Planning & Zoning

AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive January 25, 2024 - 3:00 p.m. Item 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Annual Election of Chair and Vice Chair 4 Approval of the Minutes of the January 11, 2024 P&Z Meeting 5 Petition ZC 23-106 – A request for a zone change from GC General Commercial to MF-M Multi-family Medium Density for Tract 8A-2 of the Peninsula Park Subdivision Replat “G”, addressed as 601 Dekalb RD. Presented by Associate Planner Gonzalez (Pg. 37) 6 Presentation of the Animas Action Plan. Presented by Sites Southwest (Tabled from the January 11, 2024 Planning & Zoning meeting) (Pg. 51) 7 Business From Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 8 Adjournment Petition items on this agenda will be scheduled for the next City Council meeting – February 13, 2024 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 January 11, 2024 The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on January 11, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Vice Chair Ryan Brown Cheryl Ragsdale Amber Hodge Clete Berens Gary Hanson P&Z Members Absent Chair Clint Freeman Joyce Cardon Cody Waldroup Shay Davis Staff Present: Colby Gibson Mike Safrany Joaquin Gonzalez David Sypher Demetrius Henry Warren Unsicker Tami Spencer Others Who Addressed the Commission Robert Echols Ken Coleman Donald Sperry Jason Simpson Peter Holzem Jessica Simpson Janet Davy Jamie Wisner Perry Webb Call to Order Vice Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Vice Chair Brown requested item 8 and staff business be presented for information. Planning Manager Gibson presented the Planning & Zoning 2024 meet schedule to the Commission. He also informed the Commission that there has been no movement or new information on petition ZC 23-75. 1 Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the agenda of the January 11, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This motion passed unanimously by a 5-0 vote. Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Ragsdale to approve the minutes of the November 16, 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. Petition FP 23-94 Sandstone Subdivision at San Juan Country Club – Final Plat approval for 54-lot subdivision in Tier I of Farmington’s Platting Jurisdiction. Senior Planner Safrany Presented the Following: Petition Information Petitioner: Scott D. Bird Representative: Robert Echols, C-W-E Location: Lot R6002300 in the SJ Country Club Zoning: PD: Planned Development Existing Land Use: Vacant Property Requesting: Final Plat approval for a 54-lot subdivision of one undeveloped 25.74-acre parcel in the SJ Country Club Background • The Preliminary Plan for Sandstone Subdivision was approved by City Council on August 23, 2022. • The zone change from SF-10: Single-family residential to PD: Planned Development was also approved by City Council on August 23, 2022. • The Final Plat for the Sandstone Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 15, 2023. • The approved Final Plat was 26.05 acres with 55 lots ranging from 7,000 sf to 22,750 sf each. • 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. 2 Final Plat Approved June 15, 2023 Zoning Map 3  Revisions to the Sandstone Final Plat Summary Plat (SP 23-90) • A Summary Plat (SP 23-90) has been submitted to allow the property at 6701 Club House Drive, a single-family residential lot, to purchase Lot 1 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. • Lot 448-G will become a 41,027 sf lot from a 27,540 sf lot, adding 13,487 sf from the Sandstone Subdivision (previously Lot 1) 4  Sandstone Replat G (SP 23-90) The applicant is 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. Lot 56 (previously Lot 57) is dedicated to open space. This lot will be reduced from 93,803 sf (2.15 ac) to 81,065 sf (1.86 ac). 5  Revised West Lots • 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. • Lot 55 (previously Lot 56) is dedicated to open space. This lot will be reduced from 299,887 sf (6.88 ac) to 295,990 sf (6.79 ac). • This will reduce the total open space area from 393,690 (9.03 ac) sf to 377,055 sf (8.7 ac), 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). Overview 1. UDC Section 4.1.11 Minor Amendments to a Planned Development. (Completed) Minor amendments to the PD master plans shall be reviewed and, if appropriate, approved by the director or designee. 2. UDC Section 8.8.9 Major subdivision application process. (FP 23-94) Final plat review. The final plat shall substantially conform to the preliminary plan as approved by the city council; and provided further, that it shall conform to all applicable requirements of this UDC. 6 3. UDC Section 8.73 Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning). (ZC 23-92) Review and recommendation by the commission. The application shall be reviewed by the commission in a public hearing. 4. UDC Section 8.8.5 Summary Subdivision process. Administrative action (SP 23-90) Resubdivision or replats, where the combination or recombination of portions of previously platted lots does not increase the total number of lots. UDC Section 4.1.11 Minor Amendments to a Planned Development (PD) A. The following minor amendments to the PD master plans shall be reviewed and, if appropriate, approved by the director or designee: (1) Changes that result in a decrease in assigned density or intensity for a specific parcel, either residential or nonresidential. (2) Change in land use designation from multifamily to single-family or a change from any other use to open space/recreation. (3) Change in major infrastructure features (e.g. roads/access, sewer, water, storm drainage) of the master plan area which are clearly beneficial to the occupants of the master plan area. (4) Change in land use designation from single-family to multifamily with no increase in permitted site-specific density. B. The applicant requesting such change shall notify the property owners' association, at least 15 days prior to any decision that would be affected by the change of the request and ask that all comments be directed to the director or designee. Proof of such notification shall be provided to the director or designee. If the director or designee determines that the change does not have the support of the affected property owners, the request will be referred to the city council for review. All affected parties were notified by the applicant regarding the amendment to the planned development and were also notified by city staff regarding the zone change. As of the date of the staff report, no public input has been received. The Community Works Director has approved the amendments to the planned development. UDC Section 8.9.9 Major subdivision application process (FP 23-94) Final plat review. * The final plat shall substantially conform to the preliminary plan as approved by the city council; and provided further, that it shall conform to all applicable requirements of this UDC. * If the Planning and Zoning Commission determines the amendment does not substantially conform to the preliminary plan approved by city council, the plat must be resubmitted as a preliminary plan and must be reviewed by the commission and approved by city council before being resubmitted as a final plat. 7 Several inquiries have been made by affected parties regarding the proposal. To date no affected party has committed to either support or oppose the proposal. Inquiries were only to gather more information. 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: • the final plat does not conform to the preliminary plan as approved by the city council and must be resubmitted as a preliminary plan. • the final plat substantially conforms to the preliminary plan as approved by the City Council. • the final plat substantially conforms to the preliminary plan as approved by the City Council with conditions of approval. 8  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. Discussion The Commission had no questions for staff. Petitioner’s Representative, Robert Echols of Cheney Waters Echols, Inc. 909 W. Apache St., Farmington, NM Mr. Echols stated the reason this final plat is back in front of the Commission is because they brought on a builder to start looking at building footprints. These lots are fairly small and it was suggested that if they increase the size of the lots they could increase the size of the building footprint on those lots. So subsequently, expanding the lot depths for some of those lots could allow an extra 200 sq. ft. to 300 sq. ft. of a house. He added there are other issues that are being addressed before the final plat can be recorded with the county. Affected Parties Ken Coleman, 6530 Club House Dr., Farmington NM Mr. Coleman brought up his concerns regarding issues that the Home Owners Association (HOA) has with this petition. Some of his concerns are regarding the sewer line, and selling properties before the sewer line is completed. They are also concerned about offsets/setbacks that are different than what is in the declaration. The Commission Called Mr. Echols Back to the Podium: Mr. Echols stated that he is not aware of any conversations taking place between the HOA and 9 the developer. The setbacks shown on the new plat are the same as they are on the older plat. He added that he is meeting the city requirements. The offsite sewer plans are one of the issues that are still being worked on with the city. He has verbal approvals from the property owners whose land the sewer line will go through. After the plans for the sewer are approved summary plats will be submitted for each of the right of ways through those properties. Those property owners will sign off on all documents and then they will be recorded with the county. The Commission Called Senior Planner Safrany Back to the Podium: The Commission Asked Staff: 1. What is the city’s position on the HOA’s declarations? 2. Does the Planning & Zoning Commission enforce the private restrictions that was set forth in the declarations or is that a private matter? Staff Replied: 1. The HOA was notified two months ago and we have had no response. The setbacks are SF-7 standard setbacks, which has been approved. The Subdivision Agreement, which has also been approved and signed by all parties, states that both parties agree that no residential building permits will be issued by the City until all required public improvements in this document and in the entire subdivision have been installed by the developer. There is also a sewer line agreement in place for the entire subdivision. 2. We follow the city code. Any conflict between the HOA and the developer needs to be resolved between them. The Commission Called Ken Coleman Back to the Podium: Mr. Coleman stated that this also had happened a few years ago. He had talked to city personnel regarding the sewer line in Phase II No. 4, if the City would have put a stop to selling lots they could have put in the sewer line as promised. The City installed a pump station and was supposed to install a new sewer line, but that never happened. Now it has been 17 years, instead of a year or two, with a pump station that fails at least once a month. The City did not put a stop to selling lots and once they were sold the City had to issue the building permits. The HOA is worried that this will happen again and the new sewer line will not be installed, because once a lot is sold you cannot stop the purchaser from building on it. The Commission Asked Mr. Coleman: 1. If lots are sold and building starts before the sewer line is installed, how does that impact the Country Club? 2. If there is HOA violations, how do you enforce that? Would you take them to civil court? Mr. Coleman Replied: 1. It’s not how it impacts the Country Club, it’s the thought, let’s do it right this time. Let’s 10  make sure that any properties are sold that the sewer line has been installed. 2. I guess we will have to sue, or we don’t sign off on the paperwork. I can’t say anything about civil court, because I just don’t know. The Commission Called Senior Planner Safrany Back to the Podium: The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Will the City be able to withhold building permits if the sewer line is not built or if all the conditions are not met? Staff Replied: 1. Yes, the City can withhold the building permits until all conditions are met, which is stated in the Subdivision Agreement. With no further public comment, Vice Chair Brown closed the public comment portion of the meeting for petition FP 23-94. With no Commission discussion needed. Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Hodge to Approve Petition FP 23-94 with the condition as recommended by staff. 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. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Berens and Commissioner Hodge NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Waldroup and Commissioner Cardon APPROVED 5-0 11  Roll Call Commissioner Hanson voted aye because the plat presented tonight does substantially conform to the Preliminary Plat, and any matters regarding the sewer line will be self-effective through the building permit process. As far as the setbacks and declarations, he believes that is a civil matter that will have to be resolved between the parties and is not a matter for Planning & Zoning Commission to resolve. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye and she agrees with Commissioner Hanson and she also feels comfortable with the answers that staff has provided. Vice Chair Brown voted aye, he is a little concerned with the issues the HOA has, but that it is out of the scope of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He hopes the City will make sure all the utilities are in place before issuing building permits. Commissioner Hodge voted aye because based on the fact that all the requirements are there for the infrastructure to be in place before any building permits are issued. Unfortunately, we can only approve based on what the City requirements are and the other issues are a civil matter and outside of what the Commission can do. Commissioner Berens voted aye because he agrees with the other Commissioners and he hopes that all parties involved will be able to work through the issues at hand. He also feels that the building permits will be handled under the guidelines. Petition ZC 23-92 (RE: SJCC Estates Ph. II No 4 Replat G) – 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. Senior Planner Safrany Presented the Following: Petition Information Petitioner: Scott D. Bird Representative: Robert Echols, C-W-E Location: Lot R6002300 and 6701 Club House Drive in the SJ Country Club Zoning: PD: Planned Development Existing Land Use: Vacant Property Requesting: Zone Change to SF-10: Single-family Residential Background  The Preliminary Plan for Sandstone Subdivision was approved by City Council on August 23, 2022.  The zone change from SF-10: Single-family residential to PD: Planned Development was also approved by City Council on August 23, 2022.  The Final Plat for the Sandstone Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 15, 2023. 12  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. Final Plat Approved June 15, 2023 Zoning Map 13  Summary Plat (SP 23-90) • A Summary Plat (SP 23-90) has been submitted to allow the property at 6701 Club House Drive, a single-family residential lot, to purchase Lot 1 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. • Lot 448-G will become a 41,027 sf lot from a 27,540 sf lot, adding 13,487 sf from the Sandstone Subdivision (previously Lot 1) • 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. SJ County Assessor’s Map 14  Sandstone Replat G (SP 23-90) UDC 8.7 – Issues For Consideration A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan? Medium Density Residential areas primarily contain traditional gridded-street neighborhoods. New neighborhoods, or upgrades to existing neighborhoods, would provide a walkable environment intermixed with public facilities, retail services, housing and park areas. 15 B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning? • The proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding area. The subject property combine with the existing SF-10 zoning at 6701 Club House Drive. Properties directly to the south and west are zoned SF-10. The vacant property to the east is zoned RE-20. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can they be adequately mitigated? • No adverse impacts are expected. 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 2.8. 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. 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 at 6701 Club House Drive. G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11? • No. There is a variety of Residential zoning in the surrounding area. 16 Several inquiries have been made by affected parties regarding the proposal. To date no affected party has committed to either support or oppose the proposal. Inquiries were only to gather more information. Conclusion Staff concludes the zone change from a PD: Planned Development district to a SF-10: Single- family residential district, for a 13,487 square-foot property is supported by the general character of the neighborhood. Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of 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 with the following conditions: 1. Final Plat approval for Sandstone at San Juan Country Club shall be required. 2. A Summary Plat must be approved meeting all technical requirements. 17  Discussion The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Engineering has a comment regarding sidewalks, I do not see that in your recommendations or conditions. 2. Will this be a new lot? 3. Will the buyer be able to build on the new part of this lot? 4. Will the buyer have to do a summary plat for a lot consolidation? Staff Replied: 1. The sidewalk is not required because that was a condition on the final plat and this is no longer part of Sandstone. This will require a summary plat and all requirements will be noted on the new plat. 2. This will be a boundary line adjustment. The new property line will move north and will be part of the original lot making the lot bigger. 3. He could build on this addition to his lot, he would still have to follow the HOA guidelines. 4. Yes, a summary plat is required for a lot consolidation. Petitioner’s Representative, Robert Echols of Cheney Waters Echols, Inc. 909 W. Apache St., Farmington, NM Mr. Echols stated that Mr. Stevens had approached Sandstone about purchasing this property, it was his understanding that Mr. Stevens did not want to build on that property he just wanted a bigger buffer between him and the new Sandstone development. The zone change was needed to rezone that parcel back to SF-10. If this is approved then the summary plat would be approved by staff. The improvements that would be along that portion of the lot that Mr. Stevens would be buying will be done under an agreement when Sandstone starts their improvements. Affected Parties Ken Coleman, 6530 Club House Dr., Farmington NM Mr. Coleman stated that their attorney advised that there should not be anything purchased or changed until everything is signed. He added the HOA is opposing this because this parcel would be brought into the Country Clubs phase II property. The HOA has been in negotiations with Sandstone for a year and a half and the agreement has not been signed. He wants this petition to be put on hold until everything is signed. The Commission Asked Mr. Coleman: 1. Can the HOA as an entity deny this sale? 2. If this is approved by City Council, what would the HOA do? 3. Have you spoken with Mr. Stevens? 4. Did you bring any of the documentation with you today? 5. We are only dealing with the zoning issue today. 18 Mr. Coleman Replied: 1. Our lawyer says we can. 2. We would have to confer with our lawyer. That property would come back into the Country Club so we would have control over this. 3. Yes, he is on board and he agrees that the sewer line does need to be completed. 4. No we did not. 5. All I know is what the lawyer said, he said this is the time to stop it. With no further public comment, Vice Chair Brown closed the public comment portion of the meeting for petition ZC 23-92. After the Commission discussion. Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Berens to Approve Petition ZC 23-92 with the condition as recommended by staff. 1. Final Plat approval for Sandstone at San Juan Country Club shall be required. 2. A Summary Plat must be approved meeting all technical requirements. AYE: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Hanson, Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Berens and Commissioner Hodge NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Waldroup and Commissioner Cardon APPROVED 5-0 Roll Call Commissioner Berens voted aye because they are there for the zone change, which he approves of. Unfortunately, you have other issues that are outside of what we are here to address and he wishes them luck on that. Commissioner Hodge voted aye because the zoning meets all requirements and unfortunately they are not able to handle the other issues. Vice Chair Brown voted aye for the zone change, and he is concerned with the HOA issues and hopes they can work it out. Commissioner Ragsdale voted aye and hopes the City Council can help get things worked out. Commissioner Hanson voted aye and he concurs with Commissioner Berens. 19 Petition ZC 23-95 – A request for approval of a major amendment to the Las Vistas #3 Subdivision P.U.D. Planning Manager Gibson Presented the Following: Petition Information o Applicant: Kurt Cook, property owner 1445 Vista Hermosa Trail o Location: Vista Grande Drive and Cougar Trail o Existing Zoning: Residential Estate – 1, Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) zoning overlay o Existing Land Use: Residential and undeveloped land o Request: Approval of a Major Amendment to the Las Vistas Subdivision No. 3 P.U.D. Request is supported by the developer of the subdivision, Jaime Wisner. 20  Zoning Existing Approvals o Las Vistas 3 Subdivision P.U.D. Approval in 2007 with approved variances to City Code: o Minimum street width and right-of-way; o Each lot must front upon a public street not less than 40’ in width; o Sidewalks; o Streetlights; o Waiver to code requiring subdivisions with 50+ lots a secondary access point with condition of approval to grade an access easement between lots 36 & 37. 21 22  UDC Sec. 8.8.4 Subdivision Standards A. Design and Improvement Standards: All subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of Article 5, development standards; and Article 6, subdivision design and improvements. o Two dead end streets are created, exceeding the 600-foot length maximum (UDC Sec. 6.4.7.E) 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. o Existing waivers for street width, lot frontage, sidewalks, and streetlights. o Waiver for lots with 50+ lots to require secondary access based on condition of approval. o New request to waive dead end street length maximum. C. Zoning consistency. All subdivisions and the resulting lots shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable underlying zone district. o Meets the standards of the RE-1 Zoning District 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 23  o Consistent with the Low Density Residential designation. o Number of homes per 600 feet density comparison: SF-5: 19-20 homes SF-7: 14-15 homes SF-10: 10-11 homes RE-1 (Las Vistas): 4-5 homes City Staff Comments Engineering Staff o The circulation of the subdivision will be disrupted by the abandonment of the street portion, an amended improvement agreement should be included 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. o Technical corrections needed to the plat: re-title “Replat D” and include a benchmark elevation. Assistant Fire Marshal o The northwest section of Vista Hermosa needs to be renamed Vista Grande o Vista Hermosa will require a turnaround meeting the requirements of the 2021 International Fire Code o A secondary entrance/ exit will need to be created. Planning o The existing conditions of approval for the Las Vistas Sub. P.U.D. (FP 07-18) included a condition to grade and gate the emergency access road. Based on the comments from staff I recommend the emergency access easement be improved with road base to improve emergency access into/out of the subdivision. 24  Public Input o This petition has been properly noticed. o 28 Affected Party notices. o Four (4) Affected parties opposed to the change. Staff Conclusion o Major Amendment aligns with the overall goal and intend of a P.U.D. o Provides an alternative to disturbing natural topography. o Preserves open space for the benefit of residents. o Large lots which are challenging to build upon limits density. o Developer supports the proposed change. o Emergency access provided, as approved in 2007. 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.) to vacate a segment of Vista Hermosa Trail 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 gate, grade, and improve with a minimum of four inches of compacted road base, 24-foot wide the emergency road easement in between lots 36 & 37 as well as lots 35 & 38 at the time when Vista Grande Drive is extended and abuts said emergency road easement. 3. The developer shall widen the emergency road easement width to 50-foot at the time when the roadway segment identified within this Staff Report on Vista Hermosa Trail is vacated. Discussion The Commission and staff had a conversation about the different phases and what roads are paved and which ones are not. Planning Manager Gibson pointed out the roads on the map. The Commission Asked Staff: 1. Can you tell us what the time line is on this property, did you say there was a Warranty Deed recorded with the county on this subdivision? 25  2. Who was it deeded to? 3. The Coleman’s sold the property to the Cook’s, but it’s not platted, then the Cook’s built and they were unaware of the roadway slope easement? 4. When it was deeded to the Coleman’s the 50-foot slope easement was part of the Warranty Deed, so when it was sold to the Cook’s the easement was already there. 5. The access easement, is that for emergency personnel only? Is it legal access to this subdivision? 6. Has anyone talked to residents across the road to see if they would be willing to sell some of their property to allow the road to go through there? Staff Replied: 1. Yes there is a Warranty Deed recorded, typically used to transfer ownership, on this property. When this lot was originally sold to the Coleman’s, the 50-foot roadway slope easement was added. The roadway slope easement was not part of the original recorded plat. When the slope easement was added it was never added to the recorded plat. The City Attorney informed Mr. Gibson that the Warranty Deed is a legal record of the easement. 2. It was deeded to the Coleman family before the Cooks bought the property. 3. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. Lot 34, where this residence is built in legally part of the original Las Vista No. 3 plat. It was not part of the replat and actually put onto the plat. 4. That is correct, but it was not on the plat it was conveyed through the Warranty Deed. 5. That is what it is intended and approved for, it was platted for an emergency access easement. It is actually no better than an oilfield road. It is legal access to the subdivision. It was created as a secondary emergency access because it is over the 50 lots which would trigger the secondary access point. It is worth noting this emergency road easement exists, however it is not built. That is where condition number 2 comes into play, not only would it need to be graded and gated but it would need to have the four inches of road base. This 30 foot is on the City’s Major Thoroughfare Plan as a potential future collector street that could provide access not only to that street but possibly to Dustin Ave. if future development occurs. 6. Yes, that is one of the first thing we asked too. The applicant did ask and they were unsuccessful. Petitioner Kurt Cook, 1445 Vista Hermosa Trail, Farmington NM Mr. Cook explained that there were a few different options that he tried to pursue to negate his current situation. He approached his neighbor to see if they would sell a part of their property, and they declined. The road is on the plat, but it’s not actually there so that seemed like a reasonable thing to vacate because it’s not actually there. There would be less expenses to incur, less disruption to the development to the property. That is why he decided to take this option. The City gave me the option to have a retaining wall, but after further review for safety reasons and the development does not like fences or retaining walls on the property in the development. That is why he is here to propose to vacate the lot and to move forward. 26 The Commission Asked Mr. Cook: 1. There are no retaining walls in that subdivision? 2. Would the retaining wall be on one side of the road? 3. The 50-foot slope easement in on property that you own, but it is subject to the easement? 4. You were unaware of this easement when you bought the property? Mr. Cook Replied: 1. I believe there is, but that is between the developer and the property owner. If the road were to be cut, I am looking at a 25 foot retaining wall. Aesthetically that would be 15 feet from my living room so aesthetically and for safety factor, it would impact the value of my property. 2. Yes, it would be along the frontage of my property line. 3. Yes it is all on my property. 4. To my knowledge, that is correct. 27 Affected Party Letters 28 29 30  Affected Parties Discussion Donald Sperry, 5870 Vista Grande Dr., Farmington NM Jason Simpson, 5821 Vista Grande Dr., Farmington NM Jessica Simpson 5821 Vista Grande Dr., Farmington NM Janet Davy 5900 Vista Grande Dr., Farmington NM The affected parties above had several concerns with the Major Amendment to the Las Vistas Subdivision No. 3. The collective statements and/or concerns are listed below: 31   How do you build a residence in an easement on a lot when there are several checks in place to assure this does not happen?  This will cause challenges and issues for those that live on Vista Grande Dr.  The traffic will increase after it has been rerouted onto Vista Grande Dr., people tend to drive faster if they live deeper in the subdivision, and then there will be a mile-long dead- end road.  They would like to see an engineering analysis on the retaining wall that show how high it will be, how long it will be, and where is will be located and what the cost is.  They want to keep the circular loop drive with a single entrance. Vacating the road will affect the other residents in the subdivision.  Some of the residents picked their lots where there was less traffic so their children can play outside.  If the road is abandoned, how will emergency vehicles access the subdivision safely?  The residents feel for Mrs. Cook and her issues, but why should that put an undue burden on and change the neighborhood for the rest of the residents because a mistake was made.  It’s the homeowner’s responsibility that when their home is being built that it is placed in the correct spot.  Other residents were held to a standard at their expense to make sure everything is being built as it should be.  Why shouldn’t the Cook’s be held to the same standard and be absolved of all responsibility when there was a failure either intentional or not on their part.  This abandonment will disrupt the flow of the subdivision.  They asked that some other resolution be made and to deny this petition.  The residents feel that we cannot assume only six houses would use Vista Hermosa Trail and the remainder would use Vista Grande Dr. We would have to wait and see what the natural flow of the traffic is to make that statement. Not all residents oppose the amendment, some are in favor of it. Peter J. Holzem, 1631 Vista Hermosa Trl., Farmington NM  In light of the problem that Mrs. Cook has, he feels it is a small request. They do not view the traffic as a real problem and every car that enters the subdivision goes past his house.  If the subdivision has more development, there will be more traffic going down that road. He has not noticed a problem with speeding.  He is a board member on the HOA and to his knowledge there has not been any complaints of people speeding in that area.  To his knowledge the Cook’s are going to purchase four lots around his property, that will leave about six other lost to be developed.  Accidents happen, and as a neighbor, he would like to do what he can to help the Cook’s with their issue. 32 Developer Jamie Wisner, 2 Stuart Pl., Durango CO Mr. Wisner was approached by the Cook’s about trying to get this issue solved. They looked at several choices and the abandonment is the solution they came up with. He didn’t think it would impact the residents on Vista Grande Dr. There are only six addition lots that would be using Vista Grande Dr. as noted on this map. He also noted that the hairpin turn is an approved drive- thru sandstone wash which people would be slowing down there to cross. In 16 years, there have been 11 homes built there, there have been no lot sales in the subdivision in over eight years. When and if phase III would be built depends on the economy in Farmington. The abandonment will bring a solution to a problem that we have right now. A map was shared by Mr. Wisner of the properties he felt would be impacted by the road abandonment. Approximately six properties would have likely used Vista Hermosa Trail who would now be required to go around on Vista Grande Dr. The Commission Asked Developer Wisner: 1. Are the Cook’s buying four lots on Vista Hermosa Trail, so there will be only six lots that would be developed? 33 Developer Wisner Replied: 1. Yes, they are. Interested Party Perry M. Webb, 4111 Vista Pinon Dr., Farmington NM Mr. Webb stated one of the main questions is how did we get here. Mr. Webb went through the timeline of the Cook’s property. Mr. Webb is interested in purchasing the Cook’s property, he requested a survey of the property showing the property and how the home set on it. When he went to the City they showed him a 2011 plat that showed the 50-foot slope easement. Mr. Cook built the home in 2014 which was three years after the City had a plat showing the easement. He wondered how Mr. Cook got a building permit, the plat he was shown at this time was a 2007 plat, which did not have the easement noted on it. Mr. Webb went to the title company and asked for a title policy, he was told no because the property is unsalable as it is. They would not be able to get a loan for the sale because of the encroachment. He is not sure that he wants a 25-foot retaining wall, it could be dangerous for his grandkids. He does not see why the abandonment of the road would be a bad idea, most of the traffic would be using Vista Grande Dr. to exit the subdivision anyway. With no further public comment, Vice Chair Brown closed the public comment portion of the meeting for petition ZC 23-95. The Commission called Planning Manager Gibson Back to the Podium: The Commission Asked Staff: 1. At this point is there a way to require the resident to the north to provide land to move the road? 2. Would the lot to the north need to have a retaining wall too? 3. Was the 50-foot slope easement put in place because of the topography and to slope down to the road, if a road was to be built? Do we know if the retaining wall would still need to be put in? Is there room to put in the road? Staff Replied: 1. We cannot require the residents to give up his property. You cannot force something to be constructed someone else’s property. 2. To my knowledge there is not a roadway easement on that property. 3. Yes, the easement would slope down to the road. We do now know if the retaining wall would need to be put in. There is room for the road, the landscaping on the north side would need to be altered. 34 The Commission Called Developer Jamie Wisner Back to the Podium: The Commission Asked Mr. Wisner: 1. Are you familiar with the topography of this area? To cut a road where the easement is, would it require a retaining wall on the north side? 2. Is there a slope easement on that side? Mr. Wisner Replied: 1. Yes, I am familiar with it. We designed everything with a slope cuts to keep the natural look. Our intentions were to never put any type of retaining walls. 2. I believe there is a slope easement there. On the construction plans there are multiple slope cuts. After Commission discussion. Vice Chair Brown called for a motion. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Hanson to Approve Petition ZC 23-95. AYE: Vice Chair Brown and Commissioner Hodge NAY: Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Hanson and Commissioner Berens ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Waldroup and Commissioner Cardon Motion did not pass with a vote of 2-3 Roll Call Vice Chair Brown voted aye, he does not like the situation, because someone dropped the ball. It’s unfortunate, I don’t know what the alternative is. But if we could end up with a vacant house down the road where nobody can sell it. It seems in light of everything it seems like the best solution. Commissioner Hodge voted aye. She is very sympathetic to Mrs. Cook. It’s not good situation for anyone in the neighborhood. The traffic may be increased if Phase III does go in, it is her hope that maybe the developer and the HOA can work together to try and find an alternative. She is not really sure what can be done with the home there. Commissioner Hanson voted nay. He is very sympathetic to the situation the owners find themselves in, but if this had been presented to the Commission initially he would not be able to vote in favor of a subdivision with a mile-long dead-end road like that. 35 Commissioner Ragsdale voted nay, if there was any way to put the road in without tearing the house apart she would have been for it, but she is not for the abandonment. Commissioner Berens voted nay. It’s very unfortunate that we are where we are. He thinks there just has to be another way to work this out. He is hoping someone can figure out a different alternative. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members Business from Staff: Planning Manager Gibson stated that item #8 on the agenda will be moved to the January 25, 2024 meeting Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Berens. The motion carried unanimously 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Ryan Brown Tami Spencer Vice Chair Administrative Assistant 36  STAFF REPORT A request for a Zone Change from General Commercial (GC) to Multi Family Medium Density (MF-M) to construct town home residences (20 units). STAFF REPORT, January 25, 2024 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Aarron Spellbring Representative Jake Spellbring Date of Application December 15, 2023 The petitioner is requesting a Zone Change from General Requested Action Commercial (GC) to Multi Family Medium Density (MF-M) to construct town homes residences (20 units). Location 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2, NM 87401 (R4009865) Existing Land Use Undeveloped Parcel Existing Zoning General Commercial 2040 Future Land Use Commercial Mixed Use Designation North: GC: General Commercial Surrounding Zoning South: GC: General Commercial & Land Use East: GC: General Commercial West: GC: General Commercial Publication of Notice: January 8, 2024, Farmington Daily Times Notice Requirements Property owners letter: January 8, 2024 Sign posted: January 15, 2024 Staff Planner Joaquin Gonzalez, Associate Planner 1|Page 37  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 BACKGROUND The San Juan County Tax Assessor’s records show 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2, NM 87401 (R4009865) as 1.775 acres in size. The parcel is undeveloped. The parcel was previously zoned Multi-family prior to being changed to General Commercial in 1994. The parcel was then changed back to Multi-family in 2003 but the development was never pursued and reverted back to General Commercial Project Description The petitioner is requesting a Zone Change from General Commercial (GC) to Multi-Family Medium Density (MF-M) to construct town home residences, 20 units in total. SITE PLAN 2|Page 38 601 DEKALB ROAD TRACT 8A-2 (R4009865) 3|Page 39 AREA OVERVIEW 4|Page 40  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 SURROUNDING USES 5|Page 41  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 ZONING 6|Page 42  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 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 Commercial Mixed Use. This designation supports horizontal mixed use and community parks (large parcels redeveloped with smaller format retail and multifamily density residential). The proposed zone change to Multi Family Medium Density 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 Multi Family Medium Density zoning and land use is compatible with the current conforming uses and character of the neighborhood. Property uses in the area vary and include Multi Family, Oilfield/Construction Offices/Uses, and Vacant/unused Land. C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately mitigated? The proposed use has the potential to create an increase of the average daily traffic count. Dekalb is classified as a Local street according to the City Major Thoroughfare Plan suitable for the proposed multifamily townhomes. Traffic engineering does not see any issues with the increase in traffic. D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning district? 7|Page 43  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 Per UDC Section 2.8, the proposed Multi Family Medium Density zoning district allows up to 38 units. The applicant is proposing 20 units in the multifamily development. Sec. 3.9 - Multifamily, low, medium and high density (MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H). 3.9.1 Purpose. The Multifamily Low, Medium and High Density (MF-L, MF-M and MF-H) Districts are intended to accommodate a substantial portion of the city's residential growth over the 20-year planning horizon covered by the comprehensive plan. By allowing many residential development options (from detached houses on small lots to relatively high density apartments), the MF-L, MF-M and MF-H districts provide the widest range of housing choices for city residents. In all cases, development in the multifamily districts shall be adequately served by infrastructure. Although the MF-L, MF-M and MF-H districts allow moderate to high residential densities they are not generally appropriate for application in areas that are most appropriately suited to intensive nonresidential development. The provision of community open space, neighborhood parks, outdoor recreational areas, and pedestrian facilities is strongly encouraged. The MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H districts are intended to implement the residential planning policies of the comprehensive plan's "Residential High Density" land use designation. These districts may also be appropriate for lands currently zoned R-4, office and professional, where predominate land use is multifamily. 3.9.2 Allowed uses. Uses are allowed in the MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H districts in accordance with the use table of section 2.3. 3.9.3 Density and dimensional standards. All development in the MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H districts shall be subject to the density and dimensional standards of section 2.8. 3.9.4 District standards. District standards applicable in the MF-L, MF-M, and MF-H districts include the following: A. To the extent practical, all parking shall be located in the side or rear yard. E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the proposed zoning district? The subject property is 1.775 acres (77,319 square feet) in size and meets the minimum lot size requirements for the Multi Family Medium Density zoning district of 8,000 square feet. Per UDC Section 2.8, the MF- M: Multifamily Medium Density zoning district requires 2,000 square feet per unit. 20 units on 1.775 acres is physically suitable for the parcel. Per UDC Section 5.2.3, 40 parking spaces will be required. Three accessible and one van accessible space will be required. Additionally center-parking islands will be required for every 15 linear parking spaces. F. Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? If utilities are not available, could they be reasonably extended by the applicant? Is the applicant willing to pay for the extension of public facilities and services necessary to service the proposed development? 8|Page 44  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 Site access is provided from Dekalb Road and all utilities are available there would not be any negative effect to the pressure or existing utilities. 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 Commercial Mixed Use, the propose use of multi-family residential aligns with the horizontal mixed use – commercial/residential aspect of the designation. There is also existing multi-family zoning to the north and northeast of the subject property. PUBLIC COMMENTS This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to ten surrounding property owners. At the time of this report, no written public comment has been received. STAFF CONCLUSION • 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. • 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 23-106, a request from Aaron Spellbring and Jake Spellbring, for a Zone Change from General Commercial (GC) to Multi Family Medium Density (MF-M) to construct town home residences, with the following conditions of approval: 1) An updated fully dimensioned site plan shall be required to be submitted with the building permit, showing all parking dimensions, aisle widths, landscaping and lighting. Site will be developed in general conformance to the approved site plan, which shall conform to all development standards outlined in UDC Article 5, including but not limited to parking, landscaping, lighting, and screening. 2) Permits shall be required for construction. 9|Page 45  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 10 | P a g e 46  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 11 | P a g e 47  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 12 | P a g e 48  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 13 | P a g e 49  City of Farmington ZC 23-106 601 Dekalb Road Tract 8A-2 14 | P a g e 50  D R A F T : N O V E M B E R 2 0 2 3 ANIMAS 51 ACTION PLAN P R E P A R E D B Y :