Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive May 12, 2022 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the April 28, 2022 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition SUP 22-15 – A request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless telecommunication facility including a 98-foot cell tower. Located at 2400 Hutton Ave. - Tabled from April 14, 2022 Planning & Zoning Meeting. 5 Petition PP 22-26 – A request for Preliminary Plan approval for a 48-lot subdivision in Tier II. Parcel #R0051700 6 Petition PP 22-28 – A request for Preliminary Plan approval for a 38-lot subdivision in Tier II. Parcel #R0050231 7 Discussion Regarding Cannabis 8 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 9 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 28, 2022 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on April 28, 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 Ryan Brown Clete Berens Cheryl Ragsdale Gary Hanson Cody Waldroup Shay Davis Elizabeth Lockmiller - Telephonically P&Z Members Absent: Gary Smouse Mitch Sewell Staff Present: Beth Escobar Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission: Jonathan Watson Zane Wood Call to Order Chair Joyce Cardon called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda The motion was made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve the agenda of the April 28, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting with item No. five being withdrawn. This motion passed unanimously by a 8-0 vote. 1 Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by an 8-0 vote. Swearing of Witnesses Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak. _______________________________________________ PETITION NO. SUP 22-24 – Discussion & possible action regarding a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for a 128-foot high spire on the new LDS Temple to be constructed at 4400 College Blvd. Chair Cardon and Commissioner Davis have a conflict of interest with this petition. Vice Chair Freeman will be Acting Chair for this petition. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Barton Architecture • Representative: Robert Echols, C-W-E • Location: 4400 College Blvd. • Existing Zoning: SF:10 – Single Family Residential • Request: Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a 128-foot high spire on the new Farmington Temple • Measurement is from the ground. • 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. 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. 2  Zoning Elevation 3 Rendering Site Plan 4  UDC 8.9.A Special Use Permits • Requests for height in excess of allowed require a SUP per Section 2.7.3.5.D (2) a of the Unified Development Code • The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. Public Notice • Letters were sent to 24 surrounding neighbors and the property was posted with a sign. • On Tuesday, April 26, staff received a phone call from a neighbor expressing concerns regarding possible interference with her cell phone, internet, modem and TV antenna from the spire. Planning Manager read an email from the petitioner’s electrical engineering stating the following: “Not knowing the location, types of systems, etc it is difficult to offer an opinion but to my knowledge and experience, our building will not have any effect on the "in house" services such as modems and cell phones. It will have no effect on cabled services (cable tv or internet). Aerial TV antennas will not be affected. The only service that I am aware of that could possibly be affected would be satellite dishes that need a clear shot to the sky (direction depending on the satellite) Typically clear shot to the South or SW sky in the western United States • Staff Recommendation: • 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. Discussion John Watson, 1152 Bond Ave., Rexburg, Idaho. Mr. Watson explained that he agreed with the statement that the height of the spire is appropriate, as Ms. Escobar stated, since from an architectural standpoint and the definition of a spire in the International Building Code, you have a building that was 40 feet, and a spire was 88 feet, the overall height was 128 feet. Zane Wood, 1612 Camino Rio, Farmington, stated there are two Baptist churches in town with tall spires. Mr. Wood also wanted to express his overwhelming support for this petition. Acting Chair Freeman closed the public input portion for this petition. With no other discussion needed, Acting Chair Freeman called for a motion. 5 Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve SUP 22-24 for the spire height being 128 feet from the ground for the Farmington Temple, as recommended by staff. The motion carried 6-0. Cannabis in Farmington, Planning & Zoning Commission, April 28, 2022: Current Activity ◦ Five issued business registrations ◦ Two open retail facilities ◦ One retail business with state approval but no location yet ◦ Total of 12 potential retail facilities and ◦ Four cultivation/production sites Pending Registrations ◦ Five or retail sales Special Use Permit for Integrated Facilities ◦ Five applications ◦ One denied, four approved ◦ An integrated cannabis facility is defined as including cultivation, manufacturing and production. Waivers for 300-foot distance requirement – Four, three approved, one pending. 6 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission: Memo To: Farmington Planning & Zoning Commission From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: April 28, 2022 Subject:Summary of Cannabis Activity in Farmington Background House Bill 2 in the State of New Mexico legalized sales of adult use cannabis effective April 1, 2022. The City of Farmington adopted Ordinance No. 2021-1329 on October 12, 2021. City Regulations • Retail sales of adult cannabis are a permitted use in the CB: Central Business, GC: General Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts • Cultivation, manufacturing and production of cannabis products are allowed by Special Use Permit in the GC: General Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. 7  • All cannabis related activity is required to be 300 feet from any school, religious institution, registered day care or any other cannabis facility. Distance Requirements The distance requirement of 300 feet is measured property line to property line. This has caused generation of several variance requests for properties that may be 300 feet from a property line, but actual distances ‘building to building’ are much higher. Current Active Business Registrations 1. Distinguished Dispensary, 4601 English Road – Retail Sales 2. New Mexico Alternative Care, 534 East Broadway – Integrated Cannabis Facility 3. The Grass Station LLC, 928 C East Main Street - Integrated Cannabis Facility 4. Toke Dispensary, 4339 East Main Street* - Integrated Cannabis Facility 5. Ultra Health, 4251 East Main Street, Retail Sales 6. Pending Businesses Registrations 1. PurLife at 3024 East Main Street – Retail Sales 2. Rocky Mountain Cannabis at 2800 East Main Street Suite B – Retail Sales 3. Score 420 at 3150 East Main Street A20 – Retail Sales 4. The alChemist LLC at 115 West Main Street – Retail Sales Special Use Permits for Integrated Cannabis Facilities (includes cultivation, manufacturing and production) 1. 534 E Broadway, NM Alternative Care – Jason Little, Farmington, NM 2. 7101 E Main, NM Alternative Care – Jason Little, Farmington, NM 3. 220 Browning Pkwy – Jason Little, Farmington, NM 4. 1801 Bloomfield Hwy – Joe Wojcik – Pagosa Springs, CO 5. 4300 Hannon Drive – Grady Williams: DENIED Waivers for 300-foot distance requirement 1. Toke Dispensary, 4339 E Main- ARB 21-80 approved 2. 3000 E 20th- The Reef Joint, Medical Marijuana sales conversion ARB 22-01approved 3. 3150 E Main St -Score 420 ARB 22-05 approved 4. 3024 E Main St – PurLife Medical Marijuana sales conversion ARB 22-27 pending Approved/Pending License application on the State website: Cannabis Control Division 1. Desert Flower – retail sales, site not yet identified Other: 1. Building permit submitted for cannabis retail facility at 1901 E 20th Street 8 Revenue projections: Attached to this report are two newspaper articles detailing the opening day sales revenue in Farmington and general revenue numbers from around the state? Being three weeks into the legalization of retail sales it is difficult to make prediction for this new business segment, however initial numbers are impressive. Additional revenue for the City will be generated by the cultivation facilities, who will be water and electric customers even if the facility is outside City limits. The estimate is a 2 million annual increase in fees collected. Daily Times Article from April 11, 2022: 9 10 11 Daily Times Article from April 24, 2022: 12 13 14 15 16 Cannabis Discussion A discussion was started regarding the murals some of the adult retail cannabis facilities are putting on their buildings. Chair Cardon suggested a copy of the UDC requirements for signs and murals be given to applicants when they apply for their business license. Planning Manager Escobar agreed with Chair Cardon, she also stated these regulations had been sent to the sign companies around town. 17 Vice Chair Freeman asked about the signage for the World Smoke Shop at 1601 E 20th. Ms. Escobar explained this was done without a permit and the City does not proactively enforce the sign regulations. The Planning Commission directed that this signage be examined for code compliance. Chair Cardon suggested reviewing the sign codes in the UDC starting in October 2022. Ms. Escobar agreed with that timeline. Planning Manager Escobar stated the adult retail cannabis facilities operating under an SUP would be looked at in a year and suggestions made to the business owner on how to improve the appearance of that location. Ms. Escobar let the Commission know there is strategic action in the comp plan to upgrade certain areas of town that was reviewed and recommended by the P&Z. That set to be started later this year. Commissioner Berens asked Planning Manager Escobar if there was a master plan to limit the number of licenses. Planning Manager Escobar answered no, there is not. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended a limit of 12, but City Council did not want to go with a limit. On the State’s website, there is over 20 applications for Farmington. Commissioner Waldroup added that the retail facilities might not be able to stay open, there is an issue with supply and the supply has to come from New Mexico. Planning Manager Escobar added there are at least 8 cultivation locations in the County and surrounding municipalities. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the floor. Business from the Chair: There is not business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There is no business from Members Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar informed the Commission the City Council did adopt your approval for the SUP for Mesa Financial. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Berens. The motion carried unanimously 8-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 3:46 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Joyce Cardon Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 18  Memo To: Farmington Planning & Zoning Commission From: Beth Escobar, Planning Manager Date: May 12, 2022 Subject: SUP 22-15: Wireless Telecommunication Facility 2400 Hutton Ave Background On April 14, 2022, the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing to receive input regarding the Special Use Permit application for a wireless telecommunication facility, including a 98-foot cell tower, proposed to be located at 2400 Hutton Ave. The Commission had several questions at that meeting that were not answered by the petitioner and the application was tabled to the May 12, 2022 meeting. Notices were sent to property owners within 100 feet with information regarding the May 12 meeting. The petitioner has submitted a letter addressing the questions and concerns expressed at the April 14, 2022 meeting. In addition, representatives from AT&T will be in attendance at the May 12 meeting. Public Comment At the April 14 public hearing, two effected parties and 5 interested parties spoke in opposition to the petition. Concerns were expressed about a negative impact to property values, impact on health, impact on wildlife and impact on views from the bluff above Cliffside. Timeline According to the Federal Telecommunications Act, the City has 150 calendar days to render a decision on any wireless communication facility application. The application for the SUP for 2400 Hutton was received on March 1. The City would need to take action on the application by July 28, 2022 or the application will be considered approved. Commission Action The Commission may, after hearing from the petitioner and additional public comment, choose to move the SUP application forward to Council with a recommendation of approval or denial. The Commission may also table the application for consideration at a future meeting with a specific request for additional information. 19 May 4, 2022 City of Farmington Planning & Zoning Commission 805 Municipal Drive Farmington, NM 87401 RE: PETITION NO. FP 22‐15 – Special Use Permit for Wireless Telecommunications Facility Vertical Bridge Development LLC & New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) 2400 N. Hutton Ave. Dear Members of the Commission: As requested, please accept this letter as supplemental information to inform discussion of this project in conjunction with testimony at the forthcoming hearing on May 12. Can AT&T provide a report demonstrating the need for additional coverage (i.e. customer complaints, evidence of calls drops, and data buffering)? AT&T provided, as part of the initial application, signal propagation maps which clearly show a gap in coverage in the area in question (between E. 16th Street and E 30th Street and between Sullivan Ave. and Main Street) and how the proposed facility would successfully close that gap. Propagation maps are computer models which can reliably be used to predict areas of coverage deficiency. While network performance indicators such as those mentioned and input from customers are utilized by AT&T in their network design, this information is proprietary and confidential. AT&T's network engineers have determined that a new base station is required in this area based on their observations and predictions of network usage and demand, and AT&T management has authorized the expenditure to construct the facility. AT&T, like any successful company, is a rational actor, and decisions to invest significant resources into projects such as these are not taken lightly. This project was weighed against many other similar projects across the country and given a green light to proceed over other projects in New Mexico and bigger cities. In fact, AT&T has several other projects in Farmington representing a significant investment in this community to provide reliable access to high speed broadband wireless service. Can you provide narrative describing why this is the only viable location for placement? The purpose of the proposed facility at 2400 N. Hutton is to enhance service in the area described above, between E. 16th Street and E 30th Street and between Sullivan Ave. and Main Street. The area is currently served by three neighboring sites which are located one mile or more away to the northeast, 20 east, and southwest. Due to network demand at these existing sites, a new facility must be constructed at a point equidistant from the neighbors to offload traffic and improve signal strength in the vicinity. This facility should be equidistant from the neighboring facilities to integrate properly into AT&T’s network. The City’s regulations regarding placement of wireless facilities requires that antenna structures be set back one foot from all property lines for every foot of height of the proposed structure. In the area in question, the larger lots along the east side of Hutton Ave. are the only parcels of sufficient size to accommodate a facility of any significant height. Other properties that meet the development criteria are farther away and would not be able to fully address the network need. The location chosen will deliver robust service to customers where they need and expect it: in their homes. Why is the tower being proposed in a “hole”? We understand “hole” to mean “valley” or area of lower ground elevation. Wireless base station facilities do not broadcast signal as would a radio or TV tower. Broadcast transmitters are typically placed on high ground so that their signal reaches as great an area as possible. In the early days of cellular networks, a similar logic applied when very few people had wireless phones and network traffic was primarily limited to voice. However, in a modern urban or suburban wireless network such as AT&T’s, the exact opposite is desirable. Due to the finite frequency resources available to transmit and receive data, wireless base stations are becoming more and more localized with each covering a smaller and smaller area due to the increase in network traffic. The same spectrum can only handle a certain amount of data, and as population density and consumer demand increases in an urban area more base stations are required to absorb the excess traffic. In this case, the new facility is proposed in a valley because Farmington was built in a valley and as the density of network demand has increased that valley can no longer be adequately served from the periphery. A new facility is required to serve customers in their homes where they most desire. What about the option of building two smaller towers? On the surface it would seem that any network coverage or capacity issue could be resolved by blanketing an area with multiple smaller base stations and saturating the area with coverage. However that is not always a technically feasibly or commercially reasonable proposition. First, network engineers must carefully choose the location of base stations since each facility utilizes the same frequencies. The replication of frequencies at multiple facilities in close proximity can result in co‐ channel interference which affects the ability of wireless devices to effectively communicate with the base stations. In addition, as you move sites closer to one another, their footprint shrinks which could result in the opening of other unforeseen gaps. This is why wireless network design typically follows a honeycomb pattern to ensure that each site is equidistant from its neighbors. In this case, the Hutton Ave. site is proposed at a location equidistant from its neighbors so that it integrates seamlessly and interacts effectively with the rest of the network. Finally, it is an inefficient use of spectrum and resources to install multiple facilities when only one is necessary to accomplish the objective. It is not a 21 reasonable proposition to expect any company in any line of business to invest double or triple the necessary amount in order to accomplish the same objective. It is worth mentioning that, the City’s own regulations discourage the proliferation of towers and encourage the construction of facilities that can be used by multiple carriers, which would be limited a shorter structure. Furthermore, limiting structures’ heights will not change the fact that providing reliable coverage in residential areas will invariably require base stations in residential areas. The expansive residential subdivisions characteristic of our cities can no longer be adequately served from the periphery. In the end, the guiding principle is always to provide robust and seamless service in the least intrusive manner possible, meaning a single facility, and this is the approach Vertical Bridge and AT&T have taken in this instance. Why does the tower have to be 100’ tall? The height of wireless antennas above ground level determines the area its signal can reach taking into consideration topography, vegetation, and built environment. Based on the size of the area needing improved coverage, AT&T’s computer models have determined that 94’ antenna center (100’ overall tower height) would be the optimal height to close the gap in coverage between E. 16th Street and E. 30th Street and between Sullivan Ave. and Main Street. If the structure height is lowered significantly, the coverage area of the proposed Hutton Ave. facility would shrink and those areas at the edges would continue to suffer from lack of network availability. In addition, the neighboring sites with high network demand would continue to be strained since the Hutton site would not offload sufficient traffic from them. What will the impact on coverage be from the new tower on College Ave.? In the area the proposed Hutton Ave. facility is designed to serve, there will be no impact. The College Ave. tower is approximately 2 miles to the north with a significant topographic obstacle in between. Even if signal reaches the area of need around Hutton, it will be weaker than the current facilities serving the area. In addition, the College Ave. site is designed to address network needs in its immediate vicinity, namely increased network traffic from the college, homes, schools, businesses, and thoroughfares. What is the impact of 5G towers on local airports and planes? AT&T is unaware of any adverse impacts of 5G on airports. The FAA has expressed concerns about the potential for poorly designed radio altimeters (i.e., altimeters with receivers that accept signals outside of their 4.2‐4.4 GHz operating frequency range) in some aircraft to be impacted by cell sites transmitting on 3.7‐3.98 GHz spectrum (i.e., the C‐band) used with some 5G networks. But, that is an issue caused by the inadequacy of radio altimeters, not due to lawful C‐band operations. When the FCC authorized C‐ band spectrum for mobile use, it found that adversely impacted altimeters were not likely under 22 reasonably foreseeable scenarios due to the technical rules adopted for the C‐band and the 220 MHz spectral separation between the upper end of the band and the lower end of the radio altimeter band, which was more than twice the spectral separation sought by Boeing. In fact, C‐band service on hundreds, if not thousands, of cell sites has been deployed in over 39 countries without a single confirmed incidence of a problem to radio altimeters. Nevertheless, to allow the FAA to resolve its concerns about radio altimeter performance near C‐band sites, AT&T has voluntarily restricted C‐band deployments near some airports and adhered to conservative limits on power, signal strength, and antenna heights. Since AT&T began deploying C‐band in January 2022, it has worked cooperatively with the FCC, FAA, and radio altimeter and aircraft manufacturers to derive a thorough understanding of radar altimeter performance near C‐band signals. As a result of those efforts, the FAA has agreed AT&T can modify its agreed‐upon deployment restrictions to allow deployments at or nearer to most airports and to target any power restrictions narrowly, all while protecting radio altimeters. AT&T expects to continue working with the FAA and the aviation industry to protect these poorly designed radio altimeters until they can be upgraded. These types of cooperative efforts working with the FAA and the aviation industry, not a local permit process, is the most effective means to protect radio altimeter performance on aircraft while allowing C‐band 5G services to operate for the benefit of your residents. What is the impact of cell towers on wildlife? The FCC’s rules require wireless carriers to evaluate each site for any potential impact on the environment under the National Environmental Policy Act. As part of this analysis, Vertical Bridge and AT&T follow FCC rules and orders requiring them to evaluate the potential impact on proposed and listed endangered and threatened species, proposed or designated critical habitats, officially designed wilderness areas, officially designated wildlife preserves, and environments that could cause problems with wildlife, such as wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion. That analysis is not yet complete, but any adverse effects must be presented to the FCC, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and potentially other agencies and would require mitigation before the project would move forward. Sincerely, Nicholas Romano Romano & Associates, LLC On behalf of Applicant 23 24 25  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Little Creek Subdivision, Ph. VIII, Replat A Petition No. PP 22-26 A. STAFF REPORT, May 12, 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Joe & Stan, LLC – Stan Kozimor Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application March 24, 2021 Requested Action Preliminary Plan Approval Location Not addressed. Parcel is just north of Little Creek Subdivision, Phase 7. No 1. Parcel #R0051700 Existing Zoning N/A San Juan County Surrounding North: Tract 2 of Little Creek Sub. VIII South: SF: 7 Single-family residential, City of Zoning and Land Farmington, Little Creek Phase 7, No. 1 Use East: SF:MH Undeveloped, City of Farmington West: San Juan County Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Preliminary Plans do not require notice Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 48 Lots Acres of Land 10.98 Lot Size 7,031 – 8,853 square feet Utilities Water: Per City Standards Sewer: Per City Standards Electric: Per FEUS Engineering Access & Per City Standards Circulation Street Lights Per City Standards Street Sign Per City Standards Fire Hydrants Per City Standards Drainage Per City Standards P & R’s Fees Per City Standards NBU Mail Box Coordinate with USPS 26  Staff Report PP 22-26 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Replat A GENERAL INFORMATION Parcel # R0051700 was divided into two tracts through Summary Plat 21-77. The subject property is outside city limits in Tier II of Farmington’s Planning & Platting jurisdiction. Tract 2, a 10.98 acre parcel is being subdivided into a 48-lot residential development. The remaining 17.95 acre Tract 2 will be developed into a residential subdivision in the future. Little Creek Phase VIII Replat A will be developed to City standards. The petitioner will construct all infrastructure to City standards to facilitate any future annexation. The petitioner has also agreed to deed restrict each lot to require cooperation with any future annexation process. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta: 599-1399 and tsitta@fmtn.org • Please check the legal description of the subdivision. The description appears to differ from the description (metes and bounds) provided in Little Creek Subdivision Phase VIII (Petition SP 21-77). 27  Staff Report PP 22-26 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Replat A • Is Sparrowhawk on the south side of this proposed subdivision a part of an approved subdivision? Will this be or need to be completed before the construction of Phase VIII? • Per the City Unified Development Code Section 13.2.12 Submission Requirements – Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review - the following items are missing from the plat: • Proposed layout of utilities (water and sewer) UDC 13.2.12.K • Metes and bounds of surveyed area – UDC 13.2.12.A&E • Drainage Report – UDC 13.2.12.L • Adjacent Subdivisions – UDC 13.2.12.B Revisions addressing these comments have not been received. Staff is including a recommended condition of approval to address these issues. 28  Staff Report PP 22-26 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Replat A Per Section 8.8.4 of the Unified Development Code, all subdivisions shall comply with the following minimum standards: A. Design and improvement standards. All subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of: (1) Article 5, development standards; and (2) Article 6, subdivision design and improvements. Staff Comments: Through staff review, the plat as presented meets, or will be required to meet through stipulations of approval, development standards and design and improvement requirements. B. Waivers. The commission may recommend and the council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny waivers of the standards in section 6.4, subdivision design standards, during the platting process. Staff Comments: No waivers are requested for this application. C. Zoning consistency. All subdivisions and the resulting lots shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable underlying zone district. Staff Comments: All lots conform to the minimum standards of the SF-7 Single Family Residential Zone, as do the setbacks which are noted on the plat. D. Comprehensive plan consistency. All subdivisions shall be reviewed for consistency with the comprehensive plan, and every plat approved by the city shall constitute an amendment, addition or a detail of the comprehensive plan or part thereof adopted by the commission. Staff Comments: The subject property is outside the City of Farmington’s municipal boundaries. The property directly to the south, Phase 7 of the Little Creek Subdivision is designated as Medium Density Residential. 29  Staff Report PP 22-26 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Replat A Aerial Map of Surrounding Area 30  Staff Report PP 22-26 Little Creek Subdivision Phase VII Replat A PRELIMINARY PLAN 31  Staff Report PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Page 7 STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition 22-26, Little Creek Subdivision Phase VIII Replat A, a Class 2, 48-lot subdivision in Tier II of the City of Farmington’s Planning & Platting Subdivision is appropriate, subject to technical and corrective changes as enumerated in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 22-26 a submittal from Joe & Stan LLC, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc. for preliminary plan approval of a Class 2, 48-lot subdivision of one undeveloped 10.98 acre parcel immediately adjacent to City limits with the following condition: 1. All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat, including noted issues in this report. 32  Staff Report PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Page 8 PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY PP 22-26 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 Fire Marshall – B. Vega 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 See Below CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock No Comment CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton No Comment 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 Toni’s Comment 33  Staff Report PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Page 9 1) Please check the legal description of the subdivision. The description appears to differ from the description (metes and bounds) provided in Little Creek Subdivision Phase VIII (Petition SP 21-77). 2) Is Sparrowhawk on the south side of this proposed subdivision a part of an approved subdivision? Will this be or need to be completed before the construction of Phase VIII? Per the City Unified Development Code Section 13.2.12 Submission Requirements – Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review - the following items are missing from the plat: a) Proposed layout of utilities (water and sewer) UDC 13.2.12.K b) Metes and bounds of surveyed area – UDC 13.2.12.A&E c) Drainage Report – UDC 13.2.12.L d) Adjacent Subdivisions – UDC 13.2.12.B 34 Staff Report PP 21-25 Ridgeview Subdivision Number Four Page 10 35  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat “A” Petition No. PP 22-28 A. STAFF REPORT, May 12, 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Stonetown Animas Lender, LLC Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application March 3, 2022 Requested Action Preliminary Plan Approval Location Not addressed. Property is in San Juan County. Parcel #R0050231 Existing Zoning N/A San Juan County Surrounding North: Tract 2 of Little Creek Sub. VIII South: SF: 7 Single-family residential, City of Zoning and Land Farmington, Little Creek Phase 7, No. 1 Use East: SF: MH Undeveloped, City of Farmington West: San Juan County Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Preliminary Plans do not require notice Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 38 Lots Acres of Land 59.18 Lot Size 42,416 – 100,693 square feet Utilities Water: Per City Standards Sewer: N/A Electric: Per FEUS Engineering Access & Animas Valley Water Company Circulation Street Lights N/A Street Sign N/A Fire Hydrants County Subdivision Regulations Drainage N/A P & R’s Fees N/A NBU Mail Box Coordinate with USPS 36  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner is asking for preliminary plan approval of a 38-lot subdivision with a 0.34-acre parcel designated as green space. The subject property is outside city limits in Tier II of Farmington’s Planning & Platting jurisdiction. Per plat note #2, lot #’s 1, 6 and 37 will not have access to County Road 3000 but will access the internal circulation system. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta • Please note on the plat what the conditions/responsibilities are for the property owners or developers regarding the septic tanks located on Lots 2, 13, 30, and any other lot where the existing septic system is not located within the entirety of the proposed lot line of the structure being served. • Please see construction note 2 on sheet 2 of 9 of the construction plans. If this responsibility is to be put on the property owners or each lot, these responsibilities should be noted on the plat. • Please note on the plat: " Storm surface runoff from adjacent lots within this subdivision will follow existing drainage patterns. The maintenance of such drainage is the responsibility of each lot owner as it crosses their property where drainage easements are not provided." • Please note on the plat: "Each lot is required to install and maintain a water retention pond per the subdivision construction plans." or "The subdivision developer is responsible for the installation of a retention pond during subdivision construction and the property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the pond. If the developer defaults on pond construction, the property owner will be responsible for installation and maintenance of such ponds at the time of development." • Please note on the plat where the access easements between lots 2 and 3 and lots 4 and 5 as proposed on the construction plans are located and note that these are the locations of the driveways for these lots to CR 3000. • Please note on the plat that the driveway for each lot is required to have a drainage culvert and the size of the required culvert. Fire Marshall – Brandy Vega • 38 homes is a LOT in an area with no hydrants or readily available water. Access road widths will be critical also, especially due to the need for fire tankers in the case of a fire. Staff Comment: These issues have been addressed through submittal of a revised plat. There are several existing mobile homes on the subject property. Some of these homes cross lot lines. Per the project engineer, the developer will be responsible for relocating 37  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A the homes and associated water/septic systems and electrical lines so that they align with the new lot configuration. Staff is including a recommended condition of approval to request a note be added to the final plat. Per Section 8.8.4 of the Unified Development Code, all subdivisions shall comply with the following minimum standards: A. Design and improvement standards. All subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of: (1) Article 5, development standards; and (2) Article 6, subdivision design and improvements. Staff Comments: Through staff review, the plat as presented meets, or will be required to meet through stipulations of approval, development standards and design and improvement requirements. B. Waivers. The commission may recommend and the council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny waivers of the standards in section 6.4, subdivision design standards, during the platting process. Staff Comments: No waivers are requested for this application. C. Zoning consistency. All subdivisions and the resulting lots shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable underlying zone district. Staff Comments: The subject property is outside City limits. The subdivision has large lots ranging from just under 1 acre to 2.3 acres. Setbacks per the recorded plat will be 35-foot front, 30-foot rear, 5-foot interior side, 15-foot street side. The large lot sizes can accommodate the topography of the land and the required distances for a septic system. D. Comprehensive plan consistency. All subdivisions shall be reviewed for consistency with the comprehensive plan, and every plat approved by the city shall constitute an amendment, addition or a detail of the comprehensive plan or part thereof adopted by the commission. Staff Comments: The subject property is outside the City of Farmington’s municipal boundaries. 38 Aerial Map of Surrounding Area 39  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A PRELIMINARY PLAN – Sheet 1 40  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A PRELIMINARY PLAN - SHEET 2 41  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition 22-28, Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A, a Class 2, 38-lot subdivision in Tier II of the City of Farmington’s Planning & Platting Subdivision is appropriate, subject to technical and corrective changes as enumerated in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 22-28 a submittal from Stonetown Animas Lender, LLC, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters- Echols, Inc. for preliminary plan approval of a Class 2, 38-lot subdivision of one undeveloped 59.18-acre parcel located in San Juan County. 1. All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat, including noted issues in this report. 2. The final plat shall contain a note requiring the developer to relocate all conflicting residences and utilities to comply with the new lot lines. 42  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A PLANNING MEMO COMMENTS SUMMARY PP 22-28 DEADLINE: April 14, 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 I realize this is in the county, but 38 homes FIRE is a LOT in an area with no hydrants or Fire Marshall – B. Vega readily available water. Access road widths will be critical also, especially due to the need for fire tankers in the case of a fire. LEGAL City Attorney – J. Breakell LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost No Comment 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 See Comment Below CW Engineering – T. Sitta CW Streets Superintendent – C. Fuller CW Traffic Engineer – M. Hathcock No Comment CW Water/Waste Water – D. Dalton No Comment Other Entities New Mexico Gas Company – R. Castillo No Comment "This new subdivision will require ATC costs for GPON build.” If you require signatures, you can CenturyLink/Lumens – D. Willato contact the engineer CC'd on this email and if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out. 43  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A Enterprise Field Services – M. Waszut Comcast Cable – M. Johnson JACOBS CH2MHILL OMI Surface Land Negotiator for BP – M. Venzara Farmington School District – C. Lyons Toni Sitta’s Comment COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (April 13 2022) 1) Please note on the plat what the conditions/responsibilities are for the property owners or developers regarding the septic tanks located on Lots 2, 13, 30, and any other lot where the existing septic system is not located within the entirety of the proposed lot line of the structure being served. Please see construction note 2 on sheet 2 of 9 of the construction plans. If this responsibility is to be put on the property owners or each lot, these responsibilities should be noted on the plat. 2) Please note on the plat: " Storm surface runoff from adjacent lots within this subdivision will follow existing drainage patterns. The maintenance of such drainage is the responsibility of each lot owner as it crosses their property where drainage easements are not provided." 3) Please note on the plat: "Each lot is required to install and maintain a water retention pond per the subdivision construction plans." or "The subdivision developer is responsible for the installation of a retention pond during subdivision construction and the property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the pond. If the developer defaults on pond construction, the property owner will be responsible for installation and maintenance of such ponds at the time of development." 4) Please note on the plat where the access easements between lots 2 and 3 and lots 4 and 5 as proposed on the construction plans are located and note that these are the locations of the driveways for these lots to CR 3000. 5) Please note on the plat that the driveway for each lot is required to have a drainage culvert and the size of the required culvert. 44  Staff Report PP 22-28 Sunset Ridge Subdivision Replat A 45