Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive June 24, 2021 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the June 10, 2021 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition ZC 21-36 – 5300 Old Kirtland Highway. - a request from Hector Rangel, property owner, to rezone a 3.40-acre parcel from LNC – Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC – General Commercial to allow for development of a Recreational Vehicle Park. Property is currently vacant. (Beth Escobar) 5 Petition ZC 21-37 – SW Corner of E. Pinon Hills Boulevard and Main Street - a request from Speedway LLC to rezone portion of R0037866 to GC – General Commercial so parcels can be combined. (Beth Escobar) 6 Petition SUP 21-40 – 5402 Cleone Place - a request from Brandon and Amy Bailey, property owners, for a Special Use Permit to allow for two horses on a 2.76-acre parcel located at 5402 Cleone Place. (Beth Escobar) 7 Petition PP 21-25 – Ridgeway Subdivision No. 4 - a request from Darrell and Michaela Martinez, represented by Bob Echols, C-W-E, for Preliminary Plan review of a 19-lot, one-tract, subdivision located in the City of Farmington. (Beth Escobar) 8 Business From: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 9 Adjournment The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 13, 2021. 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. Page 1  Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission June 10, 2021 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on June 10, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Chair-Joyce Cardon Ryan Brown Shay Davis Elizabeth Lockmiller Cheryl Ragsdale Gary Smouse P&Z Members Absent: Vice Chair Freeman Mitch Sewell Cody Waldroup Staff Present: Ellen Wayne Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Others Who Addressed the Commission: Jeffrey Rendall Kandice Cochrane Robert McEwan Jerome Chavez Tiana Chavez Robert Fate Roberta Fate Chris Conley Hollee Fuller Angela Bentley 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. Approval of the Agenda The motion was made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the agenda of the June 10, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Page 2 Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. 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 the listed agenda items. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed changes to the Unified Development Code, Sections 2.4.7 - Animals or Fowl and Article 11 - Definitions limiting the number of fowl to be allowed on properties in the RA, Rural Agriculture District, within the City of Farmington Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following PowerPoint presentation: Proposed Changes to the Rural Agricultural District Background ◦ Staff has been directed by City Council to propose revisions to the regulations pertaining to the keeping of fowl on property zoned Rural Agriculture. ◦ Response to a property within the City generating complaints based on having an excess of roosters. ◦ The Rural Agricultural District is intended to protect agricultural uses within an urbanized area. Crops and livestock are permitted to be produced to be sold, however no sales are allowed on the property. ◦ Zoning regulations from similar municipalities in New Mexico and Arizona are not consistent related to the keeping of chickens specifically and urban agriculture generally in these communities. ◦ Roosters are a common source of complaints. Analysis ◦ USDA recommendations ◦ For agricultural uses, the recommended ratio of roosters to hens is 1 to 10. Roosters tend to fight amongst themselves more if the number of hens falls below 10. ◦ Chickens can live up to 10 years ◦ It takes chickens six weeks to mature, either for hens to produce eggs or there being enough meat on the bird to slaughter. ◦ People, and dogs, can consume 1 – 2 chickens a week on average. ◦ People may choose to raise fowl for the eggs, as a source of food, or to market off-site. Page 3  ◦ The allowance for all fowl in the Rural Agricultural District is based on a ratio of 0.02 to the size of the property. A two acre property would be permitted to have 100 fowl. ◦ To determine a fair maximum, staff reviewed the USDA standards and tried to balance the number allowed with a reasonable use. Public Input ◦ Notification of this meeting were sent to 173 private property owners ◦ Proposed changes are to the Rural Agricultural District (RA) only ◦ This is not the forum to discuss specific properties ◦ Input is being sought from the property owners of RA zoned property on the proposed changes ◦ If changes are adopted to the UDC, properties not in conformance would receive legal, non-conforming status. These properties could be brought into compliance with the new code through attrition. Options ◦ Maximum number of fowl on a RA property could be lowered ◦ Maximum could be calculated by a fixed amount per property ◦ Maximum could be calculated by an amount based on property size ◦ No changes could be recommended Proposed Changes 2.4.7 Animals or fowl. (Other use categories, agriculture use). Page 4  ◦ Keeping or raising animals or fowl shall comply with the standards of this section. ◦ A. Within the residential agricultural (RA) district, the keeping of animals or fowl in accordance with the recommended animal unit capacity per acre is permitted by right. ◦ B. The number of animal units allowed per acre/property in the residential agricultural (RA) district shall be determined by using the recommended animal unit capacity provided in the definition of animal unit in Article 11, definitions. ◦ C. In the RA district, all fowl shall be contained within shelters which mitigate sound transference to adjacent properties. ◦ D. Additional numbers of fowl may be permitted through a Special Use Permit. Section 11 – Definitions ◦ Fowl: Chickens, broiler or layer, Geese, ducks, swans, turkeys, peafowl ◦ Maximum allowed – not more than 22 per property with a ratio of 1 male to 10 females. OR ◦ Maximum allowed – not more than 44 per property with a ratio of 1 male to 10 females. OR ◦ Fowl: Maximum allowed – not more than 22 per acre with a ratio of 1 male to 10 females. OR ??? Planning Manager Escobar handed the following email copies to all Commissioners present: Page 5 Discussion Planning Manager Escobar stated the property that began this discussion is currently an active court case and asked the audience not to have specific comments regarding said property, but just speak in general of what their feelings are. Commissioner Davis asked Planning Manager Escobar if there are modifications to Unified Development Code (UDC) and properties are grandfathered in, how would the number of chickens be validated on the grandfathered properties. Planning Manager Escobar stated that validation would combine active research from the Planning Division and Code Enforcement. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if during a drive by inspection by Code Enforcement or the Planning Division, should there be potential issues, the property owner would be called and a site visit would be setup. Page 6 Commissioner Brown asked Planning Manager Escobar if there was a registry or data base of property owners who own chickens. Planning Manager Escobar stated that currently there is not a registry or data base with that information. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there are other cities that require permits for chickens due to health concerns, such as flus and viruses, but that the City of Farmington does not require a permit at this time. Commissioner Davis asked if there is a trend issue with the number of fowl in this specific Rural Agricultural (RA) district or is this one single property that has brought about revisions to the UDC. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is due to the single property. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the changes for fowl in residential districts were adopted April 1, 2021, since that time there have not been any complaints. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the case with this single property was extreme, with 2.25 acres, the property had 167 roosters and the neighborhood has concerns. Planning Manager Escobar clarified that 167 fowl on the property were a mix of chickens and roosters. Chair Cardon asked if there have been any health issues identified at this time. Planning Manager Escobar stated no, there are no health issues or animal cruelty issues identified at this time. Commissioner Brown asked if the number of fowl on the single property was in line with the current code. Planning Manager Escobar stated no, the number of fowl on the property was not in line with the current code, which is the reason for the current court case. Commissioner Ragsdale asked if per acre, property owners are allowed to have 100 fowl. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a property owner may have 100 fowl per 2 acres, 50 fowl per acre. Commissioner Brown asked why the code is being changed for everyone for this one issue and just not resolving this one issue. Planning Manager Escobar stated that City Council wanted to have the discussion because in some cases there may be residents that would hesitate to file a code complaint or some may have the maximum number of fowl with no complaints. Planning Manager Escobar stated that this is a fact finding meeting to see if this is a global issue, a local issue or a street issue. Chair Cardon opened the discussion to public. Page 7 Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant, swore in witnesses that wished to speak. Chair Cardon reminded the public that anything regarding the property with the pending court case, only feelings regarding the property may be spoken. Jeffery Rendall, 4703 West Hopi Street, stated Planning Manager Escobar’s information regarding fowl was setup through inaccurate information, such as the six weeks maturity age for a chicken. Mr. Rendall stated that it does take 18-26 weeks to bring a chicken to maturity; the number for a family of four consuming four chickens per week would be a continues stream of chickens. Mr. Rendall stated that he had some trouble finding the ratio in the current ordinance and would like to know how the ratio is calculated. Mr. Rendall stated that roosters are not needed to have eggs or meat and it seems to him that this is a nuisance issue and not a change of ordinance issue and should be handled by Code Enforcement. Mr. Rendall stated that he feels that the information presented is inaccurate and feels that there should not be a change to the current ordinance with inaccurate information. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she would like to thank Mr. Rendall for his comments and the research for the information that was presented was pulled from the USDA website. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the information presented did not affect the numbers that are being brought forward in the change to the UDC. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the 0.02 is found in Article 11 of the UDC and it is a ratio, dividing the size of the property by the ratio. Mr. Rendall stated that the ratio is based on a 1,000 pound cow which gets a ratio of 1, so the 0.02 for a chicken would mean that he could have 50,000 chickens on his acreage and based on range land, not applying to a RA district in town. Planning Manager Escobar stated that these ratios are in the City’s UDC and it is the City’s practice to calculate the ratio accordingly. Planning Manager Escobar then stated that it is possible that staff may need to look at those ratios based on the information that was heard from Mr. Rendall. Kandice Cochrane, 2500 Riverside Drive, stated that she agrees with what Mr. Rendall covered. Ms. Cochrane stated that she feels that the calculations are archaic. Ms. Cochrane stated her neighborhood has parcels anywhere from 2-10 acres, with other RA districts in Farmington having anywhere up to 23 acres per parcel, making the calculation archaic and 2-10 acre property owners should be treated the same as 23 acre property owners. Ms. Cochrane stated that she believes more research needs to be done. Ms. Cochrane stated that rooster is not even listed in the definition of fowl and according to the City Attorney if something is not listed in an ordinance then it is not an issue, so she feels that the issue of roosters is still not being addressed. Ms. Cochrane stated that the RA definition states that these rules apply to parcels over 5 acres and that the neighborhood doesn’t even really fall within the definition. Ms. Cochrane stated Page 8 that she believes this is a nuisance issue and all the issues brought forth need to be addressed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that roosters are a male chicken and it is covered in the definition of fowl. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she appreciates all the information being brought forward and it will be taken into consideration. Robert McEwan, 1080 Highway 371, stated that his location was annexed recently. Mr. McEwan stated that a large number of wildlife animals near his property that take refuge on his property. Mr. McEwan stated that he does not want to be in any legal situation for any reason for the wildlife that takes refuge on his property. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the regulation would apply to domestic fowl only and not wild fowl. Jerome Chavez, 2500 Ridgeview Drive, stated that he has raised chickens his entire life and it takes chickens at least 18-20 weeks to be mature enough to lay eggs or consume. Mr. Chavez stated that he is the owner of the property that is currently involved with the open court case. Mr. Chavez stated that he wants to clarify some questions that were brought up. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she would like to caution Mr. Chavez and remind him that this is a public meeting and anything said at this meeting is public record. Mr. Chavez stated that he understands. Mr. Chavez stated that he and his daughters do have many food allergies and that is the reason they raise chickens to eat. Mr. Chavez stated that according to Ms. Escobar’s presentation, it states that a family of four should be consuming two chickens per week, but a family of four should be consuming about 400 chickens. Mr. Chavez stated that he has been working diligently with Code Compliance and there are no longer 167 chickens on his property and the numbers are down to 100 fowl, with a mix of roosters and hens. Mr. Chavez stated that he cannot determine what hatches, what comes out of the egg is what comes out of the egg and that is what is consumed. Mr. Chavez stated that he does not want his property to affect anyone else’s property. Tiana Chavez, 2500 Ridgeview Drive, stated that her property is currently involved with the open court case. Mrs. Chavez stated that if the code is changed it would affect not only who lives in the area today, but also who lives in the area in the future. Mrs. Chavez stated that her property is in compliance now. Mrs. Chavez stated that there are other animals in the neighborhood and you can’t tell them when they can and cannot make noise. Mrs. Chavez stated that she would like for people to understand and have respect for her and her family’s way of life, that her family chose this home to live in specifically for the way it was zoned. Mrs. Chavez asked that everyone be open minded and understand that she and her family are doing the best that they can. Page 9 Robert Fate, 2504 Ridgeview Drive, stated that he feels that this is a noise issue. Mr. Fate stated that he and his family are generally woken by the roosters by 4:00 am; the roosters make noise all day long until about sundown. Mr. Fate stated that the property in question was out of compliance at one time and Code Compliance has not tested the noise levels since, due to the ongoing court case. Mr. Fate stated that he suspects that the property probably is currently not in compliance, since the noise levels have not been tested recently. Mr. Fate stated that this is a quality of life issue for this neighborhood that is suffering from excessive noise. Mr. Fate asked the commission to come out to the neighborhood and sit for five minutes to see what their thoughts are. Mr. Fate stated that he does want to affect larger properties and limit fowl per acre, but is concerned about the excessive noise and number of roosters in relation to the overall number of fowl. Roberta Fate, 2504 Ridgeview Drive, stated that she would like to make clear that she does not have a problem with number of chickens, but does have a problem with number of roosters. Mrs. Fate stated that she does not want to mess up the RA zoning for anyone, but also does not want other residents of the neighborhood to mess it up for the entire neighborhood. Mrs. Fate stated that there are 26 properties in the neighborhood, a little over 46 acres, averaging out to less than 2 acers per property, with two properties that are over 5 acres. Mrs. Fate stated that the properties in the neighborhood are close to one another, which creates a problem when there is a noise issue. Mrs. Fate stated that she agrees with her husband, Mr. Fate, that the sound level has not been tested again due to the ongoing court case. Mrs. Fate stated that she was woken at 4:02 am this morning by the noise. Mrs. Fate played a recording of a rooster crowing and stated that this is the noise she hears for 16 hours per day. Mrs. Fate stated that the she believes the reason that there is a noise issue is because the roosters are tethered or are in single houses and not allowed contact with one another. Mrs. Fate stated that she does have a degree in Agricultural, and when birds are being raised to eat, you can purchase straight run chickens, which are the least expensive to purchase because they have not been sexed. Mrs. Fate stated that statistically you will get 50% male and 50% female, which does not matter in a meat growing situation. Mrs. Fate stated that she does own two roosters and they coexist with her chickens’ just fine. Mrs. Fate asked that the number of roosters per hen be evaluated. Mrs. Fate stated that she is not trying to change the RA zoning, just the rooster issue and would appreciate any help with that issue. Chris Conley, 2601 Riverside Drive, stated limiting the number of fowl is ridiculous and that it is the rooster issue. Mr. Conley stated that there needs to be clarification on the difference between a layer, a broiler, rooster and hen. Mr. Conley stated that straight run or pullets, pullets are all sexed and all female, could be ordered. Mr. Conley agreed that if you are growing your own chickens, then yes you do get what you get. Mr. Conley stated that his daughter does raise chickens for 4H and should the 44 per acre be implemented it would negate his daughters 4H setup. Mr. Conley stated that limiting the number of fowl effects a lot of people, creating more problems than it would resolve; the whole issue is based upon roosters. Mr. Conley stated that the one rooster to ten hen ratio seems acceptable. Mr. Conley stated that the roosters that his daughter raises for Page 10 consumption are in the freezer before they crow and that fifty matured roosters are not needed, one rooster is acceptable. Mr. Conley stated that the one thing he suggests is that the verbiage should clarify the ratio of roosters to hens, as this is a rooster issue. Planning Manager Escobar asked Mr. Conley what is the age that rooster start to crow. Mr. Conley stated that it varies, but it is between 16-18 weeks, which is the maturity age. Mr. Conley stated that at 12-13 weeks his daughter has the roosters butchered and stored. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Conley how many chickens can be taken care of by one rooster. Mr. Conley replied a lot. Mr. Conley stated that you could have one rooster and it would take care of many. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Conley if he had to put a number on it, how many it would be. Mr. Conley stated that he would say that one rooster could take care of twenty chickens. Hollee Fuller, 2503 Ridgeview Drive, stated that previous owners of 2500 Ridgeview Drive did have roughly 40 meat chickens, not knowing if any were male, and there was never a noise issue. Ms. Fuller stated that meat chickens do not have a perpetuity date. Ms. Fuller stated that with new owners the neighbors get to listen to the roosters crowing anywhere from 12- 18 hours per day. Ms. Fuller stated the Fates and the neighbors behind them may be enduring immense sleep deprivation, affecting them medically, emotionally and mentally. Ms. Fuller stated that an occasional crow is not an issue. Ms. Fuller stated that roosters mature enough to crow at 16-18 weeks and are usually butchered before that happens. Ms. Fuller asked if the roosters are being consumed why is there a noise issue. Ms. Fuller then stated that some neighbors are unable to sell their homes because of the noise and wonders what effect this has on her property value. Angela Bentley, 2551 Riverside Drive, stated that this issue seems to have already been addressed in our ordinance. Ms. Bentley stated that the ordinance states for those allowed on our property, those are layers and broilers, designating that those are allowed to be on our property. Ms. Bentley stated that chickens really aren’t much of a bother, it really is the roosters; if you are buying layers or broilers for eating then you would buy the straight run, you would buy the sexed chickens. Ms. Bentley stated that if we just did a little tweaking to our code we wouldn’t have to make it less of the number of fowl that is allowed. Ms. Bentley stated that she understands that having roosters can be hard on the neighbors and it’s just common sense that if you are in a neighborhood, even if is an RA district, that you wouldn’t have a large number of roosters and that you can sex the chickens that you buy. Page 11 Chair Cardon closed the public comment and asked Commissioners if they had any questions. Commissioner Brown asked how the noise ordinance applies to chickens. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the noise ordinance is part of the municipal code and there is a noise level and a time that the noise level is measured, which is measured by Code Enforcement. Commissioner Brown asked if the noise ordinance is not specific to chickens. Planning Manager Escobar stated that is correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she wanted to highlight some of the comments that she heard, stating that she heard no support for limiting a number of fowl per property and the major concern is noise from roosters. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she wanted to mention that the properties in the Ridgeview neighborhood that are less than 5 acres, were annex from San Juan County and the RA district came with the property and did not have to meet the required property size set by the City of Farmington. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she also heard that there is a big distinction between a 2 acre parcel neighborhood and a 20 acre parcel in a less developed part of the City, stating that there are no regulations about pigeons or any other birds. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she appreciated the education she has received on both sides of this issue and would be happy to take the ordinance back and make changes related to what we’ve heard. Commissioner Davis stated that he agrees that the roosters are the primary issue and not limiting the number of fowl per acre. Commissioner Davis stated that in our code, the limit does state 0.02 fowl per acre, 50 fowl per acre, there is a standard in place and that would be a good bases point and the one rooster per ten chickens seem like an appropriate level. Commissioner Davis stated that something else to look at would be the difference between chickens and turkeys. Planning Manger Escobar asked Commissioner Davis if he is recommending that the code be broken down per type of fowl. Commissioner Davis stated that he would just like staff to look at the code and investigate the ratio, the number per acre, consumption and land needed for each fowl. Commissioner Brown asked Planning Manager Escobar if the 0.02 calculation for the ration caused confusion. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes and as a general recommendation and take the whole definition section and present it better. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see a number per acre. Page 12 Chair Cardon stated that there does need to be clarification on the definitions. Commissioner Lockmiller stated that she believes there needs to be more study done and what she is hearing is that the noise is the issue and the question is why one would need so many rooster, knowing that some will have their reasons. Commissioner Lockmiller stated that she knows that this RA district is a much desired area and we need to look at what we can have their and make the location enjoyable for the neighbors. Commissioner Ragsdale stated that she does not want to hurt the people who have moved their specifically for the country atmosphere but the noise is something that needs to be looked into and researched. Commissioner Brown asked if there were any cases where noise wasn’t an issue but the number of fowl being an issue. Planning Manager Escobar stated that in the City Municipal Code there are standards for keeping any type of animal on your property. Commissioner Brown asked that if we air on the side of having more fowl then Code Compliance could handle a nuance issues for noise and odors. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes. Commissioner Davis stated that he would like to point out that the number of fowl is not the issue and he feels the 50 fowl per acre is appropriate until shown otherwise, what seems to be broken is the ratio of roosters to chickens. Chair Cardon asked to poll the Commissioners for direction for staff. Commissioner Lockmiller stated that she would like for this to go back to the Planning Division to figure out a ratio for roosters to chickens and not to take anything away what people already have. Commissioner Davis stated that he would like for this to go back to the Planning Division for the reason he has already stated. Chair Cardon stated that she would like for this matter to go back to the Planning Division for further detailing. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like for this matter to go back to the Planning Division for further detailing. Commissioner Ragsdale stated that he would like for this matter to go back to the Planning Division for further detailing. Page 13 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar stated that there are three applications for the July 24, 2021 meeting and will bring the updated fowl ordinance back for review at the first meeting in August. Planning Manager Escobar stated that public participation redo for the Comprehensive Plan will be kicking off soon, staff and Logan Simpson will be making a presentation to Council to come up with a schedule of public meetings. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she would send an email for upcoming events. Commissioner Davis asked what the time frame is for rolling out the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the contract with Logan Simpson has been extended through September 30, 2021 and that is our drop-dead date to get that approved and adopted by City Council. Adjournment: With no further business and a motion by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Brown, the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of June 10, 2021 was adjourned at 4:29 p.m. ____________________________ _____________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant Page 14  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT PETITION ZC 21- 36 A zone change LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial to allow for development of a 30-space RV Park at 5300 Old Kirtland Highway, R0031341, in the City of Farmington A. STAFF REPORT, July 24, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicants Hector Rangel Representative Hector Rangel Date of Application May 18, 2021 A zone change for a 3.40-acre parcel from LNC – Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC – General Commercial to Requested Action allow for development of a Recreational Vehicle Park. Property is currently vacant. Location 5300 Old Kirtland Highway Existing Land Use Vacant Existing Zoning LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial Surrounding Zoning North: W Main Street, LNC and Industrial and Land Use East: LNC, Vacant, Federal land West: San Juan County/Federal Land South: RA, Mennonite Church Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, June 8, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, June 4, 2021 A sign was posted on the property on Friday, June 11, 2021. Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Project Description: The petitioner is requesting a zone change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial, to GC: General Commercial to allow for the development of a 30-unit RV Park. Page 15  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Farmington Zoning Map Subject Property This subject property is split by Old Kirtland Hwy. The development plans submitted with the petition application does not include anything on the southern portion. The northern portion of the property is approximately 3 acres. There is a 33-foot wide patent easement on the west, south and north property boundaries. Page 16  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. AERIAL VIEW 2021 Page 17  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. AERIAL VIEW 2019 A drainage feature bisects the property. From the current aerial (above) it appears this feature has been culverted and graded. Page 18  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Farmington Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan’s 2020 Future Land Use Map recommends the subject area as “Commercial”. The current zoning, LNC, supports neighborhood-oriented, low- intensity retail sales and services. REGULATIONS FOR RV PARKS UDC Section 2.4.41 Recreational vehicle (RV) parks and campgrounds. (Retail, service and commercial use categories; sales and service, entertainment-oriented). Recreational vehicle (RV) parks, campgrounds, and related accessory facilities shall comply with the standards of this section. A. Minimum space area: (1) Recreational vehicle, motor home, camp trailer and similar uses: 1,200 square feet. (2) Cabin or tent: 800 square feet. B. Minimum space width: 30 feet. C. Recreational vehicle park shall be occupied only by persons using recreational vehicles as defined in section 11.1, and small cabins without plumbing (traditional KOA- style), and tents for overnight, short duration, or seasonal camping. D. Each park shall be served by central water and sewer facilities. E. Each park shall provide common restroom and shower facilities in accordance with the requirements of the San Juan County Health Department. F. No space shall be located more than 300 feet from common restroom and shower facilities. G. Landscaping and screening shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of section 5.5, landscaping and screening; and H. One tree of a species suitable for the area shall be provided for each two spaces, and shall be located in close proximity to those spaces. (Existing trees on the site may be used to satisfy this requirement.) PUBLIC INPUT Notices were sent out to property owners within 100 feet. One public comment has been received and is attached to this report. STAFF ANALYSIS The Unified Development Code states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land use of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the UDC outlines issues for consideration in determining a proposed zone change as follows: Page 19  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? The proposed zone change for the subject property is consistent with the 2020 Future Land Use Map which designated this area as Commercial. RV Parks and Campgrounds are a permitted use in the General Commercial Zoning District. The proposal also supports elements of the current Comprehensive Plan and draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan to build tourist amenities within the City. B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? The subject property is bordered on the east and west by vacant federal land. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? The proposed zone change should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. UDC regulations require the installation of central water and sewer facilities as well as a common restroom and shower facilities. Construction of the required facilities will prevent adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. Impact on traffic along Old Kirtland Highway cannot be determined at this time. Staff is recommending a condition of approval requesting a traffic narrative. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? The petitioner is requesting a zone change to General Commercial. This is the only zoning district that allows RV Parks and Campgrounds. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? Per Section 2.4.41 of the UDC, 1,200 square feet is required for each RV unit. The portion of the subject property being proposed for development is approximately 3.00 acres and should be able to support a 30-spot RV Park. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? If utilities are not available, could they be reasonably extended by the applicant? Is the applicant willing to pay for the extension of public facilities and services necessary to service the proposed development? Page 20  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. The subject property does not have direct access to any utilities. The applicant has not indicated he is willing to extend any utilities. Connection to an overhead line is approximately 500-1,000 feet away. Connection to water is approximately 1,000 feet away. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? Article 11 defines “spot zoning” as “Where a particular tract within a larger area is specifically zoned so as to impose upon it restrictions not imposed upon the surrounding lands, or grant to it special privileges not granted generally, not done in pursuance of the Comprehensive Plan.” With the Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial, and the surrounding vacant federally owned property, this request does constitute spot zoning. STAFF COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. At the time of this report no public comment has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes the zone change to Commercial is supported by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Development of a tourist facility supports the current economic plan for the City of Farmington. The project faces challenges due to the lack of water and electrical services close to the property. Staff will work with the applicant to find the best solution for this challenge. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 21-36, a request from Hector Rangel, property owner, for a zone change from LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial to GC: General Commercial to allow for a 30-unit RV Park on a 3.4-acre parcel at 5300 Old Kirtland Highway, R0031341, subject to the following conditions/UDC requirements: 1. A detailed site plan showing a minimum 20-foot wide access aisle width and driveway width access from Old Kirtland Highway, and location of electric meters shall be required. 2. Site plan shall include details for extending the water and electric lines. 3. Approval of a septic system shall be obtained from NMED. Page 21  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. 4. A petitioner shall produce a traffic narrative showing impact to 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy of the proposed development. 5. As-built drawings for the wash crossing on the northern portion of the property shall be submitted to the City Engineer. PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ZC 21-36 5300 OLD KIRTLAND RD. DEADLINE: 5/28/21 CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division Building Inspection we need a copy of CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers the NMED septic system permit before a building permit can be issued. CW Long Range Planner CW MPO – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment 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 Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW I have no comments regarding the zone change. Engineering – T. Sitta Any development within the general commercial zoning will need to meet the development requirements for commercial development (engineered Page 22  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. stormwater drainage, sidewalk construction, utilities, etc). Drainage channels cannot be blocked off and must allow for the flow of pre-existing (historic) on-site and off-site drainage through the property (open channels, culverts, etc). Development conditions are typically address during the development application process through the City’s Building Inspection’s Department. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons Page 23  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Page 24  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Page 25  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Page 26  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Page 27  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. FARMINGTON, NM BLAKE WORTH MARTIN II 722 BOYLE RD 874010000 6251 COLLEGE FEDERAL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 BLVD LIGHT OF LIFE MENNONITE 780 BOYLE ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401 CHURCH FARMINGTON, NM 87401- RANGEL HECTOR TRUST 5901 W MAIN ST 0000 ROSENBERGER PHILIP A AND 306 E AZTEC, NM 87410 PATRICIA E GLENMARY DR FARMINGTON, NM THOMAS HARRIS AND DOREEN 785 BOYLE ST 874010000 Page 28  City of Farmington SUP 21-36 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Page 29  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT PETITION ZC 21- 37 A request to changing the zoning from IND: Industrial to GC: General Commercial for a 0.78-acre parcel located at 5501 E Main to allow for combination with a 2.19-acre parcel to the east. A. STAFF REPORT, July 24, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicants Speedway LLC Representative EPS Group Inc. – Natalie Griffin Date of Application May 18, 2021 A zone change for a 0.78 parcel from IND – Industrial to GC Requested Action – General Commercial to allow for combination with a parcel to the east. Location 5501 E Main Existing Land Use Unoccupied, former Conoco Gas Station Existing Zoning IND: Industrial Surrounding Zoning North: E Main Street, General Commercial and Land Use East: General Commercial, Vacant West: Industrial South: Industrial Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, June 8, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, June 4, 2021 A sign was posted on the property on Friday, June 11, 2021. Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Project Description: The petitioner is requesting a zone change from IND to GC in order to combine with the larger parcel to the east and redevelop the property as a convenience store. The applicant owns both parcels. The existing 40-foot wide utility easement between the two parcels will be modified through a summary plat that combines the property. Page 30  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Farmington Zoning Map Subject Property Page 31  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Aerial View 2021 Page 32  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Proposed Site Plan Page 33  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Farmington Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan’s 2020 Future Land Use Map recommends the subject area as “Commercial”. (Please note, the Mixed Use category referred to by the petitioner is from the 2040 draft future land use plan). PUBLIC INPUT Notices were sent out to property owners within 100 feet. At the time of this report no comments have been submitted. STAFF ANALYSIS The Unified Development Code states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land use of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the UDC outlines issues for consideration in determining a proposed zone change as follows: A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? Yes, this property is located along Farmington’s commercial corridor. B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? Yes, this property is surrounded by commercial uses. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? None identified. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? Yes, convenience stores are a permitted use in the General Commercial District. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? Yes. The site as proposed meets all of the relevant regulations of the Unified Development Code. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? If utilities are not available, could they be reasonably extended by the applicant? Is the Page 34  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC applicant willing to pay for the extension of public facilities and services necessary to service the proposed development? Yes. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? No. The property to the east, which is to be combined with this property, is zoned General Commercial. Page 35  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC STAFF COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. At the time of this report no public comment has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes the zone change to Commercial is supported by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and in keeping with the East Main Street corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 21-37, a request from Speedway LLC., property owner, for a zone change from IND: Industrial to GC: General Commercial to allow lot consolidation and new development at 5501 E Main Street subject to the following requirements: 1. Development of commercial property will require an application for a development permit, at which time proposed development will need to meet all applicable construction, stormwater and utility requirements for commercial development. 2. Subject parcels shall be combined through a summary plat prior to submittal of a building permit. Page 36  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ZC 21-37 SPEEDWAY FUEL STATION DEADLINE: 5/28/21 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 – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment 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 Parks - R. Crosby PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW I have no comments to add in regards to the zone change. Development of commercial property will require an application for a Engineering – T. Sitta development permit, at which time proposed development will need to meet all applicable construction, stormwater and utility requirements for commercial development. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Page 37  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons Page 38  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Page 39  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Page 40  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Page 41  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Page 42  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC Page 43  City of Farmington ZC 21-37 Speedway LLC NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP AEI NET LEASE PORTFOLIO 16 DST 4525 ROWE AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87401 CWPS CORP 222 E 5TH STREET TUCSON, AZ 85705 ELK GROVE, CA EASTMAN SCOTT AND DONNA 5812 CLARIDGE CT 95758 FAMILY TRUST FARMINGTON CITY OF 800 MUNICIPAL DR FARMINGTON, NM 87401 4909 EVERGREEN MCNUTT SISTERS LLC FARMINGTON, NM DR 87402 94 TULIP LN SEQUIM, WA 98382 MOULD DENNIS L AND TINA S 48 FESTING TERRA RUSTICA LLC PONTE VEDRA, FL GROVE 32081 3939 OSUNA RD US EAGLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ALBUQUERQUE, NM NE 87109 PO BOX 592809 WESTERN REFINING RETAIL LLC SAN ANTONIO, TX TX1-047 78259 ZC INC PO BOX 393 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 Page 44  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 21-40–Keeping of two horses on a 2.76-acre parcel located at 5402 Cleone Place A. STAFF REPORT, June 24, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Amy and Brandon Bailey Representative N/A Date of May 6, 2021 Application Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow for keeping of two horses on a 2.76-acre parcel Location 5402 Cleone Place Existing Land Use Residential Existing Zoning SF-10 Single Family Residential Surrounding North: SF-10 –Single-family residential Zoning & Land South: SF-10 –Single-family residential Use East: S-7– Single-family residential West: SF-10 – Single-Family residential Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, June 8, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, June 4, 2021 A sign was posted on the property on Friday, June 11, 2021. Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicants are requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to keep two horses on their property. The yard will be fenced, and there is an existing barn building that will provide shelter for the horses. Page 45  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. Aerial View The subject property is located in a large-lot residential neighborhood. Development to the east is higher density, SF-7 and SF-5 (foothills Subdivision). Foothils Park borders the middle of the subject property to the east. The subject property is Lot 8 of AT Hogan Addition Subdivision. An dry wash runs along the eastern boundary. Page 46  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. Site Plan Page 47  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. Unified Development Code (UDC) The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. Per Section 2.4.7.I a special use permit is required for keeping of horse in the SF-10 zoning district. Section 2.4.7.K requires adequate site improvements to mitigate the impact on drainage and floodways. UDC 8.9. A. Special Use Permits: A. Special use permit approvals attach to the property and are transferable to subsequent owners. 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 petitioners have submitted a plan to dispose of manure off site as necessary. The proposed fence will keep the horses out of the waterway to the east. 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. There is large lot development to the north, south and west of the subject property. It is approximately 150 feet from the fenced area to the nearest neighbor to the east. 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. Sec. 6-4-2 of the City of Farmington Municipal Code states: Page 48  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. General cleanliness of premises where animals are kept; spraying of enclosures. (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 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. As long as the petitioners adhere to these regulations there should be no issues. Mark Romero with the Code Enforcement Divisions provided comments that manure should be removed daily. 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. If approved, this Special Use Permit should not impact any 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 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 does not address the keeping of horses. 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 subject property is 2.76 acres. Per Article 11, one horse is allowed 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. Page 49  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. A site plan has been submitted with the proposal that complies with the standards of Section 8.5. PUBLIC INPUT Letters were sent to eleven surrounding neighbors. At the time of this report no public input has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 21-40 is appropriate. The application meets the criteria for approval of a Special Use Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 21- 40, a request from Brandon and Amy Bailey, property owners of 5402 Cleone Place to allow for the keeping of two horses on a 2.76-acre parcel zoned SF-10: Single-family residential. R0022927, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit shall be required for the proposed fence. a. Existing overhead utility lines shall be indicated on the building permit site plan. b. Fence permit shall be approved by the Flood Plain Manger. 2. Property shall be maintained to the standards of Section 6-4-2 of the City Municipal Code. 3. The Special Use Permit may be revoked if conditions are not met. Page 50  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY SUP 21-40 5402 CLEONE PL. DEADLINE: 6/4/2021 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 – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson If the fencing is to be put up, please indicate ELEC the overhead lines to the east & north of the property if they are inside or outside of the fence or property line. Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne No Comment Code Compliance requests that the horse POLICE manure removal be maintained preferably Code Compliance – M. Romero daily and or weekly to keep the odor under control. POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW I don't have any comments regarding the SUP and the keeping of horses, except that Engineering – T. Sitta we do request a copy of the drainage and property maintenance plan. Debris/waste Page 51  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. shall not be allowed to be deposited or in contact with stormwater that may flush contaminated water into a surface water body, including dry arroyos/washes. Please include in the drainage and property maintenance plan, protective measures to keep horse manure from being in contact with precipitation/runoff when being stored prior to removal from the property. Our concerns are that this property is located within the Zone AE - Floodplain. According to the SJ County Assessor’s Office, the property was developed in 1978 and it is my understanding that any structures and fencing are existing. Due to the property being located in a floodplain, any proposed changes in development will require a review from the City's Floodplain Manager for approval. FEMA may require additional studies or certificates prior to any further development or redevelopment of the property. I will not be available next week to discuss at the DRC meeting. If you have any questions regarding the floodplain please contact Lisa Hale Blue Eyes at 505-599-1312. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities 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 Page 52  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. Page 53  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. Page 54  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. Page 55  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. Page 56  City of Farmington SUP 21-40 5402 Cleone Pl. NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP BAILEY AMY L AND BRANDON W 5402 CLEONE PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 5403 CLEONE EKWALL ROBERT GEORGE PLACE FARMINGTON, NM 87402 800 MUNICIPAL FARMINGTON CITY OF DR FARMINGTON, NM 87401 4909 FARMINGTON, NM 87402- FRANCIS CARLOTTA ET AL EVERGREEN DR 1138 GRAHAM MELISSA L AND JAMES B 5401 ANGEL PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 JOHANSON RHONDA J 5209 IRONWOOD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 NIXON JARED W AND 5201 IRONWOOD JENNIFER E AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87402 ROWE CAROL L AND DERYL G ET AL 5403 ANGEL PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 SANDOVAL DAVID 5401 CLEONE PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 WILSON DANIEL E JR AND 5300 THOMAS FARMINGTON, NM 87401- SHARON K DR 4830 HASKILL JOHN & REBECCA 5606 FAWN DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 Page 57  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Petition No. PP 21-25 A. STAFF REPORT, June 24, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Darrell and Michaela Martinez Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application March 24, 2021 Requested Action Preliminary Plan Approval Location Parcel Nos. R0038232 & R0037541, north of Lakewood Drive Existing Zoning RE-1: Residential Estates 1 Surrounding North: RE-1/BLM Land South: RE-2/Cimarron Subdivision #2, developed Zoning and Land East: RE-1/Federal undeveloped Use West: RE-1/Ridgeview Subdivision #3, developed Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Preliminary Plans do not require notice Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION 19 Lots plus an overhead electric easement and a drainage Number of Lots easement Acres of Land 19.31 + 3.03 for a total acerage of 22.34 Minimum Lot Size 1 acre Utilities Water: Per City Standards Sewer: Per City Standards Electric: Per FEUS Engineering Access & Per City Standards Circulation Street Lights Per City Standards Street Sign Per City Standards Fire Hydrants Per City Standards Drainage Per City Standards P & R’s Fees Per City Standards NBU Mail Box Coordinate with USPS Page 58  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting preliminary plan approval for the Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four, a 19-lot, Class 2 subdivision. Sixteen of the lots are one acre in size, lot 2 is 1.10 acres, Lot 17 is 1.83 acres and Lot 19 is 1.78 acres. Previous Ridgeview Subdivisions have been developed to the west. Ridgeview Number Four includes a one hundred foot wide overhead electric easement along the northern boundary line of the subdivision. A 40-foot wide drainage easement bisects Lot 19. A one-acre detention pond on a non-buildable lot is located between lots 2 & 6. All 19 lots will be accessed by a 40-foot wide cul-de-sac. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta: 599-1399 and tsitta@fmtn.org • Please check the lots for closure (Lot 19, 2, 17 and no build lot) • Please provide a north arrow • Please provide the bearings at the intersection. What direction is the road coming off of Lakewood? • Shouldn’t the no build lot area be included into lots 17 and 19? The 100 foot utility easement on Ridgeway Subdivision No 3 is incorporated in lots 7-10. What is the purpose of a no build lot? A no build lot may require the formation of a homeowners association (UDC 6.10) with conditions on who is responsible for this no-build area. • Please provide the name and widths of adjoining streets. • Please provide reference list • Lines of all proposed streets and alleys with their width and names as well as radius of cul-de-sac. • Please provide the existing floodplain extents on the plat. Drainage easements for the protection of natural drainage channels shall be provided that conform substantially to the limits of such watercourse (UDC 6.4.10.A Drainage Easements). Construction cannot block the flow of the natural drainage channels. Any proposed construction within a Zone AE floodplain will require a Hydraulic and Hydrologic study, at a minimum, to be submitted to FEMA for approval. FEMA approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of any construction permit. Staff Comment: These issues have been addressed through submittal of a revised plat. Page 59  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Per Section 8.8.4 of the Unified Development Code, all subdivisions shall comply with the following minimum standards: A. Design and improvement standards. All subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of: (1) Article 5, development standards; and (2) Article 6, subdivision design and improvements. Staff Comments: Through staff review, the plat as presented meets, or will be required to meet through stipulations of approval, development standards and design and improvement requirements. B. Waivers. The commission may recommend and the council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny waivers of the standards in section 6.4, subdivision design standards, during the platting process. Staff Comments: No waivers are requested for this application. C. Zoning consistency. All subdivisions and the resulting lots shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable underlying zone district. Staff Comments: All lots conform to the minimum standards of the RE-1: Residential Estates 1 zoning district of one acre. Page 60  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four D. Comprehensive plan consistency. All subdivisions shall be reviewed for consistency with the comprehensive plan, and every plat approved by the city shall constitute an amendment, addition or a detail of the comprehensive plan or part thereof adopted by the commission. Staff Comments: The proposed large lot single-family use is consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use map which designates this area as Residential Single Family Low Density. Page 61  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Aerial Map of Surrounding Area Subject Properties Page 62  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Preliminary Plat Page 63  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition 21-25, Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four, a Class 2, 19 lot subdivision in Tier I of the City of Farmington is appropriate, subject to technical and corrective changes as enumerated in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 21-25 a submittal from Darrel and Michaela Martinez, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters- Echols, Inc. for a preliminary plan approval of a Class 2, 19-lot subdivision of two undeveloped parcels totaling 22.34 acres north of Lakewood Drive in north Farmington. • All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat, including noted issues in this report. Page 64  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY PP 21-25 RIDGEVIEW SUBDIVISION NUMBER FOUR DEADLINE: 4/2/2021 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 – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment 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 POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell PRCA Parks - R. Crosby PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW 1) Please check the lots for closure (Lot 19, 2, 17 and no build lot) 2) Please provide a north arrow 3) Please provide the bearings at the intersection. What direction is the road coming off of Lakewood? 4) Shouldn’t the no build lot area be included into lots 17 and 19? The 100 foot utility easement on Ridgeway Subdivision No 3 is incorporated in lots 7-10. What is the Engineering – T. Sitta purpose of a no build lot? A no build lot may require the formation of a homeowners association (UDC 6.10) with conditions on who is responsible for this no-build area. 5) Please provide the name and widths of adjoining streets. 6) Please provide reference list 7) Lines of all proposed streets and alleys with their width and names as well as radius of cul-de-sac. 8) Please provide the existing floodplain extents Page 65  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four on the plat. Drainage easements for the protection of natural drainage channels shall be provided that conform substantially to the limits of such watercourse (UDC 6.4.10.A Drainage Easements). Construction cannot block the flow of the natural drainage channels. Any proposed construction within a Zone AE floodplain will require a Hydraulic and Hydrologic study, at a minimum, to be submitted to FEMA for approval. FEMA approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of any construction permit. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons Page 66  City of Farmington PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Page 67