Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive July 27, 2023 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the July 13, 2023 P&Z Meeting 4 Recognition of Service - Mayor Duckett 5 Petition ZC 23-50 – A request for a ZC: Zone Change from Residential Estate 1 (RE-1) to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow for a Gymnastics Studio. Located on Pinon Frontage Rd. Parcel No. R0051761. Tabled from the July 13, 2023 meeting. Presented by Associate Planner Gonzalez. 6 Petition SUP 23-52 – A request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for a wireless antenna collocation, to be constructed on the existing tower at 5825 E. Main Street for Dish wireless communications. Presented by Senior Planner Safrany. 7 Discussion/Possible action regarding UDC Zoning Districts, Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use. Presented by Long Range Planner Gibson 8 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 9 Adjournment Petition items on this agenda will be scheduled for the next City Council meeting – August 8, 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 July 13, 2023 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on July 13, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Chair Clint Freeman Vice Chair Ryan Brown Cody Waldroup Gary Hanson Amber Hodge P&Z Members Absent Shay Davis Joyce Cardon Clete Berens Cheryl Ragsdale Staff Present: Mike Safrany Joaquin Gonzalez Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission Jason Valdez Rhonda Frazier Brandon Beard Charles Todd Terrill Richins Call to Order 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 Hanson to approve the agenda of the July 13, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting with item #4 SUP 23-42 removed. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Vice Chair Brown and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to approve the minutes of the June 29, 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 CV 23–48 A request to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from a residential zoning district and another cannabis dispensary for a cannabis retail facility located at 1812 E 20th St Senior Planner Safrany presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Jason Valdez, potential tenant • Representative: Jason Valdez • Location: 1812 E 20th St. • Existing Zoning: GC: General Commercial • Request: Variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a cannabis facility to a residential use and another dispensary • Petitioner would like to open an adult use cannabis retail store Zoning 2 Aerial View Street View 3  2040 Comprehensive Plan Staff Analysis • A cannabis retail store is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial Mixed Use and the current General Commercial zoning district. • The actual walking distance from the front door of 1812 E 20th St. to the residence at 2101 Schofield Lane is over 250 feet. The Greenhouse Dispensary is over 400 feet from door to door of the subject property. • The Letter of Agreement between the City and Lauter House states that the shared parking space at 1812 E 20th St. will be fully developed according to the permit plans by April 20, 2020. This work has not been completed. • The unresolved paving, parking and drainage issues at 1812 E 20 th St. are not a minimum easing of the code and do not make reasonable use of the property. 4  Notice within 100 feet  Two letters from two effected parties have been received at this time, opposing the petition. 5 Letters of Opposition 6  Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends denial of Petition CV23-48, a request from Jason Valdez to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from one residential use and from another cannabis dispensary in order to operate an adult cannabis retail sale facility. Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Is this site plan approved for both Lauter Hause Brewing Company and the storage building as far as parking space? 2. There is a letter of agreement between the City of Farmington and Lauter Hause Brewing Company (Lauter Hause) regarding the parking lot completion, that is dated April 30, 2020, and none of that has been done. Does the City have any consequences for not holding up their end of the agreement? 7  3. Are both pieces of property owned by the same person? 4. Is your basis for denial that you don’t really know parking situation because it is not compliant as is and it is hard to say if we can add another facility and add more parking. 5. If they were compliant with the parking plan would there be sufficient parking for a cannabis retail facility? 6. Is your denial of this petition based on the 300 foot waiver from a residence? 7. The two letters of opposition, are they from residential, religious entity or business owners? 8. Did you received letters from any of the residences around this property? Staff Replied: 1. No the site plan was approved in 2017 the Lauter Hause. Since the parking lot was never completed, there is no way of knowing if the parking requirement was met. I’m not sure if any spaces would be needed if you add a dispensary on the property. 2. One consequence is that it is affecting this petition. It is a Code Enforcement and Building Department issue. Speaking to the Building Department, they informed me that the parking lot had not been completed, and no further action was taken. 3. Yes, both properties are owned by the same person. The building that Jason Valdez is wanting to rent for his dispensary is being used for storage by Lauter Hause. 4. Yes, that is correct. I could have recommended approval with a condition requiring the parking lot to be completed, but since it has been in default for three years, I did not feel comfortable recommending that approval. 5. Yes, I believe there would be ample parking for an added dispensary. Lauter Hause also has a written agreement with Al’s garage to the east, to share that parking lot. 6. Yes, the 300 foot waiver to a residence and being 100 feet from another dispensary. The 300 foot distance from a residence just came into effect on July 5, 2023 7. One is from Airgas which is to the west of Lauter Hause, the second letter is from a business to the north of Lauter Hause. Petitioner Jason Valdez, 3109 N. Mesa Verde Ave., Farmington NM Mr. Valdez stated it is difficult a process to find a good location that is not located by a church, school or another cannabis facility. Just because you find a good location that does not mean it is a good place to put a business. I know there are a lot of cannabis businesses in Farmington. In my opinion, many of them are not going to make it. We want to be in a good location where they can absorb those customers when those other shops go out of business. If this variance was granted, we would help Lauter Hause put in the parking lot. Affected Parties Rhonda Frazier, 2101 Schofield Ln., Farmington NM Ms. Frazier stated that she is the residence to the north of the proposed cannabis facility and she highly opposes this. There is already one across the street, Grace Baptist Church borders her property, and they have a private school. The library, Boys and Girls Club and the movie theater are across the street, and there are pot shops on almost every street corner, we do not need this one here. Alcohol establishments were limited, why haven’t we put a limit on these establishments? She has had more trespassers on her property since the Green House had opened. 8 Brandon Beard, 3009 Centenary Ave., Farmington NM Mr. Beard stated that he is in favor of the proposed cannabis facility, this is a locally owned business and the revenue would stay here. We are allowing businesses to come in from out of state and that money does not stay here. Mr. Valdez has multiple business in the community and I would rather see local companies versus out of state companies open facilities here, the money would stay here. Mr. Beard also stated that they opened their business 120 days before Covid hit, when they went to the City’s Building Department to get their permit, Chief Building Official, Derrick Childers told them not to worry about the parking lot right now because everyone is having a hard time and Building Inspection would come back to them at a later date. Mr. Beard also stated that the City never came back to them. That is the reason nothing has been done about the parking lot. Since Covid, they were closed for 19 months and were affected tremendously, they are still trying to build their business and they just don’t have the funds to get the parking lot built. The Commission Asked Brandon Beard: 1. Do you have a written agreement with the City’s Building Department? 2. We are here today saying you defaulted on something you agreed to do. 3. What if this petition is approved today with a condition that the parking lot be built. Brandon Beard Replied: 1. No, we do not have a written agreement, it was verbal agreement. Since we have been in default for three year we assumed the City would come talk to us, but no one has. 2. Had Jason not put in for this variance nobody would have said anything to us. 3. Like Mr. Valdez stated he would help with getting the parking lot done as soon as possible. He has the equipment that would take a big portion of the cost away from us. We could put in the parking lot with the retention pond and all the infrastructure. Property Owner, Charles Todd, 707 E. Crestview Dr., Farmington NM Mr. Todd stated what a struggle it had been after Covid. They are three long time local guys trying to start a business. We just keep getting hit financially, the building Mr. Valdez wants to rent needs a new roof, which will cost up to $57,000, and prices are just crazy these days. If this is the only reason this petition would be denied, between the three of us we can figure something out to get that parking lot built. Mr. Todd wanted to know if Ms. Frazier’s trespassers were coming from Lauter Hause so he could address that issue. He stated you would need a machete to get from Lauter Hause to the Frazier’s residence. Affected Party Rhonda Frazier returned to the podium: Ms. Frazier wanted to answer Mr. Todd’s question regarding the trespassers. She has had no issues with trespassers coming from Lauter Hause. The issues did not start until the Green House opened for business and I am against it being in my front yard. 9 Petitioner Jason Valdez, 3109 N. Mesa Verde Ave., Farmington NM Mr. Valdez stated if he had known Ms. Frazier was an affected party, he would had gone and talked to her, when he turned in his petition, he did not know about the 300 foot distance requirement to a residential neighborhood. He added the definition of variance is if somebody reaping the benefit of a like business then he should be able to as well. The bottom line is that this is legal in the State of New Mexico and he feels like he is being discriminated against because of the product. I have seen some amazing stuff, this product has helped so many people psychologically and medically. Chair Freeman closed the public comment portion for petition CV 23-48. Commission Discussion Commissioner Waldroup is stuck on how the code reads and how the variance were allowed in the past and he is leaning towards a denial. Vice Chair Brown agreed with Commissioner Waldroup. Commissioner Hanson added he feels the criteria has not been met for this petition and he would be inclined to deny this petition. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hanson to Deny Petition CV 23-48 as recommended by staff. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-1. Roll Call Nay Votes Commissioner Hodge voted nay because she feels the businesses are legal and only the best will survive she does not see a good reason for the homeowner to oppose especially when the business next door is a liquor establishment that was approved. She also feels that the dispensary will do what is needed to protect the public. Aye Votes Commissioner Hanson voted to deny because he feels the application does not satisfy the criteria that we are directed to apply to these kinds of requests as noted in staff’s report. Chair Freeman voted to deny as well, he does not feel it is the right place for this business they have standards that have been set up and he feels it is time to hold to these standards. He wants to encourage petitioners to look further and find properties that does not require a variance. He added that City Council has given the Planning & Zoning Commission direction that they need to follow. Vice Chair Brown voted for the denial based on Ms. Frazier’s strong opposition, and he feels he cannot go against a resident of the city for that reason. 10 Commissioner Waldroup voted for the denial for all the facts that have been stated. Justification for the variance, the codes that have been put into place that they are here to follow. Petition CV 23–49 A request to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from a residential zoning district and religious institution for a cannabis retail facility located at 1932 E. Main St. Senior Planner Safrany presented the following: Petition • Applicant: Jason Valdez, potential tenant • Representative: Jason Valdez • Location: 1932 E Main St. • Existing Zoning: GC: General Commercial • Request: Variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a residential use property and to one religious institution • Petitioner would like to open an adult use cannabis retail store Zoning 11 Aerial View Street View 12  2040 Comprehensive Plan Staff Analysis • A cannabis retail sales business seems appropriate for this location. The storefront faces Main St. and Schofield, two commercial streets. Adequate parking is available on the site. • The actual walking distance from the front door of 1932 E Main to the Desert Heights Church located at 1835 E. Main St. is approximately 350 feet. • The Church is separated from the dispensary by Main Street, a four lane major arterial commercial street. • The walking distance to the residences off E. Navajo St. are at a minimum 350 feet door to door, separated by two commercial buildings, one local street and one alley. • There is no direct line of site from either of the front doors of the residential properties to the front door of 1932 E Main. 13  Notice within 100 feet Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition CV23-49, a request from Jason Valdez to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from one religious institution and one residential area in order to operate an adult cannabis retail sale facility. 1. A City of Farmington business registration will be required. 2. A building/fire inspection shall be required. 3. A building permit shall be required for any remodeling. 4. One ADA van accessible parking space will be developed on site. Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. You are stating because of the street, it make an acceptable distance between the proposed dispensary and the church? We are kind of in the same situation as the last cannabis variance request. 2. The distance to the north, is the 254 ft. the actual distance from property line to property line? What is the distance from building to building? Staff Replied: 1. Yes, from building to building it is over 300 feet away and there are buffers the residences and the religious institution. 2. Yes the 254 foot is the actual distance. From building to building it measure about 300 foo. Door to door is roughly 500 foot. Staff feels justified in granting this variance, this situation is more favorable. Petitioner Jason Valdez, 3109 N. Mesa Verde Ave., Farmington NM 14 Mr. Valdez wanted to remind the Commission that there was a variance granted to a dispensary on San Juan Blvd. that involved this same church. The church had no opposition so it would be unfair to deny his petition. They do have the landlord’s approval for this building. If the variance is granted for this building, we plan to have cultivation and extraction in the garage area. When you walk into the dispensary we plan to have windows looking in on the cultivation and extraction for people to actually see the process. The Commission Asked Petitioner: 1. Will the retail section face Main St.? 2. Is the auto detailing still there? The Petitioner Replied: 1. Yes, it will face Main St. 2. Yes they are. We will not move in until they move out. Chair Freeman closed the public comment portion for petition CV 23-49. Commission Discussion Commissioner Waldroup stated that he is torn because they just heard Petition CV 23-48 asking for the same variance. He was not opposed to it, he added, it is like contradicting them ourselves if they vote yes on this one. Vice Chair Brown would be ok with this one because there is no stated opposition. Commissioner Hanson feels this one is in contrast with Petition CV 23-48 that it does satisfy the criteria. The streets do create a unique barrier that the code does not take into account when the measurements are done. When you put into practical terms it makes a considerable difference, along with the lack of opposition. He would be in favor to recommend approval. Chair Freeman stated, some of this is offset with the distance from door to door. With no Commission discussion needed, Chair Freeman called for a motion for Petition CV 23- 49. Motion A motion was made by Vice Chair Brown and seconded by Commissioner Hodge to recommend APPROVAL of Petition CV 23-49 as presented by staff with the following conditions: 1. A City of Farmington business registration will be required. 2. A building/fire inspection shall be required. 3. A building permit shall be required for any remodeling. 4. One ADA van accessible parking space will be developed on site The motion was passed on a vote of 4-1. 15  Roll Call Aye Votes Vice Chair Brown voted for the approval because there is a buffer between the proposed dispensary, the religious institution and the residential area, and the lack of opposition. Commissioner Hanson voted to recommend approval for the same reasons as Vice Chair Brown. Chair Freeman voted in favor of the petition. This property has more cause for a variance than the other property had, and he feels comfortable with the variance. Commissioner Hodge voted to recommend approval for the same reasons already stated. Nay Votes Commissioner Waldroup voted nay because on the previous Petition CV 23-49 he voted to deny the recommendation, and based on what the code states and he is going to stick with that. Petition ZC 23-50 – A request for a ZC: Zone Change from Residential Estate 1 (RE-1) to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow for a Gymnastics Studio. Associate Planner Gonzalez presented the following: Petition Information • Applicant: Rian French • Representative: N/A • Location: Pinon Frontage Rd • Existing Zoning: Residential Estate 1 • Existing Land Use: Undeveloped • Request: Zone Change to Local Neighborhood Commercial to allow for a Gymnastics Studio. Subject Property • 2.36 Acre Parcel • Parcel is Undeveloped 16 Area View 17  Zoning Street View from Pinon Hills Blvd. 18  Street View from Pinon Frontage Rd. Project Description • The petitioner is requesting a Zone Change to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow a gymnastics studio to be built on the property. Residential Estate 1 zoning does not allow for athletic/health clubs. • The subject property is 2.36 acres (101,762 square feet) in size and meets the minimum lot size requirements for the Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district of 10,890 square feet. • The applicant is proposing a 4,000 square feet gymnastics studio, which will be able to accommodate 170 kids. The petitioner desires a large open space facility with designated areas for all of their gymnastics equipment and a party/parent viewing area. Hours of operation will be the same as their existing facility on E. Main St, from Monday – Thursday 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm. 19  Site Plan Farmington Comprehensive Plan Employment Mixed Use • Supports a wide range of employment types with focus on integrated live/work uses. • Medium to high density residential. • Entrepreneurial Start-ups 20  Pinon Hills Corridor Plan Pinon Hills Corridor Plan UDC Sec. 8.7.4 Zone Change Issues for Consideration A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Future Land Use Map designates this area as Employment Mixed Use. This designation supports a wide range of employment types with a focus on integrated live/work uses with medium to high density residential as well as entrepreneurial start-ups. The proposed zone change to Local Neighborhood Commercial will allow just that. 21 B. Is the proposed zoning and land use compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood? The proposed Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning and land use is compatible with the current conforming uses and character of the neighborhood. Property uses in the area vary and include Residential, Religious Assembly, Oilfield/Construction Storage, and Vacant/unused Land. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? An adverse impact has been identified with the proposed land use. There will be an increase in average daily traffic count. The petitioner has estimated 30 vehicle trips from 4-7pm. This will be mitigated by road improvements on Pinon Frontage Rd per section 5.13. As well as residential protection being put in place in accordance to section 5.10. The area contains an array of residential, rural agricultural and office professional uses. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? The Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district requires 10,890 square feet per The proposed use of a athletic/health club (gymnastics studio) is permitted in the proposed zoning district. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? The subject property is 2.36 acres (101,762 square feet) in size and meets the minimum lot size requirements for the Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district of 10,890 square feet. A 4,500 square feet gymnastics studio is suitable for the site while leaving adequate space for required parking/landscaping. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? Access to the site shall be provided by an extension of Pinon Frontage Road from the east. Pinon Frontage Rd is a local street and has not had a study conducted to calculate average daily traffic numbers. Utilities can be reasonably extended by the petitioner. Road improvements on Pinon Frontage Rd will be required per section 5.13 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 because it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as Employment Mixed Use which permits live/work uses with medium to high density residential. The proposed multi-family use would provide medium density residential options in the area. The Pinon Hills Corridor Plan designates this area for Office/Business uses. Public Notice • This petition has been properly noticed. • Letters were sent to 7 surrounding property owners. • At the time of this report, no written public comment has been received. 22 23 Staff Comment 24  Staff Conclusion Compliance: The proposed use complies with the Unified Development Code density standards outlined in UDC Sec. 2.8. Consistency: The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Pinon Hills Corridor Plan. Compatibility: The proposed zone change and use is compatible with the surrounding area and nearby uses. Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-50, a request from Rian French, for a Zone Change from Residential Estate 1 (RE-1) to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow for a Gymnastics Studio, 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, paving and screening. 2) Developer shall work with the City Engineer to design and construct access to the subject property from Pinon Frontage Road. This includes providing a survey showing the existence of an access easement. 3) Petitioner shall meet the requirements set forth for residential protection per UDC section 5.10. 4) Permits shall be required for construction. Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Is Pinon Frontage Rd. a city road? 2. For the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, would there be a frontage road along Pinon Hills Blvd. as these businesses develop? 3. Will the property be accessed from the north and south? 4. Is the intention from that plat to pull that traffic further to the north from that busy intersection? Is that what engineering is trying to accomplish? 5. Will the utilities come up that road too? 6. You reference improvement required by 5.13, does that mean the petitioner will need to improve Pinon Frontage Rd.? 7. Can’t they connect to Hood Mesa? 8. Is that requirement to city standards? 9. How would they access from the east? They would be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars for just the grading for a road. 10. Does Pinon Hills Blvd corridor have any design standards? 25 Staff Replied: 1. Currently Pinon Frontage Rd. is a patent easement. 2. Pinon Frontage Rd. does not follow Pinon Hills Blvd. The easement will be granted off Pinon Hills Blvd. 3. Correct access to the property will be from the north and south. 4. That could be why, that would be a question for the City Engineer. 5. There is water running across the property that they could tap into. They will have to New Mexico Environmental Department regarding a septic tank. 6. That is correct, the petitioner would need to connect to the existing Pinon Frontage Rd. from the east side and go west to their property. 7. According to the comments made by our City Engineer, they would need to connect from Pinon Frontage Rd. 8. Yes, the City Engineer stated they would need to need to meet the street design minimum standard. Which would call for a total right of way of 50 ft., sidewalk zone of five ft., curb six inches and gutter at one and a half feet, and travel lanes two at 11 ft. 9. That would be a question for the City Engineer. 10. Local neighborhood commercial does have design standards, but I am not sure if there are any for Pinon Hills Blvd. A conversation started between the Commissioner and staff regarding access points to the proposed property and the cost to the petitioner to complete their part of Pinon Frontage Rd. Petitioner Rian French, 5500 Hogan Pl., Farmington NM Ms. French stated she is open to where the building would need to be placed on the property. She also stated she was confused and unaware that she needed to build the road. She was informed by staff that they would have to build the road, but she thought it was just a small portion of the road, not the complete road. Chair Freeman asked staff to see if the City Engineer was available to attend the meeting and explain the particulars of building the road. Ms. French added that they are in operation on Main St. but with the homeless, the drugs and we have had people break in. We deal with a lot of children and I want to put their safety first and what we are zoned for, there are not a lot options in Farmington that are zoned correctly. This property would be ideal. The Commission Asked Petitioner: 1. Have you gotten any estimates on building the road? 2. Do you own the lot? 3. What do you invasion for this building? 4. What about outdoor aesthetics? 5. Will the 18-month condition be a problem? Petitioner Replied: 1. No, not yet. 2. We own it with contingency to re-zone it. 26  3. We have 170 kids now and the layout is kind of choppy. We want a big open space where we can have equipment laid out instead of having to move stuff from place to place. 4. We want a metal building that would look similar to the studio on Main St. It will be white with black trim, and we would pave/gravel as much of the space as possible. 5. No, we would like it to be done as soon as possible. There were no affected parties present. Interested Parties Terrill J. Richins, 5301 Hood Mesa Trail, Farmington NM Mr. Richins stated he is not opposed to this petition and thinks that it would be good for this area. He also feels Hood Mesa Trail would have better access to this property. With no additional Commission discussion needed, Chair Freeman called for a motion for Petition ZC 23-50. With no Commission discussion, Chair Freeman called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hodge to table Petition ZC 23-50 until the July 27, 2023 Planning & Zoning meeting, so the City Engineer could attend and explain the issues brought up regarding the building of the road. The motion was passed unanimously on a vote of 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: Senior Planner Safrany shared with the Commission that the City Council adopted the zone change on Animas St. with a unanimous approval. Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hodge. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Clint Freeman Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 27  STAFF REPORT A request for a Zone Change from Residential Estate 1 (RE-1) to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow for a Gymnastics Studio. STAFF REPORT, July 13, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Rian French Representative N/A Date of Application May 31, 2023 Requested Action The petitioner is requesting a Zone Change from Residential Estate 1 (RE-1) to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow for a gymnastics studio. Location Pinon Frontage Road Farmington, NM 87401 (R0051761) Existing Land Use Undeveloped Parcel Existing Zoning Residential Estate 1 2040 Future Land Use Employment Mixed Use Designation Surrounding Zoning North: RE-1: Residential Estate 1 – Residential & Land Use South: OP: Office and Professional – Residential/Oilfield East: RU: Rural Agricultural – Undeveloped Parcel West: RE-1: Residential Estate 1 – Undeveloped Parcel Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: June 26, 2023, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: June 26, 2023 Sign posted: July 3, 2023 Staff Planner Joaquin Gonzalez, Associate Planner 1|Page 29  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road BACKGROUND The San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show Pinon Frontage Road (R0051761) as 2.36 acres in size. The parcel is undeveloped. Project Description The petitioner is requesting a Zone Change to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow a gymnastics studio to be built on the property. Residential Estate 1 zoning does not allow for athletic/health clubs. The subject property is 2.36 acres (101,762 square feet) in size and meets the minimum lot size requirements for the Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district of 10,890 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 4,000 square feet gymnastics studio, which will be able to accommodate 170 kids. The petitioner desires a large open space facility with designated areas for all of their gymnastics equipment and a party/parent viewing area. Hours of operation will be the same as their existing facility on E. Main St, from Monday – Thursday 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm. SITE PLAN 2|Page 30 PINON FRONTAGE RD 3|Page 31 AREA OVERVIEW 4|Page 32  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road SURROUNDING USES Subject Property Residential Religious Assembly Oilfield/Construction Storage Vacant/Unused Land 5|Page 33  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road ZONING 6|Page 34  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road 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? The 2040 Future Land Use Map designates this area as Employment Mixed Use. This designation supports a wide range of employment types with a focus on integrated live/work uses with medium to high density residential as well as entrepreneurial start-ups. The proposed zone change to Local Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the land use 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? The proposed Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning and land use is compatible with the current conforming uses and character of the neighborhood. Property uses in the area vary and include Residential, Religious Assembly, Oilfield/Construction Storage, and Vacant/unused Land. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? An adverse impact has been identified with the proposed land use. There will be an increase in average daily traffic count. The petitioner has estimated 30 vehicle trips from 4-7pm. This 7|Page 35  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road will be mitigated by road improvements on Pinon Frontage Rd per section 5.13. As well as residential protection being put in place in accordance to section 5.10. The area contains an array of residential, rural agricultural and office professional uses. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? The Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district requires 10,890 square feet per The proposed use of a athletic/health club (gymnastics studio) is permitted in the proposed zoning district. UDC Sec. 3.12 - Local neighborhood commercial (LNC). 3.12.1 Purpose. The local neighborhood commercial (LNC) district is intended to accommodate neighborhood-oriented, low-intensity retail sales and service uses in commercial clusters and/or nodes along thoroughfares and at intersections that are readily accessible from surrounding residential areas. LNC district uses attract customers from a limited area and are typically located along collector or arterial streets. The LNC district includes specific standards designed to ensure the compatibility with the residential-scale and style of the neighborhoods they serve. It is appropriate for application in areas that are already developed with such uses, and it may also be used to accommodate new development proposals that are compatible with such uses. In all cases, new development in the LNC district should be adequately served by infrastructure. The LNC district is intended to implement, in part, the planning policies of the comprehensive plan's "Commercial" land use designation. The LNC district may further be appropriate for implementation, in part, of the Piñon Hills Plan. 3.12.2 Locational requirement. In addition to the rezoning issues for consideration of section 8.7.4, rezoning to the LNC district, and may be limited to: A. Areas located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of two collector streets; or B. Areas located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of a collector street with a local street; C. Development of LNC nodes may include all four corners at intersections and be at least one-half mile away from any other LNC district. 3.12.3 Allowed uses. Uses are allowed in the LNC district in accordance with the use table of section 2.3. 3.12.4 Density and dimensional standards. All development in the LNC district is subject to the density and dimensional standards of section 2.8; provided, however, that: A. Maximum lot size/contiguous area. Development within the LNC district is limited to the following: (1) Collector/collector street intersections. The maximum lot size/contiguous area shall be no greater than ten acres per quadrant. (2)Collector/local street intersections. The maximum lot size/contiguous area shall be no greater than five acres per quadrant. 3.12.5 District standards. District standards applicable in the LNC district include the following: A. Building design.(1)Exhibit a unity of design for buildings within multi-building complexes through the use of similar elements such as rooflines, materials, window arrangement, sign location, and details.(2)Incorporate, within all walls over 100 feet in length, at least four recesses, offsets, angular forms and other features within each 100-foot length to provide a visually interesting shape.(3)Utilize colors complementary to that of other structures in the area or vicinity 8|Page 36  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road without calling undue attention to the development.B. Landscaping and screening. All development in the LNC district shall comply with the requirements of section 5.5, landscaping and screening, including but not limited to the requirements of [section] 5.5.6, parking area landscaping.C. Signs. In addition to the sign requirements of section 5.8, signs, all signs shall be architecturally integrated with the building by including materials, shapes, and/or colors utilized in the building design. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? The subject property is 2.36 acres (101,762 square feet) in size and meets the minimum lot size requirements for the Local Neighborhood Commercial zoning district of 10,890 square feet. A 4,000 square feet gymnastics studio is suitable for the site while leaving adequate space for required parking/landscaping. 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? Access to the site shall be provided by an extension of Pinon Frontage Road from the east. Pinon Frontage Rd is a local street and has not had a study conducted to calculate average daily traffic numbers. Utilities can be reasonably extended by the petitioner. Road improvements on Pinon Frontage Rd will be required per section 5.13 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 because it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Pinon Hills Corridor Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as Employment Mixed Use, which permits live/work uses with medium to high-density residential as well as entrepreneurial start-ups. The Pinon Hills Corridor Plan designates this area for Office/Business uses. This plan was adopted by Council in 2004 and provides a development plan for the corridor, including access management and land use guidance. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to seven surrounding property owners. At the time of this report, no written public comment has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION 9|Page 37  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road • The proposed use complies with the Unified Development Code density standards outlined in UDC Sec. 2.8. • The proposed zone change and use is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and adopted Pinion Hills Corridor Plan. • The proposed zone change and use is compatible with the surrounding area and nearby uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-50, a request from Rian French, for a Zone Change from Residential Estate 1 (RE-1) to Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) to allow for a gymnastics studio, 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, paving, and screening. 2) Developer shall work with the City Engineer to design and construct access to the subject property from Pinon Frontage Road. This includes providing a survey showing the existence of an access easement. 3) Petitioner shall meet the requirements set forth for residential protection per UDC section 5.10. 4) Permits shall be required for construction. 10 | P a g e 38  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road 11 | P a g e 39  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road 12 | P a g e 40  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road 13 | P a g e 41  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road 14 | P a g e 42  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road 15 | P a g e 43  City of Farmington ZC 23-50 Pinon Frontage Road 16 | P a g e 44  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT Petition SUP 23-52 – Collocation of wireless telecommunication antenna and equipment on an existing monopole at 5825 E Main St. A. STAFF REPORT, July 10, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Victoria Chhun Representative Victoria Chhun Date of June 26, 2023 Application Requested Action Approval of a special use permit to allow for collocation of wireless telecommunications equipment on an existing monopole. Location 5825 E Main St. Existing Land Vacant Commercial Building, Monopole and Equipment Use Existing Zoning General Commercial Surrounding North: GC – General Commercial, Car Dealership Zoning & Land South: GC – General Commercial, Undeveloped Use East: SF-7– Mixed Use, Residences and Restaurant West: GC – General Commercial, Undeveloped Notice Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, July 12, 2022. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, July 14, 2023. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, July 14, 2023 Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Senior Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for installation of wireless carrier equipment for Dish, using the existing monopole at 5825 E Main Street. Currently the existing monopole is servicing AT&T wireless communication antennas. The petitioner proposes to collocate Dish wireless antennas at 230 feet above ground level below the existing OMNI antennas. Additional equipment will be constructed at ground level within a fenced in area. 45  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation Figure 1. Aerial View The property is bounded on the east by Wild Goose Apartments. Property to the west and south is undeveloped, with a car dealership to the north. Location of wireless facility 46 EXISTING CELL TOWER 250'-7" 47  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation ZONING MAP 48  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation SITE PLAN 49  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation TOWER ELEVATION 50  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation Unified Development Code (UDC) The purpose of a Special Use Permit is to allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique operating characteristics. Telecommunication towers and facilities are allowed by right in the IND, Industrial Zone and by special use permit in all other zoning districts. Telecommunications facilities, including commercial towers, broadcast towers, point-to- point microwave towers, antennas and wireless communication facilities and related facilities shall comply with the standards of the UDC, Section 2.4.56 Telecommunications facilities including Section 2.4.56 D (2) Collocation agreement. Section 2.4.56 D Collocation agreement (2) Collocation agreement. An applicant who certifies in writing that it will construct a tower suitable for collocating and, as a condition of zoning, or permit approval executes a written agreement (collocation agreement) with the city prepared by the city attorney. Consenting to application of the terms of this provision shall, unless waived by the applicant, receive preferential treatment for a final approval or rejection of its application after a complete and correct application, fee and all required documentation and information is filed. The collocation agreement shall provide for at least the following: a. The applicant shall accept for collocation any FCC licensed wireless communication provider (additional user) using any compatible technology on commercially reasonable terms considering all of the factors a reasonable tower leasing company would deem relevant in entering into such an agreement. b. Any additional user seeking collocation shall submit specifications for its equipment and use (request) to the applicant and applicant shall, within 30 days thereafter, respond to such party in writing (response) furnishing all technical requirements, which must be resolved before collocation. Copies of any such requests and responses shall be copied to the director or designee. c. The applicant and the additional user shall, thereafter in good faith, attempt to resolve any technical, or business terms. If, after 30 days from the response the additional user believes the applicant has not negotiated in good faith, additional user may submit in writing, a request for arbitration to applicant and the American Arbitration Association which shall designate a person knowledgeable in collocation of wireless communication carriers to act as arbitrator and decide all issues between the parties. Such arbitration shall be held within 30 days of the request for arbitration. Upon the written agreement of both parties, a different procedure for binding dispute resolution may be used. The result of the arbitration or other resolution method agreed to by the parties shall be binding and non-appealable. d. If the arbitrator certifies in writing to the city that the applicant has failed to comply with the decision of the arbitrator within ten days of its issuance by the arbitrator, the use permit for the wireless communication facility in question 51  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation shall be terminated and the wireless communications facility shall be removed within 30 days of the date of the arbitrators certification, failing which, the city shall have all of the remedies available to it for elimination of a use in violation of this UDC. e. The additional party, upon submitting the request shall become a third party beneficiary to the collocation agreement. f. The city shall not be a party to any contract between the applicant and the additional party and shall not be a required party and shall not be made a party to any dispute or arbitration and applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold the city harmless from any cost, including reasonable attorney fees, associated with such matters. g. Communication towers shall comply with all applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER). h. A lease or other agreement containing the business terms proposed by the applicant for collocation shall be attached as an exhibit to the collocation agreement. UDC 8.9 Special Use Permits: 8.9.2 (A) Special Use permits approvals attach to the property and are transferrable to subsequent owners. If this SUP was approved, it could transfer to another owner, carrier or tenant. Special Use Permit Criteria – Section 8.9.4 of the UDC Section 8.9.4 of the UDC sets forth the criteria for review of a special use permit. The section states that a SUP may be approved where it is reasonably determined that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. The criteria for approval is listed as follows: A. Effect on environment: The location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants and shall not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The addition of collocation equipment on the existing tower and within the existing fenced in area should not have any detrimental impact. B. Compatible with surrounding area: The proposed site plan, circulation plan, and schematic architectural designs shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening and density. 52  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation The addition of the collocation equipment is harmonious with the existing tower and fenced in equipment area. At ground level the fenced in equipment area is located behind the existing commercial building along E Main St. C. External impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard, or other injurious or noxious impact. The applicant shall provide adequate mitigation responses to the impacts. There are no anticipated negative impacts foreseen from the installation of collocation equipment at the wireless communication facility. The site is located along E Main Street, a major commercial arterial street. D. Infrastructure impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities and water and sewer systems, and on public services such as police and fire protection and solid waste collection, and the ability of existing infrastructure and services to provide services adequately. No concerns have been submitted by the utility review agencies or the police or fire department. E. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use will be consistent with purposes of this UDC, the Comprehensive Plan, and any other statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable, and will support rather than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be a mixed-use village. A higher concentration exists along eastern areas of East Main Street. The Mixed-use village is a balance between commercial-designated areas and residential areas. This land use designation promotes development of vacant land along arterial corridors. The commercial services would serve residents in the Mixed Use Village areas as well as the residential surrounding it as a neighborhood hub. 53  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation 2040 Future Land Use Plan F. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required to have additional land area, in excess of the minimum lot area otherwise required by the underlying zoning district, as necessary to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses and the zoning district. This parcel is 1.29 acres. The property is sufficient in size to support the proposed infrastructure. G. Site Plan: The proposed use shall be required to comply with the site plan review procedures and standards of Section 8.5, site plan review, as specified. A site plan was submitted with the building permit. It complies with the standards of Section 8.5. 54  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition SUP 23-52 is appropriate. The collocation shall have minimum impact on the surrounding commercial properties. The application meets the criteria for approval of a Special Use Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 23-52, a request from Victoria Chhun, for placement of a collocation tenant at 126 feet in height on an existing monopole located at 5825 E. Main Street, subject to the following condition: 1. The SUP shall not have a time limit for renewal. 2. Towers and antennae shall be removed, at the owner’s expense, within 180 days of the discontinuance of use unless the City extends this time in writing. 55  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation 56  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation 57  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation NEIGHBORS WITHIN 100 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Kenneth And Lynsay 5001 Rancho De Animas Farmington, NM 87402 Elizabeth R Kaime Trust 1830 Boston Dr Las Cruces, NM 88001 Hoodoo B LLC Attn Dimmick Lynn 3591 Nyland Way Lafayette, CO 80026 Shyama LLC 12711 Candelaria Rd NE Albuquerque, NM 87112 Scfrc Hw V LLC 900 Schofield Ln Farmington, NM 87401 Ziems Ford Corners Inc 5700 E Main St Farmington, NM 87402 Grhh Pinion Hills LLC Etal 855 W Broad St Ste 300 Boise, ID 83720 Four Corners Community Bank 500 W Main Street Ste 101 Farmington, NM 87401 58  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation 59  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation 60  City of Farmington SUP 23-52 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation 61 MEMO TO: City of Farmington Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colby Gibson Long Range Planner DATE: July 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Future Land Use Plan Discussion The 2040 Comprehensive Plan provides recommendations to assist Farmington’s governing bodies in decision making and to move policy and development forward in an intentional and productive way into the year 2040. The plan is a public policy document intended to guide future development and redevelopment based on the community’s vision and values. The Future Land Use Plan is an important component of the comprehensive plan. The Future Land Use Plan is a tool to manage ongoing land development and redevelopment within the City. The Future Land Use Plan is related to zoning, however serves a different purpose. Zoning defines current permitted and non-permitted land uses and displays where zoning district boundaries are located. Unlike zoning, the Future Land Use Plan (in New Mexico) is not legally binding and is not a policy. Instead, the plan serves as a guide for future decisions about zoning, development, and infrastructure investments and is designed to be generalized and not follow every parcel. Existing zoning categories are grouped into larger categories within the Future Land Use Plan to enable greater flexibility. It is the local governing body’s responsibility to implement policies that help to make the community’s vision a reality. Future Land Use Plan Zoning Map and the UDC Future: Describes land uses and physical Today: Defines land uses and development characteristics desired for the future. attributes allowed on a specific site today. General Intent: Describes general land use Specific Requirements: Defines specific designations, physical characteristics and future permitted or special land uses, minimum or growth areas. maximum attributes, and review procedures. General Locations: Does not follow every Site Specific: Each parcel of land is parcel, rather is based on an area or assigned a specific zoning district. neighborhood. Flexible Guide: Makes recommendations about Law: The map and zoning ordinance are the future but is not legally binding. legal documents adopted by City Council. 63  Industrial • Manufacturing, assembly, warehousing, distribution, processing areas, flex space, small office and light industrial. • Located in areas with convenient access to transportation corridors. Should be buffered from residential areas. • Density: N/A; FAR: >2.0 Downtown • Office, housing, restaurants, specialty retail, lodging, urban residential living, and cultural activities/services. • Consists of the Downtown MRA. Pedestrian and bike amenities/connections are emphasized. • Density: 15+ DU/Acre; FAR: 2.0+ Future Land Use Plan Categories Commercial Mixed Use • Flexible with a wide variety of retail, services, commercial centers, entertainment, outdoor recreation etc. Mixed use developments (horizontal or vertical) with multifamily density residential. • Located along major arterial corridors with high levels of traffic. • Density: 10-14 DU/Acre; FAR: >0.25 Mixed Use Village • Variety of shops, services, neighborhood commercial and high density residential. Provides commercial services for residents living in the immediate and surrounding areas. • Located in between commercial and medium density residential areas. Emphasizes walkable areas and enhancing the multi-modal transportation network. • Density: 10-25 DU/Acre; FAR: >0.5 64  Public Facilities • Supports civic, institutional uses (offices, schools, airport, libraries, museums etc.). Can be standalone or mixed with other uses. • Located throughout the City with a focus on creating multi-functional public spaces. • Density: N/A; FAR: 0.25-2.5 Employment Mixed Use • Focuses on integrated live/work developments with medium to high density residential. Wide range of employment and service types. • Located near urban or community centers. Highly connected with access to major arterials and transit Future Land Use Plan Categories systems. • Density: 8-20 DU/Acre; FAR: >0.25 Medium Density Residential • Wide range of housing options including single-family, multi-family, townhomes, duplexes, live/work units and group care homes. • Spread throughout the City with an emphasis on being walkable and bikeable to city amenities. • Density: 4-20 DU/Acre; FAR: N/A Low Density Residential • Consists typically of single-family residences built on larger lot sizes. • Generally located at the outer edges of the City limits with access to arterials. • Density: <4 DU/Acre; FAR: N/A 65  Parks • Variety of outdoor recreation activities including golf, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, swimming pools, picnicking areas and floodplain areas. Used to buffer incompatible land uses. • Located throughout the City. Many of which are integrated into residential neighborhoods. • Density: N/A; FAR: N/A Openspace • Protects natural values and provides undeveloped land to be used as buffering betwen land uses. • Typically held by the BLM, State of New Mexico or other public entities and is to be remain as open space or be Future Land Use Plan Categories developed for recreational purposes. • Density: N/A; FAR: N/A 66  How Existing Zoning Fits into the Future Land Use Plan Existing Zoning Compatibility Recommendation Future Land Use MF-H MF-M MF-L SF-A SF-5 RE-1 RE-2 RE- IND PIP LNC SF- Designation GC CB MU OP RA 20 SF- MH 10 SF-7 Industrial Downtown Commercial Mixed Use Mixed Use Village Public Facilities Employment Mixed Use Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Parks Open Space | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 67