Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive August 12, 2021 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the July 29, 2021 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition No. FP 21-41 Discussion & Possible Action – Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III; a request from Silver Ridge Development, Craig Stoabs, property owner. (Beth Escobar) 5 Discussion & Possible Action – Discussion and possible action regarding proposed changes to the 2021 Unified Development Code regarding Adult Use Cannabis. (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 24, 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 July 29, 2021 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on July 29, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Chair-Joyce Cardon Vice Chair Freeman Shay Davis Elizabeth Lockmiller Mitch Sewell (via Conference Call) P&Z Members Absent: Ryan Brown Cheryl Ragsdale Gary Smouse Cody Waldroup Staff Present: Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Andrea Jones Ellen Wayne Jennifer Breakell Todd Johnston Others Who Addressed the Commission: Tiana Chavez Jerome Chavez Jeffery Rendall Duane McKnight Christine Wright Robert Fate Roberta Fate Robert McEwan Amy Conley Linda Goff Bob Echols Call to Order Chair Joyce Cardon called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda Page 2 The motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve the agenda of the July 29, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Lockmiller and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman to approve the minutes of the June 24, 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. ______________________________________________________________________ UDC Discussion & Possible Action Regarding Proposed Changes to the UDC: Section 2.4.7 – Animals or Fowl and Article 11 – Definitions Limiting the Number of Fowl to be Allowed on Properties in the RA District Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: 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. Page 3 Action Staff is asking the Commission to provide input and possible direction to Council on the proposed zone change scenarios. Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Fate: Page 7 Discussion Chair Cardon asked the Commission if they had questions for staff. There were no questions for staff. Chair Cardon opened the meeting to members of the public. Tiana Chavez, 2500 Ridgeview Drive, stated that she wanted to speak on two main points, first to clarify false statements about herself, her family and her property and second how she got here, what this meeting is about and everything that led up to this point. Mrs. Chavez stated that in the last meeting she felt that those who spoke portrayed her family in an awful light. Mrs. Chavez stated that she and her family were born and raised in New Mexico, have lived in the area for over 10 years and both she and her husband are active members of the community. Mrs. Chavez stated that Planning Manager Escobar sent out a letter that stated the modifications that are being considered are an attempt to integrate the raising of fowl with abutting residential properties. Mrs. Chavez stated that living in a Rural Agricultural area, part of the zoning allows for raising and breeding poultry, stating that animals do make noise and when living in an area that is zoned to allow animals, there will be noise. Mrs. Chavez stated she bought her property because of the zoning, a fence was installed, and neighbors have not come to her and her family to talk about any issues; a little over a month after moving in, Code Compliance officers came to the residence and investigated accusations against her family. Mrs. Chavez stated that then another complaint was issued against her family, a summons was then issued against her and her family, adjustments were made to be in compliance, then a letter was received that the zoning was going to be changed for her neighborhood. Mrs. Chavez said she feels that her neighbors are trying to drive her and her family out of the neighborhood. Mrs. Chavez asked why complaints from some individuals hold more weight than other people’s complaints, stating that she and her family are a part of this city too. Mrs. Chavez stated that she will always stand and defend her family. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mrs. Chavez if her property is not being forced to be rezoned. Mrs. Chavez stated that it is. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mrs. Chavez if her property is being rezoned. Mrs. Chavez stated that it is not being rezoned. Vice Chair Freeman stated that modifications are being made to the UDC and asked Mrs. Chavez how she felt about the modifications that were presented today. Mrs. Chavez stated that the modifications are specifically targeted to her property and the animals that are on her property. Page 8 Vice Chair Freeman stated that the modification to the UDC regarding fowl and horses has been ongoing for about 13 years. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mrs. Chavez again how she felt about the changes to the UDC that have been brought forward. Mrs. Chavez stated that she feels that they are specifically targeted to her family. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mrs. Chavez how the changes affect her. Mrs. Chavez stated the changes regarding fowl affect her. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mrs. Chavez if 50 fowl per acre is inadequate for her needs. Mrs. Chavez stated that she feels that she does not understand how someone has control of the ratio of how many of each sex of animal she can have on her property. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mrs. Chavez if she is not pleased on how the changes to the ratio work out for her. Mrs. Chavez stated no, not for her or for anyone else. Mrs. Chavez stated that she does not understand why there is a ratio for male to female and why one specific animal is being targeted and why other animals don’t have ratio for male to female. Vice Chair Freeman thanked Mrs. Chavez for sharing her opinion. Chair Cardon stated that the UDC is set for the parameters for everyone’s living space with a lot of elements going into that, one discussed being noise and what precedes that. Chair Cardon stated that these modifications have been going on for more than over 15 years. Chair Cardon apologized to Mrs. Chavez and stated that no one is trying to change the zoning of the Chavez property. Mrs. Chavez asked if the animals and what she can have on her property is being changed. Chair Cardon stated that was correct, but is different from a rezoning. Planning Manager Escobar stated the changes being brought forth are to try to avoid some issues specific to a neighborhood and tighten up the code. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Chavez property is zoned RA and if any changes are adopted, Mr. and Mrs. Chavez would have to bring their property into compliance through attrition. A member from the audience asked Chair Cardon to please ask the group of people seated in front of him to keep their comments to themselves and wait for their turn to speak. Chair Cardon asked the audience not to make comments until it is their time to speak. Page 9 Jerome Chavez, 2500 Ridgeview Drive, stated that he does not have an issue with the shelters; he does plan to build a barn. Mr. Chavez stated that the issue he has with the 10 to 1 ratio, is when does the fowl become a rooster, stating that a rooster matures at 2 years old and becomes sexually mature before they are a year old, but mature into their full weight around 2 years old. Mr. Chavez stated that he would like to see in the ordinance clarification on roosters and when do they become a nuisance, if it is when they start to crow or when they are mature for consumption. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Chavez what his experience is for when they start crowing. Mr. Chavez stated that roosters don’t crow well until they are about 8 months old. Mr. Chavez stated that if Code Compliance is to go to his house and the ratio is off, 1 rooster to 10 hens, but the roosters are not fully mature, will the Compliance officers be trained to know if a rooster is mature. If the number of fowl is changed from 10 to 1 there does need to be clarity. Mr. Chavez stated that it is up to him to stay in compliance with the noise levels, but if complaints are made, are Compliance officers able to determine which fowl are mature. Chair Cardon asked Mr. Chavez if his definition is the difference in the way the fowl crow. Mr. Chavez stated yes. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Chavez what his recommendation would be. Mr. Chavez stated that it is hard to say, but possibly a certain weight limit, noting that his mature roosters weigh about 5 pounds. Mr. Chavez asked that there be clarity in the code for future instances, so his fowl are not destroyed. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Chavez in his experience if it is a 1 to 1 ratio. Mr. Chavez stated that it depends on the breeding rooster; the younger the rooster is the more males he’ll throw. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Chavez at what age he would consider a rooster mature enough to slaughter. Mr. Chavez stated about one year. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Chavez what a rooster typically weighs at a year old. Mr. Chavez stated about 3.5 pounds. Page 10 Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Chavez if he agreed that roosters start to become vocal and load at 15 months old. Mr. Chavez stated that he believes that roosters become vocal and loud at 8 months old. Vice Chair Freeman asked how much would an 8-month-old rooster weigh? Mr. Chavez stated about 3 pounds. Jeffery Rendall, 4703 West Hopi Street, stated that the changes being made to the UDC are fair and the only issue he has is the required fowl to be contained in a shelter to mitigate sound. Mr. Rendall stated that he lives on 9 acres of land and his closest neighbor is 100 yards from his property. Mr. Rendall stated that he raises free-range chickens on his property and does not want to put his chickens in a container, stating that free-range chickens are what is desired. Mr. Rendall stated that he would like to see the provision about fowl being contained in a shelter taken out of the update to the UDC. Mr. Rendall stated that he feels that less governance is needed for property owners and that being a good neighbor is important. Duane McKnight, 302 Harbor Lane, stated that he agrees with Mr. Rendall as far as containing the chickens in a shelter. Mr. McKnight stated that having chickens contained is not the best environment for the chickens. Mr. McKnight stated that there are ordinances in place for noise levels and the number of roosters or chickens that one can have should not matter. Mr. McKnight stated that if one is raising roosters as layers, there should be no more than 1 rooster for 12 chickens due to the hens being abused by the rooster too much. Mr. McKnight stated that the laws that Code Compliance enforce already exist and to change and add more to the ordinances, making it difficult for people to follow does not make sense. Mr. McKnight also stated that he assumes that there are a few special use permits for individuals who have chickens and do not live in an RA district, but the ordinance does not apply to them. Mr. McKnight stated that this is a noise ordinance issue and the noise issue should be addressed. Christine Wright was sworn in by Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant. Christine Wright, 100 Hidden Acres Drive, stated that she has lived at her residence for 26 years and the neighborhood she lives in is a good neighborhood and she loves her backyard. Ms. Wright stated that she mediates in her backyard and it has been difficult lately due to the noise of the roosters. Ms. Wright stated that she grew up on a farm and she has never had an issue with animal noise to this level. Ms. Wright stated that the ratio that is being proposed is acceptable. Vice Chair Freeman asked Ms. Wright how she feels about the modifications that have been made to the UDC. Page 11 Ms. Wright stated that she can live with the modifications and agrees with Mr. Rendall in regards to the chickens being kept in a shelter. Robert Fate, 2504 Ridgeview Drive, stated that the City Council meetings and all City meetings are public record and if anything hateful is said it would have been acknowledged. Mr. Fate stated that he has no personal contact with the people next door. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Fate to speak to the UDC versus speaking to personal matters. Mr. Fate stated that he believes that this issue is a noise issue with the rooster and one thing that needs to be understood of the Rural Agricultural area is the proximity between neighbors. Mr. Fate stated that he lives 90 feet away from the pasture where the roosters are being raised, the crowing is incessant prior to dawn just until dark. Mr. Fate stated that 1 to 15 is an acceptable number; it could be higher for breeding purposes. Mr. Fate stated that having the fowl being housed does not make sense, free range and untethering would be better. Roberta Fate, 2504 Ridgeway Drive, stated that she loves her RA zoning and that is not what she is fighting about, what she is fighting about is the noise issue. Mrs. Fate played a recording of a rooster crowing. Mrs. Fate stated that is what she hears 16 hours a day, starting about 4:00 am going until dawn. Mrs. Fate stated that the crowing comes from multiple roosters crowing. Mrs. Fate stated that she feels if the rooster were in a free range situation there would not be a noise issue. Mrs. Fate stated when a rooster is tethered they will crow because they can see one another and they want to fight. Mrs. Fate stated that she would like to see the ration as 1 rooster to 25 hens. Mrs. Fate stated that she does take exception to raising a rooster for 2 years before you eat it, it would be so tough. Mrs. Fate stated that she believes the current thinking is to butcher a rooster at 14-15 weeks old; the crowing issue would never need to be addressed. Mrs. Fate stated that the Chavez’s have said that they are in a meat growing situation. Mrs. Fate stated that she believes this is a noise issue, she can hear the roosters crowing all the time, she is sleep deprived and she feels that this is a noise issue and should be taken care of as a noise issue. Chair Cardon asked Mrs. Fate for a number that she believes is reasonable recommendation on a length of age. Mrs. Fate stated that she would like to see the ratio as 1 rooster for 20 hens and she believes that when one has 1 rooster for 10 hens the roosters can pick on the chickens pretty severely. Mrs. Fate stated that for the age of consumption of a rooster she would try to get recommendations for what age is the right time for consumption. Chair Cardon asked Mrs. Fate if she had a recommendation for an average pound of roosters for consumption. Page 12 Mrs. Fate stated that she could not recommend an average pound because she raises layers, but she would assume that it would be around 3 pounds. Robert McEwan, 1080 Highway 371, spoke to his educational background, noise issues he has encountered over the years and asked what the distance is between the Chavez and Fate residences. Amy Conley, 2601 Riverside Drive, stated that her daughters raise chickens and present them at the fair yearly. Ms. Conley stated that in her experience, roosters start to crow at 4-5 months. Ms. Conley stated that she also raises chickens for meat; these chickens are called broilers, 5 pounds being the ideal weight for the broilers, with the life span being about 3 months. Ms. Conley stated that she would never purchase a regular rooster for consumption, she has never tethered roosters and there is a difference between a rooster and a broiler, a broiler is for meat. Ms. Conley stated that she believes the distance between the Chavez residence and the Fate residence is 90 feet. Vice Chair Freeman asked Ms. Conley when she butchers her fowl. Ms. Conley stated that she butchers her fowl at 3 months old and they weigh 5 pounds, which is the recommended weight. Chair Cardon asked Ms. Conley how many fowl she usually has at one time. Ms. Conley stated that she usually has 50, a mix of male and female. Chair Cardon asked if she raises her chickens, butchers and then starts over in the spring. Ms. Conley stated yes and that all her fowl go to the butcher in August. Vice Chair Freeman asked Ms. Conley if the proposed changes to the UDC have a positive or negative impact for her. Ms. Conley stated it would impact what type of fowl she ordered and could impact her daughters who raise fowl for the fair yearly. Ms. Conley stated that defining what a rooster is will be critical, specifying if the rooster is a broiler for meat consumption or a crowing rooster not for meat consumption. Commissioner Davis asked Ms. Conley if she has a recommendation for defining a rooster. Ms. Conley stated that a broiler is for meat consumption and a rooster would not be for meat consumption. Vice Chair Freeman asked if a broiler is a breed of chicken. Page 13 Ms. Conley stated that there are different types of broilers, some being defined by color, for consumption; but when the definition of roosters are looked up on websites they are different from broilers. Commissioner Freeman asked Ms. Conley if a broiler is a rooster. Ms. Conley stated that broilers can be male or female. Linda Goff, 210 South Gooding Lane, stated that she has lived in the area all her life. Ms. Goff stated that then the people moved in with the roosters. Vice Chair Freeman asked Ms. Goff to speak to the UDC that is being discussed versus individuals. Ms. Goff stated that the noise level is loud and her residence is 4 houses to the east. Vice Chair Freeman asked Ms. Goff what her thoughts were on the proposed changes to the UDC. Ms. Goff stated that her preference would be 1 rooster to 20 hens and that she is in favor of a shelter to mitigate sound. Duane McKnight, 302 Harbor Lane, asked how many rooster complaints have come from Rural Agricultural zoning and how many complaints come from Residential zoning with special use permits or no permits. Jennifer Breakell, City Attorney, stated that in her 12 years employed with the City, this has been the first complaint for a Rural Agriculture zoning. Ms. Breakell stated that in the future, per code, special use permits will not be required. Vice Chair Freeman stated that most cases that the commission has seen were in regards to horses and chickens, the code has been updated to allow the keeping of chickens by right, making life easier for the residents of Farmington. Planning Manager Escobar stated that roosters are not permitted in other zoning areas besides Rural Agricultural zoned areas. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there is 90 feet between the Fate residence and Chavez residence. Todd Johnston, City of Farmington Code Compliance Corporal, thanked the commission and staff for changing the code to a number rather than a coefficient. Officer Johnston stated that whatever code is decided upon, it is he and his officers that will have to go out and enforce. Officer Johnston stated that definitions are going to be important in defining what a rooster is. Officer Johnston stated that there have been 6 chicken complaints this year and that this complaint being spoken about today is the only complaint he has seen in a Rural Agricultural district in his 16 years on the job. Page 14 Chair Cardon closed the public comment. Chair Cardon asked Planning Manager Escobar what she needs from the commission to move forward. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the commission could recommend that no zone changes are made. Planning Manager Escobar stated that what she has heard today is that the issue is a noise issue and that it is not in the UDC but in the Municipal Code. Planning Manager Escobar stated that in regards to the shelter, the recommendation could be that if noise is an issue then one must shelter their roosters. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she is just unsure how to take the information received and make it more clear for residents. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she will take any direction that she can get from the commission. Commissioner Davis asked if the noise levels at the Chavez residents can be discussed. City Attorney Breakell stated that when the noise level was first measured, there was some noise interference, measurement after showed that the noise level from the Chavez residence did exceed by 5.6 decibels, not substantially over, but over. Vice Chair Freeman stated that he likes that there are some boundaries, regardless of the zoning, it sounds like there is some consensus in the ratio numbers and does not believe that the shelter is necessary. Vice Chair Freeman stated that he is struggling with the metric that can be used. Commissioner Davis stated that he finds peace in whatever ratio is agreed upon because there are measures in place if there is an issue with noise levels. Commissioner Davis stated that if a rooster can be defined it will be a rare occurrence for Code Compliance to sort through the fowl. Vice Chair Freeman stated that he feels that the commission is on the right track, maybe having to define what a rooster is and at what point does fowl become a rooster. Chair Cardon stated that she agrees with Vice Chair Freeman and what is a rooster and how can Code Compliance recognize that fowl is a rooster. Chair Cardon stated that it does come down to noise and if the fowl is cackling or crowing, then up to the property owner to follow the ratio when the fowl is determined to be a rooster or hen. Chair Cardon stated that it then comes down to how many roosters are allowed to hens, mentioning that she heard at least 3 members of the public mention that at some point the roosters are mean to the hens. Commissioner Lockmiller stated that she believes that it does come down to noise and figuring out what ratio is appropriate, looking to those who raise fowl to help determine that ratio. Commissioner Lockmiller stated that she does not believe that the fowl should be housed. Page 15 Commissioner Sewell stated that in a Rural Agricultural area there should be an understanding that there will be animals and everything that comes along with animals including the noise, he does believe this is a noise issue, the sheltering should be removed from the proposed changes and the ratio is hard to determine and how that can be worked out and included in the UDC. Commissioner Sewell stated that he does believe a rooster is defined as a crowing fowl because if the fowl is not crowing then there is not a noise issue. Motion A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Davis to send the proposed changes to the UDC back to staff, keeping the outline in place, removing the mandate for shelter and having staff come back with a recommendation specifically in regards to defining roosters. The motion carried unanimously 5-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Petition FP 21-38 – Little Creek Subdivision Phase 7 No. 1 Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following presentation: Subdivision Information • A seven lot, Class 1 subdivision • 1.79 acre portion of an undeveloped parcel • First stage of Little Creek Subdivision, Phase VII • Preliminary Plan for Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII was approved by City Council on January 26, 2021 • Includes one, non-buildable lot labeled ‘Open Space’ • Includes a 60-foot gas easement • Property is zoned SF-7: Single Family Residential, 7,000 square feet minimum lot size Page 16 Aerial Map Page 17 Final Plat Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of FP 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. • 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. • Notes shall be added to the Final Plat cover sheet assigning responsibility for maintenance of Open Space (Lot #4) and Gas Line easement. • A subdivision agreement shall be required. Discussion Commissioner Davis asked Planning Manager Escobar what maintaining the gas line easement would involve. Page 18 Planning Manager Escobar stated that the person who moves onto the property will be responsible for maintaining the weeds or trash on the open space/easements area, a statement would read that the homeowners association, gas line owner or the open space owners would be responsible. Commissioner Davis asked if the homeowner that purchases the lot does not purchase the easement over the gas line. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the easement does not take away who owns the property; it just allows something to traverse the property. Vice Chair Freeman stated that Toni Sitta, City Engineering Department, did note that the gas easement should be included in one of the lots. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was a part of the revisions and we are still asking for some maintenance designations, other than the City. Bob Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols, stated he is in discussions with Joe & Stan LLC on how they would like to handle the easement. In other situations the easement and open space has been a part of the lot owner’s responsibility and that may be the way this is handled, but it will be resolved and it will be noted on the plat. Commissioner Davis asked if there is a Homeowners Association (HOA) for this subdivision. Mr. Echols stated that there will be a HOA for this subdivision. Chair Cardon asked if the area east is industrial. Mr. Echols stated that going east is the next phase of this subdivision. Commissioner Davis asked why this subdivision is being broken up into so many pieces. Mr. Echols stated that primarily this was the next easiest phase to do and to get lots ready to sell. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman to recommend APPROVAL of FP 21-38 as recommended by staff. The motion carried unanimously 5-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Page 19 Business from the Members: There was no business from Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar stated the four petitions that were heard at the June 3, 2021 P&Z meeting were heard and approved by Council on July 10, 2021. Planning Manager Escobar distributed buttons and postcards to the commission for the Comprehensive Plan, noting that public participation for the plan kicked off July 6, 2021, the plan is posted on the City of Farmington website with an interactive feature to make public comments. Planning Manager Escobar stated The Wall That Heals, a replica of the Vietnam War Memorial, will be displayed at San Juan College September 9 – September 12, 2021. Adjournment: With no further business and a motion to adjourn was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Davis. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. ____________________________ _____________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant Page 20  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Final Plat Petition No. FP 21-41 A. STAFF REPORT, August 12, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Silver Ridge Development, Craig Stoabs Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application June 10, 2021 Requested Action Final Plat Approval Location A portion of Parcel No. 2073174236294/R4007734, located north of Desert Rose Subdivision Phase II Existing Zoning SF-7 Single Family Residential Surrounding North: SF-7 & SF-10 Undeveloped South: SF-7 Desert Rose Phase II Zoning and Land East: SF- 5 Animas Subdivision Use West: SF-7 Undeveloped Subdivision Class Class 1 Notice Final Plat Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 14 lots Acres of Land 4.39 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 Page 21  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III, a Class 1, 14-lot subdivision on a 4.39-acre portion of an undeveloped parcel located north of the terminus of Beckland Drive. Lot sizes for Phase III range from 7,206 square feet to 17,901 square feet. The proposed subdivision is in addition to previous Desert Rose Subdivisions developed on properties to the south. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta: 599-1399 and tsitta@fmtn.org • Please review and address the following document for easement as it potentially crosses Lot 7. The plat "Drainage and Utility Easements Located on Lands of Leroy English, recorded E-27 on Dec 11, 1980", indicates a 50 ft. drainage and utility easement is located on the east side of Lot 7. • Please review and address the following document for easement as it potentially crosses Lot 7. The plat "Desert Rose Phase I, recorded B1477 P986, on June 27, 2008", indicates there is a 50 foot Williams Field Services Gas Line Right-of- way located south of Arctic. Gas line markers appeared to be located to the north of Arctic St, during a field visit by City Staff. Does the Williams Field Services Gas Line ROW continue north of Arctic Street and cross Lot 7? • Please submit construction plans for Desert Rose Phase III. The construction improvement documents that were submitted to the City and approved in 2007 1) Please review and address the following document for easement as it potentially crosses Lot 7. The plat "Drainage and Utility Easements Located on Lands of Leroy English, recorded E-27 on Dec 11, 1980", indicates a 50 ft. drainage and utility easement is located on the east side of Lot 7. • 2) Please review and address the following document for easement as it potentially crosses Lot 7. The plat "Desert Rose Phase I, recorded B1477 P986, on June 27, 2008", indicates there is a 50 foot Williams Field Services Gas Line Right-of-way located south of Arctic. Gas line markers appeared to be located to the north of Arctic St, during a field visit by City Staff. Does the Williams Field Services Gas Line ROW continue north of Arctic Street and cross Lot 7? • 3) Please submit construction plans for Desert Rose Phase III. The construction improvement documents that were submitted to the City and approved in 2007 were approved based on the Preliminary Plat dated January 5, 2006. The Desert Rose Phase III Plat dated June 7, 2021, includes lots to the North of Arctic Street. The Construction Plans need to be updated to reflect the additional street construction required for this subdivision. Construction plans shall meet current City of Farmington Construction Standards. • 4) Please include a drainage report addressing the drainage improvements that have not been completed in prior phases of this subdivision. Page 22  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 3 • Prior drainage reports indicate stormwater drainage from the subdivision going to the English Land CO (R6000703) property before discharging to the Walmart property (was this intended to be completed during the construction of the Desert Rose Subdivision?). • The drainage report included in the 2007 construction plans indicates the storm water for this subdivision is be detained in a stormwater detention pond along the porter arroyo in the SW corner of property R4008916. This does not appear to have been constructed per the 2007 construction plans, please address. Staff Comment: These issues have been addressed through submittal of a revised plat and new construction drawings. 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 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. Page 23  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 4 Staff Comments: The proposed single-family use is consistent with the Residential Single Family Urban designation Future Land Use map. Page 24  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 5 Aerial Map of Surrounding Area Subject Property Page 25  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 6 FINAL PLAT SHEET 1 Page 26  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 7 FINAL PLAT SHEET 2 Page 27  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 8 STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition 21-41, a final plat for Desert Rose Subdivision, Phase III, is appropriate, subject to technical and corrective changes as enumerated in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 21-41, a request from Craig Stoabs of Silver Ridge Subdivision represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc. for a final plat of a Class 1, 14-lot subdivision on a 4.39- acre portion of an undeveloped parcel located north at the north terminus of Beckland Drive in northeast Farmington. The lot sizes for Phase VII range from 7,000 square feet to 17,901 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. 3. Infrastructure construction shall not commence without an approved construction permit from the City. Inspections shall be required. Page 28 Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 9 Page 29  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 10 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY FP 21-41 DESERT ROSE SUBDIVISION, PHASE III DEADLINE: 6/18/2021 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers CW Long Range Planner CW MPO – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment Customer Care Manager – L. ELEC Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix No Comment 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 1) Please review and address the following document for easement as it potentially crosses Lot 7. The plat "Drainage and Utility Easements Located on Lands of Leroy English, recorded E-27 on Dec 11, 1980", indicates a 50 ft. drainage and utility easement is located on the east side of Lot 7. CW Engineering – T. Sitta 2) Please review and address the following document for easement as it potentially crosses Lot 7. The plat "Desert Rose Phase I, recorded B1477 P986, on June 27, 2008", indicates there is a 50 foot Williams Field Services Gas Line Right-of-way located south of Arctic. Gas line markers appeared to be located to the north of Arctic St, during a field visit by City Staff. Does the Williams Field Page 30  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 11 Services Gas Line ROW continue north of Arctic Street and cross Lot 7? 3) Please submit construction plans for Desert Rose Phase III. The construction improvement documents that were submitted to the City and approved in 2007 were approved based on the Preliminary Plat dated January 5, 2006. The Desert Rose Phase III Plat dated June 7, 2021, includes lots to the North of Arctic Street. The Construction Plans need to be updated to reflect the additional street construction required for this subdivision. Construction plans shall meet current City of Farmington Construction Standards. 4) Please include a drainage report addressing the drainage improvements that have not been completed in prior phases of this subdivision. - Prior drainage reports indicate stormwater drainage from the subdivision going to the English Land CO (R6000703) property before discharging to the Walmart property (was this intended to be completed during the construction of the Desert Rose Subdivision?). The drainage report included in the 2007 construction plans indicates the storm water for this subdivision is be detained in a stormwater detention pond along the porter arroyo in the SW corner of property R4008916. This does not appear to have been constructed per the 2007 construction plans, please address. (See attachments in email sent by TSitta) 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. No Comment Castillo CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson Page 31  Staff Report FP 21-41 Desert Rose Subdivision Phase III Page 12 JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons Page 32  Memo To: Farmington Planning & Zoning Commission From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: August 12, 2021 Subject: Revisions to the Unified Development Code regarding Cannabis Background With the legalization of marijuana sales and cultivation staff is recommending the changes to the 2021 Unified Development Code. Use Table Staff is recommending retail sales of marijuana be permitted in GC: General Commercial zoning districts only. (Section 2.4.41) A map showing all of the GC zoned property within the City is attached with this memo. The General Commercial District is defined as: Sec. 3.13 - General commercial (GC). 3.13.1 Purpose. The general commercial (GC) district is intended to accommodate commercial uses. The GC district is not a neighborhood-oriented district and is not generally appropriate for application within residential areas. It is intended to be used to accommodate existing commercial uses along thoroughfares. It may also be used to accommodate new development proposals. In all cases, new development in the GC district should be adequately served by infrastructure. The GC district is intended to implement the planning policies of the comprehensive plan's "Commercial" land use designation. 3.13.2 Allowed uses. Uses are allowed in the GC district in accordance with the use table of section 2.3. 3.13.3 Density and dimensional standards. All development in the GC district is subject to the density and dimensional standards of section 2.8. 3.13.4 District standards. District standards applicable in the GC district include the following: A. Utilize architectural styles and building materials for all structures that are commonly used in the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural style and materials used for all structures shall be complementary to that of other structures in the area or vicinity. Page 33  B. Exhibit a unity of design for buildings within multi-building complexes through the use of similar elements such as rooflines, materials, window arrangement, sign location, and details. Staff has been contacted regarding retail marijuana sales in the Central Business District. 3.14.1 Purpose. The central business (CB) district is primarily intended to accommodate the moderate to high intensity business activities that characterize the city's cultural and business center. The CB district is appropriate for application in the downtown neighborhood as described in the comprehensive plan. The CB district is intended to implement the planning policies of the Comprehensive Plan's "Commercial" land use categories, as further qualified by Chapter 13, downtown neighborhoods. The vision for the downtown area, per the 2019 MRA plan, is as a destination place for residents and tourists alike with an emphasis on retail sales, activities and events and recreation. The recent large investment in the outdoor streetscape by the City reflects and supports this vision. Allowing cannabis sales in the Central Business area appears to be in conflict with this family and tourist friendly vision. Production and Manufacturing The extraction of cannabis and cannabidiol oil from plants involves the use of various solvents, including ethanol, carbon dioxide, propane and butane. Because of the flammable nature of these products, staff is recommending production be allowed within the GC and Industrial Zoning Districts with a Special Use Permit. (Section 2.4.42) Home Occupation Per the new state law, residents may grow up to a maximum of 12 cannabis plants at their homes. In order to reinforce that these plants are only to be used for personal consumption, staff is recommending language be added to Section 2.5.9 Agriculture Agriculture is permitted in the RA (Rural Agriculture) District only. Staff is suggesting that language prohibiting the cultivation of cannabis as an agricultural use in the RA district. (Sections 2.3 & 3.2.5) be prohibited. Food Trucks Staff is also recommending adding language prohibiting the sale of cannabis products from mobile food trucks (Section 2.4.66). Page 34 With these recommended revisions, staff is hoping to balance support for this new economic segment while protecting public health and safety. Council Input The code changes noted above have been presented to Council and received consensus. A list of the recommended red line changes is included with this report. Action Staff is asking the Commission to provide input and possible direction to Council, on the proposed zone change scenarios. Page 35  Proposed Revisions to the 2021 Unified Development Code Regarding Cannabis Sec. 2.3 Use Table Sec. 2.4 Use Standards 2.4.41 Recreational cannabis sales: A. Retailers of recreational cannabis shall be licensed by the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division. B. Retail sales are permitted in the GC: General Commercial Zoning District only. C. Such uses shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school or daycare center. D. Cultivation of cannabis for retail sales is not permitted. E. Consumption of retail cannabis by adults over 21 years of age without a medical marijuana card shall be permitted in a fully enclosed building only. F. Sales and consumption is not permitted on public property G. No more than 25 retail establishments shall be allowed within the City of Farmington 2.4.42 Cannabis cultivation A. The planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading or trimming of cannabis is not permitted within the City of Farmington Planning Division Presentation to Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2020 Page 36  Proposed Revisions to the 2021 Unified Development Code Regarding Cannabis 2.4.43.1 Cannabis, manufacturing and production A. The manufacturing and production of Cannabis and Cannabidiol (CBD) products is permitted in the GC; General Commercial and I; Industrial Zoning Districts with a Special Use Permit 2.4.44: Cannabis testing laboratory A. The sampling, collection and test of cannabis products is permitted in the General Commercial and I: Industrial Zoning Districts with a Special Use Permit 2.4.67 Mobile Food Units A. Site plan approval is required prior to placement of any Mobile Food Unit. Site plan must show location of related power source, and proposed lighting, location of required restrooms and any utility infrastructure. B. Placement of units shall not interfere with on-site emergency access. C. Units shall not be placed in any existing designated parking spaces. D. Sale of cannabis edibles and products from mobile food units is prohibited. 2.5 Accessory Uses and Structures 2.5.9 Home occupations. A home occupation shall be allowed as an accessory use to a residential dwelling and shall be subject to compliance with the standards of this section. A. The use is carried on entirely within the residence by persons living at the residence; B. The occupation is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal use of the residence; C. The use and all related activities shall occupy no more than 25 percent of the first floor of the residence; D. All activities related to the home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling, and not within customary residential accessory structures; E. There shall be no outside storage of any kind related to the home occupation; F. No external structural alterations which are not customary in residential buildings are made; G. The occupation is not disruptive of the residential character of the neighborhood; H. Signs are subject to the regulations of Section 5.8.7.A.13. The occupation shall not create any disturbing or offensive activity, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, glare, or other unhealthy or unsightly condition; Planning Division Presentation to Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2020 Page 37  Proposed Revisions to the 2021 Unified Development Code Regarding Cannabis J. The occupation shall not generate vehicular traffic or parking around the residence greater than that normally associated with the use of the residence as a dwelling; and K. The occupation does not involve retail sales on the premises. L. A City of Farmington Business Registration is required. M. Cultivation of cannabis and manufacturing of cannabis/cannibidol product or retail sales are not permitted as a home occupation. Sec. 3.2 - Rural agricultural (RA) 3.2.1 Purpose. The rural agricultural (RA) district is intended to promote and protect rural residential and agricultural land uses. The standards of the RA district are designed to permit development that is compatible with existing rural character and agricultural uses while not permanently foreclosing future development options. When population growth or other forces dictate the need for conversion of land from RA to higher intensity zoning classifications, these areas may be re- evaluated and may then be rezoned to permit more intensive uses. The RA district is intended to implement and correspond to the comprehensive plan's "Rural greater than 5 acres" land use designation. 3.2.2 Allowed uses. Uses are allowed in the RA district in accordance with the use table of section 2.3. 3.2.3 Density and dimensional standards. All development in the RA district shall be subject to the density and dimensional standards of section 2.8. 3.2.4 District standards. District standards applicable in the RA district include the following: A. [RESERVED] 3.2.5 Cultivation: Cultivation of cannabis or manufacturing of cannabis products for sale is not a permitted us in the RA District Planning Division Presentation to Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2020 Page 38  Proposed Revisions to the 2021 Unified Development Code Regarding Cannabis Article 11 Definitions Any sign attached to any part of a building, as contrasted to a Building sign "freestanding sign." The total horizontal area included within the lines encompassing a Building site building site. An exterior load-bearing or non-load-bearing vertical structure that encompasses the area between the final grade elevation and Building wall eaves of the building, and used to enclose the space within the building. A porch, balcony, or stoop is part of the building structure and may be considered as a building wall. A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which it is situated. A multi-occupant property may have more than Building, principal one principal building, but only structures regularly used for human occupancy may be considered principal buildings. Not an accessory building. A sign expressing support for a candidate for public office or Campaign sign another position regarding a public figure or issue, but bearing no commercial message. Any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, Cannabis, cultivation curing, grading or trimming of cannabis Cannabis, Any activity involving the extraction of substance from plants and production/manufacturing manufacturing of products Cannabis testing Samples, collects and tests cannabis products laboratory Planning Division Presentation to Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2020 Page 39 Zoning Map Page 40 City of Farmington, NM San Juan County, Zoning Map 1mi