Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive September 26, 2024 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the September 12, 2024 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition CV 24-70 – A request for a variance to UDC Sec. 2.4.67.C where it states that cannabis sales establishments shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school, religious institution, registered daycare center, residential use or from another cannabis dispensary. Located at 620 E. Main St. Presented by Associate Planner Gonzalez (Pg 37) 5 Petition ZC 24-71 – A request for Zone Change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial. Located at 3901 W Main St. Presented by Senior Planner Safrany (Pg 51) 6 Presentation on Possible UDC Updates - Regarding possible changes to the Farmington Unified Development Code.Presented by Planning Manager Gibson (Pg 63) 7 Business From:  Floor: Comments are accepted in person, limited to three (3) minutes and to items that are not listed on the agenda. No formal action will be taken at this meeting relating to comments provided from the floor.  Chairman:  Members:  Staff: 8 Adjournment Petition items on this agenda will be scheduled for the next City Council Meeting – October 8, 2024 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 12, 2024 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on September 12, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Vice Chair Brown Cheryl Ragsdale Cody Waldroup Gary Hanson Jennifer Wood P&Z Members Absent Chair Freeman Amber Hodge Clete Berens Shay Davis Staff Present: Colby Gibson Mike Safrany Joaquin Gonzalez Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission Craig Weese Greg Hamilton Robert Sanchez Anna Montano Shannon Pettus Celia Miller Caroline Hirsch Juanita Endsley Cesar Serrano Kristine Errett Call to Order Vice Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda of the September 12, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission with item #6 and #7 being removed and item #8 being heard first. This motion passed by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the minutes of the August 15, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed by a 5-0 vote. 1 Petition ZC 24-61 – A request for a zone change from General Commercial to Multi-family High Density to convert the existing Travelodge Motel to studio apartments. Located at 652 E. Main St. Associate Planner Gonzalez Presented the Following: Petition Information • Applicant: Craig Weese, potential owner • Representative: N/A • Location: 652 E Main St • Existing Zoning: General Commercial • Existing Land Use: Travelodge Motel • Request: A request for a zone change from General Commercial to Multi-family High Density to convert the existing Travelodge Motel to studio apartments Subject Property 2  Surrounding Zoning/Uses o North: Multi-Family High; Town and Country Mobile home park, Mini Storage o South: General Commercial; Absolutely everything, Health Spa Massage o East: General Commercial; Vacant industrial building o West: General Commercial; Health and Beauty Shop, Suites UDC Sec. 8.7.4 Zone Change Issues for Consideration A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? • The 2040 Future Land Use Map designates this area as Employment Mixed Use. This designation supports integrated live/work medium to high density residential. • The zone change to Multi-Family High Density will align with the 2040 Future Land Use designation. B. Is the proposed zoning and land use compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? • The proposed Multi Family High Density zoning and land use is compatible with the current conforming uses and character of the neighborhood. • Property uses in the area vary and include Multi Family, Offices, retail/beauty shops, storage units and Vacant/unused Land. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? • The proposed use has the potential to have a very similar average daily traffic count to the existing use. 3  • E Main Street is classified as a major arterial according to the City Major Thoroughfare Plan suitable for the proposed multifamily apartments. Traffic engineering does not see any issues or an increase in traffic. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? • Per UDC Section 2.8, the proposed Multi Family High Density zoning district allows up to 36 units. The applicant is proposing the max number of units (36) in the multifamily development. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? • The subject property is 1.23 acres (66,583 square feet) in size and meets the minimum lot size requirements for the Multi Family High Density zoning district of 8,000 square feet. • Per UDC Section 2.8, the MF- H: Multifamily High Density zoning district requires 1,500 square feet per unit. 36 units on 1.23 acres is physically suitable for the parcel. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? • Utilities are available due to the existing use of the Travelodge Hotel. The change in use will not have a negative effect to the pressure or existing utilities. 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. • The proposed Zone Change does not constitute spot zoning by this definition because it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as Employment Mixed Use, the proposed use of multi-family residential aligns with the live/work aspect of the designation. There is also existing multi-family zoning to the north of the subject property. Public Notice • This petition has been properly noticed and posted. • Letters were sent to 11 surrounding property owners. • At the time of this report, no written public comment has been received. 4  Staff Conclusion  The proposed zone change to Multi-Family High is supported by the Employment Mixed Use designation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.  The proposed zone change to Multi-Family High Density and use is compatible with the zoning and uses within the surrounding area.  The proposed use complies with the Unified Development Code density standards outlined in UDC Sec. 2.8.  The proposed use has an approved variance for the setbacks within the Multi-Family High Density District. Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition ZC 24-61, a request from Craig Weese, for a zone change from General Commercial to Multi-family High Density to convert the existing Travelodge motel to studio apartments with the following conditions of approval: 1. Petitioner shall utilize and implement the existing planters on the site to supplement landscaping requirements found in section 5.5.5. 2. Petitioner shall incorporate a common open space on the site providing at the minimum seating and plantings on the southwest corner of the lot. 5 3. Petitioner shall meet the UDC requirements of section 5.2.3 Off street parking and 5.2.10 Accessible parking by providing a minimum of 48 parking spaces and four ADA spaces, one being van-accessible. 4. Building Permits shall be required for any renovations. 5. Applicant shall purchase the subject property and submit evidence of the sale to the City within 12 months of the date of approval. Discussion The Commission and staff had a brief discussion regarding required parking and the number of parking spaces that will be available to the tenant’s. Petitioner Craig Weese, 130 Forest Ridge Rd, Durango CO: Mr. Weese stated that parking has always been something that needed to be worked on. The Commission Asked Petitioner: 1. Have you already purchased the property? 2. What will the average rent be on one of these units? Mr. Weese Replied: 1. They are currently under contract that in contingent upon this approval. At the time of closing the lien will be paid off. 2. Rent will range $700 - $800 a month, including utilities. 6 With no further discussion needed, Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to Approve Petition ZC 24-61 with the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall utilize and implement the existing planters on the site to supplement landscaping requirements found in section 5.5.5. 2. Petitioner shall incorporate a common open space on the site providing at the minimum seating and plantings on the southwest corner of the lot. 3. Petitioner shall meet the UDC requirements of section 5.2.3 Off street parking and 5.2.10 Accessible parking by providing a minimum of 48 parking spaces and four ADA spaces, one being van-accessible. 4. Building Permits shall be required for any renovations. 5. Applicant shall purchase the subject property and submit evidence of the sale to the City within 12 months of the date of approval. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Waldroup, Commissioner Ragsdale, and Commissioner Wood NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Freeman, Commissioner Davis Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hodge APPROVED 5-0 Petition ZC 24-53 – A request for a Zone Change from Single-Family 7 to Multi-Family High Density. Located at 4303 Hudson St. Planning Manager Gibson Presented the Following: Petition Information o Applicant: HKW, LLC o Representative: Greg Hamilton and Barry Wieland o Location: 4303 Hudson Street o Existing Zoning: Single-Family 7 o Existing Land Use: Residential and vacant property o Request: o Approval for a zone change from Multi-Family High Density Subject Property o Combined lot size: 1.55 acres 7 o 20-foot wide alley from Hudson to Gila St. o Iles and Washington are unimproved streets on the 20-year cold mill plan. o Hudson is paved. Vicinity Map 8  Zoning General Commercial to the: • North • East • West. • Surrounds the greater area. Single-Family 7 to the: • South • East • West • Contained to Iles and Washington Ave 9  o Area rezoned last year to support new commercial development. Draft Site Plan o Proposing up to 44-dwelling units o Four 2-story apartment buildings o Required to meet UDC Dev. Standards o Off-Street Parking o Landscaping o Access Management o Residential Protection and screening o Buildings relocated to accommodate setbacks and alleyway. o 10  UDC Section 8.7 Zoning Map Amendment o A) Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? o The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates this area as Mixed Use Village. o Supports: o Walkable areas; o Diversity of shops and services; o High-density residential o Multi-Family High Density zoning is recommended in this designation. B) Is the proposed zoning and land use compatible with the present zoning and uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? 11 C) Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? o The zone change and proposed development will likely result in an increase in noise level and vehicular and pedestrian traffic. o Increased activity is supported by the Comprehensive Plan, but can have adverse impacts on surrounding properties. o UDC Sec. 5.10 Residential Protection helps to mitigate adverse impacts: o No structure shall exceed 28-feet in height within 100-feet of the protected zone. o The subject property shall have a minimum of 30-foot side and rear setbacks where the site abuts the protected zone. o The site, including off-street parking areas associated with the development shall be screened from property in a protected zone. o Dumpsters and waste receptacles shall be completely screened from view of adjacent property in a protected zone and shall be setback at least 20-feet from the lot line. o Street connectivity helps minimize traffic along Iles and Washington. UDC Sec. 5.10 Residential Protection Per UDC Sec. 5.10 the following applies: o No structure shall exceed 28-feet in height within 100-feet of the protected zone. o The subject property shall have a minimum of 30-foot side and rear setbacks where the site abuts the protected zone. o The site, including off-street parking areas associated with the development shall be screened from property in a protected zone. 12  o Dumpsters and waste receptacles shall be completely screened from view of adjacent property in a protected zone and shall be setback at least 20-feet from the lot line. UDC Section 8.7 Zoning Map Amendment D) Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? o The proposed density and intensity of the multi-family use is permitted in the Multi-Family High Density zoning district. E) Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? o The site is 1.55 acres in size and is of adequate size for the proposed use.. F) Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? o Adequate public facilities and services are available. An 8-inch sewer main and 6-inch water main serve the area, sufficient for the proposed use. o Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? 13  o The change to Multi-Family High Density is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and is therefore not spot zoning. Public Input o This petition has been properly noticed: o 12 property owner letters sent out; o Publication of notice. o Public notice sign posted on the property. o To date no feedback has been received on the zone change. o Petition originally included a request to abandon the alley which has been withdrawn. Feedback received from neighbor. Staff Conclusion & Recommendation o The proposed zone change to General Commercial is supported and recommended by the Mixed Use Village designation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. o The proposed zone change to Multi-Family High Density and use is compatible with the zoning and uses within the surrounding area. o The residential protection standards outlined in UDC Sec. 5.10 serve as adequate mitigation efforts to minimize possible adverse impacts. o The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of petition ZC 24-53 a request for a Zone Change from Single-Family 7 to Multi-Family High Density for property located at 4303 Hudson Street. o No conditions of approval are proposed. UDC Article 5 development standards are required. Discussion The Commission and staff had a brief discussion regarding the height of the buildings and the setbacks with the residential protection included. Drive accesses and the abandonment of the alley. Petitioner Greg Hamilton, 5702 Cedarwood Dr., Farmington NM Mr. Hamilton stated that they have struggled to do something nice with this property, he also has other apartment complexes. He also stated that there is a demand for two and three bedroom apartments and this area is perfect a complex. He is also in agreeance with the residential protection that the city mentioned. The Commission Asked Petitioner: 1. What kind of screening/fencing are you looking at? 2. With the alley having to stay, will you reconfigure your site plan? 3. How much will the rent be? Mr. Hamilton Replied: 1. At this point, they have not gotten that far, but will do what the city requires. 2. Yes, they will. There may not be as many apartments on the new site plan. 3. These will be upper end apartments, so in the $1300 - $1800 range. 14  Cross Examination of Mr. Hamilton Robert Sanchez, Representing Abran & Toni Sanchez, 3401 Washington Ave., Farmington NM Mr. Sanchez stated that they are concerned about the irrigation ditch that runs through the property, what will happen to it? Petitioner Hamilton Replied: He envisions that ditch going underground. Affected Parties Robert Sanchez, Representing Abran & Toni Sanchez, 3401 Washington Ave., Farmington NM Mr. Sanchez that they have two special needs people living at this address and they are worried about the added people and traffic that an apartment complex will bring in. His family has lived on this property for over 60 years, now they will have to make some changes. Anna Montano, 3312 Washington, Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Montano stated that her family lives on these lots and are concerned about the ditch and the alley. She is also worried about more people being in the neighborhood and her family’s safety. The Commission Called Petitioner Hamilton Back to the Podium: 1. For the neighbor’s privacy, if we were to add a recommendation for the privacy fencing, would you be ok with that? Mr. Hamilton Replied: 1. He is open to what the city wants him to do. With no further public input, Vice Chair Brown closed the public portion of the meeting for ZC 24-53. The Commission and staff had a brief conversation regarding the abandonment of the alley and privacy screening. With no further discussion needed, Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to Approve Petition ZC 24-53 as presented by staff. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Waldroup, Commissioner Ragsdale, and Commissioner Wood NAY: None ABSTAIN: None 15 ABSENT: Chair Freeman, Commissioner Davis Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hodge APPROVED 5-0 Roll Call Commissioner Hanson voted aye because it does comply with the code as presented by staff. There is clearly a need in Farmington for multi-family housing in all price ranges. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye because the petitioner has meet all necessary requirements and found no reason to deny it, Vice Chair Brown voted aye because it is supported by the compressive plan and the UDC Residential Protection are in place, so he voted for it. Commissioner Waldroup voted aye based on this area being developed, he feels that the petitioner will do a good job with these apartments based on the rent. Commissioner Wood voted aye, she is in agreeance that there is a tremendous need for affordable multi-family housing. She feel it will improve the neighborhood and the safety of the neighborhood. Petition SUP 24-54 – A request for a Special Use Permit for a limited retail and service establishment in the Single Family 10 Residential District. Located at 1429 Anna Ln. Senior Planner Safrany Presented the Following: Petition Petitioner: Celia Miller Representative: Shannon Pettus Location: 1429 Anna Lane Zoning: SF-10: Single-family Residential District 2040 Future Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Overview: The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP 24-54) for a limited retail and service business in a residential district. Some of the criteria within the UDC, Unified Development Code is not met and the petitioner is concurrently requesting a variance (ARB 24-55). This request was denied by ARB and may be appealed by Sept. 20, 2024. Requests for Variance 16 The Petitioner previously submitted for a variance (ARB 24-25) of the UDC, Section 2.4.7.M, which states the maximum allowable dogs at a single residence, is four. The request to allow 20 dogs for personal use (non-commercial), at a residence was denied by the Administrative Review Board on May 9, 2024. Currently the petitioner is requesting a variance of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 2.5.10 Limited retail and service establishment, sub-sections (F) and (H), stating all businesses in connection with the establishment shall be conducted within an enclosed building (F), and shall be of a type which will not cause greater noise or odor (H). The petitioner also requests a variance to the animals and fowl guidelines in Section 2.4.7.M of the Unified Development Code (UDC), allowing the keeping or raising of up to four domestic dogs and four domestic cats and other small animals and birds commonly kept as indoor house pets. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow the keeping of up to twenty (20) dogs on the property. Background • The applicant is currently residing at the 1429 Anna Lane residence. • The property is owned by her sister Mary Daniel who supports the petition. • The petitioner is currently keeping approximately 20 Chihuahua’s at the property that are kept in kennels at the rear of the property, the front of the property, and inside the house. • The dogs are a selective breed that are entered into dog shows and are also sold. • There is a website called Millers Chihuahuas selling dogs for $2,000 to $5,000 each. www.gooddog.com/breeders/millers-chihuahuas-new-mexico. 17  Front Yard at Anna Lane Corner of Anna Lane and E Rollo Way 18 Side Yard at E Rollo Way Kennels at E Rollo Way 19  SJ County Assessor’s Map Zoning Map SF-10: Single-Family Residential 20  UDC 8.9.A Special Use Permits The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. • Special use permit approvals attach to the property and are transferable to subsequent owners. • Special Use Permit approval shall expire after 18 months from the date of approval if operation of the approved use has not commenced. • Time limits shall be set through the conditions of approval. • Any person aggrieved by a decision of the city council may appeal to the district court in writing within 30 days. UDC 8.9.4 – SUP Criteria A. Effect on Environment: • Placement of a Chihuahua retail facility at this location would be injurious to this neighborhood. Surrounding uses are residential and by nature this facility will require activities to be performed outdoors. If approved as a commercial business, this would increase the number of dogs allowed by five times the current limit, from four dogs to 20 dogs, or by 400%. This would substantially increase noise and odor in the area. B. Compatible with surrounding area: • The more accurate use category for this business is a dog kennel (UDC, Section 2.4.26), which would require a zone change. These types of uses also require kennels and outdoor exercise areas be fully enclosed with a six-foot high masonry wall and must be located a minimum of 500 feet from existing residential uses and residential zoning districts. C. External Impacts: • Operating this type of business will violate Section 2.5.10 of the UDC regarding Limited Retail and Service in a single-family dwelling and is not in harmony with the neighborhood. The proposed increase of the number of dogs allowed may have a significant impact on the noise and odor in the area. Per the UDC, such retail businesses should be confined entirely indoors and should not increase noise or odor in the neighborhood. D. Infrastructure impacts minimized: • The proposed facility having many dogs of any size creates a search and rescue issue for firefighters in the case of fires. It can also create safety issues on other types of responses. Historically, occupancies with a large number of animals in and around the house also often present other hazards. 21 E. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan: The petitioner does not meet the requirements of UDC Sec. 2.5.10, specifically: • The proposed location is zoned SF-10: Single-family residential, limited local establishments must be conducted completely indoors with no increase in odor or noise. • The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates this area as Medium Density Residential. The proposed commercial business does not conform to the residential designation. F. Parcel Size: • Dog kennels are required to be a minimum of 500 feet from any residential uses or zoning and are only allowed in Rural Agricultural, General Commercial and Industrial zoning districts. G. Site Plan: • A site plan has been submitted showing the area being used for the business. This includes outdoor uses, such as kennels, at the rear, side and front of the property. 22  Proposed Site Plan Millers Chihuahua’s Website 23  City of Farmington Dept. Comments: Planning Manager Colby Gibson: • The proposed limited service establishment does not meet several of the standards outlined in UDC Sec. 2.5.10: • The applicant does not meet several of the variance criteria outlined in UDC Sec. 8.12.4. Staff does not agree that this request is a minimum easing of the code. Fire Marshall Brandy Vega: • These occupancies present fire and life safety hazards to first responders, and we ask that this be taken into account when addressing this request. Code Compliance Mark Romero: • On 6/4/24 FPD OFC. S. Bencomo and CCO Romero issued a citation to the responsible party. Chief Building Official Derrick Childers: • Any accessory structures or dog runs will be required to go through the permitting process. City Manager’s Office Julie Baird: • We affirm the current restriction in the UDC is an important tool to maintain civility and peace in city neighborhoods and believe the UDC should be upheld in this instance. Public Notice Letters were sent to nine surrounding property owners. Legal notice was published and a sign was posted on the subject property. At the time of this report, no public comment was received Conclusion The subject property is not an appropriate location for a limited retail and service establishment. The surrounding uses are residential and the increased noise and odor is not harmonious with the character of the neighborhood. The use is not consistent with the 2040 Land Use Plan designation of a medium density residential area. The application does not meet the criteria for approval of a Special Use permit for this type business in residential zoning. Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition SUP 24-54, a request from Celia Miller, for a limited retail and service facility for raising and selling up to 20 Chihuahua dogs at 1429 Anna Lane. 24  Discussion The Commission and staff had a discussion regarding building permits and permanent structures/kennels. They also talked about the citation that was issued to the petitioner. The Commission Asked Staff: 1. If the dogs were strictly kept indoors, would that change the City’s position? Staff Replied: 1. With this type of business, that would not be possible. The dogs need be exercised and taken out to use the bathroom. Cross Examination of Staff Petitioner Representative Shannon Pettus, 201 E. Broadway Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Pettus asked Senior Planner Safrany, when he was at the residence did he smell any odor that was disturbing or intrusive. Mr. Safrany Replied: No he did not smell anything. He stated that he was at the residence a few times preparing for these meetings and only on one occasion were there dogs in the front yard. The other times there were no dogs outside. Affected Parties Petitioner Representative Shannon Pettus, 201 E. Broadway Ave., Farmington NM Ms. Pettus is representing Celia Miller, she is doing business as Miller’s Chihuahuas which is a registered business with the State of New Mexico. Celia is seeking a Special Use Permit so she can operate the business out of her house. Ms. Pettus briefly touched on the Fire Marshals comment, she informed the Commission that the dog’s area all kept in kennels and it would not be hard to rescue them, it is a very structured environment. She also wanted to address the noise and odor issue. Ms. Pettus has pictures that show the cleanliness and order inside of the residence. She also stated that the dogs are only outside to relieve themselves and for limited running around time. They are only let out six at a time rotation. Ms. Miller does run a business, she breeds them, shows them and sells them. She will also rescue them that is one of the reasons there are so many. Most of her business in conducted indoors or by phone and the internet. Also a more common scenario if someone wants to purchase one of Celia’s dogs that she will meet them in a park where they can explore the area. 25 Ms. Pettus also pointed out on the map who is in support and who is in opposition to the petition. She also pointed out some county property that is behind and to the west of Ms. Endsley house that has livestock on it. She feels that there would be noise and odor coming from that property. Ms. Pettus is asking the Commission to consider a Special Use Permit to operate this business along with any conditions they think would be appropriate. Ms. Miller would be amenable to any conditions that would allow her to stay in her home. Ms. Pettus presented pictures of Ms. Miller’s house and the outside where the dogs are let outside. 26 27 Ms. Pettus stated that the house and outside are kept very neat and orderly this is not a hoarder situation. The dog feces is cleaned up after each six dog rotation and deep cleaned once a week. 28 Petitioner Celia Miller, 1429 Anna Ln., Farmington NM Ms. Miller stated that she has been breeding and showing dogs for 40 years. She moved here to help her sister. She didn’t check to see if anything was needed for running her dog business out of her home. Her sister needed her, so she just moved. She is trying to get a hobby kennel license, with no luck. She added that the dogs are cleaned up after as soon as they are brought in. She does a deep cleaning and disinfected once a week. Cross Examination of Ms. Miller Juanita Endsley, 1439 Anna Ln., Farmington NM Ms. Endsley asked Ms. Miller what she does with all the feces after it is cleaned up. Ms. Miller Replied Ms. Miller replied that the feces is double bagged and thrown away. Affected Parties Caroline Hirsch, 1424 Anna Ln., Farmington NM Ms. Hirsch stated that since she has lived in this neighborhood, she has never smelled anything coming off of that property. She has also been inside the home and stated that there is never any odor, and that it is very neat and clean. They pick up the feces right after the dogs are let back inside after the bathroom break. She has no issue with the little dogs and is in support of Ms. Miller and her petition. Juanita Endsley, 1439 Anna Ln., Farmington NM Ms. Endsley has some evidence in the form of videos, of the dogs barking at different times of day and night. In these videos you can see the dogs in the front yard at all time of the night and morning. The dogs are yapping non-stop, she hears them at all hours and she he can hear them from inside of her house. 29 30 31 Ms. Endsley added that the dogs are put out in the front yard. When children are walking home from school, they have to walk out in the street to keep away from the yapping dogs. There is an odor coming from the petitioner’s yard. There is constant yapping, she cannot leave her house without being barked at. She added that the county property, located behind her must be downwind because she has never seen, heard or smelled anything coming from that property. Cross Examination of Ms. Endsley Petitioner’s representative Shannon Pettus asked Ms. Endsley about a dog that was in Ms. Endsley’s front yard in one of the videos. She asked whose dog that was. Ms. Endsley replied that is a neighbor’s dog that is let out at night. She added that she never hears that dog. Interested Parties Cesar Serrano, 1432 Anna Ln., Farmington NM Mr. Serrano stated that he is in support of Ms. Miller. He is not one to complain, it is what it is. Kristine Errett, 2613 Cliffside Dr., Farmington NM Ms. Errett stated that she is Ms. Endsley’s daughter. Ms. Endsley has lived in her house for 23 years and has never had any issues with anybody. Ms. Errett and Ms. Endsley made a complaint several months ago because of the noise and odor. Since the complaint was made Ms. Miller is in a panic now. They have gone to three hearings and nothing has been done. The dogs still 32 bark constantly, they put cameras up that show the dogs in the front yard and constantly barking day and night. Her mom cannot even sit out on her front porch because of the constant barking. They have gone over to the corner by Ms. Miller house and you can smell the feces, you can’t smell it all the time but most of the time you can. She does not have a problem with dogs in general, just the number of dogs. She asked the Commission, would you like to live next door to that many dogs? The Commission called Ms. Miller back to the podium The Commission Asked Ms. Miller: 1. Is your house under contract? Do you know when the contract will go through? 2. If the sale fall through, do you have a certain date that you would move? Ms. Miller Replied: 1. The house is for sell, and they have an offer on it. She does not know when/if the contract will go through. 2. No, she does not, the move is contingent on the sale. She added that they do take the dogs through the front yard to get to the back yard. The steps in the back are too steep to go that way. The dogs are not out all night long, they let them out at about 2:00am, then bring them in to feed them. The Commission called Staff back to the podium The Commission Asked Staff: 1. If this SUP is approved, doesn’t the variance still need to be approved before this SUP could be grated? 2. If this SUP is granted, will it stay with the property until its expiration date? 3. What zoning district would a dog kennel be allowed? Staff Replied: 1. Yes, the variance was denied at the Administrative Review Board (ARB) meeting, it has being appealed to City Council. City Council will hear the appeal at the same meeting that they will hear the recommendation for this SUP. It is possible that both could be approved, but if either is denied the whole thing would be denied. 2. Yes, it would transfer with each property owner. 3. A dog kennel would be permitted in general commercial, industrial and rural agricultural districts. You would still need to build a six foot block wall and be 500 ft. away from any residence. In residential zoning districts, you are allowed four dogs. With no further public input, Vice Chair Brown closed the public portion of this meeting for SUP 24-54. With no further discussion needed, Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. 33  Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Wood to Deny Petition SUP 24-54 as presented by staff. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Waldroup, Commissioner Ragsdale, and Commissioner Wood NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Freeman, Commissioner Davis Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hodge APPROVED 5-0 Roll Call Commissioner Hanson voted aye because the staff report and the complaining residents are compelling. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye because she feel the exact same way as Commissioner Hanson. Vice Chair Brown voted aye because he feels like five time the allowed limit is not a minimal easing of the code. He is worried about the adverse effects on the neighbors and the opposition from the neighbors. Commissioner Waldroup voted aye, the smell and noise doesn’t matter. It comes down to the UDC, and the UDC does not allow it in this location. Commissioner Wood voted aye because this location is not appropriate. UDC Updates: Section 2.3 Body Art Safe Practices, Section 5.3 Access Management and Section 8.9 Special Use Permits and 8.12 Variances Planning Manager Gibson went over the UDC updates with the Commission, and stated all of their concerns/questions have been addressed. He asked for a motion to recommend the changes to City Council. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to Approve UDC Section 2.3 changes as presented by staff. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Waldroup, Commissioner Ragsdale, and Commissioner Wood NAY: None 34 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Freeman, Commissioner Davis Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hodge Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to Approve UDC Section 5.3 changes as presented by staff. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Waldroup, Commissioner Ragsdale, and Commissioner Wood NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Freeman, Commissioner Davis Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hodge Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to Approve UDC Section 8.9 and Section 8.12 changes as presented by staff. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Waldroup, Commissioner Ragsdale, and Commissioner Wood NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Freeman, Commissioner Davis Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hodge 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 Gibson let the Commission know that the cannabis variance for 663 W. Main St. was approved by City Council. He added that there is a lot of discussion regarding affordable housing going on in the City of Farmington right now. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Ryan Brown Tami Spencer Vice Chair Administrative Assistant 35 36  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 - 620 E Main St – Recreational Cannabis Sales PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Bryan Johnson, Tenant Representative N/A Date of Application August 14, 2024 A request for a variance to UDC Sec. 2.4.67.C where it states that cannabis sales establishments shall not be permitted within Requested Action 300 feet of any school, religious institution, registered daycare center, residential use or from another cannabis dispensary. Location 620 E. Main St BEG ON N R/W OF E MAIN N89-54- W 603.5 FT AND N01-48- W 494.5 FT AND N51-09- E 41 FT FROM SE COR OF Legal Description NE1/4NW1/4 152913, N39-16- W 104.10 FT, N51-09- W 50 FT, S39-16- E 104.10 FT, S51-09- W 50 FT ALONG ROW TO BEG. .12 AC BK.1487 PG.829 Existing Land Use Vacant building Existing Zoning General Commercial Future Land Use Employment Mixed Use Designation North: Multi-Family Low Density; Town and County MN and RV Park Surrounding South: General Commercial; Vacant Building Zoning & Land Use East: General Commercial; San Juan Realty West: General Commercial; Motorcycle Performance Headquarters Publication of Notice: September 9, 2024 Farmington Daily Notice Times Requirements Property owners’ letter: September 9, 2024 Sign posted: September 16, 2024 Staff Planner Joaquin Gonzalez, Associate Planner Background: The subject property is located on a .120-acre parcel and is zoned General Commercial. The building they will utilize is a 1339 square foot service repair garage. The building is currently vacant. As measured by the UDC, the proposed cannabis facility is 195-feet 37  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST away from the nearest residential use (Multi-Family Units, 36 units in total). Building to building they are approximately 212-feet away. The nearest mobile home residences to the north (Town and County MN and RV Park, 34 mobile homes in total) are approximately 265-feet away, building to building they are 332-feet away from the proposed cannabis retail sales building. The two properties are accessed from two different streets (E. Main and Vine Ave). The building distance and vegetation provide adequate separation. Request: A request for a variance to UDC Sec. 2.4.67.C where it states that cannabis sales establishments shall not be permitted within 300-feet of any school, religious institution, registered daycare center, residential use or from another cannabis dispensary. ZONING General Commercial (GC) 38 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST AERIAL MAP 620 E Main Street 39  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST AREA MAP 40  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST FLOOR PLAN 41  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST Properties within 300ft as Measured by UDC Residential Use 42  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE UDC Section 8.12 Variances The Unified Development Code states that variances may be granted if it is found that the strict enforcement of the UDC would create a substantial hardship to the applicant by virtue of unique special conditions not generally found within the vicinity, and that the granting of a variance would preserve the spirit and intent of the UDC and would serve the general interests of the public and the applicant. The following criteria has been used per UDC Sec. 8.12.4 variance criteria: (1) That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and; furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self- created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant; This criterion is not met. In staff’s interpretation there is no special circumstance existing which meets this criterion. There is no special condition or circumstance that exists that is peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands structures or buildings in the same district. (2) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code; This criterion is not met. Despite the cannabis retail use being a permitted use within the General Commercial district. The 3 other cannabis facilities within the same district are still subject to the 300-feet of the protected uses described in UDC Sec 2.4.67C. (3) The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; This criterion is not met. The code requires the 300-foot measurement be taken from closest property line to closest property line. The mobile home residences to the north are 265-feet away measured property line to property line. Building to building they are 332-feet away. The two properties are accessed from two different streets (E. Main and Vine Ave). The building distance and vegetation provide adequate separation. The multi-family property to the east of the subject property is approximately 195-feet away as measured property line to property line and 220-feet building to building... The cannabis use will be within 220 feet of 36 units. The request is not an easing of the code requirements. (4) That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; This criterion is not met. The intent of the code is to separate cannabis uses from residential areas and to ensure cannabis uses are not being clustered within any one area of the city. The nearest cannabis retail establishments are located at 426 E. Main St (0.28-miles away) and 850 E. Main St (0.32-miles away), which are more than a quarter mile away and provides adequate distance. However, as stated previously the code is also intended to separate cannabis uses from residential uses in this case the multi-family units east of the proposed cannabis location building to building are 220- feet away not meeting the intent of the code (300-foot distance). The granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the code. 43  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST (5) That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district; This criterion is met. The proposed variance will not allow any use not allowed in the district. Per UDC Sections 2.4.67 Recreational Cannabis sales is a permitted use in the General Commercial zoning district. (6) That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance; and This criterion is met. No nonconforming uses have been considered. (7) That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. This criterion is not met. If the variance request was denied, this property would not be eligible for recreational cannabis sales, they will also not be able to obtain their state license. In Staff’s interpretation this is self-imposed. The applicant does not currently own the subject property and is aware of the distancing ordinances in place. They also currently own other locations within San Juan County. The applicant would not suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance request was denied. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 11 surrounding property owners. As of the date of this report, no feedback has been received regarding the petition. 44  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST STAFF CONCLUSION • The proposed cannabis retail sales use is supported by the Comprehensive Plan’s ‘Employment Mixed Use’’ designation. • Per UDC section 8.12.4 in order to grant a variance their needs to be a positive finding of fact concerning each of the 7 criteria. The proposed variance only meets two (2) of the seven (7) variance criteria. • There is no special condition or circumstance that exists that is peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands structures or buildings in the same district. • The request is not an easing of the code nor does it meet the intent of the 300-foot distance requirement as the nearest residential use is physically 220-feet away. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends DENIAL of Petition CV 24-70, a request from Bryan Johnson for a variance to UDC Sec. 2.4.67.C where it states that cannabis sales establishments shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school, religious institution, registered daycare center, residential use or from another cannabis dispensary for property located at 620 E Main Street in the General Commercial district. 45 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST 46 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST 47 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST 48 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST 49 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION CV 24-70 620 E MAIN ST 50  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT Petition ZC 24-71 Zone Change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial A. STAFF REPORT, August 30, 2024 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Jerry and Cary Delmore Representative None Date of Application August 16, 2024 Requested Action Zone Change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial Location 3901 W. Main St. - Parcel R0024795 Existing Land Use Vacant Lot Existing Zoning LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Designation Commercial Mixed Use Surrounding Zoning & Land North: Local Neighborhood Commercial, MH Storage Use South: Federal Property, vacant East: Federal Property, vacant West: Federal Property, vacant Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: Wednesday September 11, 2024, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: Monday September 16, 2024 Sign posted: Friday September 13, 2024 Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Senior Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Background San Juan County Tax Assessor’s indicates Parcel No. R0024795 is a 1.79 acre property owned by Jerry and Cary Delmore. The property is currently vacant and undeveloped and can be accessed directly off US Highway 64 heading east. The property is zoned LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial. The petitioner would like to sell the property and has drawn more interest for General Commercial zoning than the existing local neighborhood commercial zoning due to the possibility of developing an accomodation use on the site. 51  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET 2.7.3 Residential use categories. A. Accommodations. (1) Characteristics. Dwelling units arranged for short term stays of less than 15 days for rent, lease, or interval occupancy. (2) Accessory uses. Accessory uses may include pools and other recreational facilities, limited storage, and offices. (3) Examples. Examples include bed and breakfast establishments, hotels, motels, inns, hostels, and interval occupancy facilities. Also includes central reception and check-in facilities for resorts and interval occupancy (time-share) facilities. AERIAL / ASSESSOR'S MAP - 3901 W Main St. 52  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET ZONING MAP 2040 LAND USE MAP 53  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET 54  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET ACCESS FROM US HWY 64 VIEW LOOKING WEST TO US HWY 64 55  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET VIEW LOOKING EAST 56  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET VIEW LOOKING WEST 57  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET UDC Sec 8.7.4 Issues for consideration 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? The proposed zoning shown in the Comprehensive Plan is Commercial Mixed Use, which may include freestanding, mid-rise, retail and service buildings located in nodes and along major arterials. The proposed General Commercial zoning district meets the land use category. 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? The proposed zoning is compatible with other uses along major corridors like US Highway 64. This unique area provides integrated pedestrian connectivity to green space and the San Juan River. The property has vacant Federal property along three borders and Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning to the north of US Highway 64. There is currently a bed and breakfast operating approximately half a mile to the east. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? No adverse impacts are expected. The property is surrounded by vacant Federal property. There is direct access to the property from US Highway 64 along the northern edge. The petitioner's proposal will serve to further the goals and objectives of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? Yes, the proposed planned development meets the density and dimensional standards established by this rezone approval and is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? Future development on the site shall conform to the requirements of Section 2.8.1 of the Unified Development Code. 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? There are no existing utilities on the site. Existing water lines are approximately a quarter mile to the east and a quarter mile to the west. 58  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? UDC Article 11 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’. The proposed Zone Change does not constitute spot zoning by this definition. The proposed zone change is in conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes the zone change from a LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial district to a GC, General Commercial district, for a vacant property of 1.79 acres, is supported by the general character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 24-71, a request from Jerry and Cary Delmore, for a zone change from a LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial district to a GC, General Commercial district for a vacant lot at 3901 W Main Street with the following condition: 1. Future commercial development shall comply with the development standards of the UDC, Article 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to surrounding property owners. At the time of this report, no public input has been received. NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP 1 Delmore, Jerry and Cary 115 Los Balcones Pl NE Rio Rancho, NM 87124 2 Rick Marcy and Shermann Singleton PO Box 2098 Farmington, NM 87499 59  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET 60  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-71 3901 W. MAIN STREET 61 62  Possible UDC Updates Presented by: Planning Manager, Colby Gibson 63