Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM May 4, 2023 - 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from April 6, 2023 4. Petition ARB 23-17 – Petition ARB 23-17 – A request for a variance of two sections of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC) requiring lighting requirements for a new gas station: 1) Section 5.11.2E (1) Illumination levels for gas station canopies. Canopies shall be limited to a maximum of 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy, and 2) Section 5.11.E that total outdoor light output, excluding streetlights used for illumination of pubic rights-of-way, of any development project shall not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre. Tabled from the March 6, 2023 meeting 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 April 6, 2023 The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members Present: Chair James Dennis Vice Chair Brian Erickson Carl Winters (Telephonically) Members Absent: Brad Ballard Staff Present: Beth Escobar Tami Spencer Others Addressing the Board: Brandon Ryan Mandana Allen Tammy Abeyta Linda Ritta Sophia Newton Andres Villacres Greg Olesen Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chair Dennis and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to approve the agenda, Board Member Winters seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Approval of the Minutes from the March 9, 2023 Regular Meeting Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2023 regular meeting. Board Member Winters seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Swearing in of Witnesses Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak. ____________________________________________________________________________ Petition ARB 23-09 – 702 N. Allen Ave. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: 1  Variance Request  Petitioner is Brandon Ryan  Request is for a variance to allow a front 15 ft. setback and a 6 ft. street-side setback.  Variance to Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Density and Dimensional Standards.  A Rezone Petition has been submitted (ZC 23-10) from SF-7 to MF-M, Multi-family medium density. Applicable Code Section 2.8 Density and Dimensional Standards MF-M zoning requires a minimum front setback of 20 feet and a street-side setback of 20 feet. Zoning Map 2  Aerial Map of Subject Property Existing Site Plan Existing Non-Conforming Condition  The existing building is currently legal non-conforming due to setback violations at the front and street-side setbacks 3  The existing building is approximately 18 feet from the west front property line and 11 feet from the south street-side property line  A non-conforming structure shall not be enlarged or extended except in full compliance of the UDC  The lot size meets the minimum 8,000 sf lot size for a MF-M, Multi-family medium density district.  The existing building will be converted into two rental units. Two additional rental units at 24 ft. by 30 ft. each will be added onto the east end of the existing building. View of Property Facing North View of Property Facing South 4  View of Property Facing West UDC Section 2.8 Density and Dimensional standards Proposed Development  The existing building is 1,520 sf., the new addition will be 1,440 sf. The total building will be approx. 2,960 sf.  The proposed site plan shows eight parking spaces off the back alley. This is sufficient parking for up to four rental units with no limits to number of bedrooms. 5  The proposed site plan shows the two rental additions forming an L shape, adhering to the east rear setback (25 ft.) and the north interior-side setback (8 ft.).  The proposed design does not encroach the west front setback or the south street-side setback any more than the existing legal non-conforming structure.  The proposed remodel will not affect the 20 ft. by 20 ft. safe-sight triangle requirements at the Hopi St. and N. Allen Ave. intersection. The parking access from the alley to Hopi St. also meets the safe-sight requirements. Proposed Site Plan 6  Proposed Site Plan w/Background Criteria 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 existing legal, non-conforming building was built before the current zoning regulations. The location of the existing building is not the result of self-imposed actions by the applicant. The proposed floor plan totals 2,960 sf and meets the density requirements for the proposed zoning. This criterion IS met. Criteria 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. 7   The literal interpretation of the provisions of the UDC would deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the surrounding area. The current property is legal non-conforming due to the structure located within the setback and can therefore not be enlarged or extended. This criterion IS met. Criteria 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 requested variance is a minimum easing of the code. This variance if approved would allow the applicant to build up to 40% of the property. Other lots in the same district are allowed the same amount of building space. This criterion IS met. Criteria 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.  A single-story structure with four rental units providing off-street parking is in harmony with the general interest, purpose and intent of the UDC. The requested variance will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This criterion IS met. Criteria 5 & 6  That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district.  The granting of this variance will not allow any other prohibited uses in the MF-M: Multi- family Medium Density Residential District. This criterion IS met.  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. 8 Criteria 7  That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied.  The applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were denied. The property would remain legal non-conforming preventing the owner from any expansion or alterations of the existing building, and thereby preventing the full maximization of the potential of the site. The community would also be denied an opportunity for infill redevelopment providing diverse housing options, a goal promoted by the 2040 City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan. This criterion IS met. Public Input  No public input has been received. Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 23-09 from Brandon Ryan for a variance to allow a 15-foot front yard setback and a 6-foot street-side setback for property located at 702 N Allen Ave. with the following conditions:  The developer must obtain all necessary building permits and must meet the requirements of the UDC Article 5 – Development Standards.  A building/fire inspection shall be required.  A zone change from SF-7, Single-family Residential to MF-M, Multi-family medium density residential must be approved. 9  Discussion The Board Asked City Staff: 1. There is parking along Hopi St., can that be used as parking for this new development? 2. If you expand Hope St. in the future, it would be relativity close to the structure. 3. There would be 40 feet, then a five foot sidewalk and one foot to the building. 4. There are eight tenant parking spots? Could you have more off of Allen Ave.? 5. If Hopi St. is expanded, would you still have the sight triangle at the intersection? City Staff Replied: 1. That area the church used for parking is on the city’s right of way. The paved portion of Hope St. is 24 feet but the right of way is actually 40 feet. However we would not permit parking there for any new or future development. That area is reserved in case Hopi St. is ever widened from two lanes to four lanes and there are City of Farmington utilities in that right of way. 2. If it were expanded, certainly the sidewalk would be close to the edge of the property. If we were to improve Hopi St. it would be to current standards with sidewalk, curb and gutter. 3. Those measurements are correct. 4. Yes, there are eight proposed parking spaces that would feed off of Hopi St., then there is an alley to the back where you could fit visitor parking, and also in the front on Allen Ave. 5. Yes, the sight triangle would be preserved, because the building will not move. Petitioner, Brandon Ryan, 4100 E. Main St., Farmington NM Mr. Ryan stated they recognized this space as being underutilized and it had been on the market for some time. They had looked at several options, ranging from a single-family home to a multi- family complex. After talking with City of Farmington Senior Planner Safrany they identified that there was the potential for this lot to be built out as multi-family units. We are here today to discuss the setback issues. He is in the real estate industry and feels this will fit into the city’s comprehensive plan and it would provide a diverse mix of housing for residents. The Board Asked Petitioner: 1. Is that structure sitting on a concrete slab? Petitioner Replied: 1. Yes, it is on a slab. Affected Parties Mandana Allen, 701 & 703 N. Orchard Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Allen stated she owns both 701 & 703 N. Orchard and has long term renters in them. The parking lot will be right next to her backyard. She loves how calm and quite the neighborhood is. The church was active a year ago, it was not abandoned. She stated that they were sad to see them go. When the church was active they parked in her backyard. If you put four properties there, there will not be enough parking for them. She feels this is a single-family area and does not want to see a multi-family unit in this neighborhood. Ms. Allen also stated when she retires it will be at 10 701 N. Orchard Ave. She does not really care about Farmington and its 40 year growth, she cares about Farmington now and the quality of life she lives. This is not going to help the quality of her life or her neighbor’s lives. It’s not going to help anyone but the petitioner’s pockets. It is zoned single-family, stick to the plan. It was a church less than a year ago. Keep it a church, there are Christian people looking for a place to worship. The Board Asked Ms. Allen: 1. Your property abuts the alley? Is there any fence along that property line? 2. On Sunday when the last people are arriving to church, where did they park? Ms. Allen Replied: 1 Yes, she owns both 701 & 703. Nope, no fence, it is an open area that the church used all along. It is dirt and trees, hopefully one day she can afford to fix it up. 2 They park in her backyard, which she didn’t have a problem with, they are in church worshiping God. She cannot imagine it 365 days a year. Tammy Abeyta, 706 N. Allen Ave. Farmington NM Ms. Abeyta stated that she agrees with Ms. Allen about keeping it a single family home or a church. She also feels if they put four units in there, she will no longer have a back yard and no privacy. If there are guests, they will take up her parking space in front of her house. She is also curious about how many bedrooms each unit will have. She would just like it to stay the way it is. Ms. Abeyta added that she had thought about buying the property, but it was not on the market very long before it had sold. The Board Asked Ms. Abeyta: 1. What would you have done with the property? 2. How long have you lived at that address? 3. When you bought that house you were aware that there was an active church next door? Ms. Abeyta Replied: 1. She would have enclosed the property to make a bigger back yard and a garden. 2. She has lived there for about three years. 3. Yes she was aware that the church was active when she moved in. Linda Ritta, 616 N. Allen Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Ritta stated the front of her house faces the church, so she would be looking directly at the proposed complex. She believed people would be parking in front of her house and she worries about the aging sewer system and how having the extra people living there would put a strain of that system. She would like it to be a single family home to keep the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Sophia Newton, 710 N. Allen Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Newton stated she would like to keep this location as a church or a single family home. She had to put a fence up to keep people from parking in her backyard. She is worried that people would be parking in her back yard again. Ms. Newton added that the neighborhood is quiet and she does not know if the new tenants would also be quiet. 11 The Board Asked Ms. Newton: 1. Do you know if there are other multi-family structures in your neighborhood? Ms. Newton Replied: 1. Ms. Newton believes there is, there are apartments on the other side from where she lives. There are also apartments about two housed down from her house. Ms. Abeyta asked Staff: 1. Ms. Abeyta wanted to know where her front property line is, since she maintains the space from the sidewalk to the street. 2. She would like to get a survey to see where her property line is before they start building the complex. Staff Replied: 1. Staff showed Ms. Abeyta the site plan and explained that from the back of the sidewalk up to her house is her property. The sidewalk and the area where the rocks is City property. 2. The City does not survey private property. If this moves forward, a site plan that will show the property lines is required. Petitioner Ryan responded to the public comments: Mr. Ryan wanted to address some of the concerns the public had presented. He also wanted to remind the board that this is a two part petition, this evening was for the variance and how it related to the setback issue, and regardless of what they decide to do, they would still have to get the variance to address the setback issues. The multi-family aspect will be addressed at the Thursday, April 13 Planning & Zoning meeting for the zone change. Mr. Ryan wanted to add that they are extremely thoughtful about how they are proceeding with this project. They have been in contact with Senior Planner Safrany about what the potential would be for this building and the lot. There have been many hours of time and thought about how this could be set up including the mix in the neighborhood. He added there are a multitude of areas in the neighborhood that are multi-family units. Mr. Ryan also stated these will be efficiency units, and they feel this will fit nicely into the area. These will be 750 sq. ft. per unit. They are thinking two one bedroom units and two, two bedroom units. They also feel the parking will be much less than the Sunday church parking was. Mr. Ryan understands the publics concerns, but that will be addressed at the upcoming Planning & Zoning meeting. The Board Asked Petitioner: 1. Your plan is to have four smaller 750 sq. ft. units vs. two 1500 sq. ft. units? 2. If the Planning & Zoning Commission does not recommend approval of the zone change to multi-family, do you have plans moving forward? Would you consider a single-family unit? 12  3. If you were forced to reevaluate the situation, would you still need the variance to the setback no matter what you decide to do with the property? 4. Are you planning on putting a fence up to help with the neighbor’s privacy? Petitioner Replied: 1. Yes, we are planning on four smaller units. We are still in the design process and we have considered a multitude of options. Our prevailing option is to turn these into some kind of executive type rentals. Because these are smaller and could be fully furnished, this would be good for a traveling doctors and nurses. Just the square footage alone would be pretty constrictive on how many people would be living there on a long term basis. 2. If this is not recommended for approval, we would have to reevaluate the design phase. We already own the property, and we definitely want to make something nice out of this regardless of the outcome of the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. We feel this complex is the best use for that location. If we are going to go to the expense to put in all the new plumbing and infrastructure, that is a large expense for a single-family unit. 3. That is correct, we would need the variance to move forward in any way. 4. Our intention is to enclose any common area to limit the amount of intrusiveness to the neighbors. We want to be responsible neighbors. Ms. Allen returned to the podium: Ms. Allen stated again that she owned 701 and 703 N. Orchard. They are one bedroom rentals and she has a gang war with the people renting from her to keep the cars to two cars per unit. She feels that because the culture in Farmington, there are multiple people living in these small units. So there is no guarantee, because it is a small unit that there will not be multiple people living there. These developers will not be living in these units. The have big visions and goals for it, but they won’t be living there. She added there are apartments on Hopi St., Orchard Ave. and Comanche St. that are dumps and dives, her place is not fabulous either, but hopefully someday her place will be nice too. She stated Allen St. is a beautiful street. Have you heard the stories of people who rent the executive units, it’s is not pleasing. You have two stories, the planning committee who are saying this is going to be part of the housing solution, then they say they are going to make these executive rentals. That is not housing for Farmington, that’s housing for the developer to make money off the hospital who is so desperate need for nurses and medical people that are coming into town. There are plenty of other places for them, but that is not for Farmington, it’s for their business. She added lastly, why would you grant them this variance if they are not sure what they want to do with this property. The Board Asked Ms. Allen: 1. How many rentals do you have? Is it just the two? 2. Are they all one bedrooms? 3. Do you live in the neighborhood? Ms. Allen Replied: 1. I have many rentals. I have a duplex and a single. 2. Yes, one bedrooms, and I have a gang war keeping them down to two cars. I’m not doing executive rentals, I rent to local people. In Farmington, those people will take a one bedroom apartment and they will be perfectly comfortable putting a lot of people in there. 13  If these developers are not going to live in our neighborhood, how will they take care of our neighborhood. 3. No, but I am there every single day and I am going to live in 701 when I retire. With no further discussion, Chair Dennis closed the public portion of the meeting. Staff wanted to make a couple of clarifications. Planning Manager Escobar stated that we require onsite parking for residents, so the eight are actually two more than what be required. Guest parking is available on public streets. If the neighbors have people parking in their backyards, they need to call code enforcement and they will respond to that. Just as a reminder executive housing provides a housing need in the city, and any traveling doctors or nurses who are in this type of facility are not renting a single-family home, so it opens up availability in other areas. The question for the board is the setback variance request. The Board Asked Staff: 1. The setback requirement is necessary to move this property forward? 2. I’m going to assume the one year of no use is up for this property. If anything is done besides leaving it a church, they will need this variance for the setback? 3. For the approval for multi-family from Planning & Zoning Commission, if that is to take place, multi-family has different setback requirements, is that correct? They will not have to come before ARB again because we are already approving a certain footage? Staff Replied: 1. That is correct, the variance is needed for any kind of use. 2. That is correct, because if they convert this to a single-family they will need a building permit which would trigger our review of the setbacks. Which would bring them back to this board for a variance. 3. Yes, that is correct. There was a discussion with Planning Manger Escobar and the Board regarding the setbacks for single-family and multi-family. The petitioner is basing this petition on zoning approval. He will have to put both the variance and the zone change together. His request is a variance from the multi-family setbacks, not single-family. With no Board Member discussion, Chair Dennis called for a motion. Board Member Winters made a motion to approve petition ARB 23-09 as presented by staff to keep the existing setbacks. Vice Chair Erickson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Winters (telephonically) NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Ballard APPROVED 3-0 14 Petition ARB 23-17 – 4179 E. Main St. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Variance Request  Section 5.11 Outdoor Lighting  Petitioner is Andres Villacres The applicant requests a variance of the UDC requiring gas station canopies be limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy and outdoor light output not to exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre. Applicable Code  Variance to Section 5.11.2.E(1) of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Canopies for Gas Stations  Variance to Section 5.11.E of the Unified Development Code (UDC), total outdoor light output. Aerial View of Subject Property 15  Zoning Map Proposed Site Plan 16 View of Property Facing Northeast View of Property Facing Southeast 17  View of Property Facing West Darksky.org  Concludes that lighting up the nighttime environment does not necessarily improve safety or security  There is no clear scientific evidence that increased outdoor lighting deters crime and increases safety  Brighter does not mean safer 18  Darksky.org guidelines to follow  Use fully shielded, dark sky friendly fixtures. That means lights shine down, not up, and do not create glare and contrasts.  Only use lights where and when needed. Install timers and dimmer switches, and turn off lights when not in use.  Use the right amount of light. Too much light is wasteful and impairs vision.  Use long-wavelength lights with a red or yellow tint to minimize negative health effects.  Good lighting design can mitigate glare. Cities and towns can restrict the use of bright signs and flashing lights near roadways. Proposed Lighting Layout Criteria 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 property is 1.44 acres and is located directly adjacent to E. Main St. There is existing street lighting along the right-of-way and the applicant is allowed 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy. In addition the parking area is allowed up to one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre, averaged over the entire property. Street lights 19  and non-shielded accent lighting, such as landscape lighting does not count towards the maximum lumens allowable for a project. No special conditions or circumstances have been identified. This criterion IS NOT met. Criteria 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 Community Works Department reviews all developments within this commercial district, and adheres to Section 5.11 Outdoor Lighting requirements of the UDC. The intent of the code is to regulate the brightness and glare for traffic safety and to minimize the impact on neighboring properties; this does not deprive the applicant the right to illuminate the subject property consistent with other businesses along E. Main St. This criterion IS NOT met. Criteria 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 intent of the code is to regulate the brightness and glare for traffic safety and to minimize the impact on neighboring properties. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed lighting will be a minimum easing of the code or the effects of glare will have a minimum impact on traffic and neighbors. This criterion IS NOT met. Criteria 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 business is harmonious with other businesses in the area, and also provides employment and services to the community. However, granting a variance to allow brighter lighting and additional glare to the area could be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This criterion IS NOT met. Criteria 5 & 6  That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district.  The granting of this variance will not allow any other prohibited uses in the GC: General Commercial District. 20  This criterion IS met.  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. Criteria 7  That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied.  The applicant would not suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were to be denied. The strict adherence to Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for gas stations limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy, and Section 5.11.E limiting outdoor light output to 100,000 lumens per net acre for the proposed property would not deny or limit operations of the business in this location. This criterion IS NOT met. Public Input One phone call from an affected party was received in support of the variance. 21  Recommendation  The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 23-17 from Andres Villacres, for a variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for gas stations shall be limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy. The Community Works Department also recommends denial for a variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.E that total outdoor light output, excluding streetlights used for illumination of public rights-of-way, of any development project shall not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre, averaged over the property. Discussion The Board Asked Staff: 1. This is the lighting under the canopy that covers the gas pumps? Will the area under the canopy instead of 20 lumens per square foot will be much greater? 2. It will be bright under the canopy, if I have bad eyes, that illumination will help me? 3. Are we only talking about the canopy lighting or are we talking about pole lighting too? 4. Does anyone know what the Smiths canopy lighting is? 5. The intent of what we are trying to do is make a consistent comfortable street scape. 6. Who is the reviewer for commercial properties? Staff Replied: 1. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Villacres has a presentation to help understand the lumens. 2. Staff disagrees with that statement. If you have bad eyes, it only gets worse with glare. 3. We are talking about all lighting, there is a 100,000 lumen limit to the site. 4. If you look at any gas station, they are not in compliance with the regulations adopted in 2021. They are legal non-conforming, but Smith’s lighting is what led to the changes in our ordinance. 5. Correct, we are attempting to comply with the New Mexico regulations for dark skies. We are also attempting as properties redevelop to tone down the existing lighting. 6. That would be Senior Planer Safrany, he is in charge of all commercial review. His review is what got us here. Petitioner Andres Villacres, 185 S. State St. Salt Lake City UT Mr. Villacres presented the following: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The Board Asked Petitioner: 1. What are your lumens under the canopy? 2. The entire sight is required to be 100,000? 3. That includes the canopy lighting? 4. Maverick has extensively studied this to be able to construct a photo metric plan. 5. Everything else is shielded down light? 6. When do you think you will be ready for lighting? 7. On the photo metric, does this count take into account that the gas station is at a lower elevation than Main St. 8. If this variance is not approved, what would Maverick do then? Petitioner Replied: 1. Under the canopy the lumen count is 600,000, the canopy is about 7000 sq. ft. which ends up being 85 initial lumens per sq. ft. 2. With approximately 1.44 acres, per current code, the max we can have is 144,000. 3. Yes, the canopy lighting alone is 600,000 and the site itself is 100,000. 4. Yes Sir, initially Maverick wants to protect the staff and customers. Do to the 24/7 operations. We have the employees walk the site to make sure everything is clean and to assist customers. Due to the commercial area, we do not believe we will stand out too much. 5. That is correct. We did get a building permit from Building Inspection, but that is contingent on the outcome of this meeting. 6. We have a meeting with our construction crew tomorrow and start construction in about 60 days. 7. Yes, this site will set four feet below Main St. The photo metric does take that into account. 8. For full occupancy lumens, which means at the full 1.44 acres at night it would be at 800,600 lumens, per acre that is 559,000 lumens. No occupancy lumens, which means no customers, the lumens would be dimmed 40% to 483,600 lumens, per acre that is 335,833 lumens. If this variance was not granted we would probably appeal, and work with the director of risk management and the architect to see how much lower we can go and still keep our employees and customers safe. The Board Asked Staff: 1. Did we have any regulations prior to the revision in 2021? 2. Have we applied this to any new developments? 3. Do you have an example of what 20 lumens per sq. ft. looks like? 4. Do you have stores that meet this lighting standard? Staff Replied: 1. The old code focused on fully shielded lighting, the lumen count per acre is new. 2. This is the first, but we do anticipate a few more fuel station developments. We have specific regulations for canopies, but then we have overall regulations which would apply to the rest of this site. 31  3. We do not, but most of downtown, except at Christmas, meets the requirements. If you want a good example of compliant lighting, drive down Main St. at night. Three Rivers Assisted Living has compliant lighting. 4. Yes, Durango CO, meets the lighting standard. They made us remove some of the strip lighting and the LED strip on the canopy. That made it about 100,000 less lumens than this site would have. Aztec, NM did not have a dark sky ordinance. The Board Asked Petitioner: 1. Will the strip lighting be on our station? 2. Who does your lighting design? Petitioner Replied: 1. No we would not install the strip lighting. Remember the lights would also dim 40% when there are no customers late at night. 2. We use GPD, an architect firm out of Utah. Our lights are shielded and are pointed down, no LED will be on the building, we do our best to be a good community partner and to provide a safe site for our customers and staff. Greg Olesen, 185 S. State St. Salt Lake City UT Mr. Olesen stated that the lighting at the Moab station is similar to what we are looking for. 90% of the stores they build are well lit and maintained. Some of the stores in Colorado and Washington State do have lower light requirements, however all the stations are privately owned. We find the brighter lights keep the vandals away. We feel that a station that has brighter lighting will attract better customers. If you had a choice of two stations with bright and not so bright lights, you would probably pick the station with the brighter lights. With no public input this portion of the meeting is closed. Board Member Discussion The Board still had many questions to the brightness of the lumens, and decided to table Petition ARB 23-17 until staff and the Petitioner can show examples of the lumens per acre. Vice Chair Erickson made a motion to table Petition ARB 23-17, to the May 4, 2023 meeting, and staff and the petitioner can show examples of lumens per acre. Board Member Winters seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Erickson, Board Member Winters (telephonically) NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Ballard APPROVED 3-0 32 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair Business from the Members: Board Member Winters would like some training on the City standards for illumination. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar informed the Board that Paul Martin has been reappointed and will be joining the ARB in May. City staff has been pretty busy. We have another Maverick and several fast food restaurants going in. She also thanked the board for their patience. On 20th St. there will be a drive through/walk up Starbucks, Starbucks will also be going into the old Bank of America building on W. Main St. Ms. Escobar will put some visuals on illumination together and an analysis from the State, to help educate the Board. Adjournment: A motion was made by Vice Chair Erickson to adjourn the April 6, 2023 meeting of the Administrative Review Board; Board Member Winters seconded the motion. The meeting of April 6, 2023 was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. James Dennis Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 33 34  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 23-17 1) Variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for Gas Stations shall be limited to a maximum of 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy, and 2) Variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.E Total outdoor light output, excluding streetlights used for illumination of public rights-of-way, of any development project shall not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre, averaged over the entire property. May 4, 2023 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 23-17 is a request from Andres Villacres for a variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for gas stations shall be limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy. A variance is also requested of the UDC, Section 5.11.E that total outdoor light output, excluding streetlights used for illumination of public rights-of- way, of any development project shall not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre, averaged over the property located at 4179 E. Main St., in the GC: General Commercial District. The property is legally described as: FARMINGTON CENTER SUBDIVISION LOT 1 BK. 1674 PG.16. Otherwise located at 4179 E Main St. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant .......................... Andres Villacres Property Owner ............... Tyler Call (CFO) Location of Property ....... 4179 E. Main St. (R6002339) - 1.44 Acres Nature of Petition ............ The applicants request a variance of the UDC requiring gas station canopies be limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy and outdoor light output not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre. Applicable Regulations ... City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Pursuant to UDC, Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for gas stations and UDC, Section 5.11.E total outdoor light output. Zoning .............................. GC: General Commercial Existing Use ..................... Vacant lot Surrounding Zoning/ ….. North: GC, Commercial Retail Businesses Land Use South: GC, Commercial Retail Businesses East: GC, Commercial Retail Businesses West: GC, Commercial Retail Businesses Public Notice……………. Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, March 21, 2023. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Monday March 27, 2023. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, February 24, 2023. Staff Mike Safrany, Senior Planner 35 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for gas stations shall be limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy. A variance is also requested of the UDC, Section 5.11.E that total outdoor light output, excluding streetlights used for illumination of public rights-of-way, of any development project shall not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre, averaged over the property. Adjusted as of 4/24/23: Current Lumens for the project at full capacity is 491,667. Lumens at no occupancy and dimmed 40% will be 295,000 Lumens. Resources and information provided by darksky.org concludes that lighting up the nighttime environment does not necessarily improve safety or security. This may seem contradictory, but there is no clear scientific evidence that increased outdoor lighting deters crime and increases safety. Effective lighting that helps people be safe, not just feel safe, is a win-win situation for everyone. A safer environment can be created while keeping light natural. Here are a few rules provided by darksky.org to follow:  Use fully shielded, dark sky friendly fixtures. That means lights shine down, not up, and do not create glare and contrasts.  Only use lights where and when needed. Install timers and dimmer switches, and turn off lights when not in use.  Use the right amount of light. Too much light is wasteful and impairs vision.  Use long-wavelength lights with a red or yellow tint to minimize negative health effects.  Good lighting design can mitigate glare. Cities and towns can restrict the use of bright signs and flashing lights near roadways. 36 Updated Information as of 4/24/23 37 THE JOINT IDA-IES MODEL LIGHTING ORDINANCE (MLO) The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA, or IES) gives in current publications recommended illumination levels of outdoor lighting. The IES does not set standards, though IES recommendations are often used by those who set standards. Standards are set at the federal, state, county or community level. (New York, April 16, 2020) — The International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) announce a strategic collaboration to address the global issue of light pollution that negatively affects our environment and the human condition. The Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) is the result of extensive efforts by the IDA and the IES to drastically reduce light pollution and glare. The lighting zones below reflect the light levels desired by a typical community. 38 The proposed gas station with a retail store is consistent with the LZ-2 Lighting Zone. Using the Hardscape Area Method recommended by the MLO, we can take the 2.5 lumens per square foot of hardscape and multiply this by one acre (43,560 sf). This gives us the recommended 108,900 lumens per acre, which is consistent with the UDC Section 5.11.E stating the development shall not exceed 100,000 lumens per net acre averaged over the entire property. 39 The MLO allows an additional 8,000 lumens per pump (based on 20 fc horizontal) for vehicle service stations in the LZ-2 Lighting Zone (See table below). However, this allowance has not been approved by the City of Farmington and is currently not part of the Unified Building Code. 40 Figure 1. Zoning Map 41 Figure 2. San Juan County Assessor's Map 42 Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan 43 Figure 4. Foot-Candles Light Plan 44 View of property facing northeast View of property facing southeast 45 View of Property Facing West 46 View of Gas Station across from Subject Property View of Gas Station on Sullivan and 20th 47 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 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 property is 1.44 acres and is located directly adjacent to E. Main St. There is existing street lighting along the right-of-way and the applicant is allowed 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy. In addition the parking area is allowed up to one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre, averaged over the entire property. Street lights and non-shielded accent lighting, such as landscape lighting does not count towards the maximum lumens allowable for a project. No special conditions or circumstances have been identified. 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 Community Works Department reviews all developments within this commercial district, and adheres to Section 5.11 Outdoor Lighting requirements of the UDC. The intent of the code is to regulate the brightness and glare for traffic safety and to minimize the impact on neighboring properties; this does not deprive the applicant the right to illuminate the subject property consistent with other businesses along E. Main St. 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 intent of the code is to regulate the brightness and glare for traffic safety and to minimize the impact on neighboring properties. The applicant has not 48  demonstrated that the proposed lighting will be a minimum easing of the code or the effects of glare will have a minimum impact on traffic and neighbors. 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. The proposed business is harmonious with other businesses in the area, and also provides employment and services to the community. However, granting a variance to allow brighter lighting and additional glare to the area could be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This criterion IS NOT met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. The granting of this variance will not allow any other prohibited uses in the GC: General Commercial 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 not suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were to be denied. The strict adherence to Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for gas stations limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy, and Section 5.11.E limiting outdoor light output to 100,000 lumens per net acre for the proposed property would not deny or limit operations of the business in this location. This criterion IS NOT met. 49 CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 23-17 is NOT a minimum easing of the code, does NOT meet the intent of the code and that it is NOT a property that has characteristics unique enough to allow for waiver of the outdoor lighting for gas station canopies and the total outdoor light output. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 23-17 from Andres Villacres, for a variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.2.E (1) Canopies for gas stations shall be limited to 20 initial lamp lumens per square foot of canopy. The Community Works Department also recommends denial for a variance of the UDC, Section 5.11.E that total outdoor light output, excluding streetlights used for illumination of public rights-of-way, of any development project shall not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) lumens per net acre, averaged over the property. 50 51 52 53 54  NOTICE SENT TO PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Carl and Wanda Cordell 5207 Hubbard Rd. Farmington, NM 87402 Henry Martinez 4102 Gila St. Farmington, NM 87401-8732 Malcolm and Helen McClellan PO Box 1159 Deerfield, IL 60015 Real Estate Pros LLC 4100 E Main St. Farmington, NM 87402 Red Shamrock 12 LLC PO Box 92558 Albuquerque, NM 87199 United Laundries Inc. 732 W Arrington St. Farmington, NM 87401 Western Refining Retail LLC PO Box 592809 Tx1-047 San Antonio, TX 78259 INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: One phone call from an effected party was received in support of the variance 55 56