Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive August 25, 2022 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the August 11, 2022 P&Z Meeting 4 PETITION NO. ZC 22-64 – A request from Mike Smith for a ZC: Zone Change from SF 7 – Single family residential to MF-M - multi-family medium density. Located at 1116 Smith Ln. Parcel No. R0027655. This item will be heard at the September 8 Hearing. 5 PETITION NO. PP 22-66 – A request from Mike Hamilton, represented by Scott Martin, Sakura Engineering, for a Preliminary Plan approval for a 26-lot subdivision located in the City of Farmington’s Tier I Planning & Platting Jurisdiction. Mesa Vista Subdivision #8 Replat A. Parcel No. R60020282. This item will be heard at the September 8 Hearing. 6 DISCUSSION regarding Wildland Urban Interface – Tabled from the July 28, 2022 Planning & Zoning Meeting 7 DISCUSSION regarding the draft Housing Snapshot Plan – Tabled from the July 28, 2022 Planning & Zoning Meeting 8 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 August 11, 2022 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on August 11, 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 Cheryl Ragsdale Ryan Brown Cody Waldroup Gary Hanson Gary Smouse P&Z Members Absent: Shay Davis Clete Berens Staff Present: Beth Escobar Mike Safrany Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission: Martin Archuleta Bob Echols Scott Bird Mike Hamilton Charles Fred Amelia Gonzales Kristy Visconti Ken Coleman Gary Moffitt Tamara Tabor Vince Moffitt Clifton Horace Call to Order Chair Cardon called the meeting to order at 2:59 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda After the removal of the “discussion regarding the Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process” from the agenda a motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the agenda of the August 11, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 6-0 vote (Vice Chair Freeman had not arrived yet). Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 7-0 vote. Swearing of Witnesses Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak. PETITION NO. CV 22-60 – Discussion & possible action regarding a request to waive the 300 foot distance requirement from a cannabis facility and a religious institution for a cannabis retail facility located at 109 W Broadway Ave. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: High Altitude Exotics • Representative: Martin Archuleta • Location: 109 W Broadway • Existing Zoning: CB: Central Business • Request: Variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a cannabis facility to another cannabis facility. • Petitioner hopes to transition from CBD and paraphernalia sales to retail sales of cannabis. Subject Property Aerial View Street View  Cannabis Variance • On July 26, 2022 adopted a resolution requiring that the Planning & Zoning Commission review all variance and waiver requests related to cannabis. The Commission will make a recommendation to City Council. • Previously, per the Unified Development Code, all waiver and variance requests were heard by the Administrative Review Board. Since 2021, the Administrative Review Board has approved five requests for a variance to the 300-foot distance requirement: • 4339 E Main Street – Zia Toke • 3000 E 20th - The Reef Joint • 3150 E Main St – Score 420 • 3024 E Main – PurLife • 7101 E Main St – NM Alternative Care • The ARB found in all cases that the applications were a minimum easing of the code, met the intent of the code and were properties that had characteristics unique enough to allow for waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement. Staff Analysis • An cannabis retail sales business seems appropriate for this location. Surrounding uses are a mix of commercial and industrial. • Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Downtown: Specialty Retail Use • The subject property is in a commercial area. The actual walking distance from the front door of The alChemist to the subject property is 565 feet. It is 477 feet from the subject property to the Restoration Worship Center at 213 S Orchard. Public Notice • Letters were sent to 27 surrounding property owners. At the time of this report no public input has been received. Staff Recommendation • The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 22-60, a request from Martin Archuleta of High Altitude Exotics for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from another retail cannabis facility and a religious institution. • A City of Farmington business registration will be required. • A building/fire inspection shall be required. • A building permit shall be required for any remodeling. Discussion Vice Chair Freeman started a conversation regarding why the Planning & Zoning Commission (&Z) was now hearing the Cannabis Variances instead of the Administrative Review Board (ARB). Planning Manager Escobar the ARB is a semi judicial board; their decisions are final unless appealed to the City Council within 15 days of the ARB’s decision. This change was made so the City Council would be more involved in these decisions. The Cannabis Variance would be heard by P&Z for recommendation of approval or denial, and then be heard by Council. Petitioner Martin Archuleta, 208 W. Tycksen, Farmington NM, 87401 Mr. Archuleta stated they are a vertically integrated cannabis licensee; they can produce, manufacture and will move into retail sales. He also stated they are currently cultivating their cannabis out on La Plata Hwy and will be harvesting in October in anticipation of opening their retail shop. Mr. Archuleta added they are integrating a strain called Mothers Blessing and its sales, will be used for charitable donations, in honor of his mother. Mr. Archuleta added they already have the storefront set up as a smoke shop, and will comply with any ordinances and building codes on the City and State level for adult cannabis retail sales. Vice Chair Freeman asked what security and safety measures would change under their new licensing. Mr. Archuleta replied they required by the state to be under 24 hour-monitored surveillance, and they have added alarms. Chair Cardon asked how many employees there would be and if they have adequate parking. Mr. Archuleta stated for now it will be the five business partners, and there will be parking in the front and back of the store. He added they have implemented safety protocols; there will be an observer to watch and make sure nothing has been tampered with. With no public input Chair Cardon closed the public portion of the meeting. Commission Discussion Commissioner Smouse asked if Restoration Family Worship Center had responded to the letter sent out by Staff. Planning Manager Escobar answered they had not. She added we are not even sure the church is still in operation. There is not contact information other than an address. Commissioner Smouse also asked if Staff had heard from the other cannabis facility, The alChemist, located on Main St. Planning Manager Escobar replied they were aware of this petition and had not submitted any comments. Commissioner Smouse asked what the reason was for the 300 foot distance limitation to another cannabis facility. Ms. Escobar replied there is no cap on the number of cannabis facilities that can open in the city. Council chose to implement the 300 foot. distance as a way to control the number of facilities. Commissioner Waldroup asked how ARB was able to approve the other variances. Planning Manager Escobar explained ARB reviewed the variances based on the criteria for a variance. She added public comment weighs heavily on the decision and there was no public comment on any of these applications. ARB also looked at whether there was negative impact to the surrounding property or overall, and they decided there was not. Each case was reviewed on its individual merits. . Ms. Escobar noted the City adopted the same process as a liquor license, and the liquor license excluded the public right-of-way. She feels that in the next few months there may be more changes to the code brought before City Council. Commissioner Smouse was concerned the Commission may be setting a precedent in terms of going against the city codes written intent. Ms. Escobar reminded the Commission they are only a recommending body and this will not be setting a precedent. Council will make their decision when they have their first discussion on August 23rd. Vice Chair Freeman asked if Staff had any concerns that after these businesses have been approved for business, that some of them will end up closing for one reason or another, leaving the city will be empty storefronts. Planning Manager Escobar replied that could happen with any new business. She added she has talked to the City of Aztec, and they have the same concerns, however a business for six month, is that better than no business for a year? It is hard to tell. Commissioner Waldroup added you have this with any business, and the same happened in Colorado. They had an influx, and then over time competition killed some of the facilities. Commissioner Smouse brought up the fact that there are barriers to entry, which were put into place. Now we are finding reasons to sidestep the barriers. He asked Ms. Escobar if staff was looking to make changes to the code, would that be to strengthen or ease the code. She replied neither, with this first presentation on this application; she is looking to get Council’s feedback. The ARB has approved six variances and there are 27 cannabis facilities. Nobody anticipated that number. Commissioner Waldroup added his concern that it is not fair to this applicant if the other variances were approved and this may not be, because it went through a different governing body. Commissioner Smouse replied that is probably why the cannabis variances were move to P&Z then to City Council for approval or denial. Ms. Escobar added the City Council always had the ability to appeal the ARB decision; they just had not until the last ARB variance approval. Ms. Escobar asked the Commission to make a recommendation on what they think is a fair analysis. Commissioner Brown asked Planning Manager Escobar if the City Council put that 300 foot. distance into the code to limit cannabis facilities. Ms. Escobar replied yes, it was. Commissioner Waldroup thought this discussion would be beneficial to City Council. He feels Council would hear what P&Z has to say as well. Commissioner Hanson added, since Council declined to put a cap on the number of shops allowed, his indication would be to approve it and let City Council handle them on that basis. Commissioner Hanson made a motion to approve CV 22-60 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Waldroup seconded the motion. The Planning & Zoning recommended approval to City Council with a vote of 6-1 Chair Cardon polled the Commission: Commissioner Brown moved to approve based on the proximity to the other cannabis facility are on two different streets. He does not feel they will adversely affect each other, and the fact there was no feedback from the religious institution. Commissioner Waldroup seconded the motion because the precedence that was set by the ARB. He does feel it is fair to the applicant to possibly be denied by City Council. He also feels there needs to be a clear decision in this process, instead creating a law then finding a way to go around it. Commissioner Smouse stated his denial was based this was put into the code for a reason and he feels like the Commission is stepping outside the bounds of what the intent was. He also stated the variance would go forward from owner to owner and that is still encroaching on that 300 ft. rule. Vice Chair Freeman voted aye mainly because of the location. He felt that 300 ft. intent was not a factor in this location; they will be located on separate streets and that distance was enough to substantiate to vote for recommendation approval. The only hesitation he has was that City Council did put the 300 ft. distance in place, and maybe he should stand behind City Council and the limitations put into place. Chair Cardon voted aye because a variance in our city code was established and a petitioner has a right to question that code, and to come before a City board to get resolution on it. I also voted aye because the Staffs documentation was clearly stated. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye mainly for the same reason as the other Commissioners, and if there was conflict with the church, it is over 400 ft. and the other cannabis facility is over 500 ft. away for this establishment. Commissioner Hanson generally agrees with the other Commissioners. He added the ordinance does exist for these limitations, likewise they provide for the variance possibility in every instance. He also feels the City Council had their opportunity to limit the number of cannabis location and they chose not to. He believes a number of locations may need to be decided by the Council and this will help get that in front of them with that. Commissioner Brown declared a conflict with ZC 22-62 and PP 22-58 PETITION NO. ZC 22-62 – Discussion & possible action regarding a request for a ZC: Zone Change from SF 10 – Single family residential to PD: Planned Development for an Adult Living Community, Sandstone at San Juan Country Club. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Scott Bird • Representative: Robert Echols, C-W-E • Location: North of San Juan Country Club Phase 2 • Parcel # R0033344 • Existing Zoning: SF:10 – Single family residential • Requested zone change to PD: Planned Development • Parcel Size: 26.05 acres  Zoning Request • Petitioner is requesting a Zone Change from SF: 10, Single-family residential to PD: Planned Development for Adult Living Community with 53 residential lots, 2 open space lots, a storm water pond, a caretakers plaza (Lot 13) and a community center. Lots range from 7,500 square feet to 14,700 square feet. • Residential lots are proposed to have a 20-foot front setback, 25 feet for a garage, a 25- rear setback, and a 20-foot street side setback. The applicant is requesting a zone change from SF:10 to PD to allow for smaller lots and two non-residential uses. • The standard setbacks for the SF:10 zoning district are 30 feet in the front, 15 feet in the rear and five on the interior sides for single story homes. • Lot sizes range from 7,000 square feet to 22,750 square feet. • Entrances to the subject property will be from two existing roads in San Juan Country Club, Footjoy and Big Cedar. Project Details • Due to the number of existing lots in the San Juan Country Club Subdivision, a third egress is required for the new development, per Section 6.4.6.B.(3). Per the Preliminary Plan submitted this third access will be constructed at the north end of the project, across a private property parcel and connect with Lakewood Drive. • The request for smaller lots, less than the required 10,000 square foot lot size required in the SF:10 zoning district, is to create a walkable community. • The caretaker’s plaza and community center will provide services to the residents of Sandstone at San Juan Country Club. • The two open space parcels will dedicate a total of 9.03 acres to remain undeveloped. • Lot 58 designates an existing storm water pond. • This will be a gated community. Proposed Circulation  Aerial Map Wide- Range Aerial  2040 Comprehensive Plan Public Input • Letters were sent to 24 surrounding property owners. • Concerns about sub-standard wastewater system • The existing system serving the San Juan Country Club is deficient and will be improved as part of the new subdivision • Concerns about impact on intersection of E. Main and Country Club Drive • This is a fully signalized intersection. Analysis • Under the SF:10 zoning designation, approximately 100 residential lots could be developed on this property.  • Under the SF:10 zoning, lots would only be required to be 15 feet from the property line. • As proposed, residential lots will be 260 feet from the western boundary, 50 feet from the southern boundary (except for lot #1) and 25 feet from the north and east boundary lines. • The proposed layout provides buffering to the north, south and west so the higher density of residential units does not negatively impact the surrounding properties. • Existing drainage issues and wastewater infrastructure deficiencies shall be addressed through the platting process. • Project will provide an off-site egress to the north. Staff Recommendation • The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 22-62, a request from Scott Bird for a Planned Development for Adult Living Community with 53 residential lots, 2 open space lots, a storm water pond, a caretakers plaza (Lot 13) and a community center(Lot 14). Lots range from 7,500 square feet to 14,700 square feet. 1. Site will be developed in general conformance to the site plan and drawings submitted with the zone change application. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, City staff and the project engineer shall finalize the design of the third required access 3. Final Plat approval for Sandstone at San Juan County shall be required. 4. All necessary building permits shall be obtained. Discussion Chair Cardon reiterated that with this zone change to Planned Development and adding that notation to the plat, it secures the open spaces, no further development can happen on these spaces. Planning Manager Escobar agreed and added this is an entitlement and it cannot be re- plated without going through this public process again, and having P&Z and City Council vote on it. Chair Cardon also added this kind of community is needed in Farmington. Chair Cardon asked Ms. Escobar if the City would look into getting public transit out that way. Ms. Escobar replied in the 2040 Comp Plan, one of our designated identified economic segments is an active senior community. She added Red Apple Transit only services arterial streets, it does not go into neighborhoods, but that might change as federal funding comes available for public transportation. It is something the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Commission is working on, getting transit that is more available into neighborhoods. Ms. Escobar added this is not something we are expecting the applicant to do. Commissioner Waldroup asked Planning Manager Escobar who would be in charge of maintaining those streets. Ms. Escobar replied this would be the petitioner’s responsibility, and that is noted on the plat. Vice Chair Freeman asked Planning Manager Escobar who is responsible for paving that third access point? Ms. Escobar stated the petitioner is responsible for all off-site improvements to build that third access. Vice Chair also asked if Lakewood Dr. was planned to extend down to Main St. Ms. Escobar noted Mr. Echols has had extensive conversations on that subject. However that extension is a little more problematic because of the checkerboard of owners of the properties leading to Main St. Chair Freeman asked if a project like this make that extension a higher priority? Ms. Escobar replied yes, and those connections are driven by the MPO, who works with our Engineering Department. She also explained that if this approved, it would then show up on our map, and we could apply for the funding for the extension to Main St. Vice Chair Freeman added it would benefit the City by adding an additional access point to that area. Commissioner Smouse asked Planning Manager Escobar about the infrastructure issues concerning wastewater and the statement “no adverse impact”. Ms. Escobar replied that after they meet the engineering requirements, there would be no adverse impact. Petitioner Representative, Bob Echols, 909 W. Apache St., Farmington, NM 87401 Mr. Echols stated the zone change is the first step in the process of being able to move forward with the adult living community. It will also give him the ability to put in the 53 lots as opposed to a development that could come in and put in 100 lots. Included is the protection of the neighbors with the open space to the south, north and primarily to the west. He added Farmington is in need of an adult living community. They are proposing smaller lots, because as we age, the smaller lots are easier to maintain and the smaller homes will be affordable. The residents at this location will have access to some of the amenities offered by the Country Club. It is a gated community. With this development and the access to Lakewood Dr., the developer is responsible to acquire that right-of-way and to improve Lakewood Dr. to City standards required for that third access. In addition to that, we would loop the waterline from Lakewood Dr. into the County Club development. We are also going to extend a new sanitary sewer system that will come off the east side where the existing lift station is all the way down to E. Main St. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Echols to give the Commission some insight on the infrastructure concerning the wastewater that currently exists. Mr. Echols explained the lift station that currently serves that portion of the County Club was built in Phase II development of Country Club. It was originally designed to serve 22-25 lots, and then it is pumped back to the gravity sewer system that is in the Country Club. He added that lift station has been a problem from the beginning, with this development we will be able to get rid of the lift station because we can gravity flow all the sewer out of this development to E. Main St. Mr. Echols added this is not cheap solution. The developers are prepared to participate in those costs to get that done. Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Echols if he was awaiting approval from the property owners to the east for the finalization of this plat, before you can do the wastewater improvement. Mr. Echols replied they would have to have right-of-way from those properties to put in the new sewer system. That would have to be done before the final plat can be recorded. Mr. Echols added those property owners have expressed interest in developing those properties. Commissioner Waldroup asked Mr. Echols if drainage was going to be a challenge in that area. Mr. Echols replied drainage has always been a challenge there. That pond was built for that purpose several years ago. The developer would like to have the City ultimately take over and maintain that pond. We are in the process of working that out with the City. Petitioner, Scott Bird, 6034 Lakewood Ln., Flora Vista, NM 87415 Mr. Bird stated this project was invented two years ago. It was originally an economic development project. He agrees that a gated community in Farmington and San Juan County would be a great attribute to the City. The vision is to provide a community with golf cart garages, and we envision many golf carts in the community and going to the Country Club. Each of the lots will be required to have a social membership at San Juan Country Club, which will give access to the amenities and will benefit the Country Club. It is a unique community to Farmington and San Juan County and is sorely needed if we want to attract retirees and remote workers. Both of those are high priority for the Chamber of Commerce, Four Corners Economic Development and the City of Farmington. Our first rendition was of this was 96 lots, which the Home Owners Association 2 (HOA 2) area of San Juan Country Club would not support that. Through those negations, we reduced the lots from 96 down to the existing 55. San Juan Development Corp., which is the existing landowner and HOA 2 are currently in litigation around ownership and ongoing maintenance of the current lift station. After several meetings with HOA 2 and San Juan Development Corp., it was agreed that construction of this sewer line would solve the problem, and then the lawsuit between those two entities could eliminate the litigation and most importantly eliminate the sewer pump station, which is an environmental hazard and a poorly functioning system. Both HOA 2 and San Juan Development Corp have agreed to help fund construction of the new sewer system. The City of Farmington concurred and is considering funding a portion of the sewer line. The new sewer line will open potential for development of an additional 250 acres to the east. Mr. Bird stated there were concerns regarding increased traffic going through the Country Club. He did some research; in 55+, communities’ average 3.7 – 5.6 trips per day. Non-55, a conventional subdivision make 9.5 trips per day. That is about a 23% reduction in trips per day. Financially, they have commitments from 17 citizens totaling $1.3 million. They hope to earn a return on this, but are more interested in the concept of the development to create a community which all of us can be proud and a unique lifestyle for its residents. Petitioner, Mike Hamilton, 6220 Old Course Dr., Farmington, NM 87402 Commissioner Smouse asked Mr. Hamilton if the proposed new sewer line would be large enough to support the additional homes that would be developed on the properties to the east. Mr. Hamilton replied the new sewer line would handle the 26 in the Country Club, the proposed new 55, and the 250+ acres to the east. Commissioner Smouse asked what the estimated cost to the new sewer line would be. Mr. Hamilton replied with the cost of inflation it will run around $600,000.00. Public Comments from Affected Parties Charles Fred, 6730 Footjoy Rd., Farmington, NM 87402 Mr. Fred stated he lives at the corner of Club House Dr. and Footjoy Rd., his backyard property line borders the property of the proposed development. He built his house 12 years ago and is vehemently opposed to this development. When he asked about the undeveloped property he was told they would not develop it until x number of lots were sold in Phase II. He believes the proposed number of lots at that time, on the undeveloped property was 34. Mr. Fred feels if that property is developed his property value will go down because it will devalue his property. He mentioned the Home Owners Association (HOA), and that he does not always agree with them, but with all their rules, they help keep your property values where they should be. Mr. Fred mentioned he has been paying additional HOA dues for road maintenance and he wants to know if the proposed development was going to contribute to the HOA to help maintain the roads. He also wanted to know if the semi-trucks hauling in construction materials would damage the roads. Amelia Gonzales, 6320 High Point Dr., Farmington NM 87402 Ms. Gonzales stated her property is approximately 10 acres, which is directly to the west of the proposed development. She has received letters in the past regarding development of that property. The last letter, received in 2006, stated there would be approximately 34 lots developed on that property. She attended all the public meetings regarding the proposed 34-lot development, and had no problem with that development knowing it would be a nice neighborhood that would be well maintained. Ms. Gonzales also stated she decided on her property because of its natural landscaping, peace and serenity. She added that most of her neighbors felt the same way. Now she is disappointed that the she will have to look down on the development with their tiny ugly homes and it will look like a senior citizens centipede. Ms. Gonzales is also worried about her property value going down because her view will be ruined with the new development. She also feels the City had not corresponded with all the parties that will be affected by this development. Kristy Visconti, 6316 High Point Dr., Farmington NM 87402 Ms. Visconti stated she is worried about the increased traffic and the size of the lots and homes that will be built in the new development. She also added she is worried about the noise. Ms. Visconti understands about the growth and feels the community would benefit from a center like this. She is happy to see they are thinking about infrastructure and access roads and how they will be maintained. Vice Chair Freeman asked Ms. Visconti if High Point Dr. accesses Country Club Dr., and how she accesses and egresses from her property. Ms. Visconti replied no, it does not, and she accesses and egresses from either Lakewood Dr. or Jackrabbit Junction. Vice Chair Freeman then asked if traffic from the proposed development would impact people living on High Point Dr. She replied no, but she feels it will definitely have an impact for people living in the Country Club. Ms. Gonzales wanted to clarify, she and Ms. Gonzales both live on top of the High Point hill and that noise travels up, with increased traffic they will have increased noise. Vice Chair Freeman asked what the grade level is. Ms. Gonzales replied it was at least 35 degrees angle. Chair Cardon asked Mr. Echols if traffic noise is taken into consideration when plating the development. Mr. Echols replied that it could. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Echols if the development would have single level homes throughout. Mr. Echols replied yes they would all be single level homes. Commissioner Smouse asked what the average sq. footage of the proposed homes would be and what the medium price range is. Mr. Bird replied approximately 1600 square feet. to 2400 square feet. and they will be priced from $300,000 to $500,000. Public Comments from Interested Parties Ken Coleman, 6530 Clubhouse Dr., Farmington, NM 87402 Mr. Coleman is a homeowner and the HOA 2 board member. Mr. Coleman was surprised this meeting was being held. The HOA 2 had a meeting on July 27th and has not voted on this matter yet. He feels this meeting is premature, HOA 2 was supposed to get information and give a vote to the homeowners. Mr. Coleman added he spoke to Planning Manager Escobar to ask her why this meeting was being held. Ms. Escobar replied it was agreed upon, that the homeowners and the HOA 2 board said to go ahead with it. Mr. Coleman handed out documentation to the Commission. (See documentation below) Documentation Provided by Ken Coleman: Mr. Coleman went over the documentation with the Commission. He feels this petition should be tabled until after HOA 2 and the board have their chance to vote on it at the September 14, 2022 meeting. Commissioner Waldroup asked Mr. Coleman the HOA 2 board has spoken with Mr. Bird. Mr. Coleman replied they have not spoken. Commissioner Waldroup asked who owns this property, Mr. Coleman replied San Juan Development owns it and has developed Phase II 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are not developing this one. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Coleman what the process is. Mr. Coleman stated that when the lots are sold the owner has to pay dues to the HOA. The HOA has sold all their lots and they own this 26-acre property for the proposed development. Now they are transferring their ownership to another company. Mr. Coleman feels the PUD should still stand unless the homeowners have a chance to vote on it, like their covenants states. Commissioner Hanson needed some clarification, and asked Mr. Coleman, San Juan Development owns this 26-acre tract and it is subject to the covenants that applies to the entire Country Club development. Mr. Coleman referred to the letter from Mike Sullivan who was the Community Development Director from the City of Farmington, stating you can only put 34 lots on that property. Therefore, it is subject to the covenants to Phase II. Commissioner Hanson asked what the legal basis is for HOA 2 having a say in the outcome of that property. Mr. Coleman answered the covenants say they cannot change the size of the houses or the offsets unless you have a vote from the HOA. Mr. Coleman that added if this is Phase II number 5, the covenants would apply. Planning Manager Escobar wanted to clarify the City is not subject to covenants that are private agreements with private property owners. The applicant is before you for this lot specifically to get entitlement for the plan they have presented. Whether it is approved by the HOA or not, is not really under your purview, if it is not approved they will not move forward and it may end up in litigation. Commissioner Smouse asked Ms. Escobar if the HOA has rights to this phase. Ms. Escobar stated she would leave that interpretation up to an attorney. The City does not administer, or enforce and we are not subject to covenants. There is also no entitlement to this property. This petition is for the preliminary zone change, you will hear the petition for the preliminary plat next. Approval of these petitions allows the developer and his engineers to move forward with finalizing the design, finalizing the acquisition of right-of-way and finalizing the infrastructure plan. Until they have that base plan, they cannot move forward. Chair Cardon added we are here to look at the zone change vs. the planned development (PD). We know there are advantages to the PD. We are not looking at traffic studies, not looking at who owns what. We are looking at the possibility that this company wants to move forward with this project. Planning Manager added this project has been property noticed, we noticed all property owners within 100 ft. Which included a notice to the Country Club HOA, which was mailed July 21 2022. Mr. Coleman asked whom the HOA notice was mailed to. Ms. Escobar replied to the San Juan Country Club Estates Association at 6490 Old Course Dr. Mr. Coleman wanted clarification to what Mr. Sullivan was referring too in his letter. Sterg Katirgis, 6727 Footjoy Rd., Farmington, NM 87402 Mr. Katirgis stated he lives across the street from Mr. Fred. He is retired and planned to be in a quiet neighborhood. He would not have bought his property six years ago if he knew this was going to happen. He added that earlier Mr. Hamilton stated there would be approximately 250 vehicles going back and forth, he thinks that sounds like too many vehicles. He is disappointed with the process. He is worried about the traffic, noise, people speeding, and the ownership of the roads and the major wash that goes down the middle of that property. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Katirgis if he preferred families living there rather than 55+ residents. Mr. Katirgis replied he does not care, he originally thought there was going to 34 lots, not 55 or more being proposed. Gary Moffitt, 6412 Teardrop Ct., Farmington, NM 87402 Mr. Moffitt wanted to speak on behalf of the development. He is a committed investor in this development, and has been a member of San Juan Country Club for 30 years. He has lived in the Country Club Estates for 25 years. He is in support of this development because San Juan Country Club has been a big part of his life. He feels it is a jewel in the crown of Farmington and he would like to keep the Country Club viable. Mr. Moffitt stated he and Mr. Bird had talked extensively about the traffic and the construction traffic not coming through Country Club Rd. Those are viable points, because he pays for those roads too. He feels they have reached solutions that will alleviate those issues. He also feel this will help the Country Club, having 55new members paying dues and using San Juan Country Club. Mr. Moffitt feels the Country Club and golf course only adds to the value of his home. The other reason he supports the development is Farmington needs good retirement communities and feels this will provide that. Tamara Tabor, 6540 Club House Dr., Farmington, NM 87402 Ms. Tabor stated when she bought her house it included a sewer. Now the developers want the HOA to help pay a second time for the new sewer. She also stated she will let the HOA board know how she feels and that several homeowners agree with her. Vince Moffitt, 1450 Hermosa Tr., Farmington, NM 87401 Mr. Moffitt would like to voice his support of this project. He has served on the board for Four Corners Economic Development, the Chamber of Commerce, and has worked with the City on various committees looking for ways to diversify our economy. Currently the retirement committee for the Chamber of Commerce has looked for a project like this. He has worked with other developers looking at different locations for this kind of project. When Mr. Bird came to him with this project, one of the positives was the amenities. It had golf, pickle ball, dining and it is all available within a golf cart ride. There is nothing like this anywhere in Farmington. Clifton Horace, 4300 E. Main St., Farmington, NM 87402 Mr. Horace stated he is also a potential investor in the development. He feels it will work out with Mr. Bird, his team and the HOA, because it is a mutual benefit. From an economic development point of view, this does fill a need. He also stated he owns the property that is the last mile of the new sewer line. The new sewer line solves many problems for HOA 2 and Sandstone at San Juan Country Club. Mr. Horace also stated the new sewer line would not benefit him, but he is willing to give up the use of that land to benefit the community. Commissioner Smouse stated the benefit for you would be the development your property. Mr. Horace stated he already has access to the sewer line; all he would be doing is giving up a 30 ft. to 60 ft. easement for that. Mr. Horace also stated he sees the benefit for everyone involved. He feels it is a win-win situation. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Bird about the heavy construction traffic. Mr. Bird explained all construction traffic would come in through Lakewood Drive. Mr. Bird also stated as a developer they would contribute just like HOA 2 does to maintain the roads, once they have a mutual agreement. The new development would also have its own HOA. Planning Manager Escobar suggested a condition of approval that HOA 2 must approve the construction traffic plan. The City does get construction traffic plans, which can be integrated into the construction plans. With no further public input, Chair Cardon closed the public portion of this petition. Commissioner Discussion Planning Manager wanted to add the documents Mr. Coleman distributed is not an entitlement document. It was comments received on a project that did not come to fruition. It has not been recorded, it is not an agreement, it is not a zone change approval and it is not a plat. It was a response to a discussion about a project that never moved forward. It is not binding. Chair Cardon asked for clarification from Mr. Echols. Mr. Echols noted he does not have any answers to what was said between San Juan Development and HOA 2. Vice Chair Freeman wondered if a decision should be made before HOA 2 and San Juan had more discussions have been had at the local level. Commissioner Smouse replied it is pretty clear and straightforward. Vice Chair Freeman added looking at land use zone change, he feels he has enough information. Commission Smouse added with what is being presented and the recommendation made by staff, he feels there a many civil issues that we are not making any judgement on. He also added are we ok with what is being presented to us to make a decision. Chair Cardon added if the zone change goes forward, that doesn’t mean that they are going forward, it would still be under a PD. Commissioner Smouse also stated Farmington does not have a gated retirement community that has the amenities this development is offering. Planning Manager Escobar mentioned the Three Rivers Adult Community being built. That is geared to senior living and assisted living. Commissioner Smouse brought up the Comp Plan which identifies the motivation to provide a community that is attractive to retiree’s and those that have mobility issues. We have addressed affordable homes and seen many zone request to support that. He also believes this will add value to our community. Commission Hanson mentioned there is a committee with the Chamber of Commerce along with Four Corners Economic Development that resulted in a report that listed appropriate senior housing as the number one concern. This committee is aimed at recruiting retirees to San Juan County as a way of diversifying the population and economy. Commissioner Smouse added that recently homeowners who have bought into a community such as this have expressed the opinion they are entitled to the view, and that is not the case. That makes it difficult for the Commission, because we can imagine ourselves and are empathetic to the community. Unfortunately, at times we have to vote in favor of something like this that may detract from some homeowners or their perception of their value. That is not their property and that is not their view. It is for the greater good for our community to have something like this. With no further discussion, Chair Cardon called for a motion. Commissioner Smouse made a motion to approve ZC 22-62 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hanson seconded the motion. The Planning & Zoning recommended approval to City Council with a vote of 6-0 PETITION NO. PP 22-58 – Discussion & possible action regarding A request for a Preliminary Plan approval for a 55-lot subdivision in Tier I. Senior Planner Mike Safrany presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Scott D. Bird, property owner • Representative: Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols • Location: Parcel Numbers R0033344 • Existing Zoning: SF-10: Single Family Residential 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 Commissions is being asked to make a recommendation • Council provides final approval of a Preliminary Plan • The Final Plat may then be submitted Background • The petitioner is requesting preliminary plan approval for Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Preliminary P.U.D. Plat, Class 1 subdivision, a 55-lot subdivision on an undeveloped parcel totaling 26.05 acres located in the San Juan Country Club. • The proposed subdivision is currently requesting a zone change (Petition ZC 22-62) from SF-10: Single Family Residential to PD: Planned Development for an adult living community. • This subdivision will be a gated Adult-Living Community. • There will be no further subdivision of this property. Due to the number of existing lots in the San Juan Country Club Subdivision, a third egress is required for the new development, per UDC, Section 6.4.6.B(3). Two entrances will be provided along the southern edge of the property via extensions of Club House Drive and Big Cedar Road. The third egress is located at the NE corner of the property and extends to Lakewood Drive. Construction Drawings showing access to Lakewood Drive have been submitted. Lot sizes range from 7,500 square feet to 14,700 square feet. A 6.86 acre open space and a 2.15 acre open space will be part of this plat. All land proposed as common open space shall substantially meet the criteria found in Section 5.9.1 of the UDC. Open Space. At least ten percent of the gross land area in planned unit developments must consist of common open space.  Reviews and comments • Standard review agencies have commented on the plat. • Review agency comments have not yet been addressed. • Project engineer is having ongoing discussions with city engineers regarding drainage and the Lakewood Drive extension. • All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat. Conclusion STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 22-58 a submittal from Scott D. Bird, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc. for a preliminary plan approval of a Class 1, 55-lot subdivision of one undeveloped parcel totaling 26.04 acres in the San Juan Country Club. • All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat. Discussion Commissioner Hanson asked if the City has any requirements to dedicated open spaces on a plat. Planning Manager Escobar replied that per the current UDC we do not require dedicated amenities to the public. One of the benefits of this project if the amount of open space for the residents. Petitioner Representative, Bob Echols, 909 W. Apache St., Farmington, NM 87401 Mr. Echols stated he is still addressing comments from the City Engineer, drainage, as well as water and sewer. He had addressed the first set of comments and he received another set of comments today.  Vice Chair Freeman asked if there were concerns regarding drainage. Mr. Echols replied he is looking at the drainage because there has been issues out there before. Vice Chair Freeman also asked if there was a detention pond already there. Mr. Echols confirmed there is a detention pond that was built 12-15 years ago, that has helped with some of the drainage issues in the Country Club area. Vice Chair Cardon asked Mr. Echols who would maintain the detention pond. Mr. Echols replied that ultimately the desire is to have the City assume maintenance. Vice Chair Freeman asked who built the pond. Mr. Echols answered that pond was built because of a drainage problem lawsuit, and parties of that lawsuit paid for the pond. Commissioner Waldroup stated after reading Associate Project Engineer Sitta’s report regarding dedication, there appear to be challenges with that pond. Mr. Echols replied the City is not willing to accept the dedication until they see substantial information about how the pond was constructed. Commissioner Hanson asked if they are anticipated additional drainage structures. Mr. Echols replied they have to deal with the drainage for the 55-lot development separate from the pond because the drainage from the development is below the pond, and we are dealing with how not to affect the adjacent development. Vice Chair asked if the drainage flows north to south. Mr. Echols stated that was correct and they are trying to minimize the impact to the existing development. With no further discussion, Chair Cardon called for a motion. Commissioner Waldroup made a motion to approve PP 22-58 as recommended by staff with correction needed by the Petitioner. Vice Chair Freeman seconded the motion. The Planning & Zoning recommended approval to City Council with a vote of 6-0 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the floor. Business from the Chair: Chair Cardon wanted to verify for the Commission that the CV in petition CV 22-60 means “Cannabis Variance”. Business from the Members: There was no business from Members Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar informed the Commission that the City Council adopted their unanimous recommendation for SUP 22-55 for the Cannabis facility at 738 W. Main St. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Joyce Cardon Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant  L o wtoM ode rateF ireR isk H ighF ireR isk B ure auo fLandM ana g e m e n t P riv ate S tate S o u rces: E sri, H E R E ,G arm in, Interma p, incre m e n tPC orp., GEBCO ,USGS ,FA O,NP S, NRCAN ,G eo Base, IGN a ,Kd a sterN L,O rdnanceS u rv e y,EsriJa p an ,METI, E sriChin a u Mn a icip o lBud na s rie (H ongK ong), (c)Open Stree tM apco n tributors, andth eG ISU se rC om m u n ity D ate :8/1 8/2 0224 :19P M D iscla im e r T h ed a tap ortra yedsh o uldn otb ere liedu p o ntoe sta b lishle g al title ,b o und arylin es,a ndth ep re ciselo ca tio no fim pro v emen ts, u tilities,o w nersh ip,m ain ten a nce ,e a sem e n ts,o rp u blicrig h t-o f w a y s.T heC ityo fF arming to nw ill notb eh eldlia blefo ra ny in a ccu racieso fth ed ataco n taine dw inth ith ism a p.Itisth e C ityo fFarm g inton p ro p ertyo wn er'sre spon sibilitytov e rifya ll e xistingu tilities C ommun ityW o rksD epartm ent: su rro u n dingth a tp ropertyp rio rtod e ve p lo m en t. F arm in gto nWild landU rba n r Wa ter/W aste w aterDivisio n City of Farmington Housing Snapshot