Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive September 24, 2020 - 3:00 p.m. This meeting will be held virtually using Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89530434206 Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the September 10, 2020 Planning & Zoning Meeting 4 Adoption of a resolution setting and establishing a regular meeting day, time and place for the Planning & Zoning Commission 5 PUBLIC HEARING: Petition SUP 20-38 – Special Use Permit to allow for tax refund loan operations in the CB, Central Business Zoning District at 104 ½ E. Main St. 6 Business From: Floor - Chairman - Members - Staff - 7 Adjournment The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 13, 2020. 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 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 The Planning and Zoning Commission met in a regular session on September 10, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Ryan Brown Vice Chair – Clint Freeman Cheryl Ragsdale Mitch Sewell Gary Smouse Cody Waldroup P&Z Members Absent: Chair – Joyce Cardon Shay Davis Elizabeth Lockmiller Wayne Mangum Staff Present: Anita Vigil Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Others Who Addressed the Commission (Via Zoom Virtual Platform): None Call to Order Vice Chair Clint Freeman called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Presentation & Approval of the Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Smouse and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Smouse and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2020 P&Z Meeting. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved unanimously by a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Waldroup joined the meeting and voted on approval of the minutes. Swearing in of Witnesses There were not petitions being heard at this meeting. There were no witnesses to swear in. Draft UDC Updates Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the Draft UDC (Unified Development Code) Updates to the commission. COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT REVISIONS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Review Of Proposed Revisions And Updates To The Unified Development Code STAFF REPORT – September 10, 2020 Summary The Planning & Zoning Commission began reviewing the proposed changes to the Unified Development Code on August 13, 2020 and requested more information on the following topics: Section 2 – Use Regulations 2.4.7 Animals or fowl • Allow for the keeping of fowl as a permitted use. The current policy, based on a white paper from the City Attorney, is to allow the keeping of chickens without a requirement for a Special Use Permit. The keeping of rosters is not allowed. The proposed change to the UDC is to list the keeping of fowl, except rosters, as a permitted use in all zoning districts. • A definition of fowl will be added to Section 11 of the UDC: Any kind of domesticated bird raised for meat, eggs or feathers. • Section 2.47.7 shall be amended to read:  Keeping or raising animals or fowl shall comply with the standards of this section. A. The number of animal units allowed per acre shall be determined by using the recommended animal unit capacity provided in the definition of animal unit in Article 11, definitions. (1) Within the residential agricultural (RA) district, the keeping of animals or fowl in accordance with the recommended animal unit capacity per acre is permitted by right. (2) In all other districts other than (RA) the keeping of fowl is a permitted subject to the guidelines of Section 6-4-2 – General cleanliness of premises where animals are kept – of the City of Farmington Municipal Code. a. The keeping of roosters is not permitted. b. If complaints are received regarding the keeping of fowl on a property, issues must be addressed immediately or the right to keep fowl will be revoked. A Special Use Permit that addresses any complaints received shall be obtained in order to retain the right to keep fowl on the property. c. The maximum number of fowl permitted per property is six. d. No shelter for fowl shall be erected closer than 10 feet to a neighboring dwelling unit. No shelter for fowl shall be erected in the front or side yard setbacks. e. No slaughtering of fowl on the property is permitted. This reflects the ordinance the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended in 2018. Commissioner Sewell stated that roosters add value and they can be surgical altered to not produce noise. Vice Chair Freeman asked if one could get a special use permit to allow for a roster. Planning Manager Escobar said that yes, one could get a special use permit for a roster. Commissioner Sewell said it would make more sense to have a special use permit process for rosters. Commissioner Sewell asked why there was a limit of 6 chickens. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was what had previously been presented to Council and she kept that number. Commissioner Waldroup stated that setting a limit on quantity is okay, but to have more than 6 chickens a special use permit would be required. Section 2.4.59.c Vehicle repair, paint and body shops, has been amended to state: No repairs shall be conducted within 200 feet of any property line of a residential use located within a residential boundary. This distance is measured from the property line to the front of the repair shop or area bay door. 2.5.2.B Accessory uses and structures Remove the limitation of three accessory structures per property and replace with a 30 percent lot coverage maximum. This would allow for a variety of separate buildings on a property but limit the overall building footprint. The larger the property the higher the allowable building foot-print. Language has been added specifying accessory structures 50 square feet or smaller are not subject to regulations or permit requirements. Setback requirements have been simplified. Minimum setbacks for accessory structure would be three feet from the side yard line and 5 feet from the rear lot line Commissioner Waldroup asked what if you don’t have a front yard. Planning Manager Escobar stated that an accessory structure cannot be placed in front of your house and that all accessory structures must meet the front setbacks. Vice Chair Freeman stated that there was a previous petition where the petitioner wanted to build a horse barn that was the same size as the petitioner’s house. Vice Chair Freeman stated that he liked the overall percentage that we are at. Section 2.5.4 & 2.5.8 Apartments and Guest Houses Code modifications are suggested to allow for the placement of separate utility meters on apartments and guesthouses. This includes the removal of the requirement for a Special Use Permit for an apartment. Applications for both apartments and guesthouses would be subject to an Administrative Review. This would be an internal process and would not go to a public hearing. Neighbors within 100 feet would be notified and any concerns that arise would be addressed. The need for a second meter could be evaluated and approved through this process. This change treats apartments and guest houses equally, tracks their use, and allows a contract between the property owner and the City to ensure that the units are used as intended. Planning Manager Escobar stated that we have had 5 variances go to the Administrative Review Board for review in regards to second meters on guest houses. Vice Chair Freeman asked how a stove plays into the variance. Planning Manager Escobar stated that full gas stoves are not allowed and the Planning Division has not had input on the stove issue. Commissioner Sewell asked why a residential zone is not considered multifamily. Planning Manager Escobar stated that when apartments are allowed in residential areas. This allowance serves two purposes; the primary home owner, who may be struggling to pay their mortgage, gets to keep their home through the additional revenue generated by an apartment and the apartment units provide affordable housing. COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission directed staff to rewrite this section of the UDC to retain the Special Use Permit (SUP) requirement for Apartments, to not require a SUP for guesthouses and to allow the installation of a separate meter for both uses. Section 5 – Development Standards 5.5.6.D – Parking Area Landscaping A requirement for landscape islands every 15 lineal parking spaces to include one tree of eight feet of height has been added. This requirement would help break up the expanse of asphalt and provide shade in the parking area. Initial landscaping costs may be higher by $300-500 per required island. The development, neighboring locations and the City would all benefit from an improved visual presentation. Commissioner Sewell asked if we have the means to enforce parking area landscaping. Planning Manager Escobar said that we do, it would go through Code Enforcement. Commissioner Brown asked if there could be liens on the property if businesses did not comply. Planning Manager Escobar said yes, code enforcement regulations are in place if businesses do not comply. Commissioner Waldroup asked what the process is if a business does not comply. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there could be a five year holding period where the property owner would have time to bring the property into compliance. If after this period there are still issues, the City may begin the condemnation process and ownership would be transferred to the City. Vice Chair Freeman asked if this change in regulation would only apply to new development. Planning Manager Escobar said yes this would apply to new development and redevelopment of 30% or more on existing properties. Vice Chair Freeman asked, 30% of what. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it would be 30% of the parking lot. Commissioner Smouse stated that upgrading parking lots could be a significant cost, but it is also a return on a business’s investment. Commissioner Smouse asked if there was some kind of happy medium that could be reached. Planning Manager Escobar said that she could look into staggering the requirements for complying, by giving new businesses moving into existing buildings5 years to get up to code. COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission directed staff to add language in this section that applies parking lot landscape regulations to new businesses established in existing buildings and allow a 5-year time period to bring the property up to code. 5.5.8.B – Irrigation Add language requiring incorporation of irrigation best practices. This should not add a substantial cost to any new development. These best practices, such as having rain sensors on the irrigation equipment that shut the system down if it rains, have become industry standards. Commissioner Smouse asked who enforces the irrigation requirements. Planning Manager Escobar replied that the Planning Division would review the building permit applications for compliance with these requirements. Code Enforcement would enforces these regulations once a business is established. . Commissioner Smouse asked if there are other code changes that would help conserve and protect natural resources. Planning Manager Escobar stated there are a variety of requirements throughout the code that protect natural resources. Most of these relate to compliance with federal regulation. Staff will schedule a worksession in the near future for the Commission to discuss in greater detail and craft a policy recommendation for Council. Commissioner Smouse agreed and stated that we need to get into a water conservation mindset to preserve our community. 5.7.3.B.5 Drainage Requirements Add a first flush requirement for storm water management. Some up front engineering costs and minimal material costs, such as rocks and boulders would be incurred by the developer. This is a critical requirement to prevent sludge from parking areas washing into the City’s storm water system and eventual into our rivers. Rainwater harvesting concepts can often be incorporated into first flush capture designs. Commissioner Waldroup asked if this was just for the parking area. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Vice Chair Freeman expressed concerns that this requirement could add significant costs to a project. Planning Manager Escobar said that this issue would be tabled and will be discussed further at a later time with input from the Engineering Department. 5.8 Signs The following changes are proposed to the sign regulations: 1. Clarification to allow for murals without advertising copy 2. Adds an allowance for portable signs (sandwich boards) with an approved permit 3. Adds an allowance for home based business signs, 3-square feet and wall only, with an approved permit 4. Prohibits political signs in public right-of-way unless approved by City Council 5. Adopts height maximums of five feet (residential areas) and 10 feet (commercial area) for construction signage 6. Adopts a height maximum of 25 feet for freestanding signs in commercial areas 7. Adopts a height minimum of eight feet for signs crossing a walkway 8. Adopts a maximum size and heights for programmable and projecting signs Planning Manager Escobar stated that this topic will be discussed at the upcoming Council work session. Commissioner Waldroup asked if there would need to be a permit for murals. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if the mural does not advertise, then a permit is not needed. Commissioner Sewell asked how the limitation on private property is not a limitation on freedom of speech. Planning Manager Escobar stated that this would be addressed at the Council work session next week. The draft changes to the sign code have been reviewed by the City Attorney. Vice Chair Freeman asked if this was limited to political signs only. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was limited to political signage. Commissioner Smouse asked what we were trying to control. Planning Manager Escobar said that the control was on the appearance of the property. Vice Chair Freeman stated what he struggled with the residential limitation, as this is private property. Planning Manager Escobar stated that this limitation was an attempt to deal with issues of one disagreeing with another’s political views and placing a number of signs on their property. Commissioner Smouse asked why the P&Z Commission was being asked to recommend these changes to the sign code if the Commission is not experts on these types of issues. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the P&Z Commission is only asked to make recommendations to the code and that the City Attorney has reviewed and approved these changes. Vice Chair Freeman asked if home business signs were not currently allowed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that in one part of the code it is prohibited and in another part they are allowed. Commissioner Waldroup asked if there was a specified place on where the wall is and where the sign goes. Commissioner Sewell stated that the difference of placement of the sign is probably the fact that one placement will identify the business, this would be near the home, and the other type of placement would be advertising the business, which would be further away from the home. Commissioner Waldroup asked if this is a huge issue. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was not. The recommended changes regarding home based business signs are just an attempt to clarify the code Commissioner Smouse stated that he was not sure how to proceed. Commissioner Smouse stated that maybe the Planning and Zonings recommendation could be that we do not have political signs in any public right-of-way. The Commission agreed that allowing political signs only in certain locations and only certain signs may appear to be favoritism. Commissioner Smouse made the motion to recommend approval of the proposed revisions to Section 5.8 of the UDC, with the following exceptions: 1. Remove the restrictions regarding political signs on private property. 2. Do not allow political signage at all on public property Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 5.10.8 Outdoor lighting Apply outdoor lighting regulations to all development, not just those adjacent to residential communities. These requirements include fully shielded lightening standards, limitation of overall lumens and light temperature and prohibition of light trespass. Should be minimal cost to developers. The above changes to Development Standards apply to new development only. Commissioner Waldroup asked why LED lights could not be the staple. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was not what was allowed in the current code. Commissioner Waldroup asked if there had been a study or some data on outdoor lighting. Planning Manager Escobar mentioned the Hallmark Study from Flagstaff, Arizona, and would present more data on this topic. COMMISSION ACTION The Commission directed staff to bring the proposed changes to lighting requirements back to the Commission for further discussion. Changes to regulations related to Mobile and Manufactured homes: Section 2.4.32.D.f: Allow existing setbacks to be retained when older mobile/manufactured homes are replaced. This would apply to replacement units in zoning districts other than SF-MH (Single family manufactured housing). This change would allow units to be replaced to the same setbacks as the existing unit that is being removed from the propety. Has minimal impact on neighbors since it would replace an existing unit. This would facilitate an updgrade to a housing unit. COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission stated they support this revision Section 5.2.11.C.1 & 5.3.3. A.3: Suggested changes would waive the requirement for paved parking areas and driveways for replacement units. A paved apron where the driveway connects with a City street would be required. Vice Chair Freeman asked if this was considered on a neighborhood by neighborhood bases. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was. Commissioner Smouse asked when this requirement had become part of the code. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was back from 2007 and asked if the Commission would like to have Engineering present their reasoning on this portion of the code. Commissioner Smouse said that he would like to hear from Engineering. COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission directed staff to schedule this proposed change for further discussion and input from the engineering department. Planning Manager Escobar called for questions. There were no questions. Ms. Escobar stated that she would schedule upcoming discussion from Engineering and any further issues to be presented at the first October meeting. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members. Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: With no further business and a motion by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 10, 2020 was adjourned at 4:43 p.m. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. ____________________________ _____________________________ Clint Freeman Elizabeth Sandoval Vice Chair Administrative Assistant  RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION SETTING AND ESTABLISHING A REGULAR MEETING DAY, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2013-1466 AS RATIFIED WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 2013-1466 as ratified, each board, commission, committee or other policy making body of the City of Farmington which holds regular meetings shall annually, subject to the ratification and approval of the City Council of the City of Farmington, establish a regular meeting day, time and place; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the city of Farmington has determined and does recommend to the City Council that the regular meeting day, time and place of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Farmington and the location where a copy of the agenda of such meetings may be obtained shall be as set forth in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON: That the regular meeting day, time and place of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Farmington shall be held on each Thursday following each second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 3:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico and that the location where a copy of the agenda of the regular meeting may be inspected seventy-two (72) hours in advance of such meeting shall be at the Community Works Department, 805 Municipal Drive, Municipal Annex, Farmington, New Mexico. PASSED, SIGNED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ______ day of _________, 2020. By: Chairperson, Planning and Zoning Commission  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 20-38 Special Use Permit to allow for tax refund loan operations in the CB, Central Business Zoning District at 104 ½ E Main Street A. STAFF REPORT, September 24, 2020 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Dominic Ferrari Representative Patricia Thornton Date of August 27, 2020 Application Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow a tax refund loan company in the CB, Central Business District Location 104 ½ E Main Street (R0027723) Existing Land Use Commercial building Existing Zoning CB – Central Business District Surrounding North: CB – Central Business Zoning & Land South: CB – Central Business Use East: CB – Central Business West: CB – Central Business Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, September 6, 2020. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, September 2, 2020 and a sign was posted on Friday, September 11, 2020. Staff Planner Francisco Alvarado, Associate Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant and property owner, Dominic Ferrari, represented by Patricia Thornton, is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for tax refund loan operations on a 0.075 acre lot located at 104 ½ E Main Street. This property is zoned CB, Central Business. Loan companies are not allowed in the CB, Central Business District. They are permitted by right in the GC, General Commercial Zoning District, and require an SUP in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. The subject parcel is located in the Farmington Original Townsite Replat of Lots 4 & 5, Block 3, platted in 1988.  City of Farmington 2 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St Figure 1. Aerial View The subject property has an existing structure built in 1956. A wall and door divide the front and back of the building. Front access is from Main Street, where professional tax preparation services, permitted by right in the district, are currently offered. Refund anticipation loan services are proposed in the back for tax preparation customers. For this use, entrance to the building would be through a side door on Orchard Avenue. Side Door Main St Orchard Ave  City of Farmington 3 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan Entrance from Orchard Ave Seating for Customers Staff Desks  City of Farmington 4 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St Figure 3. Project Proposal Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) As defined by §58-15-2 (J) NMSA 1978, “a ‘refund anticipation loan’ means a loan that is secured by or that the creditor arranges or expects to be repaid, directly or indirectly, from the proceeds of the consumer's federal or state personal income tax refunds or tax credits, including any sale, assignment or purchase of a tax refund or tax credit at a discount or for a fee.” Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Meeting This petition was presented at the MRA meeting on September 15, 2020. Three commissioners considered this use would not be appropriate for the CB District and recommended disapproval, while two other commissioners supported approval of the proposed business at this location.  City of Farmington 5 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Figure 4. Future Land Use Plan Subject Property The subject property is designated as Commercial in the 2020 Future Land Use Map. Commercial is defined as retail shopping, wholesale and service operations. The proposed use conforms to this designation. Unified Development Code (UDC) Loan Companies are permitted by right only in the GC, General Commercial District. They are allowed in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District with an SUP. The Community Works Director has determined an SUP application is appropriate for this use in the CB District. Per UDC 3.14.1 Purpose, “the Central Business (CB) District is primarily intended to accommodate the moderate to high intensity business activities…” Moreover, “the CB District is intended to implement the planning policies of the Comprehensive Plan’s ‘Commercial’ land use categories.” These state that “downtown should be the location of office, specialty retail, cultural and service activities.” Loan companies usually present intensive, high traffic conditions, compatible with the CB district. Loan Companies in the CB District Per the City Clerk, an RAL company operated at the subject property from 2015 to 2019, with approval from the Planning Division. The petitioner proposes to provide the same type of service. RALs are currently offered at two locations on the same block:  126 E Main St – registered in 1987.  112 E Main St – from 2009 to 2014. New ownership from 2015 to present. Both operations are registered under one company.  City of Farmington 6 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St Figure 5. Zoning Map Subject Property Special use permits associated with commercial uses are transferrable Per UDC 8.9.2.A Applicability, except as provided herein or specified in the conditions of a special use permit, ownership of a special use permit is not transferrable. However, special use permits associated with nonresidential uses are transferrable. Special Use Permit Criteria – Section 8.9.4 of the UDC Section 8.9.4 of the UDC sets forth the criteria for review of a special use permit. The section states that an SUP may be approved where it is reasonably determined that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. Criteria are listed as follows: A. Effect on environment: The location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The subject property is located in an area with existing office and commercial uses. The addition of a loan company would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. B. Compatible with surrounding area: The proposed site plan, circulation plan, and schematic architectural designs shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening and density. The proposed use, site plan and circulation are harmonious with the character of the area.  City of Farmington 7 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St C. External impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard, or other injurious or noxious impact. The applicant shall provide adequate mitigation responses to the impacts. There are no anticipated negative impacts foreseen for this business. Per Code Enforcement, there are no active issues related to existing businesses of this type on the block. D. Infrastructure impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities and water and sewer systems, and on public services such as police and fire protection and solid waste collection, and the ability of existing infrastructure and services to provide services adequately. The proposed use should have no impact on the existing infrastructure. There are extensive public parking facilities 80 feet north of the property, between Main St and Arrington St. E. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use will be consistent with purposes of this UDC, the Comprehensive Plan, and any other statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable, and will support rather than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Commercial in the 2020 Future Land Use Map. Commercial is defined as retail shopping, wholesale and service activities. The proposed use conforms to this designation. F. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required to have additional land area, in excess of the minimum lot area otherwise required by the underlying zoning district, as necessary to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses and the zoning district. The parcel is 0.075 acres in size and is adequate for the proposed use. No issues have been identified regarding loan operations at this location. G. Site Plan: The proposed use shall be required to comply with the site plan review procedures and standards of Section 8.5, site plan review, as specified. This parcel is fully developed and occupied by the existing building. Although parking requirements do not apply in the CB District, there are existing parking facilities nearby for visitors and workers.  City of Farmington 8 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 20-38 is appropriate. Operation at this location of a loan company is compatible with the surrounding area and meets the intent of the Central Business District to accommodate high-intensity activities and services. There are no anticipated negative impacts foreseen for this business. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 20-38, a request from Dominic Ferrari, represented by Patricia Thornton to allow for tax refund loan operations on a 0.075 acre lot located at 104 ½ E Main Street (R0027723), subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire and Building Inspection will need to ensure that any past or planned remodeling has/will not change egress paths for people at this location. 2. Any reconfiguration of space (removal or addition of walls) will require a plan review and building permit. 3. UDC 8.9.6 Expiration of approval: A. Special use permits shall be valid for a period of 18 months from the date of approval. If construction or operation of the approved use has not commenced within this period, the special use permit shall expire. B. The city council may extend the special use permit for up to five years upon written request from the applicant, which must be received before the date of expiration.  City of Farmington 9 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 10 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 11 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 12 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 13 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 14 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 15 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 16 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St  City of Farmington 17 SUP 20-38, 104 ½ E Main St Comment from Business Owner at 101 E Main St