Planning & Zoning

December 14, 2023 1  AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive December 14, 2023 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the November 16, 2023 P&Z Meeting 4 Petition FP 23-94 – A request for Final Plat approval of the Sandstone Subdivision at San Juan Country Club, a 54-lot subdivision in Tier I of Farmington’s Platting Jurisdiction. Presented by Senior Planner Mike Safrany (page 42) 5 Petition ZC 23-92 – A request for a Zone Change from PD Planned Development to SF-10 Single-family Residential zoning for Lot 1 of the Sandstone Subdivision at the San Juan Country Club. Presented by Senior Planner Mike Safrany (page 62) 6 Petition ZC 23-95 – A request for approval of a Major Amendment to the Las Vistas Subdivision No. 3 Planned Unit Development. Presented by Planning Manager Colby Gibson (page 78) 7 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: Staff update on petition ZC 23-75 9 Adjournment Petition items on this agenda will be scheduled for the next City Council meeting – January 9, 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. 2  Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 16, 2023 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on November 16, 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 Cheryl Ragsdale Cody Waldroup Gary Hanson Amber Hodge P&Z Members Absent Joyce Cardon Clete Berens Shay Davis Staff Present: Mike Safrany Joaquin Gonzalez Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission Paul Martin Dr. Mary Susan Moreland Brandon Pino Nila Hamblin Vitzthum Pitchford Amanda Pitchford 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 Hodge to approve the agenda of the November 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 Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Waldroup to approve the minutes of the October 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. 3 Petition CV 23-82 – A request for a waiver of the required 300-foot distance from a residential use to a proposed cannabis retail facility at 850 E. Main Street Suite B, a 1.84- acre property. Associate Planner Gonzalez Presented the Following: Variance Request o Applicant: Wilber Garcia o Location: 850 E. Main Street Suite B o Existing Zoning: General Commercial o Existing Land Use: Vacant Commercial Property o Request: The petitioner is requesting a waiver of the required 300-foot distance from a residential use to a cannabis retail facility at 850 E. Main Street Suite B, a 1.84-acre property. Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan 4 Aerial View of Subject Property Proposed Floor Plan 5 View of the Property 850 E. Main St. Ste. B 300 Ft. Perimeter 6  Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4 Criteria 1 • That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The selection of the subject property for a cannabis use is not self-imposed. The petitioner originally submitted a request for a business license from the City of Farmington on August 23, 2022 almost one year before the 300’ distance requirement to residential standard was in place. The distancing requirement is in place to protect existing residences from nearby cannabis land uses however the subject property is properly zoned for a commercial cannabis facility. This criterion IS met. Criteria 2 • That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would prohibit a retail cannabis facility from being located at 850 E. Main Street despite the surrounding area being properly zoned General Commercial. The Grass Station dispensary operates a cannabis cultivation facility approximately 400 feet to the east on Main Street. This criterion IS met. Criteria 3 7  • The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. • The petitioner has met every other requirement of the UDC with the exception of the distance requirement to a residential use. Staff believes that the applicant has demonstrated that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements. This criterion IS met. Criteria 4 • That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed use is carried out securely indoors and is not injurious to the neighborhood. The location is surrounded by several of general commercial uses. The subject property has access from E Main Street which is classified as a major arterial by the City’s Major Thoroughfare Plan. Distance measured from the front door of the proposed cannabis retail facility to the front door of the closest mobile home is about 380-feet away more than 300 feet from the residential ‘use’. This criterion IS met. Criteria 5 & 6 • That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. The granting of this variance will not allow any other prohibited uses in the GC: General Commercial District. Per UDC Sections 2.4.67 cannabis retail is a permitted use in the General Commercial zoning district. This criterion IS met. • That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. Criteria 7 • That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant currently owns the subject property. If the variance were to be denied, they would be prevented from opening a retail cannabis facility at the location. 8  This criterion IS met. Public Notice Letters were sent to nine surrounding neighbors and the property was posted with a sign. Staff Conclusion Compliance: The proposed use meets all of the variance criteria outlined in UDC Sec. 8.12.4. Consistency: The proposed use is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Future Land Use Plan designation of Employment Mixed Use. Compatibility: The proposed use should not have a negative impact on the environment or surrounding area. Recommendation • The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition CV 23-82, a request from Wilber Garcia, for a waiver of the required 300-foot distance from a residential use to a cannabis retail facility at 850 E. Main Street Suite B in the General Commercial zoning district with the following conditions of approval: 1) A building and fire inspection shall be required. 2) The applicant shall install one ADA van accessible parking space per UDC section 5.2.3 and 5.2.10. Discussion Petitioner Wilber Garcia, 4329 Cardinal St. Mr. Garcia stated that they are wanting to open a retail cannabis shop to help with employment and to help with the economy in Farmington. He also stated that he has other auto sales businesses here in town. The Commission Asked Petitioner: 9  1. Do you have other cannabis businesses here in town? Do you own this property? 2. Why was there the one year delay to open this business? 3. The license in staff’s presentation, is that for retail only? Do you have all licenses and permits from the state? Petitioner Replied: 1. No they do not have other cannabis businesses in town and he does own this property. 2. Suite B was being rented out so they could not open their cannabis business until the tenant moved out. 3. Yes, that is correct, retail only and we have all our permits and licenses from the state. Affected Parties Paul Martin, Petitioner’s Representative, 125 W. Main St., Farmington NM Mr. Martin gave a brief summary of the veterinary clinic located next door to the proposed retail cannabis dispensary. The clinic opened in 1954. He added that staff and some animals are there 24/7. Mary Susan Moreland, 104 Harbor Ln., Farmington NM Dr. Moreland stated that some of her concerns are: 1. Safety of the staff and animals when they have an emergency early in the morning, when it is still dark, and everyone is busy trying to administer aide to the animals and get the owners indoors. 2. The have controlled substances under lock and key inside the clinic, but someone could still get to them. 3. She is worried about the foot traffic going in and out of the parking lot. 4. What if someone makes a purchase from the cannabis dispensary and accidently drops it in the parking lot, if an animal was to get ahold of it, this could be very toxic for to the animal. The Commission Asked Dr. Moreland: 1. Is this property fenced? 2. How do you treat an intoxicated animal? Dr. Moreland Replied: 1. Everything is fenced, except the parking lot. There is a front and back gate. You would need to come in the gate a pull around the clinic to get to where the large animal area is. There is a four foot fence that separates the two properties. 2. IV fluid, and anti-seizure meds if they are seizing. Depending on how much they eat, it can be lethal. Paul Martin, Petitioner’s Representative – came back to the podium to state Dr. Bracken’s issues. Mr. Martin is representing Dr. Bracken and stated that this may be a minimum easing of the code, but in the eyes of the affected party it is much more than that. This could cause a hardship to Animal Haven Clinic if they start losing business because to the retail cannabis dispensary next door. This would be considered an attractive nuisance and the code was set up not to have a retail dispensary within 300 feet of a residence. So stick with the code. 10 Mr. Martin added that Dr. Bracken informed him that just the smell of the THC can really affect animals, and that she opposes the Cannabis Variance. The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Did you notice the mobile home park owners? 2. Can the consumer smoke cannabis on the property of the dispensary? 3. Per code, besides the 300 ft. to a residence, would they, by right be able to have a retail cannabis dispensary there? 4. What are the hours of operation? 5. If the code states 300 ft. why have we had multiple waivers brought to the Commission, what is the point of having a code if we are going to continue to grant these waivers. It is concerning that City Council is granting waivers after they changed the code. It seems we should change the code back. If the 300 foot rule to a residence was not in the code, this dispensary could operate without a variance. What is the point in having that code if are not going to enforce it? Staff Replied: 1. Yes the owner of the mobile home park was noticed, from lot line to lot line is about 40 feet so they are considered an affected party. 2. No, the consumer is not allowed to smoke on the property. 3. Yes, this is zoned General Commercial, they would by right be allowed to have a retail cannabis dispensary. Why is it that staff is trying to bypass the rules that had put in place? 4. The hours are from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. This dispensary hours will be Sunday through Saturday from 9:00 am through 9:00 pm. 5. Staff would not say they are trying to bypass the rules that were set in place. We look at the criteria that the petitioner has provided to staff about how they will not be injurious to the surrounding area. Not all petitions are cut and dry. That is the point of a variance, if we did not grant variances, we would stifle all kinds of development in Farmington. There are conditions and circumstances where a variance is appropriate. Associate Planner informed the Commission the he did some research regarding Dr. Moreland’s concerns. 1. He checked with Code Enforcement and there have been not been any odor complaints. 2. He also reached out to the Police Department and there has been one report written for commercial burglary and one for criminal damage to the property, they had a sign stolen. 3. The hours are from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. This dispensary hours will be Sunday through Saturday from 9:00 am through 9:00 pm. With no further public comments, Chair Freeman closed the public comment portion of the meeting for petition CV 23-82. Commission Discussion The same City Council that sets the criteria, for example, the 300 foot distance requirement also sets out the variance procedure and the seven criteria that we are to consider as we consider a 11 variance. It is one set of rules given to us by City Council which we to implement in our recommendation. Variances have been a part of zoning since there has been zoning. The Commission had no other questions for Associate Planner Gonzalez. With no further Commission discussion needed. Chair Freeman called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Vice Chair Brown and seconded by Commissioner Hodge to Approve Petition CV 23-82 with the conditions as recommended by staff. 1) A building and fire inspection shall be required. 2) The applicant shall install one ADA van accessible parking space per UDC section 5.2.3 and 5.2.10. AYE: Chair Freeman, Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Ragsdale and Amber Hodge NAY: Commissioner Waldroup ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Berens and Commissioner Cardon APPROVED 5-1 Roll Call Commissioner Hanson – Voted aye because looking at the seven criteria that are set out for us by the City Council, he feels they are generally satisfied for a variance and the objection heard by neighboring property owners are not actually related to the variance they are objections to the City Councils action to make retail cannabis authorized within the General Commercial zoning. Commissioner Ragsdale – Voted aye because she agrees with Commissioner Hanson and she feels the animals can be protected. Chair Freeman – Voted aye for the same reasons, the variance was due to residential and the residential is on the border line of that 300 foot distance. The objections we heard are really more to do with cannabis being sold in General Commercial. Vice Chair Brown – Voted aye for the same reasons. If there had been opposition from the mobile home park he would have voted against it. Commissioner Hodge – Voted aye because she feels that all the criteria had been met and it is not our neighbor’s burden to provide security for our area. If there had been opposition from the people living in the mobile home park, she may have voted differently. 12 Commissioner Waldroup Voted nay strictly because of the 300 foot distance to a residence rule and the residents didn’t have the opportunity to be heard. He doesn’t want to go against what City Council added to the code. Petition ZC 23-83 – A request for a Zone Change from RA, Rural Agriculture, to GC, General Commercial. Located at 2105 West Main St. Senior Planner Safrany Presented the Following: Petition Information • Petitioner: Tyler Moncur for Sizzling Caesars LLC • Zoning: RA: Rural Agricultural District • Existing Land Use: Existing industrial warehouse on the property • Requesting: Zone Change to GC: General Commercial Background • The property is 1.89 acres • There is one existing light commercial utility building (3,240 sf) on the site built in 1940. • There are randomly placed metal storage containers on the site. • There are a few boats, trucks and other miscellaneous materials stored on the site. 13 Aerial View 14  Zoning Map Proposed Site Plan The View from W. Main St. Facing South 15 The View South of Property Facing North East Edge of Subject Property 16 West Edge of Subject Property 17  UDC 8.7 – Issues For Consideration A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? Commercial Mixed Use is commercial and office professional oriented. The proposed zoning is appropriate for this land use and fits the land use better than the existing Rural Agriculture zoning B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning? The existing building is compatible with the surrounding area. The subject property has General Commercial zoning on adjacent properties to the north and west. In addition, West Main Street is a principal arterial street. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can they be adequately mitigated? No adverse impacts are expected. The same uses are already existing along W Main St. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning? Yes, the proposed development meets the density and dimensional standards of the UDC Table 2.82 with appropriate setbacks and parking areas. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? The site as proposed must meet all of the relevant regulations of the Unified Development Code. 18  F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? Yes. All utilities are existing. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11? No. There is a variety of General Commercial zoned properties in the surrounding area. Conclusion Staff concludes the zone change from a Rural Agricultural district to a General Commercial district, for a 1.89 acre property is supported by the general character of the neighborhood. Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of ZC 23-83, a request from Tyler Moncur, for a zone change from RA: Rural Agricultural to GC: General Commercial with the following condition: 1. Future commercial development shall comply with the requirements of Article 5 of the Unified Development Code Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Will they be sub-dividing this parcel in the future? Staff Replied: 1. For now the petition if just for the zone change for the entire parcel. If they divide it in the future, it would remain zoned General Commercial. With no public comment, Chair Freeman closed the public comment portion of the meeting for petition ZC 23-83. The Commission had no other questions for Senior Planner Safrany. With no Commission discussion needed. Chair Freeman called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to Approve Petition ZC 23-83 with the condition as recommended by staff. 19  1) Future commercial development shall comply with the requirements of Article 5 of the Unified Development Code AYE: Chair Freeman, Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Waldroup and Amber Hodge NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Berens and Commissioner Cardon APPROVED 6-0 Roll Call Commissioner Hodge voted aye because she agreed with staff. Commissioner Waldroup voted aye because it’s pretty strait forward with the surrounding area being General Commercial. Vice Chair Brown voted aye because he agrees with Commissioner Waldroup. Chair Freeman voted aye because he agrees with the other commissioners that is pretty straight forward. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye because it is the best use for that property. Commissioner Hanson voted aye with Commissioner Ragsdale that that is the best use for that property. Petition SUP 23-87 – A request for a Special Use Permit to allow for commercial cannabis cultivation, manufacturing and retail at 2800 Inland Street. Associate Planner Gonzalez Presented the Following: Petition • Applicant: Levi Shay • Representative: Brandon Pino • Location: 2800 Inland Street • Existing Zoning: Industrial • Request: Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for cannabis cultivation, manufacturing and production on site. Subject Property 20 • Approximately a 1.71 acre parcel • 9,000 square feet, storage warehouse Zoning Area View 21  Zoning Street View 22 Floor Plan 23  Farmington Comprehensive Plan Unified Development Code Sec. 8.9 24 • 8.9.1 Purpose: Special Use Permits allow for discretionary approval of uses with unique or widely varying operating characteristics. • 8.9.2 Applicability: Special Use Permit approvals attach to the property and are transferable to subsequent owners. • 8.9.5 Additional Conditions: Additional reasonable conditions may be imposed as necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the UDC and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. • 8.9.6 Expiration of Approval: • Special Use Permit approval shall expire after 18 months from the date of approval if operation of the approved use has not commenced. • Time limits shall be set through the conditions of approval. • A. Effect on Environment: Shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare or safety of the neighborhood. • B. Compatible with surrounding area: Existing building is in good shape and harmonious with the character of the surrounding area. • C. External Impacts Minimized: Proposed facility shall comply with state requirements for noise and fumes. • D. Infrastructure Impacts Minimized: No negative impact on existing infrastructure or services. • E. Consistent with UDC and Comprehensive Plan: Conforms with • ‘Industrial’ designation. • F. Parcel Size: Subject property size is sufficient for proposed use. • G. Site Plan: Site plan meets UDC standards. Public Notice • Letters were sent to 6 surrounding neighbors and the property was posted with a sign. At the time of this report no public input has been received. 25  Staff Conclusion • Compliance: The proposed use complies with the Unified Development Code SUP criteria outlined in 8.9.4, Cannabis, manufacturing and production 2.4.69 and Cannabis, commercial cultivation standards 2.4.71. • Consistency: The proposed use is consistent with the 2040 Land Use Plan designation of Industrial. • Compatibility: The proposed commercial cannabis cultivation, manufacturing and production uses are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding industrial and commercial uses Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 23-87, a request from Levi Shay, represented by Brandon Pino, for a commercial cannabis cultivation, manufacturing and production facility at 2800 Inland Street in the Industrial zoning district with the following conditions of approval: • 1. State license shall be obtained. • 2. A building division/fire division inspection shall be required. • 3. A building permit shall be required for any interior modifications. • 4. Petitioner shall have surface markings for the required 8 parking spaces per the UDC requirements of section 5.2.11 Parking Design Standards. • 5. The SUP shall be effective for five years, at which time the applicant can renew. Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1) Is this located in the City of Farmington or in the county? 2) On the parking standard, do they have to have paved parking? Staff Replied: 26  1) This is located in the city limits. 2) No, it is already paved. They just the stripping and the sign for the ADA parking. Petitioner’s Representative, Brandon Pino, 721 McHenry Dr., Farmington NM Mr. Pino stated that he has overseen 58 licenses across the United States. They have a great relationship with the Cannabis Control Division and have had zero issues with operations within San Juan County. They feel very informed in what they need to follow in San Juan County and Farmington. The Commission Asked the Petitioner’s Representative: 1) Have you done manufacturing previously? 2) Have you been doing manufacturing here in Farmington? 3) How many employees will be at this location? Petitioner’s Representative Replied: 1) Yes, currently we have manufacturing and production. We harvest on a weekly basis and manufacture multiple products. We do solventless extraction. 2) No, not in Farmington. We have been doing manufacturing at our other facility, about a mile and a half up La Plata Hwy from this location. We have a great relationship with San Juan County. 3) It will vary from time to time, at harvest time we anticipate a maximum of 10 employees. There are no Affected Parties that would like to speak. Interested Parties Nila Hamblin, 1380 Hwy 170, La Plata NM, 87418 Ms. Hamblin stated that she and her husband fought to keep alcohol out of the gas stations, which was defeated. We have had too many alcohol related deaths now. We are against and opposed to having more cannabis grown here. Ms. Hamblin also stated that she is the president of Drug Free San Juan County and have been working against alcohol and drug abuse for the last 40 years. With no further public comment, Chair Freeman closed the public comment portion of the meeting for petition SUP 23-87. The Commission had no other questions for Associate Planner Gonzalez. With no Commission discussion needed. Chair Freeman called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Hodge to Approve Petition SUP 23-87 with the conditions as recommended by staff. 27  • 1. State license shall be obtained. • 2. A building division/fire division inspection shall be required. • 3. A building permit shall be required for any interior modifications. • 4. Petitioner shall have surface markings for the required 8 parking spaces per the UDC requirements of section 5.2.11 Parking Design Standards. • 5. The SUP shall be effective for five years, at which time the applicant can renew. AYE: Chair Freeman, Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Waldroup and Amber Hodge NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Berens and Commissioner Cardon APPROVED 6-0 Roll Call Commissioner Hanson voted aye because the area is appropriate for the use that is being proposed as outlined by staff. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye because she agrees with Commissioner Hanson and it is an area where it should be. Chair Freeman voted aye because he feels it is appropriate in the area. They already have retail and having a grow facility behind it, make sense for the area. Vice Chair Brown voted aye. He does understand the concern about substance abuse, but at this time alcohol and cannabis are legal in New Mexico. This locations zoning is appropriate for cannabis cultivation. Commissioner Waldroup voted aye because it complies with everything that is needed for this property to operate as presented. Commissioner Hodge voted aye because this did meet all the stipulations. Petition CV 23-89 – A request for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a residential use to a proposed cannabis retailer at 1050 E. Murray Drive, a 0.223-acre property. Senior Planner Safrany Presented the Following: Petition Information 28  Petitioner: Jason Valdez Zoning: GC: General Commercial District Existing Land Use: Vacant Commercial Building Requesting: Waiver from the 300-foot distance requirement from existing residential uses. Background • The property is 0.22 acres • An existing 1,952 sq. ft. building is on the site, built in 1961. • The property is located at the intersection of Murray Dr. and McCormick School Rd. • There is a cross walk at the intersection used by children attending McCormick Elementary School approx. a quarter mile to the north. Applicable Regulations 29 City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.4.67 Recreational Cannabis sales. C. Such uses shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school (public and private), religious institution, registered daycare center, residential use, or from another cannabis dispensary. Distance is measured by a straight line from the closest property line of the retail business to the closest property line of a religious institution, school, registered daycare, residential use or dispensary. Zoning Map Distance Map 30 Cannabis Map 31 Floor Plan (1,952 sf) 32 East Elevation 33 Southwest Elevation 34 Southeast Elevation 35  Variance Criteria 1. That special conditions exist that are not self-imposed: The subject property is located on a Principle Arterial street with heavy commercial zoning along the north and south sides of the street. There are however six non-conforming residences along E Murray drive within 300 feet of the subject property that are zoned General Commercial. There are an additional twenty residential properties within 300 feet zoned multi-family or with a Special Mobile Home Area Overlay. 2. That literal interpretation of the code would deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights: A literal interpretation of the code would prohibit a retail cannabis facility from being located at 1050 E Murray Drive despite the surrounding area being properly zoned Industrial and General Commercial uses. 3. That applicant demonstrates the request is a minimum easing of the code: The approval of this variance would place a cannabis retail business within 300 feet of over two dozen residential properties. Although five residential properties are south of Murray Drive which 36  provides a buffer between these residences and the proposed business, there is a school crosswalk directly in front of the site in the path of where children must pass by to attend McCormick Elementary School one quarter mile to the north. This is not a minor easing of the code. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the code and not injurious to the neighborhood: Although there are a wide variety of commercial and industrial uses along E Murray Drive, the proposed use will be carried out within 300 feet of many residential properties and is not in harmony with the general interest of the neighborhood. Public Input This petition was properly noticed. Letters were sent to surrounding property owners within 100 feet from property line to property line excluding right of ways. Legal notice was published and a sign was posted on the subject property. At the time of this report no public input has been received. Staff Conclusion The proposed use does not meet the variance criteria outlined in UDC Sec. 8.12.4. Four of the seven required variance criteria were not met. The proposed use is not in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood and is not a minor easing of the Unified Development Code. The proposed use is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial Mixed Use. Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends denial of CV 23-89, a request from Jason Valdez, for a waiver from the City’s 300-foot distance requirement from a residential use at 1050 E Murray Drive. Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. How is this criteria different than the criteria on the previous Petition CV 23-82? 2. Is the legal non-conforming residences considered in the 300 foot distance rule? 37  3. If there was no residences around, could they have a retail cannabis dispensary in this location, even with the crosswalk being there? Staff Replied: 1. The criteria is looked for each individual petition. This petition has opposition and there is not buffer zone because of the crosswalk that will have children crossing a several times a day to go to McCormick Elementary School. 2. Yes, any residence regardless of the zoning, even if they are non-conforming still has their rights of the neighborhood protection. 3. Yes, by right they would be able to. The crosswalk would not have been considered. Petitioner Jason Valdez, 3109 N. Mesa Verde Ave., Farmington NM Mr. Valdez stated that he does not own the property, but is trying to purchase it. He was trying to buy the property, but since he owns a cannabis shop his loan was denied. The current property owner was going to carry the note on the purchase. He wanted to put a dispensary there and if it did not do well, they would put something else there. He did not consider the crosswalk, but he stated that if this was approved, they would open later so the dispensary would not be open when children using are using the crosswalk. The signs would just say Toke and there would not be any pot leaves or any other kind of advertising that this was a dispensary. The Commission Asked Petitioner: 1. The other locations that were approved, have you opened them? 2. What if some children walking by came into the dispensary? What kind of security do you have? 3. Would you be open to fencing off some of the property so the children can’t see the dispensary? Petitioners Response: 1. We are just trying to expand. The location by Lauter Hause is getting re-roofed, the location on Schofield Ln. and E. Main St. is still being rented. When that business is out of there we will move in. At this time we are not sure it will be a dispensary, it may be something else. We also plan on purchasing it when they do move. He added that there have been four dispensaries in New Mexico that have closed and they trying to position themselves to absorb their clientele from the ones closed in Farmington. 2. If someone enters the dispensary, they would enter a waiting room that has menu boards, they would not be able go any further and enter the store. For security we have video cameras on everything and there are locked doors that you would have to be buzzed in to enter. 3. I would be open to it, but the way the parking lot sits, I don’t see how we could fence it in. Affect Parties Cross Examination Nila Hamblin, 1380 Hwy 170, La Plata NM, 87418 38 Ms. Hamblin Asked the Petitioner: 1. Ms. Hamblin owns the three residences next door to this property, and she asked the petitioner who owns the property at this time. Petitioners Reply: 1. Mr. Valdez stated that James Coury is the current owner. Vitzthum Pitchford, 1125 Oak St., Farmington NM: Mr. Pitchford Asked the Petitioner: 1. Mr. Pitchfork asked the petitioner if he was going to put the word “Toke” on the sign. The children walking be will go home or to school and ask what that word means. He did not give the petitioner time to answer. Affected Parties Statements Vitzthum Pitchford, 1125 Oak St., Farmington NM: Mr. Vitzthum stated that nobody in the room thinks this is a good idea and that Mr. Valdez had not considered the crosswalk. The crossing guard parks in the parking lot to this building, is he going to allow that to continue. The will get broken into and robbed, this is not a good neighborhood. Amanda Pitchford, 1125 Oak St., Farmington NM: Ms. Pitchford stated that she and her husband share the same concerns. She has lived on this property since she was a child. They have a five year old who attends McCormick school that she walks to school on her days off and there are school zones all around this property. Her concern is that the children would be walking in front of this establishment and may have contact to some of the dispensary customers in the parking lot. Ms. Pitchford also stated that she is also concerned about the alley access to her house. The alley dead ends into her backyard and they have had numerous situations of unsavory people coming through there. They would love to see something go into that building, just not a cannabis disperser. This would be in her backyard and she does not want it. Nila Hamblin, 1380 Hwy 170, La Plata NM, 87418 Ms. Hamblin stated that she appreciates that staff is recommending denial for this petition. She also stated that they want to protect their property. She does not want this in her backyard, they have worked hard to make it an agreeable neighborhood. She also wanted to point out that Sycamore Park is a few blocks south of this location. With no public comment, Chair Freeman closed the public comment portion of the meeting for petition CV 23-89. The Commission had no other questions for Senior Planner Safrany. With no Commission discussion needed. Chair Freeman called for a motion. Motion 39 A motion was made by Commissioner Waldroup and seconded by Commissioner Hodge to deny Petition CV 23-89 with the condition as recommended by staff. AYE: Chair Freeman, Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Waldroup and Amber Hodge NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Berens and Commissioner Cardon APPROVED 6-0 Roll Call Commissioner Hodge voted aye because staff presented criteria was not met and she felt that this was not a good place for a cannabis dispensary. Commissioner Waldroup voted aye because of the 300 foot from a residence rule. Vice Chair Brown voted aye based solely based on the opposition testimony from the three affected parties. Chair Freeman voted aye because he feels this situation is different than the earlier cannabis petition. Sometimes there a gray area that can swing either one way or the other and this one swung towards the denial. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye because she felt it was too close to the school and the kids walking past it. She also agreed with staffs report and it does not belong in that area. Commissioner Hanson voted aye, he feels that this variance is qualitatively different than other petitions they have heard. With the 26 residences within the 300 feet and the affected party’s opposition that it should be denied. 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: Commissioner Hanson apologized for having to leave early at the last meeting and having to cut it short. He added that he would like the Commission and staff to have a discussion regarding Pinon Hills Blvd. Business from Staff: Associate Planner Gonzalez informed the Commission that Petition 23- 75 located on Pinon Hills Blvd. is currently on hold and may be withdrawn. 40 Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Ragsdale and seconded by Commissioner Hodge. The motion carried unanimously 6-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:24 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Clint Freeman Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 41  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Final Plat Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Petition No. FP 23-94 A. STAFF REPORT, November 28, 2023 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Scott D. Bird Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application October 30, 2023 Requested Action Final Plat Approval Location Property is in San Juan Country Club. Parcel #R6002300 Existing Zoning PD: Planned Development Surrounding Zoning North: RE-2: Single-Family Residential South: SF-10: San Juan Country Club Phase 2 and Land Use East: RE-20: Vacant West: RE-2: Single-Family Residential Subdivision Class Class 1 Notice Final Plat submittals do not require notice Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Senior Planner SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Number of Lots 54 Lots Acres of Land 25.74 Lot Size 7,000 – 22,750 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 1 42  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner is requesting final plat approval of a 54-lot subdivision in Tier I of the City of Farmington municipal boundary. The Preliminary Plan for the Sandstone Subdivision was approved by City Council on August 23, 2022. The Rezone from SF-10: Single-family residential to PD: Planned Development was also approved on August 23, 2022 by City Council. The Final Plat for the Sandstone Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 15, 2023. San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show that the size of the property is 26.04 acres and is currently vacant. On October 11, 2023 a Summary Plat (SP 23-90) was submitted to allow the property at 6701 Club House Drive, a single-family residential lot, to purchase the proposed Lot 1 (13,487 sf) of the Sandstone Subdivision. This will reduce the Sandstone Subdivision from 26.05 acres to 25.74 acres and reduce the number of lots from 55 to 54 lots. The applicant is also increasing the size of 15 lots within the Sandstone Subdivision. Lots 14 thru 17 and lots 23 thru 26 will have a new lot depth of 120 feet from the previous 100 feet. Lots 43 thru 48 have a new lot depth of 118.44 feet from 98.44 feet. Lot 42 has a new lot depth of 143.44 feet from 123.44 feet. This is a total of 15 lots that will each increase the lot size by 20 feet in depth. On average, this will increase each of the 15 lots by approximately 1,600 feet. The lot increases will reduce the two open spaces designated as Lot 56 and Lot 57 of the Sandstone Subdivision. Lot 56 will go from 299,887 sf (6.88 ac) to 295,990 sf (6.79 ac) and Lot 57 will be reduced from 93,803 sf (2.15 ac) to 81,065 sf (1.86 ac). This will reduce the total open space area from 393,690 sf to 377,055 sf, a reduction of 4.23%. The minimum open space required for a Planned Development is 10% of the total area, or 2.6 acres (113,256 sf). The revisions proposed to the Final Plat are unlikely to cause any adverse impacts or increase the density or intensity of the permitted uses. Public notice has been sent directly by the applicant and by the City of Farmington regarding the zone change of 13,487 sf of the Sandstone Subdivision (previously Lot 1), and a minor amendment of the Planned Development. No public input has been received to date, therefore the Community Works Director has determined the revisions to the PD: Planned Development has met the criteria of a minor amendment, UDC Section 4.1.11 (B). According to the UDC Section 8.8.9 Major Subdivision application process, for final plat review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the final plat shall substantially conform to the preliminary plan as approved by the City Council, incorporating all changes, modifications, corrections, and conditions imposed by the city council; and provided further, that it shall conform to all applicable requirements of the UDC. If the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the Final Plat does not substantially conform to the Preliminary Plan previously approved by City Council, the revised Sandstone Subdivision must be resubmitted as a Preliminary Plan and be reapproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 43 APPROVED SANDSTONE FINAL PLAT 3 44  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision REVISIONS TO THE SANDSTONE FINAL PLAT 45 Sandstone Subdivision No. 4 Replat G (SP 23-90) 5 46  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision Sandstone Approved Final Plat - Center Lots Sandstone Proposed Final Plat - Center Lots 47  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision Sandstone Approved Final Plat - West Side Lots 48  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision Sandstone Revised Final Plat - West Side Lots 49  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision 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 approved zone change to a PD - Planned Development zoning district, Petition ZC 22-62. D. Comprehensive plan consistency. All subdivisions shall be reviewed for consistency with the comprehensive plan, and every plat approved by the city shall constitute an amendment, addition or a detail of the comprehensive plan or part thereof adopted by the commission. Staff Comments: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designates this area as Medium Density Residential (4 to 20 dwelling units per acre lot). 50  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Current Zoning Map 51  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW All infrastructure improvements for Lot 448-G at 6701 Club House Drive will no longer be a part of the Sandstone Subdivision and will require a separate subdivision agreement prior to approval of Summary Plat SP 23-90. Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta 1) Please add the following note to the plat: “Drainage and maintenance within and through all lots designated at “Open Space” shall be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association.” 2) Please add the following underlined statement to Plat Note 2: “Lot 57 Out Lot shall be dedicated to the City of Farmington as a City Storm Water Detention Pond per the conditions outlined in the Sandstone at SJCC Main Sewer Line Agreement dated February 15, 2023 and a letter of acceptance issued by the City to Sandstone at SJCC, LLC.” 3) Please remove Plat Note 6). This is a change to the plat submission, not something that would be noted on the final plat to be recorded. Legal – Deputy City Attorney – R. Frost This request is coupled with SP23-90 and FP 23-92. Looking at all three (3) petitions and request together, there appears to be no issue. Therefore, legal has no comment. However, if any one of the three requests, mentioned above, are not granted, then this request should be considered in conjunction with the other request that is not granted. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes approval of Petition FP 23-94, Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Subdivision Final Plat is appropriate. The Community Works Director has determined the revisions to the PD: Planned Development do meet the criteria of a minor amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine if the final plat substantially conforms to the preliminary plan as approved by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition FP 23-94 a submittal from Scott D. Bird, represented by Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc. for a final plat approval of a Class 1, 54-lot subdivision of one undeveloped 25.74-acre parcel located in San Juan Country Club. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval, to be finalized and approved prior to recording of the Final Plat: 1. All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved, including the drainage report and any noted issues in this report, redline letters and emails. All corrections and comments regarding Final Plat 23-32 will be forwarded to this petition. 2. The proposed 60-foot right-of-way to Lakewood Drive shall be acquired and recorded. 3. A subdivision agreement shall be required for improvements at the Sandstone Subdivision. 4. All deficiencies for the existing detention pond (Lot 57), should be corrected by the petitioner or developer to the satisfaction of the City. 5. A zone change (ZC 23-92) for Lot 448-G must be approved. 52 SJ County Assessor's Map 12 53  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision FINAL PLAT - Sheet 1 54  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision FINAL PLAT - Sheet 2 55  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision FINAL PLAT - Sheet 3 56  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision \ 16 57  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision 58  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision 59  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision 60  Staff Report FP 23-94 Sandstone at SJCC Subdivision 61  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club STAFF REPORT Petition ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Lot 1 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Scott Bird Representative Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols Date of Application October 30, 2023 Requested Action Zone Change request from PD: Planned Development to SF-10: Single-Family Residential Location A Section of Parcel # R6002300, north of Footjoy Road. Existing Land Use No existing structures, there is a drainage feature along the northern property line Existing Zoning PD: Planned Development – Adult Living Community with 54 residential lots, 2 open space lots, 2 non-residential lots 2040 Future Land Use Low Density Residential Designation Surrounding Zoning & North: RE:2- Single-family Residential Land Use South: SF:10 – San Juan Country Club Phase 2 East: RE-20 - Vacant West: RE:2 - Single-Family Residential Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: November 29, 2023 Farmington Daily Times. Property owners letter: December 4, 2023 Sign posted: December 4, 2023 Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Senior Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Background The petitioner is requesting a Zone Change from a PD: Planned Development zoning district to a SF-10, Single-family residential district for 13,487 sf (0.31 acres) of the Sandstone Subdivision. The current PD zoning and the Final Plat has been approved for an Adult Living Community with 54 residential lots, 2 open space lots, a storm water pond, a care-takers plaza (Lot 13) and a community center. Lots range from 7,500 square feet to 14,700 square feet. The Preliminary Plan for the Sandstone Subdivision was approved by City Council on August 23, 2022. The Rezone from SF-10: Single-family residential to PD: Planned Development was also approved on August 23, 2022 by City Council. The Final Plat for the Sandstone Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 15, 2023. 62  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club The approved Final Plat has not been recorded. The Sandstone Subdivision remains one single lot of 26.05 acres (Lot R6002300). The zone change has been finalized for the entire 26.05 lot. On October 11, 2023 a Summary Plat was submitted to allow the property at 6701 Club House Drive, a single-family residential lot, to purchase the proposed Lot 1 of the Sandstone Subdivision. Since the Sandstone Subdivision has not been recorded, the Summary Plat request is for a boundary line adjustment along the theoretical boundaries of Lot 1 and will not be considered a combining of two lots. Currently Lot 448-G at 6701 Clubhouse Drive is a 27,540 sf (0.63 acres) lot with an existing single- family residence on the site. The Summary Plat will adjust the north property line 73.74 feet to the north and will expand the lot by 13,487 sf (.632 acres) to 41,027 sf (0.94 acres). The Sandstone Subdivision (Lot R6002300) will be reduced from 26.05 acres to 25.74 acres. This Zone Change request is to rezone the 13,487 sf (formerly Lot 1) from a PD: Planned Development zoning to an SF-10: Single-family residential zoning. 63  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Zoning Map 64  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club SJ County Assessor's Map 65  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Sandstone Site Plan 66  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Sandstone Subdivision No.4 Replat G 67  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Farmington Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan’s 2040 Future Land Use Map designation is ‘Medium Density Residential’. Medium Density Residential areas primarily contain traditional gridded-street neighborhoods. New neighborhoods, or upgrades to existing neighborhoods, should provide a walkable environment intermixed with public facilities, retail services, housing, and park areas. The desired density in this designation is 4 to 20 dwelling units per acre. 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: 1. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? The proposed SF-10 zoning designation meets the Medium-Density Residential land use description of the Comprehensive Plan. These areas primarily contain traditional gridded- street neighborhoods and a walkable environment. 2. 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? 68  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club The area is primarily SF-10, RE-20 and RE-2 zoning. The proposed lot area was previously zoned SF-10 before it was rezoned to a PD: Planned Development designation. 3. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? None identified. The current Lot at 6701 Clubhouse Drive is a 27,540 sf lot with an existing single-family residence on the site. The Summary Plat will expand the lot by 13,487 sf to 41,027 sf. The additional SF-10 zoning should not have any adverse impacts. 4. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? The requested zone change meets the requirements of the UDC Sections 2.3 and 2.8. Unified Development Code Sec. 3.6 - Single-family 10, 7 and 5 (SF-10, SF-7, SF-5). 3.6.1 Purpose. The single-family 10, 7 and 5 (SF-10, SF-7 and SF-5) districts are expected to accommodate a large percentage of the residential growth projected in the city over the 20-year planning horizon covered by the comprehensive plan. The districts are primarily intended to accommodate low to moderate density residential development that can be served by the full range of infrastructure. The districts are generally intended to be applied in areas with existing infrastructure. The uses and densities allowed in the SF-10, SF-7 and SF-5 districts (3.4 to 6.8 units per net acre) offer city residents a variety of housing choices in the low to moderate density range. The SF-10, SF-7, and SF-5 districts are intended to implement the residential planning policies of the comprehensive plan's "Residential Single-family Urban on parcels of less than 20,000 square feet" land use designation. 3.6.2 Allowed uses. Uses are allowed in the SF-10, SF-7, and SF-5 districts in accordance with the use table of section 2.3. 3.6.3 Density and dimensional standards. All development in the SF-10, SF-7, and SF-5 districts shall be subject to the density and dimensional standards of section 2.8. 3.6.4 District standards. District standards applicable in the SF-10, SF-7, and SF-5 districts include the following: A. [RESERVED] Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? Yes, the existing property can accommodate the plan as proposed. 5. 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? 69  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club Yes. The applicant will be required to construct any offsite improvements prior to approval of the submitted summary plat. 6. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11, definitions? No. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to 23 surrounding property owners. At the time of this report, no written public comment has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes the zone change from a PD, Planned Development district to a SF-10, Single- Family residential district, for a property of 41,027 sf (0.94 acres) at 6701 Club House Drive, is supported by the general character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-92, a request from Scott Bird for a zone change from a PD, Planned Development district to a SF-10, Single-family residential district at 6701 Club House Drive with the following conditions: 1. Final Plat approval for Sandstone at San Juan County shall be required. 2. A Summary Plat must be approved meeting all technical requirements. 70  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club 71  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club 72  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club 73  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club 74  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP SL FARMINGTON LAND LLC 2900 LOUISIANA BLVD ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87110 FORTNER BILL 6405 PUTTER PL FARMINGTON, NM 87402 FORTNER HEATHER D 6630 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 874020000 FRED CHARLES AND KYONG 6730 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 GONZALES AMELIA F 6320 HIGH POINT DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 HOWELL DAVID J AND LAURIE D 6725 HIGH POINT DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 J AND S ENTERPRISES PO BOX 629 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 LASATER HOUSTON 380 SEAVIEW CT APT 1507 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 NELSON CRAIG AND KACIE TRUST PO BOX 88 FARMINGTON, NM 87499 MELAZZO CHARLES AND MARGARET LIVING TRUST 6635 HIGH POINT DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 MOBLEY AUSTIN CRAIG 6825 HIGH POINT DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 MULLIS WD TRUST 6700 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 MEAD JEREMY AND DEANZA 6622 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 NOVAK ANDREAS 6710 HIGH POINT DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 PROCTOR FREDDY E AND GINA 6720 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 SAN JUAN COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES ASSOCIATIO 6490 OLD COURSE DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 SAN JUAN DEVELOPMENT CORP 5775 COUNTRY CLUB DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402-5085 SEABOLT JUSTIN LEE 6614 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 KATIRGIS S G AND M E TRUST 6727 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 STEVENS KENNETH D 6701 CLUB HOUSE DR FARMINGTON, NM 874020000 VAN SICKLE CHAD AND LISA 6531 MULLIGANS RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402 COLEMAN KENNETH M AND SHEILA S 6530 CLUBHOUSE DR FARMINGTON, NM 87402 ZIEMS MICHAEL AND MARY 6710 FOOTJOY RD FARMINGTON, NM 87402-0000 75  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club 76  Staff Report ZC 23-92 Sandstone at San Juan Country Club 77  COMMUNITY WORKS STAFF REPORT Las Vistas 3 Subdivision Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Major Amendment Petition ZC 23-95 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Kurt Cook Representative N/A Date of Application November 1, 2023 Requested Action Approval of P.U.D. Major Amendment Location North of Cougar Trail west of Hood Mesa Trail Existing Zoning Residential Estate-1, Planned Unit Development Overlay Surrounding North: Residential Estate-1 South: Residential Estate-1 Zoning and Land East: Residential Estate-1 Use West: Residential Estate-1 & Rural Agricultural Subdivision Class Class 2 Notice Publication of Notice: November 27, 2023, Farmington Daily Times Property owners letter: November 27, 2023 Requirements Sign posted: December 4, 2023 Staff Planner Colby Gibson, Planning Manager SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Acres of Land 96 Acres Minimum Lot 32,887 SQFT smallest lot Size Utilities Water: City water services – pressure line Sewer: Septic Electric: Farmington Electric Utility Service Access & 24-foot-wide with 2-foot shoulders (40-foot private right-of- Circulation way) Street Lights None Street Sign Per City Standards Fire Hydrants Per City Standards Drainage Per City Standards NBU Mail Box Existing 78  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment GENERAL INFORMATION The Las Vistas 3 Subdivision Planned Unit Development Final plat (FP 07-18) and Zone Change (ZC 07-17) were approved by the City of Farmington in 2007. This planned community is gated with private streets, public utilities and currently consists of 11 single- family residences. The Las Vistas Subdivision is being built in phases with only phase I and II being completed at this time. Las Vistas 3 Subdivision is part of the third phase. There are currently 68 lots present within the Las Vistas Subdivision (1, 2 and 3). The private roads within the Las Vistas Subdivision do not currently extend throughout and service each of the lots. Vista Hermosa Trail currently terminates to the north-east of 1445 Vista Hermosa Trail and Vista Grande Drive currently terminates at 5900 Vista Grande Drive. There is an existing residence located at 1445 Vista Hermosa Trail which was built within a 50’ roadway slope easement. Approximately 20 feet of the residence is located within the roadway slope easement. The easement was established through a Warranty Deed and recorded with San Juan County on November 15, 2010 (BK. 1518 PG. 109). The easement’s purpose was to accommodate the grade changes for the proposed extension of Vista Hermosa Trail. Per the applicant, an unsuccessful attempt has been made to relocate the roadway further to the north on privately owned land. The applicant is requesting the proposed future private road (and right-of-way) segment identified on the plat be abandoned in order to correct the encroachment issue discussed above. Additionally, the plat proposes to remove the 50’ roadway slope easement, vacate Los Canones Ct, combine lots 36 and 37, and dedicate private right-of-way for the cul- de-sac/turn around located at the terminus of Vista Hermosa Trail. The requested amendment qualifies as a major amendment to the P.U.D. master plan per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.2.12. As proposed, the existing temporary cul-de- sac at the terminus of Vista Hermosa Trail would become permanent. Lots to the west would now be accessed only from Vista Grande Dr. 79  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment Area Map A: Las Vistas Subdivision entrance. B: Current terminus of Vista Hermosa Dr. & Proposed cul-de-sac / turn around. C: Roadway segment proposing to be vacated. D: Current terminus of Vista Grande Dr. E: Existing emergency access point F: Proposed future terminus of Vista Grande Dr. Distance measured: • A to D: 1,801 feet • A to B: 1,681 feet • A to F: 5,423 feet • A to E: 1,800 feet 80  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Zoning Map 81  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment 82 Las Vistas 3 Subdivision 83  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment Approximate location of existing 50’ roadway slope Existing 50’ roadway slope easement 84  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment 85  Proposed segment to be vacated Temp Cul-de-sac, becomes permanent Existing 40’ emergency access 86 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW Engineering Staff –Toni Sitta: • Can they provide clarification regarding what they are proposing or mean with "Access to newly created parcels with emergency turn around." • Since the circulation of the subdivision will be disrupted by the abandonment of the street portion, an amended improvement plan or agreement should be included with the application that states that the developer will improve the former "emergency access" to city local street standards from the end of Los Canones to Vista Grande. • Please label the plat at “Las Vistas Subdivision No 3 Replat D” • Where is Description “B” and Description “A” at the P.O.B’s on the plat. • Please include a benchmark elevation referenced from City of Farmington GPS monument, including Northing & Easting on one corner of surveyed lot. Chief Building Official – Derrick Childers: The only issue I see is I thought the road vacation was going to be a 20-foot utility easement on the north side. Assistant Fire Marshal – Kipp Rix: From a public safety aspect I have the following concerns and comments in closing Vista Hermosa from point "B" to point "C" (reference page 5 of the planning memorandum dated 11/8/23): 1. The northwest section of Vista Hermosa needs to be renamed Vista Grande to continue from point "D" to point "C" 2. Vista Hermosa will require a turnaround meeting the requirements of the 2021 International Fire Code 3. A secondary entrance/ exit will need to be created extending from point "F" to point "A”. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS In addition to the comments identified in the initial review, staff has made the following findings: • The existing conditions of approval for the Las Vistas Sub. P.U.D. (FP 07-18) included a condition to grade the emergency access road as well as the City right-of-way to the south of the subdivision. This has not yet been completed. • The City right-of-way to the south of the subdivision is shown on the City’s Major Thoroughfare Plan as a proposed collector street. 87  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE – SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 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: - Per the Findings of Fact for the Las Vistas P.U.D. (FP 07-18) a variance was approved in 2007 for the following: • Minimum width of a street; • Each lot must front upon a public street not less than 40 feet in width; • Sidewalks; • Streetlights; - As proposed, two dead end streets are created within the Las Vistas Subdivision; Vista Hermosa Trail and Vista Grande Drive. Both dead end streets exceed the 600-foot length maximum per UDC Sec. 6.4.7.E. - Per UDC Sec. 6.4.6(2), a subdivision of 50 lots or greater shall provide access to the existing or proposed public roadway system via two access points at minimum. At the time of P.U.D. approval (8/29/07), this standard was waived with the condition that an access easement between lots 36 and 37 be graded as an emergency access point for the development. Staff has received concerns from both the Community Works Engineering staff and the Fire Department regarding the existing roadway conditions of the emergency access and Cougar Trail. Per the conditions of approval of the P.U.D. the developer was expected to grade the access easement to Cougar Trail and gate, however there were no timelines in place and the grading has not yet occurred. As part of this P.U.D. Major Amendment request, City staff is proposing new conditions of approval which would require grading and roadway surface improvements, and incorporate a timeline. - Cougar Trail, which proposes to serve as the emergency access road into the development is listed on the City’s Major Thoroughfare Plan as a proposed Collector street. The roadway will require to be brought up to City collector street standards at the time the property to the south is developed and additional right-of-way is dedicated. 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: As part of this P.U.D. Major Amendment, the petitioner is requesting a variance to UDC Sec. 6.4.7.E which requires dead-end streets to not 88  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment exceed 600 feet in length. As proposed, two dead end streets are established. Vista Hermosa Trail, while already a dead-end street 1,680 feet in length, would now permanently exist as is. The same is true for Vista Grande Drive which is 1,801 feet in length. Vista Grande Drive has the potential to extend up to approximately 5,400 feet in length. C. Zoning consistency. All subdivisions and the resulting lots shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable underlying zone district. Staff Comments: All lots conform to the minimum standards of the Residential Estate 1 zoning district. The subdivision does have a P.U.D. overlay which allows modification of dimensional requirements. The flexibility of the P.U.D. is included to provide an alternative to disturbing outstanding natural topography, geologic features, and natural drainage. Staff believes that the request meets the intent of the P.U.D.’s goals and objectives. D. Comprehensive plan consistency. All subdivisions shall be reviewed for consistency with the comprehensive plan, and every plat approved by the city shall constitute an amendment, addition or a detail of the comprehensive plan or part thereof adopted by the commission. Staff Comments: The proposed single-family use is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use map, which designates this area as Low Density Residential. PUBLIC INPUT Petition ZC 23-95 has been properly noticed per UDC Section 8.1.7. All property owners within the P.U.D. and within 100-feet of the subdivision boundaries have been notified of this request. To date, staff has not received any opposition. STAFF CONCLUSION The proposed major amendment to the Las Vistas 3 Subdivision P.U.D. meets the overall goals, objectives, and intent of a P.U.D. Specifically, the request provides an alternative to disturbing natural topography and preserves open space for the benefit of residents within the development. 89  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 23-95, a request from Kurt Cook, for approval of a major amendment of the Las Vistas No. 3 Subdivision Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) with the following conditions of approval: 1. All technical corrections to the replat will be finalized and approved, including any noted issues in this report, redline letters and emails. 2. The developer shall make the following improvements to the existing 40-foot wide emergency road easement in between lots 36 & 37 prior to the approval of a replat vacating the roadway segment and right-of-way on Vista Hermosa Trail. Such improvements shall begin at the proposed new terminus of Vista Grande Drive and end at the existing 30-foot City right-of-way, south of lots 36 & 37. a. Emergency road easement width shall be increased to 50-foot wide in order to meet City local street right-of-way standards. b. Emergency road easement shall be graded and improved with a minimum of four inches of compacted gravel road base, 24-foot wide. 3. The developer shall make roadway surface grade improvements to the 30-foot wide City right-of-way located south of the Las Vistas Subdivision otherwise known as Cougar Trail prior to the approval of a replat vacating the roadway segment on Vista Hermosa Trail including a minimum of four inches of compacted gravel road base, 24-foot wide from the emergency road easement to Vista Grande Drive. The grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 4. The existing 30-foot wide City owned right-of-way located south of the Las Vistas Subdivision otherwise known as Cougar Trail shall be constructed as a Collector Street along the property frontage per the most recent adopted City technical specifications and standards. Such improvements shall be required at the time when the northern and southern properties abutting Cougar Trail are developed. Said construction shall be at the equal cost of the abutting property owner(s). 90  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment 91  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment Site Plan for 1445 Vista Hermosa Trail 92  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment Property Owners within 100 Feet 93  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment 94  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment 95  ZC 23-95 Las Vistas P.U.D. Major Amendment 96