Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive September 30, 2021 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the September 16, 2021 P&Z Meeting 4 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) 5 Petition No. PP 21-60 - Discussion & possible action regarding Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase 2 – a request from Mike Smith, BC Land Developers, represented by Bob Echols, C-W-E, for Preliminary Plan review of a 16-lot subdivision located in the City of Farmington’s Tier II Planning & Platting Jurisdiction (Beth Escobar) 6 Business From: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment If applicable, the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 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 September 16, 2021 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on September 16, 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 – Clint Freeman Ryan Brown Shay Davis Elizabeth Lockmiller Gary Smouse Cody Waldroup P&Z Members Absent: Cheryl Ragsdale Mitch Sewell Staff Present: Jennifer Breakell Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Mark Hathcock Others Who Addressed the Commission: Paul Martin Bob Echols Courtney Barton (via Conference Call) Perry Webb Andrea Valdez Ron Sullivan Arnold Ellison Seth Bingham Kirby Mortensen Crystal Hatch Kevin Lane Jacob Fuller Roberta Fate Call to Order Chair Joyce Cardon called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda The motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Smouse to approve the agenda of the September 16, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 7-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman to approve the minutes of the August 26, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion was approved unanimously by a 7-0 vote. Swearing of Witnesses Elizabeth Sandoval, Administrative Assistant, swore in all persons interested in speaking to any petition being heard today, September 16, 2021. ____________________________________________________________________________ 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. Planning Manager Escobar presented to the following: Subdivision Information • A 77 lot, Class 1 subdivision • 20-acre parcel • Phase 8 of Mesa Vista • Preliminary Plan was approved by Council on February 23, 2021 • The plat has been amended, one lot was eliminated to accommodate a bigger drainage feature • Property is zoned MF-M. A note on the plat restricts this subdivision to single-family development. • All lots conform with the underlying zoning Final Plat Access Requirement • 6.4.6 Subdivision access. • A subdivision of 49 lots or less may provide access to the existing public roadway system via a single access point; however, two access points may be required where feasible. • A subdivision of 50 lots or greater shall provide access to the existing or proposed public roadway system via two access points at minimum unless extreme natural conditions, as determined by the director, make such connection infeasible. • Subdivisions of 250 lots or greater shall be required to provide three or more access points to the existing or proposed public roadway system, subject to review by the director. The third and additional access points shall be shown on the plat and construction plans for the development; however, construction of the street may be postponed to a later phase of development. The city may require the construction of any  access point at the time of approval of the final plat. The timing, or "trigger," for construction of the third access point shall be established as part of the subdivision review process (final plat). Three Accesses Required • Mesa Plat #8 will bring the total number of residential lots to 365. • The applicant has replat of Cecil’s Subdivision Amended that will dedicate a right of way across the property to access Andrea Drive. • The developer will be responsible for construction of this extension. • The Plat for Cecil’s Subdivision shall be recorded before the plat for Mesa Vista #8. Access Requirements Cecil’s Subdivision Amended Staff Recommendation • 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. 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. Discussion Commissioner Davis asked who the owner of the Ceil Subdivision land is. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the owner is San Juan County and the applicant does have a letter stating that they would be willing to dedicate that right of way, requiring a fence across the northern portion as part of that agreement. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the City of Farmington and the petitioner are in agreement that extending the subdivision past the jail is the right avenue for the subdivision or have other alternatives been looked at. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the petitioner representative could address that question, but all options have pretty much been exhausted. Vice Chair Freeman asked what the number of lots was for two access points. Planning Manager Escobar stated the number is 250, the current number is 386, lot numbers were over in Phase 7, but staff negotiated a deferment of the third access point until Phase 8. Commissioner Davis asked if the petitioner was amicable to extend Wildflower Parkway to Andrea Drive. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the petitioner representative could answer that, but her understanding is that extension is not the question but the cost is; the City has advised the petitioner that the City would not participate in that cost. Chair Cardon called the applicant’s representative forward. Paul Martin, Sakura Engineering, 125 W. Main Street, asked the Commission if they had any questions. Chair Cardon asked Mr. Martin if he had any concerns with the documentation and presentation made by staff. Mr. Martin stated that he did not have any concerns. Chair Cardon asked Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Martin. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the developer had any issues extending to Andrea Drive. Mr. Martin stated that at the present time, the Chairman of the San Juan County Commission has signed the plat for Cecil Subdivision, the only signatures missing are from City staff and the plat will be submitted to the Planning Division tomorrow for signature and recording. Commissioner Brown asked if there are any plans for the land between this subdivision and the jail. Mr. Martin stated that there are no plans for that land. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Hamilton does own property on the north side of Wildflower Mesa Drive, when that subdivision is completed a third access will be built. Chair Cardon asked if there were any interested parties that would like to speak to this petition. There were none. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Brown to APPROVE Petition No. FP 21-50 as recommended by staff. The motion carried unanimously 6- 0. ____________________________________________________________________________ Petition No. SUP 21-49 - Discussion & Possible Action Regarding 4400/4410 College Blvd. - A Request from the Church of Jesus Christ 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. Commissioner Lockmiller returned. Chair Cardon recused herself from this petition due to a conflict of interest. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints • Representative: Robert Echols, C-W-E • Location: 4400/4410 College Blvd. Farmington, NM • Parcel Size: 6.62 acres • Existing Zoning: SF-10, Single-family residential • Request: SUP to allow for a religious institution with a sanctuary space greater than 4,000 square feet. (UDC Section 2.4.38) • The new Temple will be approximately 30,000 square feet with and accompanying Meetinghouse of 16,500 square feet. Subject Property SUP • The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. UDC 8.9. A. Special Use Permits: • Special use permit approvals attach to the property and are transferable to subsequent owners. • If this SUP was approved, it could transfer to another owner, carrier or tenant. Preliminary Site Plan Flexibility of an SUP • Section 8.92 of the UDC provides for flexibility when considering a Special Use Permit application. Upon consideration, the Commission may approve requests outside the code that are integral to the project. • The applicant is requesting three such considerations: • An 88 foot high spire is proposed on the Temple building. • Location of the utility building at the northeast corner 15 feet from the east property line. • A reduction of the 30-foot required setback to 15 feet from the northern boundary. Elevation Utility Building Setback 15 Foot Setback from North Property Line Public Notices Staff Recommendation • The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 21-49 a request from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a 30,000 square foot Temple to be constructed at 4400/4100 College Boulevard. Parcel is 6.62 acres and zoning is SF-10, Single Family Residential subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to this application being heard by City Council, applicant will work with the City Engineer to resolve traffic issues and provide an updated TIA per email from Mark Hathcock dated September 15, 2021 2. The meetinghouse shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the northern property line. 3. The utility building shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the eastern boundary line. 4. The maximum height of the Temple shall be 40 feet. 5. The maximum height of the Spire shall be 88 feet. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall contact New Mexico Gas Company prior to demolition of the existing buildings to coordinate moving of gas lines. 9. 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. 10. Once construction is begun, the Special Use Permit will not have an expiration date. 11. The Special Use Permit may be revoked if conditions are not met. Emails Submitted to the Planning Division Planning Manager Escobar stated that the driveway off of Windsor Drive to the proposed temple will be right next to the Jess property. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Traffic Division’s concerns are in regards to 30th Street and College Boulevard, due to school traffic. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there is no way to correct the intersection, but a condition has been added that the petitioner and their representative will work with the Traffic Engineer to address the issues that are highlighted in the above email. Planning Manager Escobar summarized the emails for the audience. Discussion Vice Chair Freeman asked the Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Davis asked where on the overall plans where the spire was located. Planning Manager Escobar stated the spire is located on the building located in the lower left corner. Commissioner Brown asked if there is a traffic study to show additional impact in traffic. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a certified engineer stamped traffic impact analysis was received, studying peak hours and projected traffic with a bottom line conclusion that there will be less traffic to the site then the previous. Commissioner Brown asked if the Windsor Drive driveway is currently in place. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes and Mr. Jess has stated in his email that it is difficult to get in and out of his driveway during service times at the church. Commissioner Smouse asked if a setback was being requested for the west, facing College Boulevard. Planning Manager Escobar stated no, the request is for the east. Commissioner Smouse asked if the north and east locations were the only areas that setback requests were being asked for. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct, along with the height of the spire. Commissioner Smouse asked if the Methodist Church had made any comments to the Planning Division. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she was not sure if the Methodist Church had a representative in attendance, but a property owner letter was sent to the Methodist Church and no comments were received from them. Planning Manager Escobar also noted that a condition has been made that the petitioner would have to figure out another location for the trash enclosure, more central to the property. Vice Chair Freeman asked where the trash enclosure was located. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the trash enclosure was located midway down on the plans. Commissioner Smouse asked if Mark Hathcock, Traffic Engineer, was in attendance. Mark Hathcock, City of Farmington Traffic Engineer, was sworn in and stood for questioning. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Hathcock, with expansion happening at San Juan College and the surrounding area, what the future look likes for College Boulevard and whether it is possible to expand to two lanes going north and south. Mr. Hathcock stated that he believes that easements would need to be obtained to begin the process of adding lanes, but as of right now there are no plans to expand. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Hathcock what the capacity of College Boulevard is as it currently stands and what can be expected of the impact of this street. Mr. Hathcock stated that currently College Boulevard is below capacity during non-school peak hours, the density is not there for the current capacity. Mr. Hathcock stated that in regards to the new dorms being built on the San Juan College campus, he assumes that Sunset Avenue will be utilized to enter and exit that area, with an exit also on Pinon Hills Boulevard. Commissioner Smouse asked if easement is a potential future issue, is there anything currently wrong with the development of the temple that may impact the ability to expand in the future. Mr. Hathcock stated he does not believe so. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Hathcock if he has any disagreements with the TIA (traffic impact analysis). Mr. Hathcock stated that he does not have any specific concerns with the TIA. Commissioner Smouse asked Planning Manager Escobar if there have been any accommodations made for traffic during the construction of the temple. Planning Manager Escobar stated that traffic impact is always reviewed during the building permit process, making sure that traffic control and notice are provided; this process will take place if this petition makes it to the point of construction. Mr. Hathcock stated that traffic control plans do go through the Traffic Division for approval and that he assumes that most of the construction and traffic will be on the property, but should the construction require the taking of a lane, the peak hours would be addressed. Vice Chair Freeman asked what is the size of the sanctuary. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the sanctuary size is 30,000 square feet. Vice Chair Freeman asked if there are any concerns regarding parking. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the 30,000 square feet would not be packed with people, after having conversations with the petitioner’s representative it is my understanding that there will be less people entering the temple than there is now. Vice Chair Freeman asked how many parking spots are there now. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there are currently 225 parking spots. Vice Chair Freeman asked for the petitioner’s representative to come forward. Courtney Barton, Barton Architecture, PLLC, was called to join via conference call. Bob Echols, Cheney-Walter-Echols Inc., 909 W. Apache Street, stated that the need for the SUP is due to exceeding the 4,000 square feet for the sanctuary. Mr. Echols stated that this project is currently in schematic design and the TIA was completed in May. Mr. Echols stated that the parking lot will not be full at one time; sessions are conducted at the temple, with 6-8 sessions conducted daily. Mr. Echols stated that the current site will be completely demolished and rebuilt; best practices will be asked of the contractor during construction. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the elevation will stay the same. Mr. Echols stated that the elevation would be fairly close. Mr. Echols stated that he believes that the general circulation of demolition and construction will be mainly off College Boulevard, leaving Windsor Drive cutoff during this time. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Echols if he would be comfortable making that a condition. Mr. Echols stated that he would not have a problem making that a condition, but he would have to talk with the petitioner. Mr. Echols stated that the 15 feet setbacks allow the utilization of the property on the east side, on the south of the utility building there will be four storage doors on the west side, nothing on the north, west or east in terms of access; a five foot high block wall around the perimeter will be constructed, with landscaping along the wall and through the parking lot. Vice Chair Freeman asked if there will be five foot screening on the north and south sides and if the height could be any higher. Mr. Echols stated that was correct and he does not believe that the petitioner would be opposed to six feet. Mr. Echols stated that this is an exciting project, especially to the LDS community; to them this is sacred ground. Mr. Echols stated that this is a natural attraction to the LDS community and members are looking to move to the area because of this project. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the temple is used daily or only on Sunday. Mr. Echols stated that the temple is used daily, five days a week, closed on Sunday and Monday. Commissioner Smouse asked if there is a seating capacity for the temple. Mr. Echols stated that the does not have that information and would defer to Courtney Barton for that question. Courtney Barton, Barton Architecture, PLLC, 319 N. Kinsley Avenue, Winslow AZ, was sworn in. Ms. Barton stated that currently the anticipation for the temple is that a maximum of 80 patrons and 10 workers will be in the temple at one time. Ms. Barton stated that not all areas of the temple are occupied at one time; at any time there can be anywhere from 90-200 at a time. Ms. Barton stated that most time the patrons of the temple come together in a vehicle, therefore cutting the number of parking needed. Vice Chair Freeman asked about the 16,000 square foot building. Ms. Barton stated that the use for the 16,000 square foot building is a meeting house facility. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the temple and the meeting house would be used simultaneously. Connection was lost with Ms. Barton, Ms. Sandoval reconnected with Ms. Barton via conference call. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the temple and the meeting house would be used simultaneously. Ms. Barton stated that the meeting house will primarily be utilized on Sundays, the temple is closed on Sundays, and there are days that both spaces will be used at the same time. Commissioner Brown asked if there will be special events that may increase occupancy at any given time. Ms. Barton stated that potentially at the meeting house, but as far as she is aware the temple does not hold special events. Mr. Echols stated that he wanted to add that the TIA was done from 7am–9am and 4pm-6pm. Vice Chair Freeman asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the petition. Perry Webb, 4111 Vista Pinon Drive, Farmington, NM, stated he and his wife served as the managers of the Albuquerque temple for six years and is familiar with the impact of the temple. Mr. Webb stated that he would like to speak in favor of the temple. Mr. Webb stated that large groups do not come together in the temple; the temple is the highest form of worship in the LDS church. Mr. Webb stated that LDS community members of Farmington, NM, would have to travel 6-8 hours to get to a temple; in 2000 the Albuquerque temple was built, making the drive 3 hours. Mr. Webb stated that everything has a designated time in the temple, there are no special events that take place in the temple, and the temple is reserved for sacred work. Mr. Webb stated that the meeting house will serve the same purpose as it did before. Landscaping is kept to the standards of the church and the architecture blends with the community. Mr. Webb stated that the temple is important to the LDS community, should community members have concerns they could always voice those concerns and get any violations or nuisances addressed. Mr. Webb stated that the temple grounds are open to the community. Vice Chair Freeman asked the commission if there were any questions for Mr. Webb. Planning Manager Escobar reminded Vice Chair Freeman that the petition has a public hearing portion and affected parties should be called to cross-examine the petitioner’s representative and/or staff. Andrea Valdez, 4505 Rancho De Animas Court, the affected property is located at 3201 Wellington Court, which backs right into the LDS property. Ms. Valdez stated that her first issue is the traffic that would have to be dealt with on College Boulevard. Ms. Valdez stated that the second issue is the 15 foot setback request. Ms. Valdez stated that her property has a wood fence and the LDS property has a chain linked fence, the paving that is messing up her fence due to elevation, the water is trying to deteriorate underneath the pavement. Ms. Valdez stated that when there are things going on at the church her dogs go crazy. Vice Chair Freeman asked Ms. Valdez if she thinks a block wall would help with the issues if it is at a higher elevation. Ms. Valdez stated that she is not sure if a retaining wall is needed. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Ms. Valdez’s property is not impacted by the proposed utility building. Commissioner Smouse asked Ms. Valdez if her only issue was with the chain link fence. Ms. Valdez stated that her issue was the chain link fence and the height of the building, stating that Mr. Echols stated that the elevation was going to stay the same, but her property sits lower than the LDS Church and by increasing height it would block any solar from her property. Commissioner Smouse stated that according to the plans the church will be to the west, away from Ms. Valdez’s property lines. Ms. Escobar stated that the church is being moved to the corner, which does not line up with Ms. Valdez’s property. Mr. Freeman asked Ms. Valdez if the current structure blocks the sun in the afternoon. Ms. Valdez stated that she does not live at the property and that her daughter lives at the property and does have some issues with it. Ron Sullivan, Mr. Sullivan stated that Ms. Valdez is his sister and he does not live at the property. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Sullivan if he received a letter. Mr. Sullivan stated that he did not and asked if he could add something. Vice Chair Freeman stated that Mr. Sullivan is not an affected party and Mr. Sullivan was not allowed to speak at this time. Arnold Ellison, 3200 Windsor Drive, Mr. Ellison stated that he was not sworn in. Ms. Sandoval swore Mr. Ellison in. Mr. Ellison stated that his issue was with the traffic study being conducted in May, stating this is when school is out and was during a time of virtual learning, therefore traffic was down. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Ellison if he felt that an updated traffic study was needed. Mr. Ellison stated that he would like to see if it could be simulated to reflect full capacity and would also like to see the issue of parking addressed per City Code. Commissioner Davis stated that the numbers of parking spaces shown on the plans are to City Code, clarifying that an exemption is not being requested for parking spaces. Mr. Ellison asked what the City standard is for parking. Commissioner Davis stated that this plan is showing 225 spaces. Mr. Ellison asked if that was per square foot. Vice Chair Freeman stated that would be a question for staff. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the parking plan is Schedule B, because there will not be fixed seating for individuals attending the temple, a calculation of 150 potential people at one time, cutting that number in half due to possible carpooling, which gives you 75, also providing spaces for those attending the meeting house by adding another 100, giving you 175, leading staff to determine that parking would be adequate, the meeting house calculation was based on square footage. Mr. Ellison asked if parking and traffic flow are not an issue, why is access needed from Windsor Drive and can that be eliminated? Mr. Ellison then asked if there plans for future buildings on this site. Mr. Ellison then asked the commission what buildings in Farmington are 40 feet tall, to grasp the height being proposed for comparison. Vice Chair Freeman stated that the Kaiser building would be roughly 35 feet. Mr. Echols stated that the old Conoco building, currently occupied by Farmington Schools, is roughly 50 feet. Mr. Echols stated that the Windsor Drive exit could not be closed due to access. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the Windsor Drive exit could be used as an exit only. Jennifer Breakell, City Attorney, stated that restricting access from Windsor Drive would be a fire code violation. Commissioner Davis stated that the old site plan shows that a majority of traffic would have exited on Windsor, but with the new site plan the traffic flows toward College Boulevard. Mr. Echols stated that the reason for the reduction in setbacks was having the ability to fit the buildings in conjunction with the layout of the parking lot. Mr. Echols stated that there are also no future plans to expand this facility. Ms. Breakell advised the Commission that potential future use and plans of a building is not something to be considered during the SUP provision. Mr. Echols stated that the LDS church is using other facilities to determine the needs, such as traffic count, for the temple. Mr. Echols stated that the traffic study will be amended to include comments from staff regarding peak counts. Mr. Echols stated that to address the wall regarding Ms. Valdez’s property, the wall on the church side will be 5-6 feet high, on the back side the wall will likely be higher and this will be an engineered wall. Vice Chair Freeman called any interested members of the public who would like to speak to this petition. Seth Bingham, 2401 Pheasant Court, stated that he is an attorney in Farmington and a member of the LDS church. Mr. Bingham stated that he believes that the SUP is consistent with the development in the area of College Boulevard and encourages the Commission to consider this development as an addition to the representation of Farmington. Mr. Bingham stated that he believes that the temple will set off College Boulevard significantly and does not believe that there will be any additional pressure in the neighborhood than what already takes place at the current location. Mr. Bingham stated that he would encourage the Planning & Zoning Commission to act favorably on the special use permit. Vice Chair Freeman asked the Commission if there were any questions for Mr. Bingham. There were none. Vice Chair Freeman asked if there were any other interested parties that would like to speak. Kirby Mortensen, 5809 Hallmarc Drive, stated that he needed to be sworn in. Ms. Sandoval swore Mr. Mortensen in. Mr. Mortensen stated, in response to the stipulation from staff regarding the sessions that would take place being offset, he would for that stipulation to acknowledge only when school is in session, so it does not affect Saturday and any times school was not in session. Planning Manager Escobar stated that staff is asking that the TIA information be adjusted to reflect the correct peak hours. Suggestions to the temple might be for sessions to be staggered, but that will not be clear until the updated TIA is submitted. Ms. Escobar stated that the stipulation is that the issue will be resolved through discussion with the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Smouse asked if the request for the sessions to be staggered is a part of the special use permit. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it is part of the conductions. Vice Chair Freeman stated that was no on the recommendation list. Planning Manager Escobar stated that traffic information had just been received yesterday. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the recommendation could be verbalized for the Commission. Planning Manager Escobar stated prior to the application being heard by City Council, the applicant will work with the City Engineer to resolve traffic issues and provide an updated TIA per email from Mark Hathcock dated September 15, 2021. Planning Manager Escobar stated that these issues do have to be addressed due to updated information. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the Commission had any questions for Mr. Mortensen. There were none. Vice Chair Freeman asked if there were any other interested parties that would like to speak. Crystal Hatch, 4061 Vista Pinon Drive, stated that she needed to be sworn in. Ms. Sandoval swore in Ms. Hatch in. Ms. Hatch stated that in regards to the school and traffic; schools went back full swing, February 19, 2021 and school ended May 27, 2021. Ms. Hatch stated that she is currently employed at Height Middle School, there are currently about 700 students enrolled at Heights Middle School and only 107 students remained virtual last school year. Ms. Hatch stated that in regard to traveling to the temple in two, she and friends have a trip planned to the Albuquerque temple this month; there will be six individuals and will be traveling in one vehicle. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the Commission had any questions for Ms. Hatch. There were none. Vice Chair Freeman asked if there were any other interested parties that would like to speak. There were none. Vice Chair opened to Commissioners discussion. Commissioner Smouse asked if the Commission would have a chance to see the updated traffic report before it goes to Council. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Smouse asked if the petition is brought back with the updated traffic report, does that open the petition back up to affected parties. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes. Commissioner Davis stated that he was not concerned with the updated traffic report and believes that the plans are more likely to create less of a traffic impact on College Boulevard and the surrounding area. Planning Manager Escobar stated that staff could share with Council that there were concerns about traffic and how it was resolved. Commissioner Brown asked if the special use permit is approved would it carry to the next property owner. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct, if the property was sold. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Smouse and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to APPROVE Petition No. SUP 21-49 as recommended by staff. The motion carried unanimously 6-0. ____________________________________________________________________________ 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 Chair Cardon returned. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Darrel & Michaela Martinez, property owners • Representative: Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols • Location: Parcel Numbers R0038232 & R0037541 • Acreage: 25 acres • Existing Zoning: RE:1-Residential Estates One Background • The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for Ridgeview Subdivision Number 4, Class 2, a 19-lot subdivision on two undeveloped parcels totaling 22.34 acres located in north Farmington east of Foothills Drive. • Lot sizes range from the minimum one acre to 1.83 acres • The proposed subdivision is an addition to previous Ridgeview Subdivisions developed on properties to the west. • Number Four includes a one-acre non-buildable lot for drainage, and a 100 foot wide overhead utility easement. Council Approval • Per the recommendation from Planning & Zoning, City Council approved the Preliminary Plan for Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four on July 13, 2021. Conclusion 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 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. • A Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded with the Final Plat Discussion Chair Cardon asked the Commission if they had any questions of staff. There were none. Chair Cardon called the petitioner or the petitioner’s representative forward. Bob Echols, Cheney- Walter-Echols Inc., 909 W. Apache Street, approached the podium. Chair Cardon asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Echols. There were none. Chair Cardon asked if there were any interested parties that would like to speak to this petition. There were none. Chair Cardon opened to Commissioners discussion. There was none. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Lockmiller to APPROVE Petition No. FP 21-54 as recommended by staff. The motion carried unanimously 7- 0. ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Planning Manager Escobar stated that the applicant’s representative needed to be called. Ms. Sandoval attempted to call the applicant’s representative, there was no answer. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Red Shamrock 12, LLC • Representative: Basin Surveying, Kevin Lane • Location: 4109 E. Main • Existing Zoning: GC – General Commercial • Property Size: 9.94 acres Background • 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. Aerial View Preliminary Plan Ms. Sandoval tried to call the applicant’s representative again, the line was answered but it was a wrong number. Kevin Lane, Basin Surveying, repeated the number which matched the number dialed. Staff Recommendation 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. Discussion Vice Chair Freeman asked Planning Manager Escobar if the area had been rezoned. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was rezoned in 2019 from industrial to general commercial. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the applicant that had requested the rezone had fallen through. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the applicant was the same applicant and this is a subdivision. Chair Cardon called for any of the applicant’s representatives. Kevin Lane, Basin Surveying, 108 Llano Street, Aztec NM, stood for questions. Commissioner Smouse asked what the dotted lines on the plat stood for. Mr. Lane stated the dark thicker lines are the lot lines; most of the easements straddle the lot lines, with the exception of Lot 3 which access utilities for Lot 5 & lot in the southwest corner. Commissioner Smouse asked if any were road access lines. Mr. Lane stated that the dash lines are the extent of the easements for ingress egress for utilities. Commissioner Smouse if there was only one access point off of E. Main Street. Mr. Lane stated that was correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there is currently one existing access point and asked Mr. Lane if negotiations are in place with NMDOT to realign that area. Mr. Lane stated that was beyond his scope of work and he is not involved in the design of the lots. Commissioner Smouse asked if the applicant is seeking to increase the size of the access point or to move the access point. Planning Manager Escobar stated she believes both and her belief is that it is not shown on the plat because of the turnaround time needed for NMDOT to respond. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she believes the applicant wants to move the access point to the east, to include a deceleration lane before the right turn. Chair Cardon asked if there was a pull off near Walgreens. Ms. Breakell stated it was for Walgreens traffic. Commissioner Waldroup asked if there was an arroyo in the area. Planning Manager Escobar stated that there was an arroyo and that is the reason that the driveway is proposed to be bumped up, so the applicant does not have to culvert the arroyo. Commissioner Brown asked if the residence off of Gila Street was between Lot 1 and Lot 4. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Mr. Lane stated that on the plat, in light gray text and line work, the line work shows where property is and the text is the owner information. Chair Cardon asked if there was an easement in between the lots and would that put it over to Lot 2 if taken toward Walgreens. Planning Manager Escobar stated it would be Lot 1 if shifted to the north. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the idea is to shift to the north. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she believes that might be under examination and that lot is proposed to be a gas station. Commissioner Davis asked if the NMDOT access does get realigned could the final plat be adjusted. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct. Commissioner Smouse asked if there were any concerns with the drop off of E. Main Street down to grade level and what is being asked for. Mr. Lane stated that what is being requested is that the property corner be tied with the City of Farmington coordinance system. Planning Manager Escobar stated the technical correction is the base elevation. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she does have concerns with the drop and when the construction drawings are received, the Engineering Division will look at that. Commissioner Brown asked if there were any drainage issues. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes. Mr. Lane stated that an ALTA plat was completed, which is a boundary survey, as well as topographic surveys, which depicts the grade changes throughout the lot and can be submitted to the Planning Division if needed. Chair Cardon asked if there were any interested parties. There were none. Commissioner Davis stated that he had a concerns with condition 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 and condition 4, access to Gila Street from the property shall be realigned to avoid impact to single family residences. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the applicant and their representative did receive a copy of the packet, but does think that the applicant and applicant’s representative do have issues they would like to talk about. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Commission could move the petition forward with stipulations or table for the next meeting. Commissioner Davis asked if the petition was moved forward and if anything with conditions 2 or 4 changes would bring the petition back to the Commission. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if in the preliminary plan the issues are not addressed, the application will probably come back to the Commission. Motion A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to TABLE Petition No. PP 21-56 and to be reheard at the September 30, 2021 Planning & Zoning meeting. The motion carried unanimously 7-0. ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: UDC Section 2.4.7.C • 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. 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. D. 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. E. Additional numbers of fowl may be permitted through a Special Use Permit. UDC Section 11 – Definitions Discussion Commissioner Davis asked if Code Compliance was okay with the definition of rooster. Ms. Breakell stated that she has met with Code Compliance and they are okay with the definition of rooster. Commissioner Davis asked Ms. Breakell, if in Condition D, the right to keep fowl can be revoked, is within our purview. Ms. Breakell stated that it is within our purview, stating that even though individuals have a right to do certain things on their property, compliance is still required. Commissioner Smouse asked if notices had been sent out to all affected parties. Planning Manager Escobar stated that was correct, 170 letters had been sent out. Commissioner Brown asked if there would be a permitting process. Ms. Breakell stated no, there would not be a permitting process. Chair Cardon asked if there were any affected parties who would like to speak. All parties were sworn in. Jacob Fuller, 2503 Ridgeview Drive, Farmington, NM, stated that he would like to address Condition D, 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. Mr. Fuller asked if instead of saying “as soon as possible”, could a time period be defined and with the verbiage “the right to keep fowl may be revoked”, could be changed to “the right to keep fowl shall be revoked”. Mr. Fuller stated this verbiage does leave things open to interpretation. Mr. Fuller then asked if the section for fowl to be contained was removed. Ms. Breakell stated that changing the verbiage “may” to “shall” does not work with legal standards due to due process hearings that individuals are entitled to. Ms. Breakell stated that in regard to the time frame, she would leave that up to the Commission's discretion, but would advise against setting a time frame because it does take away any alternatives or opportunities City staff has to work out a solution with the person in violation. Mr. Fuller stated that he does agree to a point, but being seven months in with an issue that came to light seven months ago, had a time frame been noted he believes that the issue would not have gone on for seven months. Mr. Fuller stated that a timeframe that makes sense might be something that needs to be included in the verbiage. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Fuller what he would recommend for a timeframe. Mr. Fuller stated that 90 days seems fair. Ms. Breakell stated that Code Compliance does send a violation letter on the onset of a violation and 30 days are given to cure the violation; if within 30 days it is not cured, criminal charges are then filed. Commissioner Davis stated that if the proposed revisions were in place he believes that we would not be seven months in. Roberta Fate, 2504 Ridgeview Drive, Farmington, NM, stated that she has a couple of concerns. Ms. Fate stated that she sees that this issue is kind of comical, but being seven months in it is not comical to her. Ms. Fate stated she would like to find out, that something still bothers her about the issue that he is allowed 50 chickens per acre, most of those more than half are roosters. Chair Cardon stated that this meeting is about the proposed changes to the UDC and what has happened with neighbors has been handled in a court case. Ms. Fate stated that she still is concerned about the eggs and the newly hatched chicks that he is raising which are not being counted in his 109. Ms. Fate stated that she would like to find out how and when a chick becomes countable. Ms. Fate stated that he usually has over 109 and she thinks that it will be hard to determine how many are legal and how many aren’t. Ms. Fate asked that under the section regarding peafowl, would the total have to be 50 or less. Planning Manager Escobar stated that under the section that lists peafowl, it is aggregate. Ms. Fate stated that peafowl are really loud and 50 peafowl would be worse than 50 roosters, which is concerning to her. Planning Manager Escobar stated that until a chick is an adult they would not be counted, stating that she does not believe that chick usually cause a nuisance or noise. Ms. Fate stated that she agrees with Ms. Escobar. Ms. Fate asked if an adult chicken, if it is a male, would be of crowing age. Ms. Breakell stated that is correct. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the UDC is built with flexibility and with a respect for property rights. Commissioner Brown asked if a 90 day timeframe is listed, if it is believed that there would be instances where an issue could not be solved within 90 days. Ms. Breakell stated yes, it is a high possibility. Commissioner Brown asked what the worst case scenario would be for an individual who is in violation. Ms. Escobar stated that jail time could be a possibility. Commissioner Brown stated that it would be hard to put a timeframe of 90 day in the verbiage. Ms. Breakell stated that it would, because the 90 days would start from the date the adjudication of the violation is actually made, so the timeframe would not really speed anything up. Commissioner Smouse asked if there was any verbiage that could be added that states we are taking prudent action so that we are not sitting here seven months later with a case that hasn’t been resolved. Ms. Breakell stated that the case has been resolved and there are 120 days to come into compliance. Ms. Breakell stated that when Code Compliance gets a complaint, the complaint is investigated usually within 14-17 days and a letter is sent within 30 days to resolve the violation. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Breakell if she could run through the process starting with Code Compliance. Ms. Breakell stated that Code Compliance receives the complaint, once it is established that there is a violation a letter is sent to the property owner giving them 30 days to remediate the situation, violators can request additional time, should the violator not come into compliance under the time allowed criminal charges are filled, 45-60 days after criminal charges are filed and arraignment is held, if the violator pleads not guilty, a trial is held within 6 months of the charges being filed. Commissioner Brown asked what the process is if the violator pleads guilty. Ms. Breakell stated that a fine or fee is issued, the judge puts off sentencing, and the sentencing date is sent to the City Attorney’s office for the City Attorney to appear to put conditions on the sentencing. Commissioner Davis stated that he believes there is a mechanism in place with Code Compliance. Commissioner Smouse asked when does a chick become a full grown chicken. Planning Manager Escobar stated that a chick becomes a chicken when it is out of the incubator. Commissioner Davis stated that he believes that the issue of roosters is being addressed in the proposed changes, which has been the issue from the beginning. Commissioner Lockmiller asked if the complaint is a nuisance to the code or just a complaint from a neighbor, will rights be revoked. Ms. Breakell stated that nuisance is defined in the City Code, something that substantially affects one by foul odor, noise, vibration, etc. The definition is a good definition, it has been challenged and the courts have upheld it. Commissioner Lockmiller stated that if a neighbor is within the number of fowl, but a neighbor does not like the noise, that would be a violation. Ms. Breakell stated that unless it is over the noise ordinance portion of the code it could be a noise violation, if not it is not a violation. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to move the proposed changes to the UDC, Sections 2.4.7.C and Section 11, move forward to City Council. The motion carried unanimously 7-0. ______________________________________________________________________ Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar stated that City Council started discussions regarding the cannabis ordinance, some major changes were made which staff will highlight for the Commission at their next meeting, the 30 day review and discussion has been posted. The Comprehensive Plan was presented to City Council, with action being taken September 28, 2021. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup. The motion carried unanimously 7-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:39 p.m. ____________________________ _____________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant  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 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. 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. 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.  AERIAL MAP OF SURROUNDING AREA Please note this aerial is from 2019. All vehicles and equipment have been removed from the site. PRELIMINARY PLAN SHEET 1 PRELIMINARY PLAN SHEET 2 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:  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 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  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT COYOTE RIDGE SUBDIVISION - PETITION NO. PP 21-60 A. STAFF REPORT, September 30, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant BC Land Developers, Mike Smith Representative Bob Echols, C-W-E Date of Application September 30, 2021 Requested Action Preliminary Plan Approval Location Parcel No. R4001364 and R0055371 Tier II of Farmington Planning & Platting Jurisdiction Existing Zoning No zoning in County Surrounding North: Church and Residential South: Residential Zoning and Land East: Residential, undeveloped Use West: Residential, Coyote Ridge Phase 1 Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Preliminary Plans do not require notice Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 16 residential lots Acres of Land 15.41 acres Minimum Lot Size 0.77-1.04 acres, no minimum in County 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 The petitioner is requesting preliminary plan approval for the Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase II, a single-family 16-lot subdivision located in Farmington Center Subdivision, located at Tier II of the City’s Planning & Platting Jurisdiction in San Juan County. Access I rom Morning Star Road. The street infrastructure for this phase has already been installed. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS Three internal agencies have comments that need to be addressed Engineering – Toni Sitta • Please check the closures and POB coordinates for correctness. Electrical Engineering – Roberta Ga • Indicate all existing underground electric utility easements. Fire Marshall - Brandy Vega • Finished roads must meet fire code requirements. • These technical issues can be addressed at the final plat stage. 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. 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: This subdivision is located in San Juan County and zoning does not apply. D. Comprehensive plan consistency. Staff Comments: This is not applicable to county subdivisions. AERIAL MAP OF SURROUNDING AREA PRELIMINARY PLAN SHEET 1 PRELIMINARY PLAN SHEET 2 STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition PP 21-60, Coyote Ridge Phase II, Farmington Center a Class 2, 16-lot residential subdivision in Tier II of the City of Farmington is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 21-60 a submittal from BC Land Developers, represented by Robert Echols, C-W-E, for a Preliminary Plan for a 16-lot, Class 2, subdivision located in San Juan County. 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, shall be submitted for review to the City of Farmington Engineering Division prior to submittal of a final plat. SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to recommend approval of Petition # FP 21-60, Preliminary Plan for Coyote Ridge Phase II with the stipulations recommended by staff. I move to recommend denial of Petition # FP 21-60, Preliminary Plan for Coyote Ridge Phase II for the following reasons. I move to table Petition # FP 21-60, Preliminary Plan for Coyote Ridge Phase II for the following reason:  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY PP 21-60 COYOTE RIDGE SUBDIVSION PHASE TWO DEADLINE: 9/8/2021 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 Please indicate all the existing ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga underground electric utility easement as shown on the attached document. ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix Finished roads must meet the fire code FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega requirements. LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost 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 check the closures and POB Engineering – T. Sitta coordinates for correctness. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – D. Willato No Comment Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut No Comment Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons