Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive October 28, 2021 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the September 30, 2021 P&Z Meeting 4 New Planning & Zoning Commissioner Introduction 5 Petition No. PP 21-56 - Discussion & possible action regarding Perea Subdivision Replat A – a request from Abner Torres, represented by Bob Echols, C-WE, for Preliminary Plan review of a 6-lot subdivision located in the City of Farmington’s Tier II Planning & Platting Jurisdiction (Beth Escobar) 6 Discussion & Possible Action – Discussion & possible action regarding proposed revisions to the 2020 Unified Development Code (Beth Escobar) 7 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 8 Adjournment If applicable, the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 9, 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 30, 2021 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on September 30, 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 Cheryl Ragsdale Cody Waldroup P&Z Members Absent: Shay Davis Elizabeth Lockmiller Mitch Sewell Gary Smouse Staff Present: Beth Escobar Elizabeth Sandoval Others Who Addressed the Commission: Josh Skarsgard (via Conference Call) Kevin Lane Mike Smith Call to Order Chair Joyce Cardon called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda The motion was made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the agenda of the September 30, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. ____________________________________________________________________________ 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 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 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 if staff recommendation is to move the access point down along the lot line through Lot 4 and 5. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she would recommend that it be moved toward Main Street so it lines up with the Walgreens driveway or curve the access. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Lot 1 is bigger than Lot 2, with Lot 1 being proposed to be a convenient store/gas station. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Planning Division is leaving it to the engineers and the applicant to find a solution. Vice Chair Freeman asked Planning Manager Escobar if the motion would be to recommend staff’s recommendations and the issue would be handled administratively. Planning Manager Escobar stated no, the final plat will come back before the Commission. Commissioner Waldroup asked why there couldn’t be an exit between Lots 4 and 5. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Fire Department does require two in and out entrances for every development. Commissioner Waldroup stated that another access point could be added to the east. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the deceleration lane on Main Street would be an entrance point. Planning Manager Escobar stated that an access point to the east is a possibility and the deceleration lane is a decision that the NMDOT will have to make. Commissioner Brown asked if two driveways on Main Street was a possibility. Planning Manager Escobar stated that would be up to NMDOT. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the applicant would be responsible for upgrading Gila Street. Planning Manager Escobar stated yes and it would be to the end of the property. Chair Cardon asked where do Lots 2 and 3 have access. Planning Manager Escobar stated that the applicant is not proposing to not have an access on Main Street, but to move the existing driveway. Chair Cardon asked if the petitioner or the petitioner’s representative were present. Kevin Lane, Basin Surveying, 108 Llano Street, Aztec, NM. Josh Skarsgard, via conference call, 8220 San Pedro, Albuquerque, NM. Mr. Lane stated that he is flexible and that it is a matter of design and Basin Surveying is not involved in the design of this project. Mr. Skarsgard stated curb cuts on Gila Street and Main Street had a complicated selection process; the locations for the curb cuts were selected based on traffic counts in conjunction with NMDOT. Mr. Skarsgard stated the reason for moving the access on Gila Street to the east is to accommodate traffic that would be turning left into the shopping center. Commissioner Waldroup stated that the reason this access point is being brought up is due to the access point possibly being an issue, due to lighting, to the residence located off of Gila Street. Mr. Skarsgard stated that he would happily work with the homeowner to secure a solution to the light issue, possibly by paying to add a wall or adding landscaping. Vice Chair Freeman stated that if the entrance point is moved 10-15 feet to the west that might be enough to change the alignment. Planning Manager Escobar stated that would be staff recommendation as well. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Gila Street is a City street and perhaps a discussion with the City Traffic Engineer could be set up to discuss the access. Mr. Lane stated that on the plat the dotted lines represent the plated Iles Subdivision and the two lines that are close together is a platted alley, not an entrance into Walgreens. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Skarsgard if he would be willing to include the conversation of moving access as part of a motion being made for approval. Mr. Skarsgard stated that he is happy to study the area, but the collaboration of the incoming tenants, the State Engineer and NMDOT were the result of the curb cut locations. Mr. Skarsgard stated that he will do his best to mediate any issues as a result of the curb cut locations. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Skarsgard if the resident had reached out to speak about the proposed project. Mr. Skarsgard stated no, he was not aware of this issue until yesterday. Commissioner Waldroup asked Mr. Skarsgard if he has had discussions regarding Gila Street with the City of Farmington Traffic Engineer, since Gila Street is a City street. Mr. Skarsgard stated that he is aware that Gila Street is a City street; having done many projects within the City he does plan to work with City staff and will try his best to meet the needs of all parties involved. Mr. Skarsgard stated that he loves working with the community and has put a lot of time and money into this project to build a great shopping center for Farmington. Commissioner Waldroup asked Planning Manager Escobar if the verbiage for the motion should include the discussion between the petitioner and the City Engineers. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Stipulation #4 could be reworded to “The applicant will work with staff to find a solution regarding mitigation of the headlights on Gila Street.” Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman to APPROVE Petition No. PP 21-56 as recommended by staff, with the change to stipulation 4, the applicant will work with staff to find a solution regarding mitigation of the headlights on Gila Street. The motion carried unanimously 5-0. ____________________________________________________________________________ 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 Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Mike Smith, BC Land Developers • Representative: Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols • Location: Parcel Numbers R4001364 & R0055371 • Tier II of Planning & Platting Jurisdiction • Existing Zoning: Located in San Juan County, zoning doesn’t apply Process • The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plan approval per Section 8.8.9.D of the Unified Development Code • The Preliminary Plan review provides for identification of any issues and determination of compliance with all regulations • The Planning & Zoning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation • Council provides final approval of a Preliminary Plan • The Final Plat may then be submitted Background • 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 is from Morning Star Road. • The street infrastructure for this phase has already been installed. Aerial Zoning Map Reviews and Comments • Minor corrections can be reflected with submittal of the Final Plat Plat 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. Discussion Mike Smith, PO Box 3136, Farmington, NM 87499. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Smith if he had any issues with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Smith stated that he did not have any issues with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to make clear that on the aerial photo where the blue outline is, the two lots that are not outlined should be included in this application. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the language should be changed in the petition to 18 lot subdivision as opposed to how it is worded now as 16 lot subdivision. Planning Manager Escobar stated that since this petition is a preliminary plan the verbiage can be updated in the minutes and will be corrected before this petition is moved forward to Council. Mr. Smith stated that the construction plans for Phase II were approved when Phase I was approved. Planning Manager Escobar asked Mr. Smith what year those plans were approved. Mr. Smith stated that he did not have the Phase I plat at this time, but that he would get that information. Planning Manager Escobar stated that if the construction plans were approved within the last three years then they could be accepted. Mr. Smith stated that they were submitted over three years ago. Planning Manager Escobar stated that Mr. Smith could then submit the originals and they would need to be reviewed per current engineering standards. Motion A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to APPROVE Petition No. PP 21-60, an 18-lot subdivision located in the City of Farmington’s Tier II Planning & Platting Jurisdiction, as recommended by staff. The motion carried unanimously 5- 0. ____________________________________________________________________________ Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar stated that the Council did adopt a resolution adopting the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Council also agreed to publish the fowl regulations as recommended by staff, there was also continued discussion regarding the cannabis regulations. Planning Manager Escobar stated that as a result from input from the Police Chief and the City Attorney, changes were made to the regulations that the Commission has reviewed, noting that proposed changes were retails sales to be allowed in Central Business, Commercial and Industrial zoning, manufacturing and production in Industrial and General Commercial zoning with a special use permit, cultivation to be allowed in Industrial and General Commercial zoning with a special use permit, a 300 foot separation from retail to retail and cultivator to cultivator, as well as from school, religious institutions and day cares, as well as other dispensaries has been recommended. Planning Manager Escobar also stated that the special use permit for the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was approved by Council. Planning Manager Escobar stated that she has a general pickup in activity for the Planning Division. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 3:46 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Joyce Cardon Elizabeth Sandoval Chair Administrative Assistant  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PEREA SUBDIVISION - PETITION NO. PP 21-65 A. STAFF REPORT, October 12, 2021 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Abner Torres Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application September 29, 2021 Requested Action Preliminary Plan Approval Location South of Road 3950 and North of Road 3773 in Tier II of Farmington’s Platting and Planning Jurisdiction (R4009866) Existing Zoning N/A; Tier II of Farmington’s Platting and Planning Jurisdiction Surrounding North: Unincorporated San Juan County/Undeveloped South: Unincorporated San Juan County/Undeveloped Zoning and Land East: Unincorporated San Juan County/Undeveloped Use West: Unincorporated San Juan County/Undeveloped Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Preliminary Plans do not require notice Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Associate Planner SU BDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 6 Lots plus an overhead electric easements Acres of Land 4.77 Acres Minimum Lot Size 0.795 Acres 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 1 GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting preliminary plan approval for the Perea Subdivision Replat A, a proposed subdivision of a 4.77-acre parcel in an unincorporated area of San Juan County. This is a Class 2 subdivision, with all six lots 0.795 acres in size. The petitioner is submitting this as an exemption plat to San Juan County. Newly created lots will be transferred to family members of the petitioner in accordance with New Mexico Statute 47-6-2.L.9. The subject property is located in Tier 2 of the City of Farmington’s Planning and Platting Jurisdiction. Subdivisions in Tier 2 are subject to all of the regulations in Chapter 6 – Subdivision Standards of the UDC except for the following: The requirements of section 6.4, subdivision design standards, shall apply to all rural residential subdivisions, with the following modifications. 6.5.2 Blocks. Block length shall not exceed 1,500 feet in rural residential subdivisions. In blocks over 800 feet in length, accessways, as defined herein, may be required near the center of the block and at the end of a cul-de-sac to facilitate pedestrian traffic movement. 6.5.3 Streets and alleys. A. Streets shall comply with the requirements of section 6.4.7; provided, however, that streets Class 2 and 3 subdivisions shall have: (1) All weather, gravel or crushed stone base; (2) Road surfaces with not less than a double penetration chip seal surface; and (3) Road surface width of not less than 24 feet; and (4) Eight-foot shoulder on each side. B. Minimum rights-of-way width shall be 50 feet; provided, however, that minimum rights-of-way for all thoroughfares, as shown on the City of Farmington Major Thoroughfare Plan, which cross or form a subdivision boundary, shall be in accordance with the requirements of subsection 6.4.7J., geometric standards- street design criteria. 6.5.4 Pedestrian, biking and multi-use facilities. A. Sidewalks are not required on residential and collector streets that are wholly contained within rural residential subdivisions. If sidewalks are provided or required, they shall meet all regulations in section 6.4.8, pedestrian, biking and multi-use facilities, and shall be constructed away from the roadway surface to provide adequate safety for pedestrians. B. Sidewalks are required on all collectors and arterials that will continue beyond the rural residential subdivision(s) and are required to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of section 6.4.7, streets and alleys. Sidewalks on these streets shall comply with the requirements of section 6.4.8, pedestrian facilities. C. Biking facilities are not required. Tier 2 properties are within 3 miles of the City boundaries. Although no specific study for potential annexation in this area has been conducted, it is reasonable to assume that annexation is a possibility. It is important therefore to control development to prevent the inheritance of problem areas. This is the purpose of the State assigned Planning and Platting Jurisdiction (PP & J). Both the 2002 Farmington Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan reflect concerns about development in fringe areas that do not provide adequate infrastructure. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta: 599-1399 and tsitta@fmtn.org Please include the following note on the plat – “No maintenance will be done by the City unless first annexed, brought up to City standards per the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) 6.4.7 Streets and Alleys and accepted for maintenance by the City Council. Improvements, improvement costs, and maintenance are the responsibility of the adjacent parcel owners.” Electrical Engineering Staff – Roberto Ga: 599-8314 and robertoga@fmtn.org The overhead electric lines that crosses two of the subdivided residential lots will be affected by these OH lines.  AERIAL MAP OF SURROUNDING AREA Subject Property PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition 21-65, Perea Subdivision Replat A, a Class 2, 6 lot subdivision in Tier II of the City of Farmington is appropriate, subject to technical and corrective changes as enumerated in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 21-65 a submittal from Abner Torres, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc. for a preliminary plan approval of a Class 2, 6-lot subdivision of one undeveloped parcel totaling 4.77 acres south of Road 3950. • All technical corrections to the plat will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat, including noted issues in this report.  PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY PP 21-65 PEREA SUBDIVISION REPLAT A DEADLINE: 10/7/2021 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 Overhead electrical lines that crosses ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga two of the subdivided residential lots will be affected by these OH lines. ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix FIRE Fire Marshall – B. Vega No Comment LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – E. Wayne No Comment POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero POLICE Sergeant – S. Goodsell PRCA Parks - R. Crosby PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW Please include the following note on the plat – “No maintenance will be done by the City unless first annexed, brought up to City standards per the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) 6.4.7 Streets Engineering – T. Sitta and Alleys and accepted for maintenance by the City Council. Improvements, improvement costs, and maintenance are the responsibility of the adjacent parcel owners.” 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 Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons  Memo To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: October 28, 2021 Subject: New Code Revisions The following proposed code changes to the Unified Development Code are being presented to the Commission for review and possible approval: Delete all references to Medical Marijuana, including 2.3-Use table, and 2.4 Use Standards. With the State of New Mexico making cannabis a legal substance, there is no longer a state department for Medical Marijuana. Everything is now regulated through the state Cannabis Control District. City regulations were adopted on October 12 and became effective on October 20, 2021. A copy of the ordinance is included with this report UDC Section 5.2.3.A Minimum off-street parking requirements. Aviation and Surface Transportation (Subsection 2.7.7B.) Airports, Heliports Schedule B Railroad and Bus Terminals 1.0 per 200 square feet Limo and Shuttle Services Schedule B Rental Car Agencies 1.0 per 200 square feet for rental office. Schedule B for rental fleet vehicles Sec. 5.6 Floodplains. 5.6.7 Specific standards. In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in subsection 5.6.4C., basis for establishing the areas of special flood Hazard; or where the basis has not been established, subsection 7.7.2H., powers and duties, the following are required: A. Residential construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement and all mechanical equipment, elevated to one foot or more above the base flood elevation. A registered professional engineer, or land surveyor shall submit a certification to the floodplain administrator that the standard of this subsection, as proposed in subsection 13.2.15A. is satisfied. (The city engineer does not have authority to waive this requirement.) 1. B. Nonresidential construction. New construction and substantial improvements of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall have either the lowest floor, including basement and all mechanical equipment, elevated to one foot or more above the base flood elevation or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so if the base is below one foot above the base flood  elevation the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer shall develop or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice as outlined in this subsection. A record of such certification, which includes the specific elevation, in relation to mean sea level, to which such structures are flood-proofed, shall be maintained by the floodplain administrator. C. Enclosure. New construction and substantial improvements, with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: (1) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. (2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one-foot above grade. (3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices, provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. D. Manufactured and mobile homes. (1) Manufactured and mobile homes to be placed within Zone A (on a community's FHBM or FIRM) shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage. For the purposes of this requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. (2) Manufactured and mobile homes to be placed or substantially improved within Zones A1-30, AH and AE (on the community's FIRM) on-sites, either: a. Outside of a manufactured or mobile home park or subdivision; b. In manufactured home or mobile park or subdivision completed on or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations; c. In an expansion to an existing manufactured or mobile home park or subdivision; d. In an existing manufactured and mobile home park or subdivision on which a manufactured or mobile home has incurred "substantial damage" as a result of a flood; or e. Be elevated on a permanent foundation so that the lowest floor of the manufactured home, including all mechanical equipment, elevated to one (1) foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. Section 14.3.2 of the Municipal Code will be submitted for revisions at the same time. Section 6.4.8.E Timing of dedication and construction E. Timing of dedication and construction. (1) All accessways, bikeways and multi-use facilities, as may be required by this UDC or recommended by the bikeway plan or other adopted plans, or as may be negotiated through the platting process, shall be dedicated and constructed prior to release of the subdivision guarantee, or as required below: a. All required accessways, sidewalks, bikeways multi-use facilities, street lights, traffic signs, pavement markings and traffic signals must be constructed concurrently with the adjacent street or thoroughfare; b. If the street or thoroughfare is already constructed, prior to acceptance of any improvements. Revisions submitted by Traffic Engineering on October 1, 2021. Sec. 6.8 Subdivision improvements.0 6.8.1 Construction of improvements. If, after City approval of the final construction plans, the subdivider elects to construct the required improvements prior to recording of the final plat, after such plat has been approved, all such construction shall be inspected while in progress, by the director, and must be approved upon completion by the director. A. No infrastructure construction shall begin without first notifying the City Engineer of the start date of construction for any utilities, or improvements including streets, curb and gutter, etc. A City Construction Inspector shall be onsite for the installation of all improvements. The Subdivider or construction representative shall notify the Farmington City Engineer prior to the installation or construction of all improvements. B. City approval of signed construction plans shall expire 3 years from the date of the Community Works Director’s signature. C. Verification by the director that the construction conforms to the plans and specifications and the standards of this UDC must be presented to the planning and zoning commission prior to approval of the final plat. If the subdivider decides or elects to file security in lieu of completing construction prior to final plat approval, he may utilize one of the following methods of posting security. 6.8.2 Financial assurances. Following approval of the final plat including construction plans and prior to the issuance of building permits and construction, the subdivider shall utilize one of the following methods of guaranteeing the cost of installing all required improvements, within an agreed period of time not to exceed three years from the date of final plat approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Director for up to three more years if the number of lots sold in the subdivision is less than 80 percent. A. Performance bond. Has filed with the city clerk a bond executed by a surety company holding a license to do business in the State of New Mexico, and acceptable to the City of Farmington on a form approved by the city, in an amount of 125 percent of the cost of the improvements as certified by the director. The performance bond shall be approved as to form by the city attorney. B. Trust agreement. Has placed on deposit in a bank or trust company in the name of the city, and approved by the city, in a trust account, a sum of money equal to 125 percent of the estimated cost of all improvements required by this section, the cost and the  time of completion as estimated by the director; selection of the trustee shall be subject to approval by the city and the trust agreement shall be executed on the form provided by the city and approved as to form by the city attorney. C. Unconditional guarantee from bank (letter of credit). Has filed with the city clerk a letter, in a form approved by the city, signed by a principal officer of a local bank, local savings and loan association or other bank, acceptable to the city, agreeing to pay to the City of Farmington, on demand, a stipulated sum of money to apply to the estimated cost of installation of all improvements for which the subdivider is responsible under this section. The guaranteed payment sum shall be the 125 percent of the estimated costs and scheduling as prepared by the subdivider's engineer and approved by the director. The letter shall state the name of the subdivision and shall list the improvements, which the subdivider is required to provide. No expiration of the guarantee shall be permitted. D. Improvements agreement. Has executed an agreement approved by the city attorney (between the subdivider and the city) wherein the subdivider agrees to install all improvements for which the subdivider is responsible under this section. Such agreement shall be signed by the mayor and recorded with the final plat. Section 6.8.3.D D. Upon completion of construction in accordance with approved construction plans, the subdivider shall require his construction contractors, with whom he contracts, to furnish materials and to install improvements required by this section, and shall himself be required to furnish to the city a written post a bond guaranteeing that all workmanship and materials shall be free of defects for a period of 1 year from the date of acceptance by the director. 6.8.4 Building Permits: Building permits for onsite construction shall not be issued by the City of Farmington until: A. The final plat and any related documents have been recorded with San Juan County. B. Construction plans have been approved by the City. C. All infrastructure, per the approved construction plans, has been installed by a state licensed contractor and approved in writing by the City Engineer. D. Building permits may be issued for the complete subdivision or portion completed and approved in writing by the City Engineer. Section 6.9.1.B Responsibility for payment for installation costs. Sec. 6.9 Responsibility for payment for installation costs. 6.9.1 Required improvements. The subdivider shall pay all costs of materials and installation of the following: A. Setting of survey monuments and markers in accordance with the most recent City of Farmington "Design & Construction Standards with Technical Specification"; B. Streets and road construction for all street improvements including base, grading, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pavement, culverts, bridges, street lights, traffic signals, pavement markings and traffic signs. The Traffic Engineering Division (TED) will provide a cost estimation to the subdivider for the initial material and installation costs. The subdivider shall pay all costs of materials and installation for the pavement markings and traffic signs. The TED will install and maintain the pavement markings and traffic signs. Streets and road construction for all street improvements including base, grading, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pavement, street name signs, street regulatory signs, culverts, and bridges; These revision requests were submitted by the Engineering/Street department via an October 1st email. Sec. 8.8 Subdivision plat review. E. Final plat review. The final plat shall substantially conform to the preliminary plan as approved by the city council, incorporating all changes, modifications, corrections, and conditions imposed by the city council; and provided further, that it shall conform to all applicable requirements of this UDC. (1) Final plat submittal. A complete application for a final plat shall be submitted to the director or designee as set forth in section 8.1.3, minimum submission requirements. The final plat will not be considered unless a preliminary plan has been approved. (2) Construction Plans: Constructions plans for all proposed infrastructure for the subdivision shall be submitted before or with the Final Plat submission. The Final Plat shall not be recorded without infrastructure construction plans being approved by the Director. (3) Review and recommendation by the director or designee. The director or designee shall review final plat application and recommend approval or disapproval of same. (4) Review and final action/recommendation by the commission. The commission shall review the application in a public hearing. Upon completion of the hearing, the commission shall vote to approve, approve with conditions, or recommend denial of the plat application. If the commission finds that the plat is in substantial compliance with the applicable requirements of this UDC, the chairman of the commission shall mark and sign the plat as follows: Approved pursuant to major subdivision procedure of the City of Farmington UDC Date: City of Farmington Planning Commission By: Chairman (5) Review and final action by city council. In the event that a final plat is recommended for denial by the commission, the city council shall review the final plat in a public meeting. Upon completion of the meeting the city council shall vote to approve,  approve with conditions, or deny the plat application. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 8.8.9E(3), in the event of approval of a final plat by the city council, the signature block shall be modified accordingly and reflect approval by the city council and signature by the mayor. (6) Notice of decision. Written notice of the decision to approve or approve with conditions, or deny shall be provided to the applicant within five working days of the decision, and a copy shall be filed in the office of the director or designee. (7) Recordation/expiration of approval. a. Upon approval by the commission, the applicant shall submit a mylar of the final plat, including all required changes to the Director or designee, and the director or designee shall require that the plat be recorded in the office of the San Juan County Clerk. A subdivision approval shall expire automatically unless the final plat is recorded within three years of the approval or an extension is approved by the city council. b. If the Subdivider will be constructing required infrastructure, a Subdivision Agreement shall be required to be signed by the Subdivider and recorded at the same time as the Final Plat. F. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the city council pursuant to this section may appeal to district court within 15 days of the date of the decision rendered by the city council. If no appeal is filed within 15 days, the decision shall be considered contractually agreed to by the applicant and shall be final. Section 13.3 – Comprehensive plan Replace the Future Land Use Plan with the 2040 map. Section 13.4 Traffic Impact Analysis Delete and replace entire section. See attached revision received from Isaac Blue Eyes, City Engineer. Planning & Zoning Commission These revisions are being presented to the Commission for review and discussion. The Commission may choose to recommend these changes move forward to City Council or request further discussion at a future meeting. SECTION 13.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES CITY OF FARMINGTON REQUIREMENTS Figure 1: Traffic Impact Study Flow Chart 13.4.1 Traffic impact study (TIS). A TIS is a traffic study that determines the potential traffic impacts of a proposed traffic generator (i.e. proposed development). A complete analysis will include an estimation of future traffic with and without the proposed generator, analysis of the traffic impacts, and recommended roadway improvements that may be necessary to accommodate the expected traffic. A. Purpose. This standard provides uniform guidelines for conducting traffic impact studies for proposed development with access to a City street. B. Applicability. The community works director or designee shall determine applicability based on the following factors and considerations: (1) The City of Farmington has develop a TIS system based on the New Mexico Department of Transportation’s (NMDOT) New Mexico Access Management Manual (NMAMM) Section 16, Chapter 6. The City’s TIS system is used to determine the level of impact a proposed development has on an adjacent street. These impacts may result from the need for access along a street or because a proposed development is expected to increase traffic volumes on that particular street. The general types of traffic analysis are listed below: a. Site Threshold Assessment (STH) – a screening-level analysis to determine if additional traffic analysis is required. Consists of a one-page worksheet (STH Form). b. Site Traffic Analysis (STA) – a focused traffic study to assess site-specific impacts of a proposed development. Consists of an engineering evaluation and the preparation of a traffic study report. c. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) – a detailed impact analysis of all traffic operations, access and safety impacts within the prescribed study area for a proposed development. Consists of an engineering evaluation and the preparation study report. 13.4.2 Site Threshold Assessment (STH). A STH shall be required for all developing or redeveloping properties that directly or indirectly access a City of Farmington street. The requirements for the STH are described in the following subsections. Figure 2: STH Form A. The STH should examine existing street volumes and trip generation estimates to determine if additional traffic analysis is required. The City uses the NMAMM’s STH form. The following information is needed to complete STH form: (1) A detailed description and location of the proposed development (2) Existing daily traffic volumes for the adjacent roadway (3) Trip generation estimates for the proposed development B. The findings on this STH Form (Figure 2) will determine which direction the applicant should follow on the Figure 1 flowchart. From the results of the STH form, the applicant or their engineer would either proceed to a STA, a TIA or submit the results of the STH to the City Traffic Engineer or their designee for review. C. Trip generation. (1) The latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual shall be used to identify trip generation rates. In cases where Trip Generation does not include trip rates for a specific land use category, includes only limited data; or, where local trip rates have been shown to differ from the ITE rates, other rates may be used with the approval of the city. (2) A trip generation table shall be prepared showing proposed land use, trip rates, and vehicle trips for daily and peak hour periods and appropriate traffic volume adjustments, if applicable. Site traffic generation shall be shown for daily, morning and evening peak hour periods. Adjustments made for "passer-by" and "mixed-use" traffic volumes shall follow the methodology outlined in the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The "passer-by" traffic volume discount for commercial centers shall not exceed 25 percent unless approved by the city. D. Trip distribution and assignment. (1) Projected trip volume shall be distributed and added to the projected non-site traffic on the roadways and intersection(s) in the study area. The specific assumptions and data sources used in deriving trip distribution and assignment shall be documented in the report. (2) Future traffic volumes shall be estimated using information from transportation models, or applying an annual growth rate to the base-line traffic volumes. The  future traffic volumes shall correlate to the project's specific timeframe. If the annual growth rate method is used, the city must give prior approval to the percentage used. (3) In addition, any nearby proposed or approved development projects shall be taken into consideration when forecasting future traffic volumes. The increase in traffic from proposed and approved developments, the application of an annual growth rate, or a combination of an annual growth rate and proposed and approved developments, shall be used to forecast the future traffic volumes. (4) The site-generated traffic shall be assigned to the street network in the study area based on the approved trip distribution percentages. The site traffic shall be combined with the forecast traffic volumes to show the total traffic conditions estimated at development completion. The total daily and peak period turning movement volumes for each traffic study intersection is required. In addition, the base-line volume with site-generated traffic added to the street network must also be shown. This amount will represent site-specific traffic impacts on existing conditions E. Internal circulation. (1) Parking lot/on-site traffic circulation shall be in conformance with standards of practice as set forth by "Transportation and Land Development" (ITE, current edition). 13.4.1 Site Traffic Analysis (STA). The requirements for a STA are described in the following subsections. All STA’s shall be sealed and signed by a registered/licensed New Mexico Professional Engineer. A. When is a STA required? (1) A STA is required when the results of a STH indicate that the proposed development is expected to generate between 25 and 100 peak-hour total trips, and the adjacent roadway currently has a daily traffic volume greater than an average of 1,000 vehicles per day per lane (vpdpl). B. When is a STA Complete? (1) A STA is considered complete when a final traffic study report is signed and sealed and signed by a registered/licensed New Mexico Professional Engineer,  and is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer or their designee for review. Where the results of the STA indicate one of the following: a. The results indicate that the levels of service for the proposed access points and the adjacent intersections satisfy or are better than the applicable LOS standards (Table 15.C-1) and the City Traffic Engineer concurs with those findings, or b. The results of the STA indicate that improvements are required at the proposed access points and/or at the adjacent intersections, and a mitigation plan has been developed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. C. Requirements for a STA: (1) Traffic Analysis Scoping Meeting. A scoping meeting should be held between the permittee and the City Traffic Engineer, and any local jurisdiction that has authority over the proposed development. The meeting should be held when a preliminary site plan is available. It should be the responsibility of the permittee to schedule and prepare for the meeting. Specific aspects of the traffic analysis that should be discussed at the scoping meeting include: a. the proposed land use types and the development phasing b. the number, type, and location of access points; c. the anticipated level of traffic analysis;  d. the anticipated level of safety analysis; e. the study area limits; f. the analysis years and peak periods; g. the background traffic growth rate; h. the trip generation methodology; i. the basis for trip distribution; j. other ongoing development activity; k. pertinent programmed highway improvements; l. the traffic operations analysis techniques (e.g., isolated intersections versus signal systems); m. the documentation requirements; and, n. any special conditions that should be considered. (2) STA Study Area: The STA study area should be defined at the traffic analysis scoping meeting. The study area for analysis should be proposed by the permittee and approved by the City Traffic Engineer in coordination with any local jurisdiction representatives that have authority over the proposed development. Guidelines for defining the study area for urban and rural conditions follow. When both urban and rural conditions exist within the study area, the guidelines for urban conditions should be used. a. Urban Study Areas: The STA study area for developments located on highways in Access Categories UPA, UMA and UCOL should include all site access points plus the first adjacent major intersection in each direction from the site. b. Rural Study Areas: The STA study area for developments located on highways in Access Categories RPA, RMA and RCOL should include all site access points plus the first adjacent intersection in each direction from the site expected to be used by development traffic to access the regional highway system, if any. Rural developments along isolated roadway segments, having no intersecting collector or higher classified roadways within 5 miles in either direction, should have the study area defined as the site access points. (3) Safety Analysis: Three years of accident history should be reviewed for the major study area intersections. Intersection collision diagrams should be prepared showing the number of accidents, accident type, date and time of  each accident, and accident severity. The intersection accident rate per million entering vehicles (acc/MEV) should be indicated on the collision diagram. The safety analysis should include a field review of the site. (4) Analysis Years: The analysis years to be evaluated for site traffic analyses should be as follows: a. Existing Year Conditions b. Implementation Year without the Proposed Development c. Implementation Year with the Proposed Development (5) The existing year is defined as the year the existing condition traffic counts are obtained. The implementation year should be defined as the calendar year that the proposed development is expected to commence operation. (6) Analysis Peak Periods: Traffic analysis should be performed for the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour of a typical weekday, or for the design hour associated with special traffic conditions provided by the City Traffic Engineer. (7) Trip Generation: Trip generation estimates should be based on the type and intensity of the proposed land use, and should include estimates of daily and peak-hour travel. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (Sub-Section 9.F) should be used when the proposed land use is reasonably consistent with the land use categories and descriptions contained in the Trip Generation Manual. When the land use categories of the Trip Generation Manual clearly do not apply or the rates are not appropriate for a propose development, locally derived trip generation rates should be used. Trip generation rates that are based on local conditions should be developed according to the methodology described in the Trip Generation Manual. (8) Trip Distribution and Assignment: Trip distribution and assignment may be performed using manual techniques or a computer model. The trip distribution methodology should consider the area population, locations of similar land use, and travel distances. Trips should be assigned to the major street system based on logical routing patterns. The major street system includes streets classified as collectors and above. Trips may be assigned to the local street system when the local street provides direct access to the proposed development. Refer to Section 7 for definitions of trip distribution and trip assignment. (9) Traffic Projections: Implementation year traffic projections should include background traffic growth, trips generated by other known development projects in the study area, and trips generated by the proposed development, as appropriate. Other known developments should be considered built out or, if a phased development, built out according to the phasing schedule. Other known development projects within the study area should be included when: a. A development existed but was inactive when the existing condition traffic counts were collected, or b. A development was under construction at the time the existing condition traffic counts were collected, or c. A development opened since the existing condition traffic counts were collected, or d. A development was issued an access permit by the City of Farmington since the existing condition traffic counts were collected. (The City Traffic Engineer should inform the applicant of this condition at the scoping meeting.) (10) Intersection Traffic Analysis: Signalized and unsignalized intersections should be analyzed consistent with the current Highway Capacity Manual methodologies. The analyses may be performed using the current versions of the Highway Capacity Software, TeaPac, or other analysis packages approved by the NMSHTD Traffic Technical Support Section. (11) Measuring Impacts: The STA should include an impact assessment for the intersections analyzed comparing implementation year conditions without and with the proposed development. Impacts should be measured based on the following comparisons: a. Isolated intersection performance statistics by approach movement and for the overall intersection. b. Magnitude and percent change in traffic volume by intersection approach movement. (12) Graphics: The STA documentation should contain a vicinity map showing all arterial and collector roadways within a reasonable influence area of the site, a study area map denoting the intersections included in the analysis, and a site plan that details the site access location(s) and internal circulation patterns. In addition to proposed land use details, the site plan should include dimensions  to adjacent property boundaries and to adjacent access points along the site frontage, and should indicate locations of access points along the frontage on the opposite side of the roadway. (13) Documentation: All required site traffic analyses should include documentation in the form of a bound report. The STA documentation should discuss the following: a. Study Purpose; b. Development description; c. Study area land use description; d. Existing roadway and traffic conditions; e. Safety analysis (3-years); f. Background traffic growth; g. Trip generation, distribution and assignment; h. Traffic projections; i. Traffic analysis, including traffic signal warrants; j. Impact assessment; k. Proposed site circulation and parking plan; l. Access design specifications; m. Summary of deficiencies and proposed mitigation; and, n. Appended materials. 13.4.2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The purpose of a TIA is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the transportation system that will provide access to proposed development site, including proposed access points, to identify potential short-term and long-term impacts on the roadway system. The requirements for a TIA are described in the following subsections. All traffic impact analyses shall be sealed and signed by a registered New Mexico Professional Engineer prior to the issuance of an access permit by the department. A. When is a TIA required? A TIA shall be conducted for each new development or property redevelopment along a roadway when: (1) The results of a STH indicate that the proposed development is expected to generate 100 or more peak-hour trips; or (2) The results of a STA indicate that expected levels of service will be below the LOS standards in Table 15.C-1, and a mitigation plan cannot be resolved  between the City Traffic Engineer and the permittee to address identified deficiencies. B. When is a TIA Complete? A TIA is considered complete when a final traffic study report, signed and sealed by a New Mexico registered professional engineer, is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer or their designee, and (1) The results of the TIA indicate that the levels of service for the proposed access points and the study area intersections satisfy or are better than the applicable LOS standards (Table 15.C-1) and the City Traffic Engineer or their designee concurs with those findings, or (2) The results of the TIA indicate that improvements are required at the proposed access points and/or at the study area intersections, and a mitigation plan has been developed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer or their designee. C. Requirements for Conducting a TIA: The requirements for all traffic impact analyses follow. Additional requirements may be imposed by the City Traffic Engineer on a project-specific basis. (1) Traffic Analysis Scoping Meeting: A scoping meeting should be held between the permittee and the City Traffic Engineer, and any local jurisdiction that has authority over the proposed development. The meeting should be held when a preliminary site plan is available. It should be the responsibility of the permittee to schedule and prepare for the scoping meeting. Specific aspects of the traffic analysis that should be discussed at the scoping meeting include: a. the proposed land use types and the development phasing; b. the number, type, and location of access points; c. the anticipated level of traffic analysis; d. the anticipated level of safety analysis; e. the study area limits; f. the analysis years and peak periods; g. the background traffic growth rate; h. the trip generation methodology; i. the basis for trip distribution; j. other ongoing development activity; k. pertinent programmed highway improvements; l. the traffic operations analysis techniques (e.g., isolated intersections versus signal systems);  m. the documentation requirements; and, n. any special conditions that should be considered. (2) TIA Study Area: The TIA study area should be defined based on the location and complexity of the proposed development, and should progressively expand with the complexity of proposed development. The TIA study area should be defined at the traffic analysis scoping meeting. The study area should be proposed by the permittee and approved by the City Traffic Engineer in coordination with any local jurisdiction representatives that have authority over the proposed development. Guidelines for defining the study area for urban and rural conditions follow. When both urban and rural conditions exist within the study area, the guidelines for urban conditions should be used. a. Urban Study Areas: The TIA study area for developments located on roadways in Access Categories UPA, UMA and UCOL should be determined based on the following guidelines for urban conditions. Typically, in urban areas, a TIA study area extending 1 mile from the proposed development site should be sufficient. 1. The minimum urban study area size should include all site access points, the off-site intersections where a developer may reasonably be required to implement physical improvements, plus one additional major intersection in all directions. The study area may be expanded beyond the minimum to include intersections where high turning conflicts are anticipated. 2. The study area for urban developments that propose access points within or adjacent to an interconnected traffic signal system, and that will require a progression analysis as part of a TIA, should include the intersections comprising the signal system. Where a signal system consists of more than three signalized intersections, the extent of the progression analysis should be determined by the City Traffic Engineer. b. Rural Study Areas: The TIA study area for developments located on roadways in Access Categories RPA, RMA and RCOL should be determined based on the following guidelines for rural conditions. 1. Rural study areas should include all site access points, the roadway segments immediately adjacent to the access points and major  intersections expected to be used by development traffic to access the regional highway system, if any. 2. Rural developments along isolated roadway segments, having no intersecting collector or higher classified roadways within 5 miles in either direction and which generate 200 design hour trips or less, should have the study area defined as the site access points plus the roadway segments immediately adjacent to the assess points. 3. Rural developments along isolated roadway segments, having no intersecting collector or higher classified roadways within 5 miles in either direction and which generate more than 200 design hour trips, should have the study area defined as the site access points plus the adjacent roadway segments and the first collector or higher classified cross-street intersection in each direction. c. Safety Analysis: Three years of accident history should be reviewed for the major study area intersections. Intersection collision diagrams should be prepared showing the number of accidents, accident type, date and time of each accident, and accident severity. The intersection accident rate per million entering vehicles (acc/MEV) should be indicated on the collision diagram. The safety analysis should include a field review of the site. d. Non-Phased Development Analysis Years: The TIA analysis years to be evaluated for non-phased developments are defined below. 1. Existing Year Conditions 2. Implementation Year without the Proposed Development 3. Implementation Year with the Proposed Development 4. Horizon Year without the Proposed Development 5. Horizon Year with the Proposed Development The existing year should be defined as the year the existing condition traffic counts are obtained. The implementation year should be defined as the calendar year that the proposed development is expected to commence operation. The horizon year should be the implementation year plus ten years. e. Phased Development Analysis Years: A phased development should require the same TIA analysis years as described in Sub-Paragraph D.1.d. (above), except the horizon year should be the year of full development  plus 10 years. Additionally, the horizon year should not be greater than the existing year plus 20 years. Depending on the type and scale of the proposed phased development, and considering study area conditions, additional implementation year analyses may be required. The additional analysis years should be identified at the TIA scoping meeting. The total number of analysis years for a phased development should not exceed four (i.e., there are currently two excluding existing conditions; no more than two additional analysis years may be required). f. Analysis Peak Periods: Traffic analysis should be performed for the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour of a typical weekday, or for the design hour associated with special traffic conditions. For future-year analyses beyond the initial implementation year analysis, the permittee may request that the futureyear analyses be performed only for the critical peak hour, identified based on the existing conditions analysis and the anticipated trip generation characteristics of the proposed development. The permittee should be prepared to make this request at the traffic analysis scoping meeting. g. Trip Generation: Trip generation estimates should be based on the type and intensity of the proposed land use, and should include estimates of daily and peak-hour travel. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (Sub-Section 9.F) should be used when the proposed land use is reasonably consistent with the land use categories and descriptions contained in the Trip Generation Manual. When the land use categories of the Trip Generation Manual clearly do not apply or the rates are not appropriate for a proposed development, locally derived trip generation rates should be used. Trip generation rates that are based on local conditions should be developed according to the methodology described in the Trip Generation Manual. h. Trip Distribution and Assignment: Trip distribution and assignment may be performed using manual techniques or a computer model. The trip distribution methodology should consider the area population, locations of similar land use, and travel distances. Trips should be assigned to the major street system based on logical routing patterns. The major street system includes streets classified as collectors and above. Trips may be assigned to the local street system when the local street provides direct  access to the proposed development. Refer to Section 7 for definitions of trip distribution and trip assignment. i. Traffic Projections: Implementation year and horizon year traffic projections should include background traffic growth, trips generated by other known development projects in the study area, and trips generated by the proposed development, as appropriate. Other known developments should be considered built out or, if a phased development, built out according to the phasing schedule. Other known development projects within the study area should be included when: 1. A development existed but was inactive when the existing condition traffic counts were collected, or 2. A development was under construction at the time the existing condition traffic counts were collected, or 3. A development opened since the existing condition traffic counts were collected, or 4. A development was issued an access permit by the Department since the existing condition traffic counts were collected. (The City Traffic Engineer should inform the applicant of this condition at the scoping meeting.) j. Intersection Traffic Analysis: Signalized and unsignalized intersections should be analyzed consistent with the current Highway Capacity Manual methodologies. Signalized intersections that are not part of a traffic signal system should be analyzed as isolated intersections. These analyses may be performed using the current versions of the Highway Capacity Software, TeaPac, or other analysis packages approved by the NMSHTD Traffic Technical Support Section. Signalized intersections that are part of a coordinated traffic signal system should require a progression analysis to be performed using TRANSYT-7F. k. Roadway Segment Traffic Analysis: The capacity of specific roadway segments on two-lane highways and multi-lane highways should be evaluated when the traffic flow along the facility is not influenced by signalized intersection operations. This occurs where the average spacing of signalized intersections is greater than one signal installation per mile. Where a proposed access point is more than 500 feet from an isolated  signalized intersection (i.e., there are no adjacent signalized intersections within one mile), roadway segment capacity analysis may be required. A roadway segment traffic analysis may be required for any traffic analysis when the directional volume passing the proposed access exceeds 1,200 vehicles per hour per lane. l. Measuring Impacts: The analysis years of a TIA should include an impact assessment by intersection and/or roadway segment. The TIA should include a discussion of how the impacts were identified for a particular development. Impacts should be measured based on one or more of the following comparisons: 1. Isolated intersection performance statistics without and with the proposed development. 2. Roadway segment performance statistics without and with the proposed development. 3. Traffic signal progression analysis results without and with the proposed development. 4. Traffic volume comparison without and with the proposed development showing the magnitude and percent change in traffic volume by intersection approach movement. m. Graphics: The TIA documentation should contain a vicinity map showing all arterial and collector roadways within a reasonable influence area of the site, a study area map denoting the intersections included in the analysis, and a site plan that details the site access location(s) and internal circulation patterns. In addition to proposed land use details, the site plan should include dimensions to adjacent property boundaries and to adjacent access points along the site frontage, and should indicate locations of access points along the frontage on the opposite side of the highway. n. Documentation: All required traffic impact analyses shall include documentation in the form of a bound report. The TIA documentation should discuss the following: 1. Study Purpose; 2. Development description; 3. Study area land use description; 4. Existing roadway and traffic conditions;  5. Safety analysis (3-years); 6. Background traffic growth; 7. Trip generation, distribution and assignment; 8. Traffic projections; 9. Detailed traffic analysis for each analysis year, including traffic signal warrants; 10. Impact assessment for each analysis year; 11. Proposed site circulation and parking plan; 12. On-site and off-site queue lengths; 13. Non-motorized impacts; 14. Access design specifications; 15. Summary of deficiencies and proposed mitigation for each analysis year; and, 16. Appended materials. o. Fair Share Cost Analysis: Based on the impact assessment completed for the STA or TIA, contributory costs of identified improvements should be identified. In addition to implementing the necessary improvements within the roadway right-of-way at proposed site access points, the permittee shall be required to provide all or a portion of funding for mitigation of identified off-site impacts. The funding requirements shall be determined by the Department through negotiations with the developer and the appropriate local government agency. p. Traffic Study Validity Period: Approved traffic studies should remain valid for a period of one-year following approval of the driveway permit application, or as determined by the City Traffic Engineer or their designee. Below is a list of street classifications and their abbreviations: 1. UINT – Urban Interstate 2. UPA – Urban Principal Arterial 3. UMA – Urban Minor Arterial 4. UCOL – Urban Collector 5. RINT – Rural Interstate 6. RPA – Rural Principal Arterial 7. RMA – Rural Minor Arterial 8. RCOL – Rural Collector 13.4.3 Engineering qualifications. The STA and TIA shall be prepared under the direction of a professional engineer (civil) licensed to practice in the State of New Mexico with specific experience in traffic engineering and the preparation of STA and TIA reports.