Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive October 10, 2024 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the September 26, 2024 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition CV 24-79 – A request for a Variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a recreational cannabis sales facility to residential uses and an existing recreational cannabis sales location, as outlined in UDC Section 2.4.67C. Located at 104 ½ E Main St. Presented by Senior Planner Safrany (Pg. 21) 5 Petition SUP 24-82 – A request for a Special Use Permit to allow hazardous materials storage on site per UDC Section 2.4.53. Located at 4100 Piedras St. Presented by Planning Manager Gibson (pg. 41) 6 Petition ZC 24-85 – A request for a zone change from Single Family - 7 to Multi-family Low Density to allow up to 3 dwelling units. Located at 1344 Smith Ln. Presented by Associate Planner Gonzalez (Pg. 55) 7 Presentation/Action on Possible UDC Updates – Updates to the Farmington Unified Development Code regarding building design standards. Presented by Planning Manager Gibson 8 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 22, 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 26, 2024 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on September 26, 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 Jennifer Wood Amber Hodge Gary Hanson Clete Berens P&Z Members Absent Chair Freeman Shay Davis Staff Present: Colby Gibson Mike Safrany Joaquin Gonzalez Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission Brian Johnson Frank Patterson Jerry Delmore 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 Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda of the September 26, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission with item #6 being removed. This motion passed by a 6-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed by a 7-0 vote. 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, 1 religious institution, registered daycare center, residential use or from another cannabis dispensary. Located at 620 E. Main St. Associate Planner Gonzalez Presented the Following: Petition Information Applicant: Bryan Johnson Representative: N/A Location: 620 E. Main St Existing Zoning: General Commercial Existing Land Use: Vacant 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. Subject Property 2  Surrounding Zoning / USES o North: Multi-Family Low Density; Town and County MN and RV Park o South: General Commercial; Vacant Building o East: General Commercial; San Juan Realty o West: General Commercial; Motorcycle Performance Headquarters 3  Properties within 300-feet UDC Section 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; This criterion is not met. • In staff’s interpretation there is no special circumstance existing which meets this criterion. 4  • 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. (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. • Recreational Cannabis sales also has not proven to create any adverse effects on surrounding properties. • 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). 5 (5) That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the district; This criterion is met. • The proposed variance will not allow any use not allowed in the district. (6) That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance; and This criterion is met. • No nonconforming uses have been considered for approval. (7) 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. Public Input • This petition has been properly noticed: o 11 property owner letters sent out; o Publication of notice in the Daily Times. • Public notice sign posted on the property. Staff Conclusion • The proposed cannabis retail sales use is supported by the Comprehensive Plan’s ‘Employment Mixed Use’’ designation. 6  • 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 code 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. Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. If the zoning for the motel was not changed to multi-family, would that even apply to that property? Staff Replied: 1. Yes, this would still apply to the property, the motel would fall under residential use on the use table. They would still need the variance for both locations. Petitioner, Brian Johnson, 620 E. Main St., Farmington NM Mr. Johnson stated that he is the owner of the Burnin’ Barrels family of dispensaries. He is also a 13 year City of Farmington employee. He also stated that he had received a letter from Planning Manager Gibson that there were no negative affect with this location. The reason he chose that building was because it’s a commercial building in a commercial zone on a very busy street. He is not trying to put a dispensary in a residential neighborhood. The two residential properties that are within the 300 feet would not be visible from the dispensary. There are six businesses between him and the motel/apartments. The cannabis businesses are good for Farmington, they bring a lot of revenue. This will be his fourth dispensary. One in Aztec, one in Bloomfield and one in San Juan County. Two of which have variances for the same reason, he has never had any problems with any of his other locations. If this variance gets approved, this location would be strictly retail. He makes his own product out in the county, where it is fully approved, and then he would bring it to the store. Consumption, vagrancy and loitering are not allowed at any of his locations. 7 The average dispensary brings in about $70,000 a month where the motel/apartment would probably bring in about $25,000 to 30,000. There is no reason why the two cannot work together without having harmful effects. Mr. Johnson presented the Commission with some pictures of the minor improvement he has already done to the building. 8 Mr. Johnson stated that he knows the City spent millions of dollars making Downtown beautiful and that is the same thing that he is trying to doing. He also stated that he will have no negative affect and proposes that the City grant the variance for one year and then revisit it at that time. If there is anything negative in that year he will give up this dispensary. The Commission Asked the Petitioner: 1. The tall metal sign, does that go with your building? What will you be doing with that? 9  2. Can you tell us about your security? 3. What is at the 620 C that is behind you? The Petitioner Replied: 1. It does go with the building, he is not going to do anything with it. 2. There will be security cameras completely surrounding the building inside and out. There is only one entrance to this building, so that will easy to secure. 3. That is a roofing business’s storage area. The other building is vacant. Frank Patterson, 618 E. Main St., Farmington NM Mr. Patterson give a brief history regarding this property. He owns 618 E. Main St. and wanted to point out that they would share the same access point to the property. In the original real estate contract when Mr. Lujan deeded the property to Mr. Hertz, he gave him the right of ingress and egress for the other properties. There has been a few tenants in the front building and there was no problem with the ingress and egress. At one point it was a church and there was a massive amount of traffic. After many attempts of communicating with the church regarding this issue, nothing worked. Without having access to his property, trucks delivering materials were turned away and they took the materials back. It ended up in litigation. Mr. Patterson does not see that there should be a problem with Mr. Johnson’s business and his own. They will need each other and can work together on the ingress/egress. He added that his property in the back is unoccupied and they do not have business hours. He has several roofing crews that will come and go often, Monday – Friday and at different times of the day. When they have deliveries, the trucks back in and pull out. They are not there for very long. This may affect Mr. Johnson’s customers. They may have to be patient for a few minutes while the deliveries are being made. Mr. Patterson presented the Commission with a picture showing the ingress/egress. 10 The Commission Asked Mr. Patterson: 1. Is your property completely fenced in? 2. Does your property acts as a buffer between the proposed dispensary and the mobile home park? 3. Is there parking for the dispensary? Mr. Patterson Replied: 1. Yes, it is completely fenced in and there are two dogs in there too. 2. That is correct, and they would not be assessable from that side. 3. There is parking on the west side, where the black outline is. It’s just not practical but we can make it work. He needs to have access to his driveway for the delivery trucks. The Commission Called Mr. Johnson Back to the Podium The Commission Asked Mr. Johnson: 1. Is there designated parking for the dispensary? 2. Based on your experience, what is a reasonable expectation for the amount of customers that you would have through the day or at any given time? 3. How many parking spaces do you have? 4. How many employees will you have? 5. If 620 B gets rented out, what will that do to your parking? Mr. Johnson Replied: 1. Yes, there is designated parking on the west side of the building. 2. Basically the average transaction take about five minutes. He does not see any conflict at all with this arrangement. 3. Probably six or seven, the employees will park in a spot behind the building. 4. He is anticipating two. 5. He is thinking he may lease it for an office space for himself. The Commission Called Associate Planner Gonzalez Back to the Podium The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Did you measure the distance from the building to the property line at the back fence? Staff Replied: 1. Yes, he measured from property line to property line and from the back of the building to the back property line. It was roughly 220 ft. from the back of the building to the back property line. 11  Commission Discussion With the roofing business being behind the proposed dispensary there seems to be a buffer to the mobile park at the back of the property. The motel/apartments is in the middle of a commercial district on Main St. but it is still considered residential. With the new zoning taking effect on September 24th it is now zoned residential. Associate Planner Gonzalez added that if the Commission wanted to recommend approval, there would be some conditions the petitioner would have to abide by. They are: 1. The applicant shall install one ADA van accessible parking space per UDC section 5.2.3 and 5.2.10. 2. The variance approval shall run with the property owner at the proposed location AND shall become null and void in the event that the cannabis retail sales use has not commenced within 12 months or is discontinued for a time period of 12 months or longer. 3. With no further discussion needed, Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to Approve Petition CV 24-70 as recommended by staff with two additional conditions: They are: 1. The applicant shall submit to the City, an executed parking and access agreement between the property owners located at 620 E Main St and 618 E Main St. 2. The variance shall expire in two years from the date of approval, at which time shall be subject to review and reapplication. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioners Hanson, Wood, Hodge and Ragsdale NAY: Commissioners Waldroup, and Berens ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: Chair Freeman, and Commissioner Davis The motion passed with a vote of 5-2 Roll Call Aye Votes Commissioner Hanson voted aye because he feels like this is the appropriate place for the proposed use, both in terms of the neighborhood and with the use of Mr. Patterson to the rear. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye because she feels the location is appropriate and it doesn’t seem that it will interfere with the surroundings. 12 Vice Chair Brown voted aye because the feels that general commercial is appropriate and that there is not opposition. He also feels like there will be no adverse on the surrounding area. Commissioner Wood voted aye because the location fits the area as far as general commercial in concerned. Commissioner Hodge voted aye because it does seem appropriate as well and there is no opposition from the surrounding area. Nay Votes Commissioner Waldroup voted nay for the fact that it is close to the multi-family zoning for the motes/apartments that was just approved. There will be families living there with the possibility of having children living there too. Commissioner Berens voted nay mainly because the code is there for a reason, and it’s only 220 ft. away from residents. Petition ZC 24-71 – A request for a Zone Change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial Senior Planner Safrany Presented the Following: Petition Information Petitioner: Jerry and Cary Delmore Zoning: LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial District Existing Land Use: Vacant Property Requesting: Zone Change to GC: General Commercial Background • The property is 1.79 acres • The property is a single vacant lot which can be accessed directly of the US Hwy 64 east-bound lane. • The property is currently zoned LNC. • The petitioner would like to sell the property and has drawn interest for General Commercial zoning to develop accommodation uses on the site. 13  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. 14  Zoning Map 2040 Land Use Map 15 2040 Land Use Description Access from US HWY 64 16 View Looking West to US HWY 64 From Site Looking East 17  From Site Looking East Zoning Map Amendment (REZONE) UDC 8.7.4 – Issues For Consideration 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? 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 they 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? Yes, the proposed planned development meets the density and dimensional standards established by this rezone approval and is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 18  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? 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. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? The proposed Zone Change does not constitute spot zoning by this definition. The proposed zone change is in conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 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. 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: Future commercial development shall comply with the development standards of the UDC, Article 5. Discussion The Commission had no questions for staff at this time. Petitioner, Jerry & Cary Delmore, 115 Los Balcones Pl. NE, Rio Rancho NM Mr. Delmore stated that they purchased this property with the intention of building a hotel and an EV charging area. They changed their minds and decided to sell the property. The potential buyers were going to continue with the hotel and charging area, but they found out that the property was not zoned properly for a hotel. The Delmore’s are requesting the zone change so the potential buyers can proceed with the hotel and charging area after they purchase the property. With no further discussion needed, Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Berens to Approve Petition ZC 24-71 as recommended by staff. With the following condition. 19  1. Future commercial development shall comply with the development standards of the UDC, Article 5. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioners Hanson, Wood, Hodge, Waldroup, Berens and Ragsdale NAY: None ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: Chair Freeman, and Commissioner Davis The motion passed with a vote of 7-0 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 petitions for zone changes on Hudson St. and for the motel at 652 E. Main St. were approved at the City Council on the consent agenda. The special use permit and the appeal from the ARB for Millers Chihuahua’s was withdrawn by the petitioner. They have sold their house and will be moving out into the county. Commissioner Ragsdale asked when the zone change for 652 E. Main St. will be in effect. Mr. Gibson replied that the new owner had already been working on the exterior of building and has changed out the sign. Commissioner Waldroup asked about the dirt work being done on Pinon Hills Blvd. He thought it was going to be a residence, but he saw a video from Loren Healy which stated it will be a massive metal building. Mr. Gibson stated that no plans have been received by the City yet, but as long as he includes a kitchen, living space and a restroom he can call it a residence. However, that does not permit him to carry out any kind of business there. That would require a zone change, which he has already been speaking to the City about. Commissioner Waldroup also asked about the truck beds at U-Haul being used as storage units and being brought into compliance. Mr. Gibson replied that they have worked on them, but will have to bring them into full compliance with the UDC. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup. The motion carried unanimously 7-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Ryan Brown Tami Spencer Vice Chair Administrative Assistant 20  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition CV 24-79 – Cannabis Sales 300-foot distance requirement waiver 104-1/2 E Main Street STAFF REPORT, September 10, 2024 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Kyle Newman, Tenant Representative Matt Kennicott Date of Application August 28, 2024 Requested Action Waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a residential district and from another dispensary. Location 104-1/2 E Main St / R0030128 Existing Land Use Commercial Retail Existing Zoning CB: Central Business Surrounding Zoning & North: CB: Central Business Land Use South: CB: Central Business East: CB: Central Business West: CB: Central Business Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: September 18, 2024 Tri-City Record Property owners letter: September 27, 2024 Sign posted: September 30, 2024 Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Senior Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Background The petitioner is proposing a retail cannabis business at the property at 104-1/2 E Main St. and is requesting a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from another dispensary located at 115 E. Main St. and multiple residential uses in the Central Business District. The residences and dispensary are within 300 feet of the subject property. The subject property is located on a .16 acre parcel and is zoned Central Business. The business will be located behind Thunderbird Tax Service, inside a 1,625 sf commercial building at the corner of Orchard Dr. and E Main St. The proposed business will occupy the rear tenant space with the main entrance off Orchard Drive. A unique experience will be offered by displaying local artists, craft foods and regional goods. Photography, painting, pottery, woodworking, blacksmithing and custom knives will be available for purchasing from these artists in addition to the cannabis sales. 21  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 Applicable Code Per Section 2.4.67.C of the Unified Development Code retail sales shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school (public and private), residential use or district, any religious institution, registered daycare center or from another dispensary. Distance is measured by a straight line from the closest property line of the retail business to the closest property line of a religious institution, school, registered daycare or dispensary. Zoning Map - CB: Central Business Zoning 22  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 ar Aerial Map 23  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 Distance from Existing Cannabis Retail at 115 W Main St. 24  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 Immediate Area within 300 Feet - NW Corner of E Main St. and Orchard Dr. Immediate Area within 300 Feet - SW Corner of E Main St. and Orchard Dr. 25  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 Immediate Area within 300 Feet - SE Corner of E Main St. and Orchard Dr. Immediate Area within 300 Feet - NE Corner of E Main St. and Orchard Dr. 26  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 Proposed Location on Orchard Dr. Properties Within 100 Feet NAME ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP Dominic Ferrari 4434 E Crystal Ln Paradise Valley, AZ 85253 James and Natalie Tabet Revocable Trust 10110 E Paradise Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Cap Can LLC 707 E Crestview Dr. Farmington, NM 87401 Skinner Tabitha Ruple 44 Berkley Sq. Rockledge, FL 32955-3705 David and Pamela Knoll PO Box 774 Kirtland, NM 87417-0774 Farmington Investment Co 14 Vista Larga Pl NE Rio Rancho, NM 87124-4370 BS Enterprises LLP 101 E Main St. Farmington, NM 87401 Cinkardia LLC 122 E Main St. Farmington, NM 87401 City of Farmington 800 Municipal Dr. Farmington, NM 87401-2663 Glen and Rebecca Fuller Living Trust 6990 Foothills Dr. Farmington, NM 87402 Tucker Investments 111 N Orchard Ave. Farmington, NM 87401 Carson Hill Trust 119 E Main St. Farmington, NM 87401 PUBLIC INPUT Letters were sent to 12 surrounding neighbors and the property was posted with a sign. No public input has been received at the time of this report. 27  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the ARB must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self- created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The subject property is 0.07 acres with the existing building covering the entire site, which is typical for Central Business districts in Downtown Farmington. There are no parking requirements in this district. The property is located at the corner of Main St. and Orchard Ave. There are no special conditions and/or circumstances, which are peculiar to this specific location or with the existing zoning district. This criterion IS NOT met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would prohibit a retail cannabis facility from being located at 104-1/2 E Main St. despite the surrounding area being properly zoned Central Business. An existing dispensary operates a retail business approximately 220 feet to the west on W Main Street. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The proposed location of the dispensary operating at the rear of the building and entering off Orchard Ave. is a reasonable use of the building. However, the existing dispensary and the additional location both being visible from public spaces and right of ways in downtown Farmington creates saturation that the 300-ft. distance requirement was intended to protect from and therefore is not a minimum easing of the code at this location. In addition, there are multiple upper story residential uses within 300 feet of the proposed location. This criterion IS NOT met. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 28  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 The physical building of the second dispensary is 220 ft. away from the subject property. Although two dispensaries would be separated by Main St, a major arterial street, the two dispensaries would be visible from each other and from public spaces such as Orchard Park and would not be in harmony with the public welfare. This criterion IS NOT met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. The granting of this variance will not allow any other prohibited uses in the CB: Central Business District. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. Although the applicant would be prevented from operating a retail cannabis facility at the location of the subject property, there are other available locations that are not in violation of the 300-ft. distance requirement from a second commercial cannabis retail establishment and residential uses. This criterion IS NOT met. STAFF CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that petition CV 24- 79 is not a minimum easing of the code and does not meet the intent of the code. The proposed business will create a saturation of a restricted use in close proximity to public downtown spaces. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 24-79 from Kyle Newman for a variance from Section 2.4.67.C of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from an existing cannabis retail establishment and upper story residential uses in the Central Business District. 29  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 30  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 31  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 32  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 33  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 34  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 35  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 36  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 37  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 38  Cannabis Variance CV 24-79 39 40  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 – 4100 W. PIEDRAS ST. – HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Dugan Production Corporation Representative Marty Foutz Date of Application September 4, 2024 A request for a Special Use Permit to allow hazardous materials Requested Action storage on site per UDC Section 2.4.53. Location 4100 W. Piedras Street 'BEG E 50 FT FROM SW COR NENW 122914 N 958.88 FT E 605.09 FT E 300 FT S 115 FT THENCE 420.47 FT ALONG A Legal Description CURVE TO LEFT S16`04`E 100 FT TH 175.89 FT ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT S62`36`W 949.90 FT N 172.67 FT TO PT OF BEG. R/W IN B.879 P.240 B.1444 ' Existing Land Use Industrial Yard/Office Existing Zoning Planned Industrial Park Future Land Use Industrial Designation North: Planned Industrial Park; Vacant lots, trucking company South: Planned Industrial Park; Industrial yard, auto parts warehouse Surrounding East: Planned Industrial Park; Industrial yard, oil and gas Zoning & Land Use services West: Local Neighborhood Commercial and Single-Family Mobile Home; single family residential and vacant lots Publication of Notice: September 23, 2024 Farmington Daily Notice Times Requirements Property owners’ letter: September 23, 2024 Sign posted: September 30, 2024 Staff Planner Colby Gibson, Planning Manager 41  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET Background: The subject property is located on a 19.14 acre parcel in the Planned Industrial Park district. Request: The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit for the storage of hazardous materials on site per UDC Sec. 2.4.53. Storage of hazardous materials is permitted in the Industrial district with a SUP. The petitioner is proposing two 10,000 gallon above ground storage tanks as part of fueling improvements on the property. One 10,000 gallon tank is proposed for diesel fuel. The second tank will be split as follows: 6,000 gallons unleaded gasoline and 4,000 gallons red dye. Pursuant to Table 2.3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) the storage of hazardous materials is permitted in the Planned Industrial Park district with the approval of a special use permit. UDC Section 2.4.53, states that hazardous materials storage shall comply with the following standards: A. Screening shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 5.5.7, screening standards; and section 5.10 residential protection standards, if applicable. B. Hazardous materials use generation and disposition shall be operated in accordance with the requirements of section 5.11, operational performance standards (noise, smoke and particulate matter, odorous matter, fire and explosive hazard material). C. The site shall be kept in an orderly manner, free of litter and debris. D. Storage of explosives shall be prohibited, unless stored in accordance with the applicable fire code. E. Flammable liquids or gases in quantities greater than 660 gallons shall be stored underground, unless otherwise permitted by the city. F. Hazardous materials shall not be allowed in regulatory floodplain. 42  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET 43  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET ZONING: Planned Industrial Park 44  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET Site Plan 45  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET Tank Detail 46  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET UDC SEC. 8.9 – SPECIAL USE PERMITS o 8.9.1 Purpose: Allows for City Council discretionary approval of uses with unique or widely varying operating characteristics, neighborhood compatibility uses, or unusual site development features, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this UDC. o 8.9.2 Applicability: Special Use Permits may or not be appropriate in a given zone district depending upon the nature and compatibility of surrounding uses, and mitigating site- specific conditions or requirements. Such uses require individual review of their location, design, configuration, density, and intensity, in order to determine whether or not a use should be allowed; and may require the imposition of additional conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness and compatibility of the use at a particular location. o Special use permit approvals attach to the property and are transferable to subsequent owners. o 8.9.3 Special use application process: The Special Use Permit application process shall be followed per UDC Sec. 8.9.3 o Pursuant to UDC 8.9.3(H) the Special Use Permit may be revoked by this section whenever: o It is determined that a use of property for which a special use permit has been granted is not being conducted within the terms of the special use permit including [section] 8.9.4 special use criteria; that such use has been allowed to accumulate litter or debris, to be a public nuisance, to an attractive nuisance to children, or to attract vagrants, criminals or public intoxication; or is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. o Before the special use has commenced, and it is determined that such special use is not in the public interest; or o The owner of the property affected petitions for revocation. o 8.9.4 Special use review criteria: Special use permits may be approved where it reasonably determines that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. As part of this Special Use Permit application review, staff has considered the following criteria: A. Effect on environment: All hazardous materials stored in tanks propose a risk for the release of environmental hazards, in this case diesel and gasoline fuels. Above ground tanks have certain hazards that can make them more dangerous than underground tanks. Above ground tanks are more exposed to the elements which can cause them to wear out faster than underground tanks. Above ground tanks typically have a higher risk of fire and explosion than underground tanks, depending a number of factors. Above ground tanks however are easier to access and inspect which can help identify and address issues such as leaking than underground tanks. The two tanks comply with UL 142 and UL 2085, which help minimize leakage and other safety issues (discussed further in Section C). The New Mexico Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau (NMPSTB) provides requirements on preventive maintenance for above ground tanks including: • Monthly inspection of tank system (must hold a specific certification). • Automatic tank gauging, monitoring the fuel system and give alarm warning and reports required by NMPSTB. • Underground piping and remote dispensers shall have spill containment system. • Liquid sensor on secondary/interstitial space of tank. • Annual and 3-year testing requirement (conducted by third party). 47  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET B. Compatible with surrounding area: The surrounding properties are largely zoned Industrial and Planned Industrial Park with varying industrial and outdoor storage uses including oil and gas, trucking, and equipment establishments. The proposed use of hazardous materials storage is compatible with the surrounding uses. Brady Trucking which is immediately south of the subject property was approved for a special use permit and variance to allow for one 12,000 gallon above ground fuel tank in 2013. There is an area directly west of the subject property with medium density residential, zoned Single-Family Mobile Home. The proposed use of hazardous materials storage is not typically compatible with adjacent residential uses. The nearest residence is more than 700-feet away which provides adequate distancing. The uses are also buffered by the large building located at 4100 W. Piedras Street. C. External impacts mitigated? The proposed above ground tanks are located more than 64-feet from the closest structure which meets the fire code (minimum of 50-feet). The proposed tanks also meet the 110% spill containment requirement per the fire code. The tanks have a double-wall design which provides a barrier between the primary tank and secondary containment space, reducing the risk of leaks and spills. Interstitial monitoring is a proactive monitoring system which continuously monitors the space between the inner and outer walls, providing detection of any potential leaks. The proposed tanks comply with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standards 142 and 2085 which are common standards that apply to above ground fuel storage tanks. UL 2085 tanks require a two hour, 2,000 degree Fahrenheit fire test, vehicle impact resistance, and ballistics residence. The above ground tanks are required to follow the preventative maintenance standards as prescribed by the New Mexico Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, including monthly, annual, and three year testing. D. Infrastructure impacts minimized No infrastructure impacts are anticipated with the proposed use. E. Consistent with the UDC and comprehensive plan The proposed storage of hazardous materials on site conforms with the Comprehensive Plan’s “Industrial” land use designation. The applicant does not meet UDC Section 2.4.53.E which states that flammable liquids or gasses in quantities greater than 660 gallons shall be stored underground. The City’s adopted fire code 13-3-2 states that above ground fuel storage tanks may be installed where zoning permits and shall be limited to no more than 1,000 gallon tanks per fuel type. The applicant received an approved variance for these requirements on October 3, 2024 by the Administrative Review Board. F. Parcel size The subject property is approximately 19.14 acres. The above ground tanks are proposed on the east side of the building in a fenced area. G. Site plan The applicant has submitted a site plan in conformance with the UDC. o 8.9.5 Additional Conditions: The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose additional reasonable conditions as necessary to carry 48  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET out the purpose and intent of this UDC and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. o Staff recommends the Commission and City Council impose the following conditions of approval: o The dispensing of fuel will be used solely by the property owner and not for public use. o Screening of the above ground tanks shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of UDC Section 5.5.7.C(2). o Any additional above ground tanks on the property shall meet UL 142 and UL 2085 requirements. o 8.9.6 Expiration of Approval: o Special Use Permit approval shall expire after 18 months from the date of approval if construction or operation of the approved use has not commenced. o Time limits of Special Use Permits shall be set through the conditions of approval. The City Council may extend the Special Use Permit for a definitive time period upon written request from the applicant. o Staff is not recommending a time limit be placed on the special use permit. o 8.9.7 Appeals: Any person aggrieved by a decision of the City Council pursuant to this section may appeal to the district court within 30 days of the date of the decision rendered by the City Council. If no appeal is filed in writing within 30 days, the decision shall be considered final. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 22 surrounding property owners. As of the date of this report, no feedback has been received regarding the petition. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Compliance: The proposed use does not comply with UDC Section 2.4.53.E or FMC Section 13-3-2, however has demonstrated that a variance meets the criterion of being a minimum easing of the code and has meet the general intent of the code. The proposed tanks conform to UL 142 and UL 2085, addressing staff’s safety considerations. Adequate preventative measures are taken through the requirements of the New Mexico Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. Compatibility: The proposed storage of hazardous materials on site is compatible with the surrounding Planned Industrial Park and Industrial uses and zone. Distance, screening, and buffering provide adequate separation between the use and the residential uses to the west. The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition SUP 24-82, a request from Dugan Production Corp., represented by Marty Foutz, for a special use permit to allow for hazardous materials storage located at 4100 W. Piedras Street with the following conditions of approval: 1. The dispensing of fuel will be used solely by the property owner and not for public use. 2. All above ground tanks shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of UDC Section 5.5.7.C(2). 3. Any additional above ground tanks on the property shall meet UL 142 and UL 2085 requirements. 49  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET 50  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET 51  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET 52  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET 53  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION SUP 24-82 4100 W. PIEDRAS STREET 54  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 – 1312 Smith Lane ZONE CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY - 7 TO MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Edgar Cruz Representative N/A Date of Application September 4, 2024 A request for a zone change from Single Family - 7 to Multi-family Low Requested Action Density to allow up to 3 dwelling units. Location 1312 Smith Lane (R0025241) Existing Land Use Single Family Residence Existing Zoning Single Family – 7 SMHA 2040 Future Land Use Medium Density Residential Designation North: Single Family -7, Multi Family Low and Medium Density; Single family residence, apartments/mobile homes Surrounding Zoning & South: Single Family -7, Multi Family Low and Medium Density; Single Land Use family residence, apartments/mobile homes East: Single Family – 7; Single family residence West: Single Family – 7; Single family residence Publication of Notice: September 23, 2024 Tri-City Record Notice Requirements Property owners’ letter: Septembers 23, 2024 Sign posted: September 30, 2024 Staff Planner Joaquin Gonzalez, Associate Planner PRESENT SITUATION: The subject property is located on a 0.468-acre parcel and is zoned Single Family - 7. There is currently one single family residence on the property. PROPOSED CHANGE OR REQUEST: A request for a zone change from Single Family - 7 to Multi-family Low Density to allow up to 3 dwelling units. The applicant will be constructing a duplex utilizing rammed-earth materials. 55  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane ZONING Single Family – 7 Special Mobile Home Area Overlay (SF – 7 SMHA) 56 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane AERIAL VIEW 57  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane STAFF ANALYSIS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE UDC Section 8.7 Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) 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 2040 Future Land Use Map designates this area as Medium Density Residential. This designation supports a mix of housing options supports vibrant and inclusive neighborhoods including townhouse, duplexes and live/work units. The zone change to Multi-Family Low Density will align with the 2040 Future Land Use designation. 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 Multi-Family Low Density zoning and land use is compatible with the current conforming uses and character of the neighborhood. Property uses in the area consist of single-family residences (SF-7 zoning) however along Smith Lane there are also multifamily uses and zoning to the north and south of the subject property. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? The proposed use is expected to have a similar average daily traffic count to the existing surrounding uses. Smith Lane is classified as a local street according to the City Major Thoroughfare Plan suitable for the proposed multifamily apartments. Traffic engineering did not find any potential any issues due to the nominal count increase. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? Per UDC Section 2.8, the proposed Multi Family Low Density zoning district allows up to 5 units. The applicant is proposing 3 units 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 0.468 acres (20,386.08 square feet) in size and meets the minimum lot size requirements for the Multi Family Low Density zoning district of 10,500 square feet. Per UDC Section 2.8, the MF- L: Multifamily Low Density zoning district requires 3,500 square feet per unit. 3 units on 0.468 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? If utilities are not available, could they be reasonably extended by the applicant? Is the applicant willing to 58  COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane pay for the extension of public facilities and services necessary to service the proposed development? Utilities are available for the subject property to access. The construction of the duplex on site 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 Medium Density Residential, the proposed use of multi-family residential supports vibrant and inclusive neighborhoods including townhouse, duplexes and live/work units. There is also existing multi-family zoning to the north and south of the subject property. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 15 surrounding property owners. At the time of this report staff has not received feedback from the community. STAFF CONCLUSION • The proposed zone change to Multi-Family Low is supported by the Medium Density Residential designation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. • The proposed zone change to Multi-Family Low 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition ZC 24-85, a request from Edgar Cruz, for a zone change from Single Family - 7 to Multi-family Low Density located at 1312 Smith Lane, with the following conditions of approval: 1. Petitioner shall meet the UDC requirements of section 5.2.3 Off street parking, and 5.3.3 Driveways and parking lot access, petitioner shall provide a minimum of 3 paved parking spaces one being ADA van accessible with a paved driveway connection to Smith Lane 2. Petitioner shall meet the UDC requirements of section 5.10 Residential protection, the petitioner shall utilize either an opaque vinyl, wood fence or a masonry wall for screening on all 3 sides adjacent to the single-family residences. 3. Petitioner shall provide at a minimum a 20’ wide all weather surface unobstructed access to the duplex from Smith Ln for emergency service responders. 59 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane 60 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane 61 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane 62 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane 63 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane 64 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane 65 COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING STAFF REPORT PETITION ZC 24-85 1312 Smith Lane 66