Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive April 28, 2022 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the April 14, 2022 P&Z Meeting 4 PETITION NO. SUP 22-24 – A request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for a 128-foot high spire on the Farmington New Mexico Temple to be constructed at 4400 College Blvd. 5 PETITION NO. ZC 22-25 – A request for a ZC: Zone Change from SF: 10-Single Family Residential to GC: General Commercial to allow for expansion of Frank’s Supply business located at 2655 Bloomfield Hwy. 6 Discussion Regarding Cannabis 7 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 April 14, 2022 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on April 14, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Acting Chair - Ryan Brown Clete Berens Gary Smouse Cheryl Ragsdale Gary Hanson Cody Waldroup - Telephonically P&Z Members Absent: Chair - Joyce Cardon Vice Chair – Clint Freeman Shay Davis Mitch Sewell Elizabeth Lockmiller Staff Present: Beth Escobar Tami Spencer Mike Safrany Others Who Addressed the Commission: Jonathan Owen Call to Order Due to the absence of Chair Cardon and Vice Chair Freemen, Planning Manager Escobar called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Cheryl Ragsdale made a motion to elect Commissioner Brown to acting Chair, this motion was seconded by Commissioner Berens. The motion carried 5-0. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda The motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Smouse to approve the agenda of the April 14, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Berens to approve the minutes of the March 24, 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. _______________________________________________ PETITION NO. FP 22-30 – 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. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Verizon Bridge Development • Location: 2400 Hutton Ave • Parcel # R0024602 • Existing Zoning: GC: General Commercial • Request: A Special Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility including a 98- foot high cell tower • Facility is designed to carry 3 co-locations • Applicant will be leasing the location Zoning 2 Aerial Map 3  Site Plan Map of Existing Wireless Facilities 4  Current Signal Strength Signal Strength after Construction 5  Telecommunication Facilities –UDC 2.4.56 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; 9. Avoiding potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through proper engineering and careful siting of tower structures. Special Use Permits UDC 8.9. A. Special Use Permits: • The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. • 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. Public Input • Letters were sent to 25 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. 6  Effected Parties within 100 Feet 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 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 Bobby Lee 2625 Cliffside Dr Farmington, NM 87402 Joel L Jr Nakai 2410 Hutton Ave Farmington, 87402 Patrysha D Okeefe 2628 E 24th St Farmington, NM 87401 James D & Erin C Randolph 2401 Avery Ln Farmington, NM 87402-1906 Trevin M & Chanelle J Reynolds 2405 Avery Ln Farmington , NM 87402 Dinning Robert and Connie 7219 Driftwood St Farmington, NM 87402 Virginia P Schulke 14 Road 2680 Aztec, NM 874109736 Bruce E & Sharon M Seegart 2636 E 23rd St Farmington, NM 87401 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 J And J Realty Co Llc 5011 Tampico Way Farmington, NM 87402 Mikasa Four Llc 624 E Main St Farmington, NM 87401 Spn Llc 5061 Antelope Jct Farmington, NM 87402 Staff Conclusion: • The petitioner has provided documentation demonstrating the reasoning 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. • Placement of a telecommunication facility at this location is consistent with placement of other facilities throughout the City. 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: • 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. • 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, • The structures and bridges proposed to be constructed over irrigation channels shall be required to have written approvals from the ditch company/lateral operator. • 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. 7  • 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. Photos provided by Vertical Bridge: 8 9 10 11 Discussion Commissioner Smouse asked Planning Manager Escobar if this was a single structure and it could accommodate up to three separate arrays. Planning Manager Escobar answered that was correct. He also asked how each array would fit onto a monopine. Ms. Escobar answered the array would generally fit into the pine tree simulation. Commissioner Hanson asked Planning Manager Escobar if she could briefly summarize federal law as it applies to land use determination. Planning Manager Escobar replied she could give a summary from the planning perspective. The FCC considers wireless facilities as critical infrastructure. During Covid, we had a number of issues with neighborhoods not having internet or phone access. She added the federal government would have approval authority for any improvement to the existing infrastructure. A wireless facility would have to apply with the FCC; they would have to go through the land use and reporting steps, the FCC would then approve the location and issues the license. Local municipalities cannot make a determination that a cell tower will negatively affect a person’s health. The rulings and case law goes back about 30 years and the FCC has determined there is no health impact, so we cannot debate that at the local level. 12 Petitioners Representative Jonathan Owen, 6117 Acacia St. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87120, stated Romano and Associates had worked hard to meet all the jurisdictional and setback requirements for the SUP. He showed the current coverage map, which effectively shows the need for additional coverage in that area. He also stated the demand for data in that area has increased exponentially, especially with more people working and online schooling from home. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Owen if the need to have this many cell towers in close proximity is based on data usage. Mr. Owen responded data usage and bandwidth. When the wireless industry stared, it was mainly used for voice and text. Now with entertainment, Zoom streaming and the need to work from home the data and bandwidth demand has increased in urban areas. Commissioner Smouse also asked if this was the prime location for the cell tower. Mr. Owen went back to the current coverage map to show the Commission where the coverage from this cell tower would be. Mr. Owen also explained they did look at other locations, but in those locations, the coverage would overlap and not adequately cover the area that needs to be covered. Acting Chair Brown asked about the height being 98 feet. Mr. Owen explained the height is to be as unobtrusive as possible, and to accommodate three carriers, so there would be less need for another cell tower. That height is needed for the carriers to be able to broadcast and transmit the data. Commissioner Hanson asked in the low coverage areas if they had buffering issues or dropped calls. Mr. Owen answered it’s not so much phone calls, but rather streaming for entertainment and Zoom meetings. The higher data requirements for platforms like YouTube and Zoom are needed in this particular area. Public Comment Lee Begay, 2903 E. 24th St., Farmington, stated his property is directly to the east of the proposed cell tower. He noted there were not any pictures of the existing lot or proposed cell tower views from his direction. Mr. Begay strongly disagreed with the installation of the cell tower. He had several reasons for disagreeing, Mr. Begay read from the submitted letter. See letter below: 13 Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Begay how he felt about the stealth monopine that was presented by staff. Mr. Begay stated it looked fine, but he was worried it may emit sound. Mr. Owen responded to Mr. Begay’s concerns about the sound emitting from the cell tower. He stated it is an unmanned facility, so there would be no sound. Russell Hasler, 2362 E. 23rd St., Farmington, stated his strong opposition. He feels the pictures shown do not properly depict the actual site; he would like the Commission to see the site before making a decision. Commissioner Ragsdale asked Mr. Hasler, how close he lived to the proposed site. Mr. Hasler answered across the street on 23rd St. Mr. Owen responded the visual representation presented is to scale and is accurately reflecting what would be seen from the street views and vantage points of the photos shown by staff. Gary Risley, 5725 Wildwood St., Farmington, stated his business is located in the Rabbitbrush Ridge Subdivision. Mr. Risley spoke in opposition to the proposed cell tower installation, off Hutton Ave. Mr. Risley walked around Mr. Begay’s neighborhood, and most of the residents were upset about the cell tower because their view would be obstructed. Mr. Risley also felt with the meeting being held during the day that most of the working class residents from Mr. Begay’s neighborhood would not be able to attend. He was not sure there would be a fair representation of what their concerns were. Mr. Risley highlighted some points from his memo sent to Staff and the P & Z Commission. See memo below: 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 14 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. 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. 15 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 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. 16 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 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 17 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. 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: 18 ARTICLE 8. - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sec. 22-8-1. - Purpose. (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 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? 19 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 Mike Dimond, 2715 Rabbitbrush Dr., Farmington, stated his residence and a second lot is to the east of Mr. Risley’s office. He explained they purchased those lots based entirely on the view and have invested approximately $900,000.00 on both lots. Mr. Diamond’s biggest complaint is that they have invested that amount of money then years later, all the considerations they had when they purchased their lots would be taken away, and there is nothing they can do about it. Joseph Schrag, 2805 Rabbitbrush Dr., Farmington, stated his concerns are the same as those already heard. He they had chosen the house they live in primarily based on the view, and they paid a higher premium for that view. Mr. Diamond also stated the cell tower would be an eyesore no matter which direction you view it from, he also thinks the monopine version looks worse because it will not blend in. 20 Damon Weems, 14715 West Heron, Sun City West, Arizona, wondered what he could do with the property he had purchased off Cliffside Dr. Mr. Weems decided there needed to be premium lots there. He choose a lot there for his residence because it had the best view in the entire valley. He also believed we were given a gift; we need to be stewards of the gift and take care of that gift. Mr. Weems would also like to know who they are dealing with AT&T, Romano, Vertical Bridge, who? Mr. Weems sent a letter of opposition to Staff and the P & Z Commission. See report below: WEEMS FAMILY LLC 14715 W Huron Drive Sun City West, AZ 85375 April 8, 2022 City of Farmington, New Mexico Community Works Department Planning Division 800 Municipal Drive Farmington, NM 87401 Re: Objection to SUB 22-15 – 2400 N. Hutton To Whom It May Concern: I reviewed the objection to this project written by Gary Risley. I agree with each of his points. Further, I pose additional objections to this project for the reasons stated below. Mr. Risley used the heading "Destroying A Million Dollar View" to begin his objection. He explains that he invested more than a One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) in his property located in the Rabbitbrush Ridge Planned Unit Development (Rabbitbrush Ridge) on the hill above Cliffside Drive east of Hutton Ave. 21  In 2006, I sought advice from the City of Farmington Planning Department about what to do with the Walling property to the east of my office at 2800 N. Hutton Rd. I had recently acquired the property above Cliffside Drive between Hutton Ave . and Cherry Hills Dr. Mike Sullivan advised me that premium housing lots with views of the valleys and bluffs would go well on the property. The advice was the genesis of the Rabbitbrush Ridge P.U.D. planned by Cheney Walters Echols to maximize the views for premium housing and offices. By 2007, relying on advice and approval of the City, as well as the engineering and design of Cheney Walters Echols, I developed Rabbitbrush Ridge at a cost of over One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). On the east side of Farmington, Rabbitbrush Ridge offers the only remaining view lots of the two valleys framed by the bluffs. Consequently, during the historic downturn just experienced , I elected to hold the lot prices for view lots in the premium price range awaiting the time when other premium homes would grace the hilltop. Relying on the City zoning and approval, Mike Dimond, Donald Keith, Connie Nordstrum and Troy Cannon spent more than Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000 .00) in construction costs for homes. The views from Rabbitbrush Ridge are the sole reason families such as my own and the Risley, Dimond, Keith, Nordstrum, Cannon, and Blount families invested in Rabbitbrush Ridge. Fifteen years later in 2022, after more than Five Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,500,000 .00) in investment in Rabbitbrush Ridge, a cell phone cell tower is proposed to destroy the views that made the basis of the development. Beautiful expensive homes grace the hilltop of Rabbitbrush Ridge. Both design and construction of these homes set them apart from other homes in the nearby neighborhoods. As Farmington recovers from hard times, more such homes can be expected to grace the view lots of Rabbitbrush Ridge unless the City of Farmington allows destruction of the views by approving this cell tower. Rabbitbrush Ridge adds value to the neighborhood. The proposed cell phone tower cheapens and industrializes the area. Farmington has made this mistake before but should never make the mistake again. Existing property owners are relying on the City for protection of their substantial investments. 22 No allegation is made that the proposed cell tower location is the only suitable location. The views over the river valleys to the bluffs from Rabbitbrush Ridge are the only remaining views of this kind. Destruction of those views is irreparable. Before Farmington, the hilltop above Cliffside Drive east of Hutton Ave. enjoyed unencumbered views of the Animas River valley and San Juan River valley as the valleys merge toward their confluence below Shannon Bluffs. Shards of pottery and metates testify that early human residents enjoyed the view. Today , residents enjoy those same views our ancestors enjoyed due to substantial investments of money and time. We are charged as stewards of our God given gifts. No other New Mexico city was given the gift of the view from the hilltop above Cliffside Drive. Conservation and preservation of such a gift should be our priority. Please vote to deny construction of this cell phone tower. Sincerely, Damon L. Weems Mr. Risley returned to the podium and reiterated his opposition to the cell tower being built in their line of sight. Mr. Owens responded to Mr. Weems and Mr. Risley. He believed what had been submitted to the P&Z Commission justified the need for coverage in this particular area and why this location was chosen. Mr. Owen also stated Vertical Bridge is the developer, Romano & Associates had been asked by Vertical Bridge to find a suitable location for this cell tower. He added AT&T reached out to Vertical Bridge letting them know they needed to increase coverage for their clients in this particular area, Vertical Bridge reached out to Romano & Associates to find a possible location for their cell tower to accommodate AT&T and up to two other carriers. Commissioner Berens asked Mr. Owen if they looked at moving the cell tower to the southeast where it would be in a commercial area. Mr. Owen answered they had looked at an existing cell tower to the southeast, but they do not need coverage to the southeast, north, east or the west. They need coverage in that particular location. He added it if it is not on that property, it would be somewhere close. They chose that property because of its size, so they could meet the setback requirements and get the height that was needed. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Owen the proposed cell tower is in a depressed area in terms of height, if it was in a different location would you be able to reduce the cell tower height? He also wanted to know the height requirement for a single use cell tower. Mr. Owen 23 was unable to answer that question today but could get back with that information. Acting Chair Brown asked Mr. Owen if the cell tower height was determined by the elevation of the property it is being built on. Mr. Owen stated they need the broadcastability, so they need the height to cover a larger area. Commissioner Smouse also asked, based on the before and after images of the signal map, there is still a significant amount of area, to the north that is not covered by this cell tower. Would you be able to find a better location that would satisfy the entire area? Planning Manager Escobar answered the after coverage map does not include the coverage from the soon to be completed cell tower located off College Blvd. Ms. Escobar also stated when active, the College Blvd cell tower should cover a good portion of the northern part of this area. This cell tower off Hutton Ave. will carry signals from the existing cell towers and amplify it back out into this area. Commissioner Berens asked Planning Manager Escobar if the cell tower off College Blvd. would cover any of that northern area. Ms. Escobar does not believe so due to the dip in elevation, radio waves go out in a straight line. She also reminded the Commission there is a cell tower at Animas Elementary School and what AT&T is trying to do is fill that gap because of the drop in elevation. Acting Chair Brown asked Mr. Owen is there was an option to build two smaller cell towers at different elevations, opposed to one tall cell tower, would that satisfy the coverage need? Mr. Owen responded that would be a possibility. Acting Chair Brown closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Planning Manager Escobar explained the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting is held at 3:00 pm. If the Commission makes the recommendation to move the petition being heard forward to the City Council, that meeting is held at 6:00 pm. The Council meeting is also a public hearing, so for the people who cannot make the P&Z meeting during the day, they can attend the City Council meeting at 6:00 pm. Ms. Escobar also added she had discussed this petition with Airport Manager, Mike Lewis. Mr. Lewis had no concern regarding a beacon for this cell tower. Per FAA regulations, tower lighting is not required for structures under 200 feet in height. Commissioner asked Planning Manager Escobar if the City had a master plan. Ms. Escobar replied the City does not have one; there has been no direction from Council regarding a master plan. Commissioner Smouse suggested a master plan would be helpful for future growth. Commissioner Hanson inquired if there is a property right under state law; a right we obtain when making an investment based on existing zoning that we could assert that would preserve that zoning into the future. Planning Manager Escobar replied New Mexico is a very strong property right state, what your right is, is to develop property under the existing zoning. You do not have a right to your view. If you would like to protect the view, you buy the property 24  in that view. The property in question is zoned MH-H and requires a Special Use Permit for a telecommunication tower, that is why we are here today. Commissioner Hanson asked Planning Manager Escobar what the options are for tabling this petition. Ms. Escobar explained it could be tabled to a certain meeting date; it can be tabled indefinitely to allow the petitioner to gather the information needed, and for staff to review. Either way it would get reposted and republished. Discussion among the Commission Commissioner Smouse is concerned with not knowing what the minimum height requirements are and that there is no master plan. He is torn between satisfying the need for providing this coverage to the community and satisfying the obligation to the communities prospective by saving the view. Commissioner Smouse feels they do not have the best location based off the map and the coverage. He feels slowing this down to get some of their questions answered is the best option. Commissioner Smouse would also like to something from the airport regarding 5G and how it would affects the planes radar altimeter. Commissioner Berens agrees with Commissioner Smouse. He would like to hear back from the airport. Commissioner Ragsdale would like to see a master plan. Commissioner Hanson agrees with Planning Manager Escobar that cell towers are everywhere. From where he lives, he can look south and see seven cell towers that dominate his view, and they can be annoying. He would like to see what the signal strength map looks like after the cell tower off College Blvd. goes live. He would also like to see proof from AT&T of the technical issues they are trying to address in that area. Planning Manager Escobar asked for clarification regarding the master plan. That action would have to be directed by the City Council and it is a long process. She asked to Commission to specify what they would like to see the petitioner address. This list includes:  Why this location  Why this height  Can it be located in a different area and still produce the same amount of service  Proof this the best location for the coverage needed Ms. Escobar informed the Commission that if they do not respond in the allotted amount of time, the petition is considered approved. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to table SUP 22-15 until the May 12, 2022 Planning & Zoning meeting. The motion carried 5-0. The motion carried 5-0 25 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 Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Jenna McKee/Mesa Financial Services/Tenant • Location: 1601 E 20th Street, Suite A • Existing Zoning: LNC: Local Neighborhood Commercial • Request: Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a loan company in the Local Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District Zoning 26  Aerial Map UDC 8.9.A Special Use Permits • The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. • 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 but would only be valid for another loan company. Public Notice • 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 Analysis • A loan company is an appropriate use for the subject property. Other uses in this mini mall are a smoke shop, furniture resale and an event planning business. The loan company will not have any negative impact on the surrounding areas. • Parking is adequate for all current uses 27  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. Staff is recommending the SUP be approved for a period of 10 years at which time it could be renewed. Discussion Commissioner Smouse asked Planning Manager Escobar who sent in the letter of support. Planning Manager Escobar stated it was from the Browsery, which is located in the same strip mall. Acting Chair Brown asked if the Commission had any questions. They had none. Acting Chair Brown asked if there was any public input. There was none. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Smouse to approve SUP 22-19 with as recommended by staff. The motion carried 5-0. 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: Commissioner Smouse thanked Staff for always putting together a professional presentation. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar informed the Commission that the City is experiencing more phone calls and inquiries from the public. There will be two applications for the April 28 meeting. One is a zone change and the second is an SUP. Ms. Escobar also thanked the Commission for all their hard work. She also announced Mike Safrany has been promoted to Senior Planner and he will be helping with the Planning & Zoning Commission. 28 Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Smouse and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Joyce Cardon Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 29  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 22-24 – Special Use Permit to allow for a 128-foot spire on the new Farmington Temple at 4400 College Blvd. STAFF REPORT, April 28, 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Barton Architecture Representative Robert Echols, C-W-E Date of Application March 28, 2022 Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow for a 128-foot high spire on the new Farmington Temple. This measurement is from the ground. Location 4400 College Blvd Existing Land Use Religious Institution Existing Zoning SF-10: Single family residential Surrounding Zoning & North: RA: Rural Agriculture – Religious Institution Land Use South: SF-10: Single-family Residential – Religious Institution East: SF-7: Windsor Heights Subdivision West: SF-10: Single-family residential-San Juan College Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: April 13, 2022, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: April 8, 2022 Sign posted: April 14, 2022 Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for a 128-foot high spire on top of the soon to be constructed Farmington New Mexico Temple. On September 26, 2021 City Council approved SUP 21-49 which allowed for a religious institution in a single family residential zoning district. This approval included an 88-foot high spire. It was the applicants understanding that this measurement was from the top of the tower. It was staffs understanding this measurement was from the ground, and that is how it was presented at both the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council public meetings. 30  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple Zoning 31  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple Elevation 32  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple Tower Rendering 33  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple Site Plan Approximately 300 feet 34  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple Unified Development Code – Section 2.8.3.5.D. (2) a This section of the UDC allows for exceptions to maximum building height: 2)Exceptions to maximum building height. a.Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, elevator penthouses, water tanks, flagpoles, monuments, theater scenery lofts, radio and television antennas, and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than 25 percent of the roof area of the structure may exceed the maximum permitted height in the district in which the site is located. Such exceptions shall be subject to the following regulation: Ten feet with no discretionary review. A special use permit shall be required for features extending more than ten feet above the base district height limit. Churches and temples may be erected to a height not exceeding 75 feet. UDC 8.9. A. Special Use Permits: The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. 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 128-foot high spire will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. The center of the proposed facility is approximately 200 feet from the residential properties to the east. 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. Not applicable. 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. The tower height should have no negative impact. 35  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple 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 Medium Density Residential. Per the UDC, religious institutions are allowed in residential zoning districts with a Special Use Permit. A SUP for the Farmington New Mexico Temple (SUP 21-49) was approved in 2021. D. 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 6.62 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. A building permit for the new temple and meeting house building is currently under review. 36  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple PUBLIC INPUT Letters were sent to 24 surrounding neighbors and the property was posted with a sign. At the time of this report no public input has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION The spire height for the new temple seems appropriate for the use and is in scale with the temple building. Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 22-24 for a spire height of 128-feet from the ground for the new Farmington New Mexico Temple. Staff is recommending no expiration date be attached with this SUP, as with the original approval for the new temple. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 22-24, a request for a 128-foot high spire. 37  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple 38  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple 39  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple 40  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY SUP 22-24 DEADLINE: April 6, 2022 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW The requested 126 feet height of the spire is correct with the constructions Chief Building Official – D. Childers that are submitted for review. 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 Tower height may be exceeded by special LEGAL use permit. A special use permit should be Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost granted in this situation based upon the intended use and the structure. 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 CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton No Comment Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment "This subdivision will require ATC costs for service extension.” CenturyLink – D. Willato If you require signatures, you can contact the engineer CC'd on this email and if you have any further 41  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons 42  City of Farmington SUP 22-24 4400 College Blvd – Farmington Temple Notification to properties within 100 feet NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP 4505 RANCHO DE ANIMAS 3201 WELLINGTON PLACE LLC CT FARMINGTON, NM 87402 CHARGING FABIAN D AND PAULA K 3400 WELLINGTON PL FARMINGTON, NM 87401 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150- CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAI 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 3620 CLARK EDDIE M AND PATRICIA M 3410 SAL REY CT FARMINGTON, NM 87402 COOPER WILMA J PO BOX 6508 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 FARMINGTON, NM 87402- CUNNINGHAM CHARLES W AND KATHY L 3300 WELLINGTON PL 4681 ENGLISH LAND CO 15648 ROAD 250 DURANGO, CO 813018695 FERRIS KEELY M 3301 WELLINGTON PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 GREGG BONITA 3400 MAJESTA PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 HERNANDEZ ANITA 3400 WINDSOR DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 HOPKINS JAMES D AND POLLY K 3401 WELLINGTON PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 1910 W SUNSET BLVD STE INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOURSQUARE G 200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90026-3295 JAQUEZ BRANDON RAMON AND HATCH LAKOTA RO PO BOX 988 FRUITLAND, NM 87416 JESS BRADLEY H AND BROOKE L 3115 WINDSOR DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 MAGEE FLOYD E AND MICAH J 3300 MAJESTA PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 FARMINGTON, NM MERRICK WILLIAM A AND ANN E TRUST 3301 MAJESTA PL 874024670 FARMINGTON, NM 87402- NEW COVENANT UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 4600 COLLEGE BLVD 4610 ROYER LUANN M 3401 MAJESTA PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 RUSSELL WILLIAM L AND KIMBERLY I 3420 SOL REY CT FARMINGTON, NM 87402 FARMINGTON, NM 87402- SAN JUAN COLLEGE ATTN BUSINESS OFFICE 4601 COLLEGE BLVD 4609 SCOTT JOHN H AND JANICE P 3401 SOL REY CT FARMINGTON , NM 87402 FARMINGTON, NM 87402- SOCUNO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4800 COLLEGE BLVD STE 204 4708 VILLEGAS CHANDLER AND JUVIE 3200 WELLINGTON PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 WELSH JOSHUA 3111 WINDSOR DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 43  COMMUNITY WORKS PETITION REPORT Petition ZC 22-25 S. Dustin Road A. STAFF REPORT, April 28, 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Frank’s Supply Representative Tim Tourville, Realtor Date of Application March 30, 2022 Requested Action Zine Change from SF: 10 – Single family residential to GC: General Commercial to allow for expansion of Frank’s Supply business located at 2655 Bloomfield Highway. Location South of existing Frank’s Supply at 2655 Bloomfield Hwy./R0032888 Existing Land Use Vacant Existing Zoning SF:10 Single family residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size Surrounding Zoning North: GC: General Commercial & Land Use South: San Juan County - Residential East: San Juan County - Residential West: SF-7: Single-family residential-Mobile Home Overlay Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: April 13, 2022, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: April 8, 2022 Sign posted: April 14, 2022 Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager STAFF ANALYSIS Background The owners of Franks Supply, an equipment rental agency in Farmington, would like to purchase the 9.56 acre parcel to the south in order to expand their business. The two properties are separated by an alley created by the Partners Properties Plat from 1982. This is a private alley providing access for the commercial businesses along Bloomfield Highway. The subject property is Lot 1 of Candlewyck Estates, plated in 1987. The original plat for Candlewyck Estates, recorded in 1981, contained 89 residential lots. This plat was abandoned in 1987 and the property was returned to one lot. It is currently undeveloped. Future development will access the property from South Dustin Road. The applicant intends to use the property to store equipment. Future expansion may include construction of buildings. 44  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy Zoning 45  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy Aerial View Subject Property 3 46  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy STAFF ANALYSIS The Unified Development Code states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land use of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) outlines issues for consideration in determining a proposed zone change as follows: A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? No, the proposed zoning does not conform with the future land use designation of Medium Density Residential. B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? The proposed rezoning to General Commercial will impact the residential neighborhood to the west by adding more commercial traffic along South Dustin Road. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? Possible adverse conditions include more noise and traffic. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? Commercial storage of equipment is allowed in the General Commercial zoning district with a Special Use Permit (SUP). If the zone change is approved, the applicant would 47  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy need to proceed with a SUP application including a site plan showing proposed access and screening. Rezoning the property to General Commercial would allow all permitted uses in the GC Zoning District. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? An irrigation feature bisects the eastern portion of the property from north to south. The applicant only plans to use the western portion of the property. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? If utilities are not available, could they be reasonably extended by the applicant? Is the applicant willing to pay for the extension of public facilities and services necessary to service the proposed development? Connection to City water and wastewater lines in South Dustin is available. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? It is staff’s determination that this request qualifies as “spot zoning”. The request is not in conformance with the Future Land Use Plan. Conversion of this property to General Commercial would create a commercial island bordered on the east, south and west by residential uses. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 20 surrounding property owners. One email in opposition from a property owner within 100 feet of the subject property has been received and is included with this report. STAFF CONCLUSION In staff’s opinion, this rezone request is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commercial uses on this property are not compatible with the residential uses to the east, south and west. Rezoning this property to General Commercial could create conflicts with the surrounding residential areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition ZC 22-25, a request from Franks Supply, represented by Tim Tourville, for a zone change of a 9.56 acre parcel, #R0032888, from SF: 10-Single Family Residential to GC: General Commercial to allow for expansion of Frank’s Supply business located at 2655 Bloomfield Hwy. 5 48  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy 6 49  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY ZC 22-25 DEADLINE: April 12, 2022 City of Farmington Departments CW Planning Manager – B. Escobar CW Addressing – Planning Division CW Chief Building Official – D. Childers No Comment CW Long Range Planner CW MPO – P. Koeppel CW Oil & Gas Inspector CITY City Manager’s Office – J. Baird No Comment ELEC Customer Care Manager – L. Richardson ELEC Electrical Engineering –Roberto Ga No Comment ELEC T&D – Field Op – L. Lugenbeel FIRE Fire Captain – K. Rix FIRE My only comment would be to make sure there is an access sufficient for our Fire Marshall – B. Vega trucks from the front and throughout the storage area. LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost POLICE Code Compliance – M. Romero 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/Lumens – D. Willato Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons 7 50  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy Email in opposition CANDLEWYCK ESTATES ATN: COMMUNITY DEV DEPT--PLANNING DIVISION 800 MUNICIPAL DR FARMINGTON, NM 87401 THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK IN BEHALF OF OUR AREA. I WISH TO GO ON RECORD OPPOSING SUCH A REZONING CHANGE. I DO *NOT* WISH TO EXPERIENCE MORE EQUIPMENT BLIGHTING THE LANDSCAPE--PARTICULARLY ACROSS SUCH SCENIC HOMESITES. I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, MY PARENTS BOUGHT 175 ACRES IN 1952. I LIVE ON THE LAST ACRE ON THE HILLSIDE OVERLOOKING THE BLUFFS AND THE PINACLE. 4/18/22, 8:25 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] RE REPLAT LOT 1 BK 1307 PG 899 BK 1591 PG 352 IT WOULD GRIEVE MY SPIRIT TO SEE THIS TRACT OF LAND DEVOTED TO EQUIPMENT. I WOULD ALSO NOT LIKE TO SEE IT IN CONDOS OR APARTMENTS. SINGLE HOMESITES ARE THE MOST FITTING USE OF IT. WHY WASTE SUCH A VIEW ON HIDEOUSNESS? THERE ARE OTHER SITES ON CROUCH MESA AND OTHER AREAS WHERE NO SIGNIFICANT VIEW IS INVOLVED. LET EQUIPMENT PLAGUE THOSE AREAS. IT WOULD NOT GREATLY GRIEVE ME IF THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL 8 51  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy PLACE BOUGHT A STRIP SAY TO A 200 FOOT DEPTH BEHIND THEIR CURRENT PROPERTY. ANY DEEPER TOWARD THE BLUFFS WOULD BE OFFENSIVE. SINCERELY, DELBERT G DOBYNS, PHD 1309 HINES RD FARMINGTON, NM 8740 9 52  City of Farmington ZC 22-25 South of 2655 Bloomfield Hwy Properties within 100 feet NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP 4GS INVESTMENTS LLC 2323 SAN JUAN BLVD FARMINGTON, NM 87401 PO BOX 460369 DEPT ARC DGFMTNM002 LLC ATTN RYAN LLC 100 HOUSTON, TX 77056 BROWN RICHARD LEE 714 ROAD 4990 BLOOMFIELD, NM 87413 ALBUQUERQUE, NM DEAVER FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC 3311 STANFORD DR NE 87107-2017 ALBUQUERQUE, NM DEAVER FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC 3311 STANFORD DR NE 87107-2017 DOLLAR JOHNNIE AND PATRISHA 4 ROAD 5841 FARMINGTON, NM 87401 FARMINGTON, NM EDMISTON REGINA L 2409 CAMINO RIO 874018152 FARMINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 5 3401 E 30TH ST STE A FARMINGTON, NM 87402 FARMINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 5 3401 E 30TH ST STE A FARMINGTON, NM 87402 GALLARDO MARY ATTN MADISON TRUST COMPANY PO BOX 92288 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87199 GRIFFITH S MARC 2517 SAN JUAN BLVD FARMINGTON, NM 87401 FARMINGTON, NM 87401- HERNANDEZ JOSE L FRIAS ET UX 2413 CAMINO RIO 8152 FARMINGTON, NM 87401- MIHELICH GLORIA R 4201 SKYLINE DR 9223 MLN HINES LLC PO BOX 1976 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 OCEANIC FARMINGTON LLC 3656 RUFFIN RD STE A SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 7162 BEVERLY BLVD STE LOS ANGELES, CA 90036- PATEL ASHOK K AND MAMTA 344 2547 SELPH CELESTE C AND DARYL L 2401 CAMINO RIO FARMINGTON, NM 87401 TYCKSEN GARY PO BOX 3126 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 TYCKSEN LIVING TRUST ATTN DELBERT FARMINGTON, NM 87401- DOBYNS 1309 HINES RD 8128 WOOD CAROL A AND WEST LINDA S 2900 BLOOMFIELD HWY FARMINGTON, NM 87401 10 53 4/22/22, 11:26 AM Cannabis Facilities-Zoning Verifications for Retail (Pink) Special Use Permits for Facilities (Green) Cannabis Facilities-Zoning Verifications for Retail (Pink) Special Use Permits for Facilities (Green) No legend 1mi Esri., Inc., City of Farmington, NM 54 https://maps.fmtn.org/portal/home/webmap/print.html 1/1