Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive October 29, 2020 - 3:00 p.m. This meeting will be held virtually using Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83831946958 Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the September 24, 2020 P&Z Meeting 4 PUBLIC HEARING: Petition SUP 20-49 – a request from Gravity Pad Partners for placement of a telecommunications facility, including 100-foot high monopole on City owned property. Zoning is SF-10 Single Family Residential. 5 PUBLIC HEARING: Petition SUP 20-50 – a request from Jack Smalley for renewal of a special use permit to allow for keeping two horses on a 2- acre lot at 6001 Pryor Ln, in the SF-7, Single-family Residential District. Per Section 2.4.7 of the Unified Development Code, the keeping of animals or fowl in this district shall require a special use permit. 6 Draft UDC Updates – Discussion, possible action, regarding proposed revisions to the 2007 Unified Development Code. (Beth Escobar) 7 Business From: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 8 Adjournment The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 10, 2020. ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 The Planning and Zoning Commission met in a regular session on September 24, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico and via Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89530434206. P&Z Members Present: Ryan Brown Chair Joyce Cardon Cheryl Ragsdale Mitch Sewell Cody Waldroup P&Z Members Absent: Shay Davis Vice Chair Clint Freeman Elizabeth Lockmiller Wayne Mangum Gary Smouse Staff Present: Andrea Jones Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Others Who Addressed the Commission (Via Zoom Virtual Platform): Michael Ferrari Mitch Burns Patricia Thornton Kathrine Clemmons Nathan Hill John McNeill Charles Todd Call to Order Chair Joyce Cardon called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Presentation & Approval of the Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Brown. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Sewell to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2020 P&Z Meeting. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Swearing in of Witnesses Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant, swore in all parties that wished to speak on behalf of any agenda items. Draft UDC Updates Francisco Alvarado, Associate Planner, presented SUP 20-38 to the commission. COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 20-38 Special Use Permit to allow for tax refund loan operations in the CB, Central Business Zoning District at 104 ½ E. Main Street A. STAFF REPORT, September 24, 2020 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Dominic Ferrari Representative Patricia Thornton Date of August 27, 2020 Application Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow a tax refund loan company in the CB, Central Business District Location 104 ½ E Main Street (R0027723) Existing Land Use Commercial building Existing Zoning CB – Central Business District Surrounding North: CB – Central Business Zoning & Land South: CB – Central Business Use East: CB – Central Business West: CB – Central Business Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, September 6, 2020. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, September 2, 2020 and a sign was posted on Friday, September 11, 2020. Staff Planner Francisco Alvarado, Associate Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant and property owner, Dominic Ferrari, represented by Patricia Thornton, is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for tax refund loan operations on a 0.075 acre lot located at 104 ½ E Main Street. This property is zoned CB, Central Business. Loan companies are not allowed in the CB, Central Business District. They are permitted by right in the GC, General Commercial Zoning District, and require an SUP in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District. The subject parcel is located in the Farmington Original Townsite Replat of Lots 4 & 5, Block 3, platted in 1988. Figure 1. Aerial View The subject property has an existing structure built in 1956. A wall and door divide the front and back of the building. Front access is from Main Street, where professional tax preparation services, permitted by right in the district, are currently offered. Refund anticipation loan services are proposed in the back for tax preparation customers. For this use, entrance to the building would be through a side door on Orchard Avenue.  Side Door Main St Orchard Ave Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan Entrance from Orchard Ave Seating for Customers Staff Desks Figure 3. Project Proposal Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) As defined by §58-15-2 (J) NMSA 1978, “a ‘refund anticipation loan’ means a loan that is secured by or that the creditor arranges or expects to be repaid, directly or indirectly, from the proceeds of the consumer's federal or state personal income tax refunds or tax credits, including any sale, assignment or purchase of a tax refund or tax credit at a discount or for a fee. Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Meeting This petition was presented at the MRA meeting on September 15, 2020. Three commissioners considered this use would not be appropriate for the CB District and recommended disapproval, while two other commissioners supported approval of the proposed business at this location. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Figure 4. Future Land Use Plan Subject Property The subject property is designated as Commercial in the 2020 Future Land Use Map. Commercial is defined as retail shopping, wholesale and service operations. The proposed use conforms to this designation. Unified Development Code (UDC) Loan Companies are permitted by right only in the GC, General Commercial District. They are allowed in the LNC, Local Neighborhood Commercial District with an SUP. The Community Works Director has determined an SUP application is appropriate for this use in the CB District. Per UDC 3.14.1 Purpose, “the Central Business (CB) District is primarily intended to accommodate the moderate to high intensity business activities…” Moreover, “the CB District is intended to implement the planning policies of the Comprehensive Plan’s ‘Commercial’ land use categories.” These state that “downtown should be the location of office, specialty retail, cultural and service activities.” Loan companies usually present intensive, high traffic conditions, compatible with the CB district. Loan Companies in the CB District Per the City Clerk, an RAL company operated at the subject property from 2015 to 2019, with approval from the Planning Division. The petitioner proposes to provide the same type of service. RALs are currently offered at two locations on the same block: • 126 E Main St – registered in 1987. • 112 E Main St – from 2009 to 2014. New ownership from 2015 to present. Both operations are registered under one company. Figure 5. Zoning Map Subject Property Special use permits associated with commercial uses are transferrable Per UDC 8.9.2.A Applicability, except as provided herein or specified in the conditions of a special use permit, ownership of a special use permit is not transferrable. However, special use permits associated with nonresidential uses are transferrable. 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 and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The subject property is located in an area with existing office and commercial uses. The addition of a loan company would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. 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 proposed use, site plan and circulation are harmonious with the character of the area. 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. There are no anticipated negative impacts foreseen for this business. Per Code Enforcement, there are no active issues related to existing businesses of this type on the block. 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. The proposed use should have no impact on the existing infrastructure. There are extensive public parking facilities 80 feet north of the property, between Main St and Arrington St. 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 than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Commercial in the 2020 Future Land Use Map. Commercial is defined as retail shopping, wholesale and service activities. The proposed use conforms to this designation. F. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required 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 parcel is 0.075 acres in size and is adequate for the proposed use. No issues have been identified regarding loan operations at this location. 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. This parcel is fully developed and occupied by the existing building. Although parking requirements do not apply in the CB District, there are existing parking facilities nearby for visitors and workers. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 20-38 is appropriate. Operation at this location of a loan company is compatible with the surrounding area and meets the intent of the Central Business District to accommodate high-intensity activities and services. There are no anticipated negative impacts foreseen for this business. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 20-38, a request from Dominic Ferrari, represented by Patricia Thornton to allow for tax refund loan operations on a 0.075 acre lot located at 104 ½ E Main Street (R0027723), subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire and Building Inspection will need to ensure that any past or planned remodeling has/will not change egress paths for people at this location. 2. Any reconfiguration of space (removal or addition of walls) will require a plan review and building permit. 3. UDC 8.9.6 Expiration of approval: A. Special use permits shall be valid for a period of 18 months from the date of approval. If construction or operation of the approved use has not commenced within this period, the special use permit shall expire. B. The city council may extend the special use permit for up to five years upon written request from the applicant, which must be received before the date of expiration. Comment from Business Owner at 101 E Main St COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Waldroup asked if the previous company at the location was operating illegally? Associate Planner Alvarado stated no and that there was some inconsistency with interpretation of the UDC code from previous staff. Planning Manager Escobar stated that previously the loan prohibition wasn’t enforced strictly by the UDC code and the previous company existed without a Special Use Permit or consideration from the City that the company should have had a Special Use Permit. Ms. Escobar also stated that on September 15, 2020 this Special Use Permit application was presented to the 5 member Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency Board. 3 members of the MRA Board considered that the use was not appropriate and 2 members considered that it was. Commissioner Sewell asked how the MRA rules overlap with the Planning and Zoning Commissions rules? Planning Manager Escobar stated that the MRA is a recommending body, focusing on the Metropolitan Redevelopment area, the Downtown area. Staff took the application to MRA board for a recommendation only. The MRA plan does not overrule the zoning. Commissioner Waldroup stated that in the Central Business area loan companies are not permitted and asked why this application was even brought forward. . Ms. Escobar stated that there is a chart that has all the zoning districts listed and on the chart this under Central Business it is blank. From previous practice and interpretation of the Director since the chart is blank, the business owner should have the opportunity to bring forth a Special Use Permit. The Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation and City Council will make a decision. Commissioner Waldroup asked where the other loan companies in the area were located. Associate Planner Alvarado stated there was a loan company at 126 E. Main St. (registration from 1987) and 112 E. Main St. (registration in 2009, new ownership in 2015 to present), both locations being owned by the same person and on the same block. Commissioner Sewell asked who the owner is. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that the locations were owned by Navajo Trading Company. Commissioner Brown asked if Navajo Trading Company had a Special Use Permit. Planning Manager Escobar stated that both locations were in existence prior to the 2007 UDC, so they are considered legal non-conforming. Commissioner Sewell asked if Thunderbird Tax Company started after 2007. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Thunderbird Tax Company just completed a business transaction and is being treated as a new business. Ms. Escobar also stated that having Navajo Trading Company in the same location was a reason that Thunderbird Tax Company was considered a similar use. Commissioner Ragsdale asked what reasons 3 members of the MRA gave for not recommending the Special Use Permit. Planning Manager Escobar stated they felt that it was not an appropriate use for the Downtown Area. The MRA would like to see more high-end retail, hospitality and restaurants Downtown. Commissioner Brown asked Planning Manager Escobar to elaborate on the transfer of the Special Use Permit with ownership. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Special Use Permit becomes an entitlement for the location and the business, and should the business be sold at that location, the permit will transfers with the new owner, who is then obligated to renew the permit every 5 years and to keep a current business license. Commissioner Ragsdale asked if the business would have to be the same type business. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it would have to be or they wouldn’t need an SUP. Commissioner Brown if the new business could be a title loan business. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she would have to look into that and if the new business is a title loan company they may have to apply for a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Brown asked if the SUP is tied to the property and if the current property owner rented the location would the SUP be valid. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the SUP is tied to the property and to the business. Commissioner Brown asked if the property owner rented the location to a business doing the same function, would the SUP follow. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes, if the property is rented to a business doing the same function the SUP would follow. Commissioner Sewell asked if the SUP was tied to specifically to tax loans. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes this SUP is specifically tied to tax loans. Chair Cardon asked if the petitioner or the petitioner representative were present. Patricia Thornton, Office Manager of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that she was present. Chair Cardon asked Ms. Thornton if she had the opportunity to review the material and if she had any questions. Patricia Thornton stated that Michael Ferrari would be presenting on the material presented. Michael Ferrari was sworn in. Mr. Ferrari, Director of Operations for D&L Loan Company, stated that they are seeking this SUP to continue operating in the Downtown area. D&L Loan Company has been working exclusively with Kathrine Clemmons owner of Thunderbird Tax Company for the past 5 years. D&L is only in operation in during tax season, December through March, and only provide refund anticipation loan services to Thunderbird Tax Company customers. A refund anticipation loan is not associated with payday loans or title loans; there are no fees associated with any loans that D&L Loan Company provides, there are no tax prep fees or administration fees. Contracts are not mandatory and are only provided to established customers of Thunderbird Tax Company who will be receiving a federal tax refund. Mr. Ferrari stated that Jackson Hewitt, H&R Block, Turbo Tax, and 5 other companies in the Central Business Zone, where Thunderbird Tax Company is located, provide the same services as D&L Loan Company. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company has no signage on the building, does not offer loans with high fee, does not stripe the customer of any equity and each loan is vetted by an experience underwriter to protect each customer. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company does have a large customer base and their relationships with their customers have an impacted on the customers and Downtown area in a positive way. Mr. Ferrari stated that during the pandemic D&L Loan Company distributed 15,000 stimulus checks that they received at no cost to their customers. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is proud to be a part of the Downtown businesses and hopes the Commission considers this Special Use Permit. Commissioner Sewell asked if D&L Loan Company is working pro bono and how D&L Loan Company justifies doing business, since Mr. Michael Ferrari stated that there are no fees. Michael Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company does charge interest and that he was specifically talking about looking at refund anticipation loans across the board, many of them charge added fees. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company charges zero fees but does charge interest on their loans. Commissioner Sewell asked if interest is charged until the federal payment comes in. Michael Ferrari stated that that was correct. Commissioner Sewell stated that it usually takes about a week for him to get his refund when he files his taxes. Commissioner Sewell then asked how much interest can be charged in a weeks’ time? Michael Ferrari stated that customer is charged very little. Mr. Ferrari stated that it is a daily interest rate. Commissioner Sewell asked what the rates were for 2019-2020 and if they were on the level of a payday loan interest rate or an APR like a credit card. Michael Ferrari stated that the maximum APR rate that New Mexico allows is 175% and that D&L Loan Company charges a max APR of 170%. Mr. Ferrari stated that most of the time customers will file their taxes and a week later will get their money. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Cardon asked if there was anyone present who received a letter or who owns property within 100 feet of the property who would like to speak in favor of this petition. Mitch Burns, 105 N. Orchard Ave., stated that he is present as a property owner and the attorney on behalf of San Juan Title Company. Mr. Burns stated that the first concern he and his client have is the representation that there is plenty of parking is inaccurate. Mr. Burns stated that he has occupied the office space at 105 N. Orchard Ave. since 2007 and during tax time both his private parking lot, as well as San Juan Title’s parking lot becomes completely filled. Mr. Burns stated that since 2007 he and San Juan Title have alternated shifts to monitor parking from 7 am – 5 pm, every day, especially in the later part of January through the month of February, all due to the tax refund businesses that currently exist in the area. Mr. Burns stated that parking is his number one concern; there is not enough parking even if they do use our parking area and it affects his business, as well as San Juan Titles business. Mr. Burns stated that additionally, he is familiar with tax refund loan business and that Mr. Ferrari stated that his business does not take equity. Mr. Burns stated that in his experience tax loan businesses make approximately 28% on the total tax refund in the period of 30 -45 days. Mr. Burns stated that in his opinion the tax loan business are loan sharks praying upon the unsophisticated or financially stressed and they are taking advantage from a financial perspective. Mr. Burns stated that these types of facilities are not legal to operate in many states across the country and that New Mexico doesn’t have specific usury laws and the laws that have the max of 175% only apply unless there is a contract. Mr. Burns stated that he hopes the Commission can read into Mr. Ferrari’s misleading statement that D&L Loan Company does not take equity and does not charge a fee, then Mr. Ferrari states that D&L Loan Company only charges 170% APR, which is absurd and he does not believe D&L Loan Company aligns with the Downtown development that he understand. Mr. Burns concluded that was all he had and that parking was a main concern. Commissioner Sewell asked Mr. Burns where his business is located at and if it is across the street to the south from Thunderbird Tax Company. Mr. Burns stated that his business is located at 105 N. Orchard Ave., the building in the parking lot of San Juan Title, a law firm behind Orchard Park. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that a new business is not being added. The refund anticipation loan business has been there for the last 5 years and even before that with the previous company. Mr. Ferrari stated that he was not trying to hide the interest and when he speaks about equity, he is referring to not taking peoples cars or homes. Patricia Thornton, Office Manager of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that she understands parking is an issue and she would be willing to do anything she can to help with the parking situation. Kathrine Clemmons, 104 E. Main St., Owner of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that she has been working Downtown since 2004. Ms. Clemmons stated that she started working first for M&M Tax before starting her own business in 2015. Ms. Clemmons stated that the reason she decided to start her own business was because she worked under other companies and she had seen people not being treated correctly and being charged with fees, some that were not legal. Ms. Clemmons stated that she partnered with D&L Loan Company because of their values of treating their customers with respect and the least amount of fees. Ms. Clemmons stated that her business is providing services to people who have no other option to make it to payday versus a regular payday loan. Ms. Clemmons stated that she walked down Main Street and counted 3 payday loan businesses in the Central Business District. Ms. Clemmons stated that her customers have options and are not forced into a loan. Ms. Clemmons stated that without D&L Loan Company her company will not survive and she will have to vacate the area, making 42 vacant buildings in the Downtown area. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that they enjoy working with Ms. Clemmons and the types of loans D&L Loan Company offers are not predatory. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is on board to help with parking in the area, willing to work with everyone the best that they can. Nathan Hill, 119 E. Main St., TJ’s Diner, stated that he does not speak in favor of this Special Use Permit for the tax loan business. Mr. Hill stated that he agrees with the Mr. Burns on parking being hard to come by, making it hard for others to come to the Downtown area. Mr. Hill stated that tax loan customers come to his business to use the restrooms, some do spend money, but it is not conducive to anyone else being able to come visit the Downtown area. Mr. Hill stated that there are 5 types of these predatory lenders within 2 blocks of his diner. Mr. Hill stated that while Mr. Ferrari states that his business is not predatory; with interest at 170% it is predatory as far as he is concerned. Mr. Hill stated that the Accutax, Tax Pros, M&M Tax have been there forever, just as he has, and they all try to work together in some regard, but he dreads tax season. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that the term predatory lending, with 170% APR sounding pretty high, New Mexico has one of the lowest rates in the country, but as discussed earlier the interest is charged daily, meaning if taxes are filed and a refund comes in one day later, D&L Loan Company only receives one days interest on that loan. Mr. Ferrari stated that when it comes to the concerns about parking, he understands that everyone is in that space together and D&L Loan Company is on board with helping in any way that they can. Mr. Ferrari stated that he wants to be part of the Downtown community to solve any issues. John McNeill, 3209 Espacio St., Chairman for the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency, stated the MRA is tasked with implementing the 2019 Metropolitan Redevelopment Plan. Throughout this document the emphasis for Downtown redevelopment is on street level boutique, retail, entertainment and hospitality services, with upper story living spaces and occasional offices spaces. The plan states that the land use policy and guidelines pay the strongest role in shaping the physical development of an area by determining aspects such as allowable uses, bulking size, setbacks and even landscaping and sidewalk configurations. The 2019 plan states the growth of the retail, art, entertainment based industry will also displace some nonretail uses that occupy first level retail space on Main Street to second stories or alternative locations on adjacent streets. The Downtown Commercial District is listed in the National Registry of Historic Places; the State of New Mexico has designated a significant portion of Downtown as an Arts and Cultural District in 2018. Of the 116 plus acres in the MRA, only 73 acres are zoned as Central Business District, the allowed uses are listed in the UDC. The purpose is to create a vibrant, walkable and friendly, interesting Downtown with strong retail base encouraging people to explore Main Street. It should be noted that Loan Businesses do not fit this vision and are specifically excluded in this district by the UDC. The existing loan businesses on Main Street were grandfathered in and are not an allowed use, and as they leave their existing locations, by code, a loan business will not be allowed to occupy those spaces. Dr. McNeill stated that MRA commission did not have the advantage of seeing the entire staff report for this application, so the following are my comments to the staff report, the images of the anticipated use of the space do not contribute to the aforementioned desirability of property uses or atmosphere for Main Streets character. Under the staff report titled “Unified Development Code”, the staff report states that loan companies are permitted by right only in General Commercial District, they are allowed in the Local Neighborhood District by a Special Use Permit. Dr. McNeill stated that the zoning in this area is neither General Commercial nor Local Neighborhood Commercial. The opportunity of a Special Use Permit for loan companies in a Central Business District is not an option in the UDC. Contrary to staffs explanation of a blank cell in the UDC property use table, Section 2.3.3 of the UDC states, uses not allowed, a blank cell one without a P or and S indicates that a use type is not allowed in that respective zoning district. Staff then reports that loan companies usually present intensive high traffic conditions compatible with the Central Business District. Dr. McNeill states that if that were the case and loan business met these conditions and were desirable, they would be allowed in the UDC, but they are not. The existing refund loan businesses on the street block mentioned in the staff report are subject to the understanding that they are grandfathered in and are not an allowed use. Staffs assessment that the Special Use Permit for this business is justified by quoting, the purposed use will be consistent with purposes of the UDC, the Comprehensive Plan and any other statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable and will support rather than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone which it is located. This quote says “and” any other statues, ordinance, or polices, not “or” any other statues, ordinance, or polices. It means that use must be consistent with the UDC. This section of the report also states that the Comprehensive Plan also designates this as a Commercial District in the 2020 land use map, this is accurate, and the authors of the Comprehensive Plan did not take into consideration that the Central Business Zone even exists. The UDC reference table is current as of 2020 and not only does it not allow loan businesses in this area, it does not allow for Special Use Permits either. Relying on the Comprehensive Plan to allow for a loan business to be located in the Downtown core is questionable at best. The only comment received from an effected local business by letter references the UDC designation that this is not an allowed business in this district. Dr. McNeill states that as Ms. Escobar noted that a vote of 3-2 the MRA disagrees with the staff’s conclusion that this application meets with the intent with the Central Business District zoning. Dr. McNeill stated that as a result, he respectfully requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of this application. Commissioner Sewell asked Dr. McNeill if he was speaking on behalf of the MRA and what the MRA Board agreed upon or if Dr. McNeill was speaking on behalf of himself. Dr. McNeill, MRA Chair, stated that the comments about the business not being appropriate by designation by the UDC were brought up at the MRA meeting. The specific responses to the staff report are made of my own because the staff report was not available to us at the MRA meeting. The vote was taken with a majority of members not supporting this application because it was not part of the UDC. Commissioner Brown stated that Dr. McNeill mentioned a letter and if Dr. McNeill was referring to the letter from Mr. Silva included in the packet. Dr. McNeill, MRA Chair, stated that that was correct. Michael Ferrari, D&L Loan Company, stated that D&L Loan Company is inside of a business that has been in existence for 5 years and nothing new is added to what is already in place. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is a small office in the back of Thunderbird Tax, also stating that they are 100 feet from where tax loan businesses are allowed. Mr. Ferrari stated that D&L Loan Company is in the area now and the business does bring money into the downtown area. Mr. Ferrari mentions collaboration with Downtown businesses and opening their restrooms to the public to ease the problem of customers going to other businesses to use the restroom. Mr. Ferrari states that he would like to work together and be inclusive with the other businesses and should D&L Loan Company vacate the Downtown area, there are still other businesses offering that same services in the area. Commissioner Sewell asked if D&L Loan Company is a third company applying for a business license. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that D&L Loan Company is proposing to offer loan services at the back of the Thunderbird Tax building and there is not a third company. Chair Cardon asked if D&L Loan Company has a business license and if there are three business licenses. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Thunderbird Tax has an existing business license and when Thunderbird Tax divested from the existing loan business and partnered with D&L Loan Company, D&L Loan Company then applied for a business license which triggered this process. The Planning Division does zoning verifications for all business license applications. Commissioner Sewell asked if D&L Loan Company is the one applying for the business license and if the seating presented is for D&L Loan Company customers. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that the seating is for D&L Loan Company customers. Commissioner Sewell then asked if once the customer is done at Thunderbird Tax, if they then go to a second business to receive a refund tax loan. Associate Planner Alvarado stated that the customer would have to come through a door that separates D&L Loan Company and Thunderbird Tax. Commissioner Sewell stated that he sees one restroom on the layout sketch provided and asked if the restroom is available to customers. Patricia Thornton, Office Manager of Thunderbird Tax Company, stated that yes, they do not have any problem offering public restrooms for their customers. Commissioner Waldroup stated that he is torn on this Special Use Permit application and how the UDC is stated and Dr. McNeill’s explanation of the vision for Downtown. Chair Cardon stated that Planning and Zoning Commission always upholds the law, there is compassion and empathy for all of our citizens and that is why everyone is welcome to go through the application process. Chair Cardon then stated that the Planning and Zoning uses the UDC to guide their decision. Chair Cardon stated that a Special Use Permit is in place to offset the UDC and to be a bridge for the Planning and Zoning Commission and citizens. Chair Cardon asked staff about the allotted parking, where it is located and how it’s controlled. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Central Business District has no parking requirements. It is assumed that you will park in the street or in public parking. Planning Manger Escobar stated that as Mr. Ferrari did state that he is willing to work with San Juan Title and Mr. Burns on the issue with parking. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there was an interested party that just signed in via Zoom, who would like to speak. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is up to the Commission if they would like to open up the public hearing. Chair Cardon stated the commission would accept the call. Charles Todd, 108 N. Orchard Ave., stated he knows that Thunderbird Tax and D&L Loan Company are just trying to make a living, but he has hoped that the overtime the character of Downtown would change. Mr. Todd stated that the sewer lines of Thunderbird Tax and D&L Loan Company office are tied to his businesses sewer line. Mr. Todd stated that an influx in usage has cause issues in years past. Chair Cardon closed the public comments and asks if there is a commissioner prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Brown makes a motion to deny SUP 20-38, and a second from Commissioner Waldroup. Roll was called to state the reason for denial by each commissioner. Commissioner Waldroup stated that because of what the UDC states, with loan companies not being an allowable use, as well as the input made by the MRA Board. Commissioner Brown stated that MRA advisement and the UDC are his reason for voting to deny. Chair Cardon stated her vote to deny the application was because of the business inside a business and now getting a business license, the issue of parking and the UDC. Commissioner Ragsdale stated her vote to deny was dues to the improvements being made and this not aligning with those improvements. Commissioner Sewell stated that his reason for voting to deny because it is not allowed in the area by the UCD. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mr. Ferrari has asked to speak again and she would advise that it is not appropriate to allow this at this point in the meeting. Chair Cardon stated that the commission would not accept any further public comments. On the motion to recommend the denial of SUP 20-38 a recommendation for DENIAL a roll call was taken and passed by a vote of 5-0. This application will move forward for consideration to City Council October 13, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: Commissioner Waldroup asked in regards to the non- conforming business Downtown, if there would just have to be a change before something is done. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the current businesses would have to vacate or expand by more than 30%. Business from Staff: Planning Manger Escobar stated that she would like to thank the Commission for input on the sign ordinance and recommendations made to Council. Action was not taken and was tabled until the October 15, 2020 council meeting. Adjournment: With no further business and a motion by Commissioner Sewell and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 24, 2020 was adjourned at 4:33 p.m. A roll call vote was taken and this motion was approved by a 5-0 vote. ____________________________ _____________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 20-49 – Wireless Telecommunications Facility, including a 65-foot high monopole on City owned property at NE corner of Pinion Hills and College Blvd, 5676 College Blvd A. STAFF REPORT, October 29, 2020 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Gravity Pad Partners II, LLC Representative Kevin Winner Date of September 30, 2020 Application Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow for construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility, including a 65- foot monopole on City-owned property Location 5676 College Blvd – NE Corner of Pinon Hills and College Blvd Existing Land Porter Arroyo Detention Pond Use Existing Zoning SF-10 Single Family Residential Surrounding North: SF-10 –Federal Land Zoning & Land South: LNC – Local Neighborhood Commercial, Undeveloped Use East: S-10– Piedra Vista High School West: OP – Office Professional – Offices and vacant land Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, October 11, 2020. Property owners within 1000 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, October 7 2020. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, October 16, 2020. Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to construct a wireless communication facility on City-owned property at 5676 College Blvd. The applicant is requesting to lease an approximately 2,500 square-foot, 50 foot by 50 foot square of land, at the southwest corner of a 40.99-acre parcel owned by the City of Farmington. The facility will include a monopole, proposed to be 65 feet in height. The proposed monopole 1  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility is expandable up to 85 feet to allow for colocation of carriers. The maximum height allowable for a monopole on this property would be 150 feet. The perimeter of the facility, including the monopole and supporting mechanical equipment, is proposed to be secured with a wrought iron gate and fence. The applicant, Gravity Pad Towers II, LLC is a New Mexico company. They acquire the property and construct the facility and then lease to wireless providers. Per Mr. Kevin Winner of Gravity Pad Towers II, LLC this additional facility is needed to address capacity demands for the region. Figure 1. Aerial View The property is bounded on the east by Piedra Vista High School. Property to the north and south is undeveloped, with office buildings to the west. Proposed location of wireless facility 2  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility Facility Elevations 3  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility Site Plan 4  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Figure 3. Future Land Use Plan The subject property is designated as Residential Single Family Urban The existing zoning to the south and west is not in alignment with the Future Land Use Plan. The draft Future Land Use Plan for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan does not envision single- family residential development at this busy intersection. X 5  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility Unified Development Code (UDC) The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. Telecommunication towers and facilities are allowed by right in the IND, Industrial Zone and by special use permit in all other zoning districts. 2.4.56 Telecommunications facilities. (Other use categories; utilities). Telecommunications facilities, including commercial towers, broadcast towers, point-to- point microwave towers, antennas and wireless communication facilities and related facilities shall comply with the standards of this section. Section 2.4.56.A of the UDC outlines the purpose of the regulations in relation to Telecommunication Facilities: Purpose. These regulations are intended to provide for the development of telecommunications facilities to the community while: 1. Protecting residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers and antennas; 2. Encouraging the location of wireless facilities in nonresidential areas; 3. Minimizing the total number of wireless communication-sites throughout the community; 4. Encouraging the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option rather than the construction of single-use towers; 5. Encouraging the users of towers and antennas to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact upon the community is minimal; 6. Encouraging users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques; 7. Enhancing the ability of the service providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently; 8. Considering the public health and safety associated with wireless communication facilities; and 9. Avoiding potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through proper engineering and careful siting of tower structures. In the furtherance of these goals the city shall give due consideration to the comprehensive plan. 6  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility UDC 8.9. A. Special Use Permits: A. Except as provided herein or specified in the conditions of a special use permit, ownership of a special use permit is not transferrable. However, special use permits associated with nonresidential uses are transferrable. If this SUP was approved, it could transfer to another owner, carrier or tenant. 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 a 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. The criteria for approval is 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 and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The proposed tower shall be required to be setback at least the height of the tower from the property boundaries and any existing infrastructure. The facility shall be required to be secured with fencing. Installation of telecommunications facilities is regulated through the Federal Communication Commission. Section 332.c.(7) of the Communications Act prohibits local municipalities from basing land use decisions on perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. 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. At the current time, this property, and properties to the south and north are undeveloped. There is a new dental office to the west across College Blvd. More offices may develop in this area in the future. Areas to the north are federal lands and may never develop. 7  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility The intersection of Pinon Hills and College Blvd has an average daily traffic count of 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles. 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. There are no anticipated negative impacts foreseen from operation of the proposed wireless communication facility. There are single-family residences approximately 1,110 feet to the northeast. The Windsor Hills Subdivision is located 1,500 feet to the south. The La Mesa Grande Subdivision is located approximately 3,500 feet to the southeast. Per Section 2.4.56.J, the applicant shall be required to landscape around the ground facility to provide screening. Per Section 2.4.56.E (1), towers shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and camouflaging. The 65-foot high monopole is proposed to be galvanized steel, which will rust naturally over time. The Planning and Zoning Commission may want to consider a stealth design for the monopole. 8  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 9  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 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. No concerns have been submitted by the utility review agencies or the police or fire department. There are existing water and wastewater lines on the parcel. The proposed lease area location should not conflict with existing infrastructure. This will be verified during building permit review. Detention Pond 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 than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan indicates this area is appropriate for single- family development, however, current zoning supports low-impact commercial development to the west and south. With the large drainage feature crossing the City-owned property it is unlikely single-family residential development will occur on the City owned property. Objective 11.1 of the 2002 City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan: Support maintenance and development of quality utilities and infrastructure. 10  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility Wireless communication facilities are considered important infrastructure since this has become the basis of the majority of business, education and personal interaction. F. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required 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. This parcel is 40.99 acres. The proposed lease area is 2,500 square feet. The property is sufficient in size to support the proposed infrastructure. 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 has been submitted with the proposal that complies with the standards of Section 8.5. Unified Development Code – Section 2.4.56.C Special submission requirements The following additional review criteria is required for Telecommunication Facilities: Section 2.4.56.C.8 Distance to other towers There are existing towers located on a bluff north of Pinon Hills Blvd approximately 6,700 feet to the west, at Pinon Hills Golf Course, approximately 7,300 feet to the southwest, and along Main Street at Country Club Drive, approximately 5,600 feet to the southeast and at the intersection of Main and Pinon Hills, approximately 9,000 feet to the east. Additional requirements of Section 2.4.56 are addressed in recommended stipulations. 11  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility Nearby existing tower locations 12  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 20-49 is appropriate. The location shall have minimum impact on the surrounding commercial properties. The application meets the criteria for approval of a Special Use Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 20-49, a request from Kevin Winner, Gravity Pad Partners II, for a wireless telecommunication facility to be located at 5676 College Blvd., R2001310, subject to the following conditions: 1. A lease agreement between the City of Farmington and Gravity Pad Partners, II shall be recorded prior to submittal of a building permit. 2. Prior to submittal of a building permit, preliminary drawings shall be submitted to the Water/Wastewater division to ensure there are no conflicts with existing utility infrastructure. 3. Prior to the submittal of a building permit, the following certifications shall be submitted: a. Carrier to be located on the facility is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission b. No existing sites currently reasonably meet the needs of the applicant c. All other sites within 25 miles used by the Carrier current comply with all federal regulations. d. Any other sites used by the carrier within City limits comply with colocation requirements. 4. Fencing around the facility shall be solid and a minimum of 6 feet in height to provide full screening. 5. A landscape plan in compliance with Section 5.5.7 of the Uniform Development Code shall be submitted with the building permit application. Landscaping shall include: a. Two trees and 3 shrubs along each side of leased area. b. Landscaping shall be of a height to provide sufficient screening of the telecommunication ground mounted equipment. 6. Towers and antennae shall be removed, at the owner’s expense, within 180 days of the discontinuance of use unless the City extends this time in writing. 13  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY SUP 20-49 PINON HILLS BLVD. & COLLEGE BLVD. City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers No Comment CW Long Range Planner CW MPO CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird Customer Care Manager – L. ELEC Richardson Electrical Engineering – L Aligarbes / ELEC No Comment Roberto Ga ELEC T & D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega No Comment LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne No Comment POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell PRCA S. Reeves / R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW The property is not undeveloped; it is Porter City Engineer – N. Westerling Arroyo Detention Pond. There is storm water crossing College in this vicinity. Engineering – T. Sitta No Comment CW CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – I. BlueEyes The W/WW Dept. would like to review a CW preliminary plan of the development to make Water/Waste Water – M. Tso sure that there is no conflict with the existing water and sewer line in the area and or easement conflicts. Other Entities 14  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons 15  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 16  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 17  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 18  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 19  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 20  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 21  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 22  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 23  City of Farmington SUP 20-49 Gravity Partners II, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility 24  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 20-50 Special Use Permit to allow for the keeping of two horses in the SF-7, Single-family Residential District at 6001 Pryor Lane A. STAFF REPORT, October 29, 2020 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Jack Smalley Representative Date of September 30, 2020 Application Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow for the keeping of two horses on a 2-acre parcel Location 6001 Pryor Lane (R0026751) Existing Land Use Residential Existing Zoning SF-7, Single-family Residential Surrounding North: SF-7, Single-family Residential Zoning & Land South: SF-7, Single-family Residential Use East: SF-7, Single-family Residential West: SF-7, Single-family Residential Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, October 11, 2020. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, October 7, 2020 and a sign was posted on Friday, October 16, 2020. Staff Planner Francisco Alvarado, Associate Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant, Jack Smalley, is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for the keeping of two horses on his 2-acre parcel. The petitioner has been granted two special use permits for this property in the past. The most recent one, SUP 14-12, expired in 2019. The applicant would like to renew the permit for another five (5) years.  City of Farmington 2 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane Figure 1. Aerial View San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that there is a one-story house and three accessory structures at this location. Seven parcels surround the property. Four of them, ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 acres in size, and one 0.5-acre parcel, have developed as single-family residences. A 5-acre parcel to the southwest remains undeveloped. An additional 0.8-acre parcel to the northeast is owned and used by the neighbor to the east to keep horses. Horses were also identified on the adjacent property to the southeast.  City of Farmington 3 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane Figure 2. Sketch Plan – Proposed Development  City of Farmington 4 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Figure 3. 2020 Land Use Plan Subject Property Pinon Hills The subject property is designated as Residential Single Family Urban (less than 20,000 square feet per lot). Applicable Codes The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. SUP’s associated with residential uses are not transferable. Per Section 8.9.A of the Unified Development Code (UDC), “except as provided herein or specified in the conditions of a special use permit, ownership of a special use permit is not transferable. Per Section 2.4.7.A.1 of the UDC, the keeping of animals or fowl in this district shall require a special use permit. UDC Section 11.1 allows one horse per acre. Further, Section 2.4.7.D states that “adequate fencing, screening or separation from adjoining premises shall be provided based upon the type, number and size of animals or fowl for protection of the animals or fowl; protection of the public; and for control of dust, noise, odors or similar nuisance factors.” Also, the use shall be maintained in compliance with Section 6-4-2 of the Municipal Code: (a) No person who is the owner, tenant or person in possession and control of any stable, corral, lot, pasture, stall, shed, apartment, yard or premises in the city in which any animal, including but not limited to horses, cows, livestock, domestic fowl, dogs, cats and all other animals, is kept or maintained shall allow the accumulation of manure, water, moisture, animal droppings or liquid discharges of such animal which create a stench or emit offensive odors or which are otherwise injurious to the public health and safety. However, nothing in this  City of Farmington 5 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane section shall be construed to include temporary manure deposits upon any private property for the purpose of fertilizing or composting. (b) Stalls or stables, corrals, lots or pastures shall be kept sprayed with disinfectant to kill germs and to prevent the premises from becoming a breeding place for flies, mosquitoes or other insects. (c) The park ranger-animal control supervisor and all park ranger-animal control officers are authorized to go into or upon and inspect the premises of kennels and pet stores, during regular business hours, to determine compliance with this section. Failure to comply is a petty misdemeanor. Special Use Permit History On September 9, 2014, the petitioner received approval of Petition SUP 14-12 to keep two horses on the subject property. Figure 4. Petition SUP 14-12 Code Compliance Records The Code Compliance Division received a complaint from a neighbor that the petitioner had not been following the conditions of the SUP that was in place. The main complaint was that the resident at 6001 Pryor Lane had not been picking up the manure daily, was not providing a decent shelter for the animals, and was not keeping the animals away from the complainant’s property next door. The sketch plan indicates that horses would have access to approximately 35,280 square feet. This seems to ignore SUP 14-12 condition ‘A' regarding a buffer fence 30 feet from the south property line.  City of Farmington 6 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane A comment made by the Chief Building Official confirms that, per SUP 14-12, “the required buffer fence is not present. A large amount of manure is building up along the south fence adjoining the property to the south.” 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 and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The petitioner has had horses continuously at this location since SUP 06-07 was granted in 2006. Subsequently, SUP 14-12 was approved in 2014. If SUP 20-50 moves forward, the applicant will be strictly subject to the regulations contained in Section 6-4-2 of the Municipal Code and additional conditions imposed herein to resolve the complaint on file. 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 proposed use is harmonious with the character of the neighborhood. The majority of the surrounding properties are over one acre in size. Additionally, two adjacent properties are currently keeping horses. 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. Through enforcement of the conditions of approval, the City regulations, and the petitioner’s due diligence, the existing complaint should be mitigated and no negative impact to the neighborhood should remain. 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. The proposed use should have no impact on existing infrastructure. 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  City of Farmington 7 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable, and will support rather than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The 2020 Land Use Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the area of this request and neighborhood as single-family residential with lots of less than 20,000 square feet. The area of the subject property is 2 acres in size. Horse-keeping is allowed in a residential setting subject to obtaining a special use permit. The use is subject to the standards of Section 2.4.7 of the UDC, as well as Section 6-4-2 of the Municipal Code. F. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required 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. According to Section 11.1 of the UDC, a 2-acre lot is recommended to be adequate for up to two animal units. The petitioner requests to keep two horses. One horse equals one animal unit per acre. 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. Site plan review requirements only apply to non-residential and multi-family development. The applicant has provided a sketch of his plans for this use. The sketch plan indicates that horses would have access to approximately 35,280 square feet. This seems to ignore SUP 14-12 condition ‘A' regarding a buffer fence 30 feet from the south property line. To be in compliance, a buffer fence shall be installed. Additionally, the sketch plan proposes a shelter about 150 feet from the property to the south. This will address the complaint that horses did not have a shelter. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 20-50 is appropriate with conditions. The property is 2 acres and is surrounded by other 1.1-1.6 acre parcels. The applicant needs to mitigate the impact of the horses by installing a shelter and buffer fence, and removing waste. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 20-50, a request from Jack Smalley to keep two horses on his 2-acre parcel located at 6001 Pryor Lane (R0026751) subject to the following conditions and UDC requirements: 1. A buffer fence 30 feet from the south property line, as well as a shelter, shall be installed within thirty (30) days following approval of this petition.  City of Farmington 8 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane 2. Building permits for the development and/or improvements of the subject property are required. 3. The horses will use the pasture south of the buffer fence under supervision only. 4. Manure building up along the south fence adjoining the property to the south shall be removed within thirty (30) days following approval of this petition. 5. The property will have to be properly maintained to avoid manure smell from overaccumulation. 6. The number of horses kept on the subject property is limited to two (2). 7. The SUP shall apply only to the property owner, Jack Smalley, for property located at 6001 Pryor Lane. 8. The permit being approved for a period of five years beginning on the City Council approval day will automatically expire unless an extension is requested at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the five-year period. 9. Pursuant to UDC 8.9.3(H) Revocation of a special use permit process, the special use permit may be revoked by this section whenever: (1) It is determined that a use of property for which a special use permit has been granted is not being conducted within the terms of the special use permit including [section] 8.9.4 special use criteria; that such use has been allowed to accumulate litter or debris, to be a public nuisance, to an attractive nuisance to children, or to attract vagrants, criminals or public intoxication; or is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) Before the special use has commenced, and it is determined that such special use is not in the public interest; or (3) The owner of the property affected petitions for revocation.  City of Farmington 9 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane  City of Farmington 10 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane  City of Farmington 11 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane  City of Farmington 12 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane  City of Farmington 13 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane  City of Farmington 14 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane  City of Farmington 15 SUP 20-50, 6001 Pryor Lane  Memo To: Planning Commissioners From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: October 15, 2020 Subject: Discussion with City Engineer Regarding Proposed Changes to the UDC At the September 10, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the Unified Development Code. The Commission requested input from the Engineering Division on two specific proposed changes: 5.3.3.A.3 Driveways and Gravel minimum for driveways for Paving requirement adds parking lot access replacement Mobile and cost burden that may prevent Manufactured Homes upgrade/replacement of pre 1976 units 5.3.3 Driveways and parking lot access. All driveways and parking lot entrances and exits shall be subject to the approval of the Director or designee and the following requirements: A. Paving requirements. All required parking areas must be connected to a public street or alley by means of a driveway or private access easement. All driveways providing access to such parking areas shall be paved, except as follows: (1) In the RA district, RE-1 district, RE-2 district and RE-20 district, driveways shall be: a. Surfaced with a minimum of four inches of gravel road base, and b. Have a paved apron ten feet in depth and the width of driveways adjoining paved streets. 5.7.3.B.5 Supplementary New construction shall incorporate To prevent accumulated drainage requirements on-site first flush retention sanitary solids and pollutants practices from entering stormwater system per the City’s Stormwater Management Plan B. Design. Drainage improvements shall be designed in accordance with the following standards: (1) A New Mexico-registered engineer shall design and certify drainage improvements.  (2) Adequate provision for short- and long-term ownership, maintenance, and operation of the storm water management system shall be required. (3) Where water velocities may reasonably be expected to cause erosion problems, satisfactory means shall be provided to prevent such erosion, including concrete head walls and wing walls where conditions require. (4) Water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters. (5) New construction shall incorporate on-site ‘first flush’ retention best practices. A representative from the Engineering Division will be at the October 15th meeting to discuss the Commissions questions and concerns.