounds like the pool was a plan from the beginning and should have been a consideration with the City of Farmington Building Department. Mr. McCarty stated that he also understands that with his investigation into this project that the front yard setback is 35 feet and the rear setback is 30 feet, and that it is his understanding that the City permitted something less than that for both setbacks beyond the 10% administrative rule that is allowed. Mr. McCarty also stated that he believes administratively the Building Department can do a 10% sign off without the application going to the Planning & Zoning Commission and that this application did not go to the Planning & Zoning Commission and asked why that process was missed. Mr. Hatch also stated that it is his understanding that your front door does not have to face the front of your property and your address is based on your front yard. Mr. McCarty stated that Mr. Hatch’s front door faces north and the front of the house is south. Mr. McCarty stated that the petition is for a pool in the front yard, which is against code and then stated that pool needs to be within the side yard or the rear

setback. Mr. McCarty stated that unless he is incorrect, the discussion about whether the pool fits in the front yard setback or not is irrelevant from the code perspective. Chair Dennis stated that accessory structure cannot be in the setback. Mr. McCarty stated that the accessory structure can be in the rear setback. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the code states that it cannot be in the front yard, the front yard is determined by the setback requirements of 35 feet; the variance request is to put the accessory in the front yard. Planning Manager Escobar stated that pools are allowed by right in the rear 5 feet from the rear and 3 feet from the side. Mr. McCarty stated that he just wants the same codes and requirements applied to all, which is his concern. Mr. McCarty stated that there is a lot of traffic going through the neighborhood and some concerns he has are visibility, wall height and how the code is being applied. Mr. McCarty stated that as he stated before, he is neither for nor against the petition but asked for clarity. Mr. Sypher stated that a fence and retaining wall do have different requirements and what he has seen in the petition is that the retaining wall is 10 feet back from the property line, which will provide for all the site clearance that is needed. Mr. Sewell stated that when he came into the Building Department to pull permits he spoke with Larry McLey, Building Inspector, and asked if the pool was good to be placed and that Mr. McLey stated yes. Mr. Sewell stated that the pool would be a future permit, as well as the retaining wall permit. Board Member Martin asked Mr. Hatch where his front door is in regards to picture #4. Mr. Hatch approached Board Member Martin and showed him in picture #4 where the front door is. Board Member Martin stated that the front door is to the north and that the back door of the house is on the side of the house, the footprint of the house is flipped. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the front yard of the house is determined by the address and when Tuscany Estates was platted, all the lots were addressed. That is how front, rear and side are calculated. Carl Winters approached the podium to speak. Board Member Martin stated that for the record he wanted to state that Mr. Carl Winter has been a previous client of his and they are not currently working on any projects together. Carl Winters, 6112 Via Del Oro Drive, stated that he lives immediately east to where Mr. Hatch is building his house. Mr. Winters stated that the house to the west is numbered off of Tuscany and is posted as 6100 which would be a Via Del Oro Drive address, stating that either the number posted is incorrect or is a Via Del Oro Drive address. Planning Manager Escobar asked Mr. Winters if he knew the property owner's name. Mr. Winters stated that their names were Jimmy and Jody Brown.

Planning Manager Escobar stated that the address is 6100 Via Del Oro Drive. Mr. Winters stated that he is in support of Mr. Hatch and the proposed variances. Mr. Winters stated that Mr. Hatch has done a good job with his project and believes that site clearance will not be an issue and that the traffic in the neighborhood is minimal. Mr. Winters stated that he does not see an issue with the proposed project and encourages the ARB to approve the variance. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Winters what his address was. Mr. Winters stated that his address is 6112 Via Del Oro Drive. Chair Dennis closed the public comments. Planning Manager Escobar asked the board if they had any specific questions for staff. There were none. Chair Dennis opened discussion among the board. Board Member Martin stated that the setback issue is an issue that was instigated or developed due to the City saying that the layout was okay, in part of this the boards duty is to try and resolve that issue. Board Member Martin stated that if this issue was caught early on, the board would not be hearing this variance tonight and the topography of the land is such that it makes a hardship on the developer of the lot. Chair Dennis agreed with Board Member Martin that there are some hardships with the proposed project. A motion was made by Board Member Martin to APPROVE the variance as submitted, which would allow the pool to go in the front yard and the retaining wall/fence to exceed the 3 feet maximum. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Erickson. The motion was approved 4-0.

AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Martin, Board Member Rogers

NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

APPROVED 4-0

____________________________________________________________________________ Petition ARB 21-35 – 3107 Mortensen Road Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request

• Petitioner is Alvaro Cordova • Variance from Section 7-1-2 of the City of Farmington Municipal Code requiring

installation of a sidewalk: • 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.

• Mr. Cordova is constructing a new home at 3107 Mortensen Road, a metes and bounds parcel

Vicinity/Zoning Map


Aerial Map of Mortensen Road

Photo of Property

Staff Analysis

• 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.

• 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 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.

Public Input

• There has been no input submitted regarding this application. 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. Community Works Director 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 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.

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. Discussion: Chair Dennis stated that this application is relatively straightforward and the code is in place to put some standards in place for the community but can be hard on the applicant who would have to put in a sidewalk. Alvaro Cordova, 3107 Mortensen Road, stated that on his property the way the paved road slopes into the northeast corner of the property, by installing a sidewalk it might guide the water into the neighbor’s property.

Chair Dennis asked if Mr. Cordova is also required to install curb and gutter as well. David Sypher, Community Works Director, stated yes. Mr. Cordova stated that from his property line to the paved road is 10 feet and he is being requested to install a 5 foot sidewalk. Mr. Cordova stated that he assumes the City is going to repave that area or fix the slope so the water does not drain into his or his neighbor’s property. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Cordova how long he has owned the property at 3107 Mortensen Road. Mr. Cordova stated that he has owned the property for four months. Vice Chair Erickson asked if the properties across the street have sidewalks. Mr. Sypher stated that it depends on what side you are referring to. Planning Manager Escobar asked for the aerial map to be pulled up. Planning Manager Escobar stated that on Mortensen Road there are none but across the street to the west there is a sidewalk that wraps around. Vice Chair Erickson asked if the linear foot of Mr. Cordova’s property is equal to two properties across the street and if he would be required to install sidewalks of that entire length. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Chair Dennis stated that the project could also require some engineering as well. Chair Dennis then asked how the water runs down the road. Mr. Cordova stated that it slopes from north to south and west to east and it goes back to the northeast corner. Chair Dennis asked if a curb would take it to the road easement and if there is a drainage ditch running through. Mr. Sypher stated that he believes it is. Mr. Cordova stated that the neighbors use it like an irrigation ditch and it goes into their property. Chair Dennis stated that the issue is trying to get sidewalks into developed property or to say that sidewalks were not required before. Mr. Sypher stated that he really does have sympathy for the property owner, but he has been in this business for a long time and he has had to explain to people why they have to pay twice and to some people why they don’t have to pay at all. Mr. Sypher stated that the inconsistency is a killer and to make a town function properly but the burden where it belongs is tough. Mr. Sypher stated that the criteria are established for a reason and either we have a sidewalk ordinance or we don’t. Board Member Martin stated that he does agree with Mr. Sypher, enforcing the rules is something we have to do. Board Member Martin stated that we try to do what is right for the betterment of the community.

Chair Dennis asked if the street has been reconditioned and can curb and gutter be installed without having to resurface the whole street. Mr. Sypher stated that because the standard has been set, yes, the grade is established; when the street is resurfaced the grades will be matched. A motion was made by Board Member Martin to deny the variance request as requested. The motion was seconded by Chair Dennis. Chair Dennis stated to Mr. Cordova that he does have 15 days to appeal to the City Council.

AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Martin, Board Member Rogers

NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

DENIED 4-0

____________________________________________________________________________ Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members. Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: Board Member Martin made a motion to adjourn the June 3, 2021 meeting of the Administrative Review Board, Chair Dennis second the motion. The meeting of June 3, 2021 was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ James Dennis Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 21-55

Variance to Section 5.3.3.C of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code limiting the maximum width of curb cuts for residential homes to 32 feet for a property in the SF-10 Single-family residential District. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 21-55 is a request from Steven Merrell, owner of property at 3501 North Sunset, represented by Bill Anglin, for a variance to Section 5.3.3.C of the Farmington Unified Development limiting the maximum width of curb cuts for residential development to 32 feet. Mr. Merrell wishes to install a circular drive.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

NORTH SUNSET HEIGHTS LOT 1 BLOCK 9 ALSO SW PORTION OF LOT 2 BEING 0.0 FT WIDE ON FRONT AND 16 FT WIDE ON BACK BK.1571 PG.60 ESC BK.1612 PG.1084 ALSO, NORTH SUNSET HEIGHTS NO.3 LOT 10 BLOCK 2 LESS N 31.3 FT AND ALSO A PORTION BEG AT THE S COR OF LOT 10 IN

Otherwise located at 3501 N. Sunset Avenue

GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Steve Merrell

Property Owner Same

Location of Property 3501 N. Sunset Road

Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 32-foot maximum driveway cut to allow for installation of a circular driveway.

Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section

5.3.3.C states: 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.

Zoning SF-10 – Single-family residential Existing Use Residential Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: SF-10 – North Sunset Heights 3 Subdivision South: SF-10 – North Sunset Heights 3 Subdivision

East: SF-7 – North Sunset Heights 3 Subdivision West: SF-7 – North Sunset Heights 3 Subdivision

Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, September 21, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Monday, September 20, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, September 24, 2021.

Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to allow for construction of a circular driveway to provide residential access to N. 35th Street. The existing driveway cut for the residence is off Sunset Ave and approximately 24 feet wide. Per Section 5.3.3.C of the UDC, the maximum curb cut for any residential property is 32 feet. The proposed second driveway cut onto W. 35th Street would be 24 feet in width. PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE Per the applicant’s representative, a second driveway cut would address safety issues related to backing up onto Sunset Avenue during heavy traffic volume generated by schools in the area. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Chief Building Official Derrick Childers: The new curb cut and sidewalk will need to meet the current city specifications for an accessible drive. Engineering – Toni Sitta: I have no comment in regards to the circular driveway; however, the new driveway cut and adjacent sidewalk impacted by the driveway cut will need to meet ADA standards for sidewalk and driveway aprons. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report.

CURRENT PHOTO OF PROPERTY

ZONING/VICINITY MAP AERIAL MAP

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 extends from Sunset Avenue through Melrose Place and is the result of the combination of two corner lots. The current driveway for the residence empties onto Sunset Avenue. Vehicle visibility is compromised by the curve of the road.

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.

Per Section 5.2.11.F.4 of 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.

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 safer access onto and from the property.


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. 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.


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–10 Single Family Residential District.


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.


7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. Not allowing an additional driveway cut would cause the applicant to suffer unnecessary safety issues.

This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 21-55 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 Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-55 from Steven Merrell for a variance from Sections 5.3.3.C of the City of Farmington Municipal

Code to allow for an additional 24-foot wide driveway cut and construction of a circular driveway with the following conditions:

1. The new curb cut driveway and adjacent sidewalk will need to meet ADA standards for sidewalk and driveway aprons.

PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 21-55 3501 N. SUNSET AVE.

DEADLINE: 8/31/21 City of Farmington Departments

CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers

The new curb cut and sidewalk will need to meet the current city specifications for an accessible drive.

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 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

I have no comment in regards to the circular driveway; however, the new driveway cut and adjacent sidewalk impacted by the driveway cut will need to meet ADA standards for sidewalk and driveway aprons.

CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller

CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton No Comment

Other Entities

New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – D. Willato 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- 55

NOTIFICATION LETTERS

BRITTON LINDA G AND BRITTON HEATHER D E

3505 N SUNSET AVE

FARMINGTON, NM 87401

CORCORAN RICHARD AND DENISE TRUST

3604 N MELROSE DR


MARTINEZ ANDY G AND JULIEANNE E

3500 N SUNSET AVE

FARMINGTON , NM 87401

MCBEE DAVID AND THERESA LIVING TRUST

3602 N MELROSE DR


MERRELL STEVEN E AND WENDELYN S

3501 N SUNSET AVE


MOFFITT NATASHA 3509 N SUNSET AVE


MOORE VICTORIA L TRUST 1105 N LAGUNA AVE


PADILLA ROBERT ORONA 3504 N SUNSET AVE


PARRISH BRANDON AND KIMBERLY

3321 N SUNSET AVE


SCHAEFER HAROLD E AND IDELL TRUST

4605 SAMANTHA LN


ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 21-59

Variance to Section 2.8.1 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code requiring a minimum eight foot interior side setback for a property in the MF-L: Multi-family Low Density SMHAO-Single-family Manufactured Home Overlay District. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 21-59 is a request from Letha Hart, owner of property at 1605 El Redondo Circle, for a variance to the required 8-foot interior side setback for a new porch (south side) and awning (west side) on the property.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION BONITA SUBDIVISION LOT 4 BLOCK 4 BK.1502 PG.960

Otherwise located at 1605 El Redondo

GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Letha Hart Property Owner Same Representative Robert Sherman Location of Property 1605 El Redondo Circle Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 8-foot minimum

side setback requirement. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.8.1

states:

Sec. 2.8 Density and dimensional standards.

2.8.1 Residential base zoning district density and dimensional schedule. The following table illustrates the dimensional standards that apply in the city's

residential base zoning districts. Exceptions to the standards of this schedule are listed in section 2.8.3.

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL SCHEDULE STANDARD RA RE-2 RE-1 RE-20 SF-10 SF-7 SF-5 SF-

MH SF-A MF-L MF-M MF-H

Minimum lot area (square feet) Single-family 43,560 87,120 43,560 20,000 10,000 7,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Single-family Attached

— — — — — — — — 3,000 — — —

Two-family — — — — — — — — — 8,000 8,000 7,000 Multifamily — — — — — — — — — 10,500 8,000 8,000 Minimum setbacks, all uses (feet) Front 50 35 35 35 30 25 15** 15** 15** 20 20 20 Side Interior 15 15 15 15 8* 8* 5 5 5*** 8 8 8

Street 50 35 25 25 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 20

Rear 50 30 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 25 25 25 Zoning SF-10 – Single-family residential Existing Use Residential Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: MF-L – Bonita Subdivision South: MF-L – Bonita Subdivision

East: MF-L – Bonita Subdivision West: MF-L – Bonita Subdivision

Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, September 21, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Monday, September 20, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, September 24, 2021.

Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to allow for construction of a side porch addition and awning on her property at 1605 El Redondo Circle. Construction began prior to issuance of a permit. When the contractor came to the Building Division to request a permit, he was advised a variance would be required because both structures penetrate the required setback. Per Section 2.8.1 the minimum required interior side setback is eight feet. PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE Per the applicant’s representative, the shape of the property as well as the way the mobile home sits on the property make it difficult to meet the minimum eight-foot setback. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Chief Building Official – D. Childers If the variance is approved a building permit is required and we will work with the owner to insure the structures are code compliance. Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost The shape of the property should not be a reason for variance from 2.8.1. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: No formal comments have been submitted at the time of this report.

CURRENT PHOTO OF PROPERTY

ZONING/VICINITY MAP

AERIAL MAP

BONITA SUBDIVISION PLAT 1964

ANALYSIS

Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant.

Per 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.

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 property already has a large carport, an accessory structure and a covered front patio, making full use of the property.

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 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.

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.


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–10 Single Family Residential District.


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 not been considered as grounds for this variance request.


7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied.

Not allowing encroachment into the required side setback would not be an unnecessary hardship, other than the fact the work was begun without a permit.

This criterion is NOT met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 21-55 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 setback. 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.

PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ARB 21-59 1605 EL REDONDO CIRCLE

DEADLINE: 9/7/2021 City of Farmington Departments

CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW

Chief Building Official – D. Childers

If the variance is approved a building permit is required and we will work with the owner to insure the structures are code compliance.

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 The shape of the property should not

be a reason for variance from 2.8.1.

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 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- 59

NOTIFICATION LETTERS

ARAGON EVELYN 1703 EL RODONDO CIR FARMINGTON, NM 87401

CAMPOS JEANNE W ATTN LAURIE TRAIL 3955 SWENSON ST APT 408 LAS VEGAS, NV 89119

FOUTZ COLTER 1604 EL REDONDO CIR FARMINGTON, NM 87401

MONTELONGO YOLANDA 1601 EL REDONDO CIR FARMINGTON, NM 87401

BINGHAM SAMMY J AND DONNA M 1050 B SULLIVAN AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87401

CASTELLI PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 15 FARMINGTON, NM 87499

GARCIA DIANA K 1005 E 26TH ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401

JACKOWSKI DARRELL 1608 EL REDONDO CIR FARMINGTON, NM 87401-0000

PADILLA SUSAN 1600 FAIRGROUNDS RD FARMINGTON, NM 874017344

CACY YVONNE D 1701 EL REDONDO CIR FARMINGTON, NM 87401

ERBES JAMES R 605 HYDRO PLANT RD FARMINGTON, NM 87401

GUTIERREZ ALEX AND SANDRA 1604 FAIRGROUNDS RD FARMINGTON, NM 87401

MARTINEZ LARRY T 1700 FAIRGROUNDS RD FARMINGTON, NM 87401-7346

RAUCH NATHAN J 1291 E 5600 S #5 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121

A G E N D A - fmtn.org

Documents

Transcript of A G E N D A - fmtn.org