Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive September 16, 2021 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the August 26, 2021 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition No. FP 21-50 Discussion & Possible Action – Mesa Vista Subdivision #8 – a request from Mike Hamilton of Mesa View Development (Beth Escobar) 5 Petition No. SUP 21-49 - Discussion & possible action regarding 4400/4410 College Blvd. – a request from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a Special Use Permit to allow for a 28,000 square-foot temple and a 2,500 square-foot meetinghouse at 4400/4410 College Blvd. (Beth Escobar) 6 Petition No. FP 21-54 - Discussion & possible action regarding Ridgeview Subdivision No.4 – a request from Darrell and Michaela Martinez, represented by Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols for a Final plat approval for phase 4 of Ridgeview Subdivision (Beth Escobar) 7 Petition No. PP 21-56 - Discussion & possible action regarding Farmington Center Subdivision – a request from Red Shamrock 12, LLC, property owner, represented by Basin Surveying, for Preliminary Plan approval of a 5-lot commercial subdivision located in the City of Farmington (Beth Escobar) 8 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) 9 Business From: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 10 Adjournment The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, September 28, 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 August 26, 2021 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on August 26, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Chair - Joyce Cardon Shay Davis Elizabeth Lockmiller Cheryl Ragsdale Cody Waldroup P&Z Members Absent: Vice Chair – Clint Freeman Ryan Brown Mitch Sewell Gary Smouse Staff Present: Jennifer Breakell Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission: Jeremy Bonin Jason Little 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 Davis and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to approve the agenda of the August 26, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Lockmiller to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion was approved unanimously by a 5-0 vote. ______________________________________________________________________ 2 Petition No. FP 21-50 Discussion & Possible Action – Mesa Vista Subdivision #8 – a request from Mike Hamilton of Mesa View Development Commissioner Lockmiller recused herself from this petition due to a conflict of interest. With Commissioner Lockmiller recusing herself, the P&Z Commission did not have a quorum to hear this petition. Commissioner Davis asked if all items being discussed today could not be heard. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was only for Petition FP 21-50, Mesa Vista Subdivision #8. Commissioner Davis asked if Commissioner Lockmiller could come back and hear the remaining agenda items, so there is a quorum. City Attorney Breakell stated that it would only be for this one petition and the petition would be tabled. This petition was tabled and moved to be heard at the September 16, 2021 Planning & Zoning meeting. ______________________________________________________________________ Discussion & Possible Action – Discussion & possible action regarding the Draft 2040 Navigating Farmington's Future Comprehensive Plan Planning Manager Escobar showed the 2040 Comprehensive Plan video to the Commission. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan video can be viewed online at (INSERT LINK). Ms. Escobar reviewed the proposed changes in the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, expanding on Chapters 1-5. Ms. Escobar noted the following; Chapter 1 contains important information about where we are today. In Chapter 2, the plan provides a snapshot of where Farmington is at today, including population and economic information. It also includes information on internal and external transportation networks, and provides a visual of land ownership surrounding the Farmington metropolitan area. Chapter 3 provides a framework for moving forward within several segments, including housing, land use, transportation, downtown, parks and recreation and economic development. The goals identified for each segment will guide future development. Chapter 4 includes the Future Land Use Plan. This map does not change the zoning of any individual properties, but provides a vision of the best locations for types of future development such as retirement communities. Chapter 5 contains information about land use, including land use map, mixed village and mixed commercial concepts. Implementation sets all the goals randomly and staff set action tables. Ms. Escobar stated that Mike Safrany, CDBG Planner, has already begun scoping out a housing plan, which will be presented to the Commission once completed; 3 also the Unified Development Code updates have covered a lot. Ms. Escobar asked the Commission if they had any questions, if anything needs to be added or improved, and stated she hopes to move the draft to the City Council by September 28, 2021. Discussion Chair Cardon asked the Commission if they had any questions. Chair Cardon stated that it was great to see different personalities come to the table and share their feedback. Chair Cardon thanked staff for all the updates through the process. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the goals are laid out starting with housing and moving forward. Ms. Escobar stated yes, those are action items, and the overall plan is the vision, giving a good foundation on how applications are reviewed. Ms. Escobar added that 30 days of intensive public outreach was conducted and everyone was really positive. Commissioner Davis asked what the motion would be to move this forward. Ms. Escobar stated that the motion would be that the City Council adopts the draft plan. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to move the Draft Comprehensive Plan to City Council for consideration. The motion carried unanimously 5-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Discussion & Possible Action – Discussion & Possible Action regarding Proposed Changes to the 2021 Unified Development Code regarding Adult Use Cannabis Planning Manager Escobar stated that at the last P&Z meeting there was discussion regarding the proposed changes to the UDC to accommodate the legalization of cannabis sales. Ms. Escobar stated that the Commission asked for time to consider the revisions, links from the Council discussion were sent to the Commissioners, as well as the recently adopted San Juan County regulations regarding cannabis sales. Ms. Escobar stated that in summary the recommendations are for sales of recreational cannabis be limited to the Commercial Business District, limited to 25 in number to the City if Farmington, licensing will be done through the State of New Mexico and business licenses through City Clerk, which will then allow the zoning verification process to take place. Recommendations for production, taking the cannabis plant and converting it to something else such as oils or edibles, are allowed in Central Business and Industrial Districts with a SUP (special use permit) due to materials used to convert the cannabis. Recommendation of cultivation not to be allowed within City limits based on the fact that a statement of water availability would be needed as part of the license application, the City does not wish to participate due to drought concerns and should the City allow 4 cultivation, there would be a certify to supply water and that is not an option at this time. Recommendations codify that mobile food trucks cannot sell cannabis products and cannabis cannot be grown as a “for sale” plant in the RA (rural agriculture) District, preventing acres of cannabis being grown. Per the new State law, an individual can have six plants, twelve plants for a residence. Discussion Chair Cardon asked the Commission if they had any questions. Commissioner Waldroup asked how these recommendations affect those that are still in Farmington City limits, but further outside the City. Ms. Escobar stated once you pass the Farmington City limits you are under the regulations of San Juan County. If in the future an area should be annexed to the City of Farmington with an established cultivator, they would become legal nonconforming. Commissioner Davis asked how the limit of 25 businesses would be tracked. Ms. Escobar stated the businesses will need a business license, the Planning Division signs off on the business licenses and the locations of the businesses will be mapped. Ms. Escobar stated that the City currently has four medical marijuana facilities, which would probably convert over, leaving 21 business licenses available. Commissioner Davis asked if the State was responsible for the permitting and the City would monitor the number of permits. Ms. Escobar stated that was correct. Commissioner Davis stated that he was wondering if it would become like a liquor license, which is a commodity. Ms. Escobar stated that it is close in relation to a liquor license. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the City controls the zoning of being in GC (general commercial), just as a liquor establishment. Ms. Escobar stated that is correct and clarified that liquor establishments are allowed in the Central Business District. Ms. Escobar stated that the liquor licenses are limited to 25 in the State as well and that is where the number came from for the cannabis licenses. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the number of licenses is based upon population. Ms. Escobar stated no, the licenses are not based on population. Chair Cardon opened the discussion to the public. 5 Jeremy Bonin, PO Box 5843, Pagosa Springs CO, stated that he is a potential business owner here in Farmington and would like to open a couple retail establishments. Mr. Bonin stated that he does own a couple stores in Pagosa Springs and one store in Durango, as well as a cultivation facility in Pagosa Springs. Mr. Bonin stated that he has been in the industry for eight years and even longer if you count before he opened his facilities. Mr. Bonin stated that he would caution in the wording when an ordinance is being written, stating that he believes that the State is referring to “production” as “cultivation”, also noting that all descriptions and definitions should be correct. Mr. Bonin stated that he believes this is a great business opportunity for the City. Mr. Bonin also commented that the State of New Mexico is moving fast and that is a sign that the changes are worth acting on sooner than later. Ms. Escobar stated that she would like to remind the Commission that the City of Farmington is following the State of New Mexico’s regulation in that no consumption will be allowed on public property. Commissioner Waldroup asked what the rules are for someone who uses cannabis in public and if there would be a citation issued. Jennifer Breakell, City Attorney, stated that there will be a City ordinance that will adopt the State regulation that will prevent the consumption/smoking of marijuana on City sidewalks, parks, streets; also proposing, based on City Council direction, to limit the smoking to inside of houses or consumption areas, which are defined in the State Statues. Ms. Breakell noted with the direction of City Council, there will be ordinances that adopt those regulations and may even go a little further on where marijuana can and cannot be consumed. Jason Little, NM Alternative Care, 534 East Broadway Avenue, stated that he has been in business for 11 years, and was licensed in December 2010, with his business originally starting out on Browning Parkway. Mr. Little stated that his business is very mindful, practices the Good Neighbor Policy, in tune with the community and has donated over 1.5 million dollars’ worth of terminal patient medication. Mr. Little asked the Commission to look at the zoning for Industrial not having retail sales as something that might be allowed with a variance. Mr. Little noted that he had been in Industrial zoning before for eight years without any issue to the public, grew cannibals on the property, and is looking to make that location a retail outlet for recreational marijuana use. Mr. Little stated that his growing facility is located on Broadway Avenue and hopes the property located on Browning Parkway would be a retail facility and is looking to go through a variance process for the Browning Parkway property to become a retail facility. Mr. Little stated that in regards to the 25 cannabis retail licenses for the City of Farmington, he believes that 25 licenses seem a bit high, considering the entire State of New Mexico only has 35 licenses to date. Mr. Little stated that supply and demand and over licensing could be a potential issue, causing failing business that could lead to bankruptcies and black market selling. 6 Commissioner Waldroup asked Mr. Little if licenses in other states are being repealed due to bankruptcies leading to black market selling. Mr. Little stated that he did not know all the details on why licenses are being pulled, but has read multiple publications that licenses were being pulled in the State of Oklahoma due to over issuing of licenses. Mr. Little stated that the number of licenses be evaluated and rather than over issuing, start off at a smaller number and increase the number based on demand, similar to how medical licenses were issued. Mr. Little stated that in regards to the RA District zoning, there are small farms in RA zoning that have already grown thousands of hemp plants on their property and these properties will be “knocked out game”, stating that the hemp plant is the same as the cannabis plant, and asked that a variance process be looked at in regards to RA Districts. Mr. Little asked the Commission if they had any questions and made mention of a tour that was taking place on Tuesday. Commissioner Waldroup asked Mr. Little when one goes to the State of New Mexico to get a license, how hard is the process. Mr. Little stated that the process is very hard. Mr. Little stated that due to the hard process of obtaining a license, he does everything he can to protect it. Mr. Little stated in the 11 years that he has been in business he has not had any complaints or any problems with his business. Commissioner Lockmiller asked Mr. Little when and where the tour will be held. Mr. Little stated Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. at 534 East Broadway Avenue. Commissioner Waldroup asked why retail sales would be limited to Industrial zoning and not in General Commercial zoning. Ms. Escobar stated that what is being proposed is that retail sales be allowed in General Commercial zoning, which is a common zoning for retail sales; production and manufacturing is allowed with a special use permit in General Commercial and Industrial. Ms. Escobar stated that the reason that retail sales were not considered in Industrial zoning is because there is usually a conflict there with health and safety issues. Ms. Escobar stated that her direction was to be rather restrictive at first. Ms. Escobar stated that the industrial area on Broadway Avenue, Southside River Road, Highway 64, was for intense land uses and not intended for small retail use. Ms. Escobar stated that if the Commission had input, it could be presented to Council to recommend that retail sales be allowed with a special use permit, which would not be a variance but a special use permit for review on an individual basis. Commissioner Waldroup stated that he thinks that would be a better idea than just saying no. Commissioner Waldroup stated that there are a lot of industrial properties that do have retail sales. 7 Ms. Escobar stated that there are also industrial areas, the Animas District for example, that is really a residential area. Mr. Little asked if the special use permits would need to be reapplied for annually and could be pulled at any time. Commissioner Waldroup stated that if violations occurred then the permit could be pulled, noting that the P&Z Commissioner is an advisor to City Council, with City Council making the decision. Ms. Breakell told Mr. Little that she could talk to him about that process after the meeting. Mr. Little stated that he was just concerned about the verbiage of a special use permit and if the permit could be taken away as easily as it could be given. Mr. Little stated that as an investor and the amount of money going into the production that could be concerning. Commissioner Waldroup stated that if you follow the process then there wouldn’t be a problem. Commissioner Waldroup asked Ms. Escobar what the timeline was for a special use permit. Ms. Escobar stated that with the new UCD updates, the Commission has the discretion to set the time limit for a special use permit. Jeremy Bonin, PO Box 5843, Pagosa Springs CO, stated that he agrees with almost everything Mr. Little said, besides the number of retail licenses and limiting the number of licenses. Mr. Bonin referenced Durango having 16 stores and a population of 20,000, stating that Farmington has a population of about 45,000 and 25 retailers’ sounds like a reasonable number. Mr. Bonin stated that the more the number is being reduced the more there’s a chance of being sued, especially by large companies, also noting that competition is a large part of this industry, as well as other industries. Mr. Bonin stated that the State of New Mexico only came out with rules in regards to cultivation and production and all the other rules are set to come out January 1, 2022, giving time to debate retail and consumption, stating that it is only cultivation that is really pressing at the moment. Ms. Breakell stated that she would like to clarify that there really isn’t as much time as Mr. Bonin presented. Ms. Breakell stated that licenses will start to be issued on or around September 1, 2021, the licenses will start to be issued and processed sometime in September and have to do with City restrictions and where they can be placed, the information has to be included in their packet and this process needs to start moving relatively quickly. Ms. Escobar stated that she wanted to clarify that the limit to the number of licenses was direction received from the Council work session and has not yet been discussed. 8 Ms. Escobar stated that the Commission is welcome to recommend a higher number, a lower number or stay with the 25 and as mentioned before the number could always be raised. Commissioner Waldroup asked when this would be presented to the City Council. Ms. Breakell stated September 14, 2021. Jason Little, NM Alternative Care, 534 East Broadway Avenue, stated that there have been multiple numbers of lawsuits as Mr. Bonin has stated. Mr. Little stated that he believes the Mayor and his team has done their homework on the number liquor licenses in communities around the State of New Mexico and the number of 25 cannabis retail licenses came in association with liquor licenses. Mr. Little stated that a reduction to 12 cannabis retail licenses would still be in a legal realm. Mr. Little stated that he understands competition and he is willing to fight and is okay with that fight. Commissioner Waldroup stated that the community of Farmington swells from anywhere between 40,000 -100,000 people or more. Mr. Little stated that 12 might be a low number then, but the numbers are not random and there is some data behind it. Commissioner Waldroup asked Ms. Breakell what the opinion is of the Mayor on the number of licenses that should be issued. Ms. Breakell stated that she does not set policies and she writes laws that match the policy that is directed from the Mayor and Council. Ms. Breakell stated that based upon the conversations she has had with the Mayor, including the conversation with the Mayor, Mr. Little and she, the direction was to limit the density and the idea Ms. Escobar and she had was to use some basis that is already in State law that has been litigated, which are liquor licenses, which is 25. Ms. Breakell stated that at this time Farmington is well over that number, with 37 liquor licenses. Ms. Breakell stated that based on conversations that she has had with the Mayor, the Mayor feels the 25 licenses for retail cannabis is too high because there are true supply issues at this time and the Mayor does not want this overriding and flooding the City. Ms. Breakell stated that the City is looking at doing 10-12 licenses to start and this would be on a first come first serve basis; if the City sees that there is a demand for retail cannabis, the ordinance would be amended and the number would be increased. Ms. Breakell stated that the City would like to take a measured approach to retail cannabis sales. Chair Cardon asked Ms. Breakell if the number could be conditionally recommended. Ms. Breakell stated yes, the Commission is allowed to make any conditional recommendations, as well as changes in the recommendation to Council. 9 Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to move the recommendation for the 2021 Unified Development Code regarding adult use cannabis as presented to City Council for consideration, adding that the City Council look at the number of licenses that are allowed and recommending that a Special Use Permit be allowed for recreational sales in Industrial zoning. The motion carried unanimously 5-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: Chair Cardon thanked the audience for their input. Business from the Members: There was no business from Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar introduced Tami Spencer, Administrative Aide for Community Works. Ms. Escobar stated that Ms. Spencer was cross training with Ms. Sandoval on coving the P&Z meetings, so the department has backup at all times. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Lockmiller. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m. ____________________________ _____________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant 10  COMMUNITY WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MESA VISTA #8 - PETITION NO. FP 21-50 A. STAFF REPORT, September 16, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Mike Hamilton/Mesa View Development Representative Paul Martin, Sakura Engineering Date of Application August 16, 2021 Requested Action Final Plat Approval Location Parcel No. 2072171297198, south of Wildflower Mesa Drive. Existing Zoning MF-M Multi-family Medium Density Surrounding North: MF-M, undeveloped South: IND - Industrial Zoning and Land East: RA-San Juan Detention Center Use West: PD- Mesa Vista #7 Subdivision Class Class 1 Notice Final Plat Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 77 Lots plus one drainage detention pond Acres of Land 20.00 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 GENERAL INFORMATION 11 The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for the Mesa Vista #8, a Class 1, 77-lot subdivision on a 20-acre portion of an undeveloped parcel located south of Wildflower Mesa Drive. Farmington. Lot sizes for Phase VII range from 7,240 square feet to 1,106 square feet. The plat also includes a drainage pond located in the southwest corner. The proposed subdivision is an addition to previous Mesa Vista Subdivisions developed on properties to the west. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Toni Sitta – Engineering The City has not received documentation that the detention pond area of 0.241 acres is sufficient for the required drainage. Sakura provided a watershed model schematic with a hydrograph summary report. This report is not sufficient for engineering staff to do our reviews for drainage detention pond sizing. What I need and what I have asked for multiple times is for the engineer (Sakura) to provide a written statement of what these calculations mean. I specifically need the engineer (Sakura) to make a written statement with the following information: 1) What is the required pond sizing/detention for this development? 2) What are the dimensions of the pond to be placed? 3) Is the lot size of 0.241 acres (proposed on Final Plat), large enough to accommodate the pond area and volume required for this development? In the original submittal, Sakura's calculations, stated on their plans, showed a required volume for detention that was 3 times greater than the proposed pond. The revised calculations need to show that the pond is equal to or greater in size and volume capacity than the requirement for the development. I have yet to receive plans from Sakura that show calculations and ponding size that correlate with required detention for development. Without correct information from Sakura, regarding drainage, I am unable to determine if the 0.241 acre lot proposed in this subdivision for the detention pond is sufficient. Staff Comment: These issues have been addressed through submittal of a revised Drainage report. 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. 12  The developer shall be obligated to construct and dedicate the extension of Wildflower Mesa Drive through to Andrea Drive. 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 MF-M: Multi- family Low Density 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 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map which designates this area as Residential Single Family Suburban. 13  ZONING MAP 14  AERIAL MAP OF SURROUNDING AREA SUBJECT PROPERTY 15  FINAL PLAT SHEET ONE 16  FINAL PLAT SHEET TWO 17 STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition 21-50, Mesa Vista #8, is appropriate, subject to technical and corrective changes as enumerated in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition 21-50, a request from Mike Hamilton, represented by Paul Martin of Sakura Engineering, for a final plat of a Class 1, 77-lot subdivision on a 20-acre undeveloped parcel located south of the terminus of Wildflower Mesa Drive. 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. The Summary Plat for Amended Cecil’s Subdivision No. 2 Replat A dedicating the right-of-way for the extension of Wildflower Drive shall be recorded prior to recording of the final plat for Mesa Vista No. 8. 3. A subdivision agreement shall be required. The subdivision agreement shall include the obligation of the developer to construct to City standards and dedicate the extension of Wildflower Mesa Drive to Andrea Drive. SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE Petition #FP 21-50, Final Plat for Mesa Vista #8 with the stipulations recommended by staff. I move to DENY Petition #FP 21-50, Final Plat for Mesa Vista #8, for the following reason: I move to TABLE Petition #FP 21-50 Final Plat for Mesa Vista #8 for the following reason: 18 19  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY FP 21-50 MESA VISTA NO. 8 DEADLINE: 8/18/2021 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 LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell PRCA Parks - R. Crosby PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW The City has still not received documentation that the detention pond area of 0.241 acres is sufficient for the required drainage. Sakura provided a watershed model schematic with a hydrograph summary report. This report is not sufficient for engineering staff to do Engineering – T. Sitta our reviews for drainage detention pond sizing. What I need and what I have asked for multiple times is for the engineer (Sakura) to provide a written statement of what these calculations mean. I specifically need the engineer (Sakura) to make a written statement with the following information: 20  1) What is the required pond sizing/detention for this development? 2) What are the dimensions of the pond to be placed? 3) Is the lot size of 0.241 acres (proposed on Final Plat), large enough to accommodate the pond area and volume required for this development? In the original submittal, Sakura's calculations, stated on their plans, showed a required volume for detention that was 3 times greater than the proposed pond. The revised calculations need to show that the pond is equal to or greater in size and volume capacity than the requirement for the development. I have yet to receive plans from Sakura that show calculations and ponding size that correlate with required detention for development. Without correct information from Sakura, regarding drainage, I am unable to determine if the 0.241 acre lot proposed in this subdivision for the detention pond is sufficient. 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 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 21  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT LDS FARMINGTON TEMPLE - PETITION SUP 21-49 A. STAFF REPORT, September 16, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant The Church of Latter Day Saints, property owner Representative Bob Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of August 10, 2021 Application Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow for a 30,000 square-foot temple and a 16,500 square-foot meetinghouse at 4400/4410 College Blvd. Location 4400/4410 College Blvd. Parcel #R0021923 Existing Land Use Religious Institution Existing Zoning SF-10 Single Family Residential Surrounding North: PD – Religious Institution Zoning & Land South: SF-10 –Religious Institution Use East: S-7– Single-family residential Windsor Heights Sub. West: RA – San Juan College Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, August 31, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 A sign was posted on the property on Friday, September 3, 2021. Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicants are requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for construction of a new 28,000 square foot temple at their current location. The new temple will include a 58- foot high central spire. Per Section 2.4.38 of the Unified Development Code, Religious Institutions with sanctuary space in excess of 4,000 square-feet require a Special Use Permit when they are located in residential zoning districts. 22 The 6.62 parcel is located on the northeast corner of College Boulevard and Windsor Drives. The existing buildings will be demolished and removed. A new 2,500 square- foot meetinghouse is also proposed to be built Zoning The subject property is at the corner of College Boulevard and Windsor Drive. Although surrounding properties are zoned residential, there is a religious institution to the north and south across Windsor Drive. San Juan College is located to the west. Windsor Heights, a fully developed 18-lot subdivision is located to the east. in a large-lot residential neighborhood.Windsor Drive continues for approximately ½ mile to the east providing access for seveal residential subdivisions to College Blvd. SUBJECT PROPERTY 23  AERIAL MAP 24  SITE PLAN 25  SITE PLAN CLOSE UP 26  ELEVATION SPIRE = 88 FEET 27 MEZZANINE HEIGHT = 40 MAIN STRUCTURE = 31 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 2.4.38 of the Unified Development Code, Religious Institutions with sanctuary space in excess of 4,000 square-feet require a Special Use Permit when they are located in residential zoning districts. 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 are listed as follows: A. Effect on environment: The location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The new buildings will closely match the existing footprint. The use will remain the same with no anticipated increase in traffic. The City Engineering Division will review the project for any potential stormwater impacts at the time the building permitted is submitted. Any identified issues will need to be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIA) from Fehr & Peers, a transportation-planning firm. The study examined the impact of the proposed new facility on College Boulevard and surrounding intersections. This analysis included current use during peak hours of College Boulevard. The TIA concluded that no mitigation measures are required for the new buildings. 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. 28  Per the applicant, the new Temple will be designed to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area with a white stone exterior and abundant landscaping. The entire parcel will be fenced with a 6-foot high CMU screen wall. The majority of San Juan College’s buildings also have a white exterior, setting the vernacular for this area and are three stories in height. There are four other religious institutions located on College Boulevard between 30th Street and Pinon Hills Boulevard along with two public schools. 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. If approved, this Special Use Permit should not affect any existing infrastructure. Utility service lines are in place. The new buildings and parking design will use the existing driveway cuts on College Boulevard and Windsor Drive. D. 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. A religious institution is an appropriate use per the current future land use map. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates this corner as Medium Density Residential. E. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required to have additional land area, in excess of the minimum lot area otherwise required by 29  the underlying zoning district, as necessary to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses and the zoning district. The subject property is 6.6 acres and can accommodate the two proposed buildings and required parking. F. Site Plan: The proposed use shall be required to comply with the site plan review procedures and standards of Section 8.5, site plan review, as specified. A preliminary site plan has been submitted with the proposal that complies with the standards of Section 8.5. The property must comply with the requirements of Section 5-10: Residential Protection of the UDC: • Sec. 5.10.4 All required setbacks are 30 feet. This would include the utility building. • Dumpsters shall be fully screened and setback at least 20 feet from the property line. • 5.10.5 Building heights. No structure shall exceed 28 feet in height within the protected lot lines. The Temple building is proposed to be 40-feet high, with an 88 foot spire. The Temple will be approximately 150 feet from the east and north property lines. Parking: The preliminary site plan is showing 224 parking spaces. The meetinghouse requires 66 parking spaces, leaving 158 parking spaces for the Temple. It is difficult to calculate the required number of seats per the UDC for the Temple since this calculation is based on seats. Since the applicant’s representative states the usage of the new Temple ‘won’t be as intense’ as the present use the parking should be adequate. PUBLIC INPUT Letters were sent to 17 surrounding neighbors and the property was posted with a sign along College and one along Windsor. At the time of this report no public input has been received. A second, corrected letter was mailed on September 7, 2021. FLEXIBILITY OF A SUP Per Section 8.9 of the UDC provides the applicability of a Special Use Permit: 8.9.2 Applicability. Special uses may or may not be appropriate in a given zone district depending upon the nature of and compatibility with surrounding uses, and mitigating site-specific conditions or requirements. Such uses require individual review of their location, design, configuration, density, and intensity, in order to determine whether or not a use should be allowed; and may require the imposition of additional conditions in 30 order to ensure the appropriateness and compatibility of the use at a particular location. A. Special use permits approvals attach to the property and are transferrable to subsequent owners. A SUP provides for flexibility of a project to ensure it fits the location. The applicant is requested flexibility regarding three aspects of the project design: 1. A waiver of the 30-foot setback requirement of Section 5.10.4 from the east boundary line to allow for placement of a 40 x 20 utility building 15 feet off the east property line. Staff analysis: The east property line is the boundary with Windsor Heights Subdivision. Per the applicant’s representative, this utility building will be used for storage of landscaping and other maintenance equipment. It will not house any mechanical equipment. The proposed location of the utility building will align with an existing accessory structure on the nearest residence to the east. There is an existing fence on the residential property and a solid CMU wall will be constructed on the subject property. Staff has no objection to this request. 2. A reduction of the 30-foot setback to 15 feet from the northern property boundary to the meetinghouse. 31  Staff Analysis The property to the north is zoned Planned Area Development and occupied by New Covenant United Methodist Church. The church use is non-residential. The proposed placement of the meetinghouse at 15 feet from the northern property line would place the building approximately 30 feet south of the adjacent parking area for the Methodist Church. Staff has no objection to this request. 3. The applicant is requested flexibility in building heights. The main building is proposed to be 32 feet in height. Maximum height allowed in the SF-10 Zoning District is 35 feet. The main building will also have a mezzanine at 40 feet in height. The one unique component of the proposal is the 88-foot high spire on the Temple building. The maximum height allowance in GC: General Commercial is 45 feet. Staff has no objections to this request. A second meeting notice was mailed to the affected property owners on September 7 including information about the request for additional height. 32 STAFF CONCLUSION The property at 4400 College Boulevard has been used as a religious institution since 2012. With accommodations to the site plan to meet code requirements, staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 21-49 is appropriate. The application meets the criteria for approval of a Special Use Permit. With the investment of the property owner in the new construction, staff is recommending, per Section 8.9.6.B, that the SUP not have an expiration date. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition SUP 21-49, a request from The Church of Latter Day Saints, property owners of 4400/4410 College Boulevard for a 30,000 square-foot religious institution with an 88-foot high spire on a 6.62-acre parcel, R0021923, zoned SF-10: Single family residential with the following stipulations: 1. The meetinghouse shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the northern property line. 2. The utility building shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the eastern boundary line. 3. The maximum height of the Temple shall be 40 feet. 4. The maximum height of the Spire shall be 88 feet. 5. A separate landscape plan shall be submitted for approval with the building application. Per the 2021 UDC, parking islands are required every 15 parking spaces. 6. The applicant shall contact Waste Management regarding placement of the trash receptacle. This shall be relocated to be more central to the project and not directly adjacent to the subdivision to the east. 7. The applicant shall contact New Mexico Gas Company prior to demolition of the existing buildings to coordinate moving of gas lines. 8. All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded. Per Section 8.9.6.A, the Special Use Permit shall expire after 18 months from the date of approval if construction is not begun. 9. Once construction is begun, the Special Use Permit will not have an expiration date. 10. The Special Use Permit may be revoked if conditions are not met. 33 34  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY SUP 21-49 4400/4410 COLLEGE BLVD. DEADLINE: 8/17/2021 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 Existing primary and secondary ELEC underground lines are on the Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga property. Please indicate any changes of the line routes to the proposed plans. ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix No comments from the Fire FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega Marshal's Office. We will review site and building plans when submitted. LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne 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 objections to the Special Use Permit. Engineering review for stormwater impacts will be conducted during the building permit application process. Engineering – T. Sitta Please be aware that the EPA requires a construction general permit application (notice of Intent and stormwater management plan) to be obtained/applied for 14 days 35  prior to demolition and/or construction work for projects greater than 1 acre in size. A copy of the Notice of Intent shall be provided to City Engineering for record. The City encourages stormwater best management practices as part of the design for re-development not increasing the impervious surface by greater than 5,000 sq ft. Developments that increase the impervious surface of the property (asphalt, concrete, building footprint, etc) are required to submit engineered drainage designs for review as part of the building application process. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities Would like to have someone contact us in advance before New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo demolition of the two buildings so we can schedule to remove gas services next to buildings. CenturyLink – D. Willato Enterprise does not have any facilities on the property but Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut does have a pipeline that runs north and south just off the curb in the bike lane on College Blvd. Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons 36 37 38  4505 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM 3201 WELLINGTON PLACE LLC ANIMAS CT 87402 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY, UT LATTER DAY SAI FL 22 84150-3620 FARMINGTON, NM CLARK EDDIE M AND PATRICIA M 3410 SAL REY CT 87402 FARMINGTON, NM COOPER WILMA J PO BOX 6508 87499 CUNNINGHAM CHARLES W AND FARMINGTON, NM KATHY L 3300 WELLINGTON PL 87402-4681 FARMINGTON, NM FERRIS KEELY M 3301 WELLINGTON PL 87402 INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE 1910 W SUNSET BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA FOURSQUARE G STE 200 90026-3295 JAQUEZ BRANDON RAMON AND HATCH LAKOTA RO PO BOX 988 FRUITLAND, NM 87416 FARMINGTON, NM JESS BRADLEY H AND BROOKE L 3115 WINDSOR DR 87402 FARMINGTON, NM MAGEE FLOYD E AND MICAH J 3300 MAJESTA PL 87402 MERRICK WILLIAM A AND ANN E FARMINGTON, NM TRUST 3301 MAJESTA PL 874024670 NEW COVENANT UNITED METHODIST FARMINGTON, NM CHURCH 4600 COLLEGE BLVD 87402-4610 FARMINGTON, NM ROYER LUANN M 3401 MAJESTA PL 87402 SAN JUAN COLLEGE ATTN BUSINESS FARMINGTON, NM OFFICE 4601 COLLEGE BLVD 87402-4609 4800 COLLEGE BLVD FARMINGTON, NM SOCUNO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STE 204 87402-4708 FARMINGTON, NM VILLEGAS CHANDLER AND JUVIE 3200 WELLINGTON PL 87402 FARMINGTON, NM WELSH JOSHUA 3111 WINDSOR DR 87402 39  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT RIDGEVIEW SUBDIVISION NUMBER FOUR, FINAL PLAT - PETITION NO. FP 21-54 A. STAFF REPORT, September 16, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Darrell and Michaela Martinez Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application August 23, 2021 Requested Action Final Plat 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 Final Plats 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 40 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 THE PRELIMINAR PLAN REVIEW HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED 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. 41 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. 42  AERIAL MAP OF SURROUNDING AREA SUBJECT PROPERTIES 43  FINAL PLAT SHEET 1 44  FINAL PLAT SHEET 2 45 COUNCIL ACTION City Council approved the Preliminary Plan on July 13, 2021. There were no conditions of approval recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition FP 21-54, Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four, a Class 2, 19-lot subdivision in Tier I of the City of Farmington is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition 21-54 a submittal from Darrel and Michaela Martinez, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney- Walters-Echols, Inc. for a final plat approval of a Class 2, 19-lot subdivision of two undeveloped parcels totaling 22.34 acres north of Lakewood Drive in north Farmington. SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE Petition # FP 21-54, Final Plat for Ridgeview Subdivision Number 4. I move to DENY Petition # FP 21-54, Final Plat for Ridgeview Subdivision Number 4 due to the following reason: I move to TABLE Petition # FP 21-54, Final Plat for Ridgeview Subdivision Number 4 due to the following reason: 46  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY FP 21-54 RIDGEVIEW SUBDIVISION NUMBER FOUR DEADLINE: 8/31/21 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 LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne 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 Engineering – T. Sitta No Comment 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 47 48  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT FARMINGTON CENTER SUBDIVISION - PETITION NO. PP 21-56 A. STAFF REPORT, September 16, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Red Shamrock 12, LLC Representative Basin Surveying, Kevin Lane Date of Application August 24, 2021 Requested Action Preliminary Plan Approval Location Parcel No. R0024557, 4109 E Main Existing Zoning GC: General Commercial Surrounding North: GC & SF-7 – Iles Subdivision, 1958 South: GC Zoning and Land East: Industrial Use West: E Main Street, and GC Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Preliminary Plans do not require notice Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 5 Commercial Lots Acres of Land 9.94 Minimum Lot Size Not applicable for Commercial Subdivisions 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 49 GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting preliminary plan approval for the Farmington Center Subdivision, located at 4109 E Main, the former Haliburton site. Farmington Center is a five lot commercial subdivision. There are two proposed accesses to public streets, one off East Main and one off Gila Street. This portion of E Main is under the administration of New Mexico Department of Transportation. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS Three internal agencies have comments that need to be addressed Engineering – T. Sitta • Please include a benchmark elevation referenced from City of Farmington GPS monument, including Northing & Easting on one corner of surveyed Lot. • Gila Street is an unpaved street and will be required to be improved to City Standards, to include paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalks along the boundary of this subdivision. Sidewalks are required for all commercial development within the City. Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton • Lots 2 and 3 can install a water meter from the water main on Main St. Lot 4 can install a water meter from Gila. Lot 1 can install a meter either from Gila or Main. Lot 5 already has an existing water meter but can change locations if needed. • Lots 1 through 4 will need an access utility easement for sewer services going through lot 5 to get to the sewer main on the east side of lot 5. Planning – Beth Escobar • Please look at realigning the connection from the site to Gila Street to avoid impact on single-family residence at These comments have been passed along to the applicant’s representative and added as stipulations if approval is recommended by the Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS 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. 50 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 GC: General Commercial zoning district. 51 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 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designates this area as General Commercial. 52  AERIAL MAP OF SURROUNDING AREA 53 Please note this aerial is from 2019. All vehicles and equipment have been removed from the site.  PRELIMINARY PLAN SHEET 1 54  PRELIMINARY PLAN SHEET 2 55 STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition PP 21-56, Farmington Center Subdivision, a Class 2, 5-lot commercial subdivision in Tier I of the City of Farmington is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition 21-56 a submittal from Red Shamrock 12, LLC, represented by Kevin Lane of Basin Surveying for a Preliminary Plan for a 5-lot, Class 2, subdivision of a vacant 9.94-acre parcel located at 4109 E. Main Street in Farmington with the following stipulations: 1. The final plat shall include a benchmark elevation referenced from City of Farmington GPS monument, including Northing & Easting on one corner of surveyed Lot. 2. Construction drawings for all required infrastructure, including the required improvements to Gila Street, shall be submitted for review to the City of Farmington Engineering Division prior to submittal of a final plat. 3. The Final Plat shall show an access utility easement for sewer services going through Lots 1 through 4 to get to the sewer main on the east side of lot 5. 4. Access to Gila Street from the property shall be realigned to avoid impact to single family residences. SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to recommend APPROVAL of Petition # FP 21-56, Preliminary Plan for Farmington Center Subdivision with the stipulations recommended by staff. I move to recommend DENIAL of Petition # FP 21-56, Preliminary Plan for Farmington Center Subdivision for the following reason: I move to TABLE Petition # FP 21-56, Preliminary Plan for Farmington Center Subdivision for the following reason: 56 57  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY PP 21-56 FARMINGTON CENTER SUBDIVSION DEADLINE: 9/1/21 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 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 - Please include a benchmark elevation referenced from City of Farmington GPS monument, including Northing & Easting on one corner of surveyed Lot. - Gila Street is an unpaved Engineering – T. Sitta street and will be required to be improved to City Standards, to include paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalks along the boundary of this subdivision. Sidewalks are required for all commercial development within the City. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller 58 CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock - Lots 2 and 3 can install a CW water meter from the watermain on Main St. Lot 4 can install a water meter from GIla. Lot 1 can install a meter either from Gila or Main. Lot 5 already has an existing water Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton meter but can change locations if needed. - Lots 1 through 4 will need an access utility easement for sewer services going through lot 5 to get to the sewer main on the east side of lot 5. 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 59  MEMO To: Farmington Planning & Zoning Commission From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: September 16, 2021 Subject: Possible changes to Rural Agriculture District regulations Background In response to public comments received at the June 10, 2021 and July 29, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meetings staff has modified the recommended revisions to Section 2.4.7 and Article 11: Animal Units. The requirement in 2.4.7.C that all fowl be contained within shelters has been removed. Text has been added to address noise and nuisance issues: 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 from the July 29 version include the following: D. Roosters on a RA: Rural Agricultural property in excess of the maximum number allowed per the Animal Unit table in Article 11 shall be relocated off-site or repurposed immediately subsequent to beginning to crow. E. If noise or other factors related to keeping of fowl on property become a nuisance to the neighbors, these factors shall be mitigated as soon as possible or the right to keep fowl may be revoked. Section 11: Definitions A definition for roosters has been added: Fowl: Roosters (an adult male domestic chicken) - 5 (counts towards per acre equivalency for chickens) Staff Analysis Staff hopes the revisions are acceptable to the Planning & Zoning Commission and 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 revisions. 60 2.4.7 Animals or fowl. (Other use categories, agriculture use). 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. Roosters on a RA: Rural Agricultural property in excess of the maximum number allowed per the Animal Unit table in Article 11 shall be relocated off-site or repurposed immediately subsequent to beginning to crow. E. If noise or other factors related to keeping of fowl on property become a nuisance to the neighbors, these factors shall be mitigated as soon as possible or the right to keep fowl may be revoked. F. Additional numbers of fowl may be permitted through a Special Use Permit. 61  A unit of measurement used to determine the animal capacity of an animal- feeding operation containing one or more species of animals. The animal unit Animal capacity of an operation is determined by multiplying the number of animals of unit each species by the appropriate equivalency factor from the following list and summing the resulting totals for all animal species contained in the operation. The Animal Unit formula applies to all Rural Agricultural District properties. Per acre equivalency Animal species equivalency factor (Fractions of acres over .5 will be rounded up) Alpaca or Llama 0.20 5 Bison, buffalo (under two years old) 0.50 2 Bison, buffalo—Cow with calf 1.00 1 Bison, buffalo 1.00 1 Burro, donkey 1.00 1 Burro, donkey—Miniature 0.05 2 Cattle, beef—Slaughter and feed (under 2 years) 0.50 2 Cattle, beef—Slaughter and feed 1.00 1 Cattle, beef—Cow with calf 1.00 1 Cattle, dairy (bulls or cows) 1.40 1 Fowl: Chickens, hens 0.02 50 5 (counts towards per acre Fowl: Roosters (an adult male domestic chicken) equivalency for chickens) Fowl: Geese, ducks, swans, turkeys, peafowl 0.02 50 Elk, domestic (under two years old) 0.50 2 Elk, domestic 1.00 1 Elk, domestic—Cow with calf 1.00 1 62 Emu, less than 100 pounds 0.10 10 Emu, more than 100 pounds 0.20 0.5 Goat, feeder (less than 80 pounds) 0.05 20 Goat, mature brood stock 0.10 10 Goat, nanny with kids 0.10 10 Goat, miniature 0.05 2 Horses, mules 1.00 1 Horses—Mare with foal 1.00 1 Horses—Miniature 0.50 2 Ostrich 0.20 .5 Rabbit, fryer and mature 0.02 50 Sheep feeder (less than 80 pounds) 0.10 10 Sheep, feeder (more than 80 pounds) 0.20 5 Sheep, mature brood stock 0.40 .25 Sheep, ewes with lambs 0.20 5 Swine, feeders (less than 50 pounds) 0.10 10 Swine, feeders (50 pounds to market) 0.20 5 Swine, mature brood stock 0.40 2.5 Swine, sow with litter 0.40 2.5 63