Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM March 3, 2022 - 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from February 3, 2022 4. Petition ARB 22-05 – A request from Matthew Kopelman for a variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a religious institution, a school and an adjacent cannabis retail facility for a cannabis retail facility. Located at 3150 E. Main St. Ste. A20 5. Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 6. Adjournment ALL DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK‘S OFFICE WITHIN 15 DAYS. ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  Minutes Administrative Review Board February 3, 2022 The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members Present: Chair James Dennis Vice Chair Brian Erickson Shorty Rogers Carl Winters Members Absent: Staff Present: Beth Escobar Tami Spencer Anita Vigil Mike Safrany Karen Walker (via Google Meet) Others Addressing the Board: Stan Kozimor Brad Gordon Merridee Womack Roxanne Kerby 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 Board Member Winters made a motion to approve the Agenda; Vice Chair Erickson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Approval of the Minutes from the January 6, 2022 Regular Meetings Board Member Winters made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2022 regular meeting. Board Member Rogers seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Annual Election of Chair and Vice Chair Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to retain Chair Dennis as Chair for another year. Chair Dennis accepted the nomination; Chair Dennis seconded the motion. Board Member Rogers made a motion to retain Vice Chair Erickson as Vice Chair. Vice Chair Erickson accepted the motion. Chair Dennis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 1 Swearing in of Witnesses Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak. ____________________________________________________________________________ Petition ARB 21-79 – 1021 Winter Park Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request • The Petitioner is Joe & Stan, LLC - property owners and developers • Zoning is SF-7 – Single family residential • Request is for reduction of the required 25-foot front setback to 20 feet to allow for construction of a new residence with a viable backyard. • The subject property is Lot 1 of the Four Seasons Estates Subdivision Applicable Code • 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 Setback 8 Feet – The interior side setback may be reduced to 5 feet for a single-story home Rear 15 feet 2  Vicinity/Zoning Map Subject property is 460.70 feet long but only 76.85 feet wide at the eastern end. Four Seasons Estates Subdivision 3  Lot 1 Aerial View 4  Adjoining Property • 1025 Winter Park, residence directly to the east of subject property. This home is 32-feet wide and has a 25-foot front setback. 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. 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. 5 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. 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. 6 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. Public Input Letters were sent out to 13 surrounding property owners within 100 feet. 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 GARCIA FERNANDO AND HARVEY FARMINGTON, NM VANESSA 1012 WINTER PARK 87401 GILMORE FREDERICK F AND WILMA A 4601 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM TRUST ANIMAS DR 87402 GILMORE WILMA A AND FREDRICK F 15117 W CAMINO SURPRISE, AZ TRUST ESTRELLA DR 85374 FARMINGTON, NM JOE AND STAN LLC PO BOX 629 87499 JOE SAMANTHA AND HENDERSON FARMINGTON, NM BRANDON 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 7  House Placement on Property Proposed 1376 Square Foot Home 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. 8  2. The eastern side setback shall be 8 feet to counter balance the reduction in front yard setback. Discussion: Chair Dennis stated to petitioner Kozimor that he appreciated the layout and the floor plan of the proposed house on this property. Mr. Dennis clarified the stipulation wanted at least eight feet on the easterly side of the lot. Planning Manager Escobar state that he was correct, and that petitioner Kozimor was meeting that stipulation. Chair Dennis called for comments from petitioner Kozimor, P.O. Box 629, Farmington. Mr. Kozimor stated they narrowed the house and made it longer, they also turned the house to make it a decent sized home and to allow for a good size backyard. They also made the entrance to the house easy access. Chair Dennis asked if they could get a covered patio on the east end of the house and have a little bit of a yard. Mr. Kozimor answered yes and that they planned on a 15-foot backyard. Mr. Kozimor stated that the house is almost a 1400 square feet. He also felt it would make a nice home. Vice Chair, Erickson asked if they put an awning on the front door, would that make it to close to the street. Mr. Kozimor stated that it would, but they could reset the front door back a few feet into the house to give them a space to get out of the rain before entering the house. Chair Dennis called for any interested parties that would like to speak on this petition. There were none and he closed the public portion of this meeting. Motion: Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to approve petition ARB 21-79 as recommended by staff. Chair Dennis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 4-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Winters, and Board Member Rogers NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED 4-0 Petition ARB 22-01 – 3000 E. 20th St. Suite D2 Michael Safrany, Associate Planner, presented the following: Variance Request • The petitioner is Bradley Gordon, potential tenant • Location: 3000 E 20th St. Suite D2 • Request: Waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis establishment to a religious establishment 9  Applicable Code • City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.4.41 Recreational cannabis sales: Retailers of recreational cannabis shall be licensed by the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division. Retail sales are permitted in the CB: Central Business, GC: General Commercial and I: Industrial Zoning Districts only. 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) Aerial View 10  Zoning Map Staff Analysis 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 buildings are approx. 770 ft. away with 9 retail businesses in between. The buildings are facing separate streets and are not visible from one another. Despite the actual distance, the property lines are considered within 300 ft. from another. 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 3000 E 20th St. This criterion IS met. 11  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 80-foot 20th Street right-of- way and the location of the religious institution being over 770 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. 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 one of Farmington’s main commercial corridors. 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. Assistant City Attorney Comments • It is the opinion of Legal that this issue is squarely within the purview of the retailer who is/has contracted with both tenants. Peterson Properties and Associates is creating this violation by allowing both parties to rent space. It does not seem appropriate for the City 12  to determine the applicant is in violation of the ordinance when the cannabis retail facility and the religious organization share the same address. • A variance should be granted because the religious organization has waived all rights to object by renting space from a retail/commercial owner who has the exclusive right to select the tenants who will occupy the remaining retail space. • 20th Street is the major transportation thoroughfare that separates the properties. This separation by a major traffic artery would be a unique aspect of the property that is out of the control of the applicant. I recommend granting a variance. Property Owner Comments • I am the property manager for San Juan Associates and San Juan North Shopping Centers. Our office is in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing Variance Request Petition No. ARB 22-01. Peterson Properties and Associates is the ownership entity of 3000 E. 20th St. Suite D2. Mr. Brad Gordon has the owner’s full cooperation and agreement to proceed with opening a cannabis retail location. • San Juan Associates, LLC is the ownership entity for the San Juan Shopping Center and San Juan Village. This ownership entity also agrees fully to the opening of a cannabis retail location at the neighboring center. • My understanding of the current zoning ordinance distances is that the property lines must be 300 feet away from a neighboring religious institution. I have attached both site plans with the locations of the Reef Joint and subsequent churches. With the properties being of the size and acreage that they are, the physical distance from the south property line of San Juan North to the church locations is well in excess of the 300 feet. Public Notice • Letters were sent to 28 surrounding property owners. At the time of this report no public input has been received. Alvillar Rodolfo Jr. 2300 Kevin Cir Farmington, NM 87402 Daniel & Stephanie 3119 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Coneybeer Sharon B Donahue Trust 1709 Winter Ct Farmington, NM 87401 Four J Properties LLC 2400 N Hidden Glen St Farmington, NM 87401 Roy & Charlotte Jefferson 3035 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Justin & Shannon Lewis 3100 Edgecliff Dr Farmington, NM 87402 Peterson Properties & 2325 San Pedro NE Suite Albuquerque, NM 87110 Assoc 2A Sandoval Stacy 3027 N 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 13 Pearl J Tamayo 3103 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Keshia L Vaisa 3015 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Citizens Bankshares Inc PO Box 4140 Farmington, NM 87499 Nolan M Crowell 2846 Sierra Dr NE Albuquerque, NM 87110 Cory J Edgar 2200 Terence Ave Farmington, NM 87401 Ann M Glass 3111 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Joe & Tina Philbert 2204 Terence Ave Farmington, NM 87402 Lorain M Martinez 3031 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Rl Morris Construction LLC PO Box 6767 Farmington, NM 87499 Daniel B Sedillos III 2302 Kevin Cir Farmington, NM 87402 Virgil & Candace 3107 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87401 Todacheeney Richard Clayton 2102 N Lee Ave Farmington, NM 87402 Ruben & Maricruz Diaz 3011 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 George & Darlene Foster 576 Road 6100 Kirtland, NM 87417 Trust Elizabeth Gonzales 3110 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Devin Reed Lewis 3023 E 22nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Mitchell Benson Jr PO Box 3692 Farmington, NM 87499 San Juan Associates LP 2325 San Pedro NE Ste 2A Albuquerque, NM 87110 Erik & Viveros Stevenson 2201 Terence Ave Farmington, NM 87401 Trisha L Ukele 2304 Kevin Cir Farmington, NM 87402 14  Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 22-01 from Brad Gordon 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. Discussion: Chair Dennis asked for clarification on the 300-foot encroachment. Associate Planner Safrany stated it is measured from property line to property line. One property line is on the north side of 20th St. and the other is on the south side of 20th St. that makes it less than 300-feet. Planning Manager Escobar reminded the Commission that that distance measurement is regardless of public right of way. 20th St. would not be counted in the measurement, which makes the two property lines directly adjacent to each other. Chair Dennis asked Associate Planner Safrany if the same person owns the property on both sides of 20th St. Associate Planner Safrany stated that is correct. Chair Dennis called for comments from petitioner Gordon, 3000 E. 20th St., Suite D2, Farmington. Mr. Gordon wanted to make sure he was the proper distance from the charter school located on the same property. Planning Manager Escobar responded that she had received legal interpretation on this matter. She stated that property line to property line, regardless of public right of way is what the State uses for their measurements for a liquor licenses. If we are looking at separate parcels, we would use the measurement parcel line to parcel line regardless of public right of way. For a parcel this size with multiple developments located on one property, we would use the measurement front door to front door. The front door of the Reef Joint measures 340 feet from the front door of the charter school. According to our City Attorney that conforms with the 300 foot distance requirement. In answer to Mr. Gordon’s question, if the Board approves this variance, he could go in at this location, because it is 340 feet from the charter school. It has been determined that no variance is needed for the distance to the charter school. Mr. Gordon also wanted to point out that the church in question is located near another cannabis facility, which is located within 40 feet. He wanted to add that his location faces in a totally different direction than that of the church, the parishioners and their families would not be able to see his location while leaving church. Chair Dennis asked Planning Manager Escobar if there is an established cannabis facility and a church moves in next to it, what happens then. Planning Manager Escobar replied you can not create an issue after the fact. If there is an established approved retail adult cannabis sales and a church moves in next to them, the retail adult cannabis sales can continue. Ms. Escobar also stated that what Mr. Gordon was referring to is a medical marijuana facility. If that location plans to sell adult cannabis, they would have to submit to the state for a retail cannabis permit. They would also need to come before the Board for a variance because of their proximity to the church. If they continue just as a medical marijuana facility, they are grandfathered in. Chair Dennis called for interested parties to come forward to speak. Merridee Womack, 201 La Plata Dr., Farmington. Ms. Womack has two rentals homes across the street, just east of the Reef Joint location. Her daughter lives in one of those homes. She stated she does not know the rules related to a cannabis facility being close a residence. Ms. Womack is very concerned about that and the activity it will bring into the neighborhood. She 15 does not want to see it in the neighborhood where her grandchild is being raised. She also does not believe the property is zoned Commercial and that her dad had intentions to build homes there. Ms. Womack strongly opposes the approval of this variance. Ms. Womack and her husband own another lot up the street and she worries about the children walking past this location on their way to Animas Elementary. Chair Dennis called for affected parties to come forward to speak. Roxanne Clayton Kerby, Trustee for Clayton Trust, 5051 Bloomfield Hwy, Farmington. Ms. Kerby represents Clayton Trust, owners of the property directly to the west of the subject property. She strongly opposes the approval of this variance. She states she saw the City would not allow cannabis on Main St. because it is a family area. Ms. Kerby feels the shopping center is also a family area, with families going in and out of there, and if you do not count the road between their property and the shopping center, it puts their property right next to the shopping center. Vice Chair Erickson, asked Ms. Kerby to verify the location of the two homes adjacent to the shopping center. Ms. Kerby verified the location. Planning Manager Escobar offered some clarification; she stated the reference to not allowing retail cannabis sales downtown was an early proposal from staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission, but City Council determined that they are allowing retail cannabis sales in the Central Business District. She also stated they are not treating the Central Business District any differently from General Commercial. Ms. Escobar also reminded the Board the request tonight is for a waiver of the distance between the retail cannabis sales location and the church; you are not here to adjudicate the distance between single family residences and the retail cannabis sales facility, because there are no distance requirements per the UDC. Chair Dennis agreed the meeting is about the distance from the retail cannabis sales location to the church. He stated if the Board votes in favor of this variance, Ms. Womack and Ms. Kerby could appeal in writing the decision to the City Clerk within fifteen days. Planning Manager Escobar reiterated that any citizen of Farmington could appeal in writing the decision of the Administrative Review Board. Chair Dennis asked Planning Manager Escobar if she knew why there is nothing in the rules about a retail cannabis sales location being close to a residential district. Planning Manager Escobar answered that with the legalization by the State government, the City is treating this like any retail sales business. The requirement of the 300 feet distance, we grafted on from the liquor license requirements, which is one way the City can monitor the number of facilities we get within the City. She also stated that City Council was concerned about the challenging zoning we have within the City. We have Commercial Zoning adjacent to Residential Zoning; the Council wanted a way to monitor what is going in and where it is going in. Board Member Winters asked petitioner Gordon which direction his store entrance faces. Mr. Gordon answered his entrance faces east, away from the residences. There is nothing on the back or the side of the store that states it is a cannabis facility. Mr. Gordon also stated he did his due diligence trying to find locations that are within the City and States criteria. He found quite a few locations, but most were not cannabis friendly. Mr. Gordon feels the shopping center is where the City would want him to be, in the General Commercial Zoning. Chair Dennis closed the public hearing input potion of this meeting, and asked the Board members for any discussion. 16 Vice Chair Erickson stated that he had read the cannabis industry is the fastest growing employer in the United States. That is a lot of jobs and because it is growing it is being accepted in many new areas. He also stated that they will be seeing this issue coming up, and without State guidance, it makes the Board’s job harder. As far as this particular situation, if they are reviewing just the distance to the church, he believed they could make a ruling on that issue. Mr. Erickson asked Planning Manager Escobar if the location were the two houses are was zoned General Commercial. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Mr. Erickson stated that without any State guidance stating that you cannot have a retail cannabis sales location that close to residential area, if that area was zoned residential that would be different. However, we are not here to discuss that today, we are here to hear relevant comments. Chair Dennis stated that there are different venues and forums to take care of the other issues brought up in this meeting. He also stated there is a Walgreens on 20th street that sells liquor next to residential areas and kids walking by there to go to school. A motion was made by Board Member Winters to APPROVE Petition ARB 22-01, a request for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis establishment to a religious establishment. Vice Chair Erickson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 4-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Rogers and 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: There was no business from the Board Members. Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: A motion was made by Board Member Winters to adjourn the February 3, 2022 meeting of the Administrative Review Board; Chair Dennis seconded the motion. The meeting of February 3, 2022 was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ James Dennis Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 17  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 22- 05 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, a private or public school and another retail cannabis establishment. 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 cannabis retail facility to a religious institution, a school and an adjacent cannabis retail facility. This distance is measured property line to property line exclusive of right-of-way. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel ID – R0029270 Otherwise located at 3150 E. Main St. Suite A20 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Matthew Kopelman, current tenant Property Owner Peterson Properties and Associates Location of Property 3150 E Main Street, Suite A20 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, a school and an adjacent cannabis retail facility. 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 32,000 sf commercial building (multi-tenant) Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: GC: General Commercial – Hobby Lobby, Entertain-Mart, Large Commercial Mall South: GC: General Commercial – Fiesta Mexicana, Dunkin’ Donuts, Guild Mortgage East: GC: General Commercial – Long John Silver’s, Small Commercial Mall West: GC: General Commercial – Staples, Dollar General, Shamrock, ACE Hardware 18  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, February 9, 2022. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, February 9, 2022. A sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, February 15, 2022. Staff Michael Safrany, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution, a school and an adjacent cannabis retail facility. 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, 3150 E Main St, is directly opposite the property line for the Cornerstone Apostolic Church at 3030 E Main St. Suite A5 and opposite the property line of the Charter Institute and the Reef Joint. The distance from the subject property to the location of the religious institution is approximately 700 feet. The distance from the subject property to the school is approximately 810 feet. The distance from the subject property to the cannabis retail facility is approximately 760 feet. Disregarding the right-of-way of 20th Street, these two properties are adjacent. Measuring the distance including 20th Street, the properties are approximately 80 feet apart. 19  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street ZONING MAP PROPOSED RETAIL LOCATION 20  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street Aerial View 21  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE The 300 ft. restriction between property lines is preventing 3000 E Main from utilizing the property in a manner consistent with other similarly zoned properties in the area. Note: The facility at 3000 E 20th St. 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 Derrick Childers, Chief Building Official: Any remodeling will require a building permit. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: Letters were sent out to four property owners within 100 feet. NOTIFICATION LETTERS Melloy Brothers Motor Ltd Co 7707 Lomas Blvd NE Albuquerque, NM 87110 Melloy Brothers Motor Ltd Co 3200 E Main St. Farmington, NM 87401 Peterson Properties & Assoc. 2325 San Pedro NE Ste 2A Albuquerque, NM 87110 San Juan Assoc. LP 2325 San Pedro NE Ste 2A Albuquerque, NM 87110 No comments have been received at the time of this report from the neighbors: 22  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th 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. All three physical buildings are over 700 ft. away from the subject property with retail businesses in between, including several major retail businesses. Also, the buildings are facing different directions and use different parking lots and street entrances. Despite the actual distance, the property lines are considered within 300 ft. from each other. 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 3150 E Main St. despite the surrounding area being properly zoned General Commercial. 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 retail buffers plus the 80 ft. right-of-way provided by 20th Street and the location of all three institutions 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. 23  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th 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 one of Farmington’s main commercial corridors. 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 22- 05 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 22-05 from Matthew Kopelman 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, a school and an adjacent retail cannabis facility. 24  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street 25  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street NOTIFICATION LETTERS Melloy Brothers Motor Ltd Co 7707 Lomas Blvd NE Albuquerque, NM 87110 Melloy Brothers Motor Ltd Co 3200 E Main St. Farmington, NM 87401 Peterson Properties & Assoc. 2325 San Pedro NE Ste 2A Albuquerque, NM 87110 San Juan Assoc. LP 2325 San Pedro NE Ste 2A Albuquerque, NM 87110 26