Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM January 6, 2022 - 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 4, 2021 4. Annual election of Chair and Vice Chair 5. Discussion regarding the role of the Administrative Review Board and how to apply the Variance Criteria listed in Section 8.12.4 of the Unified Development Code. 6. Petition ARB 21-79 – a request from Joe & Stan LLC for a variance to Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to reduce the 25- foot front setback to 20 feet. 7. Petition No. ARB 21- 80 - a request from Jason Valdez for a variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a religious institution for a cannabis retail facility. 8. Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 9. Adjournment Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86339010963 or by dialing 1 (253) 215-8782 Meeting ID: 863 3901 0963 Passcode: 019848 ALL DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK‘S OFFICE WITHIN 15 DAYS. ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  Minutes Administrative Review Board November 4, 2021 The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, November 4, 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 Shorty Rogers Carl Winters Members Absent: None Staff Present: Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Others Addressing the Board: None Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:02 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 Vice Chair Erickson and seconded by Board Member Winters to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Approval of the Minutes from the October 7, 2021 Regular Meetings Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2021 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Chair Dennis and passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Board Member Winters was not a member of the Board on October 7, 2021 and did not vote on this item. ____________________________________________________________________________ Petition ARB 21-63 – 4601 Rancho De Animas Dr. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request • Petitioner is Steven D. Husson, property owner • Request is for a reduction of the required side setback of 3-feet and rear setback of 5- feet to 1-foot for an accessory structure • Variance to Section 2.8.3.3.c of the Unified Development Code (UDC) • Zoning is RE: 20: Residential Estates 20 Applicable Code Section 2.5.2.C General Standards Accessory Structures 1 • Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, accessory structures and uses shall comply with all applicable regulations of this UDC, including the maximum height and setback regulations. No accessory use or structure shall cause any of these standards to be exceeded for the underlying zoning district. 2.8.3.3.c Side yards • Residential accessory structures that are separated at least ten feet from the principal structure may be constructed in a rear yard; provided, the total square footage of all structures does not exceed forty percent of the lot size, is not greater than 15 feet in height, and the distance from any part of such structure to a side lot line is at least three feet, except that accessory buildings or structures of 120 square feet or less may extend to the rear and/or side lot line, provided such structures are not greater than ten feet in height, and no portion of the structure crosses into or drains onto adjacent property. 2 Vicinity/Zoning Map Variance Criteria • 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 3  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: Staff Analysis 1. Special Condition or Hardship: Staff cannot identify any special condition that would prevent the accessory structure from being relocated to conform to the required setbacks. Also the structure should be relocated out of the drainage easement or a replat should be submitted abandoning the drainage easement. The backyard is big enough to accommodate moving the shed out of the easement. 2. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code: The shed could be relocated to meet requirements. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure: In staff’s opinion, this is not a minimum easing of he code, specifically in relation to the encroachment on the drainage easement. 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. 5. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district: Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the RE: 20 Residential District. 6. 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. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied: The applicant should be able to site the shed on the property in a location that meets code requirements. Comments from COF Legal Department 4 Public Input Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends DENIAL of Petition ARB 21-63 from Steven Husson property owner of 4601 Rancho de Animas Drive, for a reduction to 1-foot of the required side and rear setbacks for an accessory structure. Discussion: Board Member Winters asked if the hill that is referred to is behind the fence. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes. Vice Chair Erickson asked if the structure is 1 foot away from the side property line. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes, that is the variance that the applicant is requesting. Chair Dennis asked if there had been a survey of the location. Planning Manager Escobar stated no, the applicant did not obtain a building permit for the structure. Chair Dennis asked if the structure could be placed on the drainage easement. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it could not be unless an application is filed for an encroachment agreement with the Building Division, Engineering will then look at the location. Chair Dennis asked if the applicant was aware that the meeting was tonight. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the applicant was aware and did receive a copy of the packet. Chair Dennis asked how long the structure had been at this location. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she was not sure and assumes the structure has been there for less than a year. 5 Chair Dennis stated that he believes that there is plenty of room to move the structure into compliance. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she agrees. Chair Dennis asked how the violation of the structure was reported. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she was not sure who reported the violation. Chair Dennis asked if there were any public comments regarding this petition. There were none. Chair Dennis stated that he believes that the structure being placed at the current location isn’t causing any trouble. Board Member Winters asked if it is the intent for the Board to follow the code or to accommodate the property owners. Chair Dennis stated that it is the Boards duty to stay within the intent of the code and to determine if a variance can be granted. Vice Chair Erickson asked if the variance is approved can the City tell the applicant that the structure needs to be moved if there are any draining issues. Planning Manager Escobar stated if the Board approves the variance, a building permit and an encroachment permit would need to be obtained giving the applicant a permit to leave the structure there noting that the City is not responsible for any property damage. Board Member Winters stated that there seem to be tortures on neighboring properties that do not seem to be in compliance. Board Member Winters then asked if the variance was approved and then encumber the City. Planning Manager Escobar stated that through the building permit and encroachment permit process the City would not be liable for the structure staying where it is currently placed. Planning Manager Escobar also stated that any decision that the Board makes does not set precedence for future decisions. A motion was made by Vice Chair Erickson to APPROVE Petition ARB 21-63, a request from Steven D. Husson, property owner, for a lot split for a variance to allow for a side and rear setback of 1 foot for an 8-foot high accessory building in the rear north west corner of the property, with the stipulation that a building permit and encroachment permit are obtained by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Chair Dennis. The motion passed unanimously 4-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Rogers, Board Member Winters NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED 4-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ 6 Petition ARB 21-66 – 5920 E. Main St. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request • Petitioner is Cole Stoneman, tenant • Request is for 14.6 square footage of wall sign that exceeds the maximum allowable per Section 5.8.7.A.2.A of the Unified Development Code (UDC) • Zoning is GC: General Commercial Applicable Code 5.8.7. A.2.Wall Signs a. The total area of wall signs on a particular wall or a section of wall shall not exceed one square foot of wall sign for each linear foot of length of that wall, which length shall be measured by applying the same principles as are used to measure building frontage, subject to residential restrictions. b. The total area of all wall signs on a building shall not exceed one square foot of wall sign for each linear foot of building frontage or the maximum total area per district, whichever is less. The fact that signs may be permitted on more than one wall of the building shall not increase this maximum. c. On a multi-tenant building, there may be a separate wall sign for each occupant with an outside entrance serving the general public, but this provision shall not increase the total area of signage permitted on the building. Vicinity/Zoning Map 7 Store Front Store Front 8 Signage Wall Variance Criteria • 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: Staff Analysis 1. Special Condition or Hardship: The suite where the applicant’s business is located is on the west side interior of the building and there would be minimal visibility of a sign at the suite location. 2. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code: As the applicant states in his petition, other businesses in the complex have been allowed to place their signage on the Main Street wall. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure: This request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to have sign visibility allowed for other businesses in the area. 9  4. 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. 5. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district: Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the GC: General Commercial District. 6. It is possible that future tenants in the building complex may seek their own variance. Each application would be evaluated on its own merits. 7. 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. 8. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied: Not allowing additional may negatively impact the applicant’s business. Public Input No public input has been received. Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-66 from Cole Stoneman for a variance from Section 5.8.7.A.2.a of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for an additional 14.6 square feet of signage above the maximum square footage available. Discussion: Chair Dennis asked if the variance request is in regards to the amount of space the applicant would have on the signage wall and if the applicant was planning to put any signage on the red wall above the store front. Planning Manager Escobar stated that variance was in regards to the signage wall and that she does not believe that the applicant was planning to place any signage above the store front. Chair Dennis asked what the dimensions of the M. Moose sign are on the signage wall. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the squares are 100 square feet. Vice Chair Erickson asked if the other tenants were noticed about the variance request. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the other tenants did receive notice and the property is posted. Board Member Winters asked if there are any vacancies in the building. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she believes there are two vacancies in the building. Chair Dennis stated that he does not see an issue with the variance request. Board Member Winters asked if the request is for the additional square footage that is allowed. 10 Planning Manager Escobar stated that 14.6 square feet is above and beyond the square footage that is allowed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that none of the signs on the signage wall went through the permitting and approval process and the applicant is requesting a variance to make his sign comparable to the current signs on the signage wall. A motion was made by Board Member Winters to APPROVE Petition ARB 21-66, a request from Cole Stoneman for a variance to allow wall signage in excess of the maximum allowed under Section 5.8.7.A.2.a. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Erickson. The motion passed unanimously 4-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Rogers, Board Member Winters NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED 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: Vice Chair Erickson thanked Planning Manager Escobar for providing more pictures for each petition. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar welcomed new Board Member Carl Winters. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there were no petitions for December and the December 9, 2021 ARB meeting would be canceled. Adjournment: A motion was made by Vice Chair Erickson to adjourn the November 4, 2021 meeting of the Administrative Review Board; the motion was seconded by Chair Dennis. The meeting of November 4, 2021 was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ James Dennis Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant 11 12/27/21, 8:22 AM Farmington, NM Code of Ordinances Sec. 8.12 - Variances. 8.12.1 Purpose. The ARB shall have jurisdiction to hear requests for a variance from the terms of this UDC as outlined in section 7.4. The ARB shall be authorized to grant a variance from the terms hereof if they find that the strict enforcement of this UDC would create a substantial hardship to the applicant by virtue of unique special conditions not generally found within the vicinity, and that the granting of the variance would preserve the spirit and intent of the UDC, and would serve the general interests of the public and the applicant. Variances may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this UDC so that public health, safety, and welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. 8.12.2 Applicability. A. Administrative adjustments. A variance request up to ten percent of height, bulk, setback and other (numerical), site-related standards may be approved pursuant to the requirements of section 8.13, administrative adjustments. B. Variances. All other requests for a variance are subject to review and approval by the ARB pursuant to the requirements of this section. C. Variances to the access management plan standards. Variances to standards in the adopted access management plan shall be processed in the same manner as variances to the provisions of the UDC as set forth in this section, except where a variance has been granted pursuant to section 8.13, administrative adjustment. 12 1/7 12/27/21, 8:22 AM Farmington, NM Code of Ordinances 8.12.3 Variance application process. A. Pre-application conference. Prior to the submission of land use applications, applicants are encouraged to attend a preapplication conference as set forth in section 8.1.2. B. Application submittal. A complete application for a variance shall be submitted to the director or designee as set forth in section 8.1.3. C. Posting and public notification. Once the application is complete, the required public notices shall be issued, as set forth in section 8.1.7. D. Review and report by director or designee. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director or designee shall review the proposed variance 13 2/7 12/27/21, 8:22 AM Farmington, NM Code of Ordinances for compliance with criteria enumerated in section 8.12.4 below. The director or designee shall prepare a report for presentation to the ARB and schedule a public hearing. E. Review and final decision by the ARB. The application and report shall be reviewed by the ARB in a public hearing. Following completion of the hearing, the board shall vote to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance. Such recommendation shall be based on the application's compliance with criteria enumerated in section 8.12.4 below. F. Notice of decision. Written notice of the decision to approve or approve with conditions, or deny shall be provided to the applicant within five working days of the decision, and a copy shall be filed in the office of the director or designee. 8.12.4 Variance criteria. A. Required findings. A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the ARB must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: (1) That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and; furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant; (2) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other 14 3/7 12/27/21, 8:22 AM Farmington, NM Code of Ordinances properties in the same district under the terms of the Code; (3) The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; (4) That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; (5) That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district; (6) That no 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; and (7) That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. B. Approval limitations. The ARB may not approve a variance that creates any of the following situations: (1) The establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in the applicable zoning district; (2) An increase in the density of a use in excess of the density permitted by the applicable district; or (3) A change in the zoning district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. 8.12.5 Appeals. Appeals of any final decision regarding a variance shall be made to the city council within 15 days of the decision in accordance with section 8.16, appeals of ARB decisions. ( Ord. No. 2021-1325 , 3-9-21) 15 4/7 12/27/21, 8:22 AM Farmington, NM Code of Ordinances Sec. 8.15 - Appeals of administrative decisions. 8.15.1 Applicability. Appeals to the ARB may be taken by any person with standing who is aggrieved by any written interpretations made pursuant to section 8.13, or by other final administrative decisions; provided however, that building permit appeals shall be subject to the requirements of State of New Mexico Construction Industries Division. To have "standing" such persons shall: A. Be a resident of the City of Farmington or the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, or B. Own property within the City of Farmington or the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction. 8.15.2 Effect of appeal. The filing of an appeal stays all legal proceedings in the matter appealed from, unless the director or designee certifies to the ARB that by reason of facts stated, a stay would cause imminent peril to life and property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed except by a restraining order which may be granted by the district court, based on the application, and director or designee, and on due cause shown. 8.15.3 Appeal process. A. Deadline for submission of application. An appeal from any final decision of the director or designee shall be filed in writing with the director or designee within 30 calendar days of receipt of the decision. If no appeal is filed within 30 days, the decision shall be considered final, unless such requirement shall be waived by the ARB or by the city council. B. Application submittal. A complete application for an administrative appeal shall be submitted to the director or designee as set forth in section 8.1.3. C. Posting and public notification. Once the application is complete, the 16 5/7 12/27/21, 8:22 AM Farmington, NM Code of Ordinances required public notices shall be issued, as set forth in section 8.1.7. D. Record of administrative decision. Upon receipt of an appeal application, the director or designee shall forthwith transmit to the ARB all the papers constituting the record of the action appealed. E. Review and final action by the ARB. (1) Public hearing. The appeal shall be heard within 60 days of the date of the appeal application or such extension as requested by the applicant. During the public hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. Consideration of the appeal shall be limited to the specific interpretive language of the director or designee. (2) Action. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ARB, as appropriate, shall vote to reverse, affirm wholly or partly, or modify the appealed interpretation; and may provide direction for the appropriate action on the final interpretation. In any case, such action shall only present findings regarding specific errors made in the director or designee's interpretation or permit issuance. F. Notice of decision. The decision to uphold or reverse the administrative decision shall be communicated in writing to the applicant within five working days of the decision. G. Appeals. Appeals of any final decision regarding an appeal of administrative decisions shall be made to the city council within 15 days of the decision in accordance with section 8.16, appeals of ARB decisions. 17 6/7 12/27/21, 8:22 AM Farmington, NM Code of Ordinances ( Ord. No. 2021-1325 , 3-9-21) 18 7/7  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 21- 79 Variance to Section 2.8 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a reduction of the required 25-foot front setback to 20-feet. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Property owner is asking for a reduction of the required 25-foot setback to allow for construction of a single-family residence with a viable back yard. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL NUMBER 208172047233 – Four Seasons Estates Phase 1 Replat of Lot 6 Otherwise located at 1021 Winter Park GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Joe & Stan, LLC developers of Four Seasons Estates Property Owner Same Location of Property 1021 Winter Park Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 25-foot required front setback to 20 feet. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.8 Density and dimensional standards provides the following setbacks for the SF:7 Zoning District: Front Setback: 25 feet Interior Side: 8 feet (the interior side setback may be reduced to 5 feet for a single-story home). Rear: 15 feet Zoning SF – 7 Single-family residential Existing Use Vacant Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: SF – 7: Four Seasons Estates South: IND – Industrial East: SF – 7: Four Seasons Estates West: IND – Industrial Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, December 21, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, December 17 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, December 21, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager 19  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to reduce the required front setback of 25-feet in the SF:7 zoning district to 20-feet. Per the applicant, this will allow for construction of a single- family residential home on the property. The subject parcel is Lot 1 of the Four Seasons Estates Subdivision Phase 1. The lot is 460.70 feet long along the northern property line but only 76.85 wide at the eastern property boundary. The lot has a 10-foot utility easement in the front and rear. This reduces the buildable width to 56.85 feet. 20  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park Four Season Estates Subdivision Phase 1 21  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park Lot 1 22  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park Aerial View 23  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 1025 Winter Park, residence directly to the east of subject property. This home is 32-feet wide and has a 25-foot front setback. 24  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE The unique dimensions of the subject property would force construction of a very narrow house with a small back yard. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Derrick Childers, Building Official: Proper drainage will need to be maintained around the building. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: Letters were sent out to 13 property owners within 100 feet. The property owner of 1008 Winter Park called with some questions. After receiving clarification regarding the variance request, he stated he is not opposed to the request. No other comments have been received at the time of this report. 25  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park CURRENT PHOTO OF PROPERTY – EAST END 26  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park PHOTO OF PROPERTY LOOKING WEST 27  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park PHOTO OF PROPERTY LOOKING EAST 28  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park ZONING MAP 29  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park STAFF ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The subject property does have unique characteristics, including the unusual shape and a font and rear 10-foot utility easement. Lot 1 was platted as a single-family residential lot, with the encumbrances as noted. The plat was recorded in 2002. The housing market and housing preferences were different at this time. Even though the conditions may have been self-imposed through the plat, in the current housing market they make the lot unviable for development. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would make placement of a single-family residence very challenging and may result in a home not compatible with the rest of the residences in the neighborhood. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. This request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to construct a new home on the site. This criterion IS met. 30  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed variance is not injurious to the neighborhood. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the SF-7 Single Family Residential Zoning District. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The property owner may not be able to construct and sell a new home on this lot if the variance was denied. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 21- 79 is a minimum easing of the code, meets the intent of the code and is a property that has characteristics unique enough to allow for waiver of the wall signage maximum. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-79 from Joe & Stan LLC., for a variance from Section 2.8 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a reduction of the required front setback of 25 feet to 20 feet to allow for construction of a new single-family residence with the following conditions: 1. All undeveloped area of the lot shall be landscaped or hardscaped. 2. The eastern side setback shall be 8 feet to counter balance the reduction in front yard setback. 31  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 32  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 33  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 34  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park NOTIFICATION LETTERS NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP ARC DGFMTNM001 LLC ATTN RYAN LLC PO BOX 460369 HOUSTON, TX 77056 FARMINGTON, NM BLUEHOUSE AARON AND YANABAH B 1020 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 CROWLEY SARAH LYNN PO BOX 1295 CORTEZ, CO 81324 FARMINGTON, NM GARCIA FERNANDO AND HARVEY VANESSA 1012 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM GILMORE FREDERICK F AND WILMA A TRUST 4601 RANCHO DE ANIMAS DR 87402 15117 W CAMINO ESTRELLA GILMORE WILMA A AND FREDRICK F TRUST DR SURPRISE, AZ 85374 FARMINGTON, NM JOE AND STAN LLC PO BOX 629 87499 JOE SAMANTHA AND HENDERSON BRANDON FARMINGTON, NM ETAL 1029 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM KYLE RICKIE L 1008 WINTER PARK 874010000 FARMINGTON, NM MAGI WAYNE 1016 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM RAMIREZ RAFAEL C AND SHANTLE D 1000 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 FARMINGTON, NM RODRIGUEZ CELIA 1004 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM YARD PHILIP S AND DONNA L 1024 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 35  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 21- 80 Variance to Section 2.4.41 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Property owner is asking for a variance from Section 2.4.41 of the Unified Development Code requiring a 300-foot distance from a religious institution to a cannabis retail facility. This distance is measured property line to property line exclusive of right-of-way. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel ID – R0030863 4339 E Main Lot 2 of Iles Subdivision Otherwise located at 4339 E. Main St. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Jason Valdez, potential tenant Property Owner Foutz, D Decker Trust Location of Property 4339 E Main Street Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the required distance of 300 feet for a retail cannabis sales operation to a religious institution. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.4.41 Recreational cannabis sales: A. Retailers of recreational cannabis shall be licensed by the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division. B. Retail sales are permitted in the CB: Central Business, GC: General Commercial and I: Industrial Zoning Districts only. C. Such uses shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school (public and private), religious institution, registered daycare center from another dispensary. Distance is measured by a straight line from the closest property line of the retail business to the closest property line of a religious institution, school, registered daycare or dispensary. (NMSA Chapter 60-6b-10) Zoning GC: General Commercial Existing Use Existing 2,613 square foot commercial building Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: GC: General Commercial – Boot Barn South: GC: General Commercial – Starbucks, small commercial mall East: GC: General Commercial – Animas Valley Mall West: GC: General Commercial & Office Professional Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, December 21, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, December 17 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, December 21, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager 36  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. The new cannabis ordinance, No. 2021-1329, requires this 300-foot distance. The distance requirement is based on the current liquor license regulations for New Mexico. Measurement is property line to property line exclusive of right-of way. The subject property, 4339 E Main, is directly opposite the driveway for the Crestview Southern Baptist Church at 4400 E Main Street. Disregarding the right-of-way of Main Street, the two properties are adjacent. Measuring the distance including Main Street, the properties are approximately 200 feet apart. The distance from the subject property to the location of the religious institution is approximately 700 feet. 37  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street ZONING MAP Driveway to Crestview Southern Baptist Church 38  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street Aerial View 39  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street STREET VIEW Subject property Church driveway entrance 40  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE The driveway of the church is preventing 4339 E Main from utilizing the property in a manner consistent with other similarly zoned properties in the area. Note: The facility at 4251 E Main the petitioner refers to in his application is a medical marijuana facility that has not yet received a license for retail sales. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Russel Frost, Assistant City Attorney: I oppose this variance. There is no proposed reason to grant the variance. The applicant has not stated why there is a hardship, or why this exception is particular to the Applicant. The Applicant has not addressed the fact there is another cannabis facility located in this area. I think granting the application sets a bad precedence for evaluating applications in the future. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: Letters were sent out to eleven property owners within 100 feet. No comments have been received at the time of this report. 41  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street STAFF ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The extended driveway for the religious institution could be classified as a special condition. The driveway intersection with Main Street is approximately 1,300 linear feet from the church parking lot. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would prohibit a retail cannabis facility from being located at 4339 E Main. 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. Considering the realities of the distances, the buffer provided by the 100-foot Main Street right-of-way and the location of the religious institution being over 700 feet from the subject property, this request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to have a retail cannabis sales store on the subject property. This criterion IS met. 42  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street 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. The location is surrounded by commercial businesses and is on Farmington’s main commercial corridor. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the GC: General Commercial Zoning District. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant would be prevented from opening a retail cannabis facility at the location of the subject property. The property owner would lose a potential tenant. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 21- 80 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 300-foot distance requirement. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-80 from Jason Valdez for a variance from Section 2.4.41 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. 43  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street 44  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street 45  ARB 21-80 Petition Report 4339 E Main Street NOTIFICATION LETTERS NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP 655 SOUTH BOULDER LLC 3245 LAKESHORE DR LONGMONT, CO 80503 655 SOUTH BOULDER LLC 3245 LAKESHORE DR LONGMONT, CO 80503 ANIMAS VALLEY MALL LLC PO BOX 3487 CHICAGO, IL 606543487 ANIMAS VALLEY MALL LLC PO BOX 3487 CHICAGO, IL 606543487 ANIMAS VALLEY MALL LLC ATTN BOOT BARN 15345 BARRANCA IN PKWY IRVINE, CA 92618 FARMINGTON, NM 87402- CRESTVIEW SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH 4400 E MAIN ST 8654 FARMINGTON, NM 87402- DAMRON PROPERTIES LLC 3650 ILES AVE 0000 ENGLISH LAND CO 15648 ROAD 250 DURANGO, CO 813018695 FOUTZ D DECKER TRUST 2873 E ELGIN ST CHANDLER , AZ 85225 MATTRESS OUTLET LLC 619 W MAIN STREET FARMINGTON, NM 87401 PET LODGE AND SALON LLC 4390 E MAIN ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401 46