Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive July 29, 2021 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the June 24, 2021 P&Z Meeting 4 UDC Discussion & Possible Action – 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) 5 Petition No. FP 21-38 – Little Creek Sub. Phase 7 No 1: Final Plat approval for Phase 1 of Little Creek Subdivision Phase a request from Joe & Stan, LLC represented by Bob Echols of C-W-E for Final Plat approval of a seven lot subdivision of parcel R6000767, north of Soaring Eagle Drive in the City of Farmington. (Beth Escobar) 6 Business From: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 10, 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.  Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission June 24, 2021 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on June 24, 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 Elizabeth Lockmiller Cheryl Ragsdale Gary Smouse Cody Waldroup P&Z Members Absent: Vice Chair Freeman Shay Davis Mitch Sewell Staff Present: Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Toni Sitta Others Who Addressed the Commission: Hector Rangel Natalie Griffin (via Conference Call) Amy Bailey Robert Echols 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 Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Smouse to approve the agenda of the June 24, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 6-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Lockmiller and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion was approved unanimously by a 6-0 vote. Swearing in of Witnesses Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant, swore in all parties that wished to speak on behalf of the listed agenda items. Petition ZC 21-36 – 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following PowerPoint presentation: Petition (Slide 2) • Applicant: Hector Rangel, Property Owner • Representative: N/A • Location: 5300 Old Kirtland Hwy • Existing Zoning: LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial • Request: Rezone to GC: General Commercial to allow for development of a RV Park. Subject Property (Slide 3) Proposed Site Plan (Slide 4) Zone Change Criteria (Slide 5) Section 8.7.4 of the Uniform Development Code • Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan –designated as Commercial • No adverse effects identified: • If all requirements of Section 2.4.41 RV Parks are met, there should be no negative impacts • Staff is requesting a sealed traffic narrative that addresses safety issues for the exit/entrance on to Old Kirtland Hwy • Site is physically suitable for proposed use • The site is large enough to support the number of RV slots proposed • Topography and drainage are a challenge • Adequate infrastructure is in place – water and electrical lines will need to be extended. • Not spot zoning – it is up zoning Traffic Concerns (Slide 6) RV Park Regulations Section 2.4.41 UDC (Slide 7) 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. Infrastructure Availability (Slide 8) Public Notice (Slide 9) • Letters were sent to five surrounding neighbors. • One letter received expressing concerns about the southern portion of the property. Staff Recommendation (Slide 10) The Community Works 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. 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. UDC Section 1-3 Purpose and Intent (Slide 11) E) Providing adequate privacy, light, and air, and otherwise mitigating adverse impacts associated with development that occurs in the City of Farmington; F) Ensuring protection from fire, flood, and other dangers; G) Promoting sustainable development; H) Promoting natural resource conservation and historic preservation; I) Managing growth within the City of Farmington by concentrating development in areas where adequate sewage and water facilities, roads, and schools now exist or can be provided, and limiting development in areas where these facilities are not adequate, or their provision by the city would be uneconomical; Letter Received and Distributed to the Commission Discussion Chair Cardon asked Planning Manager Escobar if the petitioner is planning to have an RV park on both sides of the property. Planning Manager Escobar stated that is her understanding that the petitioner is only planning to have an RV park on the northern side of the property. Chair Cardon ask when the culvert was put in and if there were any stormwater prevention put in place. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she believed the culvert was put in within the last six months and at this time there is no information on how the property has been changed. Commissioner Brown asked for more information about the utilities that would be required for each space. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the requirement that San Juan County Health has for group facilities is that they be lit and have water. Planning Manager Escobar stated that whatever accommodations the petitioner is willing to make will be reviewed, but any commercial development would need infrastructure brought in, each space does not need to have water or electric, but at least one water and one electric connection is needed for each shared facility. Commissioner Smouse asked if the petitioner’s property is north or west on the aerial view. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the petitioner’s property is located on the west and the land in the middle is BLM land, the parcel to the west of the BLM land is owned by the petitioner. Commissioner Smouse asked where Mr. Rosenberger’s property is located. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mr. Rosenberger’s property is located to the left of the Mennonite Church in slide 3, east of the Mennonite property. Commissioner Brown asked if the amount of units is regulated by the 20’. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct, but it’s also a part of the RV code, which requires a minimum space of 12,000 square feet per RV vehicle. Commissioner Smouse asked if the Planning Division is asking the property owner to provide certification of the culvert that was placed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that stormwater regulations apply to all properties within the City of Farmington, there are no specific permitting regulations for grading, but the Engineering Department does verify there is not a stormwater issue. Commissioner Smouse asked if the Planning Division is recommending this Zone Change but with the stipulation that access is gained to look at what the culvert was and if it meets the Engineering Departments requirements. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is the job of the Community Works Department to ensure public safety, all the regulations listed are to ensure the safety of the public; there is no objection to this proposed use or the zone change and all applications are viewed with the same objective. Commissioner Smouse asked even if it was existing culvert that wasn’t recently placed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the Community Works Department wanted a traffic study done by the petitioner solely based on campers and RVs. Planning Manager Escobar stated that campers can range from 10-12’ and RVs can range from 36’, depending on what type of target audience the petitioner is marketing to, more information is needed on what traffic speeds would be entering and exiting the property with the current speed limit. Hector Rangel, 5901 West Main Street, stated that he has read the documentation presented by staff and does not have anything to add but would stand for questions. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Rangel asked if he is prepared for the traffic mitigation that is being requested by the Community Works Department. Mr. Rangel stated that he thinks the property has a good access line, east and west bound are accessible. Commissioner Waldroup asked Mr. Rangel if he would be removing the brush near the road, refereeing to the brush in slide 6. Mr. Rangel referred to slide 6, stating that there is an area to merge and that the brush did not need to be removed, the access road is gravel and goes through all the utilities on the property. Planning Manager Escobar asked Mr. Rangel if the access road he is refereeing to is part of his property. Mr. Rangel stated that it is not and there is an easement from San Juan County. Chair Cardon asked Mr. Rangel if he has talked with San Juan County about potentially paving and making improvements to the access area. Mr. Rangel stated that he has talked to San Juan County and did let them know what his intentions are, not necessarily discussing paving. Chair Cardon asked Mr. Rangel what the plan is for the south side of the property. Mr. Rangel stated that at one time he thought about building a house on the south side of the property. Chair Cardon asked if the house would be residential. Mr. Rangel stated that he thought the house might be for the property manager. Chair Cardon stated that having a residential on the property is not conducive to a General Commercial zoning, but with an LNC zoning a house could be place on the property. Commissioner Smouse asked if the zoning requirements are met to have residential in the property. Chair Cardon stated that this is one piece of property and can only be zoned either or, but a condition can be added, that keep commercial property off of the south side. Chair Cardon asked Planning Manager if that would require a variance. Planning Manager Escobar stated that residential is not a permitted use in the current zoning, but what could be looked at could be caretaker’s residents for the park, which is a commercial use and would be permitted in either zone, LNC or GC. Commissioner Smouse asked if the residents would have to be a part of the business. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Commissioner Waldroup asked Mr. Rangel what San Juan County said about the use of the easement road. Mr. Rangel stated that San Juan County did not say a lot and they did not say that he could not use the easement road. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Rangel what his plans were for the road, would it be paved or gravel. Mr. Rangel stated that the road would be gravel. Commissioner Smouse asked if the traffic narrative would come back before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the traffic narrative would be reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Rangel stated that the culvert was reviewed by the Army Corp of Engineers and the State of New Mexico Engineers Office, was designed by Mr. Robert Echols and was reviewed prior to the culvert being installed. Planning Manager stated that staff would be satisfied by seeing that documentation. Chair Cardon asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak. There was no one in the audience that wished to speak. Chair Cardon asked if the Commissioners had any questions of staff. Commissioner Waldroup asked Planning Manager Escobar if Mr. Rangel’s explanation of the road would suffice or if a traffic study would still be needed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that initially easements were looked for but no documentation was found; the minimum that would be needed would be to see documentation that the use is permitted from the property owner, there are still concerns about exiting the property. Commissioner Smouse asked if the recommendation could be made that approval be submitted by San Juan County. Planning Manager Escobar stated that yes. Commissioner Waldroup asked if Mr. Rangel could be called back for questions. Mr. Rangel stated that he owns the easement. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is a patent easement, which is a general easement across the property; we would still need to get permission from the property owner. Chair Cardon asked Planning Manager Escobar if notifications needed to be sent to the property owner, with a possible permit needing to be issued. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a permit is not needed, the Federal Government was notified of this hearing today and we have not heard anything back. Commissioner Smouse stated that we are not here to judge whether or not Mr. Rangel has the right to the easement, should the property owner come back and say that Mr. Rangel does not have access, Mr. Rangel would then move the access point to his property line. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Chair Cardon stated that a traffic study would still be needed due to location of the property. Commissioner Smouse said that he agrees with Chair Cardon. Mr. Rangel stated that there are three lanes on the highway. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there are two lanes and a shoulder. A motion was made by Commissioner Smouse and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to recommend APPROVAL of ZC 21-36 as recommended by staff. The vote passed unanimously 6-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Petition ZC 21-37 – SW Corner of E. Pinon Hills Blvd. and Main St. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following PowerPoint presentation: Petition (Slide 2) • Applicant: Speedway LLC • Representative: EPS Group Inc. – Natalie Griffin • Location: 5501 E Main • Existing Zoning: IND: Industrial • Request: Rezone to GC: General Commercial to combine with 2.19-acre parcel to the east Subject Property (Slide 3) Proposed Site Plan (Slide 4)  Zone Change Criteria (Slide 5) Section 8.7.4 of the Uniform Development Code • Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • Located in the Main Street Commercial Corridor • No adverse effects identified • Site is physically suitable for proposed use • Adequate infrastructure is in place • Not spot zoning Public Notice (Slide 6) • Letters were sent to ten surrounding neighbors. At the time of this report no public input has been received. Staff Recommendation (Slide 7) The Community Works 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. Discussion Commissioner Smouse asked if the gas station is an existing business, in business today. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was not in business currently. Commissioner Waldroup asked if this was the gas station that was in front of the Mister Car Wash. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Commissioner Waldroup stated that the gas station in question is an existing business. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was her impression that this was not an existing business. Natalie Griffin, EPS, 1130 North Alma School Road, Suite 120, Mesa Arizona, stated that she has read through the documentation and would stand for questions. Commissioner Smouse asked Ms. Griffin if the gas station is currently an existing business. Ms. Griffin stated that the gas station was an existing business. Commissioner Smouse asked if the plan for future development is to expand the gas station. Ms. Griffin stated that the plan is to relocate the existing gas station further north east. Commissioner Smouse asked if the additional property was acquired to expand the current business. Ms. Griffin stated that was correct. Chair Cardon asked Ms. Griffin if there were any plans for the property across the road, referring to slide 4. Ms. Griffin stated that at this time the plan is to use a portion of the site it for retention. Planning Manager Escobar referred to slide 4 and stated that it is not a road but a utility easement. Chair Cardon asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak. There was no one in the audience that wished to speak. Chair Cardon asked if the Commissioners if there was any further discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Lockmiller to recommend APPROVAL ZC 21-37 as recommended by staff. The vote passed unanimously 6-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Petition SUP 21-40 – 5402 Cleone Pl. Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following PowerPoint presentation: Petition (Slide 2) • Applicant: Amy & Brandon Bailey, property owners • Representative: N/A • Location: 5402 Cleone Place, Farmington • Existing Zoning: SF-10, Single-family residential • Request: SUP to allow for the keeping of two horses on a 2.76-acre property Subject Property (Slide 3) SUPs (Slide 4) • 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 horses 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: • 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. Staff Analysis (Slide 5) • SUP will be subject to Section 6-4-2. • Petitioners plan is to haul manure off when needed • Permit will be required for fence – portion impacts FEMA waterway • The subject property is 2.76 acres and 2 horses would be allowed Site Plan (Slide 6) Public Notice (Slide 7) • Letters were sent to eleven surrounding neighbors. At the time of this report no public input has been received. Staff Recommendation (Slide 8) • The Community Works 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. • Existing overhead utility lines shall be indicated on the building permit site plan. • 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 is good for five years and may be renewed 4. May be revoked if conditions are not met. Letter Received and Distributed to the Commission Discussion Commissioner Brown stated that there is a letter in support of the petition and just wanted to state that for the record. Commissioner Smouse asked what the radius is for the notification of property owners. Planning Manager Escobar stated it is 100 feet, with the ability to expand that if necessary; anyone noticed outside 100 feet becomes an interested party as opposed to an affected party. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a sign is also posted on the property to notify the public. Amy Bailey, 5402 Cleone Place, stated that she has reviewed the documentation and stands for questions. Commissioner Smouse asked Mrs. Bailey if there was an existing fence on the property. Mrs. Bailey stated that there is an existing fence, but nothing sufficient to withhold livestock. Commissioner Smouse asked Mrs. Bailey if she is willing go with staff recommendation for the proposed fence. Mrs. Bailey stated yes. Commissioner Smouse asked Ms. Bailey if she cared for any other animals on her property and if there are there any issues with neighbors regarding the current animals being kept on the property. Mrs. Bailey stated that she does have dogs and cats and there are no issues. Chair Cardon asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak. There was no one in the audience that wished to speak. Chair Cardon asked if the Commissioners if there was any further discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Smouse and seconded by Commissioner Brown to recommend APPROVAL of SUP 21-40 as recommended by staff. The vote passed unanimously 6-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Petition PP 21-25 – Ridgeway Subdivision No. 4 Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following PowerPoint presentation: Petition (Slide 2) • Applicant: Darrel & Michaela Martinez, property owners • Representative: Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols • Location: Parcel Numbers R0038232 & R0037541 • Existing Zoning: RE:1-Residential Estates One Process (Slide 3) • The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plan approval per Section 8.8.9.D of the Unified Development Code • The Preliminary Plan review provides for identification of any issues and determination of compliance with all regulations • The Planning & Zoning Commissions is being asked to make a recommendation • Council provides final approval of a Preliminary Plan • The Final Plat may then be submitted Background (Slide 4) • The petitioner is requesting preliminary plan approval for Ridgeview Subdivision Number 4, Class 2, a 19-lot subdivision on two undeveloped parcels totaling 22.34 acres located in north Farmington east of Foothills Drive. • Lot sizes range from the minimum one acre to 1.83 acres • The proposed subdivision is an addition to previous Ridgeview Subdivisions developed on properties to the west. • Number Four includes a one-acre non-buildable lot for drainage, and a 100 foot wide overhead utility easement. (Slide 5) Reviews and Comments (Slide 6) • Standard review agencies have commented on the plat. • Majority of comments have been addressed • Construction plans are under review  (Slide 7) Conclusion (Slide 8) 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 the drainage report. Discussion There were no questions from the commission. Robert Echols, 909 West Apache Street, stated additional comments from Community Works Department are does not believe that the comments will be difficult to address. Commissioner Smouse asked if the retention pond is on Lot 4. Mr. Echols referenced the plat, slide 7, and stated one comment that has come back to him from the Community Works Department is that the flood plan limits from the arroyo that come up and run through a lot, which is the retention pond and includes the flood plain limits, as a result a finish floor elevation has been established for all the lots and easements have been put in for some of the properties. Commissioner Smouse asked if Lots 2, 4, 17 and 19 are no build lots. Mr. Echols stated no, originally the 100 foot powerline easement was designated as two lots, but based on staff’s recommendations, and those easements are now appropriated into the two lots. Mr. Echols stated this was done on other phases originally. Commissioner Smouse asked for clarification. Planning Manager Escobar stated that originally Chaney Walters Echols was proposing to have the entire 100 foot separate and unbuildable; the issue that staff had was who would maintain that, making it part of Lots 17 and 19, a utility easement, with the property owner maintaining that property. Mr. Echols stated that it would be platted as a 100 foot easement on the lot so the City of Farmington Electric can maintain the powerline. Commissioner Smouse asked if that stipulation was also applied to the previous subdivision with no issues. Mr. Echols stated that was correct. Chair Cardon asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak. There was no one in the audience that wished to speak. Chair Cardon asked if the Commissioners if there was any further discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to recommend APPROVAL of PP 21-25 as recommended by staff. The vote passed unanimously 6-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: Chair Cardon wished everyone a safe July 4th. Business from the Members: Commissioner Smouse and Chair Cardon thanked staff for all their hard work. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar asked the commission to save two dates, July 16, 2021, for the first Art Walk downtown and red ribbon cutting for the Food Hub on Animas Street, there will Comp Plan staff at this event. June 31, 2021, Parks and Rec is having a Play at the Park at Sycamore Park, Comp Plan staff will also be setup at this event. Planning Manager Escobar stated that unofficially the property at the end of Airport Drive, the old Anasazi Inn, has two interested businesses looking at the parcels available. Currently the Planning Division is in talks with two new gas stations, a grocery store and a couple fast food restaurants. Adjournment: With no further business and a motion by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Smouse, the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of June 24, 2021 was adjourned at 4:06 p.m. ____________________________ _____________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant  Memo To: Farmington Planning & Zoning Commission From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: July 29, 2021 Subject: Possible changes to Rural Agriculture District regulations Background In response to public comments received at the June 10, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting staff has modified the recommended revisions to Section 2.4.7 and Article 11: Animal Units. As learned at the June 10 meeting, roosters tend to create issues for neighbors due to their crowing. Staff is proposing establishing a ratio of one rooster to 10 hens to help moderate this issue. Proposed changes in the maximum fowl allowed per property have been withdrawn; however the animal unit in Article 11 has been revised for clarity. Recommended changes still include the following: Section 2.4.7 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. Staff Analysis Staff hopes the revisions are acceptable to the Rural Agricultural District property owners while addressing noise issues for neighbors. Action Staff is asking the Commission to provide input and possible direction to Council, on the proposed zone change scenarios.  Staff Report PP 21-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 Page 1 COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 Petition No. PP 21-38 A. STAFF REPORT, July 29, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Joe and Stan, LLC (Joe Kozimor, Manager) Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application May 21, 2021 Requested Action Final Plat Approval Location A portion of Parcel No. 2080172214410, located at the north terminus of Sparrowhawk Dr. and Soaring Eagle Drive Existing Zoning SF-7 Single Family Residential Surrounding North: Unincorporated San Juan County/Residential South: SF-7 Little Creek Subdivision Phase 2 Zoning and Land East: SF-MH Undeveloped Use West: SF-7 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VI Subdivision Class Class 1 Notice Final Plat Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 7 Lots (1 unbuildable/open space) Acres of Land 1.79 Acres Minimum Lot Size 7,000 square feet 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  Staff Report PP 21-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for the Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 a Class 1, 7-lot subdivision on a 1.79-acre portion of an undeveloped parcel located north of the terminus of Sparrowhawk Drive in West Farmington. Lot sizes for Phase VII range from 1.23 acres to 2.31 acres. The proposed subdivision is an addition to previous Little Creek Subdivisions developed on properties to the south. Phase VII, No. 1 is the first stage of Phase VII, which received preliminary plan approval from the City Council on January 26, 2021. This phase includes one, non-buildable lot (#4). A 60-foot wide gas line right-of-way transects the northern portion of the plat. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta: 599-1399 and tsitta@fmtn.org • The gas easement should be included in one of the lots. I don’t think an easement can stand alone, unless it is dedicated and owned by an entity (ex: the gas company that utilizes the gas line, streets being dedicated to the city for public use). Who is responsible for maintaining open space lots or the gas line easement if it is not included in one of the lots (city parks? A home owners’ association? Will it remain a property of the developer?)? Typically the land surface of an easement is maintained by the property owner, not necessarily the user of the easement – particularly if it is an underground utility. • The lot #s on Phase VII No 1 are not the same as the Lot #s on Phase VII. There is an overlap of lots between these two subdivisions and the lot #s conflict. • Construction Plans were submitted for this subdivision – comments regarding the construction plans will be submitted separately, at a later date. Staff Comment: These issues have been addressed through submittal of a revised plat. 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.  Staff Report PP 21-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 Page 3 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 SF 7: Single- family residential zoning district. 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 single-family use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map which designates this area as Light Industrial. However, the areas adjacent to this proposed subdivision have been developed as single-family residential lots, effectively abrogating the Community Plan designation.  Staff Report PP 21-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 Page 4 Aerial Map of Surrounding Area Subject Property  Staff Report PP 21-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 Page 5 FINAL PLAT  Staff Report PP 21-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1 Page 6 STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition 21-38, Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII, No. 1, is appropriate, subject to technical and corrective changes as enumerated in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 21-38, a request from Joe and Stan, LLC (Joe Kozimor, Manager) represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc. for a final plat of a Class 1, 7-lot subdivision on a 1.79-acre portion of an undeveloped parcel located north of the terminus of Sparrowhawk Drive in West Farmington. The lot sizes for Phase VII range from 7,000 square feet to 16,00 square feet. 1. All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat for signature, including noted issues in this report. 2. A subdivision agreement shall be required. Staff Report PP 20-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Page 7  Staff Report PP 20-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Page 8 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY FP 21-38 LITTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 7 NO. 1 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 • The gas easement should be included in one of the lots. I don’t think an easement can stand alone, unless it is dedicated and owned by an entity (ex: the gas company that utilizes the gas line, streets being dedicated to the city for public use). Who is responsible for Engineering – T. Sitta maintaining open space lots or the gas line easement if it is not included in one of the lots (city parks? A home owners’ association? Will it remain a property of the developer?)? Typically the land surface of an easement is maintained by the property owner, not necessarily the user of the easement –  Staff Report PP 20-38 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Page 9 particularly if it is an underground utility. • The lot #s on Phase VII No 1 are not the same as the Lot #s on Phase VII. There is an overlap of lots between these two subdivisions and the lot #s conflict. • Construction Plans were submitted for this subdivision – comments regarding the construction plans will be submitted separately, at a later date. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton No Comment 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