Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive March 16, 2023 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Annual election of Chair and Vice Chair 4 Approval of the Minutes of the February 16, 2023 P&Z Meeting 5 PETITION No. PP 22-66 – A request from Mike Hamilton, represented by Scott Martin, Sakura Engineering, for a Preliminary Plan approval of Mesa Vista No. 8, Replat A, a 26-lot subdivision located in the City of Farmington’s Tier I Planning & Platting Jurisdiction. This item was postponed from the August 25, 2022 hearing. Presented by Senior Planner Mike Safrany 6 PETITION No. FP 23-04 – A request for Final Plat approval of Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 12, an 18-lot subdivision on two parcels totaling 6.32 acres. Presented by Planning Manager Beth Escobar 7 PETITION No. ZC 23-11 – A request for a ZC: Zone Change from Multi-Family Low Density (MF-L) to Multi-Family Medium Density (MF-M). Located at 1041 Schofield Ln .Presented by Long Range Planner Colby Gibson 8 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 9 Adjournment Petition items on this agenda will be scheduled for the next City Council meeting – March 28, 2023 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 February 16, 2023 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on February 16, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Vice Chair Clint Freeman Gary Hanson Ryan Brown Cody Waldroup Clete Berens P&Z Members Absent: Chair Joyce Cardon Cheryl Ragsdale Shay Davis Staff Present: Beth Escobar Colby Gibson Joaquin Gonzalez Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission Tammy Tipton Josh Hawkins Gregory Schumacher Ronnie Cook Bruce Delventhal Call to Order Vice Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Berens to approve the agenda, with No. 3, the Annual election of Chair and Vice Chair being moved to the March 16, 2023 meeting. No. 7, Petition SUP 23-03 being withdrawn from the Agenda, No. 6, SUP 23-02 being heard before No. 5, the presentation of the Housing Snapshot Plan. And No. 8 Discussion/Possible Action for the UDC proposed changes being removed, of the February 16, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Berens and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2023 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. 1 PETITION NO. SUP 23-02 – A request for a Special Use Permit to allow for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing at 620 Dekalb Road. Planning Manager Escobar presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Tammy Tipton & Jerry Edgar • Location: 620 Dekalb Road • Zoning GC: General Commercial • Requesting approval of a Special Use Permit for cultivation and manufacturing of cannabis • Retail sales of adult use cannabis is a permitted use in GC • Parcel Size: 0.48 acres • Current use: Existing 4069 square foot office building and 4500 square foot garage – currently vacant Zoning 2  Aerial Map Long Range View 3 Cannabis facilities in Farmington Street View 4  Side Street View Comp Plan Compliance • The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates area as Commercial Mixed Use. • The Commercial Mixed Use category is intended to host a variety of retail and services. The proposed cannabis cultivation and manufacturing use fits in this category. 5  Public Input • This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 6 surrounding property owners. • At the time of this report, no input has been received. Notifications NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP ARMSTRONG ED G AND MARGARET C 1910 RUSTIC PL FARMINGTON, NM 87401 B AND I INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 1972 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 BIG A PROPERTIES LLC 634 W APACHE ST FARMINGTON, NM 87401 BULLER MATTIE TRUST 2103 SOUTHSIDE RIVER RD FARMINGTON, NM 874017884 HARD FOUR INVESTMENTS LLC 601 DEKALB RD FARMINGTON, NM 87401 SCHUMACHER GREGORY AND ROBIN ET AL 610 DEKALB AVE FARMINGTON, NM 87401 SUP Criteria • Placement of a cannabis facility at this location should not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood. Surrounding uses are commercial. The majority of surrounding businesses are related to the energy and construction industries. • Parking on the site is adequate with two delineated ADA van accessible parking spaces • The existing building is in good shape and harmonious with the character of the surrounding area. There is existing landscaping in the front area. • The proposed facility shall comply with industry and state requirements for noise and fumes. • The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates this area as Commercial Mixed Use. The proposed use is in conformance with this designation. Staff Recommendation • The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 23-02, a request from Jerry Edgar and Tammy Tipton of High Society Greenery, LLC, for a cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facility at 620 Dekalb in the GC: General Commercial zoning district with the following stipulations: 1. State license shall be obtained. 2. A building division/fire division inspection shall be required. 3. A business registration shall be required. 4. A building permit shall be required for any interior modifications. 5. A fire suppression system and upgrade to the water line may be required. Discussion The Commission asked Staff: 1. Do know how long the property has been vacant? 2. Didn’t we approve a cannabis facility close to this location? 6  3. Are there a lot that are not operational? City Staff replied: 1. Staff believes the property has been vacant at least one year. 2. There is one located on Bloomfield Hwy, but they are not within 300 feet of each other. The one located on Bloomfield Hwy is not yet operational, they have a building permit issued and are currently working on interior modifications. 3. There are quite a few that are not operational. The cannabis lab has not progressed, and many of the others are having issues getting building supplies. That may be a few of the reasons for the delays. Petitioner Tammy Tipton, 21 Road 2476, Flora Vista, NM Ms. Tipton stated that the first phase of their business will be cultivation, after they get the plants going they will start the extraction and manufacturing process. After the first extraction process, they will see how many retail stores will purchase their products, then decide if they want to continue with the extraction process. The Commission asked the Petitioner: 1. Will you only be cultivating and processing? Will you have retail sales out of that location? 2. Is this the first time you have had a business like this, and how far are you into the state licensing process? 3. Are you renting the building, or do you own it? 4. What made you pick this location? 5. What it the grow process, the water process and any heat processes? 6. Have you had time to read Staff’s report with the specified conditions? 7. What level of security would you have at this location? 8. Can you explain the extraction process, will you use a heat process? 9. If you only do wholesale, would you be delivering or pick up? How much traffic do you expect? 10. Have you submitted your application with the State? The Commission wanted clarification on what exactly the SUP is for. Planning Manager Escobar explained that if recommended for approval the SUP would allow cultivation and manufacturing. Retail sales is permitted in General Commercial zoning. The Commission also wanted more information on what extracting process the Petitioner will be using. Planning Manager Escobar stated if the Commission moves to recommend approval, you can limit the extraction to the licenses that do not require heat for extraction and we can make that one of the conditions. 7 Petitioner Stated: 1. They will have to see how the market is when that time comes. The want to see how many retail stores are open, if there is an abundance of retail locations, they will probably just continue with the cultivation and manufacturing, but she is about 75% sure they will have retail sales. 2. This is the first time, and we have two professional growers. We are in the process of obtaining state licensing. 3. We are renting, and the owners are present at this meeting. 4. We picked this location because it will be an indoor grow, it is a large building with ventilation, and it fits well with what we want to accomplish. 5. These questions are better answered by one our growers Josh Hawkins. 6. We have read the report and have no issues with the stated conditions, we feel they are very attainable. 7. We will have top notch security with controlled access, and we will have ventilation so there will be virtually no smell coming from the building. 8. The extractor has not been purchased yes, so I’m not sure what process would be using yet, but we will not be using a heat process. 9. We will be doing both pickup and delivery. There would be minimal traffic, we can only harvest so often. 10. We are waiting for the SUP to be approved, then the water usage needs to be approved, after that we can submit our application to the state. Petitioner Josh Hawkins, 5603 Lee Lane, Farmington, NM Mr. Hawkins stated that he is one of the two growers for this operation and he wanted to clarify the extraction process, but the person handling that process was not able to attend this meeting. As far as the growing, we would be doing an organic grow that has a zero runoff method, where this would be no draining or flushing so they don’t have to worry about any waste water going into the city system. This will be a perpetual operation where they can have a consistent cycle and hopefully get harvests more often. We are hoping to compete with the demands for cannabis in the area. The Commission asked Josh Hawkins: 1. Will you be using City water, or would you be importing your own water? 2. How many plants do you anticipate having? 3. Is there a shortage of plants in New Mexico? 4. What will you be using to mitigate the smell? 5. How will you be disposing any waste? Josh Hawkins Stated: 1. We are not too sure about water use yet, but at first we will probably be using City water, and treating it so it will be more beneficial to the plant. Chlorine is not good for the plants. 8  Eventually we want to work up to using reverse osmosis water, which is the cleanest water for plants. 2. We are stating off with a Micro Grow Business License, which will be 200 mature plants at a time. If things are successful we would apply for the larger license, which would fill the building with what we can. We are hoping for 1000 mature plants. 3. He was not sure, but he does know that demand is increasing and some farms are prioritizing quantity over quality. We are hoping to fill the quality niche, which is pure, clean, high quality cannabis for medicinal and recreational use. 4. We will be utilizing as many commercial grade carbon filters as needed to mitigate any smell. Our intake will be fresh air and the exhaust will be going through the carbon filters, which will be replaced as needed to mitigate the smell. 5. The soil we plan to be using is recyclable to an extent. There won’t be much waste other than organic matter. We would most likely be composting, and anything that is potentially hazardous we would take the necessary precautions to dispose of properly, but honestly I don’t think there will be any. Affected Parties Gregory Schumacher, 6303 Ensenada Way, Farmington, NM Mr. Schumacher, property owner, stated this property had been vacant since March of 2022. He was also worried about the smell, because he has other rentals around this property. He went to other grow locations and sat outside to see if there were any smells coming out of those locations, he could not smell anything. After deciding there will not be a smell issue, he does not have a problem leasing this building for the purpose of growing cannabis. The Commission asked Mr. Schumacher: 1. Do you have any concerns for any of your other tenants? Mr. Schumacher Stated: 1. No, he has none. His shop is also located there. He is also a licensed contractor and was going to ask if the new tenants needed any help with any modifications they might be making. Ronnie Cook, 2 Road 5760, Farmington, NM Mr. Cook stated his building is directly behind this building. He operates a business for manufacturing circuit boards. He is concerned about the smell, traffic and what kind of people would be coming around to buy cannabis. He is also worried about any waste that may be thrown out. Mr. Cook is also worried about the children that live in the nearby apartments. Mr. Cook also feels that there are already too many dispensaries, how many does Farmington need. He also brought up the fact that cannabis is illegal on the federal level. 9 He objects to having this located next to his business, he is worried about his property value when he goes to sell some day. He just has many concerns. If he complains about the smell, will something be done? Planning Manager Escobar noted they have not had any smell complaints since April of last year since the first facility opened. She also noted that anyone can complain about the smell and someone would go out and examine the facility. She added there are also state regulations that they cannot dispose of any material that is not inert. Any waste that has the chemical composition that make up cannabis cannot be thrown in the garbage. Most facilities are recycling or composting this kind of waste. Ms. Escobar added she does a monthly check with police and Code Enforcement to see if there have been issues related to any cannabis locations and there has not been any. There has not been issues with loitering, but City Council has been working on a loitering ordinance which will help police enforce any loitering issues. Vice Chair Freeman added that the State has put intense restrictions on the licensees as far as security, smell and other issues. Interested Parties Bruce Delventhal, 1920 Rustic Pl., Farmington, NM Mr. Delventhal and his wife own the property at 1920 Rustic Pl. That property was a big investment for them. When they retire they will try to sell that place. He is worried that if a cannabis facility goes in, it will devalue his property. He was there first, and he owns the property. He is adamant that he does not want this next to his business. Mr. Delventhal added that the water pressure out there is low. So what will they do if they have to fight a fire, and he is also worried about the smell? He also wants to address the apartments that has several children living there. They ride their bikes up and down that road and they are always playing out there. Do you want them playing in the street with the kind of foot traffic this business will attract. It’s just not right. We actually lock our doors because of the transients wondering around and the ladies working here just don’t feel safe. He stated you cannot tell me that you are going to be able to control who is wandering around over there. This just isn’t the right place for that. He added that it is just wrong that the residents of the apartment complex weren’t notified regarding this meeting because they are not in the 100 foot radius of this location. The Commission asked Mr. Delventhal: 1. Do you have any research that shows that this would devalue your property? 2. What do you do in your business? Mr. Delventhal stated: 1. That he does not, but think about it, would you want that in your neighborhood? It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that. 10  2. We produce oil and gas. Discussion The Commission asked Staff: 1. There was a mention of water pressure, will there be an issue with this new business going in? 2. If there was a complaint regarding the odor, how is that handled. Does the State have an Enforcement Division? 3. A business that consistently has problems would be considered a nuisance, is there a nuisance ordinance. 4. If they are delivering, do they need license? 5. If it is not a retail business, do you require signage? City Staff Replied: 1. If the Commission will note, one of the requirements is installation of a fire suppression system. If there is not adequate pressure they will have to upgrade the line, and they would be responsible to pay for a portion of that improvement that delivers to their property. They would have to do whatever it takes to get the pressure up to the fire suppression requirements. 2. The complaint would go to the Code Enforcement Division, they will do a site visit, and they would probably involve the Planning Division. Planning would also go out and check with the neighbors, if it is obnoxious enough, we can revoke the SUP. The State is in the process of forming their Enforcement Response Team, however if we received a complaint that is not addressed, the Planning Division would be in contact with the State to get someone out here to evaluate the situation. 3. Yes, typically the first complaint you get 30 days to address the problem, the second complaint you get 15 days and the third complaint you will be going to court. This can cover a variety of complaint issues. 4. No, we do not require a courier’s license, because we cannot control state highways. 5. Signage for any commercial development is allowed based on street frontage and your wall length, but is not a requirement. Planning Manager Escobar added that if they do retail sales, the customer would come into a lobby area and everything behind the lobby area is locked. If they are only doing cultivation and manufacturing they can keep the front door locked until they are having customers pickup. Commission Discussion Commissioner Waldroup stated, we as a recommending body addressed this initially with how many locations are here in town. How do we start to stand up to that because Council was not going to do it? Commissioner Brown added that this is a permitted use in General Commercial 11 as a retail dispensary. Vice Chair Freeman also added that they are already seeing some of these facilities not making it. So maybe Council was correct, that free market is already taking care of some of them. Commissioner Hanson stated some of what they have heard here is a matter of policy, we can recommend policy, but when it comes to an individual application, our role is to make recommendations based on the policy that has been established for us. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve SUP 23-02 as presented by Staff. With Staff recommendations 1-5 plus an additional limitation to the extraction processes that do not utilize heat. The motion carried 4-1. Roll Call Aye Votes Chair Freeman voted aye, because looking at that neighborhood and what is going on around it, he does not feel that it would have a negative impact. If he had his preference, it would be a grow facility only and not have retail sales. As a grow facility it is a great spot for that. Commissioner Hanson voted aye, he agrees with Vice Chair Freeman’s comment. Commissioner Berens voted aye, he agrees with Commissioner Hanson’s earlier comment regarding policy that they are bound by. Commissioner Brown voted aye, because they have set precedent where we have already been approving these. It would allow for them to build their business and he feels free market, at some point, will balance it out. Nay Votes Commissioner Waldroup voted nay, he does agree with the other commissioners, but feels like someone needs to stand up for a change that we want to see in our community. He feels City Council made the wrong decision by not putting a limit on the number of cannabis facilities and letting free market control this. 12 City of Farmington 2022 Housing Snapshot Long Range Planner Colby Gibson presented the following: 13 14 15 16 After some discussion between Mr. Gibson and the Commission, the Commission directed staff to make this presentation to the City Council. Vice Chair Freeman called for a motion. 17  Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hanson to present the City of Farmington 2022 Housing Snapshot to City Council. The motion carried 5-0. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar informed the Commission that City Council accepted both recommendations for the rezone of the Red Lion and the SUP for the horse property. Ms. Escobar wanted to introduce Joaquin Gonzalez to the Commission. Mr. Gonzalez is our new CDBG Associate Planner. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Berens and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Clint Freeman Tami Spencer Vice Chair Administrative Assistant 18  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT Petition PP 22-66 A request for Preliminary Plan approval for Mesa Vista N0. 8, Replat ‘A’ A. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Mike Hamilton, Mesa View Development Company Representative Scott Martin, Sakura Engineering Date of Application August 22, 2022 Requested Action Preliminary Plan Approval Location Block 4 and Lot 7, Block 3 located in the NE1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 18, T29N, R12W, N.M.P.M. is a partially undeveloped parcel located at the eastern terminus of Wildflower Mesa Dr. City of Farmington. Existing Zoning MF – M, Multi-family Medium. Surrounding North: MF-M Undeveloped South: IND - Gravel mining Zoning and Land East: RA – San Juan County Juvenile Detention Ctr. Use West: PD – Mesa Vista #7 Subdivision Class Class 1 Notice Preliminary Plans do not require notice Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Senior Planner SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 26 lots Acres of Land 7.05 Acres Min. Lot Size 6,000 square feet (7,205 square feet is the smallest lot proposed) Utilities Water: Per City Standards Sewer: Per City Standards Electric: Per FEUS Engineering Access & Per City Standards Circulation Street Lights Per City Standards Street Sign Per City Standards Fire Hydrants Per City Standards Drainage Per City Standards P & R’s Fees Per City Standards NBU Mail Box Coordinate with USPS 19  Staff Report PP 22-66 Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting preliminary plan approval for the Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8, Replat A, a Class 1, 26-lot subdivision on a 7.05-acre undeveloped parcel located east of Mesa Vista Subdivision No 7. The final plat for Mesa Vista No. 8 was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on September 16, 2021 and the plat was recorded on September 30, 2021. The plat was approved in conjunction with Cecil’s Subdivision No. 2 Replat A, a recorded Final Plat that carved out a right-of-way from the adjacent parcel to the east to provide a connection of Wildflower Drive to Andrea Drive. The parcel to the east is owned by San Juan County and is the location of the Juvenile Detention Center. Phases 1-7 of the Mesa Vista Subdivision are almost completely built out. Mesa Vista No. 8 is not part of the Mesa Vista Planned Unit Development approved in 2007. The replat proposes a series of east/west cul-de-sacs connected to Lily Street and the removal of the north/south road, Rosita Street along the eastern boundary line adjacent to the detention center. The developer will be responsible for construction of all roads and infrastructure shown on the plat, including one-half of Lauren Road and the detention pond at Sophia and Lauren Street. Upon completion of the detention pond, maintenance will be the responsibility of the Mesa Vista Property Owners Association. This will be noted on the final plat. The developer will also be responsible for construction the extension of Wildflower Mesa Drive to the Andrea Drive intersection, along with the required intersection improvements identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the project engineer. A sidewalk will be required on the north side of the Wildflower Mesa Drive. San Juan County has requested that no sidewalk be constructed on the south side of this road extension due to security concerns with the Juvenile Detention Center. The developer will be responsible for the construction of a 6-foot chain link fence with slats along this perimeter. San Juan County has agreed to construct a similar fence along the western property boundary. A non-vehicular access easement (NVAE) is being required for lots whose northern property lines abut Wildflower Mesa Drive. This is to prevent driveway access to this street, which, upon connection to Andrea Drive will be designated as a collector street. Lot 7A at the south end of the plat will also be restricted from accessing Lauren Street. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta: 599-1399 and tsitta@fmtn.org  Please include a COF benchmark elevation with northing and easting on one corner of the surveyed lot.  Please double check the lots for distances and bearings – some are missing. 20  Staff Report PP 22-66 Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” Page 3  Please double check the length of the east boundary of the plat. The addition of the lengths of lots on that side do not seem to add up to the listed 1314.75 distance.  Please check the Plat Notes – if the notes do not apply to the Replat A area, please remove from the plat. Engineering Staff –Isaac Blue Eyes: 599-1316 and iblue_eyes@fmtn.org  Recalculation on drainage for the new street/cul-de-sac layout.  For all cul-de-sacs, storm water shall be sub-surface. An inlet should be installed at the end of each cul-de-sac. Fire Marshall – Brandy Vega (505) 599-1439 bvega@firenet.org  Please submit full size site plan to assure hydrant number and placement are sufficient, road widths are sufficient and also cul-de-sacs are up to code. Planning Division – Mike Safrany 599-1333 and msafrany@fmtn.org  Per Section 6.4.4(A) of the Unified Development Code, a block length shall be at least 400 feet and not exceed 1,200 feet in single family residential areas. This issue will need to be resolved prior to the Preliminary Plan moving forward to the Planning and Zoning meeting.  Also show non-vehicular access easement (NVAE) on Plat drawing in addition to the note. Please include the lots whose north property lines are adjacent to Wildflower Mesa Drive and south property line of Lot 7A, Block 3.  Update Plat notes to correlate correctly with current revisions.  Please note the multiple Cul-de-Sac design does not substantially conform to the recorded plat of the Mesa Vista subdivision. There will be multiple points of contention brought up at the Planning and Zoning meeting such as Rosita Ct. no longer being a buffer between the Detention Facility and the residences. Increased traffic intersections at the Cul-de-Sac streets, awkward curb cuts to driveways limiting right of way parking, and also headlights shining into residences on the west side of Lily St. Staff would also like more detail as to the amount of cost savings this design would provide in lieu of the previous layout. 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: The proposed replat does not meet the requirements of Section 6.2.2 (A) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) requiring a block length of 400 feet minimum. Per UDC Section 6.4.7, staff has concerns about this new layout of cul-de-sacs negatively affecting the existing lots to the west of Lily Street and not being consistent with the rest of the Mesa Vista Subdivisions. In the original plat, Rosita Street, a 50-foot right-of-way along the eastern boundary with the detention center provided a buffer to the residential lots. With the replat, these lots will now share a property line with the detention center. 21  Staff Report PP 22-66 Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” Page 4 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 Comment 2/22/2023: The following issues have been addressed through submittal of a revised plat. Per Section 8.8.4 of the Unified Development Code, all subdivisions shall comply with the following minimum standards: A. Design and improvement standards. All subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of: (1) Article 5, development standards; and (2) Article 6, subdivision design and improvements. Planning Staff Comments: Through staff review and comments received from the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 29, 2022, the plat as presented meets, or will be required to meet through stipulations of approval, development standards and design and improvement requirements. The required vinyl fencing along the east side of the development in addition to the existing chain link fence placed by the county will provide a sufficient buffer to the Detention Center. Staff has accepted the definition of a block to be surrounded by four streets and accepts the cul-de-sacs as a single block over 400 feet. The driveway placements and additional intersections were not concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission at this time. Engineering Staff Comments: Staff will have additional technical comments for the construction drawings and drainage report. Staff will approve Preliminary Plan with condition the technical corrections are competed for Final Plat. 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. 22 Aerial Map of Surrounding Area 23  Staff Report PP 22-66 Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” Page 6 Preliminary Plat Sheet 24  Staff Report PP 22-66 Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” Page 7 Preliminary Plat Sheet 2 25 STAFF CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of Petition PP 22-66, Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” as the revised submittal meets the design standards discussed before the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 29, 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition PP 22-66, a request from Mike Hamilton, Mesa View Development, represented by Paul Martin of Sakura Engineering, for a preliminary plan of a Class 1, 26-lot subdivision on a 7.05- acre undeveloped parcel located at the eastern terminus of Wildflower Mesa Dr. in the City of Farmington. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat, including drainage report and any noted issues in this report, redline letters and emails. 2. The Final Plat shall show the east extension of Wildflower Mesa Drive connecting to Andrea Drive. See UDC, Section 6.4.6 Subdivision Access. 3. A revised subdivision agreement shall be required to include previously obligated access connection to Andrea Drive. 4. The Planning Department will not approve any building permits for the Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat 'A' or the lots on the west side of Lily St. until the Final Plat is approved. 26 Staff Report PP 22-66 Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” Page 9 27 Staff Report PP 22-66 Mesa Vista Subdivision No. 8 Replat “A” Page 10 28  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Windsor Heights Subdivision Number 12 Petition No. FP 23-04 A. STAFF REPORT, February 16, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Craig Stoabs Representative Robert Echols Date of Application 1/11/2023 Requested Action Final Plat Approval Location Parcel No. R4005962 & R4003620 Existing Zoning SF:7 Single family residential Surrounding North: OP: Office Professional South: SF-7 – Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 10 Zoning and Land East: LNC & OP Use West: SF:7 – Windsor Heights No. 11 Subdivision Class Class 1 Notice Final Plats do not require notice Staff Planner Beth Escobar, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 18 Residential Lots Acres of Land 6.33 Minimum Lot Size 7,000 square feet Utilities Water: Per City Standards Sewer: Per City Standards Electric: Per FEUS Engineering Access & Per City Standards Circulation Street Lights Per City Standards Street Sign Per City Standards Fire Hydrants Per City Standards Drainage Per City Standards P & R’s Fees Per City Standards NBU Mail Box Coordinate with USPS 29  FP 23-04 Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 12 Staff Report GENERAL INFORMATION The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for Windsor Heights Subdivision Number 12 an 18-lot residential subdivision in Tier 1 within the City of Farmington municipal boundary. The subdivision will be developed to City standards for a SF:7 residential subdivision. Lot sizes range from 10,478 square-feet to 13,299 square-feet. This is a continuation of Windsor Heights subdivisions to the west and south. Access will be provided by the extension of Kingsway Drive to Messina Drive. The Preliminary Plan for this subdivision was approved by City Council on February 1, 2018. STAFF ANALYSIS Per Section 8.8.4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), 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: The final plat complies with the approved preliminary plan and the requirements of Article 5 & 6. B. Waivers. The commission may recommend and the council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny waivers of the standards in section 6.4, subdivision design standards, during the platting process. Staff Comments: No waivers are requested for this application. C. Zoning consistency. All subdivisions and the resulting lots shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable underlying zone district. Staff Comments: The plat is consistent with the underlying zoning. 30  FP 23-04 Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 12 Staff Report 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. This area is zoned Medium Density Residential, with a recommended density of 4- 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed plat has a density of 3 units per acre. 31  FP 23-04 Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 12 Staff Report Aerial Map of Surrounding Area 32  FP 23-04 Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 12 Staff Report Final Plat Sheet 1 33  FP 23-04 Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 12 Staff Report Final Plat Sheet 2 34  FP 23-04 Windsor Heights Subdivision No. 12 Staff Report STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition FP 23-04, Windsor Heights Number 12, an 18-lot residential subdivision in Tier I of the City of Farmington is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition 23-04, a Final Plat for Windsor Heights Number 12, a submittal from Craig Stoabs, represented by Robert Cheney of Cheney-Walters-Echols, for Final Plat approval of a 18-lot, Class 1, subdivision of two vacant parcels, totaling 6.33 acres within the City of Farmington. 1. All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings, including all as-built plans, will be finalized and approved prior to submittal of the final plat for signature, including noted issues in this report. 2. A subdivision agreement shall be required. 3. Inspections shall be required. Inspections shall be scheduled 48 hours in advance. 35  Staff Report PP 21-56 Farmington Center Subdivision Page 8 36  ZC 23-11 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401- Staff Report STAFF REPORT A request for a Zone Change from Multi-Family Low Density (MF-L) to Multi-Family Medium Density (MF-M) to allow for a 16 unit residential development. ZC 23-11 - 1041 Schofield Ln STAFF REPORT, MARCH 16, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Mariposa Properties LLC Representative Bryan McCarty Date of Application February 2, 2023 Requested Action Zone Change request from Multi-Family Low Density (MF-L) to Multi- Family Medium Density (MF-M) to develop four 2-story 4-plex apartments. Location 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401 (R0031233) Existing Land Use Single-Family Residential. One 1,898 SQFT 2-story single-family residence, one 872 SQFT detached garage, and one 576 SQFT in- ground pool is located on the property. Existing Zoning Multi-Family Low Density 2040 Future Land Use Commercial Mixed Use Designation Surrounding Zoning North: GC: General Commercial – Residential and commercial uses & Land Use South: GC: General Commercial – Residential and commercial uses East: GC: General Commercial – Residential West: MF-L: Multi-Family Low Density – four 2-story 4-plex apartments. Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: February 27, 2023, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: February 27, 2023 Sign posted: March 6, 2023 Staff Planner Colby Gibson, Long Range Planner 1 37 BACKGROUND San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the size of the property is 1.0 acre. One 1,898 SQFT 2-story single-family residence, one 872 SQFT detached garage, and one 576 SQFT in-ground pool is located on the property. The property has a variance approval from 2006 (ARB 06-21) for 64-inch high fence in the front yard setback. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The petitioner is requesting a Zone Change from Multi-Family Low Density (MF-L) to Multi- Family Medium Density (MF-M) to develop four 2-story 4-plex apartments. The petitioner plans to purchase the property if the zone change is approved The applicant is proposing 16 dwelling units in this development. Current zoning (MF-L) allows for up to 12 dwelling units per UDC Section 2.8 Density and Dimensional Standards. MF-M zoning would allow up to 21 dwelling units. Each of the four 4-plex buildings are 4,896 SQFT. The 16 dwelling units measure 34’x18’ each. The dwelling units share an identical floor plan including the following rooms: living room, dining room, kitchen, one full bath, one half bath, two bedrooms, water closet with washer and dryer, and closets. Units include an 18’x9’ fenced rear yard. The existing house, garage, and in-ground swimming pool would be removed. The petitioner owns the adjacent lot to the west, which has a similar four 2-story 4-plex apartment development. 38  ZC 23-11 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401- Staff Report AERIAL VIEW 3 39  ZC 23-11 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401- Staff Report ZONING MAP 4 40 COMP PROPERTY: 1026 N. SULLIVAN AVE. 41 AREA OVERVIEW 42 SUBJECT PROPERTY 1041 SCHOFIELD LN. 43  ZC 23-11 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401- Staff Report Farmington Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan’s 2040 Future Land Use Map designation is ‘Commercial Mixed Use’. Commercial Mixed Use intends to host a variety of retail and service uses as well as horizontal mixed uses (parcels developed with retail and residential). The proposed development does not have a retail or service use, however the multifamily higher density residential aspect does fit within the horizontal mixed use. The proposed development meets the desired density and intensity of Commercial Mixed Use with a floor area ratio of approximately 0.46 (>.25 desired) and a density of 16 dwelling units per acre (4-20DU/Acre desired). 8 44  ZC 23-11 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401- Staff Report STAFF ANALYSIS The Unified Development Code states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land use of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) outlines issues for consideration in determining a proposed zone change as follows: A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? Yes, the proposed zoning conforms to the ‘Commercial Mixed Use’ designation by fulfilling the higher density multifamily residential aspect presented in a horizontal mixed- use development. The proposed development meets both the density and intensity guidelines for this designation. B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? Yes, properties to the west are zoned MF-L and properties to the south are zoned MF- M, the same as the proposed zoning for the subject property. The land use of surrounding properties in this neighborhood varies, however it is primarily multi-family residential. Increasing the zoning density of this parcel is compatible with the surrounding land uses. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? None identified. The petitioner will be subject to all development standards outlined in UDC Article 5. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? Per UDC Section 2.8, the proposed zoning of MF-M allows up to 21 dwelling units. The applicant is proposing 16 dwelling units in the multifamily development. Sec. 3.9 - Multifamily, low, medium and high density (MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H). 3.9.1 Purpose. The Multifamily Low, Medium and High Density (MF-L, MF-M and MF-H) Districts are intended to accommodate a substantial portion of the city's residential growth over the 20-year planning horizon covered by the comprehensive plan. By allowing many residential development options (from detached houses on small lots to relatively high density apartments), the MF-L, MF-M and MF-H districts provide the widest range of housing choices for city residents. In all cases, development in the multifamily districts shall be adequately served by infrastructure. Although the MF-L, MF-M and MF-H districts allow moderate to high residential densities they are not generally appropriate for application in areas that are most appropriately suited to intensive nonresidential development. The provision of community open space, neighborhood parks, outdoor recreational areas, and pedestrian facilities is strongly encouraged. The MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H districts are intended to implement the residential planning policies of the comprehensive plan's "Residential High Density" land use designation. These districts may also be appropriate for lands currently zoned R-4, office and professional, where predominate land use is multifamily. 9 45  3.9.2 Allowed uses. Uses are allowed in the MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H districts in accordance with the use table of section 2.3. 3.9.3 Density and dimensional standards. All development in the MF-L, MF-M, and MF- H districts shall be subject to the density and dimensional standards of section 2.8. 3.9.4 District standards. District standards applicable in the MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H districts include the following: A. To the extent practical, all parking shall be located in the side or rear yard E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? Per UDC Section 2.8, the MF- M: Multifamily Medium Density zoning district requires 2,000 square feet per unit. 16 residential units on 1.0 acre is physically suitable for the parcel. Per UDC Section 5.2.3, 28 parking spaces will be required. Two accessible and one van accessible space will be required. Additionally center parking islands will be required for every 15 linear parking spaces. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? If utilities are not available, could they be reasonably extended by the applicant? Is the applicant willing to pay for the extension of public facilities and services necessary to service the proposed development? Yes. Site access is provided from Schofield Ln and all utilities are available to the subject property. The applicant will be required to install sidewalk along Schofield Ln, there is currently no sidewalk in place. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? UDC Article 11 defines spot zoning as ‘where a particular tract within a larger area is specifically zoned so as to impose upon it restrictions not imposed upon the surrounding lands, or grant to it special privileges not granted generally, not done in pursuance of the Comprehensive plan’. The proposed Zone Change does not constitute spot zoning by this definition. MF-L and MF-M zoning and uses are to the north, south, and west of the subject property. 46 PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 28 surrounding property owners. At the time of this report, no written public comment has been received. STAFF COMMENTS STAFF CONCLUSION The proposed zone change aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing uses within the neighborhood. Further, the proposed development is well suited for the 1.0 Acre site, meeting both density and intensity guidelines. In staff’s opinion, the zone change and development will provide a much-needed addition to the rental housing market in Farmington. The project has the potential to serve as a catalyst in the area for future redevelopment promoting walkable neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-11, a request from Mariposa Properties LLC represented by Bryan McCarty, for a zone change from Multi-Family Low Density to Multi-Family Medium Density located at 1041 Schofield Ln to allow for a 16 unit multifamily residential development with the following conditions of approval: 1. A fully dimensioned site plan shall be required to be submitted with the building permit, showing all parking dimensions, aisle widths, landscaping and lighting. Site will be developed in general conformance to the approved site plan which shall conform to all development standards outlined in UDC Article 5, including but not limited to parking, landscaping, lighting and screening. 2. Development of the sidewalk along Schofield Ln will be in the City of Farmington right-of- way. 3. Staff recommends that the petitioner reach out to Tres Rios Habitat for Humanity or other suitable organization if any materials or supplies may be repurposed. 47  ZC 23-11 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401- Staff Report 12 48  ZC 23-11 1041 Schofield Ln. Farmington, NM 87401- Staff Report 13 49 50 51 52 53 54 PROPERTIES WITHIN 100’ 55 56 57