Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive May 26, 2022 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the May 12, 2022 P&Z Meeting 4 PETITION NO. FP 22-35 – a request from BC Land Developers Inc., represented by Robert Echols with C-W-E, for final plat approval of an 18- lot residential subdivision. Parcel # R0055371 5 Discussion Regarding Cannabis 6 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 7 Adjournment ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 12, 2022 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on May 12, 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 Gary Hanson Mitch Sewell Clete Berens (arrived at 3:55) Elizabeth Lockmiller – Telephonically P&Z Members Absent: Gary Smouse Ryan Brown Cheryl Ragsdale Cody Waldroup Shay Davis Staff Present: Beth Escobar Tami Spencer Mike Safrany Colby Gibson Others Who Addressed the Commission: Jonathan Owen Dan Andazola Gary Risley Russell Hasler Ellen Randolph Lee Begay Paul (Ernie) Lewis Mike Dimond Joseph Schrag Call to Order Chair Joyce Cardon called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. 1 Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Sewell to approve the agenda of the May 12, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the minutes of the April 28, 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. SUP 22-15 – Discussion & possible action regarding a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for an wireless telecommunication facility including a 98-foot cell tower. Located at 2400 Hutton Ave. – Tabled from April 14, 2022 Planning & Zoning Meeting. 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 Zoning 2 Aerial Map 3  Site Plan Map of existing wireless facilities 4 Existing Site Inventory Current Signal Strength 5  Signal Strength After Construction 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; 6 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 7  Residence Concerns • Impact on views • Impact on property values • Impact on health • Nuisance to neighborhood • Doesn’t fit in neighborhood 2629 Cliffside Dr. 8 E 24th Street looking towards subject property 2401 Avery looking towards subject property 9  Mabel Drive 5 G interference with airplanes • Per the Airport Director, there have been some reported cases of possible interference from a 5G Bandwidth with airplane landing systems (ILS) • The FAA must sign off on all telecommunication applications with the FCC • The FAA does annual audits at the Farmington Airport that includes testing and maintenance of the ILS system, including flyovers 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. • Placement of a single tower with the ability for 3 colocations is in compliance with the UDC 10  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. • 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. All written comments received for this petition are appended to the minutes. Discussion: Vice Chair Freeman was not present at the April 28th Planning & Zoning meeting, he asked Planning Manager Escobar for a brief summary as to why this petition was tabled at that meeting. Planning Manager Escobar explained the Commission did not feel the applicant presented a strong enough case that this the only location for this proposal. The applicant will have to prove this to the Commission and the FCC. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council is the first level, if approved the applicant will move forward to the FCC for final approval. The FCC will get a report from the Federal Aviation Authority to review and will also require an environmental impact study. Ms. Escobar stated there were concerns at the April 28, P&Z meeting about the impact on wildlife. She also stated the proposed site is in kind of a “bowl”, which was also a concern to the Commission as to why that location. Commissioner Hanson stated the tract for this petition does not look very residential, was not there an oil and gas well site. Planning Manager Escobar replied there is an oil and gas facility directly to the south, there is a pipeline that goes across the property to the north. Commissioner Hanson asked Ms. Escobar if the subject tract has always been zoned residential. Ms. Escobar responded that was correct. Commissioner Hanson also asked Ms. Escobar if all the public comment from the affected parties, who spoke at the April 28 meeting were all in opposition. Ms. 11 Escobar responded that was correct, Staff has not received any support for this application. She also stated the concerns that had been received were concerns about property value, health impact and the visual impact of the tower. Vice Chair Freeman asked Planning Manager Escobar if a cell tower always requires a Special Use Permit. Planning Manager Escobar replied no, a cell tower is allowed, by right in the Industrial Zoning District only. She also added many of the cell towers around town were constructed before 2007 and they were not subject to any regulations. Vice Chair Freeman also wanted to know the zoning for the piece of property that had the oil and gas well site. Ms. Escobar answered it has the same zoning as the subject property, multifamily medium density. She also stated she could not find any entitlement for the oil and gas, but Legacy Oil and Gas are all over the city. She does not know when it was installed, but it is an active site. Vice Chair Freeman asked why there was a 20-year time limit on this SUP. Planning Manager Escobar stated prior to the new code, there was a 5-year limit, but with the substantial cost for this facility, if it is approved the City does not want to put that investment at risk. Romano & Associates, Jonathan Owen, 6113 Acacia St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico, presented the following: 12 13 14 15 16 17 Continued Discussion: Commissioner Sewell asked Mr. Owen what is this need based on. Mr. Owen asked Dan Andazola, 3 Snowline Rd, Cedar Crest NM, to answer the more technical questions. Mr. Andazola, contractor for AT&T, replied the need was based on dropped calls and customer complaints. The end user device automatically sends dropped calls and low through put information is sent to the network, it will also let the network know which end the call was dropped. A propagation study is completed to find where the signal is the weakest and AT&T will look to enhance that area with a tower. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Andazola about the signal strength maps. Mr. Andazola explained the first map shows poor indoor signal strength and the second map shows what the indoor signal strength would be after the tower was installed. Vice Chair Freeman then asked if the circle showing the area that has the weakest signal strength was moved north of 30th St., would that more beneficial. Mr. Andazola replied it depends on where the signal was needed. If the area is vacant, it would not help anybody. The proposed site is where there is traffic and where the dropped calls originate. Chair Cardon asked Mr. Andazola if there is no service in this area, is it a dead spot. Mr. Andazola replied there is no useable service. Chair Cardon asked if Mr. Owen or Mr. Andazola had any other evidence the Commissioners asked for at the April 28, 2022 P&Z meeting. Mr. Owen replied the information given to Planning Manager Escobar and the new evidence presented to the Commission should cover in more detail what was asked for. Vice Chair Freeman asked about information the Commission received regarding small cell facilities, and if that is something Farmington can utilize instead of the tall cell tower. Mr. Andazola replied the FCC has auctioned off spectrum for the small cell use. It is a higher frequency, which propagates less. Most cell companies use small cell facilities in densely populated area, where they can use several small cells and then tie back to another tower. For instance, an arena will be a high traffic area, and they will use a small cells or indoor cells. AT&T is utilizing it when the FCC allocates that spectrum. Since this is not a high traffic or a dense urban area, it would not be utilized or cost prohibitive. You would have to place multiple small cells to cover this area. Mr. Andazola estimated it would take 30 to 40 small cells to cover the area. Vice Chair Freeman also asked if the cell tower was north of 30th St. and was 150 feet would circle on the signal strength map get bigger. Mr. Andazola explained what the draw back would be is interference from one cell tower to another, which would cause interference to the customer down at the street level and the indoor coverage. Planning Manager Escobar interjected two years ago the Commission brought through a specific ordinance for small cell facilities because they go on the utility poles. They are permitted with a Special Use Permit, there are two Downtown. In the Downtown area we were able to adopt design requirements, but outside the Downtown MRA we are not. As stated, they are there to boost existing coverage for high use areas. 18 Gary Risley, 2705 Rabbitbrush Dr., Farmington NM, is representing two affected and one interested parties. Parties represented are: Affected Parties:  Lee Begay at 2903 E. 24th St., Farmington NM  James & Erin Randolph at 2401 Avery Ln., Farmington NM Interested Party  Amy & Michael Wright at 2417 Avery Ln., Farmington NM Mr. Risley stated Mr. Begay’s property is 100 feet from the property line of the proposed site. There will also be 6-foot screens or trees, which will block his view to the west. James & Erin Randolph’s backyard looks straight into the proposed area. Mr. Risley summarized his written comments attached at the end of the minutes. After questions from the Commission, he began the cross-examination of the petitioner and the AT&T representative. Vice Chair Freeman asked Planning Manager Escobar if the cell tower would have to be placed 100 feet from north and east property line. Planning Manager Escobar replied that was correct. There are some issues on the property that will keep the cell tower from being placed in the center of the lot. There is an irrigation ditch and a gas line that will have to be taken into account for placement of the cell tower. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Risley about his written comments. He asked if it was Mr. Risley’s position that a landowner has a legal enforceable right to cause the zoning on a distant piece of land owned by someone else to remain the same as it was at the time this property owner made investments. Mr. Risley replied yes, if it affects that particular individual. If you remember from Mr. Weems testimony at the April 28, 2022 meeting, that the City advised Mr. Weems he ought to put his subdivision up there because of the great views. You have zoning that is residential and low density, that you know cannot be over a certain height, and I invest millions of dollars in that. Yes, I have a property right in that. Commissioner Hanson asked, but you do not know that that property-zoned multi-family is not going to change its zoning to commercial. Mr. Risley stated he did, because the City has to go through a strict, monitored and difficult process. The statute specifically says you have to minimize visual impact, and this cell tower does not do that. Gary Risley’s Cross Examination: Mr. Risley asked are there other options available which would provide the coverage needed for this area?. Mr. Owen replied based on the location and available parcel sizes that would give us the height of the tower we need, this was determined to be the best location. Mr. Owen stated he did not know if there were other options that would meet the coverage they are trying to achieve in this area. Mr. Risley asked Mr. Andazola if he was aware of the announcement made February 28, 2022 by the AT&T Vice President of Networks with regard to the Ericsson street lamps 19 products and that they are putting those in residential areas because of the ease of use? Mr. Andazola replied yes he is aware of the product, and is familiar with the small cell technology, but he stated he is not sure of the Vice Presidents exact words. Mr. Risley read from the announcement. Streetlights are also the perfect deployment point for meeting network infrastructure densification needs because they are typically 8 to 10 meters high, spaced 50 meters apart, have an existing power supply and are within close proximity to fiber. By using existing infrastructure, this solution reduces costs, streamlines site approval and permitting, and speeds installation. These radios also have smart sensors that allow us to detect failed or downed streetlights in the event of a storm, blackout, or other disruptive event. This helps us in quickly assessing damage and dispatching crews for repairs or alerting the power provider of an issue. Mr. Risley asked Mr. Andazola if he agreed with the VP of networking. Mr. Andazola replied with those exact small cells, the small cells we have here do not detect that. He also stated they use the Ericsson products but we do not have those capabilities in our small cells. Mr. Risley continues to read from the announcement; AT&T is using Ericsson Street Radio small cell a convenient option that can be plugged directly into existing streetlights and has a relatively small profile an important feature and installation can be done in a mere 15 minutes. Mr. Andazola reiterated he is familiar with the Ericsson small cell, there are some deployed here in the municipal areas, and these are the only ones we have deployed in New Mexico and Arizona. Mr. Andazola also stated the VP of Networks is based out of Atlanta Georgia, which is a high-density area. They might have a more advanced product made for the high-density area. He added small cell would not work in this area. For the purpose of this coverage location, which is not just the one block radius. Mr. Risley asked Mr. Andazola if he would agree that one small cell would not cover this area. Mr. Andazola agreed. Mr. Risley asked Mr. Andazola if he was familiar with the issues with the FAA and 5G cell towers located near airports. Mr. Andazola replied he is familiar with the ongoing discussions regarding 5G and airports. He also added AT&T works directly with the FAA in all aspects. AT&T cannot activate a tower until the FCC and FAA have approved it. Mr. Risley asked how many other 100-foot structures are in that corridor they are talking about; Mr. Owen counted at least eight 100-foot cell towers. Mr. Risley asked about the cell tower by the Fairfield Inn. Planning Manager Escobar answered that one is on Animas School property. Mr. Risley asked it was in a residential area. Ms. Escobar answered the school is in a residential area, the hotel is not. Planning Manager Escobar informed Chair Cardon, Mr. Owen and Mr. Andazola were allowed to cross-examine. Mr. Owen stated he believes they had already provided a fair amount of information already for their consideration and had nothing additional to add. Public Comment – Affected Parties: Russell Hasler, 2632 E. 23rd St., Farmington, wanted to point out Vertical Bridge is a multi-national corporation based out of Canada, their two main investors are CDPQ and Global Bridge, which is a real estate investment trust. He added the government of Canada is behind both of these investors. Mr. Hasler stated he was worried about the property values for the property surrounding 20 the proposed cell tower. He also stated he was worried the he and his surrounding neighbors would funding the Canadian government. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Hasler how long he had lived in that location and what cell carrier did he use. Mr. Hasler responded he had live there his whole life, and he did not have a cell phone. Erin Randolph, 2401 Avery Lane, Farmington, stated s the cell tower would be 100 feet away from her house. She has lived there for 12 years. If there had been a cell tower there when they bought their house, they would not have bought it. Her backyard directly faces where they are proposing to build the cell tower. Her husband has had FirstNet for a number of years and has never had any issues with his cell service. Ms. Randolph also stated her and her husband like to relax in their backyard. They enjoy watching the sunset and do not want to see big towers obstructing their view. She also wanted to point out her son, daughter in law live up the road just off 30th St., and they have never had any cell service issues. She reiterated that they bought the house because of the backyard and the views. Lee Begay, 2903 E. 24th St., Farmington, stated he lives right next to where the proposed cell tower will be built. He has lived there for 30 years and he really likes his neighborhood. Mr. Begay is worried about the impact the tower will have on the wildlife he sees on a regular basis. He also stated he is against building this cell tower. Public Comment - Interested Parties: Paul (Ernie) Lewis, 2727 Rabbitbrush Dr., Farmington, stated he and his wife are strongly opposed to this application due to numerous reasons. He is worried the proposed cell tower will lower their property values of their beautiful subdivision. The cell tower will ruin their views. He feels there are better location on one of the nearby hills. He thanked the Commission for their consideration. Mike Dimond, 2715 Rabbitbrush Dr., Farmington, stated he is sure 15 years ago that anyone thought there would be a 100-foot cell tower put in the bottom of a valley, in the middle of a residential area, that is really an open field. He also stated the view was one of their main objectives when they bought that lot and they spent considerably more money for that view. He does not want to see that 100-foot cell tower ruin that view. He also stated even though the county appraiser does not have a cell tower on their checklist, anybody that is buying a house for the view, has it on their checklist. Mr. Dimond also stated it would reduce the value of your house and the property value of most any asset is the value for which you can sell that asset. He also feels his property value and enjoyment of that view they paid extra money for will be lost due to the cell tower. Gary Risley, 2705 Rabbitbrush Dr., Farmington, stated he is speaking for Damon Weems. Mr. Risley stated at the time the Rabbitbrush subdivision was created, Mr. Weems was considering buying property, Mr. Weems talked to the City about this as a possible development opportunity. The City told Mr. Weems they really wanted to upgrade the community in regards to residential areas; this would be fantastic for the view. The City also said they needed a low lot line type 21 housing for people who retire, Mr. Weems bought the land and put in over a million and a half dollars developing this land based upon the view at the recommendation of the City. Mr. Risley stated he bought his lot based on the view. He paid more for it and spent over a million and a half dollars building his building. He also stated there is five and a half million dollars invested up on this hill for that view. He added the Commission would be destroying that view if they allow this SUP. Mr. Risley brought up the statutes again and urged the Commission to read them. Mr. Risley stated he measured the height from the second story of his office building; it was 60 feet above the terrain. Which means the cell tower will be 40 feet above that, it will be above the bluff line, and it will have up to three of the gigantic white pods. If you spent you life’s savings on this million dollar view, would you like to at that monster cell tower every day. He also stated to the Commission that they are there to protect the citizens of this community. Mr. Risley summarized more from his written comments regarding the airport and 5G cell towers, which are attached at the end of the minutes. Joseph Schrag, 2805 Rabbitbrush Dr., Farmington, agrees with everything Mr. Risley stated. Mr. Schrag stated he has a fantastic view, and that view was a big consideration in obtaining that house. They did pay more for that view, and it is a wonderful view. They can open their blinds in the morning and soak in that view. He also believes there is a quantifiable value in that view, because the lots on the edge of the hill are more expensive. Mr. Schrag said the coverage map shown by AT&T show unusable coverage, but the map on their website show no gaps it shows saturation. Mr. Schrag wants to know which map is accurate. He also wants to know what would change if the cell tower is built. Mr. Schrag provided maps from Verizon and T Mobile that also show saturation coverage in this area. He would also like to see the data on how many small cells it would take to cover the area. Chair Cardon closed the public portion of this meeting, and asked the Commission if they had any questions for staff. The Commission had no further questions, Chair Cardon called for a motion. A motion was made by Vice Chair Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Berens to deny SUP 22-15. The motion carried 6-0. Chair Cardon polled the Commission. Commissioner Berens stated one reason was the testimony from the affected parties. He would also like to see more research on the coverage from small cell micro towers. He also stated he would like to see a survey on the cell coverage from this neighborhood. Vice Chair Freeman stated, he had the same reasons for his denial. He also stated it does not seem like there is a real need in the area for this. The cons outweigh the need in this situation. 22 The job of the Commission is to protect the community, and he believes there are other options besides this proposal Chair Cardon stated, because of the outpouring of the community demonstrates the cell tower will have a negative impact on their quality of life. She also feel there needs to be a survey, and the need for the cell tower was not shown. Commission Sewell stated he voted to recommend denial because the voice of the people who showed up to discuss this and the concern for their neighborhood. He feels the SUP in not for something nobody wants in their neighborhood. He also feel the need is not there. Commissioner Hanson stated he does not believe the applicant needs to hit every check box on a list. It is a balance; the benefit verses the adversity it creates. The direct neighbors, the people who were within the 100 feet, compelled him. Some are longtime residents, in some cases up to 30 years, and seeing this zoned residential area, this would severely and adversely impact their lives. Commissioner Lockmiller stated the neighborhoods resistance, who would have to see this on a daily basis. She feels this outweighs the need for a tower in that location. She also feels there would be a better location better served and there should be more time to find a location where it would benefit the community without that adverse effect on that neighborhood. PETITION NO. PP 22-26 – a request for a Preliminary Plan approval for a 48-lot subdivision in Tier II. Parcel #R0051700 Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Joe & Stan, LLC –Stan Kozimor, property owners • Representative: Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols • Location: Parcel Number R0051700 • Existing Zoning: N/A Property is located in San Juan County Process • The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plan approval per Section 8.8.9.D of the Unified Development Code • The Preliminary Plan review provides for identification of any issues and determination of compliance with all regulations 23 • The Planning & Zoning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation • Council provides final approval of a Preliminary Plan • The Final Plat may then be submitted to the Commission Background • 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. • Lot sizes range from the 7,031 to 8,853 square feet. 24  Reviews and Comments • Standard review agencies have commented on the plat. • Majority of comments have been addressed • Construction plans are under review Conclusion 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 a preliminary plan approval of a Class 1, 48-lot subdivision of a undeveloped parcel totaling 10.98 acres north of Little Creek VII Subdivision. Property is located in San Juan County. • All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat, including the drainage report. Discussion: Commissioner Hanson asked Planning Manager Escobar would the city infrastructure be built into the plat. It will be built into the plat, and the construction drawing have been received, reviewed and redlined, when complete that will be a signed document. It will be both on the plat 25 and at each sale the buyer will sign off the so the buyer will not be surprised if an annexation happens. When the City looks at annexation it really is to the benefit to the City overall. Commissioner Sewell asked Planning Manager Escobar if the developer would be required to have a certain amount of park space. Planning Manager Escobar replied the City does not require parks in new subdivisions, there is a development fee required for parks. With no further questions, Chair Cardon asks for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Sewell and seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of PP 22-26 as recommended by staff. The motion carried 6-0. PETITION NO. PP 22-28 – A request for a Preliminary Plan approval for a 38-lot subdivision in Tier II. Parcel #R0050231 Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Stonetown Animas Lender • Representative: Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols • Location: Parcel Number R0050231 • Existing Zoning: N/A Property is located in San Juan County Process • The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plan approval per Section 8.8.9.D of the Unified Development Code • The Preliminary Plan review provides for identification of any issues and determination of compliance with all regulations • The Planning & Zoning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation • Council provides final approval of a Preliminary Plan • The Final Plat may then be submitted to the Commission 26  Background • 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. • The subject property is 59.18 acres • The original subdivision plat carved out Tract 3, an existing oil and gas facility. No development will occur on this tract. • 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. • Lot sizes range from the 42,416 – 100,693 square feet. • Existing mobile homes and utilities will need to be relocated to align with plat 27 28  Reviews and Comments • Standard review agencies have commented on the plat. • Majority of comments have been addressed • Construction plans are under review Conclusion 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 a preliminary plan approval of a Class 2, 38-lot subdivision of a undeveloped parcel totaling 59.18 acres in San Juan County. • All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat, including the drainage report. • The final plat shall contain a note requiring the developer to relocate all conflicting residences and utilities to comply with the new lot lines. Discussion: Commissioner Berens asked Planning Manager Escobar about the roads surrounding the subdivision; Planning Manager Escobar pointed them out and stated they were County Roads. He then asked about Fire Marshall Vega’s comments regarding the roads and no hydrants. Ms. Escobar replied there was a response from Cheney Walters Echols that the Animas Water Company, which gets its water supply from the City of Farmington and the internal roads, will be built to city standards. Fire Marshall Vega has approved those corrections. With no further questions, Chair Cardon asks for a motion. A motion was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Sewell for approval of PP 22-28 as recommended by staff. The motion carried 6-0. Cannabis Discussion: Planning Manager Escobar updated the Commission regarding the signage at 918 E. Main; they have had some legal discussion about what is considered a mural and what is not. We are working with the business owner to bring his exterior painting into compliance; the business owner has 29 been very willing to do that. She also mentioned the Daily Times article summarizing the revenue as $666,000 for the City of Farmington. The City will get .25% of that GRT which is about $12,000.00. Commissioner Sewell asked Ms. Escobar is there any special reporting of sales because it is marijuana. Ms. Escobar believes they are speed tracking the sales because of the political ramifications of the decision the State made to legalize it. Planning Manager Escobar informed the Commission in June, there will be an SUP for a marijuana testing lab. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the floor. Business from the Chair: Chair Cardon thanked the Commission for the extra help with SUP 22-15. Business from the Members: Commissioner Sewell informed the Commission he will not be continuing his membership for the Planning & Zoning Commission that is set to expire at the end of May 2022. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar stated to Commission Sewell, he would be missed. She also stated the City Council approved their recommendation for spire on the Farmington Temple. She also wanted to introduce Colby Gibson as the new CDBG Grants Administrator, and he will also be moved into the Planning Division. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Vice Chair Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Sewell. The motion carried unanimously 6-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 3:46 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Joyce Cardon Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 30  1 Supplemental Memo Regarding Objections to Special Use Permit Request SUB 22-15 May 10, 2012 To: The Planning and Zoning Commission From: Gary Risley, 5 Springs Properties, 2705 Rabbitbrush, Farmington, NM 87402 STOPPING THE CORPORATE SPIN CYCLE Introduction My thanks to the Chair and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission for hearing and considering my comments and concerns. I am confident I speak for many others that will be impacted by this proposed cell tower if it were to be approved. I am the owner of the Risley Law Firm building just off Hutton on Rabbitbrush, which overlooks the valley, bluffs, and surrounding area. In my previous comments submitted before the April 12, 2022, meeting, I laid out in detail the great financial investment made by property owners up on Rabbitbrush in the view that will be destroyed by this structure that would dominate the skyline for miles around. Other bases for the denial of the requested special use permit are listed in those comments, and I would encourage you to please read or re-read those comments. I will attach a copy to the email with which these comments are sent. This application is not about cell phone coverage for purposes of talking or texting. As stated numerous times by the Petitioner (Vertical Bridge), this tower is for the desired purpose of expanding 5G broadband data services. As such, there is no defined public need for this service since Comcast (the cable company) and the Centurylink (the phone company) both have internet access available in these neighborhoods at a lower cost than broadband wireless data plans. Therefore, this project is about a cell service provider seeking to expand its data service customer base, which is an understandable goal, but no one is going without internet data services if this permit application is denied. The answers provided in the “questions” presented by Vertical Bridge are the corporate spin machine at its finest. We must stop the spinning and get to the real facts. The real point of this application is that Vertical Bridge wishes to build a tall tower because that is the way it makes money (small cells and towers will be talked about later), and AT&T, understandably, would like to sell more high profit data plans. So this permit pits their desire to pad profits versus people who have invested their lifesavings in their homes and business locations with the current view which is protected by zoning in place when they built or purchased their homes, buildings and properties. The local citizens should prevail under these facts. 31  2 Who is the Petitioner? Vertical Bridge Development engages in the building of cell towers for cell service providers. Its headquarters is in Boca Raton, Florida, and its controlling shareholder is a company called DigitalBridge Investment Management. If there is no need for a 100-foot cell tower (or the petition is rightfully rejected due to its impact on surrounding areas), then Vertical Bridge will not be a player in this matter. It is with this information in hand that one must read the answers provided to the questions Vertical Bridge presented and then answered. Is This Location The Only Viable Location For Placement? No. Read carefully the answer submitted by the Petitioner because it does not answer the question. The answer explains why they like this location, but they never say there are no other viable alternatives or options. The Petitioner does state that this lot is the only available that could accommodate a 100-foot tower as planned but ignores other options that are available (see the discussion below.) It provides information about why Vertical likes this site but avoids the real answer. The honest answer is that there are several other options. I will lay out some background information about 5G broadband and then, in AT&T’s own words, lay out a very viable option to improve 5G broadband in this area. It may not be the cheapest option, but AT&T is not entitled to the cheapest option; in fact, Vertical Bridge and AT&T have zero entitlement to this permit. Small Cell Technology To The Rescue 5G works on multiple bands of radio waves. One of these bands is in the millimeter wave region. Considering the nature of the tiny radio waves used, 5G cells are located optimally 1500 feet or so apart. The industry is moving away from the large towers and going to a small cell system. In 2017, AT&T made a huge media push announcing how it was going to implement 5G technology in residential and urban neighborhoods in a new way. It is called small cell technology. Network Builders Reports quoted AT&T’s VP of network architecture, Hank Kafka: "Millimeter wave is more associated with small cell­like ranges and heights," said AT&T's Hank Kafka, VP of network architecture. "It can be on telephone poles or light poles or building rooftops or on towers, but generally if you're putting it on towers it's at a lower height than you would put a high-powered macrocell, because of the propagation characteristics." . . . Kafka said that in some instances, tower crews might be able to add 5G equipment near the base of the tower at the same time they add 700 MHz radios to the top. But the synergies between the two deployments are limited. (Network Builders Reports) (Emphasis added.) 32  3 On February 28th of this year, AT&T put out press releases on its 5G small cell tower plans. The headline on webpronews.com is “AT&T Installing 5G Small Cell Towers on Street Lights”: 5G promises to revolutionize a range of industries, delivering speeds once thought impossible. Unfortunately, the fastest varieties of 5G are limited by extremely short range and poor building penetration. AT&T’s solution is to install small cell radios on top of street lamps, significantly improving coverage. AT&T is using Ericsson’s Street Radio small cell, a convenient option that can be plugged directly into existing streetlights and has a relatively small profile — an important factor in not making streets look like something from a Frankenstein’d cyberpunk future. The installation can also be done in a mere 15 minutes. “Streetlights are also the perfect deployment point for meeting network infrastructure densification needs because they are typically 8 to 10 meters high, spaced 50 meters apart, have an existing power supply and are within close proximity to fiber,” writes AT&T’s Gordon Mansfield, VP Mobility Access & Architecture. “By using existing infrastructure, this solution reduces costs, streamlines site approval and permitting, and speeds installation. These radios also have smart sensors that allow us to detect failed or downed streetlights in the event of a storm, blackout, or other disruptive event. This helps us in quickly assessing damage and dispatching crews for repairs or alerting the power provider of an issue.” https://www.webpronews.com/att-installing-5g-small- cell-towers-on-street-lights/ Photo above from the article 33  4 From an article on Livewire regarding 5G cells: What Are 5G Small Cells? A small cell in a 5G network is the base station that serves a critical role in the overall network. They're called “small cells” as opposed to "macrocells" used in 4G networks because they’re relatively smaller. 5G vs 4G cell tower Circa.com Since 5G towers don’t require much power, they can be made relatively small. This is important not only for aesthetics but also for space efficiency—small cells support high frequency millimeter waves, which have limited range (more on why this is important below). A 5G cell tower is basically just a small box, like you see in the "5G" labeled image above. While this is how most implementations are turning out, some companies are burying antennas under manhole covers to extend their mobile network through the streets. How 5G Small Cells Works Despite their size, small cells are not weak. The tech inside these cells is what allows 5G to be so fast and support the growing number of devices requiring internet access. Inside a small cell is radio equipment necessary for transmitting data to and from connected devices. The antennas within the small cell are highly directional and use what's called beamforming to direct attention to very specific areas around the tower. These devices can also quickly adjust power usage based on the current load. This means when a radio is not in use, it will drop into a lower power state in just 34  5 a few milliseconds, and then re-adjust just as quickly when more power is needed. 5G small cells are fairly simple in design and can be installed in less than a few hours, sometimes even faster, like with Ericsson's 15-minute streetlight solution, Street Radio 4402. This is very much unlike the beefier 4G towers that take much longer to install and get up and running. 5G Tower Locations 5G promises an extremely interconnected world where everything from smartwatches, vehicles, houses, and farms utilize the ultrafast speeds and low delays it offers. To accomplish this, and to do it well—with as little coverage gaps as possible—it’s required to have a huge number of 5G towers, particularly in areas that demand lots of traffic like big cities, large events, and business districts.” Fortunately, since 5G cell towers are so small, they can be positioned in ordinary places like on light poles, the tops of buildings, and even streetlights. This translates into less traditional-looking towers, but also potentially more eyesores nearly everywhere you look. https://www.lifewire.com/5g-cell-towers-4584192 No 100-Foot Tower Is Needed To Close The Gap So, to summarize: AT&T does have an alternative to close the gaps in data coverage in a manner that is very friendly to residential neighborhoods without constructing 100-foot eyesores that will dominate the landscape for miles. While it may desire another alternative, there is no necessity to build this tower. Other options exist. They admit they could use two or more smaller towers but do not desire to do so for economic or other reasons. If this improvement is not about 5G broadband expansion then a major about-face from the presentation previously made by the Petitioner has occurred. One must then ask, if more than 5G broadband is involved, why was this tower not proposed 15 years ago if the coverage is so bad? They answered the question themselves: 5G works well in the holes. (See further discussion below.) The AT&T response to the question “Why does the tower have to be 100-foot-tall?” that the tower must be at least 96 feet high conflicts with the very words of AT&T’s vice president of networks. The high network demand referred to in the written statement of the Petitioner to the Commission is clearly about data transfer, wireless data is now 5G, and 5G can be provided via small cell technology. It also begs the question: If 96 feet in height is needed, then why would anyone else want to rent the second and third level tiers below the proposed AT&T pods on top? The Petitioner claims that coverage would be inadequate at those elevations. 35  6 Small cell technology answers the question of “Why Build In a Hole?” Now we know. It does not matter if a site is in a hole if small cell technology is used, but small cell technology also eliminates the need for tall towers as AT&T executives have publicly declared. Fiber is nearby on a tremendous percentage of Farmington Utility poles. The tower is not needed. The Petitioner admits data coverage already exists in the area but, according to the Petitioner, a shorter tower would not help neighboring sites since the Hutton site “would not offload sufficient traffic from them.” So really, this tower is about offloading data demands from Main Street, not helping folks in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Whatever the motive, it seems from AT&T’s own public statements that small cell technology is the answer to that problem. It may not be the first choice, but small cells technology is the choice most compatible with the surrounding area. (See also Joe Schrag’s email regarding data coverage in the area that debunks the claim of poor service in this neighborhood.) The City Anticipated 5G Small Cell systems. In my April comments, I quote at length from the City Code regarding the placement of cell systems on city property. I believe Damon Weems mentions them in his latest comments. This ordinance was passed in anticipation of 5G small cells. AT&T should utilize the anticipated system small cell system rather than destroying views that millions of dollars were spent to obtain. AT&T can mount cells to streetlights or power poles and meet the stated goal of sealing any gaps in high-speed data coverage. Yes, There Are Other Suitable Properties Available 36  7 The pink X is the Hutton Street proposed site. The locations in yellow are land areas suitable for 100-foot towers, unnecessary as they are. The City owns the 4.96 acre site on the left side of the picture. No, the areas identified are not in the center of the desired coverage area, but antennas can be made directional. Physical antennas that are directional are called “Yagi’s” after their inventor. Remember your old TV antenna that looked somewhat like an arrow – that was a Yagi. You pointed it at the station to get the best signal. Pointing an antenna due west from the 8.26 acres site shown would provide outstanding coverage. The city-owned 5-acre site would work well with an antenna focused east. Cell towers can be built and utilize electronic Yagi’s. In fact, modern electronic antennas can be adjusted from time to time to change the direction of the field. Again, this may not be AT&T’s preferred antenna to use, or the spots may not be their preferred location, but they were careful to avoid answering the question. Nowhere did they say they could not build a tower anywhere else that would serve, they artfully stated they could not build utilizing the tower and system currently planned. Big difference. The Issue with a 5G Tower, the Airport, and the FAA Is Significant To Farmington The Petitioner glosses over the possible impact of 5G, particularly C band, on radar altimeters and other avionics. To be blunt, AT&T’s opinion is not what matters, the opinion of the FAA does. Mike Lewis, the airport manager, and his predecessors have been working for years to get scheduled service back to Farmington and we might have had it except for COVID-19. This proposed tower is just a short distance from the extended runway centerline of Runway 25. Runway 25 is the primary runway at the airport and has the traditional Instrument Landing System approach, a VOR approach (non-precision), and GPS approaches. If 5G impacts aircraft systems, and the FAA position that it is true until determined otherwise, this tower could kill efforts to attract scheduled service. It would also impact the charter services for hire and cargo carriers (Part 135 operators). The people who fly in the business jets, turboprops, and emergency medical services into Farmington are mostly Part 135 operators. They are affected by the FAA restrictions. On December 9th, 2021, the FAA issued an order that restricts thousands of airplanes (6,834 airplanes and 1,828 helicopters) that use radio altimeters from landing at airports in instrument conditions when 5G is nearby the approach paths. As of January 7, 2022, buffer zones around 50 of the largest airports had been negotiated (5G in C band is not turned on or power reduced for the signal), but the list contains a very large number of other airports where a buffer had not been established. We don’t want our airport, a powerful economic engine, to be impacted. 37  8 According to Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the FAA on January 13, 2022, had issued 1500 Notices To Air Missions (NOTAMS) affecting 1305 airports regarding 5G. This in effect makes instrument approaches off-limits in instrument conditions for those operators or aircraft in which a radar altimeter is required. A prohibition to operate in instrument conditions would have a commercial impact on Farmington. All of your FedEx and many of your UPS packages are delivered by Part 135 carriers. Medical emergency services (air ambulance) are provided by Part 135 operators. If AT&T says they will reduce the power, it blows up its argument that “we need this location and height otherwise the coverage will not be adequate for the proposed area”. While they acknowledge they have reduced power or not turned on 5G at the 50 largest airports in the country after they negotiated a deal with the FAA, they coyly did not make that commitment to Farmington. There is simply no reason to take the risk of impacting airport service when workable alternatives are available. Further, as discussed at the last meeting, until the FAA decides after review of the plans, we do not know that a beacon will not be required on the tower due to its proximity to the airport. (See my previous comments on that issue.) Yes, The People Have A Property Right In the Current Zoning Scheme In answer to a question asked at the previous Commission meeting: Yes, people do have a property right in the current zoning scheme. I will avoid the temptation to list pages of string citations of property law regarding zoning that has developed over the last 100 years. It is black letter law that those of us who relied on the current zoning when selecting, purchasing, and building our buildings and homes have a property right in the zoning that exists. It is this property interest that forces cities to tread carefully if they seek to change things regarding zoning. Ms. Escobar was partially correct when she stated at the last meeting that New Mexico does not recognize an implied easement to a view. If I have a great view across my neighbor’s lot toward the river, and my neighbor builds a 6-foot fence (assuming it is okay under current city zoning, codes, and covenants), I don’t have a right to stop him to protect my view. It is an entirely different point, however, when parties rely upon the zoning in place at the time they invested millions of dollars in their properties to protect their view. Zoning of the lands below the cliff played a role in the development of the land on the cliff. Damon Weems testified that it was the City that encouraged him to develop that location because of its terrific view of the city, the valley, and the bluffs. There are significant legal issues that arise if the City urges someone to take an action and then changes the rules after the investment is made and the work done. A 100-foot tower would dominate the landscape for miles and would destroy the wonderful view that people in the Rabbitbrush area have paid a lot of money to obtain. 38  9 Many people adjacent to the Hutton property below Cliffside below also have a gorgeous view to the west, and it will be totally destroyed by this structure. Granting of this special use permit would be, at a minimum, a breach of trust by the City. If this permit is granted, people would be fools to invest in this community the grossly mistaken belief that they can trust the City when it encourages development for a specified reason and its related zoning regulations. There are economically-viable alternatives available, but Vertical Development and AT&T simply do not wish to use them. This is the reason the Commission exists: To make certain things are not done simply in the best financial interests of large, out-of-state corporations, but in the interests of the community as a whole. The permit application does not meet this standard. The Request Does Not Meet The Special Use Permit Ordinance Requirements My previous comments went into this discussion in detail regarding the fact the permit application does not meet the ordinance requirements, and I would encourage you to review them again. One aspect of the ordinance keeps coming to mind again and again: How on earth can City staff say that the requirements for a special use permit are met when one of those requirements is that the use be “harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening, and density?” No rational mind can say a 100-foot tower in a residential neighborhood is harmonious in character with the area, and, particularly, it is not with relationship to scale or height. A 20- or 30-foot monopole is one thing, a 100-foot tower with three levels of large white pods is another. There is nothing anywhere within sight for miles that will be as tall as or look anything like this structure. It will tower 40 feet above the nearby buildings on the cliff and will rise above the bluffs. And, no, making it look like a 100-foot-tall artificial Christmas tree does not solve the problem. It would be like trying to disguise an elephant in the living room by placing a tablecloth over it. Approval of this special use permit would put the City in breach of its own ordinance on the subject. Conclusion: The Commission should, in its sound discretion, recommend that the City Council reject the requested special use permit. A partial list of reasons is set forth in my previous comments and more are given here as well. The citizens of the surrounding area do not want this tower. It will have a negative impact on them. To my knowledge, no one has come to the Commission saying they really need this improved signal or service. Joe Schrag’s email proves the contrary. 39  10 AT&T and Vertical Bridge are entitled to run a business model that would maximize their profits, but they are not entitled to do so to the detriment and frustration of the surrounding areas, and they are not entitled to a special use permit. Alternatives are available that would have little or no impact on the surrounding area, and those alternatives should be used. Don’t place the City in a breach of trust situation nor put it in violation of its own special use permit ordinance. Honor the City’s commitment made to its citizens through its zoning regulations, use your sound discretion, and recommend denial of the request for the permit. Thank you for your public service and taking time to read these comments. Respectfully submitted, Gary Risley 2705 Rabbitbrush Farmington, NM 87402 (505) 326-1776 40 Memo Regarding Breach of Ordinance if Special Use Permit Request SUB 22-15 Is Granted May 11, 2012 To: The Planning and Zoning Commission From: Gary Risley, 5 Springs Properties, 2705 Rabbitbrush, Farmington, NM 87402 Approval of the Special Use Permit Would Put the City in Violation of Its Own Ordinance Mr. Damon Weems mentioned the city ordinance that has been adopted regarding the construction of wireless communications facilities. The ordinance is 22-8-1 et.seq. The ordinance applies to this tower application. If this special use permit is approved the City will be in violation of its own ordinance. 22-8-2 “Definitions” defines a tower: Tower means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC- licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the tower proposed by Vertical Bridge is covered by the ordinance. With regard to this application 22-8-12 “General requirements for towers and poles” is applicable. (a) Inventory of existing sites. Each applicant for a pole or tower exceeding the height limitation of the affected zoning district shall provide to the planning division an inventory of its existing poles or towers that are either within the jurisdiction of the city or within one mile of the border thereof, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each pole or tower. The applicant shall only be required to provide this information in its first application following implementation of this article, and not thereafter. The planning division may share such information with other applicants applying for permits under this article or other organizations seeking to locate poles or towers within the jurisdiction of the city, provided, however, that the planning division is not, by sharing such information, in any way representing or warranting that such sites are available or suitable. (Emphasis added.) There is no evidence in the record that such an inventory has been done. (b) Lighting . Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the lighting alternatives and design chosen must cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views. 41  At this point, the lighting issue is unsettled until the FAA decides that issue. There is no way to mitigate the impact a beacon will have on the surrounding area; especially, those in the Rabbitbrush subdivision. (e) Visual impact . All towers, poles and small wireless facilities, including equipment enclosures, shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse visual impacts on surrounding properties and the traveling public to the greatest extent reasonably possible, consistent with the proper functioning of the structure or equipment. Such equipment enclosures shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site. Such enclosures shall also be designed to either resemble the surrounding landscape and other natural features where located in proximity to natural surroundings, or be compatible with the built environment, through matching and complimentary existing structures and specific design considerations such as architectural designs, height, scale, color and texture or be consistent with other uses and improvements permitted in the relevant zone. (Emphasis added.) (1) Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness. (2) At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural setting and surrounding buildings. (3) If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. (f) Use of stealth design . Concealment techniques in design districts and historic districts must be appropriate given the proposed location, design, visual environment, and nearby uses, structures, and natural features. Stealth design shall be designed and constructed to substantially conform to surrounding building designs or natural settings, so as to be visually unobtrusive. (Emphasis added.) The visual impact in this residential neighborhood cannot effectively be mitigated. This tower would be visible for miles around town. Any new tower must be sited to minimize that impact and there are other sites, maybe less desirable to AT&T, that reduce the visual impact are available. Other methods to provide coverage are available that will practically eliminate the visual impact are available. Code section 22-8-13 notes preferred tower locations are as follows: The city encourages all applicants for new towers to follow siting priorities, from most- preferred (1) to least-preferred (8): (1) City-owned or operated property or facilities, not including rights-of-way; (2) Commercial and industrial zones; (3) Office zones; (4) Other non-residential zones; 42  (5) City rights-of-way in non-residential zones; (6) City rights-of-way in residential zones; (7) Parcels of land in residential zones; (8) Designated design or historic districts. Vertical Bride and AT&T have not provided any proof that the desired goals of improvement cannot be met without building in a residential zone – the least preferred place to build next to a historic district. Using small cell technology or smaller towers located outside of residential areas may cost a bit more, but there is no evidence it cannot be done on a commercially reasonable basis: Just that AT&T does not want to do it that way. Also AT&T has failed to show, other than stating it is their judgment, that is any need for what they are selling. The applicant and city staff have failed to apply and follow the City’s ordinance with regard to new towers, and approval of the permit will be in breach of it’s the ordinance discussed above as well as the special use permit ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Gary Risley 43 44 45 46 5/11/22, 12:38 PM fmtn.org Mail - [External] 100-Foot Cell Phone Tower Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] 100-Foot Cell Phone Tower 1 message MACK BOYD Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:05 PM To: "bescobar@fmtn.org" <bescobar@fmtn.org> Mack and Liz Boyd , 2911 E 24th St. Farmington NM. This is regarding Special Use Permit Application 22-15 Cell Tower on Hutton. We strongly oppose this permit application to build a 100 Ft. Tower near our home and around the neighborhood. The monstrosity of such a thing will bring down home value amongst being an eyesore to all in this surrounding area. And prefer our families to not be subjected to any illnesses due to the radiation from such a tower. Thank You... Please forward email to the commission. Sent from my iPhone 47 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732554108588466910&simpl=msg-f%3A17325541085… 1/1 5/12/22, 8:45 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Please forward Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Please forward 1 message Dcarr32@gmx.com Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:23 PM To: bescobar@fmtn.org Please forward to the commission. Donna Carrasco 2629 Cliffside Dr. Farmington,NM 87401 Regarding Special Use Permit Application 22-15 Cell tower on Hutton Dear Members of the Commissions, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this permit application to build a 100-foot cell tower near my home and neighborhood. Please vote against this application. I am afraid of the radiation for me and my family, 89 year old mother, kids, grandkids and Great grandkids. It would be a big nuisance to our neighborhood. This would be a downgrade to my home if I were to ever sell it. Thank you Donna Carrasco 48 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732570297832701853&simpl=msg-f%3A17325702978… 1/1 5/10/22, 11:10 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] AT&T tower Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] AT&T tower 1 message Valerie Diaz Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:20 PM To: bescobar@fmtn.org My name is Valerie Diaz at 2405 Mabel Dr. I strongly oppose Special Use Permit Application 22-15 to build a cell tower near my home and neghborhood. Thankyou, Valerie Diaz 49 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732400265066783343&simpl=msg-f%3A17324002650… 1/1 50 5/10/22, 11:08 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Requested special permit for 100 cell tower application 22-15 Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Requested special permit for 100 cell tower application 22-15 1 message autumn goodwin Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:11 PM To: bescobar@fmtn.org Please forward email to commission Dear members of the commission, I am writing this letter to strongly oppose the permit application 22-15 to build a 100 foot cell tower near my home, it will not only block my beautiful view of the bluffs it will also bring down my property value of my home in Rabbitbrush Ridge, please vote against this application, thank you for your consideration and time Autumn and Mark Goodwin 2731 Rabbitbrush drive Farmington NM 87402 Sent from my iPhone 51 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732399679974234209&simpl=msg-f%3A17323996799… 1/1 5/11/22, 9:35 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Special use permit application 22-15 Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Special use permit application 22-15 2 messages Susan Lewis Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:23 PM To: bescobar@fmtn.org Paul and Susan Lewis 2727 Rabbitbrush Dr Farmington NM 87402 505-330-2653 Dear Members of the Commission, This letter is in regards to the 100 ft cell phone tower that is proposed on this special permit application 22-15. My wife Susan and I are strongly opposed to this application of said tower due to numerous reasons. This tower will most definitely lower the property values to our beautiful subdivision and all surrounding areas! The tower will also ruin our views to the south with the river valley and the Bluffs. There are far better locations on hills nearby instead of the lowest point in the area for optimal cell coverage. Thank you for considering our grievances towards the 100 foot monstrosity that has been proposed without any consideration of nearby homes and families. Also the negative impact on all the property values and investments. Paul and Susan Lewis Sent from my iPad 52 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732472186384886431&simpl=msg-f%3A17324721863… 1/2 5/11/22, 9:35 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Special use permit application 22-15 Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> Wed, May 11, 2022 at 9:24 AM To: Susan Lewis <susielewis70@gmail.com> Received. I will share this with the Planning & Zoning Commission. Beth Escobar, AICP Planning Manager City of Farmington Planning Division Community Works Department (505) 599-1285 [Quoted text hidden] 53 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732472186384886431&simpl=msg-f%3A17324721863… 2/2 5/10/22, 11:07 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Regarding Special Use Permit Application 25-15 Cell tower on Hutton Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Regarding Special Use Permit Application 25-15 Cell tower on Hutton 1 message Darla Martinez Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:03 PM To: "bescobar@fmtn.org" <bescobar@fmtn.org> Hey my name is Darla Martinez, I live on 2419 Avery Lane Farmington NM. Dear Members of the Commission, my family and I strongly oppose this permit application to build a 100 foot cell tower near my home and neighborhood. Please vote against this application. There are so many reasons to why we oppose this permit, such as bones from the tower could fall off of said tower, the health problems that can be caused, the ugly view and much more. 54 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732395435280327984&simpl=msg-f%3A17323954352… 1/1 5/10/22, 12:37 PM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Special Use Permit Application 22-15 Cell tower on Hutton Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Special Use Permit Application 22-15 Cell tower on Hutton 1 message Connie Nordstrom Tue, May 10, 2022 at 9:24 AM To: Beth Escobar <bescobar@fmtn.org> Cc: Connie Nordstrom <nordcj@gmail.com> To: Members of the Commission: A few years ago I built my retirement home in what I consider to be the best location in Farmington. From my backyard, on the edge of the bluff above Cliffside Drive, I can see the Animas River Valley, the Bluffs on the other side of the San Juan River and the town of Farmington that I am so fond of. I can also see the proposed site of the above mentioned Cell tower. It makes me sad to think of a cell tower in the middle of this spectacular view. So, I am requesting that you vote against this permit application to build a 100-foot tower near my home and neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and hopefully your vote. Connie J Nordstrom 2825 Brittlebrush Drive Farmington, NM 87402 Sent from Mail for Windows 55 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732453331776970799&simpl=msg-f%3A17324533317… 1/1 5/11/22, 1:08 PM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Requested special use permit for 100foot tower Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Requested special use permit for 100foot tower 1 message E RANDOLPH Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:23 AM To: "bescobar@fmtn.org" <bescobar@fmtn.org> Please forward to the commission. My name is Erin Randolph my address is 2401 Avery Ln, Farmington NM 87402 this is regarding the special use permit application 22-15 Cell tower on Hutton Dear members of the commission, I strongly oppose the permit application to build a 100' cell tower in my backyard of my home and neighborhood. I have lived in this little neighborhood for about 12 years and picked it because of the beautiful trees, landscaped yards. I have worked extra hard in my backyard making it beautiful as a place to spend time with family and friends. I strongly oppose a 100' tower in my neighborhood but also so close to where we spend time together as a family and sit to watch our view of this gorgeous NM sunset. Please Vote against this application. Imagine if it was your backyard. Please vote No. I am unable to make the trial due to work issues, please consider this. Thankyou Erin Randolph 505-330-0818 Get Outlook for iOS 56 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732551413776793155&simpl=msg-f%3A17325514137… 1/1 5/10/22, 11:10 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] Regarding Special Use Permit Application 22-15 Cell Tower on Hutton Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] Regarding Special Use Permit Application 22-15 Cell Tower on Hutton 1 message Frankie Rascon Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:49 PM To: bescobar@fmtn.org My name is Frankie Rascon I live at 2414 Avery Ln, Farmington, NM 87402. Dear Members of the Commission, I strongly oppose this permit application to build a 100 foot cell tower near my home and neighborhood. Please vote against this application. I am concerned it will being property values down. Thank you 57 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732402114447910522&simpl=msg-f%3A17324021144… 1/1 5/12/22, 8:42 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] 22-15 cell tower Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] 22-15 cell tower 1 message Rebecca Olson Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:48 PM To: bescobar@fmtn.org Please forward my email to the commission, We strongly oppose to the tower!! Hello my name is Rebecca M Olson I live with my family of five at 2630 Mabel drive. We have a beautiful location in the city. Putting a huge ugly tower at my front door is not ok! 1. it’s huge and ugly 2. Radiation 3. Property value I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my beautiful yard and home looking up at a tower. Thank you Rebecca M Olson (505)360-7610 58 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732571915050552360&simpl=msg-f%3A17325719150… 1/1 5/11/22, 9:46 AM fmtn.org Mail - [External] defeat of special permit application Escobar, Beth <bescobar@fmtn.org> [External] defeat of special permit application 1 message alan spranger Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:18 PM To: bescobar@fmtn.org Beth, please forward this e-mail to the commission that deals with the application for the proposed cell tower. Alan P Spranger 2723 Rabbitbrush Dr. Regarding special use permit application 22-15, cell tower on Hutton To whom this may concern, I, as a Rabbit Brush Ridge home owner, vehemently oppose this cell tower application/location to build a 100 foot cell tower near my home and neighborhood! We purchased our home in RabbitBrush Ridge specifically to enjoy a gated community ( the only one in Farmington) with beautiful views etc. I feel that this tower would spoil the view and have a negative effect on my property value. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS APPLICATION! 59 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52fa37d06e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1732471860001428569&simpl=msg-f%3A17324718600… 1/1  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase Two Petition No. FP 22-35 A. STAFF REPORT, May 26, 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase Two Representative Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application April 26, 2022 Requested Action Final Plat Approval Location R0055371 Existing Zoning N/A San Juan County Surrounding North: SJ County South: SJ County Zoning and Land East: SJ County Use West: SJ County Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Final Plats do not require notice Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 18 residential lots Acres of Land 10.41 acres Minimum Lot Size 32,674 to 53,425 square feet Utilities Water: Animas Valley Water Co. (City of Farmington water) Sewer: Septic Electric: Per FEUS Engineering Access & Per City Standards Circulation Street Lights Per San Juan County Standards Street Sign Per San Juan County Standards Fire Hydrants Per Fire Department Standards Drainage Per City Standards P & R’s Fees N/A NBU Mail Box Coordinate with USPS 1 60  Staff Report FP 22-35 Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase Two GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for the Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase II, a single-family 18-lot subdivision located in Tier II of the City’s Planning & Platting Jurisdiction in San Juan County. Access to the subdivision is from Morning Star Drive. The street infrastructure for this phase has already been installed and per the plat note will be maintained by the developer. The Preliminary Plan for this subdivision was approved by City Council on October 12, 2021. STAFF ANALYSIS Per Section 8.8.4 of the Unified Development Code, all subdivisions shall comply with the following minimum standards: A. Design and improvement standards. All subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of: (1) Article 5, development standards; and (2) Article 6, subdivision design and improvements. Staff Comments: Through staff review, the plat as presented meets, or will be required to meet through stipulations of approval, development standards and design and improvement requirements. B. Waivers. The commission may recommend and the council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny waivers of the standards in section 6.4, subdivision design standards, during the platting process. Staff Comments: No waivers are requested for this application. C. Zoning consistency. All subdivisions and the resulting lots shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable underlying zone district. Staff Comments: There is no zoning in San Juan County. The large lot sizes accommodate the existing topography and the placement of septic systems. The plat provides easements for drainage and utilities. The water, gas and electric utility infrastructure are already installed. Septic systems will be installed at the time each lot is sold. 61  Staff Report FP 22-35 Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase Two 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: N/A, property is located in San Juan County. 62 Aerial Map of Surrounding Area 4 63  Staff Report FP 22-35 Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase Two Final Plat Sheet 1 64  Staff Report FP 22-35 Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase Two Final Plat Sheet 2 65  Staff Report FP 22-35 Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase Two STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition FP 22-35, Coyote Ridge Subdivision, Phase Two, a Class 2, 18-lot subdivision in Tier II of the City of Farmington Planning & Platting Jurisdiction is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 22-35, a Final Plat for Coyote Ridge Phase Two Subdivision, a submittal from BC Land Developers, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols for Final Plat approval of a 18- lot, Class 1, subdivision of a vacant 10.41-acre parcel located in Tier II, 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 for signature, including noted issues in this report. 7 66