Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive April 27, 2023 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the April 13, 2023 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition ZC 23-21 – A request for a zone change from Central Business to PD: Planned Department to allow for the placement of two pre-fab housing units located at 121 N. Behrend. Presented by Planning Manager Escobar 5 Petition ZC 23-29 & CV 23-30 – A request for a zone change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial to allow for a cannabis adult retail facility and for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement of a cannabis adult retail facility from a religious institution. Located at 2417 E. 20th St. Presented by Planning Manager Escobar 6 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment Petition items on this agenda will be scheduled for the next City Council meeting – May 9, 2023 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 April 13, 2023 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on April 13, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Chair Clint Freeman Chair Ryan Brown Cheryl Ragsdale Cody Waldroup Gary Hanson Clete Berens Shay Davis (Telephonically) P&Z Members Absent: None Staff Present: Beth Escobar Mike Safrany Joaquin Gonzalez Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission John Beckstead John Hristopoulos Dr. Charles Pollard Brandon Ryan Mandana Allen Linda Ritta Ray Martinez Call to Order Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the agenda, with item No. 6, SUP 23-18 being removed from the agenda. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Berens and seconded by Vice Chair Brown to approve the minutes of the March 30, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 6-0 vote. Swearing of Witnesses Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak. PETITION NO. CV 23-15 – A request to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from a religious institution for a potential cannabis retail facility located at 419 W. Main Street. 1 Chair Freeman and Commissioner Berens recused themselves from hearing this petition, Commissioner Davis appeared telephonically. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: George Hristopoulos, property owner • Representative: John Hristopoulos, son • Location: 419 W Main • Existing Zoning: CB: Central Business • Request: Variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a cannabis facility to two religious institutions • Petitioner would like to open an adult use cannabis retail store Zoning 2 Aerial View Street View 3  Cannabis Variance • On July 26, 2022 adopted a resolution requiring that the Planning & Zoning Commission review all variance and waiver requests related to cannabis. The Commission will make a recommendation to City Council. • The following distance waivers have previously approved by the Administrative Review Board: • 4339 E Main Street – Zia Toke • 3000 E 20th - The Reef Joint • 3150 E Main St – Score 420 • 3024 E Main – PurLife • 7101 E Main St – NM Alternative Care • City Council, upon the Planning & Zoning Commissions recommendation, has approved the following variance requests: • 109 W Broadway – High Altitude Exotics • 1930 San Juan Blvd – Kannabis Klub Cannabis Facilities Map Staff Analysis • A cannabis retail sales business seems appropriate for this location. The storefront faces Main. Parking is available on the site. 4 • Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Downtown: Specialty Retail Use. • The actual walking distance from the front door of 419 W Main to the First Baptist Church of Farmington on the corner of W Arrington and S Auburn Ave is approximately 536 feet. • The walking distance to the River Community Church at 501 W Broadway is approximately 422 feet. • There is no direct line of site from either of the front doors of the religious institutions to the front door of 419 E Main. Letters of Opposition 5 6  Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition CV23-15, a request from George and John Hristopoulos to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from two religious institutions in order to operate an adult cannabis retail sale facility. 1. A City of Farmington business registration will be required. 2. A building/fire inspection shall be required. 3. A building permit shall be required for any remodeling. 4. One ADA van accessible parking space will be developed on site. Discussion The Commission had no questions for staff. Petitioner John Hristopoulos, 4608 Harnett Ave. NE, Albuquerque, NM Mr. Hristopoulos stated that he lives in Albuquerque, but his roots are from here in Farmington, Class of 1981, from Farmington High School. His father has been in business for 45 years, he owns the property at 419 W. Main St. They want the best use of the property. Petitioner’s Representative, John Beckstead, 1390 E. 20th St. Mr. Beckstead represents George and John Hristopoulos and he wanted to bring up a few points for the Commission to consider. The original business, an automotive repair shop, was zoned out of use. Previous zoning changes disallowed that use. The property owners had been trying to find a business that would fit the building and make the property more profitable. They have a current tenant, which the ends aren’t quite being met with. They recognize the previous zoning changes and they want to proceed in a way that make the property useful and profitable. The opposition letters that have been received address smell, and have concerns that are not applicable. There will be no consumption on the property. It will merely be retail sales. The retail use does comply with and is part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, with the special retail that is associated with that plan. Some of the letters addressed the number of cannabis dispensaries in Farmington, the market will decide which will survive, and it is not the Commissions place to determine which will survive and which will not. Staff indicated that there have not been any complaints with the dispensaries in existence. His clients intend to fully comply with all the state application restrictions and laws. Some of the concerns do not directly relate to the variance that is requested, staff indicated that, when removing all right of way the properties are within 300 feet of each other, but the actual walking distance for one location was over 500 feet and the other one was over 400 feet and there is not direct line of site. Another concern was the youth could be affected by this, but my clients intend to strictly comply with all state laws that require sales to the age of 21 years or older. There have been seven cannabis variances that have been approved by the City, and this one is no different. There are no special circumstances that should exclude this variance as the others have been passed. Staff has ultimately recommended the approval of this variance. This is a legal 7 business, and there will be growing pains with cannabis sales along the way. Mr. Beckstead does not feel it is the Commissions responsibility to address the legalities or morality of selling cannabis. As long as it is legal and it meets all of the requirements of the variance, it has the recommended approval of staff, I don’t see why we should not move forward with this. The Commission asked Petitioner: 1. Will this only be a dispensary, or are there any future plans to expand to integrate into something more? 2. The automotive repair shop was no longer permitted when the zone change occurred, and the current business at this property is Tint my Ride, is that a permitted use? The Petitioner replied: 1. No this will only be adult retail sales of recreational cannabis there will be no manufacturing. We will get our product from local and New Mexico producers. 2. Yes, Tint my Ride is a permitted use. We feel a retail cannabis dispensary is the optimal use for that location. We want to be good neighbors and participate in events going on downtown. There are over 25 parking spaces on this property, so we will not be a hindrance to any of the neighboring businesses. Affected Parties Dr. Charles Pollard, River Community Church, 501 W. Broadway Ave, Farmington NM Dr. Pollard stated that this has been a worship center for over 60 years. They are in the growing process, and don’t want any other businesses interfering with their place to worship. The Commission Asked Dr. Pollard: 1. Can you be more specific on how this would interfere with your worship? Dr. Pollard Replied: 1. We will have a hard time expanding, he wishes they had bought that property you are talking about. With no further public input, Vice Chair Brown closed the public portion of the meeting. The Commission Asked Staff: 1. How did a gas station/automotive repair business become non-usable? 8 City Staff Replied: 1. Auto vehicle shops are not permitted in the Central Business District. What happened is we have this existing use since 1905, as Farmington grew, adopted zoning regulations were overlaid zoning on the property. Any existing use when you overlay new zoning regulations becomes legal non-conforming and as long as it remains that use it retains that status. If it abandons that use for over a year the legal non-conforming status is vacated. Ms. Escobar wanted to add that this building is on the historic register, because it has been there since 1905. It was the original gas station for Farmington. Commission Discussion With no commission discussion needed, Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve CV 23-15 as presented by staff. The motion carried 5-0. PETITION NO ZC 23-10 – A request for a Zone Change from SF-7: Single-family residential (Minimum 7,000 sf lot size) to MF-M: Multi-family medium density (minimum 8,000 sf lot size). Senior Planner Safrany presented the following: Petition  Applicant: PROS Investments LLC  Representative: Brandon Ryan  Location: 702 N Allen Ave.  Parcel #R0021910  Existing Zoning: SF-7, Single-family residential district  Requested zone change to MF-M, Multi-family medium density residential district  Parcel Size: 10,900 sf (.25 acres) Request Overview  Request is for a zone change from SF-7, single-family residential district to MF-M, Multi- family medium density residential district.  The existing building is a legal non-conforming vacant church.  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.  The lot size meets the minimum 8,000 sf for a MF-M, Multi-family medium density district for four dwelling units. 9  The proposed project must meet all UDC Article 5 development standards including off- street parking and landscaping. Aerial View of Subject Property Zoning Map 10  Existing Conditions  The existing building is a vacant church on the property. The building encroaches the front and street-side setbacks and is regarded as legal non-conforming.  Legal non-conforming structures shall not be enlarged, extended or substituted except in full compliance with the UDC per Section 9.3 Non-conformities.  A Variance has been approved on 4/6/23 (ARB 23-09) to Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow for a 15-foot front setback and a 6-foot street-side setback.  The existing parking spaces on the south side of the property along Hopi Ave. are within the City right-of-way and are not considered off street parking. 11  Existing Site Plan View of Property Facing North 12 View of Property Facing South View of Property Facing West 13  Proposed Project  The existing building is 1,520 sf., the new addition will be 1,440 sf. The total building will be approx. 2,960 sf. This meets the 40% maximum lot coverage allowed.  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.  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 14 Proposed Site Plan w/Background 15  Issues for Consideration Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan?  Yes, the proposed zoning conforms to the future land-use designation of Medium Density Residential along N Allen Ave.  Planning trends show housing opportunities should be available for all income groups with a diverse mix including duplexes, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, workforce housing, and single-family homes ranging in size. A community must guard against an abundance of subdivisions in similar and repetitive densities, appearances, and price ranges. Medium Density Residential  Medium Density Residential areas primarily contain traditional gridded-street neighborhoods. New neighborhoods, or upgrades to existing neighborhoods, would provide a walkable environment intermixed with public facilities, retail services, housing, and park areas. A mix of housing options supports vibrant and inclusive neighborhoods including townhomes, duplexes, and live/work units, and group care facilities. Limited high-density would also be appropriate in this area. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or detached apartments are allowed in this area on single-family structures with administrative review. Issues for Consideration Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood?  The proposed zoning is compatible with the area. Currently the area consists of numerous blocks of SF-7, Single-family residential lots with a scattering of multi-family residential properties, which have been rezoned to meet the housing needs of the area. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated?  No adverse impacts are expected. The increase of residences is minimal. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district?  Yes, the proposed multi-family residence will be a 2960 sf single-story building. This will cover under 40% of the lot, the allowable amount of building space that the other lots are allowed in the same area. This is consistent with the surrounding district. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? 16   The site as proposed must meet all of the relevant regulations of the Unified Development Code. Landscaping must meet the requirements of Section 5.5 of the UDC.  There are eight off-street parking spaces being proposed with direct access from the alley off Hopi Street. This is adequate for up to four multi-family units with three bedrooms each. The applicant is also requesting a variance with a separate petition waiving the 20-foot front setback and the 20-foot street-side setback requirements. The lot size meets the minimum 8,000 sf lot size for a MF-M district. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone?  Yes. All utilities are existing. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions?  No. The area consists of numerous blocks of SF-7, Single-family residential lots with a scattering of multi-family residential properties. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan states a community must guard against an abundance of subdivisions in similar and repetitive densities, appearances, and price ranges. 15 Approved Zone Changes Approx. 1/4 Mile from Subject Property 17  Non-Conforming Uses Public Input  No public input has been received. 18  Recommendation The Planning Division recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-10, a request from Brandon Ryan for a zone change from an SF-7, Single-family residential district to an MF-M, Multi-family medium density residential district, with the following conditions:  The developer must obtain all necessary building permits and must meet the requirements of the UDC Article 5 – Development Standards, including landscaping and parking requirements.  A building/fire inspection shall be required.  A variance (ARB 23-09) to allow a 15-foot front yard setback and a 6-foot street-side setback must be approved. Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. The property directly to the east, what is that property? 2. How many of the other conforming addresses were non-conforming? 3. That parking area on the Hopi St. side, what is that? 4. Why hasn’t the City put a sidewalk there? 5. Does the petitioner have to put a sidewalk in for an addition like this? 6. You mentioned this would allow four, three bedroom units. 7. With a zone change would that allow a future developer to do six, two bedroom units? 8. What governs the 40% coverage? 9. I don’t see where it is stated how many bedrooms the units would have. Does that need to be added to the conditions? 10. That right of way on Hopi St. is a large right of way. How far down does is it go? Would the City consider abandoning it? Staff Replied: 1. There are three single family dwellings with three separate address. It would be considered multi family. 2. The addresses that are multi family had to get a zone change from the single family. 3. It was used for parking for the church, however it is a right of way, and it does not end at the asphalt. It is actually a 60 foot right of way. It would be considered off street parking and can be used for visitor parking. 4. It was built before the City had those regulations and was grandfathered in. 5. No, there is a sidewalk there that is ADA compliant. 6. That would be allowable, but that is not the intention of the applicant. 7. If this approved it is specific to the site plan proposed any changes to that site plan would have through the zone change process again. 8. The site plan presented includes four units, the applicant is looking at two, two bedrooms and two, one bedrooms. If this is approved, those are the parameters that will be 19  constructed. Any expansion to that would come through the building division, which would trigger us to say no, and it would have to come through the process again. 9. We can amend the conditions that state presented by the petitioner at the hearing. We just found out the bedroom count at the Thursday ARB meeting. It did not make it in this packet because this packet is published before the ARB meeting took place. The ARB did approve the variance for the setbacks. 10. It does go down to the next intersection and ends at a property. The petitioner could ask for an abandonment. There were also no comments from engineering saying they would be willing to abandon it. Petitioner Brandon Ryan, 4100 E. Main St., Farmington NM Mr. Ryan having grown up in Farmington, I have grown a liking for identifying these types of projects. Part of that on a developmental standpoint is finding something that will fit into the bigger plan of the community and also fit a need. I think this property in Allen Ave. fits a need of the times in Farmington which has a lot to do with housing shortage and the availability of housing. We have envisioned these units being 700 sq. ft. which is much more functional as a one bedroom with two bedroom being the max. We are thinking of executive rentals for that space. What we create will be aesthetically pleasing with what is in the neighborhood. Our intention will improve the neighborhood. We want to fill the need in a responsible way and approach that in collaborative manner. With this size lot we can build a much larger single family dwelling that has 15 occupants living in it, but we want to create much smaller spaces that will probably have four people living there. It will have much less traffic than the church had. The Commission Asked Petitioner: 1. How long has this property been vacant? 2. What is the structure like on the inside? The Petitioner Replied: 1. I believe this property has been vacant around one year. 2. It is an empty shell, but the building is great condition, that is one of the reasons we wanted to build on. That original footprint of the church will be used for two units then we will build the other two units at a 90° angle which will have a common space and parking off the east side. We have several projects that we have done. We did eight smaller projects here in Farmington. We are working on the Enchantment Lodge, where we are converting from a hotel to apartment style homes. We are working collaboratively with the municipality following the correct protocols to get a good finished product. 20  Affected Parties Mandana Allen, 302 Loma Linda Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Allen stated she owns 701 and 703 N. Orchard Ave. which is directly east of the applicant’s property. The parking off the alley would be right in her backyard. She feels passionately about this, or she wouldn’t be here. The first thing she would like to note is that they had said multiple times about people not writing letters, but it doesn’t say anything about writing anything in the letter she received. The property was a church up until about a year ago and it had been unoccupied because it was owned by them. When the property was a church, it was well maintained. They had services on Sunday and you would see a few people there during the week. Sunday’s were pretty much mayhem. Her property has a very large back yard and it became a parking area for them. At the ARB meeting Planning Manager Escobar told her that if she had any problems with anyone parking there now, that she could call the city. She doesn’t really want to be in that situation, and she doesn’t think she should have to be in that situation. Her problem with the situation is that it is a really nice neighborhood. She doesn’t really care about the 40-year plan, but right now she is looking at quality of life for her, her tenants and her neighborhood. She plans to move into 701 N. Orchard when she retires. Her properties are single family lots with two parking spaces and she can tell you right now that she has a gang war keeping her people to just the two parking spots. Farmington has an incredible tenancy, when they have regular tenants that have different boundary barriers and will put three to four people in a one bedroom apartment. They are talking about making these executive rentals, so people will be in there for a month, two months or six months. How do they know the quality of people that will be renting those apartments? How do they know they will be safe, how do they know her tenants will be safe. She works there every day, how does she know she will be safe. The neighborhood dos not have a problem with it being a single family dwelling. If you go down Allen it is a much different street than Orchard. If you go up Orchard, there’s all those little cubby hole apartment complexes like her apartments. She is slowly trying to fix up her apartments, but it is a downtrodden area of Farmington. If you come up Allen off of Apache, it is all houses except one little complex. This is a really nice residential area. It’s not divey apartments. They would like it to stay a single family home. She talked to other residents in the area and they quite frankly told her that the City of Farmington does not care and they were going to do whatever they wanted and there was no point in them even coming to a meeting. And after the variance meeting that it was pretty much a done deal and our opinion does not matter either. Ms. Abeyta’s, who could not make it to this meeting, the edge of her house touches the property line of these buildings. The church told her that the property between them is hers, so she has been maintaining it. If you look, her backyard will not be private any more. Ms. Abeyta has concerns about that. This is not being built for the people of Farmington to have housing. This is being built for some executive rentals when Farmington has hotels, suite hotels and other things. If this was for regular people needing hosing, but it’s not, it will be executive rentals and we will not know who is coming or going. 21 She does not believe this is a positive for that lot of land and she does not think it is a good trend to start. Once you approve one, it’s a steam roller. She requests that you leave it a church or a single family home. The Commission Asked Ms. Allen: 1. How many units do you have there? 2. You are directly behind this property? 3. Was it always apartments? 4. Is your issue that it is rentals or executive rentals? 5. You have three apartments, but you are opposed to this becoming apartments. 6. How many people live in your three rentals? 7. Your fear is that it will turn into something else? What if we put a limitation on it? Ms. Allen Replied: 1. We have three units. 2. Yes we are right behind it. 3. I think is has always been apartments, we bought it as apartments. We have long term tenants and we are trying to fix them up. I hope to live there someday. 4. My issue is the number of people that will be living there no matter what kind of rental they make it. How much that will crowd the neighborhood, the traffic and people it will generate. 5. My problem is that it is too big on that small space. 6. One apartment has three people, one has two people and the other one has two people but they have a lot of visitors. They all park in the front and I regulate their parking. 7. Yes, it is zoned for a single family home, I would like it to stay that way. Linda Ritta, 616 N. Allen Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Ritta stated she lives directly across the street (on Hopi Ave.) from this property. They didn’t mind them using it on Sunday, other than that there was usually no one there. She is worried with four new families moving in there that the traffic is going to be a lot worse. She’s like to see the neighborhood stay quiet. She would like to see it as a single family, but she doesn’t know if that’s possible. A two-plex would be better than a four-plex. She is also worried about people walking through her yard. There is a school that operates two days a week directly across the street from that property. She’s not sure why she was not at the meeting. She stated she checked last week and there were 26 open apartments in Farmington. She doesn’t see how four more will make a big difference for people looking for affordable housing. The Commission Asked Ms. Ritta: 1. Your biggest concern is the added traffic? 2. Do you a preference about executive rental vs. regular rentals? 3. Do you have multiple buildings on your lot? 22  4. Your house sets back on your property a bit? 5. Will the eight parking spaces be a hindrance to you? Ms. Ritta Replied: 1. Mainly the parking and the aging utilities. 2. I would prefer long term, because you can get to know your neighbors then. 3. No, it’s one building, we are 641 sq. ft. My address is on Allen, but my front yard faces Hopi Ave. We look directly at the church. 4. Yes, we are closer back to the alley. 5. Yes, I also envision them parking in the spots on Hopi. Interested Parties Ray Martinez, 302 Taylor Dr., Farmington NM Dr. Martinez stated he lives and walk in the area. I know people in the area. Some of the kids go to school on the corner of Taylor and Allen. Some kids up the street on Allen and Isleta playing basketball and enjoying the lovely neighborhood. The church itself had been there for many years and only left because they found a different church that fits their need. His concerns were, what type of data had been collected in terms being able to make this decision and allow this to proceed. He assumed there had been a traffic study mentoring Allen Dr. from Apache to Allen. If you look within a one block radius there are plenty of apartments, and the quality of those apartments are not real suitable. On the corner of Comanche and Orchard, there are apartments on both sides and they are not very comforting place. He is hoping the Commission has done the type of study to see what the current quality of properties in existence is. Wouldn’t it be a better investment to upgrade those existing units? He assumed the Commission has already done a thorough job in terms of who would be the property manager for this place. He can assure the Commission that in a few years’ time that property was approved and all the promises that were made didn’t happen. He added some people are interested in investment and aren’t truly concerned with the housing issue in Farmington. So they can build property, make their money then distance themselves from the needs of the property. The Commission Asked Mr. Martinez: 1. You have noticed that with other apartments in the area? 2. The way you all describe it as a lovely neighborhood, then you describe is as not comforting place to walk and how unsafe it is. Is it just where the apartments are at that you are feeling this way other than the whole community area? 3. Is your concern that Orchard is not a great street, it doesn’t look great because there are a lot of apartments and multifamily. Whereas one street over on Allen, that is not the case, it has a different feel to it? You are worried that adding apartments on Allen is going to replicate what has happened on Orchard? 23 Mr. Martinez Replied: 1. Yes I have. The place my neighbor owns on Orchard and Hopi are really well kept and they are doing improvements. Across the street going from Orchard down to Comanche, it’s really sad the condition those apartments are in and in terms of feeling safe walking through the neighborhood. 2. Oh no, the community is great. The apartment portion of it is looking ghetto and you can tell that the up keep of their property in not a priority. I am not opposed to any sort building, I would just like to see a single family home there. A duplex would be ok, but four would be pretty chaotic unless there is a commitment on the Commissions part to have already done the study that the impact would be beneficial to the community and the City. Then he would be behind it as well. Unless the study has already been done, then he would not support that all. He thinks the homework needs to be done before moving forward. 3. That is correct, if you go north to Wall St. again it’s a nice neighborhood. You can tell when you are walking through the neighborhood. I invite a study before making a decision. Petitioner Ryan Addressed the Commission: Mr. Ryan stated he respects this process as far as taking away input from both meetings. He wants to develop this property in a responsible way. When he thinks about the Comprehensive Plan, and this neighbored in general and what he is trying to do here, he does not think that what has been said today and what they are trying to do is mutually exclusive propositions. He feels that he can create an amazing space, and that they can build these four units in this space in a responsible way. He feels that is the charge of the Comprehensive Plan is to create these areas that are not cookie cutter types of situations. He thinks on a more technical level about the mix in general, to the legal non-conforming piece. The irony of what we are talking about is the legal non-conforming places, as those get fixed up, which hopefully they do. Ms. Allen even stated that that was on the books to update her property. If that happens she will be in front of the Commission asking the same questions that he is asking, because she is legal non-conforming for her to make substantial changes to improve these properties this process is necessary for that to become legal. From a development perspective he thinks this is the best use of this property. Again they will be doing this in a responsible and aesthetically pleasing way. He also stated that he welcomes the conversation regarding the number of bedrooms in these 700 sq. ft. units vs. the size constraints of a single family residence. The Commission Asked Mr. Ryan: 1. Are you holding onto these properties and maintaining them yourselves? Do you manage them yourselves? How do you control some of the concerns like parking and the type of people you would rent too? 2. What are your pros and cons for either a single family or multi family residence? 24  3. If you were to build a single family residence would you have to tear down the existing building? 4. Do you have experience with rental properties? 5. Have you had executive rentals? 6. What would you say the difference would be between an executive rental and regular rentals? 7. An executive rentals tend to be fully furnished, includes all utilities so that tenant is paying a premium rent. You said nurses, what other professionals have you seen? 8. If it is a two bedroom executive rental, what do you think that rental rate will be? 9. How would you feel if we put a cap on the number of units and bedrooms per unit? Bryan McCarty was here at out last meeting, and we knew how many units were being built. 10. Talk about the aesthetics, what does that mean to you? Mr. Ryan Replied: 1. Our complete intention is to manage this property in house. We do not do that with every property, some we fix up and sell on the open market. For executive rentals, it takes a much larger involvement. For the smaller types of rentals you are going go to get either single individuals or a couple. 2. The cost study is the biggest part of it. To go through the infrastructure changes that we will have to do for this project. It all sits on a slab, which is unfortunate, so for us on the investment side of things to put that amount of money in, getting the best use out of the land. That is where out thought process is. 3. We could probably make the existing building work, but single-family use would be our last option. It would be difficult on the aesthetics side of things to make it look nice without adding on to the existing building. As soon as you get into the additional infrastructure the investment part of this is a moot point. And we do not want to go in and max out the lot with a single-family residence. 4. Yes, over the past 12 or so years, we have had a multitude of rental properties both here and in Colorado. 5. Yes, we have and executive rentals as well. 6. We have much less, if any, issues on the executive side. Which is why we are geared in that direction. The tenant has a tendency to be more of a professional type status. Oddly enough, what I find in Farmington is that someone will come here for a three-month period of time and they end up getting extended. Some end up staying up to a year and they are much less intrusive on the property and have the tendency to be a more professional individual. 7. We get traveling nurses, doctors, attorneys, we have had dentists that work on the reservation and some oil and gas professionals as well. Pretty much any industry you can think of, there is definitely a fit on the executive rental side. As I said before we are committed to managing these and putting the right people in place. I have lived here since I was a kid, I grew up here, I have a business here and I plan on staying here for the perceivable future. I have a passion for this and I want to create a dynamic that has some 25  longevity. I want to be able to come before you and continue to have these conversations and show you the things I have done with this project. 8. Per City statute, the stay would have to be 30 days, monthly rent for a 700 sq. ft. unit would run upwards to $2,000.00 for a one bedroom, and a two bedroom would run approximately $2,300.00. 9. Sure, you could add a condition that there will not be a two story. The direct answer to your question is no I am here for an open conversation regarding this project. I think we have the UDC in place for a reason. That is to create the frame work by which the zoning requirements by how a property is zoned. 10. I heard the neighborhood described in different capacities. As I think about it, I have children and I would want something they would be proud of. In short his is my business and I take pride in our projects. I believe it will be in line with the neighborhood and improving it. Ms. Allen Addressed the Commission: Ms. Allen considers herself an expert on executive rentals, she owns two on Loma Linda. She has been an Airbnb super host for eight years. She has had nurses, doctors, physical therapists but she has had no one that comes for six months then extends. She has had no one that comes for more than three months. Furthermore, they only do it on the property next to us because we like to keep an eye on it. As far as safety, security and longevity of people staying here, that’s not her experience. The Commission Asked Ms. Allen: 1. You have had problems with your executive rentals, like police calls and that kind of stuff? Ms. Allen Replied: 1. Yes, a couple of times, just because you are a doctor or lawyer doesn’t mean you are a credible person. That just means you went to college. This three month and six-month thing has not been my experience. With no further public input, Chair Freeman closed the public portion of the meeting. The Commission Asked Staff: 1. What does the City have in place for short term rentals? 2. To address the parking as far as the neighbor that lives across Hopi is concerned, can the City control that if it becomes a nuisance? 3. Could they pave the right of way/parking spots off Hopi St? 4. Could we limit spaces in the back to match the number of units and bedrooms in the units? 26 Staff Replied: 1. The only thing the City has in place is 30 days or less for the Airbnb, we require off street parking and you would need a business license and to pay lodgers tax. If you are renting your house for 30 days or more it is considered a rental, you would not need a business license. 2. Certainly, when Mike looked at this project. They actually have more parking spots than are required for this size of project. The parking spots on Hopi St. is like all City streets and can be used for guest parking. Unless it became a safety issue, the City would not do anything about that. The residents will park in the eight spots off the alley, and guest parking will be on the street or in the spaces on Hopi St. 3. They could but it would have to be to the City standards. The sidewalk on the Hopi St. side does meet ADA standards. 4. I think the eight spaces are there because that is what fits. From Staff’s perspective we would like to leave it with the eight spaces. One of the eight spaces will be a required ADA parking space. Staff added regarding Mr. Martinez’s concerns, the traffic department reviewed this project and saw no additional issues. They have a chart for the type of use, the number of trips generated and these four units fall within the capacity of both Hopi and Allen. She would also invite him to look at the Comprehensive Plan that is a very extensive study on the housing needs and next Tuesday, Long Range Planner, Colby Gibson will be presenting the Housing Snapshot to the City Council. That is a much more detailed report for Farmington’s housing needs. Commission Discussion Commissioner Waldroup stated that he sees the concerns of Orchard vs. Allen. This may start a precedence and this is a challenge when neighbors show up to voice their point of view. It’s important and valuable. He noted Ms. Allen stated she does not feel valued or that she was heard. I am just torn on it. You could fit a family of 15 in that size of a home. And to Mr. Ryan’s point how much investment can you put into a property for single family use vs. this. Commissioner Brown stated that if it was a 3000 sq. ft. single family residence you could fit a lot of people in there. Chair Freeman believes it is a tough piece of property. When the church moved out and another did not move in and having it not be vacant long term is good. But what could it be used for, is this the best use for it. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Vice Chair Brown to approve ZC 23-10 as presented by Staff with an added condition that not more than four single-story rental units may be built and not less than one with one-bedroom unit and not more than two with two bedroom units be built. 27  Commission Discussion Commissioner Berens asked Staff if there were not any elevations yet. Staff responded that was correct, but we don’t typically get elevations for a zone change request. That is a little more investment than the developer would like to put in, not knowing that they are vested. Commissioner Berens asked Staff when the variance expires. Staff replied the variance approved by the Administrative Review Board is instantaneous, unless the City Clerk receives and appeal with 15 days. Once that 15 days passes, it is granted to the property. Staff suggested that the Commission asks if the property owner/developer is ok with the motion as presented. Commissioner Berens thinks it is unfair to limit the units until the developer can lay out the floor plan. But he wanted to hear from the petitioner. Brandon Ryan Addressed the Commission: Mr. Ryan stated he appreciates the sentiment of having a greater understanding, and staff makes a great point about not being that far as far as elevations and that type of things are concerned. His thought is the way it was presented is appropriate. He finds it unlikely that he would want to do more than that. Truthfully two bedrooms in 700 sq. ft. will be pretty tight. The motion carried 5-1. Roll Call Aye Votes Chair Freeman voted aye, because after the church moves out, that made it a tough property to work with. Moving forward, I think this is a good solution because we have a need in the community whether it is executive rental or long-term rental. There is a huge need for apartment type living so I think this helps fit that need. Commissioner Hanson voted aye, I feel staff has done a good job in evaluating this on our behalf. Some of the problems that have been brought forward to us exist regardless. They existed in the past and they would probably exist with whatever becomes of that property. The action taken fairly addresses the traffic concerns and the changes/character of the neighborhood. On that basis I support this action. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye, because it is a perfect set up for this particular space, especially since there are three rental units behind it. I also feel it will be a very nice place and that they will take good care of it. Vice Chair Brown voted aye for all the reasons stated, we have a need for housing. We have an entire neighborhood peppered with multifamily whether it is conforming or non-conforming. This does seem to be the best use for this property. Commissioner Berens voted aye basically for all reasons already stated. 28 Nay Votes Commissioner Waldroup voted nay for the obvious reasons already stated. People show up to a meeting and their voices are valuable and important even though this is a very tough property. My one vote is not going to change the process but it will still show that people do matter. So thank you for showing up. I don’t have anything against the project I just feel for the people that were here that that was important. 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: Planning Manager Escobar introduces the newest Associate Planner, Mr. Joaquin Gonzales, he is focusing on CDBG. We are slowly introducing him to the world of Planning and I expect in the next couple months he will be before you with a petition. The three applications you heard on the 30th, the drive through at Starbucks, the rezone on Schofield and the preliminary plan for Mesa Vista were unanimously approved by Council. Just a note if you think you might recuse yourself on a petition, could you let us know before the meeting so we can make sure we have a quorum. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Berens. The motion carried unanimously 6-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Clint Freeman Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 29 30  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave A. STAFF REPORT, April 27, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Scott Nygren Representative Same Date of Application March 6, 2023 Requested Action Zone Change request from CB: Central Business to PD: Planned Development to allow for the addition of a two-unit prefab residence. Location 121 N. Behrend Ave R0027843 Existing Land Use Office - Red Cross Therapeutic Massage Existing Zoning CB: Central Business 2040 Future Land Use Downtown Designation Surrounding Zoning & North: MU: Frontline Mission Land Use South: CB: Pals Private Duty and Homecare East: CB: Mason Lodge and Parking Lot West: CB: Locke Streets Eats Food Court Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: April 12, 2023, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: April 11, 2023 Sign posted: April 14, 2023 Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The petitioner is requesting a zone change from CB: Central Business to PD: Planned Development. The petitioner wishes to add a 2-unit modular building to the parcel. There is an existing structure on the property that is currently used as an office but has served as a single- family residence in the past. This building was constructed in 1895. This 824 square foot building faces Behrend and was the Hippenmeyer House and later became the location of the telephone company. Property is part of the Locke’s Addition No. 2 platted in 1903. The property is 0.16 acres, 6,969.6 square feet, and centered between Arrington and Main St. The shed shown on the zoning map has been removed. 31  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave PROPOSAL The petitioner is proposing to place a pre-fab, modular duplex residential unit on the subject property. Each unit will be 600 square feet and have two bedrooms. The duplex will face the west towards the alley. Three parking spaces, including one ADA van accessible space would be required for the two housing units. A 20-foot wide aisle way onto the property from the alley must provide access to the duplex. On-street parking on Behrend Avenue is available for guests. Residents of the new duplex also have the opportunity to use the existing parking on the east side of the subject property. In order to fit the proposed duplexes and the required parking spaces, the existing fence running north to south across the property will need to be removed. The subject property is 50 feet wide by 140 feet long. There is a 20-foot wide alley to the west. 32  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Avenue Zoning 33  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave Aerial View 34  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave SAMPLE FLOOR PLAN 35  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave SAMPLE SITE PLAN 36  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Avenue FARMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan’s 2040 Future Land Use Map designation is Downtown. Downtown facilities include offices, housing, restaurants, specialty retail, lodging, urban residential living, and cultural and service activities. METROPOLITAN REDEVELOPMENT AREA (MRA) The subject property is located in the Historic Downtown District subarea of the MRA. Per the 2019 Farmington Downtown MRA Plan: ‘Historic Downtown will also benefit from the introduction of housing over time to provide more “feet on the street” and additional market support for businesses.’ STAFF ANALYSIS The Unified Development Code states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land use of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) outlines issues for consideration in determining a proposed zone change as follows: A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? Yes, the proposed zoning, providing housing within walking distance of downtown shops and restaurants, conforms to the ‘Downtown’ designation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? 37  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave The proposed zoning of Planned Development will provide much needed housing. The property is walkable to restaurants, retail stores, city facilities and a Red Apple transit stop. There are pockets of residential uses in the Central Business District. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? None identified. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? The purpose of the Planned Development zoning is to allow for creative design and land use. The subject property is 6,970 square feet. The density of units proposed conforms to the requirements of the Multi-family Medium Density zoning District. The petitioner is asking for reduced setbacks for the new duplex residential units. The duplex will have five-foot side setbacks and a 25-foot front setback. Other residential districts with a 5-foot side setback requirement include SF-7, SF-5 and SF-A. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to five surrounding property owners. At the time of this report no comments have been submitted. STAFF CONCLUSION In staff’s opinion, the zone change request is appropriate for the neighborhood, adding a much- needed housing option that is close to employment and services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-21, a request from Scott Nygren, property owner, for a zone change from CB: Central Business to PD: Planned Development to allow for a 30 foot by 40 foot duplex to be added onto the parcel at 121 N. Behrend Avenue. 1. All required building permits shall be obtained. 2. A detailed site plan delineating all dimensions shall be required to be submitted with the building permit. 3. The existing fence which transects the property shall be removed. 4. Construction of a barrier, i.e. post and chains, shall be required protecting the 20-foot driveway 5. Parking in the alley shall be prohibited. 38  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 100 FEET NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP FARMINGTON, NM ANIMAS LODGE #15 AF AND AM PO BOX 599 874990599 FRONTLINE MISSION INC AND GRIFFITH DEBBI PO BOX 2635 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 200 N ORCHARD MOFFITTS 4 LLC AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87401 NYGREN INVESTMENT LLC PO BOX 561 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 WEBB PERRY M GST EXEMPTION TRUST AND 653 W ARRINGTON ALL ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401 653 W ARRINGTON WILLIAM AND KIM DUTREMAINE LLC ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401 39  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave 40  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave PLANNING MEMO ZC 23-21 DEADLINE: April 6, 2023 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers See Comment Below: CW Long Range Planner – C. Gibson CW MPO – P. Koeppel No Comment CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix Emergency access was already mentioned, FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega so no other comments from the Fire Marshal's Office. LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – J. Jensen PRCA Parks - R. Crosby PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW Engineering – T. Sitta No Comment CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock Need to know if another water meter needs CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton to be added for the 2nd living space. Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink/Lumens – L. Joe Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS – P. Johnson No Comment Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41  City of Farmington ZC 23-21 121 N Behrend Ave CW – Chief Building Official – D. Childers 1- If these units are manufactured homes (mobile homes) they will need to be HUD approved. 2- If these units are modular buildings they will need a New Mexico Construction Industries approval plate attached to them. 42  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition ZC 23-29 2417 E. 20th Street A. STAFF REPORT, April 27, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Jason Valdez Representative Same Date of Application March 15, 2023 Requested Action A request for a ZC: Zone Change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial to allow for an adult retail cannabis facility. Location 2417 E 20th Street, Ste. C Existing Land Use Vacant Existing Zoning LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial 2040 Future Land Use Commercial Mixed Use Designation Surrounding Zoning North: OP: Office Professional- Florist, Accountant/Insurance & Land Use South: LNC: United Pentecostal Church of Farmington East: GC: General Commercial-Office Complex West: GC: General Commercial-Vape Shop/Horticulture Supplies Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: April 12, 2023 Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: April 11, 2023 Sign posted: April 13, 2023 Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant is requesting a zone change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial to allow for a adult use cannabis retail store. The petitioner, Jason Valdez, owns Zia Toke, a adult cannabis retail store, located at 4339 E Main Street. The petitioner is proposing to rent Suite C at the location on 20th Street to open a second location. The space is 1,520 square feet with a front door facing the street. The location was formerly a barber shop. 43  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street Zoning 44  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street Goggle Earth Aerial View 45  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street Street View 46  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street Farmington Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan’s 2040 Future Land Use Map designation is ‘Commercial Mixed Use’. From the Plan: These areas are located in nodes and along major arterials and provide a variety of regional, job- creating, civic, and medical uses. Smaller footprint retail uses land more efficiently, promotes walkable communities, allows for a variety of transportation choices, improves access for emergency vehicles, and encourages the conservation of open space. STAFF ANALYSIS UDC Compliance The Unified Development Code states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land use of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) outlines issues for consideration in determining a proposed zone change as follows: A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? Yes, the ‘Commercial Mixed Use’ designation supports small retail. B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? 47  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street Yes, this section of 20th Street has small retail stores and professional offices. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? None are noted. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? Yes, this corridor is fully developed. Uses that are not typically allowed in Local Neighborhood Commercial, like theatres, community facilities, larger (box) retail stores, would not fit on this property. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? Yes, parking is adequate with shared parking available along the east side. Installation of one ADA parking space in front of the existing building will be required. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? If utilities are not available, could they be reasonably extended by the applicant? Is the applicant willing to pay for the extension of public facilities and services necessary to service the proposed development? Adequate facilities are in place. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? Section 11.1 of the Unified Development Code defines spot zoning as: Where a particular tract within a larger area is specifically zoned so as to impose upon it restrictions not imposed upon the surrounding lands, or grant to it special privileges not granted generally, not done in pursuance of the Comprehensive Plan. Since the rezone request to General Commercial conforms with the 2040 Farmington Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial Mixed Use, and is more appropriate then the LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial designation because the property is not located at a node, staff has determined that this request does not meet the definition of spot zoning. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 12 surrounding property owners. At the time of this report, no comments have been submitted to staff. STAFF CONCLUSION 48  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street In staff’s opinion, the proposed rezone conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and provides a small retail establishment located close to residential areas. The rezone request from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial is required to allow an adult cannabis retail sales use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-29, a request from Jason Valdez, for a zone change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial to develop an adult cannabis retail sales store. 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained. 2. One van-accessible ADA parking space shall be installed in the front of the building. 3. Facility shall comply with all State security regulations. 4. Zone change approval is contingent on approval of waiver request of the 300-foot distance requirement from a religious institution (CV 23-30). 49  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street 50  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street PLANNING MEMO ZC 23-29 DEADLINE: March 31, 2023 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division Any renovations will require a building CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers permit. CW Long Range Planner – C. Gibson See Comment Below: CW MPO – P. Koeppel No Comment CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega No Comment LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell The lot is not in compliance with parking LEGAL requirements and distance from religious Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost institution. This is not the right place for this business. POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – J. Jensen PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW No comments regarding the zone Engineering – T. Sitta change of variance request. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton No Comment Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink/Lumens – L. Joe Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS – P. Johnson No Comment Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara 51  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street Farmington School District – C. Lyons COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CW – Long Range Planner – C. Gibson The 2040 Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Commercial Mixed Use. The proposed use and zone change request conform to the retail shopping aspect of Commercial Mixed Use. 52  City of Farmington ZC 23-29 2417 E 20th Street NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP 2415 E 20TH ST LLC 654 W MAIN ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401 BENALLY TERRENCE C 2004 SMITH LN FARMINGTON, NM 87401 BENDER JAMES AND CANDACE LIVING TRUST 31 ROAD 5467 FARMINGTON, NM 87401 CHAVEZ SULEMA F 2005 CULPEPPER LN FARMINGTON, NM 87401-4415 GANDY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 916 S 13TH ARTESIA, NM 88210 GNK PROPERTIES LLC 2480 E 20TH ST FARMINGTON, NM 874014402 HUTTON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LLC 5400 EVERGREEN DR FARMINGTON, NM 874014887 MACE RICKEY W AND MACE MECHELLE A 4782 SUNRISE CIR FARMINGTON, NM 87401 MONTOYA LUCAS D 2005 SMITH LN FARMINGTON, NM 87401 RAMOS CARLOS AND SILVIA 5630 ENSENADA WAY FARMINGTON, NM 87402-1168 UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF FARMINGTON 1900 N FAIRVIEW AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87401-0000 WIMSATT TRUST 4400 HANNON DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 53  DOCOMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition CV 23-30 2417 E. 20th Street A. STAFF REPORT, April 27, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Jason Valdez Representative Same Date of Application March 15, 2023 Requested Action A request for a waiver of the required 300-foot distance from a religious institute to a adult retail cannabis facility. Location 2417 E 20th Street, Ste. C Existing Land Use Vacant Existing Zoning LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial 2040 Future Land Use Commercial Mixed Use Designation Surrounding Zoning & North: OP: Office Professional- Florist, Accountant/Insurance Land Use South: LNC: United Pentecostal Church of Farmington East: GC: General Commercial-Office Complex West: GC: General Commercial-Vape Shop/Horticulture Supplies Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: April 12, 2023 Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: April 11, 2023 Sign posted: April 13, 2023 Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required 300-foot distance requirement for an adult retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. The United Pentecostal Church of Farmington is directly south of the subject property. They share a property boundary. 54  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street Zoning 55  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street Goggle Earth Aerial View 56  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street Street View 57  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street From the Plan: These areas are located in nodes and along major arterials and provide a variety of regional, job- creating, civic, and medical uses. Smaller footprint retail uses land more efficiently, promotes walkable communities, allows for a variety of transportation choices, improves access for emergency vehicles, and encourages the conservation of open space. Unified Development Code (UDC) On July 26, 2022 adopted a resolution requiring that the Planning & Zoning Commission review all variance and waiver requests related to cannabis. The Commission will make a recommendation to City Council. Previously, per the Unified Development Code, all waiver and variance requests were heard by the Administrative Review Board. Since 2021, the Administrative Review Board has approved five requests for a variance to the 300-foot distance requirement: 4339 E Main Street – Zia Toke 3000 E 20th - The Reef Joint 3150 E Main St – Score 420 7101 E Main St – NM Alternative Care 3024 E Main – PurLife The ARB found in all cases that the applications were a minimum easing of the code, met the intent of the code and were properties that had characteristics unique enough to allow for waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement. Since July 2022, the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval of three requests for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement: 109 W Broadway – High Altitude Exotics 1930 San Juan Blvd – Kannabis Klub 419 W Main - Hristopolous City Council approved two of these petitions. The petition for 419 W Main will be heard by City Council on April 25. STAFF ANALYSIS There is an existing dispensary, The Green House, located at 1901 E 20th at the southeast corner of Schofield and 20th. No negative impacts have been noted related to the existing cannabis businesses in the area. The entrance of the building on the subject property faces 20th Street. The entrance for the church building faces Fairview Ave. It is approximately 480 feet from front door to front door. 58  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street Side view Front of subject property Rear of Church 59  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street FARMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan’s 2040 Future Land Use Map designation is ‘Commercial Mixed Use’. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 12 surrounding property owners. At the time of this report no written comments have been submitted. STAFF CONCLUSION In staff’s opinion, this storefront on a busy commercial corridor is an appropriate location for an adult cannabis facility. Although the subject property shares a boundary with the church facility, there is no direct line of site between the facilities. 60  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition CV 23-30, a request from Jason Valdez, owner of Zia Toke, for a waiver of the 30-foot distance requirement from a religious institution with the following conditions of approval: 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained. 2. One ADA Van Accessible parking space shall be demarcated in front of the building. 3. Waiver of the distance requirement is contingent upon approval of ZC 29-29, a request to rezone the subject property from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial. 61  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street 62  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street 63  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street 64  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street PLANNING MEMO ZC 23-29 & CV 23-30 DEADLINE: March 31, 2023 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division Any renovations will require a building CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers permit. CW Long Range Planner – C. Gibson See Comment Below: CW MPO – P. Koeppel No Comment CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega No Comment LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell The lot is not in compliance with parking LEGAL requirements and distance from religious Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost institution. This is not the right place for this business. POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – J. Jensen PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW No comments regarding the zone change of Engineering – T. Sitta variance request. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton No Comment Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink/Lumens – L. Joe Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS – P. Johnson No Comment Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara 65  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street Farmington School District – C. Lyons COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CW – Long Range Planner – C. Gibson The 2040 Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Commercial Mixed Use. The proposed use and zone change request conform to the retail shopping aspect of Commercial Mixed Use. 66  City of Farmington CV 23-30 2417 E 20th Street PROPERTIES WITHIN 100 FEET NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP 2415 E 20TH ST LLC 654 W MAIN ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401 BENALLY TERRENCE C 2004 SMITH LN FARMINGTON, NM 87401 BENDER JAMES AND CANDACE LIVING TRUST 31 ROAD 5467 FARMINGTON, NM 87401 FARMINGTON, NM 87401- CHAVEZ SULEMA F 2005 CULPEPPER LN 4415 GANDY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 916 S 13TH ARTESIA, NM 88210 FARMINGTON, NM GNK PROPERTIES LLC 2480 E 20TH ST 874014402 5400 EVERGREEN FARMINGTON, NM HUTTON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LLC DR 874014887 MACE RICKEY W AND MACE MECHELLE A 4782 SUNRISE CIR FARMINGTON, NM 87401 MONTOYA LUCAS D 2005 SMITH LN FARMINGTON, NM 87401 5630 ENSENADA FARMINGTON, NM 87402- RAMOS CARLOS AND SILVIA WAY 1168 UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF 1900 N FAIRVIEW FARMINGTON, NM 87401- FARMINGTON AVE 0000 WIMSATT TRUST 4400 HANNON DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 67