[PAGE 1]
A G E N D A
Planning & Zoning Commission
City Council Chambers – 800 Municipal Drive
January 29, 2026 - 3:00 p.m.
Item
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of the Minutes of the January 15, 2026 P&Z Meeting
4. Petition ZC 25-88 – A request for a zone change from an MF-L, Multi-family Low Density
residential zoning district, to a GC, General Commercial zoning district. Located at 2016 E
10th St. Presented by Senior Planner Safrany (Pg 27)
5. Petition FP 25-89 – Bluffview Meadows Estates P.D. Phase II – Final Plat approval for Phase
II (10-lots of the 69-lot) Class 1 subdivision of the 9.56-acre parcel in Tier I of Farmington’s
Platting Jurisdiction. Presented by Principal Planner Gonzalez (Pg 37)
6. Discussion – Unified Development Code updates for sidewalks, easements and
Construction Specifications.
7. Business From:
• Floor: Comments are accepted in person, limited to three (3) minutes and to items
that are not listed on the agenda. No formal action will be taken at this meeting
relating to comments provided from the floor.
• Chairman:
• Members:
• Staff:
8. Adjournment
Petition items on this agenda will be scheduled for the next
City Council Meeting – February 10, 2026 @ 5:00 pm
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.

[PAGE 3]
Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
January 15, 2026
The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session on January 15, 2026 at 3:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico.
P&Z Members Present: Vice Chair Cody Waldroup
Thomas Hawkins
Rachel Bartley
Jennifer Wood
Clete Berens
Gary Hanson
Absent P&Z Members: Cheryl Ragsdale
Whitney Chavez
Amber Hodge
Staff Present: Mike Safrany
Joaquin Gonzalez
Derrick Childers
Colby Gibson
Tami Spencer
Others Who Addressed the Commission Allen Elmore
Cody Yocum
Daniel Tanner
Johnathan Aikele
Call to Order
Vice Chair Waldroup called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Approval of the Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Berens and seconded by Commissioner Bartley to
approve the agenda of the January 15, 2026 Planning & Zoning Commission. This motion
passed by a 6-0 vote.
Approval of the Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Woods and seconded by Commissioner Bartley to
approve the minutes of the December 11, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. This
motion passed by a 6-0 vote.
Annual Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Berens made a motion to nominate Vice Chair Waldroup as Chair for the Planning
& Zoning Commission. Vice Chair Waldroup accepted the nomination. Commissioner Hanson
seconded the motion. The vote passed unanimously 6-0.
1

[PAGE 4]
Chair Waldroup made a motion to nominate Commissioner Hanson as Vice Chair for the
Planning & Zoning Commission. Commissioner Hanson accepted the nomination.
Commissioner Berens seconded the motion. The vote passed unanimously 6-0.
Swearing of Witnesses
There were no witnesses to be sworn in.
Petition ZC 25-83 – A request for a zone change from the Residential Estate 1 zoning
district, to the Mixed Use zoning district located at 2300 Pinon Frontage.
Principal Planner Gonzalez presented the following:
Petition Information
• Applicant: Loren Healy
• Representative: Allen Elmore and Cody Yocum
• Request: Zone change from Residential Estate - 1 to Mixed Use and Special Use Permit.
• Location: 2300 Pinon Frontage
• Zoning: Residential Estate -1
Vicinity Map
Zoning / Uses
North: Rural Agricultural, Residential Estate -1; Vacant Land
South: Rural; Agricultural; Vacant Land, College
East: Residential Estate – 1, Office and Professional; Vacant Land, Hospital
West: Office and Professional, Residential Estate – 1; Vacant Land
2

[PAGE 5]
Existing Conditions
• Residence
• Residential Estate – 1 zoning
3

[PAGE 6]
Section 2.7.2 similar use interpretations
If an application is submitted for a use type not listed in the use table, section 2.3, the
director or designee shall be authorized to make a similar use interpretation:
The owner’s proposed use, an Internal Service Bay for a "Custom Off-Highway-Vehicle
Services," should be classified as a similar use to the permitted Service Station in the
Mixed Use (MU) district. This classification is appropriate because the operation's scope
and impact align with low-intensity, accessory functions, not commercial repair.
The applicant builds very high end Off Highway Vehicles, usually one or two a year that
cost upward of $500k for his company that usually get sold a couple years later.
UDC Section 8.9 Special Use Permit
A. Effect on environment:
• The location is highly favorable for mitigation, as the closest residence is more than 700
feet away. The use, involving the contained customization and maintenance of the OHV
Vehicles, is not detrimental. The facility will operate during standard business hours
(Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM–4:00 PM). The owner also accepts the condition of no outside
storage of any vehicles associated with the business, eliminating blight and potential
hazard.
B. Compatible with surrounding area:
• The operation will occupy an existing building, maintaining the current site scale and
density. The site plan must comply with the mandatory Residential Protection Standards
of Section 5.10, requiring visual screening from any adjacent protected residential
districts or single-family residences. Since the closest residence is more than 700 feet
away, the large separation distance already provides a high level of physical buffering.
Also, all parking areas will be paved and maintained, and the applicant will install required
landscaping along the street frontages and where any disturbed soil occurs.
C. External impacts minimized:
• Noise/Vibration: All operations will be conducted entirely within the existing building, with
the north bay doors remaining closed at all times. Given this full enclosure and a
separation distance of over 700 feet, it is highly unlikely that any noise or vibration will be
perceptible at the nearest residential property line.
• Lighting/Glare: Exterior lighting must comply with the Residential Protection lighting
requirements (Section 5.10 & 5.11) to prevent glare and light trespass.
• No Outside Storage: As a condition of this SUP, no outside storage of any vehicles
(inoperable or otherwise) will be permitted. This ensures the site does not pose a fire
hazard or create a blight nuisance.
• Traffic: The operation of the proposed business generates allow volume of traffic for its
activity, limited to the daily commute of the full-time employees. This traffic profile
generates normal vehicle trips as you would see on a local street and is significantly lower
than a public-facing service station, minimizing external congestion and noise impacts.
D. Infrastructure impacts minimized:
4

[PAGE 7]
• Traffic/Roads: Vehicle trips will consist to the commute of the full-time employees and
occasional deliveries, generating only normal vehicle trips as you would see on a local
street. This is significantly lower than a retail service station and will not strain local roads.
• Parking: Adequate paved parking will be provided on-site for all employees, ensuring no
reliance on public street parking.
• Services: Utility usage and demands on public services (Police, Fire) are consistent with
a typical small commercial/office use in the Mixed Use district.
E. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan:
• The specialized, low-volume "Custom Off-Highway-Vehicle Services" is consistent with
the permissible uses of this UDC because it meets the intent of the Similar Use
Interpretation requirements (Section 2.7.2). This activity is functionally similar to the
accessory “lubrication and repair service" of a permitted Service Station. Pinon Frontage
Road, while once was designated as a low density residential area- has taken shape over
the last few years into a low-intensity commercial and service corridor. These uses are
appropriate buffers between arterial streets and residential uses.
F. Parcel size:
• The subject property is 2.09 acres in size, more than adequate for the proposed use and
zoning district. The size of the lot and existing building work as mitigation measures and
restrict the entire operation to the interior of the existing building for customization,
storage, and maintenance of the vehicles. The critical mitigation factors no outside
storage and a separation of more than 700 feet to the closest residence are already
satisfied, making additional land unnecessary.
G. Site Plan:
• The proposed use shall comply with the site plan review procedures of Section 8.5. Since
the main building is already constructed on the site, the site plan review will be limited to
verifying and enforcing the specific mitigation requirements imposed by this Special Use
Permit.
• This review will graphically demonstrate the location and implementation of the
mandatory requirements: the Residential Protection Standards (Section 5.10), the
required landscaping, and the layout of paved parking facilities, thereby ensuring full
compliance with the conditions necessary for operation in the Mixed Use district.
UDC Section 8.7 Zoning Map Amendment
A) Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan?
• The proposed zone change to Mixed Use (MU) is consistent with the vision and goals of
the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning is aligned with Goal 3. Land Use and
Development, which seeks to "Plan and facilitate consistent, innovative, and functional
land use and development". This is achieved by adhering to Action 3.5, which involves
working with the property owner to "rezone areas of suitable undeveloped land with
existing infrastructure to provide opportunities for infill development" and subsequent
redevelopment of the existing structure into a higher, more functional use.
5

[PAGE 8]
• Also, the MU designation supports Action 3.4 by helping to "Encourage buffering of
transitioning land use intensities, particularly between residential and commercial uses",
logically placing a mixed-use boundary along a high-traffic arterial (Pinon Hills Blvd). The
change is consistent with Action 3.3, which mandates the city "Assure zoning regulation
provides a variety of land use types in suitable locations, densities, and patterns while
avoiding mixing incompatible uses near each other", recognizing the property’s location
on an arterial makes it a suitable and necessary site for commercial and employment
activity.
B) Is the proposed zoning and land use compatible with the present zoning and uses
of nearby property and the character of the neighborhood?
• The proposed zoning is compatible with the established commercial corridor character of
the Pinon Frontage Road. The corridor currently contains a mix of Residential Estate –
1, Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC), and Office Professional (OP) zoning, which
the proposed change extends.
• The proposed Mixed Use designation will ensure adherence to higher aesthetic and
operational standards of the commercial Unified Development Code (UDC), which
includes strict requirements for screening, lighting, and design thereby ensuring greater
buffering and compatibility for any abutting residential parcels. The Mixed Use zoning
also allows not only the current residence to be in conformance but any new potential
residential development similar to this proposed use.
C) Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately
mitigated?
• No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, and any potential operational impacts
are adequately mitigated by the development standards required under the new Mixed
Use zoning. Concerns often raised regarding traffic, noise, visual, or lighting are
addressed as the custom off-highway vehicle service station must adhere to the
commercial UDC standards for development such as residential protection, lighting, and
landscaping. Pinon Frontage Road is designated as a local street, making the anticipated
traffic volume from this use suitable for the area.
D) Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning
district?
• The applicant will use the current building as a custom off-highway vehicles service
station. The intensity and density of the use proposed in the Mixed Use zoning is
appropriate.
E) Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the
proposed zoning district?
• The site is physically suitable for the proposed use. The parcel is also structurally
suitable, as the existing barndominium structure is readily adaptable to a service
station/office, confirming the site’s suitability for efficient reuse.
F) Are adequate public facilities and services available to serve development for the
type and scope suggested by the proposed zone?
6

[PAGE 9]
• Public services (water, sewer, emergency services) are available, connected, and
adequate for the proposed use.
• G) Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11,
definitions?
• The proposed Zone Change does not constitute spot zoning by this definition because it
is supported by the surrounding zoning and the Comprehensive Plan Goals.
Public Input
This petition has been properly noticed:
• 5 property owner letters sent out;
• Publication of notice.
• Public notice sign posted on the property.
No public input received.
Staff Conclusion
• The proposed zone change to Mixed Use is supported by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposed zone change and allowable uses are compatible with the surrounding
zoning and uses in the area.
• The proposed use complies with the similar use interpretation standards outlined in UDC
Sec. 2.7.2.
• The proposed use complies with the Unified Development Code Section 8.7 Zoning Map
Amendment and section 8.9 Special Use Permit criteria.
Staff Recommendation
The Community Development Department recommends APPROVAL of Petition ZC 25-83, a
request from Loren Healy for a zone change from Residential Estate – 1 to Mixed Use and a
Special Use Permit for a Custom Off-Highway-Vehicle Services Station for property located at
2300 Pinon Frontage with the following conditions:
1. All fabrication, installation, maintenance, and ancillary operations, including all primary or
incidental activities associated with the approved use, shall be conducted entirely within
the enclosed building at all times. This includes the storage of all parts and equipment,
as well as the requirement that north bay doors remain shut during all operations. All
7

[PAGE 10]
inoperable vehicles, parts, materials, and other storage shall be kept within the enclosed
building. No outdoor storage shall be allowed, with or without screening.
2. No inoperable vehicles awaiting customization or maintenance may be stored or kept
outside under any circumstances. All such vehicles must be fully enclosed within a
building; outdoor storage, even behind screening or fencing, is prohibited
3. The requirements of section 5.10 Residential Protection, section 5.5 Landscaping and
Screening and section 5.2 Off-street parking and loading shall be met.
Discussion
The Commission Asked Staff:
1. When this was built, was it classified as a barndominium? Will the residence stay there?
2. Why the Mixed Use zone change, if he is planning to keep everything inside? Will it allow
for signage on the building? If Mr. Healy moves out, will this zoning impact the neighbors
in any way?
3. Staff has likened this use to limited vehicle service in the UDC use table. Shouldn’t we
have a specialized use on the use table that we could fit this into?
4. Why is the zone change needed if he is allowed by right to do this on his property?
Staff Replied:
1. Yes, it is classified as a barndominium. Mr. Healy has expressed that he is not planning
on using it as a residence, but he can in the Mixed Use zoning district.
2. He is going from a residence to a commercial building, which will allow for Mr. Healy to
put signage up. Mixed Use is the most appropriate zoning use that will allow Mr. Healy to
do what he is wanting to do. That way to, if Mr. Healy wanted to sell the property, the
design standards would still be implemented.
3. Correct, there is no use on the use table that fits what Mr. Healy is wanting to do. So the
similar use is the Custom Off-Highway-Vehicle Services Station with a Special Use
Permit (SUP). Mr. Healy will only be building and working on his own vehicles, Custom
Off-Highway-Vehicle Services Station is the best similar use that we have in our use
table.
4. He is wanting to make this a commercial business and wants to do it appropriately. This
is also our chance to keep the design standards, which are in Mixed Use zoning districts
to protect this area.
The Commission and staff had a conversation regarding the sequence of events. The
Commission feels that Mr. Healy should have gotten the Mixed Use zone change before the
residence was built. Staff explained that by right Mr. Healy was allowed to build his residence.
The Commission has given staff direction to look into the sequence of events, and if there is a
better way to handle situations like this. The Commission is just concerned with protecting
Farmington’s assets that haven’t been developed yet and keeping it beautiful. They would also
like staff to look into updating the UDC use table to better handle situations like this.
8

[PAGE 11]
Petitioners Representative, Allen Elmore, 1700 Knudsen Ave, Farmington NM:
Mr. Elmore explained that Mr. Healy is a very well-known race car driver with many sponsors.
He added that Mr. Healy will only be building and working on his own vehicles. It is his personal
shop but it’s also a business. Mr. Elmore stated that the only way to manufacture a building that
size is to make it metal and in his opinion, it’s a good looking building.
The Commission Asked Petitioners Representative, Allen Elmore:
1. Mr. Healy builds these race cars with wide open exhausts, will he be testing the vehicles
in his shop?
Petitioners Representative, Allen Elmore:
1. No, he will be testing them off road in Choke Cherry Canyon. He will trailer them to Choke
Cherry Canyon or, if they are street legal, he will drive them to the canyon.
Petitioners Representative, Cody Yocum, 2612 Lions Trail, Farmington NM
Mr. Yocum stated that Mr. Healy did keep the design standards in mind when constructing this
building. He wanted to keep the building in line with want the city was requiring.
The Commission Asked Staff:
1. If Mr. Healy wants to put up lighted signs, are there requirements that would need to be
met in this zoning district?
2. Does the SUP expire?
3. In regards to the noise, are there applicable noise restrictions that could be enforced if
necessary?
Staff Replied:
1. If signs are constructed, there are requirements that need to be followed. It will have to
go through the permitting process, which will make sure that the requirements are met.
2. The SUP will run with the property unless the city adds the condition of a time limit to this
SUP
3. As with any zoning district there is a noise restriction that would have to be met.
Staff Added:
A service station is permitted by right in this zoning district. Mr. Healy does not need an SUP,
but in this case because of the specialized nature of what Mr. Healy is doing we are wanting
to protect this area.
Commission Discussion
With no Commission discussion needed, Chair Waldroup called for a motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Woods and seconded by Commissioner Bartley to
recommend APPROVAL of petition ZC 25-83 as presented by staff, with the following
conditions.
1. All fabrication, installation, maintenance, and ancillary operations, including all primary or
incidental activities associated with the approved use, shall be conducted entirely within
9

[PAGE 12]
the enclosed building at all times. This includes the storage of all parts and equipment,
as well as the requirement that north bay doors remain shut during all operations. All
inoperable vehicles, parts, materials, and other storage shall be kept within the enclosed
building. No outdoor storage shall be allowed, with or without screening.
2. No inoperable vehicles awaiting customization or maintenance may be stored or kept
outside under any circumstances. All such vehicles must be fully enclosed within a
building; outdoor storage, even behind screening or fencing, is prohibited
3. The requirements of section 5.10 Residential Protection, section 5.5 Landscaping and
Screening and section 5.2 Off-street parking and loading shall be met.
AYE: Chair Waldroup, Commissioner Bartley, Commissioner Woods, Commissioner
Berens, and Commissioner Hawkins.
NAY: Vice Chair Hanson
ABSTAINED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Hodge, and Commissioner Chavez.
The motion passed 5-1
Roll Call
AYE Votes:
Commissioner Berens voted aye. He feels that Mr. Healy should have done the zone
change before he built his residence. He also feel that Mr. Healy has good intentions
and will do a good job and he is a great draw for the community.
Commissioner Woods voted aye based on the staff recommendation and that Mr. Healy
will do the landscaping and the building. She also felt that the zone change should have
been done before the property was developed.
Commissioner Hawkins voted aye, he feels it will be a positive for the community. He
also feels that it goes in the direction of the ORII and tourism that the city is trying to
pivot to.
Chair Waldroup voted aye because Mr. Healy did a great job on the building, and he is
sure that Mr. Healy will make it nice because he always does. He does have a hard
time with the process and feels that the zone change should have been done first.
Commissioner Bartley voted aye because she agrees with what Mr. Elmore had to say
and that it will be good for the community.
10

[PAGE 13]
NAY Votes:
Vice Chair Hanson voted nay, for technical reasons. He does not feel that this fits within
the use table for the SUP as presented by staff. He is also concerned that if Mr. Healy
sells the property that the new resident may not be as amenable with the goals of the
community as he is.
Petition SUP 25-85 – A request for a Special Use Permit to develop an 89,000 SF
distribution warehouse in a General Commercial zoning district. The property is 23.79-
acre vacant lot located at the intersection of Twin Peaks Blvd. and Troy King Road.
Senior Planner Safrany presented the following:
Petition Information
Petitioner:
Daniel Tanner
Zoning:
General Commercial Zoning District
Existing Land Use:
Vacant 23.79 Acre Lot
Requesting:
A Special Use Permit for an 89,000 sf warehouse in a General Commercial zoning district.
Background
The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to develop an 89,000 SF warehouse in a
General Commercial zoning district. The property is 23.79-acre vacant lot located at the
intersection of Twin Peaks Blvd. and Troy King Road.
The Unified Development Code Table 2.3 states warehouses are a permitted use in a general
commercial zoning district with a special use permit.
11

[PAGE 14]
Proposed Site Plan
12

[PAGE 15]
Zoning Map
View East from SW Corner of Property
13

[PAGE 16]
View from Twin Peaks Blvd. and Troy King Rd.
Special Use Permits
UDC 8.9.4 – Special Use Review Criteria
(To allow for an 89,000 sf Warehouse)
Effect on Environment:
The property is zoned General Commercial with similar zoning to the south and to the east. There
is Federal Land adjacent to the north and to the west. The majority of the surrounding area is
vacant. The size of the lot is 23.79 acres, appropriate for a warehouse. This use will not be
detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area.
Compatible with Surrounding Area:
The proposal is located at the furthest northwest corner of the current city boundary. A
warehouse is compatible with the extensive vacant land in the area. The location has direct
access to Twin Peaks Blvd., a minor arterial street which provides close and convenient access
to the La Plata Hwy. and Pinon Hills Blvd., both major arterial streets.
14

[PAGE 17]
External Impacts:
The proposed location of the warehouse building is one quarter mile from the concrete and
asphalt recycling operation and over a quarter mile from the existing gravel pit on Troy King
Road, which will not affect any future environmental permits for these businesses.
Infrastructure Impacts Minimized:
Twin Peaks Blvd. is a minor arterial street and the current speed is posted at 45 mph. The sight
distances of vertical and horizontal curves from the proposed driveway locations will be reviewed
in greater detail upon development. The east access could possibly be aligned with Troy King
Road to the south.
Parcel Size:
The San Juan County Assessor’s Map shows a 23.79-acre sized lot with favorable topography.
The property is adequate to meet the development standards of Article 5 of the Unified
Development Code.
Site Plan:
A site plan has been submitted showing the area being used for a warehouse. The proposal
complies with the standards of the UDC, Table 2.8.2.
Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan:
The petitioner meets the requirements of UDC Sec. 2.7.6.C, specifically:
The proposed location is zoned General Commercial, and meets the density and dimensional
standards of a warehouse.
The 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates this area as Industrial. The proposed warehouse
use conforms to this designation.
15

[PAGE 18]
Public Notice
This petition has been properly noticed and posted. Letters were sent to surrounding property
owners.
At the time of this report, no input for this petition has been received.
Staff Recommendation
The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 25-85 a
request from Daniel Tanner, Special Use Permit to develop an 89,000 SF warehouse in a
General Commercial zoning district with the following conditions
1. Upon development an Enterprise Right-of-Way Easement Encroachment Review must
be approved.
2. Future commercial development shall comply with the
development standards of the UDC, Article 5.
Discussion
The Commission and staff had a conversation making sure that all comments from other city
departments were addressed. All comments had been addressed. There was also a brief
conversation regarding traffic.
Conclusion
Petitioner Representative, Daniel Tanner, 2030 Main St., Dallas TX:
Mr. Tanner added that they had turned in a traffic report to the Traffic Division and are waiting
for a response from the city.
The subject property is an appropriate location for a warehouse. The use is consistent with the
2040 Land Use Plan designation of an industrial area. The application meets the criteria for
approval of a Special Use permit for this type of use in general commercial zoning and is not
detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area and has no negative impacts
on existing uses in the area.
Commission Discussion
With no Commission discussion needed, Chair Waldroup called for a motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Woods and seconded by Commissioner Berens to
recommend APPROVAL of petition SUP 25-85 as presented by staff, with the following
conditions.
1. Upon development an Enterprise Right-of-Way Easement Encroachment Review must
be approved.
2. Future commercial development shall comply with the
16

[PAGE 19]
development standards of the UDC, Article 5.
AYE: Chair Waldroup, Vice Chair Hanson, Commissioner Bartley, Commissioner
Woods, Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hawkins.
NAY: None
ABSTAINED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Hodge, and Commissioner Chavez.
The motion passed 6-0
Petition ZC 25-86 – A request for a zone change from an RA, Rural Agricultural zoning
district, to an MU, Mixed Use zoning district. The request is for Tract B of the A.R.B.
Subdivision,
Senior Planner Safrany presented the following:
Petition Information
Petitioner:
Jonathan Aikele
Zoning:
RA: Rural Agricultural
Existing Land Use:
Vacant Lots
Requesting:
Zone Change to MU: Mixed Use
Background
• The property is currently zoned RA: Rural Agricultural.
• The zone change is being requested to develop Multi-family residences at the location.
This meets several goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
• The Mixed Use zoning district promotes infill development and a variety of housing
options such as single-family, multi-family housing and group care facilities along with
commercial uses.
• Mixed Use zoning is compatible with the General Commercial, Industrial and Rural
Agricultural zoning in the immediate area.
17

[PAGE 20]
Zoning Map
18

[PAGE 21]
Goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Street View from La Plata Hwy and Twin Peaks
19

[PAGE 22]
Zoning Map Amendment
(REZONE)
UDC 8.7.4 – Issues For Consideration
A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed zoning of Mixed Use meets several goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, such
as promoting the construction and infill development of a variety of housing options and to rezone
areas of undeveloped land with existing infrastructure to provide opportunities for infill
development. The Mixed Use zoning designation does allow for residential uses such as single-
family residences, multi-family residences, shelters and group care facilities, along with various
commercial uses.
B. Is the proposed zoning and land use(s) compatible with the present zoning?
The Mixed Use zoning designation is compatible with the existing General Commercial, Industrial
and Rural Agricultural zoning districts in the direct vicinity to the property. The proposed Mixed
Use zoning is compatible with the character of the neighborhood in the vicinity to two major
arterial streets in La Plata Hwy and Pinon Hills Blvd., and provides additional residential
development close to Tibbets Middle School.
C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can they be adequately mitigated?
Upon development, an intersection sight analysis would need to be done for drivers leaving the
parcel in either direction, more specifically drivers leaving the driveway turning east from a stop
position. An auxiliary lane analysis will need to be done to determine if a deceleration lane is
needed.
D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning?
Any future residential and commercial development shall comply with the regulations of the MU:
Mixed Use zoning district.
E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by the
proposed zoning district?
The property has direct access to Twin Peaks Blvd. with convenient access to the La Plata Hwy.
heading north and south, and Pinon Hills Blvd. heading east. The property is 2.67-acres in size
with challenging topography, making the lot suitable for a limited amount of multi-family units.
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?
Utilities are available in the immediate area.
G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11,
definitions?
The proposed zone change does not constitute spot zoning by this definition. The Mixed Use
zoning district meets several goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, such as promoting the
construction and infill development of a variety of housing options and to rezone areas of
20

[PAGE 23]
undeveloped land with existing infrastructure to provide opportunities for infill development. The
Mixed Use designation is intended to accommodate low-intensity mixed-uses with a strong
residential character, and is suitable with the existing commercial and residential development
in the area.
Public Notice
This petition has been properly noticed and posted. Letters were sent to surrounding property
owners.
At the time of this report, no public input has been received.
Conclusion
In staff’s opinion, the zone change request is compatible with nearby uses and the character of
the neighborhood by providing low-intensity mixed-uses with a strong residential character along
a major arterial street in the close vicinity of a middle school.
Staff Recommendation
The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 25-86, a
request from Jonathan Aikele, for a zone change from an RA, Rural Agricultural zoning district
to a MU, Mixed Use zoning district for Tract B of the ARB Subdivision, to allow for development
on the property.
Discussion
The Commission had no questions for staff.
Petitioner Johnathan Aikele, 3250 La Plata Hwy, Farmington NM:
Mr. Aikele stated that this development is in the very early stages. He added that the density will
be well under the density requirements.
Commission Discussion
With no Commission discussion needed, Chair Waldroup called for a motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bartley and seconded by Commissioner Woods to
recommend APPROVAL of petition ZC 25-86 as presented by staff.
AYE: Chair Waldroup, Vice Chair Hanson, Commissioner Bartley, Commissioner
Woods, Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hawkins.
21

[PAGE 24]
NAY: None
ABSTAINED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Hodge, and Commissioner Chavez.
The motion passed 6-0
FP 25-87 Mikasa Four LLC Lot Consolidation Replat A – Final Plat approval for a 7-lot
Class 1 subdivision of the 4.59-acre parcel in Tier I of Farmington’s Platting Jurisdiction.
Principal Planner Gonzalez presented the following:
Petition Information
• Applicant: Mikasa Four LLC, Rong An Chen, Owner
• Representative: Robert Echols, Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc.
• Location: Mikasa Four LLC Subdivision
• Existing Zoning: Multi-Family Medium Density
• Request: Final Plat Approval
Background information
• The petitioner is requesting a final plat approval of the Mikasa Four LLC (7 lots). The
development will be a Class 1, 7-lot subdivision on 4.59 acres and is located in Tier 1 of
Farmington's Platting and Planning Jurisdiction. The Preliminary Plan was approved by
City Council on November 11th, 2025.
• There have been no major changes in the final plat. The final plat complies with the
approved preliminary plan.
Aerial View
22

[PAGE 25]
Preliminary Plat
UDC Section 8.8.4 General Provisions
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: There have been no changes presented in the final plat. 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: All lots conform to the minimum standards of the MF-M Multi-Family
Medium Density Residential Zone, as do the setbacks, which are noted on the plat.
23

[PAGE 26]
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 multi-family use is consistent with the 2040
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map, which designates this area as Medium Density
Residential.
Staff Recommendation
The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition FP 25-87, 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
prior to submittal of the Final plat for signature, including any noted issues in this report.
Discussion
The Commission had no questions for staff.
Petitioner’s Representative, Robert Echols from Cheney Walters Echols, 909 W Apache
St., Farmington NM:
The Commission had no questions for Mr. Echols.
Commission Discussion
With no Commission discussion needed, Chair Waldroup called for a motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Berens and seconded by Commissioner Bartley to
recommend APPROVAL of petition FP 25-87 as presented by staff, with the following
condition.
1. All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will be finalized and approved
prior to submittal of the Final plat for signature, including any noted issues in this report.
AYE: Chair Waldroup, Vice Chair Hanson, Commissioner Bartley, Commissioner
Woods, Commissioner Berens, and Commissioner Hawkins.
NAY: None
ABSTAINED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Ragsdale, Commissioner Hodge, and Commissioner Chavez.
The motion passed 6-0
Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor.
Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair.
Business from the Members: Commissioner Berens let the Commission and staff know that
his son was drafted by the Tampa Bay Rays, so he may miss some meetings.
24

[PAGE 27]
Business from Staff: Principal Planner Gonzalez let the Commission know that the zone
change on La Plata Hwy was approved by the City Council on the consent agenda. He also
congratulated Chair Waldroup and Vice Chair Hanson on their new appointments on the
Commission.
Community Development Director Childers wanted to let the Commission know how much staff
appreciates them and all their hard work. He also added that their comments and
recommendations do not fall on deaf ears, and that some of their frustrations are understood and
felt by staff. Staff will be looking at some codes and use table changes to adapt them to the
changing times.
Adjournment: With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Woods
and seconded by Commissioner Bartley. The motion carried unanimously 6-0 and the meeting
was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
_______________________________ _________________________________
Cody Waldroup Tamra Spencer
Chair Administrative Assistant
25

[PAGE 28]
26

[PAGE 29]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PETITION ZC 25-88 AT 2016 E 20th ST.
ZONE CHANGE FROM MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant Roberto Quevedo
Representative Rick Quevedo
Date of Application December 10, 2025
Requested Action Zone Change request from MF-L, Multi-family Low Density to
GC, General Commercial
Location 2016 E 20th St.
Existing Land Use Vacant Lot
Existing Zoning Multi-family Low Density
2040 Future Land Use Commercial Mixed Use
Designation
Surrounding Zoning & North: General Commercial
Land Use South: General Commercial
East: Multi-Family Low Density
West: Multi-Family Low Density
Notice Requirements Publication of Notice: January 12, 2026, Tri-City Record.
Property owners letter: January 12, 2026
Sign posted: January 19, 2026
Staff Planner Mike Safrany, Senior Planner
STAFF ANALYSIS
Background
San Juan County Tax Assessor’s Map indicates 2016 E 20th St. is a 0.23-acre vacant lot
with direct access from E 10th St. The property is currently zoned Multi-family Low Density
residential with predominantly General Commercial and Multi-family residential zoning in
the vicinty. The previous residential structure on this site has been removed.
The petitioner is requesting a zone change from an MF-L, Multi-family low density residential
zoning district to a GC, General Commercial zoning district. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan
shows the property as a Commercial Mixed Use land use. The request for a General
Commercial zoning district meets the 2040 Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial
Mixed Use.
27

[PAGE 30]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
Land Use Map – Commercial Mixed Use
Zoning Map: MF-L-Multi-family Low Density
28

[PAGE 31]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
Aerial View
29

[PAGE 32]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
Street View of 2016 E 10th Street
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 100 FEET
NAME1 ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters 3250 E Shelby St Ste 220 Ontario CA 91764
Jory J & Vicki J Jones 1208 Camina Vega Farmington NM 87401
Roberto S Quevedo 2016 E 10h St Farmington NM 87401
Dar Holding LLC 2100 San Juan Blvd Farmington NM 87401
James D & Karen C Lesher PO Box 263 Farmington NM 87499
David & Catherine Moler 72 Trestle Ln Durango CO 81303
Fourdees LLC PO Box 1376 Farmington NM 87499
30

[PAGE 33]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Unified Development Code states that the City shall consider whether the proposed zoning
and land use are compatible with the conforming zoning and land use of nearby properties and
with the character of the neighborhood. Section 8.7.4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC)
outlines issues for consideration in determining a proposed zone change as follows:
A. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Farmington Comprehensive Plan?
Yes, the proposed zoning of GC: General Commercial is consistent with the Commercial
Mixed-Use designation of the Comprehensive Plan which encourages a variety of retail
services, shopping areas and commercial centers.
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 zoning is compatible with the present zoning and the character of the
neighborhood. General Commercial zoning exists along Farmington Ave. to the east and
Schofield Lane to the west, with numerous commercial zoned properties along 10th St.
in between. A rezone to General Commercial is compatible with the surrounding area.
C. Will there be adverse impacts; and/or can any adverse impacts be adequately
mitigated?
No immediate adverse impacts are noted. Any future development on the property shall
comply with the development standards of the Unified Development Code. A six-foot high
wood or vinyl fence is recommended along the east property line for protection of the
neighboring multi-family residential housing units.
D. Is the proposed density and intensity of use permitted in the proposed zoning
district?
Any future development shall comply with the regulations of the GC: General Commercial
zoning district.
E. Is the site physically suitable for development of uses and density permitted by
the proposed zoning district?
The property has direct access from E 10th St. and from the rear alley. The property is
slightly less than one quarter acre in size with favorable topography, making the lot
suitable for general commercial development. E 10th St. has direct access to Farmington
Ave., a collector street with heavy commercial uses in the area.
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?
Utilities are available in the immediate area.
G. Does the proposed change constitute “spot zoning” as defined in Article 11,
definitions?
31

[PAGE 34]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
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. Multiple General Commercial zoning districts are in the surrounding area.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This petition has been properly noticed. Letters were sent to surrounding property owners
within 100 feet. At the time of this report no comments have been received.
STAFF CONCLUSION
In staff’s opinion, the zone change request is appropriate for the neighborhood. It will revitalize a
dilapidated area and is supported by the general character of the neighborhood, conforming with
the existing General Commercial and Multi-Family zoning districts adjacent to the property. The
request also meets the Commercial Mixed Use designation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ZC 25-88, a
request from Roberto Quevedo, for a zone change from MF-L, Multi-family Low Density zoning
district, to the GC, General Commercial zoning district, to allow for development at 2016 E 10th
St. with the following condition:
1. An opaque vinyl or wood fence or a masonry wall six-foot high shall be constructed
along the east boundary beginning 20 feet from back of curb.
32

[PAGE 35]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
33

[PAGE 36]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
34

[PAGE 37]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
35

[PAGE 38]
City of Farmington ZC 25-88
2016 E 20th St.
36

[PAGE 39]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PETITION FP 25-89
FINAL PLAT BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant Diamond Tea Development, Cameron Tea
Representative Robert Echols of Cheney-Walters-Echols
Date of Application December 10, 2025
Requested Action Final Plat Approval
Location Candlewyck Estates Replat Lot 1
Existing Zoning Planned Development
Surrounding Zoning North: General Commercial; Retail, Commercial
South: N/A; County
and Land Use
East: Single-Family 7; Residential
West: Single-Family 10; Residential, School
Subdivision Class Class 1
Notice Final Plat submittals do not require notice
Staff Planner Joaquin Gonzalez, Principal Planner
SUBDIVISION INFORMATION
Number of Lots 10 of 69 Lots
Acres of Land 9.56 Acres
Lot Size 2,803 – 4,229 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 UPS
37

[PAGE 40]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
GENERAL INFORMATION
The petitioner is requesting a final plat approval of the Bluffview Meadows Estates planned
development (Bluffview Meadows Estates P.D. Phase 2, 10 lots of 69 lots). The development will
be a Class 1, 69-lot subdivision on 9.56 acres and is located in Tier 1 of Farmington's Platting and
Planning Jurisdiction. The Preliminary Plan was approved by City Council on May 27th, 2025.
There have been no changes in the final plat for phase II. The final plat complies with the approved
preliminary plan.
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. In the event that a final plat is recommended for denial
by the commission, the city council shall review the final plat in a public meeting. Upon completion
of the meeting the city council shall vote to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the plat
application. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 8.8.9E(3), in the event of approval of a
final plat by the city council, the signature block shall be modified accordingly and reflect approval
by the city council and signature by the mayor.
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: There have been no changes in the final plat for phase II. 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 proposed Phase II complies with the approved Planned
Development, with lot sizes ranging from 2,803 to 4,229 square feet. Front setbacks are
reduced from 30 feet to 20 feet, while side setbacks are reduced from eight feet to five
feet. Streets will be constructed at 50 feet in width, consistent with City of Farmington
standards, and will include roll-over curbs and gutters.
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.
38

[PAGE 41]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
Staff Comments: The proposed single-family use is consistent with the 2040
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map, which designates this area as Medium Density
Residential.
ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INITIAL REVIEW
All technical corrections to the plat and construction drawings will need to be addressed and
approved.
STAFF CONCLUSION
Staff concludes approval of Petition FP 25-89 Bluffview Meadows Estates P.D. Subdivision Phase
II Final Plat is appropriate. 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 Development Department recommends approval of Petition FP 25-89 a
submittal from Diamond Tea Development, Cameron Tea, represented by Robert Echols of
Cheney-Walters-Echols, Inc. for a final plat approval of Phase II, 10-lots of a 69-lot Class 1
subdivision of one 9.56-acre parcel located in Tier I of Farmington’s Platting Jurisdiction. 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
prior to submittal of the Final plat for signature, including any noted issues in this report.
39

[PAGE 42]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
SJ COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP
40

[PAGE 43]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
Bluffview Meadows Estates P.D. Phase II Sheet 1
41

[PAGE 44]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
Bluffview Meadows Estates P.D. Phase II Sheet 2
42

[PAGE 45]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
Bluffview Meadows Estates P.D. Phase II Sheet 3
43

[PAGE 46]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
44

[PAGE 47]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
45

[PAGE 48]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FP 25-89 BLUFFVIEW MEADOWS ESTATES P.D. PHASE II
46