Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive April 14, 2022 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the March 24, 2022 P&Z Meeting 4 PETITION NO. SUP 22-19 - Discussion & possible action regarding a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a Loan Company, Mesa Financial Services, in a LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Located at 1601 E. 20th St. Ste. A 5 PETITION NO. FP 22-15 - Discussion & possible action regarding a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless telecommunication facility including a 98-foot cell tower. Located at 2400 Hutton Ave. 6 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment 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 March 24, 2022 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on March 24, 2022 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 Cody Waldroup Ryan Brown Clete Berens P&Z Members Absent: Shay Davis Mitch Sewell Elizabeth Lockmiller Gary Smouse Cheryl Ragsdale Gary Hanson Staff Present: Beth Escobar Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission: Josh Skarsgard John McNeill 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. Chair Cardon welcomed new Commissioner Berens to the Board. Approval of the Agenda The motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to approve the agenda of the March 24, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting with Item No. six being withdrawn from the agenda. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Swearing of Witnesses Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak. Discussion regarding Conflict of Interest definition and regulations Planning Manager Escobar presented the following information regarding Conflict of interest A situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity If your decision on a petition has the potential to cause you financial gain that is a conflict of interest. Actual – your petition, you are in a competing business or have a financial interest in a competing business Perceived – reasonably understood to have competing interests Ex parte communication means any material oral or written communication relevant to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding that was neither on the record nor on reasonable prior notice to all parties that takes place between: Discussion Vice Chair Freeman asked Planning Manager Escobar if one of us was an affected party, is that a conflict of interest. Planning Manager Escobar stated that serving on a commission does not vacate your right to speak on a petition. Ms. Escobar stated she and the City Attorney would advise you to remove yourself from the podium and act as a community member. Vice Chair Freeman also stated he may be bidding on some of the projects brought to the Planning & Zoning Commission, does that constitute a conflict of interest. Ms. Escobar suggested he declare that there is the potential he may be bidding on that project. Then it is on the record, and you do not have to recues yourself. If you have already, bid and received the job, then that would be a conflict of interest and you would need to recuse yourself. _______________________________________________ PETITION NO. FP 22-03 - Discussion & possible action regarding a request from Red Shamrock 12, LLC, represented by Basin Surveying, for final plat approval of a five lot commercial subdivision. Zoning is GC: General Commercial. Located at 4109 E. Main St. - This item was postponed from the February 24, 2022 Planning & Zoning Hearing. Vice Chair Freeman declared as owner of Sun Glass, he will be bidding on parts of this project. Planning Manager Escobar thanked him for his declaration and stated since it is not guaranteed that he will not receive that bid, she does not perceive that as a conflict of interest. 2 Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Red Shamrock 12, LLC • Location: 4109 E Main Street • Parcel # R0028432 • Existing Zoning: GC: General Commercial • Request: Approval of a Final Plat for a 5-lot commercial subdivision. Zoning Aerial Map 3  Final Plat Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 22-03, a Final Plat for Farmington Center Subdivision, a submittal from Red Shamrock 12, LLC, represented by Kevin Lane of Basin Surveying for Final Plat approval of 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: Stipulations: • 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. 1. A subdivision agreement shall be required. 2. Sidewalks shall be required to be added along the right-of-way on Gila St for each lot as part of the development permit process. 3. Infrastructure construction shall not commence without an approved construction permit from the City. 4  4. Inspections shall be required. Inspections shall be scheduled 48 hours in advance. 5. The following notes shall be added to the plat prior to recording: • Development within each lot shall provide grading and drainage plans that demonstrate storm water utility tie-ins to the regional detention pond located in Lot #5 of this subdivision. • Development within Lot 3 of this subdivision shall meet the City of Farmington Unified Development Code Standards of Section 5.6 Floodplain. Discussion Vice Chair Freeman needed clarification on the exit onto Gila St., Planning Manager Escobar confirmed the exit onto Gila St. has been moved to be adjacent to the Walgreens exit so it does not impact any of the residences on the east side of Gila St. Commissioner Waldroup asked Planning Manager Escobar if the drainage plans would be submitted in phases. Ms. Escobar stated the overall drainage plan for the project had already been submitted, but it cannot be determined if there are any drainage issues until we see how the buildings will be sitting on that lot. She also stated, as the building permits come in, we will need an additional drainage report. Josh Skarsgard, 8220 San Pedro NE, Ste. 500, Albuquerque, NM, stated they had submitted traffic studies to NMDOT. There were certain challenges; the entrance off E. Main St. was re- aligned to accommodate the traffic study, and the exit on Gila St. was moved to accommodate the residence on the east side of the street. Mr. Skarsgard added that he liked working with Planning Manager Escobar and her team. He also thanked her for the comprehensive staff report and for her recommendation for approval. Chair Cardon asked Mr. Skarsgard if he had anything else, he would like to add. Mr. Skarsgard wanted to add the engineering group preparing their storm drainage plan has provisions on how it handles storm water so that can be achieved. He also talked about how Halliburton had gone to great efforts to remediate the site. He then stated how this project would being creating jobs, gross receipts tax, dining and shopping to the City of Farmington. Vice Chair Freeman, asked Planning Manager Escobar about the paving on Gila St. Ms. Escobar replied there was a new 8” waterline being installed on Gila St. and as part of that the street will be repaved, so the petitioner is only in obligated for the sidewalks. Planning Manager Escobar wanted to remind the Commission they are the final action of this plat, it will not go back to City Council. Chair Cardon called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman to approve SUP 22-03 with stipulation 1-5 as recommended by staff. The motion carried 5-0. 5 PETITION NO. ZC 22-11 - Discussion & possible action regarding a request for a ZC: Zone Change from General Commercial to PD: Planned Development to allow for the development of a residential triplex. Located at the corner of Cedar St. and Commercial Ave. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Tristan Hawkins/Potential future owner • Location: NE Corner of S Commercial and E Cedar Streets • Parcel # R0028432 • Existing Zoning: GC: General Commercial • Request: Rezone to PD: Planned Development to allow for development of a three-unit residential project. Zoning 6  Aerial Map Nearby Residential Uses 7 Existing Driveway 401 N Auburn 8 Preliminary Site/Floor Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan 9  Zone Change Criteria • Section 8.7.4 of the Uniform Development Code • Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • No adverse effects identified • Site is physically suitable for proposed use • Adequate infrastructure is in place • Not spot zoning. There are pockets of residential uses along East Cedar Street and north along S Animas Street. Rezoning to allow for three residential units aligns with the visions of the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown MRA plan to create viable, mixed-use neighborhoods. Properties to the north and west are zoned GC: General Commercial. Public Notice • Letters were sent to eight surrounding property owners. At the time of this report no public input has been received. MRA Endorsement • The Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency reviewed this zone change proposal at their March 22 meeting and gave the project their full endorsement. Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 22-11, a request from Tristan Hawkins, potential property owner, for a zone change from General Commercial to Planned Development for a property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of S 10 Commercial Street and E Cedar St. to allow for development of a three-unit residential project with the following conditions of approval: 1. Site will be developed in general conformance to the site plan and drawings submitted with the zone change application. 2. All necessary building permits shall be obtained. 3. Development of the sidewalk along E Cedar Street will be in the City of Farmington right-of-way. The applicant will work with the City Engineer to place the driveways. Discussion Chair Cardon asked Planning Manager Escobar if there was adequate parking for the triplex. Planning Manager answered there was five spots, which is what is required. Ms. Escobar also added there was also public parking across Cedar St. Vice Chair Freeman asked Planning Manager Escobar if they had enough information to grant a zone change to Planned Development (PD). Planning Manager Escobar answered they do for a PD, if it was a PUD, there would be a higher level of design needed for that to move forward. Commissioner Brown asked Planning Manager Escobar if this would be limited to three units, or could they build up in the future. Planning Manager Escobar answered yes, they would be limited; she also added the petitioner has the ability to come back and modify that, but that would start the process over. James Guynn, 3102 Espacio St., Farmington. Mr. Guynn stated he owns the property directly to the east and he does not have any issues with the zone change request. Mr. Guynn also feels it would be good for the downtown area. John McNeill, Chair Person for the MRA Commission, 3209 Espacio St., Farmington. Mr. McNeill stated the MRA Commission did review this at their last meeting, and they wholeheartedly support this project. This project brings to the MRA District a significant impact for potential development, which is something that is strongly encouraged in this area. This small development will have a big impact, and we hope to see these continue. Mr. McNeill also stated that in the future he would like the MRA to make a presence at the P&Z meeting so the Commission understands why the MRA endorses a project like this. Mr. McNeill addressed the homeless issue in that area; he stated there has been a decrease in vagrancy when an area is more active. He feels the same thing will happen here as well. Mr. McNeill let the Commission know the MRA is in the beginning stages of creating a neighborhood plan for Animas District. Commissioner Waldroup asked if the MRA would be getting public input on the plan. Mr. McNeill answered yes they would and the whole basis of the plan would be stakeholder and community driven. Dr. McNeil also stated that the review agencies for the zone change application should be made aware of the goals of the MRA and support those actions in their comments. Chair Cardon called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to approve ZC 22-11 as recommended by staff. The motion carried 5-0. 11 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the floor. Business from the Chair: Chair Cardon welcomed Clete Berens to the Commission. Commissioner Berens stated he is excited to be joining the Commission; he has been a resident of Farmington since 2007. He added he had worked for a commercial contractor in the past and is familiar with the construction industry. Chair Cardon added the Commission is happy to have him on the Commission. Business from the Members: There was no business from Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar informed the Commission that the City Council has approved the SUP’s for the cannabis facilities located at 7171 E. Main St., and 220 Browning Pkwy. Ms. Escobar also added there will be two applications for the April P&Z meeting, one is a cell tower off Hutton Ave., the other is an SUP for a mortgage company on 20th St. zoned Local Neighborhood Commercial. Lastly, Ms. Escobar wanted the Commission to congratulate Mike Safrany, who has been promoted to Senior Planner, and will be helping Ms. Escobar with her some her workload. The Commission congratulated Mr. Safrany. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Brown. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 3:41 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Joyce Cardon Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 12  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 22-19 – Mesa Financial Services – Loan Company in the LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District 1601 E 20th Street Suite A STAFF REPORT, April 14, 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Mesa Financial Services Representative Jenna McKee/Mesa Financial Services/Tenant Date of Application March 16, 2022 Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow for a loan company in the LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Location 1601 E 20th Street Suite A Existing Land Use Commercial Mini-mall Existing Zoning LNC: Local neighborhood commercial Surrounding Zoning & North: GC: General Commercial Land Use South: SF-7: Single-family Residential East: LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial West: LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: March 30, 2022, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: March 24, 2022 Sign posted: April 1, 2022 Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a loan company within the LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Loan companies are permitted by right in the GC: General Commercial Zoning District and require a SUP in the LNC district. 13  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A Zoning 14  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A Aerial Map 15  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A 16  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A Unified Development Code (UDC) 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: A. Special use permit approvals attach to the property and are transferable to subsequent owners. If this SUP was approved, it could transfer to another owner, carrier or tenant. Special Use Permit Criteria – Section 8.9.4 of the UDC Section 8.9.4 of the UDC sets forth the criteria for review of a special use permit. The section states that a SUP may be approved where it is reasonably determined that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. The criteria for approval is listed as follows: A. Effect on environment: The location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. This location is situated along 20th Street, a minor arterial. Zoning along this corridor is a mix of General Commercial, Local Neighborhood and Office Professional. A mix of commercial uses is appropriate along this street. Location of a loan company will not be injurious to the neighborhood. B. Compatible with surrounding area: The proposed site plan, circulation plan, and schematic architectural designs shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening and density. The site is fully developed with a paved lot and adequate parking. C. External impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard, or other injurious or noxious impact. The applicant shall provide adequate mitigation responses to the impacts. Mesa Financial provides personal loans. 17  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A D. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use will be consistent with purposes of this UDC, the Comprehensive Plan, and any other statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable, and will support rather than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates this corner as Commercial Mixed Use. A loan company is an appropriate use in this area. E. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required to have additional land area, in excess of the minimum lot area otherwise required by the underlying zoning district, as necessary to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses and the zoning district. The subject property is 0.23 acres. F. Site Plan: The proposed use shall be required to comply with the site plan review procedures and standards of Section 8.5, site plan review, as specified. This is an established site. 18  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A PUBLIC INPUT Letters were sent to 15 surrounding neighbors and the property was posted with a sign. A letter of support has been received from the property owner at 1605 E. 20th Street. At the time of this report no public input has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION A loan company is an appropriate use for the subject property. Other uses in this mini mall are a smoke shop, furniture resale and a event planning business. The loan company will not have any negative impact on the surrounding areas. l years. Retail sales of adult use cannabis is a permitted use on this property. Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 22-19 for a loan company business. Staff is recommending, per Section 8.9.6.B, that the SUP be granted for a period of 10 years. The SUP would renewable after 10 years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 22-19, a request from Jenna Mckee of Mesa Financial Services for a loan company at 1601 E. 20th Street with the following condition: 1. A City of Farmington business registration will be required. 19  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A 20  City of Farmington SUP 22-19 1601 E 20th Street Ste A PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY SUP 22-19 DEADLINE: March 25, 2022 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Any construction will require a building permit. Chief Building Official – D. Childers CW Long Range Planner CW MPO – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment 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 – R. Frost POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – J. Jensen PRCA Parks - R. Crosby No Comment PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes CW Engineering – T. Sitta No Comment CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock No Comment 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 21  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 22 – 15 Vertical Bridge Development, LLC Wireless Telecommunications Facility including a 98-foot high cell tower 2400 Hutton STAFF REPORT, April 14, 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Vertical Bridge Development, LLC Representative Joel C Cameron Date of Application March 1, 2022 Requested Action A request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless telecommunication facility including a 98-foot cell tower. Location 2400 Hutton Existing Land Use Residential Existing Zoning MF-M: Multifamily Medium Density Surrounding Zoning & North: MF-M: Multifamily Medium Density Land Use South: SF-7: Single-family Residential East: SF-7: Single-family Residential West: GC: General Commercial, vacant Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: March 30, 2022, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: March 24, 2022 Sign posted: April 1, 2022 Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless communication facility, including a 98-foot high cell tower. Section 2.4.55 contains the City’s regulations regarding Telecommunication Facilities. Federal regulations regarding wireless facilities are administered by the Federal Communications Commission. There is an abandoned gas well in the southeast portion of the property. There is an active gas well on the parcel to the south. 22  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility The accessory structures, connected to a previous residential use, shown on the southwest corner on the aerial have been removed. Per the letter from AT&T that accompanied the application, this location is the best site within 3 miles to provide reasonable commercial coverage for their network needs. The tower will be designed to accommodate three colocations. This complies with UDC Section 2.4.56.d 23  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Zoning 24  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Aerial Map 25  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility SITE PLAN 26  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Existing Cell Tower Locations in Farmington 27  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Current signal strength 28  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Single strength after installation at 2400 Hutton 29  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Telecommunication Facilities Telecommunication towers and facilities are allowed by right in the IND, Industrial Zone and by special use permit in all other zoning districts. 2.4.56 Telecommunications facilities. (Other use categories; utilities). Telecommunications facilities, including commercial towers, broadcast towers, point-to- point microwave towers, antennas and wireless communication facilities and related facilities shall comply with the standards of this section of the Unified Development Code. Section 2.4.56.A of the UDC outlines the purpose of the regulations in relation to Telecommunication Facilities: Purpose. These regulations are intended to provide for the development of telecommunications facilities to the community while: 1. Protecting residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers and antennas; 2. Encouraging the location of wireless facilities in nonresidential areas; 3. Minimizing the total number of wireless communication-sites throughout the community; 4. Encouraging the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option rather than the construction of single-use towers; 5. Encouraging the users of towers and antennas to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact upon the community is minimal; 6. Encouraging users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques; 7. Enhancing the ability of the service providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently; 8. Considering the public health and safety associated with wireless communication facilities; and 9. Avoiding potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through proper engineering and careful siting of tower structures. In the furtherance of these goals the city shall give due consideration to the comprehensive plan. 30  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Unified Development Code (UDC) 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: A. Special use permit approvals attach to the property and are transferable to subsequent owners. If this SUP was approved, it could transfer to another owner, carrier or tenant. Special Use Permit Criteria – Section 8.9.4 of the UDC Section 8.9.4 of the UDC sets forth the criteria for review of a special use permit. The section states that a SUP may be approved where it is reasonably determined that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. The criteria for approval is listed as follows: A. Effect on environment: The location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The Federal Communications Commission regulates installation of telecommunications facilities. Section 332(c)(7) of the Federal Communications Act preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (FR) emissions. A 98-foot cell tower in this location will have an impact on views for properties to the north, east and west. Farmington does not have any regulations protecting view sheds. B. Compatible with surrounding area: The proposed site plan, circulation plan, and schematic architectural designs shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening and density. The proposed location for the wireless facility has residential uses to the north, east and west. An industrial use, an active gas well facility, is to the south. The site plan as proposed meets or shall meet through conditions of approval the code requirements to minimize impact to the surrounding neighborhoods: UDC Section 2.4.56.H requires a minimum setback equal to the height of the tower. The proposed cell tower is 100 feet from the nearest residence. The height of the tower indicated on the plans submitted is 98 feet. UDC Section 2.4.56.I requires a six-foot solid fence or wall be constructed around the facility. UDC Section 2.4.56.J(2) requires perimeter trees be planted to help screen the facility. C. External impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard, or other injurious or noxious impact. The applicant shall provide adequate mitigation responses to the impacts. 31  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Construction of the cell tower will generate the usual construction nuisance. Post construction, the facility should not generate any hazards to the surrounding community. The tower will not have any lighting. Beacon lighting of facilities under 200 feet is not required by the Federal Aviation Authority. D. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use will be consistent with purposes of this UDC, the Comprehensive Plan, and any other statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable, and will support rather than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Medium Density Residential. E. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required to have additional land area, in excess of the minimum lot area otherwise required by the underlying zoning district, as necessary to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses and the zoning district. The subject property is 4.59 acres. F. Site Plan: The proposed use shall be required to comply with the site plan review procedures and standards of Section 8.5, site plan review, as specified. The draft site plan has been reviewed by staff. There is an existing equipment cabinet for the oil and gas facility to the south that appears to be within 100 feet of the proposed telecommunication facility. This is not shown on the submitted site plan. Per City Municipal Code related to Oil and Gas Wells, Section 19-1-3, ‘no buildings shall be constructed within 100 feet of any wellhead or production equipment’. 32  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility Staff has included a condition of approval (#4) to address this issue. PUBLIC INPUT Letters were sent to 21 effective parties within 100 feet. The property was posted with a sign. A letter in opposition from an interested party who owns a business at 2705 Rabbitbrush Drive has been submitted and is included with this report. Staff received a phone call from the property owner directly north of the subject property and provided clarification regarding the proposal. Three emails from interested parties in opposition to the SUP have been received and are included in with this report. STAFF CONCLUSION The petitioner has provided documentation demonstrating the logic for selecting the subject property. Telecommunication facilities must meet several requirements to receive a license from the FCC. Per the letter and maps submitted by AT&T the property at 2400 Hutton is the most suitable location to ensure service for the Farmington community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 22-15, a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless telecommunication facility including a 98-foot cell tower with the following conditions: 1. A six-foot solid fence or wall shall be constructed around the facility per UDC Section 2.4.56.I. This shall be shown on the site plan with the building permit. 2. Perimeter trees shall be planted to help screen the facility per UDC Section 2.4.56.J(2) requires. This shall be shown on the landscape plan with the building permit, 3. The structures and bridges proposed to be constructed over irrigation channels shall be required to have written approvals from the ditch company/lateral operator. 4. Prior to the Special Use Permit application being presented to City Council, the applicant shall either modify the site plan to reflect the existing equipment cabinet on 2350 Hutton Drive is not within 100 feet of the proposed wireless facility or that FCC regulations override this requirement in our City code. 5. Towers and antennae shall be removed, at the owner’s expense, within 180 days of the discontinuance of use unless the City extends this time in writing. Considering the investment made by AT&T, staff is recommending this Special Use Permit be approved for a 20-year period. The permit will be renewable at the end of the twenty year time period. 33  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility 34  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY SUP 22-15 DEADLINE: March 10, 2022 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW One of the future lease sites may be closer than the 100 feet to production Chief Building Official – D. Childers equipment. 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 "No Comment" or issues on this request. The single-phase line is approximately Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga 100 ft away to the east from the tower location. 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 – R. Frost Shall comply with all UDC regulations. POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero No Comment POLICE Sergeant – J. Jensen PRCA Parks - R. Crosby PRCA ORII – W. Unsicker CW City Engineer – I. BlueEyes Are there plans to extend 24th street through? If the cell tower is placed in the proposed location, then we lose the Engineering – T. Sitta ability in the future to connect 24th St. Additionally, and structures/bridges proposed to be constructed over CW irrigation channels, will be required to 35  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility have written approvals from the ditch company/lateral operator. CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock No Comment CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment CenturyLink – L. Joe 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 36  City of Farmington SUP 22-15 2400 Hutton Ave – Telecommunication Facility First Name Last Name ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP Lee L Begay 2903 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401-4462 Jennifer C Beisker 2640 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401 Brandon & Vigil Jeriann Burch 2632 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401 Dale F & Laveda J Buser 2409 Avery Ln Farmington, NM 87401 Caleb L & Elisia E Cain 24 Road 3263 Aztec, NM 87410 Kami B Calder 8 Road 3775 Farmington, NM 87401 Russell Casazza 2605 Fox ST Farmington, NM 87401 Dinning Robert W And Connie S Trust 7219 Driftwood St Farmington, NM 87402 Tracy L Estes 2633 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401 Cheryl L Goolsby 2628 E 23rd St Farmington, NM 87401 Russell Charles Hasler 2632 E 23rd St Farmington, NM 87401 San Juan Lp Hilcorp 1111 Travis St Houston, TX 77002 J And J Realty Co Llc 5011 Tampico Way Farmington, NM 87402 Bobby Lee 2625 Cliffside Dr Farmington, NM 87402 Mikasa Four Llc 624 E Main St Farmington, NM 87401 Patrysha D Okeefe 2628 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401 Joel L Jr Nakai 2410 Hutton Ave Farmington, 87402 James D & Erin C Randolph 2401 Avery Ln Farmington, NM 87402-1906 Trevin M & Chanelle J Reynolds 2405 Avery Ln Farmington , NM 87402 Virginia P Schulke 14 Road 2680 Aztec, NM 874109736 Bruce E & Sharon M Seegart 2636 E 23rd St Farmington, NM 87401 Spn Llc 5061 Antelope Jct Farmington, NM 87402 Jeremy R & Payton Throne 2636 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401 Benny P &D Josie M Vigil 1209 E 33rd St Farmington, NM 87401-2067 Sylvia Yazzie 2629 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  Nicholas Romano <nromano@romanoassociatesllc.com> Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility - 2400 N. Hutton Ave. Nicholas Romano <nromano@romanoassociatesllc.com> Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:17 AM To: rsterrett@firenet.org, jsmaka@fmtn.org, shebbe@fmtn.org, ferraris@sjcso.com, mohlerj@sjcounty.net Dear Public Safety and Public Works Officials: As required by City of Farmington municipal code, this e-mail serves as notice that Vertical Bridge Development, LLC has filed an application with the City of Farmington Planning Dept. for permits to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility at 2400 N. Hutton Ave in Farmington. The proposed facility is a 100' monopole and will have AT&T antennas attached to it. If you would like further details on this proposed project please feel free to contact me or the planning dept. Thanks, Nicholas Romano Romano & Associates, LLC 505-750-0735 nromano@romanoassociatesllc.com NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS: 8100 Wyoming Blvd NE #M4-167 Albuquerque, NM 87113 48 49 50 4/8/22, 8:02 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Objection to special use permit application SUB 22-15 Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Objection to special use permit application SUB 22-15 1 message Joe Schrag <joe@joeschrag.com> Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:38 PM Reply-To: Joe Schrag <joe@joeschrag.com> To: "bescobar@fmtn.org" <bescobar@fmtn.org> To whom it may concern, I am a resident at 2805 Rabbitbrush Dr. in Farmington. My family & I greatly enjoy our beautiful view of the bluffs to the south & west, and it was a contributing factor in selecting our home. Indeed we paid a higher premium to get this property because of the view. I am writing to express my objection to the proposed AT&T tower at 2400 N. Hutton Ave. A 100ft tower at that location would be tall enough to obstruct the view, even from atop the hill where our house sits. There is no reason this tower could not be build in a more suitable location. I respectfully ask that you deny this petition. Thank you, Joseph Schrag 51 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1729506047251239929&simpl=msg-f%3A17295060472… 1/1 Memo Regarding Objections to Special Use Permit request SUB 22-15 related to 2400 Hutton. April 7th, 2022 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Gary Risley, Member, Five Springs Properties, LLC, Interested Person DESTROYING A MILLION DOLLAR VIEW Thank you for considering my comments. I am the principal of the company that owns the Risley Building which sits on the hill just above Cliffside and Hutton overlooking the valley towards the bluffs. I object to the proposed special use permit which would build a 100-foot cellular telephone tower in a lot to the south of the Risley Building. Zoning exists, in part, to protect property values and quality of life. People who purchase property and build new buildings, or purchase a home, both of which can be the largest single investment in their lives, are entitled to rely upon the zoning that exists to protect them from changes in surrounding properties. The proposed tower violates all these expectations, does not blend it or conform with the nature of the surrounding properties, and will destroy a fantastic view (maybe the best in town) for many people. My wife and I purchased our property on Rabbitbrush above Cliffside and designed and constructed our building to take advantage of that view. More than $1,500,000 has been invested based upon the protection afforded by the current zoning of the property and the structures permitted therein. The pictures below show the sawtooth design used to maximize the view towards the bluffs for all rooms on the main floor and basement. Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.1 52 Using gps altitude, the main floor of our building is 60 feet above ground level of the proposed build site. This means that the proposed 100-foot cell tower will extend more than 40 feett above our building and will be squarely in the best viewing angle from the building. The three pictures below show the view from the west end, the middle, and the east end of the building. The bare ground behind the apartments is the proposed building site. You can imagine what a 100-foot monopole with the two layers of the large white “pods” will do to that beautiful view. It will destroy what is literally a million-dollar view. Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.2 53  Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.3 54 In the photos, the bare earth area just beyond the apartment complex is the proposed building site which is right in the middle of the view. The proposed tower would reach more 40 to 50 feet above the trees in the photo. The poor folks in the Rabbitbrush subdivision next door to the Risley building, who paid for a spectacular view from their homes, will have a significant percentage of the value they paid for destroyed by this monstrosity. Here is a picture of the current view from within the Rabbitbrush subdivision. The bare earth spot in the middle behind the trees and apartments is the proposed building site. This objection is not a cell tower protest. Strategically placed towers, designed to blend into the area, and slightly above the height of structures in the area (usually commercial or school properties) serve a useful purpose. There are two such towers between Cliffside and Main near Animas Elementary School and the hotel near Weck’s restaurant. There are two or three along College Blvd north of 30th Street. They all are relatively low in height and don’t have the Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.4 55 large pods proposed by this design. They basically blend in with the area where they are constructed. This proposed tower does none of that. The choice of location for this proposed tower is very peculiar. Cell phone radio signals are line-of-sight signals. So why put a tower in one of the lowest points of the entire river valley? (This probably explains why AT&T wants a 100-foot tower!) There appear to be spots all over town where less invasive structures could be established to accomplish the same goal. There clearly is no necessity that the tower be located at this spot. If that were so, the site would have been utilized back in the early days of cell tower development before other development in the area. In actuality, this site is proposed because someone chose to lease them land cheaply. There are other locations in appropriately zoned areas where such a tall tower can be built without disturbing the entire surrounding area. In that light, there is vacant land between a quarter and half-mile down Cliffside in the direction of Main Street. The area just behind the Star Collision building (just to the west of it) is unused, open land with no nearby houses. A structure located there would blend in with the commerce of Main Street with its tall flag poles and other structures, would not be in the field of view or towering over people’s homes, and, being line of sight, would have effectively the same coverage with regard to cell service. There are reasonable alternatives to placing this tower other than on the proposed site where it will impact the investment of so many people. There seems to be a misimpression with some people that the City cannot do much about the placement of cell towers. That is simply not true. Contrary that impression, no right exists to erect the tower unless the City proves otherwise. The City is entitled to enforce its zoning requirements so long as it does not prohibit cell towers within the City and does not discriminate between wireless carriers. The City must simply state why it chose not to grant the permit so that it can demonstrate it is not prohibiting towers or discriminating between carriers. Here is a quote from the FCC’s website regarding state and local authorities’ power in deciding the location of cell towers: State and Local Authorities Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, but sets forth specific limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.5 56  any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules. (https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/competition-infrastructure- policy-division/tower-and-antenna-siting) Emphasis added. The term “substantial evidence” is an administrative law term that has a meaning different than the typical lay person’s interpretation. It does not mean “a whole bunch of evidence”; but rather, there must be some evidence of substance (credibility or weight), no matter how small, that will support the decision of the City. Ample evidence exists to deny this special use permit. Here is the language of the applicable portion of the federal statute: (7) Preservation of local zoning authority (A) General authority Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) Limitations (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 45 USC §332 (c) 7 (A) and (B) (I) and (II). Emphasis added. As the City Code provides, the granting of a special use permit is subject to the city council’s discretionary approval of uses. 8.9.1 Purpose. Special use permit review allows for city council discretionary approval of uses with unique or widely varying operating characteristics, neighborhood compatibility issues, or unusual site development features, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this UDC. Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.6 57  8.9.2 Applicability. Special uses may or may not be appropriate in a given zone district depending upon the nature of and compatibility with surrounding uses, and mitigating site-specific conditions or requirements. Such uses require individual review of their location, design, configuration, density, and intensity, in order to determine whether or not a use should be allowed; and may require the imposition of additional conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness and compatibility of the use at a particular location. (Emphasis added.) Here are the special use review applicable criteria: 8.9.4 Special use review criteria. Special use permits may be approved where it reasonably determines that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. The following criteria shall be considered in the application review: A. Effect on environment. The location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property. B. Compatible with surrounding area. The proposed site plan, circulation plan, and schematic architectural designs shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening, and density. (Emphasis added.) The proposed tower can in no way meet the special use review criteria. The structure itself will have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood; particularly with regard to the wonderful view both the folks up on Rabbitbrush and those on Avery Lane and Mabel Drive will suffer. A 100-foot tower is in no way compatible with the surrounding area, there is no way it can be designed to be harmonious in character with the surrounding area in regard to scale or height, and there is no method by which it can be screened or mitigated. The City’s adopted code provisions (Section 22-8-1 et. seg.) cited below should be very informative to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Here are the relevant provisions: ARTICLE 8. - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sec. 22-8-1. - Purpose. Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.7 58  (a) To establish policies and procedures for the placement of small wireless facilities in rights-of-way within the city, which will provide public benefit consistent with the preservation of the integrity, safe usage, and visual qualities of the city rights-of-way and the city as a whole; (b) To prevent interference with the use of streets, sidewalks, alleys, parkways and other public ways and places; (c) To prevent the creation of visual and physical obstructions and other conditions that are hazardous to vehicular and pedestrian traffic; (d) To prevent interference with the facilities and operations of facilities lawfully located in rights-of-way; (e) To preserve the character of the neighborhoods in which facilities are installed; . . . A “small” wireless tower cannot be higher than 50 feet above the surrounding terrain, nor more than ten percent taller than surrounding structures. (Sec. 22-8-2). There are other strictures; such as, no pole mounted or associated equipment may exceed 28 cubic feet, and they do not require registration under federal law. The permit application pending before the Commission greatly exceeds every aspect of the requirements for a wireless communication tower to be placed on a city right-of-way. By what logic should those community standards be ignored simply because the applicant is choosing to locate upon nearby private land? This proposed tower expressly violates two tenants of the code: It does NOT preserve the character of the neighborhood, and its impact on the visual qualities of the neighborhood and the City is tremendous. The tower, since it is immediately adjacent to the flight path to Runway 25 at the airport, may have to be registered with the FAA; thus, requiring federal registration. The tower located near Pinon Hills and Main is registered and appears on aeronautical charts. Therefore, the City is well within its rights pursuant to established policies to deny the permit that would allow this behemoth eyesore to be constructed at the proposed location. If the tower does not meet the standards the City sets for use of its own rights-of-way, there should not be a double standard imposed on the citizens who reside in the immediate area of this property. As an amateur radio operator, I have the right to construct an antenna tower under the current code. (I live in upper Foothills so I would not do so out of consideration for my neighbors and their views.) Any antenna I would propose to build, however, could not be higher than twice the maximum allowable building height for my zone. (Unified Development Code, Article 2, section 2.5). There is not much difference between a ham radio tower and a cell tower Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.8 59 as far as appearance. Why should a request for a cell tower (height 5-8 times higher than surrounding buildings) be granted when another form of wireless communication tower cannot? There is a higher and better use for the land. The parcel upon which the tower is proposed to be located is approximately 4 acres. It is in a Multi-family Medium density zone. With the lack of affordable housing in Farmington, a much better use of the property would be to develop it as a series of duplexes or quadplexes. Such buildings would be in conformity with the current zoning scheme (this special use permit application has the indicia of a spot zone) and would be a much higher income source for the owner than this tower will generate. I would be happy to put the owner in contact with people who would be interested in such a project. I spoke with almost all the residents of the Rabbitbrush subdivision and every single one of them opposes this application. In walking and meeting the folks who reside on Avery and Mabel, every person I met, save one, opposes the tower. I trust by the time of this hearing you will have heard from several of them. I would invite the Commission members to come lay eyes on the affected area before the Commission meeting on the 14th. I will be happy to give access to the Rabbitbrush location, including my building and the Rabbitbrush subdivision. The Avery and Mabel street neighborhoods are open and available to observe by simply walking down the block. This special use permit must be rejected, and the following reasons can be documented: 1. It is not compatible or harmonious with the surrounding area. 2. It does not fit within the surrounding area as to height, scale and is not capable of being screened or mitigated to reduce its impact. 3. It does not preserve the character of the neighborhood where it is being installed and negatively impacts the visual qualities of the surrounding area. 4. The applicant failed to establish that the special use permit would not have a negative impact on people who purchased, and/or constructed homes and buildings in reliance on the current zoning scheme. Thank you for your service to our city, for taking the time to read this memo, and I look forward to this special use permit application being rejected. Yours Truly, Gary Risley, Member Five Springs Properties, LLC 2705 Rabbitbrush Farmington, NM 87402 (505) 326-1776 Risley Objection SUB 22-15 p.9 60 61 62