Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive October 15, 2020 - 3:00 p.m. This meeting will be held virtually using Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83635911287 Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the September 24, 2020 P&Z Meeting 4 Draft UDC Updates – Discussion, possible action, regarding proposed revisions to the 2007 Unified Development Code. (Beth Escobar) 5 Business From: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 6 Adjournment The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 27, 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 24, 2020 The Planning and Zoning Commission met in a regular session on September 24, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico and via Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89530434206. P&Z Members Present: Ryan Brown Chair Joyce Cardon Mitch Sewell Gary Smouse Cody Waldroup P&Z Members Absent: Shay Davis Vice Chair Clint Freeman Elizabeth Lockmiller Wayne Mangum Gary Smouse Staff Present: Andrea Jones Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Others Who Addressed the Commission (Via Zoom Virtual Platform): Michael Ferrari Mitch Burns Patricia Thornton Kathrine Clemmons Nathan Hill John McNeill Charles Todd Call to Order Chair Joyce Cardon 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 Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Brown. 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 Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Sewell to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2020 P&Z Meeting. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Swearing in of Witnesses Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant, swore in all parties that wished to speak on behalf of any agenda items. Draft UDC Updates Francisco Alvarado, Associate Planner, presented SUP 20-38 to the 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. 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 Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan Entrance from Orchard Ave Seating for Customers Staff Desks 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Comment from Business Owner at 101 E Main St COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Waldroup asked if the previous company at the location was operating illegally? Associate Planner Alvarado stated no and that there was some inconsistency with interpretation of the UDC code from previous staff. Planning Manager Escobar stated that previously the loan prohibition wasn’t enforced strictly by the UDC code and the previous company existed without a Special Use Permit or consideration from the City that the company should have had a Special Use Permit. Ms. Escobar also stated that on September 15, 2020 this Special Use Permit application was presented to the 5 member Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Board. 3 members of the MRA Board considered that the use was not appropriate and 2 members considered that it was. Commissioner Sewell asked how the MRA rules overlap with the Planning and Zoning Commissions rules? Planning Manager Escobar stated that the MRA is a recommending body, focusing on the Metropolitan Redevelopment area, the Downtown area. Staff took the application to MRA board for a recommendation only. The MRA plan does not overrule the zoning. Commissioner Waldroup stated that in the Central Business area loan companies are not permitted and asked why this application was even brought forward. . Ms. Escobar stated that there is a chart that has all the zoning districts listed and on the chart this under Central Business it is blank. From previous practice and interpretation of the Director since the chart is blank, the business owner should have the opportunity to bring forth a Special Use Permit. The Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation and City Council will make a decision. Commissioner Waldroup asked where the other loan companies in the area were located. Associate Planner Alvarado stated there was a loan company at 126 E. Main St. (registration from 1987) and 112 E. Main St. (registration in 2009, new ownership in 2015 to present), both locations being owned by the same person and on the same block. Commissioner Sewell asked who the owner is. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that the locations were owned by Navajo Trading Company. Commissioner Brown asked if Navajo Trading Company had a Special Use Permit. Planning Manager Escobar stated that both locations were in existence prior to the 2007 UDC, so they are considered legal non-conforming. Commissioner Sewell asked if Thunderbird Tax Company started after 2007. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Thunderbird Tax Company just completed a business transaction and is being treated as a new business. Ms. Escobar also stated that having Navajo Trading Company in the same location was a reason that Thunderbird Tax Company was considered a similar use. Commissioner Ragsdale asked what reasons 3 members of the MRA gave for not recommending the Special Use Permit. Planning Manager Escobar stated they felt that it was not an appropriate use for the Downtown Area. The MRA would like to see more high-end retail, hospitality and restaurants Downtown. Commissioner Brown asked Planning Manager Escobar to elaborate on the transfer of the Special Use Permit with ownership. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Special Use Permit becomes an entitlement for the location and the business, and should the business be sold at that location, the permit will transfers with the new owner, who is then obligated to renew the permit every 5 years and to keep a current business license. Commissioner Ragsdale asked if the business would have to be the same type business. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it would have to be or they wouldn’t need an SUP. Commissioner Brown if the new business could be a title loan business. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she would have to look into that and if the new business is a title loan company they may have to apply for a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Brown asked if the SUP is tied to the property and if the current property owner rented the location would the SUP be valid. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the SUP is tied to the property and to the business. Commissioner Brown asked if the property owner rented the location to a business doing the same function, would the SUP follow. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes, if the property is rented to a business doing the same function the SUP would follow. Commissioner Sewell asked if the SUP was tied to specifically to tax loans. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes this SUP is specifically tied to tax loans. Chair Cardon asked if the petitioner or the petitioner representative were present. Patricia Thornton, Office Manager of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that she was present. Chair Cardon asked Ms. Thornton if she had the opportunity to review the material and if she had any questions. Patricia Thornton stated that Michael Ferrari would be presenting on the material presented. Michael Ferrari was sworn in. Mr. Ferrari, Director of Operations for D&L Loan Company, stated that they are seeking this SUP to continue operating in the Downtown area. D&L Loan Company has been working exclusively with Kathrine Clemmons owner of Thunderbird Tax Company for the past 5 years. D&L is only in operation in during tax season, December through March, and only provide refund anticipation loan services to Thunderbird Tax Company customers. A refund anticipation loan is not associated with payday loans or title loans; there are no fees associated with any loans that D&L Loan Company provides, there are no tax prep fees or administration fees. Contracts are not mandatory and are only provided to established customers of Thunderbird Tax Company who will be receiving a federal tax refund. Mr. Ferrari stated that Jackson Hewitt, H&R Block, Turbo Tax, and 5 other companies in the Central Business Zone, where Thunderbird Tax Company is located, provide the same services as D&L Loan Company. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company has no signage on the building, does not offer loans with high fee, does not stripe the customer of any equity and each loan is vetted by an experience underwriter to protect each customer. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company does have a large customer base and their relationships with their customers have an impacted on the customers and Downtown area in a positive way. Mr. Ferrari stated that during the pandemic D&L Loan Company distributed 15,000 stimulus checks that they received at no cost to their customers. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is proud to be a part of the Downtown businesses and hopes the Commission considers this Special Use Permit. Commissioner Sewell asked if D&L Loan Company is working pro bono and how D&L Loan Company justifies doing business, since Mr. Michael Ferrari stated that there are no fees. Michael Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company does charge interest and that he was specifically talking about looking at refund anticipation loans across the board, many of them charge added fees. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company charges zero fees but does charge interest on their loans. Commissioner Sewell asked if interest is charged until the federal payment comes in. Michael Ferrari stated that that was correct. Commissioner Sewell stated that it usually takes about a week for him to get his refund when he files his taxes. Commissioner Sewell then asked how much interest can be charged in a weeks’ time? Michael Ferrari stated that customer is charged very little. Mr. Ferrari stated that it is a daily interest rate. Commissioner Sewell asked what the rates were for 2019-2020 and if they were on the level of a payday loan interest rate or an APR like a credit card. Michael Ferrari stated that the maximum APR rate that New Mexico allows is 175% and that D&L Loan Company charges a max APR of 170%. Mr. Ferrari stated that most of the time customers will file their taxes and a week later will get their money. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Cardon asked if there was anyone present who received a letter or who owns property within 100 feet of the property who would like to speak in favor of this petition. Mitch Burns, 105 N. Orchard Ave., stated that he is present as a property owner and the attorney on behalf of San Juan Title Company. Mr. Burns stated that the first concern he and his client have is the representation that there is plenty of parking is inaccurate. Mr. Burns stated that he has occupied the office space at 105 N. Orchard Ave. since 2007 and during tax time both his private parking lot, as well as San Juan Title’s parking lot becomes completely filled. Mr. Burns stated that since 2007 he and San Juan Title have alternated shifts to monitor parking from 7 am – 5 pm, every day, especially in the later part of January through the month of February, all due to the tax refund businesses that currently exist in the area. Mr. Burns stated that parking is his number one concern; there is not enough parking even if they do use our parking area and it affects his business, as well as San Juan Titles business. Mr. Burns stated that additionally, he is familiar with tax refund loan business and that Mr. Ferrari stated that his business does not take equity. Mr. Burns stated that in his experience tax loan businesses make approximately 28% on the total tax refund in the period of 30 -45 days. Mr. Burns stated that in his opinion the tax loan business are loan sharks praying upon the unsophisticated or financially stressed and they are taking advantage from a financial perspective. Mr. Burns stated that these types of facilities are not legal to operate in many states across the country and that New Mexico doesn’t have specific usury laws and the laws that have the max of 175% only apply unless there is a contract. Mr. Burns stated that he hopes the Commission can read into Mr. Ferrari’s misleading statement that D&L Loan Company does not take equity and does not charge a fee, then Mr. Ferrari states that D&L Loan Company only charges 170% APR, which is absurd and he does not believe D&L Loan Company aligns with the Downtown development that he understand. Mr. Burns concluded that was all he had and that parking was a main concern. Commissioner Sewell asked Mr. Burns where his business is located at and if it is across the street to the south from Thunderbird Tax Company. Mr. Burns stated that his business is located at 105 N. Orchard Ave., the building in the parking lot of San Juan Title, a law firm behind Orchard Park. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that a new business is not being added. The refund anticipation loan business has been there for the last 5 years and even before that with the previous company. Mr. Ferrari stated that he was not trying to hide the interest and when he speaks about equity, he is referring to not taking peoples cars or homes. Patricia Thornton, Office Manager of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that she understands parking is an issue and she would be willing to do anything she can to help with the parking situation. Kathrine Clemmons, 104 E. Main St., Owner of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that she has been working Downtown since 2004. Ms. Clemmons stated that she started working first for M&M Tax before starting her own business in 2015. Ms. Clemmons stated that the reason she decided to start her own business was because she worked under other companies and she had seen people not being treated correctly and being charged with fees, some that were not legal. Ms. Clemmons stated that she partnered with D&L Loan Company because of their values of treating their customers with respect and the least amount of fees. Ms. Clemmons stated that her business is providing services to people who have no other option to make it to payday versus a regular payday loan. Ms. Clemmons stated that she walked down Main Street and counted 3 payday loan businesses in the Central Business District. Ms. Clemmons stated that her customers have options and are not forced into a loan. Ms. Clemmons stated that without D&L Loan Company her company will not survive and she will have to vacate the area, making 42 vacant buildings in the Downtown area. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that they enjoy working with Ms. Clemmons and the types of loans D&L Loan Company offers are not predatory. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is on board to help with parking in the area, willing to work with everyone the best that they can. Nathan Hill, 119 E. Main St., TJ’s Diner, stated that he does not speak in favor of this Special Use Permit for the tax loan business. Mr. Hill stated that he agrees with the Mr. Burns on parking being hard to come by, making it hard for others to come to the Downtown area. Mr. Hill stated that tax loan customers come to his business to use the restrooms, some do spend money, but it is not conducive to anyone else being able to come visit the Downtown area. Mr. Hill stated that there are 5 types of these predatory lenders within 2 blocks of his diner. Mr. Hill stated that while Mr. Ferrari states that his business is not predatory; with interest at 170% it is predatory as far as he is concerned. Mr. Hill stated that the Accutax, Tax Pros, M&M Tax have been there forever, just as he has, and they all try to work together in some regard, but he dreads tax season. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that the term predatory lending, with 170% APR sounding pretty high, New Mexico has one of the lowest rates in the country, but as discussed earlier the interest is charged daily, meaning if taxes are filed and a refund comes in one day later, D&L Loan Company only receives one days interest on that loan. Mr. Ferrari stated that when it comes to the concerns about parking, he understands that everyone is in that space together and D&L Loan Company is on board with helping in any way that they can. Mr. Ferrari stated that he wants to be part of the Downtown community to solve any issues. John McNeill, 3209 Espacio St., Chairman for the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency, stated the MRA is tasked with implementing the 2019 Metropolitan Redevelopment Plan. Throughout this document the emphasis for Downtown redevelopment is on street level boutique, retail, entertainment and hospitality services, with upper story living spaces and occasional offices spaces. The plan states that the land use policy and guidelines pay the strongest role in shaping the physical development of an area by determining aspects such as allowable uses, bulking size, setbacks and even landscaping and sidewalk configurations. The 2019 plan states the growth of the retail, art, entertainment based industry will also displace some nonretail uses that occupy first level retail space on Main Street to second stories or alternative locations on adjacent streets. The Downtown Commercial District is listed in the National Registry of Historic Places; the State of New Mexico has designated a significant portion of Downtown as an Arts and Cultural District in 2018. Of the 116 plus acres in the MRA, only 73 acres are zoned as Central Business District, the allowed uses are listed in the UDC. The purpose is to create a vibrant, walkable and friendly, interesting Downtown with strong retail base encouraging people to explore Main Street. It should be noted that Loan Businesses do not fit this vision and are specifically excluded in this district by the UDC. The existing loan businesses on Main Street were grandfathered in and are not an allowed use, and as they leave their existing locations, by code, a loan business will not be allowed to occupy those spaces. Dr. McNeill stated that MRA commission did not have the advantage of seeing the entire staff report for this application, so the following are my comments to the staff report, the images of the anticipated use of the space do not contribute to the aforementioned desirability of property uses or atmosphere for Main Streets character. Under the staff report titled “Unified Development Code”, the staff report states that loan companies are permitted by right only in General Commercial District, they are allowed in the Local Neighborhood District by a Special Use Permit. Dr. McNeill stated that the zoning in this area is neither General Commercial nor Local Neighborhood Commercial. The opportunity of a Special Use Permit for loan companies in a Central Business District is not an option in the UDC. Contrary to staffs explanation of a blank cell in the UDC property use table, Section 2.3.3 of the UDC states, uses not allowed, a blank cell one without a P or and S indicates that a use type is not allowed in that respective zoning district. Staff then reports that loan companies usually present intensive high traffic conditions compatible with the Central Business District. Dr. McNeill states that if that were the case and loan business met these conditions and were desirable, they would be allowed in the UDC, but they are not. The existing refund loan businesses on the street block mentioned in the staff report are subject to the understanding that they are grandfathered in and are not an allowed use. Staffs assessment that the Special Use Permit for this business is justified by quoting, the purposed use will be consistent with purposes of the 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 which it is located. This quote says “and” any other statues, ordinance, or polices, not “or” any other statues, ordinance, or polices. It means that use must be consistent with the UDC. This section of the report also states that the Comprehensive Plan also designates this as a Commercial District in the 2020 land use map, this is accurate, and the authors of the Comprehensive Plan did not take into consideration that the Central Business Zone even exists. The UDC reference table is current as of 2020 and not only does it not allow loan businesses in this area, it does not allow for Special Use Permits either. Relying on the Comprehensive Plan to allow for a loan business to be located in the Downtown core is questionable at best. The only comment received from an effected local business by letter references the UDC designation that this is not an allowed business in this district. Dr. McNeill states that as Ms. Escobar noted that a vote of 3-2 the MRA disagrees with the staff’s conclusion that this application meets with the intent with the Central Business District zoning. Dr. McNeill stated that as a result, he respectfully requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of this application. Commissioner Sewell asked Dr. McNeill if he was speaking on behalf of the MRA and what the MRA Board agreed upon or if Dr. McNeill was speaking on behalf of himself. Dr. McNeill, MRA Chair, stated that the comments about the business not being appropriate by designation by the UDC were brought up at the MRA meeting. The specific responses to the staff report are made of my own because the staff report was not available to us at the MRA meeting. The vote was taken with a majority of members not supporting this application because it was not part of the UDC. Commissioner Brown stated that Dr. McNeill mentioned a letter and if Dr. McNeill was referring to the letter from Mr. Silva included in the packet. Dr. McNeill, MRA Chair, stated that that was correct. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that D&L Loan Company is inside of a business that has been in existence for 5 years and nothing new is added to what is already in place. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is a small office in the back of Thunderbird Tax, also stating that they are 100 feet from where tax loan businesses are allowed. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is in the area now and the business does bring money into the downtown area. Mr. Ferrari mentions collaboration with Downtown businesses and opening their restrooms to the public to ease the problem of customers going to other businesses to use the restroom. Mr. Ferrari states that he would like to work together and be inclusive with the other businesses and should D&L Loan Company vacate the Downtown area, there are still other businesses offering that same services in the area. Commissioner Sewell asked if D&L Loan Company is a third company applying for a business license. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that D&L Loan Company is proposing to offer loan services at the back of the Thunderbird Tax building and there is not a third company. Chair Cardon asked if D&L Loan Company has a business license and if there are three business licenses. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Thunderbird Tax has an existing business license and when Thunderbird Tax divested from the existing loan business and partnered with D&L Loan Company, D&L Loan Company then applied for a business license which triggered this process. The Planning Division does zoning verifications for all business license applications. Commissioner Sewell asked if D&L Loan Company is the one applying for the business license and if the seating presented is for D&L Loan Company customers. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that the seating is for D&L Loan Company customers. Commissioner Sewell then asked if once the customer is done at Thunderbird Tax, if they then go to a second business to receive a refund tax loan. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that the customer would have to come through a door that separates D&L Loan Company and Thunderbird Tax. Commissioner Sewell stated that he sees one restroom on the layout sketch provided and asked if the restroom is available to customers. Patricia Thornton, Office Manager of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that yes, they do not have any problem offering public restrooms for their customers. Commissioner Waldroup stated that he is torn on this Special Use Permit application and how the UDC is stated and Dr. McNeill’s explanation of the vision for Downtown. Chair Cardon stated that Planning and Zoning Commission always upholds the law, there is compassion and empathy for all of our citizens and that is why everyone is welcome to go through the application process. Chair Cardon then stated that the Planning and Zoning uses the UDC to guide their decision. Chair Cardon stated that a Special Use Permit is in place to offset the UDC and to be a bridge for the Planning and Zoning Commission and citizens. Chair Cardon asked staff about the allotted parking, where it is located and how it’s controlled. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Central Business District has no parking requirements. It is assumed that you will park in the street or in public parking. Planning Manger Escobar stated that as Mr. Ferrari did state that he is willing to work with San Juan Title and Mr. Burns on the issue with parking. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there was an interested party that just signed in via Zoom, who would like to speak. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is up to the Commission if they would like to open up the public hearing. Chair Cardon stated the commission would accept the call. Charles Todd, 108 N. Orchard Ave., stated he knows that Thunderbird Tax and D&L Loan Company are just trying to make a living, but he has hoped that the overtime the character of Downtown would change. Mr. Todd stated that the sewer lines of Thunderbird Tax and D&L Loan Company office are tied to his businesses sewer line. Mr. Todd stated that an influx in usage has cause issues in years past. Chair Cardon closed the public comments and asks if there is a commissioner prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Brown makes a motion to deny SUP 20-38, and a second from Commissioner Waldroup. Roll was called to state the reason for denial by each commissioner. Commissioner Waldroup stated that because of what the UDC states, with loan companies not being an allowable use, as well as the input made by the MRA Board. Commissioner Brown stated that MRA advisement and the UDC are his reason for voting to deny. Chair Cardon stated her vote to deny the application was because of the business inside a business and now getting a business license, the issue of parking and the UDC. Commissioner Ragsdale stated her vote to deny was dues to the improvements being made and this not aligning with those improvements. Commissioner Sewell stated that his reason for voting to deny because it is not allowed in the area by the UCD. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mr. Ferrari has asked to speak again and she would advise that it is not appropriate to allow this at this point in the meeting. Chair Cardon stated that the commission would not accept any further public comments. On the motion to recommend the denial of SUP 20-38 a recommendation for DENIAL a roll call was taken and passed by a vote of 5-0. This application will move forward for consideration to City Council October 13, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. 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: Commissioner Waldroup asked in regards to the non- conforming business Downtown, if there would just have to be a change before something is done. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the current businesses would have to vacate or expand by more than 30%. Business from Staff: Planning Manger Escobar stated that she would like to thank the Commission for input on the sign ordinance and recommendations made to Council. Action was not taken and was tabled until the October 15, 2020 council meeting. Adjournment: With no further business and a motion by Commissioner Sewell and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 24, 2020 was adjourned at 4:33 p.m. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved by a 5-0 vote. ____________________________ _____________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant  Memo To: Planning Commissioners From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: October 15, 2020 Subject: Discussion with City Engineer Regarding Proposed Changes to the UDC At the September 10, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the Unified Development Code. The Commission requested input from the Engineering Division on two specific proposed changes: 5.3.3.A.3 Driveways and parking lot Gravel minimum for driveways for Paving requirement adds cost access replacement Mobile and burden that may prevent Manufactured Homes upgrade/replacement of pre 1976 units 5.3.3 Driveways and parking lot access. All driveways and parking lot entrances and exits shall be subject to the approval of the Director or designee and the following requirements: A. Paving requirements. All required parking areas must be connected to a public street or alley by means of a driveway or private access easement. All driveways providing access to such parking areas shall be paved, except as follows: (1) In the RA district, RE-1 district, RE-2 district and RE-20 district, driveways shall be: a. Surfaced with a minimum of four inches of gravel road base, and b. Have a paved apron ten feet in depth and the width of driveways adjoining paved streets. 5.7.3.B.5 Supplementary drainage New construction shall incorporate To prevent accumulated sanitary requirements on-site first flush retention practices solids and pollutants from entering stormwater system per the City’s Stormwater Management Plan B. Design. Drainage improvements shall be designed in accordance with the following standards: (1) A New Mexico-registered engineer shall design and certify drainage improvements. (2) Adequate provision for short- and long-term ownership, maintenance, and operation of the storm water management system shall be required.  (3) Where water velocities may reasonably be expected to cause erosion problems, satisfactory means shall be provided to prevent such erosion, including concrete head walls and wing walls where conditions require. (4) Water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters. (5) New construction shall incorporate on-site ‘first flush’ retention best practices. A representative from the Engineering Division will be at the October 15th meeting to discuss the Commissions questions and concerns.