Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Commission

A G E N D A Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - 4:00 p.m. HQ, 119 W. Main Street Farmington, NM 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of the April 17, 2018 Minutes 86 3. Approval of the November 16, 2017 Minutes 92 4. Request for support for the 2018 AARP Community Challenge 1 grant application 5. Discussion and Comment for ZC 18-30, 603 W. Animas 5 6. Discussion on the Appeal of ARB 18-19, 209 N. Auburn 29 7. Review of existing MRA brochure 8. Main Street Complete Streets Update - Sherry Roach 9. Downtown Farmington: A MainStreet Project a. Downtown Updates - Michael Bulloch b. MRA TIFF Update - Shana Reeves c. LEDA Ordinance - Shana Reeves 10. Business From: a. Floor b. Chair c. Members d. Staff 11. Adjournment 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 1 2 3 4  ZC 18-30 Page |1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT PETITION ZC 18-30 Zone Change from GC, General Commercial to MU, Mixed Use 603 W. Animas Street A. STAFF REPORT, May 8, 2018 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicants Jesus Rene Castillo Representative Jesus Rene Castillo Date of Application April 19, 2018 Zone Change from GC, General Commercial to MU, Mixed Requested Action Use Location 603 W. Animas Street (R0021675) Existing Land Use Vacant and undeveloped Existing Zoning GC, General Commercial Surrounding Zoning North: GC, General Commercial; and MU, Mixed Use and Land Use South: IND, Industrial West: GC, General Commercial East: GC, General Commercial; and MU, Mixed Use Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, May 2, 2018. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, May 2, 2018 and a sign was posted on Friday, May 11, 2018. MRA Consideration May 15, 2018 Staff Planner Teri Clashin, Associate Planner Project Description: The petitioner is requesting a zone change from GC, General Commercial to MU, Mixed Use. The subject property (R0021675) is 0.286 acres and is located at 603 West Animas Street. The property is located in Black’s Addition Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. The lots are 125’ X 50’ = 6,250 ft² each, the combined total is 12,500 ft² or 0.286 acres. The Black’s Addition Subdivision was recorded in 1927 and was platted as a residential subdivision. The size and scale of the subdivision are residential in character. There are businesses to the north on Broadway and to the south of Cedar Street. The block between Animas Street and Cedar Street and Lorena Avenue and Schwartz Avenue are made up of 50’ X 125’ lots that are currently occupied by residential structures. The neighborhood was pre-existing before the implementation of many of the City’s plans and policies, as well as the UDC. The residential structures on the block are considered legal non-conforming uses. 5  ZC 18-30 Page |2 Pursuant to UDC Section 2.3 Permitted Use Table, residential uses are not an allowed uses in the GC, General Commercial District, except for upper stories. The petitioner is requesting a zone change for the purpose of placing a double-wide Manufactured Home on their property. A manufactured home, multi-section home is a permitted use in the MU, Mixed Use District. The subject property is surrounded by single family residential uses to the north and west and local businesses to the south and east. To the north of the subject property is GC, General Commercial and MU, Mixed Use; to the West is GC, General Commercial; to the south is IND, Industrial District; and to the East is GC, General Commercial and MU, Mixed Use. The requested zone change is on Animas Street where properties in the past have received zone changes to MU, Mixed Use. Please see the map below for location: • ZC 10-10 (401 W. Animas Street) – GC to MU, M&H Construction for Lots 1-6 for the development of 7 residential apartment units. The petition was approved by Council on November 9, 2010. • ZC 10-14 (406 W. Cedar Street) – GC to MU, request from M&H Construction Lots 7 and 8 as part of the development of 7 residential apartment units. The petition was approved by Council on January 25, 2011. • ZC 11-03 (608 W. Animas Street) – GC to MU, to make the existing residence a conforming use, to allow for the sale of the property. The petition was approved by Council on March 22, 2011. • ZC 11-07 (411 W. Animas Street) – GC to MU, the purpose of the zone change is to allow the home to continue to be used as a residence and to become a conforming use for the refinancing of the property. The petition was approved by Council on July 12, 2011. • ZC 11-14 (617 W. Cedar Street) – IND to MU, the zone change was granted to allow the property owner to make his residence legal and conform to the zone for a residential expansion. The petition was approved by Council on October 25, 2011. • ZC 14-04 (505 W. Maple Street) – IND to MU, the subject property is 0.58 acres and the owner wanted to further subdivide the property into four parcels for single family residential properties. The petition request was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 15, 2014. The petition was withdrawn before it was heard at City Council. In addition, there were two Special Use Permits issued recognizing the properties as residential conforming uses for • SUP 06-23 (609 W. Animas Street) – A SUP was requested to allow a legal nonconforming residential use to be rebuilt if destroyed by more than 50% of its values for mortgaging and insurance purposes. City Council approved on October 10, 2006. • SUP 07-05 (611 W. Animas Street) – A SUP was requested to allow a legal nonconforming residential use to be rebuilt if destroyed by more than 50% of its values for mortgaging and insurance purposes City Council approved on April 24, 2007 6  ZC 18-30 Page |3 Unified Development Code (UDC) Sec. 3.11 Mixed Use (MU) District: 3.11.1 Purpose: The Mixed Use (MU) District is intended to accommodate low-intensity mixed-uses with a strong residential character. The MU district provides specific standards for the development of limited business, office, or service uses in existing residential structures, or in new structures within residential areas. The MU District is intended to implement the planning policies of the Comprehensive Plan’s “Mixed Use” land use designation, in the Animas Neighborhood (south of Broadway) and the Civic Center Neighborhood (north and west of the Civic Center). Residential uses in the MU District must meet the density and dimension standards as shown below: Non-Residential District Density and Dimensional Schedule Minimum lot Subject Property is 12,500 ft² area/dwelling unit (ft²) Single-family 6,000 2 Two-family 3,000 4 Multi-family 2,500 5 7  ZC 18-30 Page |4 UDC Section 2.8.2 Nonresidential base zoning district density and dimensional schedule. Farmington Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan’s 2020 Future Land Use Map recommends the subject area as “Office Professional”. The request for the zone change does not comply with the recommendations in the Future Land Use map. However, the Comprehensive Plan does support the need for mixed use residential and commercial in the Animas District. Chapter 13 Downtown Neighborhoods C- Animas Neighborhood Goal: Redevelop the Animas Neighborhood as a mixed-use development with new types of affordable housing, expand medical and cultural facilities linking Downtown to the Riverwalk.  Objective 13C.9: Encourage mixed use residential and commercial by allowing creative housing types.  Action 13.C.9.1: Create Mixed Use zoning district that would allow both housing and commercial uses on smaller lots.  Action 13.C.9.2: Provide incentives to locate the affordable, often smaller, housing in areas that have existing infrastructure and services. Chapter 4 Land Use and Development  Goal: Plan and facilitate land use and development that is consistent, orderly, functional, in harmony with the natural environment, and promotes a progressive, vibrant, scenic, and safe community.  Objective 4.1: Assure the provision of a variety of different land use types in suitable locations, densities, and patterns while avoiding mixing of incompatible uses in close proximity to each other.  Objective 4.4: Consider manufactured homes in the same manner as conventionally constructed homes. Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA) Plan 8  ZC 18-30 Page |5 The goals for the MRA were preliminarily established by the Comprehensive Plan. The MRA Plan established goals for the three distinct neighborhoods that make up the MRA. These neighborhoods include the Downtown area, Civic Center Neighborhood and Animas District. The MRA Plan’s vision for the Animas District include the follow goals and objectives:  Animas District Goal: Redevelop the Animas Neighborhood as a mixed-use development with new types of affordable housing, expanded medical and cultural facilities linking Downtown to Riverwalk.  Objective 6: Achieve a more sustainable mix of land uses once the area is remediated including market-rate housing and neighborhood-serving public and institutional uses. The MRA Plan recommends housing opportunities to improve residential livability through new residential development, including compact family dwellings, rental units and specialty housing. The MRA Plan public meeting, resident focus groups indicated “In the Animas District, the main interest was in developing mixed types of housing; market rate residential units for medical staff, affordable housing for low income residents and students, and housing projects for clients of social service agencies” (MRA Plan page 22). 9  ZC 18-30 Page |6 The MRA Plan identified five (5) Catalyst Projects, the petitioner’s property is located closest to section three (3) Development Opportunity Area 3 – San Juan Regional Medical Center. Projects in this area include (MRA Plan page 67): Housing/Residential – As part of the overall strategy to attract additional residents to the MRA, a housing project developed in proximity to the Medical Center would be an excellent component to develop in an early phase. Feasibility is enhanced by virtue of the center and the needs of its employees, but would not be necessarily limited to serving the demand sources. Sub-types of housing which could be included in this project include: Workforce housing; Market rate condos; Live-work space. The housing catalyst project could be a mixed community of market rate single-family homes, patio homes or townhouses, and small apartment units. It could include a small percentage of homes that are rental properties while maintaining a sense of stability and community through the larger percentage of owner- occupied homes. Financial projections for a residential prototype of mixed housing: rental and owned in the affordable (80% of median income) and market rate price range can be found in Technical Memorandum 7- Housing Concept Analysis, provided under separate cover (MRA Plan page 67). Ideally the proposal would more fully address these goals by including up to five (5) dwelling units, rather than just one. 10  ZC 18-30 Page |7 New Mexico State Statute The Comprehensive Plan and the MRA Plan both indicate a need for a strong residential character. The success of the Animas District is predicated on the mixes of uses for live/work housing. The petitioner is requesting the zone change to MU, Mixed Use to place a single- family home, specifically a manufactured home. The New Mexico State Statute §3-21A-3: Manufactured housing; permissible regulations, indicate that: In the exercise of any of the powers and duties conferred by law, no governing body of a political subdivision of the state or any planning and zoning agency thereunder shall exclude multi-section manufactured homes form specific-use district in which site-built single-family housing is allowed or place more sever restriction upon a multi-section manufactured home than are placed upon single-family, site-built housing within that specific- use district so long as the manufactured housing is built or constructed according to the Housing and Urban Development Zone Code II or the Uniform Building Code. The governing body or any political subdivision of the state or any planning and zoning agency thereunder is authorized to regulate manufactured housing to require that it meets all requirements other than original construction requirement of other single-family dwellings that are site-built homes in the same specific-use district and to further require by ordinance that such manufactured housing be consistent with applicable historic or aesthetic standards. STAFF ANALYSIS The UDC states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land uses of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the 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 zone change for the subject property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Chapter 13 Downtown Neighborhoods and Chapter 4 Land Use and Development, where the Animas Neighborhood Goal is to redevelop the Animas Neighborhood as a mixed-use development with new types of affordable housing, expand medical and cultural facilities linking Downtown to the Riverwalk. The zone change request is MU, Mixed Use. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 13 Downtown Neighborhoods and Chapter 4 Land Use and Development, and promotes housing in the Animas District. 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 properties located north and west of the subject property were rezoned to MU, Mixed Use. The proposed zoning for the subject property is compatible with the land uses and character of the area where the Black Addition Subdivision was recorded in 1927 for residential uses. Today, much of the area is still single-family residential. 11  ZC 18-30 Page |8 The MRA Plan Figure 19 Infill Potential and 20 Catalyst Project Areas indicate the area as residential. The character of the neighborhood is a mix of uses for housing to the west and east and commercial to the north and south. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? The proposed zone change should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The petitioner requests a zone change to allow for a single-family residential use. The proposed home will be required to meet all the requirements of the UDC and New Mexico State Statute §3-21A-3. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? The petitioner is proposing a zone change to allow for a manufactured home on the subject property. The MU, Mixed Use District requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet per lot area for a single family dwelling. The subject property consists of two lots that are 125’ X 50’ = 6,250 ft² each, the combined total is 12,500 ft² or 0.286 acres. Any future development on the subject property must comply with UDC use regulation, UDC requirements of the zone district and/or subdivision standards. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? The subject property is suitable for the development of mixed uses. The subject property is 0.286 acres and is located on Animas Street. The proposed density of the lots is suitable for the proposed MU, Mixed Use District. 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? The subject property is vacant and undeveloped. The petitioner would be responsible to provide all the necessary infrastructure for the property. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? 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 for the subject property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Chapter 13 Downtown Neighborhoods and is partially consistent with the MRA Plan. The requested zone change to MU, Mixed Use is 12  ZC 18-30 Page |9 compatible with the character of the area and should not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The MU District is intended to accommodate low-intensity mixed uses with a strong residential character. The proposed zone change would not be a spot zone. ISSUES Community Development Director: Mary Holton • The proposal is more in line with the SF-10 or SF-7 residential zoning district, rather than the MU District. We need to ask if the proposal for one (1) single- family home is in line with what the City envisions for the MRA. Wouldn’t the proposal be more in line if it were to include a mix of residential and commercial use(s), and/or a proposal for higher density residential? • If approved as submitted, the tract will effectively be a 12,000 sf detached single-family lot in an area designated for commercial/high density residential redevelopment area. If approved, the result will set a precedent for future rezoning’s. • The MRA commission needs to review the proposal. Traffic Engineer: Charlie Trask • All sidewalks and driveways must be ADA compliant. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes that the proposal does not constitute a spot zone and would not adversely impact the area. The requested zone change for this property is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and partially with the Metropolitan Redevelopment Area Plan. Approval of ZC 18-30 is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Petition ZC 18-30, a request from Jesus Castillo, for a zone change from GC, General Commercial to MU, Mixed Use for property (R0021675) located at 603 West Animas Street. 13  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 10 14  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 11 15  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 12 16  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 13 17  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 14 18  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 15 19  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 16 20  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 17 21  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 18 22  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 19 23  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 20 24  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 21 25  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 22 26  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 23 27  ZC 18-30 P a g e | 24 28 Appeal of the Decision of the Administrative Review Board: Appeal filed by Jarred and Kristen Santesson regarding the decision of the Administrative Review Board to deny a request for a variance (Petition ARB 18-19) to allow: 1. A six-foot tall vinyl fence on the front property line, 2. An outdoor recreation area within the required front yard area, for Fundamentals Child Development, in the MU/RPO, Mixed Use/ Residential Preservation Overlay District, located at 209 N. Auburn St. (Helen Landaverde) The decision of the Administrative Review Board passed by a vote of 5-0 on April 5, 2018. An affirmative vote of at least three City Councilors is required to reverse, modify or amend a decision of the Administrative Review Board in accordance with Section 2-4-42 of the City Code. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85  MINUTES Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Board of Commissioners – April 17, 2018 Commissioners Present Derald Polston, Chair John McNeill, D.D.S., Vice-Chair Doug Dykeman Jill Tanis Warren Unsicker Commissioners Absent None Staff Present Julie Baird Jennifer Breakell Michael Bulloch Cindy Lopez Shaña Reeves Sherry Roach David Sypher Karen Walker Nica Westerling Others Present Janis Jakino Phil McKinney Phil McKinney’s partner Paul Martin Scott Martin 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chair Derald Polston, and there being a quorum, the following proceedings were duly had and taken. 2. Approval of the February 15, 2018 Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner McNeill and seconded by Commissioner Dykeman to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously 5-0. 3. Approval of the Open Meetings Resolution A motion was made by Commissioner McNeill and seconded by Commissioner Unsicker to approve the Open Meetings Resolution for 2018. The motion passed unanimously 5-0. 1 4. Julie Baird & Jennifer Breakell-Continued discussion of MRA Evaluation Tool Julie Baird explained that the MRA Evaluation Tool introduced by John McNeill, cannot be used as a requirement for the petitioner, but can be used as an internal document by the MRA Commissioners. Jennifer Breakell presented a PowerPoint presentation and handout that described what type of power and authority the MRA Commissioners have in the decision making process. Article 60A of the NMSA describes the guidelines the MRA must operate within. In addition, Farmington City Code, under Article 4, has some additional regulations. Certain powers are reserved for the City Council, said Ms. Breakell. The MRA works as an advisory commission and can give input, but the City Council has the final decision. Ms. Breakell noted that the MRA does not have the authority to add extra steps to the petition process. Anything the MRA does is subject to City Council approval. Commissioner Unsicker asked if there was a way to educate a developer on the vision that the MRA has for the downtown area. Ms. Baird said a document or brochure can be given to developers, but the MRA cannot add a step to make it a mandatory part of the process to have the developer come before the MRA to justify their decisions. Mr. Unsicker asked if there could be something for the developer to fill out to see how they might fit in the MRA district and if they are working with what the MRA is trying to accomplish. Ms. Baird stated that there is a 60-day clock that begins when an application is received from a petitioner. Scheduling Planning & Zoning meetings and City Council meetings do not always mean the application can be scheduled with an MRA meeting. A document or brochure can be given to the petitioner. It can state that the MRA is interested in talking to them, but we cannot make it an actual form for the petitioner to fill out where the MRA decides if they approve or not. Commissioner McNeill noted that it would mainly be a guideline for a petitioner to follow. He noted that he is frustrated to have petitions presented to the MRA after the fact. The idea is to give a petitioner knowledge of the goals for the MRA district, he said. The MRA is not requiring an extra step, we are just asking them to come to our MRA meetings. If they cannot come to the meeting, we can still make a recommendation because that is what the City Council requests of the MRA. All of the criteria in the Evaluation Tool came from the MRA Plan, he said. Dr. McNeill mentioned that the MRA can sometimes help by using MRA funds if applicable for a particular petition. Ms. Baird said that staff might be able to use the Evaluation Tool as a template and write a document that would satisfy legal and planning requirements. This document can be brought to you to see if it is what you are looking for. Cindy Lopez noted that an Incentive packet and MRA brochure that currently exists might be combined or adjusted to let the public know about the MRA goals and objectives. 2 5. Downtown Complete Streets Updates: a. 30% design presentation Julie Baird said the 30% design for the Complete Streets project has been received and reviewed by staff. Ms. Baird said she would like to have the MRA Commissioners input on the proposed design. Sherry Roach said she has received comments from staff concerning additional information on the roundabouts. Some other comments were in regards to pedestrian safety and ADA (American’s with Disabilities Act) compliance. She also received comments regarding design elements such as plant materials, benches, and lighting. Chair Polston said he was disappointed that Dan Burden’s comments (a Blue Zones consultant), were not included in the public comment section and were not part of the design criteria. Mr. Polston had a handout that discussed Dan Burden’s credentials and also included pictures of streets without curb and gutter. He asked if it was still possible at this stage to include some of the design elements discussed between himself and Dan Burden when Mr. Burden visited Farmington. Mr. Polston stated that State Representative Rod Montoya is trying to pass legislation to allow cities to use a city liquor license and apply it to the entire MRA. Commissioner Unsicker said he is pleased with the design work at this point. He asked if the sidewalks would be wide enough for restaurants to do outdoor dining. Ms. Roach said the sidewalks might be wide enough to allow that. Ms. Lopez agreed. Chair Polston mentioned the sidewalk design in front of Phil McKinney’s billiard hall. He felt the large step to the pavement would be difficult to navigate. Phil McKinney, owner of Bandit Billiards and Bistro, said he used to own property in Albuquerque where similar improvements were made to their streets. Sales increased when business displays moved outdoors. Ms. Lopez asked if that area of Albuquerque had curb and gutter. Mr. McKinney said they did have curb and gutter. Ms. Roach noted the design that is being proposed in front of Mr. McKinney’s billiard hall will be much more level than it currently is and will be greatly improved. The sidewalk is at finished floor level with Mr. McKinney’s front door for about 10-feet out, then a curb of 6-inches drops down to a sidewalk of a different color and texture for another 5-feet to the street curb. Commissioner Tanis said she was concerned about that area due to tripping hazards. She noted that people are used to curbs on streets and had concerns with drainage issues if there were not any curb and gutters. Ms. Baird said there are drainage issues to address and curb and gutter is essential. It is not part of the budget to solve water drainage issues. David Sypher, Public Works Director, said there are constraints due to ADA requirements. If there was one level surface, and no curb and gutter, there would have 3 to be a slope directed to the middle of the road for storm water. ADA requirements state that the slope cannot be more than 2%. That would not be enough of a slope to handle the storm water issue. Nica Westerling, City Engineer, continued to explain why storm water could not be redirected well enough to keep water out of the businesses without curb and gutter. Ms. Westerling mentioned that Main Street is not closed down very often for special events, and the road needs to function mainly as a street. A plaza and a functional street would be nice, but is not a reality with regulations, the budget, and the terrain that we have to work with on Main Street. Commissioner Dykeman said he would like to see a plaza, but engineering arguments are compelling. He asked if the roundabouts could be made more pedestrian friendly. Ms. Roach said the roundabouts are not intended for pedestrians. Staff has made suggestions on physical barriers to keep pedestrians out of the roundabouts. Research, said Ms. Roach, is being conducted to see what type of vehicles may not be able to make the turn at the roundabouts. Ms. Westerling said the curb on the roundabouts are 4-inches high instead of 6-inches high so that parade floats can drive over them. It would not be conducive to people driving over it on a consistent basis. Commissioner McNeill said he wanted to reiterate to administration of his desire to have Michael Walwork as a separate consultant once there is more information concerning turning radius on the roundabouts, the types of vehicles that will be able to make those turns, and the speed traffic will be traveling. Ms. Baird said staff and City engineers will be looking at the results from OEI engineers. Consideration will be given for outside review for the roundabouts. Ms. Roach said there has been discussion on the turning radius at the roundabouts with engineers. Commissioner McNeill said he was supportive of the pavers, tree elements, and benches proposed as it supports the outdoor recreation concept. He said he would like to see a local company do the design elements. Commissioner Tanis said she liked the design of the benches, but would like to see a more historic design for the lighting. Ms. Lopez said the Downtown Gateway Project went through an extensive public participation process to come up with a design theme for downtown, and she would like to see a design that matched the design of the Gateways. She feels the proposed design does not support the theme or the historic feel of the downtown. Ms. Lopez said the outdoor recreation theme would be more in character with the Animas district. Commissioner Dykeman asked if the pointer sign could be placed in the roundabout rather than in Orchard Park. Ms. Lopez said that it is a pedestrian sign and would not work in the roundabout. This was discussed at the public meetings for the Gateways and it was decided the best location to where it is shown on the 30% design. 4 Chair Polston said he was in support of the color and texture used in the paving, but feels the proposed theme of the rest of the design is not appropriate for downtown. Mr. Polston asked if things could be more landscape architecture related rather than strictly engineering. He thought ramps at intersections could be leveled out more. Ms. Lopez said MRWM is the landscape architect for OEI and landscape architect has been the thrust of the design from the beginning. Ms. Baird mentioned that discussion on landscape architecture has been prominent in all of the meetings and presentations. She noted that the city has to stay within federal requirements, storm drainage constraints, and budget. Commissioner McNeill asked who would be doing the next phase of the project. He is satisfied with the 30% design, but is concerned that OEI has not been timely with results. Ms. Baird said the City intends to stay with OEI and is aware of the lack of timeliness. A motion was made by Commissioner McNeill and seconded by Commissioner Dykeman to be available to City Council with the MRA recommendations and to let City Council know the MRA is satisfied with the 30% design. b. Scott Day Presentation Sherry Roach said Scott Day’s presentation went well. Mr. Day mentioned several things that the City has already put in place such as a Main Street manager, a construction coordinator, input surveys, and data collection. The Commissioners agreed that Scott Day had good ideas to help during the construction of Main Street, and felt several of those ideas could be implemented. Commissioner McNeill said splitting the construction into two phases would be helpful for the downtown businesses. Phase 1 could be Miller to Allen, and Phase 2 could be Allen to Auburn. 6. Downtown Association Updates: a. Art in the Alley Project Update Michael Bulloch said the Kickoff for the Art in the Alley Project went well. There are 14 artists or artist’s groups interested in painting the alleys. Ten building owners have currently given permission. The murals are scheduled to begin in early May. b. National MainStreet Conference Michael Bulloch stated that he was in Kansas City for the Main Street Now Conference. He said he is currently working on a marketing plan for downtown. c. Bi-Monthly stakeholder meeting Sherry Roach said the next Stakeholder meeting is April 30, 2018. At the last meeting on April 16, 2018, the downtown merchants discussed changing the negative perception of downtown as an area of crime, an area that lacks public restrooms and lacks parking. 5 7. Business from: a. Floor – There was no business from the Floor. b. Chair – Chair Polston said Dan Burden had recommended restriping the streets in the MRA to include bike lanes. Mr. Polston said he thought a resolution had been drafted for Public Works regarding that recommendation. Commissioner McNeill said he did not remember a resolution, but did remember Dan Burden making comments concerning bike lanes during the Walking Audit. Nica Westerling said she would look into it. c. Members –There was no business from the Members. d. Staff- Cindy Lopez said the grant for the MRA Plan has been received and staff is currently putting together an RFQP. 8. Adjournment: A motion was made by Commissioner McNeill and seconded by Commissioner Dykeman to adjourn. The Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Board of Commissioners meeting was adjourned at 5:48 p.m. ___________________________________ ____________________________________ Derald Polston, Chair Karen Walker, Administrative Assistant 6  MINUTES Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Board of Commissioners – November 16, 2017 Commissioners Present Derald Polston, Chair John McNeill, D.D.S., Vice-Chair Doug Dykeman Warren Unsicker Commissioners Absent None Staff Present Michael Bulloch Teri Clashin Shaña Reeves Karen Walker Others Present Molly Jackson-Nielson 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chair Derald Polston, and there being a quorum, the following proceedings were duly had and taken. 2. Approval of the October 19, 2017 Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Dykeman and seconded by Commissioner McNeill to approve the minutes of the October 19, 2017 meeting. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. 3. Molly Jackson-Nielson of NRCS-Farm Farmington Initiative Molly Jackson-Nielson works with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Farm Farmington Initiative. Ms. Jackson-Nielson presented a PowerPoint presentation on community gardens and long-term garden sustainability. Commissioner McNeill asked if there was a possibility of developing a commercial kitchen in the Animas District. Ms. Jackson-Nielson said Judy Castleberry had discussed a USDA grant for that purpose. Brownfield areas in the Animas District were discussed as possible community garden space. Ms. Jackson-Nielson said she would try to obtain information on how to turn brownfields into productive areas. 1 4. Complete Streets Update Sherry Roach said there was a contract agreement for Phase I of the Complete Streets Project. City Council had approved the 22.5º parking for Main Street. 5. Consideration of a Cancellation of the December 21, 2017 MRA meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Dykeman to cancel the December 21, 2017 MRA meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Unsicker. 6. Downtown Association Updates Shaña Reeves noted that Michael Bulloch was working with Karen Elsbury to install pavers on the back of 116 W. Main Street. Mr. Bulloch and Ms. Elsbury were going to host a volunteer day to obtain help to do this. Mr. Bulloch discussed some of the design features that Ms. Elsbury wanted to include in the project. Mr. Bulloch said Small Business Saturday will include the ArtWalk this year. It will include a raffle from several businesses. A Downtown Holiday Stroll to promote downtown businesses will continue until December 23, 2017. The downtown businesses will be open for longer hours. Ms. Reeves said she is working on an Urban Design Service Request to bring Scott Day to Farmington to visit with business owners and give them ideas to help their businesses during the construction phase of the Complete Streets Project. Ms. Reeves said she will meet with David Sypher to discuss combining or relocating dumpsters, and possibly increasing pickup service in the alleyways downtown during the construction phase. She said she is getting permission to paint the dumpsters and paint murals in the alleyways to make them more desirable as entrances to the businesses. Work on this should begin in late April or early May. Ms. Reeves said she and Mr. Bulloch were designing a postcard that will list monthly meetings for business owners during construction. 7. Business From: a. Floor – There was no business from the Floor. b. Chair – Chair Polston asked Ms. Roach to bring plan reviews for the Complete Streets Project to the next meeting so the Commissioners can see what design progress has been made. c. Members –There was no business from the Members. d. Staff- There was no business from Staff. 2 8. Adjournment: A motion was made by Commissioner McNeill and seconded by Commissioner Dykeman to adjourn. The Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Board of Commissioners meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. ___________________________________ ____________________________________ Derald Polston, Chair Karen Walker, Administrative Assistant 3