Planning & Zoning

March 28, 2013  A G E N D A Planning & Zoning Commission March 28, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Item Page 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the February 14, 2013 P&Z Meeting 45 4 Petition SUP 13‐02 ‐ a request from Michelle Kimsey for a Special Use Permit to 1 operate a day care facility at 3609 Crescent Avenue, in the SF‐10 Single‐Family Residential District. 5 Petition SUP 13‐03 ‐ a request from Daniel Westbury for a Special Use Permit to 15 remove the condition that the accessory apartment shall be occupied only by family members of the resident of the principal dwelling at 509 E. Hopi, in the SF‐7 Single‐ Family Residential District. 6 Petition ZC 13‐01 ‐ a request from Capital S, LLC for a zone change from the OP Office 33 and Professional District to the LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial District for 3.74 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Pinon Hills Boulevard and Messina Drive. 7 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 8 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.  Petition Report– SUP 13-02 –Page 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT PETITION REPORT Special Use Permit Petition SUP 13-02 – Day Care Center A. STAFF REPORT, March 28, 2013 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Michelle Kimsey Representative Michelle Kimsey Date of Application February 21, 2013 Requested Action Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow Day Care Center to accommodate 7-12 children. Location 3609 Crescent Avenue Existing Land Use Single-family residential Existing Zoning SF-10, Single-family Residential District Surrounding Zoning & North South East West: SF-10, Single-family Residential/Residential Land Use Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and also the City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Monday, March 11, 2013, and a sign was posted on Friday, March 15, 2013. Staff Planner Cynthia Lopez, Senior Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Project Description The petitioner is requesting a special use permit to convert the garage into a Day Care Center to accommodate 7-12 children on property located at 3609 Crescent Avenue in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District. The property has an existing single family home connected to a two car garage by a covered carport. The petitioner proposes to operate the day care (Lovers of Learning Preschool) from 7:15 am to 5:45 pm, Monday through Friday with a quiet, indoor naptime from 1pm to 3pm daily. The property is in the North Sunset Heights Subdivision. The garage is in the back southwest corner of the property and is 24’ x 24’ (576 square feet). There is a 6 foot tall block wall on the west and south property lines and a 2 foot tall block wall with 4 feet of wood slat fence on top of the block on the north property line. A wood slat fence connects the house to the fence on the north side of the house and has a chicken coop attached to that side of the house. A chicken yard with a chain link fence is just in front of the wood slat fence. The garage is attached to the house with a 3 foot tall wrought iron fence and gate. The North Sunset Heights Subdivision has protective covenants which were recorded September 8, 1958 in book 384, page 325. The covenants state that “No lots shall be used except for residential purposes” (see attached). 1  Petition Report– SUP 13-02 –Page 2 Section 2.4.16 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) states the requirements for a day care center of seven or more adults or children, which include: • A site plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of section 8.5 shall be approved and filed with the findings of fact and conclusions of law as part of the approval. • Day care centers shall comply with all applicable state requirements for the location of such facilities and the minimum square feet of safe, outdoor recreation area and useable floor area for every person the day care facility is licensed to accommodate. No portion of such recreation area shall be located within the required front yard area of the property. • Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened in accordance with the provisions of section 5.5.7, screening standards. Outdoor play or instruction areas shall be enclosed by a fence or hedge no less than six feet in height. • A landscaped hedge or fence shall be provided along any rear or side property line adjoining any residentially zoned property not used for a similar purpose. Any such hedge or fence shall be designed and planted so as to be at least six feet in height, and, further the fence or hedge shall provide a solid barrier between the day care facility and the adjoining residential property. New Mexico Regulations for Child Care Centers has several physical requirements for licensure in homes. A home may be licensed for up to 12 children. “A home licensed as a group day care home…providing care for a maximum of 12 children may care for up to four children under age two providing a second educator is present in the home…” and “A home licensed for seven to 12 children will have at least two educators at the home when more than six children are present or when more than two children under the age of two are present. A home must have 35 square feet of activity and sleeping space per child, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, halls and other built-in fixtures and offsets, with total capacity limited to no more than 12 children. For a home licensed for 12 children, no more than two rooms will be measured. The home will have an outdoor play area, which must be fenced in.” ISSUES Planning Division: Cynthia Lopez • Parking: 1 parking space per 250 square feet (576 sq. ft. divided by 250 = 2.3, rounded down = 2 parking spaces) plus the 2 parking spaces required for the residence. • The residence appears to be built across property lines. • When posting signs and taking pictures of the site, it was discovered that the petitioner has chickens in the back yard. Chickens in all residential districts except the RA Rural Agricultural district within the City of Farmington require a special use permit. There is no special use permit for chickens on this property. The owner is not in compliance with the UDC. Police: Captain McPheeters • The Police Department has no opinion as to the merits of this petition. There appears to be no readily apparent adverse impact to Police Operations or to Public Safety at this time. Parking may be a concern and it may be unrealistic to assume that no parent/child will park on the opposing curb way and cross the street. Nonetheless, the police department has no significant concerns. 2  Petition Report– SUP 13-02 –Page 3 Building Inspection: Leo Hardie • Building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical requirements will need to be met along with State Child Care Licensing regulations. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes that denial of this petition is appropriate as the owner is not currently in compliance with the UDC for chickens. Therefore, a special use permit for a Day Care Center should not be processed for the property until it fully meets the requirements of the UDC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of Petition SUP 13-02, a request from Michelle Kimsey, for a special use permit to convert the garage into a Day Care Center to accommodate 7-12 children on property located at 3609 Crescent Avenue in the SF-10, Single-family Residential District. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  PETITION NO. SUP 13‐02 MICHELLE KIMSEY ‐ 3609 CRESCENT AVENUE Deadline: March 12, 2013 City of Farmington Departments CD Director – Mary L. Holton Comments are incorporated in the staff memo. CD Addressing – Planning Division No Comments Building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical CD Chief Building Inspector – Leo Hardie requirements will need to be met along with State Child Care Licensing regulations. CD MPO ‐ Joe Delmagori No MPO comments CD Oil & Gas Inspector No Comments City Manager’s Office – Bob Campbell No objections ELEC Customer Care Manager – Nicki Parks No Response ELEC Engineering ‐ Luwil Aligarbes No Comment ELEC T & D ‐ Steve Henson No Response Fire Department criteria will be met through the FIRE Fire Marshall – Bob Popa Building Inspection process. LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – Jennifer Breakell No Comments POLICE Code Compliance No Response The Police Department has no opinion as to the merits of this petition. There appears to be no readily apparent adverse impact to Police Operations or to Public Safety at this time. POLICE Captain McPheeters Parking may be a concern and it may be unrealistic to assume that no parent/child will park on the opposing curbway and cross the street. Nonetheless, the police department has no significant concerns. PRCA Roger Drayer No comments from PRCA PW Engineering‐ Virginia King No Response PW Engineering – Nica Westerling No Response PW Streets Superintendent ‐ Jim Couch No Response PW Traffic Engineering Admin – Steve Krest No comments PW Water/Wastewater Admin – Ruben Salcido No Comment (rec’d 3‐15‐13 @ 12:03pm) Other Entities CH2MHILL OMI No Response Comcast Cable ‐ Mark Johnson No Response New Mexico Gas Company ‐ Ryan Holden No Comment Enterprise Field Services No Response Farmington School District No Response CenturyLink – Laurence Joe No conflicts with CenturyLink U.S. Post Office No Response Williams Field Services ‐ Lloyd Bell No Response 12 13 14  Petition Report– SUP 13-03 Page 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT Staff Report Special Use Permit for an Accessory Apartment Petition SUP 13-03 – 509 East Hopi Street A. STAFF REPORT, March 28, 2013 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Daniel Westbury Representative Daniel Westbury Date of Application March 8, 2013 A special use permit for an accessory apartment at the petitioner’s residence. A previous SUP included a condition Requested Action limiting use of the accessory dwelling to family of the petitioner. The petitioner is requesting to have this condition removed. 509 East Hopi Street legally described as Lot 2 Block 3 of the Location Mesa Addition to the City of Farmington, San Juan County, NM. Existing Land Use Residential Existing Zoning SF-7 Single-family District North: SF-7 Single-family District / Single-family Residential Surrounding Zoning South: SF-7 Single-family District / Multi-family Residential & East: SF-7 Single-family District / Single-family Residential Land Use West: SF-7 Single-family District / Single-family Residential Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, Notice March 13, 2013. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Monday, March 11, 2013 and a sign was posted on Friday, March 15, 2013. Staff Planner Fran Fillerup, Associate Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Project Description The petitioner originally submitted a special use permit for an accessory apartment at his residence located at 509 East Hopi Street (Petition SUP 11-01). That SUP was approved, subject to the condition that the accessory apartment shall be occupied only by family members of the resident of the principal dwelling and that this condition shall remain with the property in case of a change in ownership. With this special use permit, he is requesting removal of the condition limiting the accessory dwelling to use by a family member. The result would be that the accessory dwelling would be allowed to be rented to people not in his family and to operate the accessory apartment as described in Section 2.5.4, accessory apartments, of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC). According to the petitioner’s application, the dwelling has been used by a family member who will no longer be living there. The dwelling is not needed for other family and he wishes to rent it. The petitioner lives in the existing single-family residence at the subject property. 15  Petition Report– SUP 13-03 Page 2 The property is 50 feet wide and 121 feet long and there is also a 16-foot alley on the rear of the property. The apartment is 15 feet wide and 34 feet long. The petitioner has added concrete to the driveway to create a third parking space as required by the previous SUP. ISSUES Planning Division: Fran Fillerup – 599-1282 • Section 2.5.4 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code states the criteria for accessory apartments at a single-family dwelling. The criteria include: o Allowing only one accessory apartment or guest house at the property; o Requiring the apartment to be similar in appearance to the principal dwelling; o Allowing rental but not sale of the apartment; o Requiring shared utilities for the principal dwelling and apartment; o Requiring one off-street parking space for the apartment; o Requiring that the owner of the property shall live in the principal dwelling or the apartment; and o Requiring review of an apartment SUP after 5 years with possibility of renewal by the Community Development Director. • Based on the petitioner’s application, the accessory apartment would meet the criteria of Section 2.5.4. There is only one accessory dwelling; the accessory dwelling is similar in construction to the residence; the petitioner proposes to rent the dwelling; the structures share utilities; a third parking space has been added; and the petitioner lives in the principal residence. The permit would require renewal after 5 years. Special Use Permit Criteria – Section 8.9.4 of the UDC Section 8.9.4 of the UDC sets forth the criteria for review of a special use permit. The section states that an SUP may be approved where it is reasonably determined that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. Criteria are listed as follows: A. Effect on environment: The location, size, design and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The accessory dwelling has been permitted and occupied and appears to have been used according to city standards. It has not been found to be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring properties. Review of a special use permit will allow for testimony regarding its use and impacts. B. Compatible with surrounding area: The proposed site plan, circulation plan and schematic architectural designs shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening and density. The accessory dwelling was constructed with a similar design and material to the existing residence. There are other accessory dwellings (511 East Hopi Street), duplex buildings (616 North Monterey Avenue) and multi-family dwellings (612 North Monterey Avenue) on nearby properties to the south, east and west. C. External impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust smoke, vibration, fire hazard or other injurious or noxious impact. The applicant shall provide adequate mitigation responses to the impacts. 16  Petition Report– SUP 13-03 Page 3 City Code Compliance or Zoning Compliance officers have no record of negative impacts from the accessory dwelling. D. Infrastructure impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities and water and sewer systems, and on public services such as police and fire protection and solid waste collection, and the ability of existing infrastructure and services to provide services adequately. There is no record or description of negative impacts to infrastructure from the proposed use. E. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use will be consistent with purposes of this UDC, the Comprehensive Plan, and any other statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable, and will support rather then interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The Comprehensive Plan indicates single-family residential use for the subject property and surrounding area. The property is in the SF-7 district – zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2.5.4 of the UDC indicates that a special use permit is required for an accessory apartment and provides standards for their construction and use. As stated above, the petitioner would be able to operate the dwelling as an apartment consistent with the standards of Section 2.5.4 and an accessory apartment is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. F. Parcel size: The proposed use may be require to have additional land area, in excess of the minimum lot area otherwise required by the underlying zoning district, as necessary to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses and the zoning district. The standards for accessory apartments in Section 2.5.4 of the UDC do not include a minimum parcel size. The subject property is 6050 square feet, less than the 7000 square feet required for lots in the SF-7 district. The subdivision was platted in 1948 and the accessory dwelling meets the dimensional standards required by the UDC. G. Site Plan: The proposed use shall be required to comply with the site plan review procedures and standards of Section 8.5, site plan review, as specified. A site plan was approved as part of SUP 11-01 and this site plan was included in the construction drawing submitted to obtain a building permit in 2011. No changes to the site plan have been included with this petition. The request relates to the use of the accessory dwelling. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes that approval of SUP 13-03 is appropriate. An accessory apartment is compatible with the other accessory apartment, duplex and multi-family residential uses in the surrounding area. The special use permit would require that the property owner must reside in the principal or accessory dwelling and the permit would expire after 5 years, with the need for renewal by the Community Development Director. The accessory dwelling can be operated in compliance with the other standards of Section 2.5.4 of the UDC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 13-03, a request from Daniel Westbury for a special use permit to allow an accessory dwelling to be used as an accessory apartment subject to the standards of Section 2.5.4 of the UDC at the property located at 509 East Hopi Street in the SF-7 Single-family Residential District. 17  Buena Vista Avenue East Hopi Street Approx. location of existing accessory dwelling in rear yard (34' x 15') 18 19  PETITION NO. SUP 13‐03 AMEND CONDITION FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENT Deadline: March 15, 2013 City of Farmington Departments CD Director – Mary L. Holton Comments are incorporated in the staff memo. CD Addressing – Planning Division No Comments CD Chief Building Inspector – Leo Hardie No Comments CD MPO ‐ Joe Delmagori No MPO comments CD Oil & Gas Inspector No Comments City Manager’s Office – Bob Campbell No objections ELEC Customer Care Manager – Nicki Parks No Response ELEC Engineering ‐ Luwil Aligarbes No Comment ELEC T & D ‐ Steve Henson No Response Fire Department criteria will be met through the FIRE Fire Marshall – Bob Popa Building Inspection process. LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – Jennifer Breakell No Comments POLICE Code Compliance No Response POLICE Captain McPheeters No Response PRCA Roger Drayer No comments from PRCA PW Engineering‐ Virginia King No Response PW Engineering – Nica Westerling No Response PW Streets Superintendent ‐ Jim Couch No Response PW Traffic Engineering Admin – Steve Krest No Issues PW Water/Wastewater Admin – Ruben Salcido No Comment Other Entities CH2MHILL OMI No Response Comcast Cable ‐ Mark Johnson No Response New Mexico Gas Company ‐ Ryan Holden No Comment Enterprise Field Services No Response Farmington School District No Response CenturyLink – Laurence Joe CenturyLink has no conflicts U.S. Post Office No Response Williams Field Services ‐ Lloyd Bell No Response 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  SUP lt-olO Additional pertinent information regarding the application for Special Use Permit for the address 509 East Hopi Street, aka Mesa Addition, Block #3, Lot #2. l. Cunent zoning SF-7 2. South (posterior) alley is 16 feet wide. Lot size 50'wide x 121'deep. 3. Sidewalk top ofcurb (north) to sidewalk edge(south) is 6 feet. Per the 1948 plot the paving on East Hopi St. is not centered on the fuW. It is assumed that the south edge of the sidewalk is the approximate property line. 4. The project is consistent with the current neighborhood in design and scale. A. To the east, 503 E. Hopi, Mesa Addition, Block #3, Lot #1 has an apartment in the back yard adjacent to the alley. B. To the west, 503 E. Hopi, Mesa Addition, Block #3, Lot #3&4, has a posterior (south) addition to the home. C. Mesa Addition, Block #3, Lot#5, (616,{ & 6168 North Monterey), is a two family dwelling with only one off street paved parking slot. Usually, 4 cars are parked in the street from this property. D. Across E. Hopi to the north, 510 E. Hopi, Mesa Addition, Bkrck #2, Lot #2 there is no off street paved parking. E. South of the alley (behind the properly) are aparlment buildings. 5. Adequate paved off street parking is already available at the site. 6. The outside of the apartment will have siding, roofing material, roof slope, & windows commensurate with the main house at 509 E. Hopi. 7. Tin Shed adjacent to the west side of the property in the back yard will be removed at the end of the project prior to ocsupancy. 28  lSqu442:/6aT suP il- ol ,01 E HO P I sr y'too4 r il+N ol Plolase D 4t)l v oN / 4/A*F,tr-atr A'rhl*, 29 $\ F t ^{ I e Jt ,lu- Jr.Jt/4 TJoR{k Noer4  Kn HoPI J/ I sd utl-KE- 3 FEET- sUP ll-ol wEsr +ilCSA/4DDN StocKi LoT3e* $ D"Lvc/ C"-- Pott ll ' x'zr/ t 'p*1,,h, *Lz,izzt1 t I 3,/,l^t,lt floo"sE, l-r ts'0ee7 3f ,' dqf 30 30'tu,'dL c\ pro,USed a.) 'Jlv'"ci",r< 9As'r -+/v1 ESA/AXbN BLo LK3 t-tt'Tl?'  /Silu4Pg j,t /r O I C t- ' / tuur 3)P lt-Ol 607 E nL't / \) / F4ottr etarru) ElEv+n oN P(ofnSE/J tf-2lrftoru / 4f4KfME^r 31 32  Petition Report– ZC 13-01 Page 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT Staff Report Zone Change from OP District to LNC District Petition ZC 13-01 – Zone Change on the Southeast Corner of Piñon Hills Boulevard and Messina Drive A. STAFF REPORT, March 28, 2013 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Capital S, LLC Representative Craig Stoabs Date of Application February 28, 2013 Zone change from the OP Office Professional District to the LNC Requested Action Local Neighborhood Commercial District. 3.74 acres southeast of the intersection of Piñon Hills Boulevard Location and Messina Drive. Existing Land Use Paved parking and vacant land Existing Zoning OP Office Professional District North: SF-10 Single-family Residential District / Vacant Surrounding Zoning South: SF-7 Single-family Residential District / Vacant & East: OP Office Professional District / Vacant Land Use West: LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial District / Vacant Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Monday, March 11, 2013 and a sign was posted on Friday, March 15, 2013. Staff Planner Fran Fillerup, Associate Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Project Description The petitioner is requesting a zone change from the OP Office Professional District to the LNC Local Neighborhood Commercial District for 3.74 acres southeast of the intersection of Piñon Hills Boulevard and Messina Drive. Previous Zone Change for this Area, ZC 08-15 The area of the subject zone change was a part of the area of a previous zone change, Petition ZC 08-15. This request changed the zoning for 5.96 acres on the southeast corner of the intersection of Piñon Hills Boulevard and Messina Drive from the SF-10 district to the OP district. Petition ZC 08-15 was approved in November 2008, with conditions 1 through 3, as follows: 1. No development shall occur and no permits shall be issued for the area of this zone change until a plat has been recorded for the area of this zone change and that all required subdivision improvements are installed; 2. That a Traffic Impact Analysis shall be provided prior to a building permit being issued in the area of this zone change; 33  Petition Report– ZC 13-01 Page 2 3. That access shall be maintained to the retention pond for Wilshire Estates Subdivision Number 11, Replat A, to the southeast of the area of this zone change. Regarding condition 1 of Petition ZC 08-15, the area has not been platted subject to the subdivision standards of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC). A portion of Messina Drive connecting to Piñon Hills Boulevard has been constructed, as well as a paved parking area. No building permits have been issued. Regarding condition 2 of Petition ZC 08-15, a traffic impact analysis has not been performed. However, the Public Works Director does not find that a TIA is required at this time. Please see his comments below. Regarding condition 3 of Petition ZC 08-15, this refers to a retention pond north of lots Wilshire Estates Subdivision Number 11, and is adjacent to the Porter Arroyo. The retention pond is outside the area of the subject zone change, but access needs to be maintained during the platting and development processes. At the time of Petition ZC 08-15, the applicant provided a master plan for the area southeast of the intersection of Piñon Hills Boulevard and College Boulevard. The plan was not reviewed for approval as a site plan. The plan showed, however, how the area of the subject zone change would be developed with office and professional land uses. A change to the petition for this portion of land does not eliminate the conditions of approval for the remainder of the area included in ZC 08-15. Piñon Hills Boulevard Corridor Plan The area of the subject zone change is included in the Piñon Hills Boulevard Corridor Plan (PHBCP). The PHBCP land use map anticipates residential development of lots less than 20,000 square feet in size for the area of the subject zone change. This is true of the area southeast of Messina Drive. Commercial development is anticipated on the west side of Messina Drive and neighboring commercial development along the frontage of Piñon Hills Boulevard will provide a buffer for single-family residences. The PHBCP indicates a full intersection may be constructed at Piñon Hills Boulevard and Messina Drive. A right-in-right-out access is also shown in the PHBCP 600 feet to the east, near the Porter Arroyo and outside the area of the subject zone change. The locations for commercial zoning was a point of emphasis in the PHBCP. The location of Neighborhood Commercial Districts (a fore-runner of the LNC district during drafts of the UDC and PHBCP) indicated that limited land uses and other protections would be needed to make LNC districts compatible with the nearby residential areas they are intended to serve. Local Neighborhood Commercial District The purpose of the LNC district, according to Section 3.12 of the UDC, is to “accommodate neighborhood-oriented, low-intensity retail sales and service uses in commercial clusters and/or nodes along thoroughfares and at intersections that are readily accessible from surrounding residential areas. The LNC district includes specific standards designed to ensure the compatibility with the residential-scale and style of the neighborhood they serve.” The standards set forth in Section 3.12 for LNC district development include location requirements, allowed uses, density and dimensional standards, plus district standards for building design, landscaping and screening and signs. Residential Protections The area of the subject zone change is adjacent to un-platted land in the SF-7 district. According to Section 5.10 of the UDC, the subject property is required to provide residential protection on all sides adjoining properties containing single-family residences, or properties in a protected single-family district. These protections are in addition to the district standards of 34  Petition Report– ZC 13-01 Page 3 the LNC district stated in Section 3.12 of the UDC. The standards of Section 5.10 of the UDC pertain to building setbacks, building height, screening, dumpsters and outdoor lighting. ISSUES Public Works Director: Jeff Smaka – 599-1283 • Because the petitioner has installed a deceleration lane on Piñon Hills Boulevard and has not connected the new portion of Messina Drive to the rest of the street, development of this shopping center does not trigger the need for a traffic impact analysis (TIA) at this time. The deceleration lane may be required to be extended depending on the usage and occupancy of the development. A TIA may be required especially in the case of a business with a drive-through window. A TIA may be required for the rest of the development in the future. Planning Division: Fran Fillerup – 599-1282 • Section 8.7.4 of the UDC sets forth issues to be considered for a zone change request. • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: o The area of this zone change is included in the PHBCP, which is more recent than the City’s Comprehensive Plan and serves as an update to that plan. The area of this zone change is shown as residential single-family use, with lots of less than 20,000 square feet on the PHBCP. A zone change from the OP district to the LNC district is not consistent with land use portion of the PHBCP. However, the previous zone change, ZC 08-15, was not consistent with the PHBCP land use map either. The PHBCP does indicate commercial uses in the area west of Messina Drive along Piñon Hills Boulevard. The plan emphasizes the need for the UDC (then under development) to mitigate the impacts of commercial zoning along Piñon Hills Boulevard. o The 2020 Future Land Use Plan of the Farmington Comprehensive Plan shows the subject property as residential single-family use with lots of less than 20,000 square feet. A zone change from the OP district to the LNC district is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. • Compatibility of the proposed zoning and land uses with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood: o Commercial zoning and land uses are appropriate for a property with frontage along a principal arterial street such as Piñon Hills Boulevard. However, zoning in the OP district (the existing zoning) may produce less of an impact upon single-family residential properties than zoning in the LNC district (the proposed zoning). Table 2.3 of the UDC contains permitted land uses and indicates that the OP district has fewer commercial land uses permitted than the LNC district, especially among the Retail, Service and Commercial Use categories. • Creation of adverse impacts and the ability to mitigate these impacts: o Regarding impacts of permitted land uses in the LNC district, the area of this zone change is adjacent to single-family residential zoning to the south. Zoning in the LNC district allows more commercial land uses than the OP district. The developer is responsible to provide residential protections as set forth in Section 5.10 of the UDC. o A traffic impact analysis is not requested at this time, but may be requested in the future. Please see comments from the Public Works Director. • The ability of the proposed use to be accomplished by the proposed zoning district: o The petitioner has not identified specific land uses. Permitted uses would be those allowed as stated on Table 2.3 of the UDC. 35  Petition Report– ZC 13-01 Page 4 • The suitability of the land for the proposed development: o Staff has not identified any issues regarding the suitability of the subject property for development. The petitioner has constructed a portion of Messina Drive and a paved parking area. • The existence of or the applicant’s ability and willingness to provide adequate public facilities: o The petitioner is responsible to provide all the necessary public facilities for the property. The petitioner is responsible to provide access to the retention pond area on the east end of the area of ZC 08-15, an area adjacent to the Porter Arroyo. • Whether the proposed zoning constitutes a spot zone as defined in Article 11 of the UDC: o In Article 11 of the UDC, spot zoning is “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 subject zone change is not consistent with the land use maps of the Comprehensive Plan or the PHBCP. There are other properties in the LNC district to the west of the subject property and this zone would not be isolated from other commercial districts. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes that approval of ZC 13-01 is appropriate, with conditions. The requested zone change is not consistent with the land use maps of the Comprehensive Plan or the PHBCP. The LNC district allows retail sales and service land uses not allowed in the OP district, which may have greater impact on adjoining residential development. The specific standards of the LNC district, plus residential protections, are intended to improve the compatibility of LNC development with nearby residential development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 13-01, a request from Capital S, LLC, represented by Craig Stoabs, for a zone change from OP Office Professional District to the LNC Local Neighborhood District, for 3.74 acres southeast of the intersection of Piñon Hills Boulevard and Messina Drive, subject to conditions a. through c., as follows: a. No development shall occur and no permits shall be issued for the area of this zone change until a plat has been recorded for the area of this zone change and that all required subdivision improvements are installed; b. That a Traffic Impact Analysis may be required in the future depending on proposed uses and future development in the area of the zone change; and c. That access shall be maintained to the retention pond for Wilshire Estates Subdivision Number 11, Replat A, as identified in Petition ZC 08-15. 36  Approximate area of ZC 13-01 3.74 acres 37  CAPITAL S, LLC 4800 College Blvd. Ste 101 Farmington, NM 87402 (505)-325-2464 March 21, 2013 Mr. Fran Fillerup Associate Planner City of Farmington 800 Municipal Drive Farmington, NM 87401 RE: Messina and Pinon Hills Blvd Zone Change Mr. Fillerup: We are requesting a zone change from OP to LNC for approximately half of a 5.95 acre tract at the intersection of Messina Dr and Pinon Hills Blvd (PHB). The remaining portion of this tract will remain OP. There are several reasons we are pursuing this zone change. First, our original plan was to develop this area as an office condominium, but in over four years of marketing it in this fashion we have had no success. By changing a portion of this tract to LNC it will give us more potential customers. In smaller communities like Farmington it is difficult to develop property based on just office and professional clients. Second, we have decided that the best option to pursue is to construct an approximately 5000 square foot building on the site if we can get the LNC zoning. We would then rent this building to office, professional and retail clients. To justify this building we need the additional market created by attracting retail tenants. Third, the traffic on PHB supports LNC. Being a heavily traveled arterial makes it appropriate for LNC. In addition, the original plans for PHB limited intersections to one ever quarter mile, yet stated that commercial would be allowed at the intersections. And since this is only a three way intersection (the area to the north is listed as “green” space) the only LNC at this intersection will be on the south side of PHB. Fourth, the retail uses that can go into LNC are substantially limited. For instance, a big box store or vehicle sales cannot go in and a drive-thru requires a special use permit. Also, the property is developed in a manner that will limit the building depths to 50 or 60 feet. This will inherently restrict building sizes. The total depth of the tract is only 270 feet with 80 feet of parking in the middle. After 25 foot front and rear setbacks it leaves only 60 feet deep building envelopes. 38 Lastly, municipal development is moving more towards commercial nodes that serve local neighborhood areas rather than large central commercial developments like East Main in Farmington. These smaller commercial nodes reduce driving distance, fuel use, traffic, pollution, etc. A local neighborhood retail area at this location on PHB would help meet this need and help reduce traffic and congestion on East Main. Contact me at your convenience if you have any questions or comments, and please forward this to the P&Z Commissioners. Sincerely, Craig A. Stoabs, Managing Partner 39  PETITION NO. ZC 13‐01 MESSINA & PINON HILLS BLVD Deadline: March 14, 2013 City of Farmington Departments CD Director – Mary L. Holton Comments are incorporated in the staff memo. CD Addressing – Planning Division No Comments CD Chief Building Inspector – Leo Hardie No Comments CD MPO ‐ Joe Delmagori No MPO comments CD Oil & Gas Inspector No Comments City Manager’s Office – Bob Campbell No objections ELEC Customer Care Manager – Nicki Parks No Response ELEC Engineering ‐ Luwil Aligarbes No Comment ELEC T & D ‐ Steve Henson No Response Fire Department criteria will be met through the FIRE Fire Marshall – Bob Popa Building Inspection process. LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – Jennifer Breakell No Comments POLICE Code Compliance No Response The Police Department has no opinion as to the merits of this petition. There appears to be no readily apparent adverse impact to Police Operations or to Public Safety at this time. However, since there is no indication as to access onto Pinon Hills will occur, we can only assume that access will be made via lateral entry through planned feeder streets. If direct access off of POLICE Captain McPheeters Pinon Hills is desired, the Police Department will need to re‐evaluate this petition. (CD staff clarified that a right‐in‐right‐out may be built at the east end of the commercial area along PHB, 600 feet east of Messina and west of Porter Arroyo. PD staff did not have further comment at this time, but will address the matter when the second access is proposed.) PRCA Roger Drayer No comments from PRCA PW Engineering‐ Virginia King No Response PW Engineering – Nica Westerling No Response PW Streets Superintendent ‐ Jim Couch No Response Public Right‐of‐way improvements subject to PW Traffic Engineering Admin – Steve Krest actual development intensity. PW Water/Wastewater Admin – Ruben Salcido No comments at this time Other Entities CH2MHILL OMI No Response Comcast Cable ‐ Mark Johnson No Response New Mexico Gas Company ‐ Ryan Holden No Comment 40 Enterprise Field Services No Response Farmington School District No Response CenturyLink – Laurence Joe CenturyLink has no conflicts U.S. Post Office No Response Williams Field Services ‐ Lloyd Bell No Response 41 42 43 44  M I N U T E S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 14, 2013 The Planning and Zoning Commission met in a regular session on February 14, 2013 at 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Chairman: Dennis Ivie Commissioners: Bruce Buchanan Joyce Cardon Clint Freeman Kristin Langenfeld Cheryl Ragsdale Amy Ziesmer Daniel Arnold (Alt) P&Z Members Absent: Commissioners: Rory Jaques Paul Thompson Del Washburn (Alt) Staff Present: Fran Fillerup Mary Holton Cynthia Lopez Dee Dee Moore Others Present: Phillip McKinney Joe Kozimor Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Ivie and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Presentation of the Agenda Senior Planner Cindy Lopez stated there were no changes to the agenda. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Ziesmer and seconded by Commissioner Cardon to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2013 P&Z Meeting. This motion was approved unanimously by an 8-0 vote. Swearing in for Quasi-Judicial Process All of the attendees desiring to speak on the behalf of the petitions were sworn in by Secretary Dee Dee Moore. 45  Draft P&Z Minutes – 2‐14‐13 Page 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT SUP 13-01 - 110 E. Corcorran Operation of Asphalt Recycling Equipment Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion of SUP 13-014 on February 14, 2013 Associate Planner Fran Fillerup summarized the materials in the agenda which included the minutes of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Board of Commissioners (MRA) meeting for this petition, the previous material from SUP 11-11, and minutes from P&Z, Metropolitan Redevelopment Agenda and the City Council meetings where this petition was discussed previously. Chairman Ivie asked if having property located in the MRA trumps the Industrial (IND) zoning. Mr. Fillerup informed the commission that staff’s analysis takes into consideration the compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and the MRA Plan, however, this property is zoned Industrial and the owner has the rights that go with that zoning. He added that the two observations/trial runs required by City Council in the approval of SUP 11-11 were completed on January 12, 2013 and January 30, 2013. Mr. Fillerup shared how the operation works: The asphalt is loaded into the recycler, the drum rotates and is heated, and the material turns into recycled asphalt. During the observations the conveyor belt was not in use. Section 5.11 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) defines the performance standards and the impact to neighboring properties. Section 8.9 specifies the criteria to evaluate a special use permit. Farmington City Code (FCC) Section 12.5 identifies standards for noise levels. The Code Compliance Division of the Farmington Police Department took readings at four different locations during the 2nd test run on January 30, 2013 in accordance with their established procedures. Only location number two exceeded the 75dBA allowed by 1.3 dBa for an average dBa of 76.3. The MRA Commission recommended the consideration for a time period of two years, as now proposed by the petitioner, and screening around the hopper to help mitigate the dust during loading the drum. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of SUP13-01 with conditions a, b and c in the staff memo. Commissioner Freeman asked about sound mitigation. Mr. Fillerup stated that mitigation is usually done with walls, including well site locations. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the noise levels indicated are averages. Mr. Fillerup stated that they were, and also noted that during the test the highest reading at location number two was 87 dBa but that a Waste Management truck was emptying a dumpster during that reading. Commissioner Buchanan added that this reading was not representative of the noise associated with the recycling process, but of the overall noise within that area. Mr. Fillerup indicated that all data during the test is averaged. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he felt the test was not valid because the biggest reading was not from the operation of the asphalt equipment. Commissioner Ragsdale asked what kind of noise levels is associated with the conveyor belt. Mr. Fillerup stated that condition b would prohibit the use of the conveyor. Commissioner Cardon stated that during the observation she saw and heard the trash truck, but didn’t hear anything prior to that. Director Holton stated that the protocol used in establishing a noise level used by Code 46  Draft P&Z Minutes – 2‐14‐13 Page 3 Compliance has been defended in Municipal Court and that the average can not be changed due to the trash truck incident. Chairman Ivie added that Dirt Bandit has indicated that this equipment is not run at this location on a daily basis. Mr. Phillip McKinney of 101 E. Pinon stated that he has no questions or concerns with regards to staff’s recommendations. He added that he is looking for another location and that two years should be a sufficient time frame to relocate. He stated that to control the dust would require a divider/screen around the entry point into the drum. He added that because there is no 3-phase power that he has to run the generator to provide power, however, providing insulation around the generator could reduce some noise. Yvette Medina of Four Corners Glass at 705 N. Commercial stated that she was there during the observation and that the test run did not compare with what she has seen before. She does not think that this was a true demonstration. She added that there is an orange dust that settled over her customers’ vehicles, a sticky substance that gets into their building and the smell. Commissioner Freeman asked what she felt was different and she stated there was none of the smoke. Commissioner Cardon asked if Dirt Bandit has been running the equipment since the demonstration. Ms. Medina answered no. Mr. McKinney readdressed the board stating the he has heard nothing from the neighbors, seen no photos and has never been called regarding any of the accusations heard today from Ms. Medina. He added that he has a brand new Cadillac and over 30 pieces of equipment that are white and not one of them have yellow or orange stuff on them, only dirt. Commissioner Buchanan asked what material could produce an orange substance. Mr. McKinney stated nothing, that asphalt is a combination of tar, coke and other types of material, such as rock and sand. He added that you will have white smoke as the asphalt is reheated and black smoke from the diesel generator. Ms. Medina approached the commission and stated that she too has a Cadillac and has had to wash her car, sometimes twice a day because of the orange residue. Commissioner Buchanan stated that there seems to be a discrepancy. Mr. McKinney testified that there is nothing that produces an orange film during the recycling process, yet Ms. Medina testifies the orange film has to be washed off of customers vehicles. Ms. Medina stated that this does not happen so much during the winter months, but that it is on the cars and comes in through the air conditioner and deposits on the desks and countertops. She indicated that the inside residue is blackish. Commissioner Buchanan restated that the sticky residue is orange outside the building and black inside the building. Ms. Medina stated that Commissioner Buchanan was correct. She added that the neighboring business, because of a broken window that allows the dust to enter their building, has given their employees masks to wear. Commissioner Buchanan asked if she noticed the dust only when the equipment was operating. Ms. Medina stated there is always dust in the air and she can’t tell why the sticky residue is orange. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the residue destroys the paint on the vehicles. Ms. Medina stated that it does wash off, and she has seen no damage to the paint. Commissioner Buchanan asked Commissioner Cardon if she could share her observations during the test run. Commissioner Cardon stated she observed the operation from her vehicle because of the weather. She didn’t hear any operation noise until the trash truck arrived. She heard the back-up beeper and the drop of the can. She stated she saw one black puff of smoke and then it turned white, like a diesel truck. 47  Draft P&Z Minutes – 2‐14‐13 Page 4 Chairman Ivie also was in attendance at the same observation and stated that the asphalt was scraped up from the ground and had dirt mixed in with it so when it was dumped into the hopper he observed the dust. The diesel generator was also in use to run the equipment. Commissioner Cardon made the motion to approve SUP 13-01 as recommended by staff with conditions a, b and c. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale and approved by an 8-0 vote. Planning and Zoning Commission Action of SUP 13-01 on February 14, 2013 A motion was made by Commissioner Cardon, seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale, to approve Petition SUP 13-01 as recommended by staff, including conditions a, b and c, a request from Phillip McKinney to operate an Asphalt Recycling Machine in the IND Industrial District located at 110 E. Corcorran Drive. AYE: Chairman Ivie, Commissioners Buchanan, Cardon, Freeman, Langenfeld, Ragsdale, Ziesmer and Arnold (Alt) NAY: None ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: Commissioners Jaques, Thompson and Washburn (Alt) Motion passed 8-0. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT PP 12-04 - Little Creek SD, Phase II Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion of PP 12-04 on February 14, 2013 Associate Planner Fran Fillerup reminded the commission that this petition was tabled from the previous meeting and the applicant has presented modifications to the original plan which is reflected in the staff analysis. He stated that comments from City Engineer Nica Westerling have been distributed today and were also distributed electronically to the Commission. This area is zoned SF-7 Single-family Residential, and is comprised of approximately 19 acres and connects to the road network via the collector street Piedras Street and Snowdrift Lane. There are 52 lots in this subdivision which adjoins Martin Mesa Arroyo to the east. The applicant has designed the subdivision with connections to the existing footpath in the arroyo, which is a positive feature for the subdivision. The lot layout takes advantage of the terrain. There are two variances being requested. The first is an offset location at the intersection of Snowdrift Lane 75 feet from where Peregrine Circle loops back on itself. The standard is 125 feet and is for safety reasons, however Peregrine Circle has only 14 lots and there is no through traffic. Site triangles on the plat will be indicated, which will address safety concerns. The second request is for the width of Peregrine Circle along the Martin Mesa Arroyo. The standard is 50 feet and the petitioner is requesting 33 feet with no sidewalk on the south because of the adjacent walking path. Curb and gutter would act as a barrier to the drive lanes and no parking would be posted 48  Draft P&Z Minutes – 2‐14‐13 Page 5 by the developer in the area of the reduced width. Staff recommends approval of these variances and this preliminary plan. Commissioner Buchanan wanted to make sure that there is no property access to Piedras Street and that all properties are accessed from side streets. Mr. Fillerup stated that was correct. Commissioner Langenfeld asked if there were any reasons for the variances requested by the petitioner. Mr. Fillerup stated that the topography of the land dictates where the road and lots can best fit. He added the Peregrine Circle is not a through street, and that the safe sight triangle will be shown on the plat as a no-build area. The grading will be in line with the safe sight triangle also. Commissioner Freeman asked if the Fire Department was okay with the 28-foot width for part of Peregrine Circle. Mr. Fillerup said they gave no comment, but 28 feet of width from curb to curb is enough room for two-way traffic as long as there was no parking allowed. Mr. Bob Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echol, Inc, representative for the petitioner, stated he had no questions or concerns regarding staff’s recommendation for approval. Mr. Joe Kozimor of 503 French Drive, Aztec, also agrees with staff’s recommendation. However, he asked the commission for a variance to the 5-foot sidewalk requirement along Piedras Street. He stated that all the other phases of existing sidewalk along Peidras Street are 4-foot and he would like for the sidewalks to remain consistent with each end. Commissioner Buchanan asked to hear the justification as to why the developer is now required to place 5-foot sidewalks when he was allowed to place 4-foot sidewalks in earlier phases of this subdivision. Ms. Westerling stated that she did not know why the 4-foot sidewalks were not noticed during the construction phase. She added that Piedras Street is classified as a collector and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires 5-foot sidewalks on collector streets. Commissioner Buchanan also asked if the sidewalks would need to be corrected. Ms. Westerling stated that all new sidewalks must meet the ADA requirements and if any of the 4-foot sections needed to be replaced they would have to be 5 feet wide. Mr. Kozimor also explained that the hike and bike trial is 8-10 feet wide and is constructed out of asphalt. If the City is not willing to take ownership of the trail, then he will maintain the trails. Director Holton reminded the commission that the trail and the arroyo are not part of this subdivision, but is part of Four Seasons, and therefore consideration of dedicating it as part of this plat would be inappropriate. She did state that she would be glad to host a meeting with the new Parks Recreation and Cultural Affairs Director and the petitioner to discuss the long term usage of the trail and perhaps the City’s acquisition of the trail after the new director starts work. Chairman Ivie mentioned that the City Council had reduced the width of required sidewalks on other petitions so that the middle matches the ends. Ms. Westerling stated that ADA requirements change about every two years and that if you “touch it, you fix it.” Commission Freeman stated that the ADA website shows that the minimum width of sidewalks can be 36 inches, but if less than 5 feet wide, a passing lane/landing spot is required every 200 feet. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to approve PP 12-04, including the two requested variances, and adding approval for 4-foot sidewalks along Piedras Street and 49  Draft P&Z Minutes – 2‐14‐13 Page 6 in areas with no driveways, that 5-foot ADA compliant passing lanes be place at required intervals. Commissioner Langenfeld seconded the motion. The motion passed with an 8-0 vote. Planning and Zoning Commission Action on PP 12-04 on February 14, 2013 A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Langenfeld, to approve Petition PP 12-04 including the two variance requests and adding a variance that allows sidewalks on Piedras Street to be built to four feet but must have ADA compliant passing lanes at required intervals. This petition is a request from Joe Kozimor for a preliminary plan of the Little Creek Subdivision Phase II, a 52-lot subdivision of 18.96 acres along Piedras Street and west of the Martin Mesa Arroyo in the SF-7 Single-family Residential District. AYE: Chairman Ivie, Commissioners Buchanan, Cardon, Freeman, Langenfeld, Ragsdale, Ziesmer and Arnold (Alt) NAY: None ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: Commissioners Jaques, Thompson and Washburn (Alt) Motion passed 8-0. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the floor. Business from the Chairman: There was no business from the chairman. Business from Members: There was no business from the members. Business from Staff: There were no petitions submitted to the last City Council Meeting. However, the neighbor, Ms. Crosby, submitted a letter, asking that the petitioner hold off placing the fence extension between their properties at least until the 6-month trial period is complete. Adjournment With no further business the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 14, 2013 was adjourned at 3:29 p.m. __________________________ ____________________________ Dennis Ivie Dee Dee Moore Chairman Office Manager 50